Becoming the stewards we’ve always claimed to be
There’s been a lot of discussion over the past few months about the potential upcoming changes in the Farm Bill — specifically around crafting a bill that is more focused on achieving widespread adoption of soil health, water quality and carbon sequestration for our current farming systems.
Unfortunately, the same tactics and concepts are being recycled by lobbying interests from previous farm bills that rely solely on voluntary farmer measures, incentivized by taxpayer-funded carrots. If one studies the effective rate of change of farming practices over the last 15 years on these approaches to improve soil, water quality and carbon sequestration, it will take another century at the current pace to see a meaningful impact on the landscape. We’ve lost half of our topsoil over the last century. Does it make sense to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result — with such daunting opportunity cost on the line?
Current farm policy is written for the farmer with one primary objective: produce as much yield as possible. If there are negative external costs that result from following this objective, there is essentially nothing meaningful or enforceable in the existing farm bill policy to check those consequences. Unless we include consequences for subsequent negative externalities generated from these policies, expect more of the same for the next five years from the 2023 Farm Bill.
Industry agvocates and politicians often portray farmers in the media as the “ultimate environmentalists.” “Farmers know better how to manage their farms than some bureaucrat” is the go-to phrase given as justification for our current farm policies. If this were the reality, there would be no need for pay-to-play carrot programs like CSP or EQIP to incentivize farming practice change. Farmers would all — on their own — simply do the things that are in the best interest of the land and water. But we all know this isn’t what actually happens.
Does this mean that all farmers are inherently bad? No. It means that farmers are in a for-profit business guided by flawed policy that has manifested a systemic cultural ignorance that requires bold steps in farm bill policy to right the ship.
Here are three concepts that, in my opinion, would have the best chance of driving meaningful change across the landscape if included in the 2023 Farm Bill.
- Tie Crop Insurance Subsidies to Soil Health Practices
Taxpayers currently fund approximately 62 percent of farmers’ crop insurance premiums. This is a subsidy that comes with virtually zero strings attached for the farmer. Nearly 90 percent of grain farmers utilize crop insurance as an important risk management tool. If you want to influence change, leverage the sunk cost of this program and ask for something in return that provides for the public good.
I propose that crop insurance taxpayer subsidies go to zero unless farmers are willing to adopt farming practices proven to reduce erosion, limit nutrient movement off farm and increase the chance of retaining/building carbon into the soil.
We already know the list of practices that help address each of these objectives. There are already matrices in place, such as the Iowa Nutrient Reduction strategy, that could be used as a template for rewarding farmers who choose to adopt such practices with insurance subsidies. Farmers who choose not to use them — and who thus score lower — would not receive insurance subsidies.
The appealing thing about this solution is that it is not a government mandate that leaves the farmer without choice. If farmers decide that these suggested practices limit their chances of financial success, they can choose to do otherwise… it’s just that they will now fund the other 62 percent of their crop insurance bill that burdensome bureaucrats have previously been providing for free.
Now, some farmers would contend that these practices might limit yields and increase risk of the need for indemnity payments from crop insurance. Interestingly, though, the current National Corn Growers Association production record of 616 bushels per acre came from a farm that used the conservation practice of strip tillage. The idea that employing practices that increase water infiltration, maintain/build organic matter levels, lessen erosion risks, retain nutrients on farm and increase soil biology would be a threat to production is fear-mongering lunacy. These principles have many times demonstrated their ability to increase farm resiliency and lessen the frequency and need for crop insurance indemnity payouts vs. the status quo of conventional farming practices. And this proposal should be an utter delight to fiscal hawks.
- Ensure Landowners Have Financial Incentives for Soil Health
Sixty percent of Iowa farmland is rented — increasingly by absentee owners who with every passing generation are further disconnected from the family farm. Landowners should hold the ultimate interest in soil conservation as a means to maintain or build the value of their asset.
Unfortunately, there’s a growing trend of landowners who have little interest or understanding in their asset beyond the rent check showing up on March 1st. Landowners with a vested interest in land asset preservation is an essential part of how to drive change on the landscape.
I propose that the landowner should be assessed a soil- and water-quality use tax if they cannot prove that sustainable farming practices are being used on their property. This would again be based on a matrix scoring system, as discussed above for crop insurance. If you want to see farming practices evolve quickly, tell Aunt Edna in Boca Raton that her taxes are going up unless her tenant makes some changes to the farm! Aunt Edna would still have a choice in how the farm is operated… it’s just that now there would be a mechanism to account for the negative externalities that arise should she choose to not adopt change.
- Tie Subsidies to Age
The average age of the US farmer is nearing 60 years old. Expecting the mean demographic that is in control of a majority of agricultural operations to commit to sweeping change within a few years of retirement is a fool’s errand.
To be blunt, row-crop farmers are holding the reins of operations for far too long. With advancements in technology reducing the physical requirements of the job, it is much easier to farm into old age and to restrict the ability of the next generation to be in control of farm decision making until they, as well, are nearing retirement age. This produces a perpetual cycle of complacency and natural resistance to farm evolution.
I don’t know how many times in my career I’ve had farmers come up to me and say, “I really like what you’re doing — these practices make a lot of sense — but I’m just too old to do this.” Or I’ll deal with a father-son or father-daughter operation, and they say, “I want to change, but Dad has the money, and it’s most of his acres,” or “Grandpa really likes to run the ripper, and what’s he going to do if we don’t have that for him?”
So, what’s the solution to address the issue of geriatric ag monopolization? I propose cutting off all agricultural subsidies once the farmer reaches the age of 62 and is eligible for social security payments — unless, again, he or she is actively employing regenerative practices, as discussed above.
I know some farmers are going to say this isn’t fair and is agist. I would contend that if you haven’t figured out how to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get off the government teat by the age of 62, the taxpayer should reserve the right to tip the scales to someone else who hopefully will.
Driving Effective Change
So, there you have it — an Iowa corn and soybean farmer putting forth three bold policy ideas that, if implemented, would have a high probability of driving significant land-use change in a short order of time. What are the odds that any of these ideas will become part of the 2023 Farm Bill? Slim to none. And that’s okay… this isn’t my first rodeo as a naïve agricultural optimist.
My only ask, in return for taking the time to put this out into the world, is as follows:
If we’re not serious about putting forth actionable policy that takes serious steps toward preserving the land and water for future generations, then agricultural policy makers and agvocates must stop pontificating, projecting and pretending as if we are. I’d be happy with that as a concession for this go around. “Bushels are king, and the future is for figuring out when we get there” can be the universal industry motto in the meanwhile.
If you agree with these policy ideas, though, connect with your congressional delegation and prove my cynicism wrong. Let them know that these things are important to you. Give them the courage to do the right thing when it comes to shaping agricultural policy with actions that drive widespread change now, rather than thoughts and prayers for tomorrow.
Zack Smith is a corn and soybean farmer in Iowa and the co-founder of Stock Cropper, Inc. (thestockcropper.com).
