Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Dennis Anderson: Farms vs. Wildlife

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@gilanet.com>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Dennis Anderson: Farms vs. Wildlife
  • Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:34:06 -0700


Dennis Anderson: Farms vs. Wildlife
http://www.startribune.com/stories/533/5249894.html
February 21 2005

University of Minnesota Professor Emeritus Richard A. Levins retired
from that school's Department of Applied Economics in 2003. Growing up
in Forida, Levins worked in extension farm management for almost 25
years. He moved to Minnesota in 1988 to teach economics and agriculture
history. Most recently, Levins wrote the book "Willard Cochrane and the
American Family Farm," (2003, University of Nebraska Press) with a
foreword by John Kenneth Galbraith. Levins still teaches part-time at
the university and consults and speaks on farm economics, farm
management and related issues. In the interview below, Levins outlines
the evolution of U.S. farm policy, its impact on farmers, wildlife and
the environment.

Q: What is your general assessment of farming in Minnesota?

A: Farming here has slowly evolved into a system that has relatively few
very large farms that are often plagued by prices so low they have
trouble being profitable. We also have evolved into a farm system in
Minnesota that relies heavily on government payments to be economically
sustainable.

Q: One effect of this evolution is that the state's farmland is less
diverse and that wetlands and other wildlife habitats have been lost.

A: That's correct. There has been a shrinking of biological diversity on
the land and increasing concerns for environmental problems resulting
from farm policy. It's easy to lay these problems at the feet of
farmers, saying it is entirely their responsibility. But I've had the
privilege of speaking first-hand with some of the famous Minnesotans who
have shaped U.S. farm policy in the past 50 years, and I can say there's
much more going on here than any individual farmer could possibly hope
to influence.

Q: Who are some of the Minnesotans who shaped current U.S. agricultural
policy, and what roles did they play?

A: Present policy was heavily influenced by the thinking of Orville
Freeman, Willard Cochrane and Robert Bergland. Bergland and Freeman were
agriculture secretaries. Cochrane -- like me, retired from the
university -- was agriculture advisor to President Kennedy, and at age
91 is still active in these issues. Also, of course, Hubert Humphrey had
significant influence.

Q: Did the thinking of any of these men include land and water
conservation?

A: Not nearly as much as we think about these issues today. The goals of
a diverse landscape weren't among their ideas, at least not at the time.
I will add that Cochrane has since become a strong environmentalist as
an agricultural economist, and believes U.S. agriculture policy has been
wrong, continues to be wrong and is unsustainable.

Still, when our basic agriculture policy was shaped in the 1960s, the
primary goals were protecting farm income, competing in a global economy
and keeping domestic food prices relatively low.

Q: Your recent book about Cochrane and the family farm explores
Cochrane's misgivings about U.S. farm policy. Are Cochrane's beliefs
that current farm policy isn't sustainable -- either economically or
environmentally -- correct?

A: Professor Cochrane has become an advocate of some fairly radical
changes in the way we farm. The changes he would make would, in addition
to other things, address in a very direct way the environmental problems
that have accompanied U.S. farm policy.

My view is somewhat different. I have come to see farmers as people who
care deeply about the environment and the communities in which they
live. At the same time, they're just like everyone else, in that they
must make business decisions in an economic environment that is beyond
their control. Our policies have moved us in a direction that is causing
some unintended problems, among them the lack of a diverse landscape.

Q: Ultimately, are the interests of conservation and modern farming in
conflict?

A: Sometimes, but not always. In my view, most farmers would qualify as
modern conservationists. What needs to be changed is not so much
attitudes as the system we have created in which farming occurs.

Q: How could that happen?

A: It would have to happen with some serious and aggressive changes in
federal farm policy. As policy stands now, we tend to pass conservation
legislation but not fund it. Meanwhile we continue to fund programs that
lead us in the direction we're going. It should be no surprise we're
getting what we pay for.

Q: Is what is happening today on Minnesota farmlands -- generally
speaking -- so bad, environmentally, that, in the end, change will be
forced on the system?

A: At some point we have to face the fact that it is often cheaper to
prevent environmental problems than to fix them once they've occurred.
I'd like to see prevention become a bigger part of our federal
expenditure and cleanup be less.

Q: Certain farmers today who own land that traditionally has been
untillable, can -- through the use of chemicals and genetically modified
crops -- plant that land with the reasonable expectation it will be
profitable relatively quickly, assuming that government support payments
are made. This puts at risk some of the relatively few remaining
unbroken wild lands we have.

A: Correct. What we have are situations that sometimes make sense for
individuals but might not make any sense at all in the larger picture.
That individual farmer you speak of, expanding his or her production of
grain crops, today is not competing so much with a neighbor as with a
farmer, say, in South America. The only way that battle can be won is by
being the absolute lowest-cost producer in the world, which -- by the
way -- is unlikely for an American farmer, or by depending on continued
government supports -- which is also appearing to be less and less
likely. Unfortunately, that farmer oftentimes does not have the option
of government supports to use the land in ways that would meet some of
our environmental goals. That's where the problem lies.

Q: The current farm program has a number of conservation components,
some of which, as you suggest, have not been fully funded. That aside,
was this program structured in a way that induced farmers toward
conservation, at least in certain instances? Or are there better ways
that conservation should be incorporated into the next farm bill?

A: There are two ways you can do this: Consider conservation as an
add-on to a commodity program, which is basically what we have now. Or
put conservation first and let the commodities be the add-on. I think
until we put conservation as a high priority, we won't see much
progress.

Q: Is it reasonable then for conservationists to have hope in Minnesota?

A: For a Minnesotan to be discouraged makes no sense at all. As I said
earlier, Minnesota has been the leader in farm policy. I don't see why
Minnesotans would want to give up that position.

Dennis Anderson is at danderson@startribune.com

WHO WE ARE: This e-mail service shares information to help more people
discuss crucial policy issues affecting global food security. The service
is managed by Amber McNair of the University of Toronto in association with
the Munk Centre for International Studies and Wayne Roberts of the Toronto
Food Policy Council, in partnership with the Community Food Security
Coalition, World Hunger Year, and International Partners for Sustainable
Agriculture.
Please help by sending information or names and e-mail addresses of
co-workers who'd like to receive this service, to foodnews@ca.inter.net






  • [Livingontheland] Dennis Anderson: Farms vs. Wildlife, Tradingpost, 03/11/2005

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page