Part Three

Another interesting response on the planting prohibition issue, one that is worth reading if only for the history, arrived courtesy of the Faceless Bureaucrat. In my opinion, every new programmatic idea for USDA thought up by us policy wonks should be sent to the Faceless Bureaucrat (a long time USDA employee) to see if it is actually feasible to implement on the ground. Anyway, after informing us that the planting prohibition was one of the unintended consequences of new rules included in the '85 Farm Bill, he points out the following:

Judging by the rhetoric around this issue, the only reason President George H.W. Bush didn't eat his broccoli is it was too high-priced--if we just had a few million more acres of carrots and broccoli prices would fall to the point that everyone would eat their 6 or 8 servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Pardon my skepticism, but while removing the prohibition might lower the price and expand the acreage a bit, I don't think it would mean a major change in the nation's diet.

The classical economic arguments aside, the simple fact is that we need many more acres of fruit and vegetable production to meet our nutritional needs, and the planting prohibition is a major barrier to adding those acres. And as I said before, it is also a major barrier to ensuring our fruits and vegetables are produced locally/regionally, instead of growing the vast majority in a few states and shipping it across the country, as we do today. And I agree with the Faceless Bureaucrat- getting rid of the planting prohibition would not mean a major change in the nation's diet. At least not in the short term, anyway.

But more to the point, the planting prohibition is a long-term barrier to the economic and biological diversification of Midwest farming operations. In the first post I linked to an article on local foods production- here's another excerpt:

Others will require a greater level of organization. The Minnesota operating unit of Sysco, a $37 billion, Houston-based national food distributor, has started talking to local farmers about combining the produce of 25 to 30 growers in order to reach the scale existing regional distributors and their buyers want.

“Sysco sees this as a real market trend, and they want to be part of it,” Heuer said. But in order to aggregate their produce, those farmers or a separate food broker will need to invest in a cooling shed where the multi-farm produce can be collected, stored and packaged for distribution. Sysco estimates the cost of such a cooling shed at around $400,000.

As we never tire of saying, this sort of investment is necessary for local foods to scale up to the point where they provide a substantial percentage of the nation's food. And that investment is nothing but good for both farmers and consumers. Obviously, the more farmers involved in local food production the easier this investment is to make, both for farmers (through a co-op, etc) and for big corporations like Sysco.

Economically diverse farmers are more resilient and less prone to boom and bust cycles. Diversified farms have been shown time and again to be better for the environment. Getting into high-value crops can at least partially ease the never-ending thirst for expansion that drives up land prices, pushes smaller operators out of business, and makes farm transition notoriously difficult. And when Jack Hedin cannot rent ground to grow his high-value crops, that's a problem.

In fact, that might be the most valuable lesson I took away from his OpEd- that the planting prohibition is a structural barrier to his expansion. Farmers really and truly dedicated to fruit and vegetable production can simply remove their "base" acres currently enrolled in farm programs permanently (though I don't believe they should have to). But they can only do that with acres they own, and maybe even own outright. Your banker might insist on having a say in what you produce, especially when it comes to FSA regulations. And in today's world, more than half of the farmland in the Midwest is rented by a farmer from a non-farming landowner.

Mr. Hedin makes the point that the planting prohibition makes renting ground difficult. When so much ground is rented, that is a huge factor. Landlords will certainly shy away from renting to fruit and vegetable growers if they are worried about running afoul of FSA. That will drive up rents for fruit and vegetable growers. And in the real world, I guarantee many landlords, once they learn of the planting prohibition, simply will not rent ground to grow fruits and vegetables. Therefore, the Jack Hedins of the world have a much harder time expanding, and that means less production of local fruits and vegetables.