A third-generation farmer in northwest Alabama, James Bates knows no other way of life.
“It’s what I know. It was natural for me to stay in farming,” said the 64-year-old Bates, who downsized his once 800 acres on six farms in Franklin County to 500 acres on four farms a few years ago.
His farms have included cotton, hogs, cattle and corn, but it was the dairy business that dominated most of his life — 41 years to be exact.
“We were at the dairy barn at 4 a.m. every morning, seven days a week,” Bates said, noting it has mostly been a family business with a few hired hands who have come and gone through the years.
Bates’ grandfather was a row crop farmer, complete with a pair of mules. Bates’ father raised cotton before making the switch to dairy.
At age 15, Bates, who had been picking cotton since he was five, discovered he wasn’t so sure about the life of a cotton farmer. “We had a dance at school and I wanted to go — there was this girl, you see — but we had no money.
“I said right then, ‘If we can’t make money farming then I will do something else.’” His dad agreed and soon built their first dairy barn.
Bates, who eventually took over the family business as a young man, sold the dairy farm six years ago and now works with cattle and hay. “Farming is a lot of work, especially if you are a small farmer. You have to be a large business in order to hire out a lot of help,” Bates said, noting Franklin County has dropped from nine dairy farms to one in recent years.
Top industry in Alabama
And while the number of farmers has declined in the past few decades statewide and nationwide, agriculture remains Alabama’s top industry, bringing in more than $5 billion annually.
But when it comes to farm subsidy help from the federal government, Alabama ranks 23rd out of 50. Of the $34.8 billion in commodity program payments provided nationwide in 2003 through 2005, $385 million came to Alabama, according to the Environmental Working Group. Nearly $175 million of the $385 million went to large farming businesses.
Cotton subsidies received the most with $280,056,634 and peanut subsidies came in second with $122,397,881.
Farm subsidies have garnered headlines lately as the Farm Bill (see sidebar, page 5) is up for renewal in September. This bill, which comes up for renewal every five years, provides support for various programs including conservation efforts, food stamps, other nutrition programs and farm aid.
The small farmer has been a major focus of the debate as the details of the bill are being worked out.
The existing Farm Bill, which was passed in 2002, allows farmers making up to $2.5 million to receive federal subsidies. And, according to the anti-hunger group Oxfam America, the wealthiest 5 percent of U.S. farm owners get more than half of all the federal subsidies.
The Bush Administration and others are fighting to have the cap lowered to $200,000 in the 2007 version of the bill. The bill, which is currently in the U.S. Senate, passed the House of Representatives on a near party-line vote July 27. The House version put the subsidy cap at $1 million ($2 million for couples).
David Beckmann, president of the Christian anti-hunger group Bread for the World, supports the $200,000 cap and is working to get the Senate to make that change in its version. It was the Democratic leadership that kept the cap at $1 million in the House, Beckmann said, noting an attempt to keep Democratic candidates from rural districts on good terms with their constituents because of the 2008 election. “They made no significant reform [in this area].”
But with the increased funding in other areas such as nutrition, conservation, rural development and international food aid, more money is needed. “They found the money by adding a provision that will mean additional taxes for domestic subsidiaries of some foreign corporations,” Beckmann said.
The $4 billion tax increase turned some congressmen against the bill and has caused concerns about the foreign companies that would be impacted.
The American International Automobile Dealers stated that these companies support an annual payroll of $324.5 billion. “The prospective fallout from this proposal is estimated at $7.5 billion in tax increases for U.S. subsidiaries of companies based abroad.”
Beckmann said there is also concern for poor farmers in other countries. Most of the subsidies go to affluent farming businesses and does not help the small farmer in the United States nor in countries like Mali and Haiti.
“Haitian rice producers can’t compete with U.S. subsidized rice in its own market,” he said. “The rich countries are protecting their agriculture and the whole system depresses sales opportunities for farmers in poor countries.
“[Subsidizing the big business farms] hurts poor farmers around the world, and that adds to the federal deficit,” Beckmann said. “Agriculture is the key to development in low-income countries.”
Share with others: