If headline writers could win Pulitzer Prizes for envy, there would be stiff competition for this year’s award, based upon what a few newspapers have said recently about those of us who work the land: “Rise in food prices means bounty for farmers” (International Herald Tribune), “Farming flush with profits” (Press-Enterprise of Riverside, Calif.), “As food prices spiral higher, U.S. farmers and others reap profits” (the Canadian Press).
Here’s the one that takes the cake for stoking resentment in readers: “We pay more, they profit more” (News & Observer of Charlotte, N.C.).
There’s some truth to the claim that these are good times for farmers. Our income is supposed to top $92 billion this year, according to the Department of Agriculture. That’s an all-time record.
Yet it would be foolish to assume that farmers are gouging grocery-store customers. The real story about what’s happening is far more complicated than “we pay more, they profit more.”
Farming is all about risk management. We can have phenomenally good years as well as catastrophically bad ones. A lot of our success or failure hinges upon factors we can control. But luck plays a big role as well, especially for an activity that depends so much on the weather.
Weather dictates that farmers take a long-term view of their operations. We need some really good income years to balance out the really bad ones. This long term view is measured over years – if not generations – and is one of the reasons beginning farmers find establishing an independent farm operation so difficult.
Just last week, following two years of below-average rainfall, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California declared a statewide drought. In the San Joaquin Delta, growers are seeing their water allocations cut by 40 percent. “We are in dire straits,” said Mike Young of the Kern County Farm Bureau.
So if your tomato prices go up in the near future, keep in mind that although some farmers may be profiting from scarcity, others are suffering. And those that are doing well right now could find themselves doing poorly next year.
My own plans have changed dramatically in just the last six weeks. We’ve had such a wet spring in central Illinois that I haven’t been able to plant as much corn as I had intended. I’m now in the process of switching hundreds of acres from corn to soybeans.
Corn can be a sensitive crop. Ideally, we’ll have a wet winter that builds up water supplies, a dry spring that lets the seeds get off to a healthy start, and a summer that’s full of warm days (but not scorching hot ones), clear skies (for photosynthesis), and intermittent bursts of rain (but not too much rain because excess moisture invites disease).
Some years are near perfect. Most of the time, however, something goes wrong. This spring, it rained so much that in many places the soil never dried out. Our problem was the very opposite of California’s, but a problem nonetheless.
Biotechnology can help, if it makes crops a little hardier than they would be otherwise. Almost always, however, I have to respond to unforeseen circumstances. When I wait until the second half of May to plant corn, I know from experience that I’m likely to lose bushels in my harvest. The longer I wait, the worse the problem gets.
So now I’m converting a bunch of acres to soybeans, a crop that’s a little more forgiving than corn when it comes to timing. I can plant soybeans in June without suffering as much yield damage.
Yet the decision to switch is not without consequences: Last fall, I fertilized these acres for corn rather than for soybeans. They don’t need extra nitrogen. Putting fertilizer in the ground last year seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but it turns out to have been a waste that will set me back tens of thousands of dollars.
Switching crops isn’t always a snap, either. It depends upon the availability of seed and there’s no guarantee that what I want will be there when I want it.
The point is that although we should be grateful that nature usually gives us what we need to survive, it can also humble us. Good times can turn to bad times very quickly.
Those who feel envy when they read reports predicting high incomes for farmers should recognize that before they know it, the next emotion they feel for farmers could be sympathy.
John Reifsteck, a corn and soybean farmer in western Champaign County Illinois, is a Board Member of Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).
No matter what happens to farmers who buy their seeds, Monsanto and their investors profit tremedously. And they keep raising their seed and Roundup prices. Does this seem just:
Monsanto Posts 42% Jump in Net By Scott Kilman Wall Street Journal, June 26 2008 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121439662618603123.html
Monsanto said it's raising by an average of 20% the prices of its varieties of seed equipped with three genetically modified traits: the ability to resist two insects and to tolerate exposure to Monsanto's popular Roundup herbicide. Prices of the so-called triple-stack corn seed that farmers planted this year climbed between 15% and 20%. Monsanto said about 65% of the corn seed it sells in the U.S. next year will be a triple-stack variety.
While Mr. Grant warned his forecast is hazy, it would be good news for Monsanto and its rivals because corn generates the most profit of any seed. Corn acreage fell this year because many farmers figured they could make more money growing wheat and soybeans, crops also hit by short supplies. [after other farmers switched away to grow corn to cash in on the ethanol boom]
Hugh Grant, Monsanto chief executive and chairman, said during a conference call with analysts that he expects U.S. corn farmers to plant 90 million acres in 2009, up from the 86 million acres that the U.S. Agriculture Department predicted in March would be planted this year.
Monsanto reported net income for the third quarter ended May 31 of $811 million, or $1.45 a diluted share, which exceeded the consensus of estimates of Wall Street analysts by about a dime. Third-quarter sales rose 26% from the year-ago period to $3.59 billion.
Monsanto raised its 2008 earnings estimate by about 20 cents a share to $3.40 a share, excluding unusual items.
While I certainly do feel for the plight of the farmers regarding the uncertainty of depending on our weather and climate, perhaps you should reexamine your reliance on and trust in big Agrobiz and biotech. Their profits have risen to all time highs. Doesn't that say anything to you in your situation and the benefit of your association with them. Who is benefiting at who's expense?
It would be nice to see some headlines about the gmo crops you all are growing, too. It's only been 10-15 years now. Agriculture, and thus our food supply, was genetically engineered without the consumer ever hearing a word! And without any long term or independent safety studies! Imagine that! It's hard to believe this would happen in America, or anywhere for that matter.
News 
If headline writers could win Pulitzer Prizes for envy, there would be stiff competition for this year’s award, based upon what a few newspapers have said recently about those of us who work the land: “Rise in food prices means bounty for farmers” (International Herald Tribune), “Farming flush with profits” (Press-Enterprise of Riverside, Calif.), “As food prices spiral higher, U.S. farmers and others reap profits” (the Canadian Press).
