USA FArm Subsidies.Socialism? Corporate welfare?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Just because the EU does it does not make it right:-
Australian, like NZ agriculture is not subsidised. Last year drought relief (1B?)accounted for most subsidies. That is after most farmers in the country had NO income for 10 years! Farmers also pay huge taxes on fuel, as well as GST of 10% on many other farm inputs & outputs such as freight.
Part also of last year's Australian figures was a continuing "dairy reconstruction scheme" where farmers were paid to get bigger or get out. Most got out, and now we have a huge milk shortage and the highest prices in donkey's years. That 'brilliant' pollies scheme ends next month.

Then lobby your government to support Australian farmers!

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

From your own link
Korean situation in 2002

• Korean farmers received over US 21 billion,
• Japanese farmers received over US 56 billion in subsidies
• European Union farmers US 113 billion."
  USA?

USA was either 51 or 57Billion, and that is a 2 year budget. From your link:
United States, 1995-2006
Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $177,589,000,000 in from 1995-2006.

Thats 15 billion a year including disaster relief (and I am rounding up cuz its really 14,799 billion and change per year). Divided up between 350 million people in the USA and thats $42.80 per person. What is Australias 1 billion divided up between what? 20 million people? Wow. That is $50 per person in Australia.

Another misleading part of the EWG link used for reference is the devil is in the details. Example Riceland Foods, #1 receipent of Subsidies.

"Riceland Foods, Inc. is a farmer-owned cooperative providing marketing services to 9,000 farmers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. Riceland offers a wide array of marketing options for rice, soybeans and wheat.

Generations ago a group of Arkansas rice farmers banded together to market their crops. They created a farmers cooperative business group in 1921 now known as Riceland Foods, Inc., headquartered at Stuttgart, Arkansas. Since then, Riceland has grown to become the world's largest rice miller and rice marketer."

I remember when we were approached by corps trying to get us to sign up for co-op. Then it was Midland, which merged and became Archer, Midland, Daniels. They had money to invest in farms and it wasnt a bad deal. Many other smaller co-ops failed. US Agriculture specialists encouraged this co-op'ing as the way of the future. They were right, you could see it coming.

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

"Farm" is such a motherhood word, and conjures up a picture of the poor family-farmer tirelessly tilling his soil for us from dawn 'til dusk. In fact Most of the money goes to the largest, and usually richest, farms, corporations and multi-nationals rather than growers who most need help.

Yes it does. But thats because of the nightmare of paperwork. We looked into subsidies and screw that. It wasnt worth the time to fill out the paper work for our small farm. If we would have had 200 acres or so, it would have made sense. Like it did for the dairy farm that bordered us.

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

On subsidies hurting poorer nations

TRADE: U.S. Farm Subsidies Hurting Africa's Development
By Joyce Mulama

NAIROBI, Apr 15 (IPS) - In a renewed campaign, African trade ministers have urged the United States to remove agricultural
subsidies that are hurting African farmers.

As I said, the hinderance to African competition in the 'global' market is infrastructure related, not US farm subsidies.

So you're moving to Kenya...

Water
Some houses are connected to the grid water system and some of those pipes have water in them most of the time. It is
sensible to have a large water storage tank. As rainfall is more reliable than the water department, many people connect
their rainwater gutters to storage tanks as a back-up. If mains water is not available, your tanks will have to be
replenished by water tankers.

Electricity
Nairobi enjoys fairly reliable electrical supply (supplied by the KPLC) but the reliability factor has worsened recently.
It is quite normal to have "shedding" (black-or-brown-outs) in most cities including Nairobi and Mombasa. It's mostly
an on and occasionally off subject across the country.

Corruption
Whatever your personal view of corruption, it is common in Kenya. It is certainly possible to live outside the ugliness
of corruption, but it surely makes life almost impossible.

World Wide Movers Africa -- Botswana, Burnundi, D.R. Congo, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zanzibar

And you can ask Boersun about other details in Africa. Think Zimbabwe.

