Farmers urged to form alliances

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News : One Thread

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/085/nation/FARM_SCENE_Farmers_urged_to_fo:.shtml

FARM SCENE: Farmers urged to form alliances to thrive

By Todd Dvorak, Associated Press, 3/26/2001 01:11

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) Farmers who form production alliances stand a better chance of prospering in the modern, global farm economy than those who remain independent, a North Dakota State University researcher says.

Rudy Radke, an extension specialist, told state legislators Friday that farmers should adopt ''identity preservation'' techniques for their production.

The process is meant to keep grains and other products that are raised in a specific way from becoming mixed in with other commodities.

Identity preservation and alliances, like those being formed among egg producers in Iowa and dairy farmers in Minnesota, are responses to market demands and critical to farming's future in North Dakota, Radke said.

''The marketplace is headed in these directions,'' he told a joint meeting of the state House and Senate Agriculture committees. ''I really believe that if you're not a member of some kind of alliance, you won't be able to afford to be in farming in the next 10 years.''

Sen. Terry Wanzek, chairman of the Senate panel, said he has used identity preservation strategies for years to ensure the quality of pinto beans he and his brother raise.

Identity preservation causes more work, more regulations and more inspections, but it has helped him sell his product in new and profitable markets, Wanzek said. ''It creates more management problems,'' he said. ''But if it wasn't for some of these things I've done, I wouldn't be farming right now.''

Radke said the changing nature of farming, the global economy, the influence of the biotech industry and fickle consumer trends and tastes can overwhelm individual farmers as they try to keep up.

''The biggest challenge is to be able to understand all the information and apply it to business,'' he said.

The advantage of alliances, Radke said, is that the strength of a group outweighs the influence of the individual.

Farmers who can unify their production goals put themselves in a better competitive position, he said. Alliances can afford to hire staff to market specific products, track industry changes and consumer trends, or monitor developments in genetically engineered foods, he said.

Consumers and food producers are demanding more specific products to meet their tastes or production needs, Radke said. A company like General Mills, for example, knows exactly which variety of oats or wheat is best for making cereal.

''You have to know today what variety (companies) are going after ... and alliances of farmers allows for the better management of information like that,'' Radke said.

Alliances also lessen an individual farmer's operating costs and provide more leverage in selling grain, beef or vegetables to corporate processors, he said.

''You're a lot better off today walking in representing 1,000 farmers rather than just one,'' he noted.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Answers

it is a ruining of americana what has happened in the last 30 years or so to the family farmer. let`s hope at least some of the damage can be undone......................thought this article would go well here.

By GREGORY TEJEDA CHICAGO, March 26 (UPI) -- Across the United States, corporations are taking over the farms that produce the food we eat, making the notion of a family-owned farm almost as much a thing of the past as the Brooklyn Dodgers. But farmers and their trade organizations can't agree these days on what would need to be done to bring back the family farm -- or even if there's a place for that lifestyle. A rural summit held Monday by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America gave agriculture officials and a variety of religious leaders the chance to study the disappearance of the family farm. Paul Olson, 49, president of the National Farmers Organization, says he operates the only dairy farm near Taylor, Wis., the rural Wisconsin community where he has lived his whole life. When he graduated from high school in 1969, there were 22 in the area. "We've seen tens of thousands of Taylor, Wisconsins," said Olson, noting the loss of such farms affects the local economy, costing them people who could support other types of businesses such as retail and grocery stores, and restaurants. "If we fail to seize the moment, it will be too late to do anything to fix the situation," Olson said. But Bob Stallman, head of the American Farm Bureau Federation, was less critical of the current situation. He said the corporations operating many farms across the country, particularly outside the Midwest, are doing so in ways that produce food more efficiently. As a result, they are doing a better job of meeting the demands of consumers for food products. "Consumer choice is driving these changes," Stallman said. "The majority of the United States is looking at the various options (for obtaining food) and is voting with its dollars." Stallman also said he thinks many small farmers operate their farms as a sideline and have other sources of income, meaning they are doing better financially overall today compared with several decades ago. "We don't live the same way we used to. We have a better lifestyle now," he said. "The very small farmers are doing better. They have more income now. "All of us can talk about the family farm but we must define what we are talking about to gain some perspective on the matter." Olson disagreed. He said he thinks many farmers were happier when they could rely on their farm income to support their families, rather than having to have family members work other jobs. "When I was young, there were no women working to support their husbands' habit of farming," Olson said. "I know we can't stand in the way of progress, but I wonder at times if it really is progress." Sympathetic to Olson was Leland Swenson, president of the National Farmers Union, who said he thinks many of the corporate farming methods were imposed not out of any belief they would improve food quality, but to improve profitability. "Were these changes really made for the benefit of the people, or for greed?" Swenson asked. "Change is inevitable … but these changes were shoved down the throats of the people." Swenson also said he thinks farmers of all kinds will suffer from an urban bias by government and business officials who set policies that dictate the way the United States operates. "We are losing to urban leanings and that can be a loss for our youth and our families," he said. Swenson noted a recent cutback in Colorado by a health care provider that decided it was too expensive to provide full health care coverage to residents of 24 rural counties. "They didn't pull out of Denver or its suburbs, they went after rural people in their efforts to cut their costs," he said. All three were able to agree that the quality of rural life would suffer, even for those who do not rely on farms themselves for their livelihoods. Olson cited his Wisconsin hometown, saying that today, "Taylor is three taverns, a convenience store, a gas station, and not much else" because of the lack of jobs and the loss to farm economies. But Stallman said he thinks religious officials in rural communities ought to focus on providing "emotional support" and "counseling" to area residents, particularly farmers. He also could see having the federal government provide financial assistance to the owners of small businesses in rural communities that are suffering. He notes similar government aid checks help keep many small farmers afloat. "Why should farmers be special?" Stallman said. "Why not let the 'Mom and Pop' shops get some government benefits to help them cope with their (financial) losses."

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