Last year, I wrote about a documentary called Life and Debt that examined how globalization had affected ordinary
people's lives in one poor country, Jamaica.

Jamaica has announced a request for 40,000 tons (36,200 metric tons) of rice from the U.S because it fears dwindling
supplies from Guyana.

Jamaica to boost rice production on public land, reduce dependence on imports - International Herald Tribune

EU milk imports to Jamaica:
Lifeonline

US farm subsidies fuel Mexico corn crisis. Oxfam calls to change rigged trade rules that are hurting the poor.

While some corn farms in Mexico resemble U.S. corn farms in size, technology,
and production practices, a more representative Mexican producer
has access to roughly 10 hectares of farmland. Indeed, according to
Mexico’s 1991 National Agricultural and Livestock Census, 61 percent of
the farms where corn was the principal crop were smaller than 5 hectares
(INEGI). Census data also reveal that only 31 percent of all corn farms used
improved varieties of corn, 35 percent had tractors, and 9 percent had access
to irrigation, a critical input to the Mexican corn sector (Nadal). Persistent
efforts to improve corn production in Mexico have raised yields to about 5.8
metric tons per hectare on irrigated land and 2.0 metric tons per hectare on
rainfed land during 2000-02 (app. table 2), compared with a national
average of just 1.0 metric ton per hectare in the early 1960s (FAO).

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications...1/fds04D01.pdf

As I said, developing nations will not be able to compete with the US, the EU or any other developed nation until they straighten out their internal issues and invest in their people and the infrastructure.

And they best get going on this now. I foresee a time in the near future when exported grains from the USA will be reduced greatly as we swing (right or wrong) towards biofuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Say goodbye to the remaining forests on these island nations. Say goodbye to the mountain gorilla. Buh bye elephants and tigers and bears. But somehow it will be all the USA's fault in the global mind.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Fair cop.
I guess because it (USA subsidies) is in the news, because it is so large, bemuse it is so unfair to all, and many thought reform would go thought Congress this year.

Unfair to all? Sorry, but if my government wants to spend my tax money supporting USA farmers, corps or not, I think thats a fine use of my tax money. Better than the tax money spent shipping textile jobs overseas, or jobs to china, or india, or mexico, or japan, etc.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Unfair to all? Sorry, but if my government wants to spend my tax money supporting USA farmers, corps or not, I think thats a fine use of my tax money. Better than the tax money spent shipping textile jobs overseas, or jobs to china, or india, or mexico, or japan, etc.

It occured to me that you may not understand "Fair cop" a British/Australian slang term
"[it's a] fair cop" is when you've been justly caught out

fair cop
something that is deserved

Australians Abroad - Dictionary

You certainly make a convincing argument.; yet the US is pilloried all the time here for subsidies.
EG
United States of America Farming Subsidies - 05/05/2005 - NSW Parliament
I will have to have another look at it.
The Australian subsides at the moment are exceptionally high due to the drought and The Farmer's political party being in power (until now). We are not really producing a lot. For example-Almost no rice will be grown this year and the biggest beef farm in the world will close down shortly-no water.

There is virtually no Farm subsides in NZ and a very small import tariff for some countries.

The figures for US subsides seem very "rubbery" and hard to tie down
EG

June 28, 2007

A major farm bill being debated in Congress gives policymakers a good opportunity to cut costly subsidy programs. Farm subsidies cost taxpayers up to $35 billion annually and tie farmers in a knot of unproductive regulations.

That same article claims

» Farm subsidies transfer the earnings of average taxpaying families to well-off farm businesses. In 2005, the average income of farm households was $79,965, or 26 percent higher than the $63,344 average for all U.S. households. Farm subsidies are welfare for the well-to-do -- even millionaire farmland owners such as David Rockefeller and Edgar Bronfman receive farm subsidies.

» Although politicians love to discuss the plight of small farmers, the vast majority of farm subsidies go to the largest farms. In recent years, the biggest 10 percent of farm businesses have received 72 percent of farm subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group.

» Farm subsidies damage the economy. In most industries, market prices balance supply and demand and encourage efficient production. But Congress short-circuits market mechanisms in agriculture. Farm programs cause overproduction, the overuse of marginal farmland, land price inflation and excess borrowing by farm businesses.

» Farm programs are prone to fraud and scandal. The Government Accountability Office found that improper farm payments amount to as much as $500 million each year. Since 2000, the government has paid $1.3 billion in subsidies to people who own "farmland" that is not even used for farming. The government also frequently distributes disaster payments to farmers who don't need them and often didn't even ask for them.

» Farm subsidies are a serious hurdle to progress on global trade agreements that could help productive U.S. exporters. Agricultural trade barriers also damage U.S. security and global stability because they hinder the ability of poor countries to achieve stronger economic growth.

» Farm programs damage the environment. Subsidy programs and trade barriers draw marginal farmland into production and encourage the overuse of fertilizers. Lands that might otherwise be used for parks, forests or wetlands get locked into farm use. Florida sugar cane cultivation, for example, causes substantial damage to the Everglades, yet it thrives only because of import protections.

» Some farm programs raise food prices and hurt consumers directly. Federal controls on the dairy industry raise milk prices to consumers. Controls on the sugar industry raise U.S. sugar prices to about twice the world level, pushing up consumer costs for breakfast cereals, chocolate and other food products.

» If farm subsidies ended, U.S. agriculture would continue to thrive. Farms would adjust, planting different crops and diversifying their sources of income. A stronger and more innovative agriculture industry would emerge, as occurred in New Zealand after it repealed all its farm subsidies in 1984.

» Farm households have more stable finances today and are better able to deal with a free market in agriculture than the past. Many farm households earn the bulk of their income from non-farm sources. Federal data shows that only 38 percent of farm households have farming as their primary occupation.

» Substantial cuts to farm subsidies would save taxpayers money and reduce the federal budget deficit. Ongoing deficit spending on farm subsidies and other programs is causing large amounts of debt to be foisted on the next generation.

Another "rubbery" figure

During the past twenty years, farm programs have cost America's non-farm households a cumulative $1.7 trillion.
. . .
According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), America's farm programs transfer about $40 billion a year from consumers, firms, and taxpayers to a small group of farmers.
Tariffs and quotas on imported sugar, rice, and dairy products force American families to pay about $10 billion a year above what they would pay at world prices.
This tax hits poor families especially hard because they spend a higher share of their budget on food. Artificially high prices also punish food-processing industries, forcing confectioners and others to relocate abroad.

This is from an interesting "on-line" debate pro and con
Should the United States Cut Its Farm Subsidies? | Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies

I am not convinced that the Africa problem is just poor infrastructure and corruption though- although they have to be a part of the mix
EG
EU farm subsidies keep Africa poor: Britain - World - theage.com.au

"We cannot any longer ignore what people in the poorest countries will see as our hypocrisy of developed country protectionism," he said. "We should be opening our markets and removing trade-distorting subsidies and, in particular, doing more to urgently tackle the waste of the Common Agricultural Policy by now setting a date for the end of export subsidies."

Under the policy, EU farmers receive subsidies to produce and export surplus crops, driving down world commodity prices and thereby harming the economies of nations whose prosperity depends on a thriving agricultural sector.

Better than the tax money spent shipping textile jobs overseas, or jobs to china, or india, or mexico, or japan, etc

How does tax money do that?
You might enjoy this de motivational poster

View All Demotivators®

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

You certainly make a convincing argument.; yet the US is pilloried all the time here for subsidies.
EG
United States of America Farming Subsidies - 05/05/2005 - NSW Parliament
I will have to have another look at it.
The Australian subsides at the moment are exceptionally high due to the drought and The Farmer's political party being in power (until now). We are not really producing a lot. For example-Almost no rice will be grown this year and the biggest beef farm in the world will close down shortly-no water.

Yes, its easy to blame america to deflect responsibility for ones own government, as politicians do. But I already did the math and produced the results indicating that divided per person, the people of australia pay more per person for the subsidies given. And you dont see headlines from various american newspapers lamenting how unfair this is.

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

There is virtually no Farm subsides in NZ and a very small import tariff for some countries.

Its an impossible comparison by virtue of size and population.

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

The figures for US subsides seem very "rubbery" and hard to tie down EG
That same article claims
Another "rubbery" figure

Why mess around with rubbery figures?
Census of Agriculture - 2002 Census Publications - Volume 1 Chapter 1: U.S. National Level Data

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

I am not convinced that the Africa problem is just poor infrastructure and corruption though- although they have to be a part of the mix
EG
EU farm subsidies keep Africa poor: Britain - World - theage.com.au

You dont have to be convinced, but you should provide better documentation to back up your claims. I mean the article is nothing more than an opinion piece very short on numbers.

The reality is Africa has been a poor investment over the years via internal issues. And its not just farming. I would not put my farm money in a place that cannot guarentee delivery of the product, whether due to environment or civil unrest. There are reasons why governments purchase their products from stable nations and those reasons are why governments invest in their own stability (such as subsidies).

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

How does tax money do that?

Two small examples:
Does tax code send U.S. jobs offshore? - USATODAY.com

The Intangible Economy: Tax breaks

Additionally, to address one links claims that we pay farmers not to plant, yes, there is that too. Its various conservation programs that protect wetlands, habitat, and has given some land a rest, contributed to less topsoil losses, contributed to cleaner waters and provided stop-over and nesting areas.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Additionally, to address one links claims that we pay farmers not to plant, yes, there is that too. Its various conservation programs that protect wetlands, habitat, and has given some land a rest, contributed to less topsoil losses, contributed to cleaner waters and provided stop-over and nesting areas.

Indeed.
Blackwell Synergy - Conservation Biology, Volume 18 Issue 4 Page 987-994, August 2004 (Article Abstract)

Here's the federal entity who manages the program:
Conservation Reserve Program | NRCS

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out so great:
wcco.com - Acres For Conservation May Revert To Cropland

[Cedars]

I come off strong sometimes because it drives me nuts with all the finger pointing. Agriculture is a HUGE part of the US economy and there has been ALOT of investment to make it the success it is, and we gave so much of it away, we BEGGED these various countries to invest in their self-sufficiency. And they piss and moan cuz they cant sell their product to countries which make enough of their own? We dont need African cotton, corn, wheat, soy, etc. We buy their cocoa, coffee, etc. INVEST in something we NEED.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Two small examples:
Does tax code send U.S. jobs offshore? - USATODAY.com

The Intangible Economy: Tax breaks

I see.
Of course in Australia we have the opposite problem. with companies like Ford Kodak, Mitsubishi, GMH being given tariffs protection, grants and tax breaks then shipping out (shutting down) or shipping profits overseas via dodgy pricing schemes with overseas affiliates/offices.
Just like the six trillion in personal wealth in off-shore accounts.
This is forcing governments everywhere to push down company and corporate tax and rely on Goods and Services taxes. Which of course impact mainly on the middle class and poor.
We have had the case of James Hardie moving to Europe to avoid paying compensation for asbestos victims (They didn't get away with it- but most victims died waiting.)
The Singapore Government offered a large multinational I was associated with

• Free industrial land (In Singapore!)
• Management housing (in a house with a backyard garden!)
• No taxes for 5 years
  

IF They made Singapore the base for all S. East Asia operations.
So the Australian office has been mothballed and services Singapore. they did. the office has been expanded 5 times in the last 10 years to a huge business.

So much for good governance?

Don't get me wrong I think farmers have it hard, I could not do what they do. They are the salt of the earth but these things need to be looked at at other than motherhood statements.
When most subsides go to the rich and powerful you have to wonder.
I couldn't find any figure for farm subsidies at this link you gave- even a rubbery one:
Census of Agriculture - 2002 Census Publications - Volume 1 Chapter 1: U.S. National Level Data
or here
Census of Agriculture - 2002 Census Publications - 2002 Census Publications
Africa
I am sure you are right in what you say. I am not sure that subsides to rich westerners do no harm to poorer third world countries
It is easy enough to google up hundreds of references if you want
I'll keep putting them up if you want to knock them down.
Africa does not need more expensive food | Comment is free
Farm subsidies have many unintended effects (Everyday Citizen)

A frequently lamented trend in rural Kansas is the erosion of rural communities as many young people leave farms to seek jobs in urban areas. This is primarily a consequence of the average farm size increasing by more than an order of magnitude over the past 50 years. Long gone are the days when you could make a decent living off a single section

Oxfam America: UC Davis Prof Describes Farm Bill’s Effects on West African Farmers
Oxfam America: UC Davis Prof Describes Farm Bill’s Effects on West African Farmers

In the period from 2001 to 2002, America's 25,000 cotton farmers received more in subsidies -- some $3 billion -- than the entire economic output of Burkina Faso, where two million people depend on cotton. Further, United States subsidies are concentrated on just 10 percent of its cotton farmers. Thus, the payments to about 2,500 relatively well-off farmers has the unintended but nevertheless real effect of impoverishing some 10 million rural poor people in West and Central Africa.

Northern farm subsidies: African cotton farmers battling to survive

Rich nations of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development spent about $360 bn on agricultural supports during 2001, for a range of commodities.

http://www.ifpri.org/media/trade/tradebrief.htm

Introduction
As world attention was absorbed by the war in Iraq last March, another international battle raged on, little noticed. Nations from all across the globe were deadlocked in an acrimonious conflict over trade in the world's most precious commodity -- food. Agricultural trade pits wealthy countries against poor countries and influential farmers' lobbies against consumers and taxpayers. March 31 was the deadline for World Trade Organization (WTO) members to reach an agreement on a framework for the agricultural trade negotiations, currently one of the most critical and delicate topics in the effort to advance progress in opening up the global marketplace.

These negotiations touch the lives of people from Iowa to Australia, and all the industrialized world's farmers in between. Above and beyond, the fates of hundreds of millions of small-scale farmers and poor consumers in developing countries struggling to survive on a dollar or two of income a day hang in the balance.

Newsvine - America's Farm Subsidies and the World Economy

All of this anger towards us is easily manipulated by the enemies of America. The young people of Third World countries are prime real estate for terrorists looking for recruits. They preach that America is trying to keep the rest of the world poor, that we are trying to oppress people by destroying agriculture in Third World countries. Reason Magazine notes:

a bit of a different take on it here

Without question, the current US subsidy system discriminates systematically against small farmers in the US and globally. But two linked misconceptions pervade the present subsidy debate: that subsidies are a principal—even the principal—cause of overproduction and falling prices; and, hence, that removing subsidies (and cutting tariffs) will significantly boost incomes for poor farmers in the developing world. Both these claims are inaccurate, and serve to obscure our understanding of the types of reforms that are required to restore real equity and long-term sustainability to the US and global farm economy.

US Farm Subsidies and the Farm Economy: Myths, Realities, Alternatives | Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy

[DougF]

It is hard to find information sometimes, you can spend days running around just to find out the information you need was there all along you just didn't ask the right question,
It's like a game they play, I think they like to see how long they can make you chase your tail before they give you the information you need.

Farm Subsidies: What's the deal with Farm Subsidies? How much does the government spend on them, who gets the money, and why? Are we seriously considering eliminating them? Should we? Can we?

AskQuestions.org - Farm Subsidies

Check this site out.

EWG FARM BILL 2007
POLICY ANALYSIS DATABASE

What's new in this database?
The lists of top subsidy beneficiaries have changed dramatically. Just about every ranking of subsidy payments has changed in this new database because, for the first time, USDA has tracked subsidy benefits as they pass through tens of thousands of farm business entities—agribusiness cooperatives, partnerships, joint ventures and corporations—and has assigned virtually all farm subsidy 'benefits' to individuals. The Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database bases all of its rankings and analyses on this new benefits tracking data.

Specifically, some 358,057 individuals now have a dollar value for subsidy benefits associated with their names for the first time in our system—and they received $9.8 billion in crop subsidy benefits alone between 2003 and 2005. In the database, those individuals have a double asterisk after their name, indicating that all of their subsidy benefits were in the form of pass-through(s) from a farm business(es) in which they had an ownership interest. A single asterisk means both payments made directly and pass-through subsidies are attributed to the individual by USDA. Listings with no asterisk are for individuals or entities that received all of their subsidy directly from USDA.

The most important distinction we make in our analysis is between subsidies paid to farm businesses and subsidy benefits passed through those businesses to individuals (and, very occasionally, to other types of entities). You can see the distinction on pages like these.

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

[Cedars]

Reading over your links, the glaring issue becomes obvious. Its not subsidies that hinder these nations.

"So bearing in mind that there are no good roads or railways on the continent of Africa, that foodstuffs degenerate with transport and that grain, milk and sugar are bulky, low-value commodities, did it ever make sense to think that a viable development strategy for Africa involved the export of milk, wheat or sugar to the USA and EU? No it didn't. You cannot base a development strategy on low value-added commodity production. It makes sense to produce some grain and milk locally for local consumption and food security, but not for the export trade. For export, you need to produce higher valued-added goods in order to create a marketable surplus and to make the freight economics work better."

"A typical cotton-producing household in West Africa has about 10 family members, an average life expectancy of about 48 years, and an adult literacy rate of less than 25 percent. Cotton is often the only source of cash income for these families, most of whom live on less than $1 a day per person."

"Burkina Faso earned 57 per cent of its export revenue from cotton last year, while neighbouring Benin earned 75 per cent."

"Because the economies of many poor countries depend overwhelmingly on just one or a few products, they are especially vulnerable to declines in commodity prices."

"Countries such as Mozambique, struggling to revive its sugar exports following the end of a civil war, do not stand a chance. More than 23,000 people are employed in Mozambique's sugar sector, making it the single largest source of employment. The country's major economic goal is to rehabilitate its mills and increase the number of those employed in the sector to 40,000."

What is the real issue? The real issue is the lack of economic diversity within these few countries borders. And they want to invest more into the struggling area? Whats wrong with this picture?

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien told the annual Group of 8 Summit that the biggest favour the North could do for Africa would be to lower subsidies and tariffs.

The problem with the above is this particular PM will be voted out of office the next election. Taxpayers in the north do not feel (and rightly so) higher prices for food in their own countries is a favor to the people who matter, themselves. Additionally, there is no benefit for any country to become MORE dependent on outside sources for their food. An $8 dollar a month investment in food crops to keep my grocery prices down is a good investment of my tax dollars.

And it cannot be ignored, that the investment in marginal cropland has lead to better production. We HAVE learned from these attempts to go forth and conquer nature, make things grow in places they wouldnt otherwise. All of this is forgotten when the focus is on the dollars sign of the subsidy investment.

Back to the uneducated, unsupported features of these struggling nations. They dont educate their people, the dont provide resources to increase production, they dont invest in their future. I already posted information on the corn farmers of Mexico. 35% have tractors? We would have global starvation if the developed countries reverted back to these statistics.

Originally Posted by from article

"Despite all of the complaints, scientists of the "North" do have strong and relatively stable sources of funding for basic plant research, in particular for plant genomics. On the other hand, donors who support work on global agriculture are largely constrained to fund downstream applications relevant to the developing world."

"A large-scale farmer in subSaharan Africa can get a yield of 10 metric tons (MT) per hectare for maize, whereas a poor farmer using a comparable variety with little or no inputs will obtain a yield <2 MT per hectare (3)."

"Poor farmers increasingly recognize the benefits of hybrid maize and other high-quality seed. Yet there is little doubt that the current cost of good-quality seed, especially in subSaharan Africa, poses a real constraint for poor farmers. When technology fees for genetically modified (GM) crops are added on, the risk of purchase can often be considered too high for a poor farmer who is also burdened with excessive fertilizer prices and unpredictable rainfall."

"Because seed markets for poor farmers will grow slowly, it is not realistic to expect the larger private-sector companies to spend much in the short term to optimize their products for small-farm environments. Similarly, it is clear that they will be targeting few if any crops beyond cotton, maize,
canola, and soybean, even if they possess technologies that might be beneficial to other crops."

"There is a vast difference between what happens in the fields of a farmer growing just one or two different crops on 500 hectares in Iowa and another growing many more different crops on <1 hectare in Africa. The former will use varieties developed from highly inbred lines adapted to temperate climates, sophisticated agronomic practices, and optimal amounts of fertilizer and pesticides and, at least in most years, will operate with reliable and adequate rainfall. The latter, usually a woman, may live in any one of a number of diverse agroecologies (3, 6). She will also grow many different crops that will minimize her risk, growing for example some maize and beans in case rainfall will be plentiful and perhaps sorghum, cassava, and cowpea in case of drought. Cost considerations will prevent her from using even marginally acceptable levels of fertilizer or pesticides. These differences almost guarantee that any crop bred in the "North" will not be adapted to her growing conditions."

"Nutrient-poor, degraded, and often acidic, soils limit crop production in many tropical regions. When coupled with the high cost of inorganic fertilizer, especially in Africa, much small-scale agriculture occurs under conditions of nutrient deprivation and/or metal ion toxicity. The unintended consequence of trying to do good by drilling large numbers of wells in Bangladesh and parts of India has resulted in extremely high rates of arsenic poisonings in humans; these wells have served as irrigation sources, resulting in high levels of arsenic in the food (8). Saline soils are found naturally in many locales and have been created in others by poorly managed irrigation. Most of the extreme poor depend upon rain-fed agriculture and, according to World Watch, drought is perhaps the biggest constraint to agricultural
productivity worldwide."

"Agriculture will never truly thrive in places like subSaharan Africa unless solutions are found for fundamental issues, such as lack of roads, weak input and output markets, the low level of general health and education of poor farmers, poorly functioning extension services, and gender inequity that
places a disproportionate burden on women in agriculture, all critical issues that cannot be solved by biotechnology and are well beyond the scope of this article."

Inaugural Article: Agriculture in the developing world: Connecting innovations in plant research to downstream applications -- Delmer 102 (44): 15739 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

To promote higher prices for the basic of food is disaster politics. Simply put, the people promoting a global social agenda should refocus the effort on something that is going to be palatable to the very people who's dollars they want to redistribute.

And we cannot sidestep the issue of exploding population in these very countries we discuss.

There are no easy answers I agree. But limiting the discussion to something such as subsidies, when the proposed answer results in HIGHER food costs, is going to get nowhere, and the proposals themselves are based on "we think it will help the poor of africa". Its a no-brainer. Would you vote for the guy telling you "I intend to Raise your cost of Food"? If the farmers cannot produce the quantity of food needed via their farming practices, this ISNT the answer.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by DougF

It is hard to find information sometimes, you can spend days running around just to find out the information you need was there all along you just didn't ask the right question,
It's like a game they play, I think they like to see how long they can make you chase your tail before they give you the information you need.

There is no game. I posted a link which is the same government source these guys get their info from, the USDA.

Of course the bigger farms get more subsidy dollars. They provide the majority of the food.

2002 numbers (Irrigated farmland only):

Farms of 1-139 acres: 176,295
Total Acreage: 5,787,939

Farms of 140-999 acres: 77,437
Total Acreage: 32,734,378

Farms of 1,000 or more acres: 45,851
Total Acreage: 204,920,079

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publica..._1_009_010.pdf

Subsidy Payments (2002):
Average Per Farm (in whole Dollars)
$9,251

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publica..._1_006_007.pdf

And you wont see a reduction in your taxes if they were to alter this to appease Africa, Jamaica, Brazil or any other places complaining. Nope, they will send this money into different pork projects. So you will pay the government the same dollars and you will see increased cost for food.

So what exactly is in it for me?