By Jolene Farley
Many Rock County farmers have "surfed the net" this week visiting the Web site ewg.org.
Earlier this month, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group listed the amount of every farm program payment made over the last five years, organized by state, county and producer on the database.
Since then, farmers have had plenty to say about the information. Many complain the numbers are misleading
"I don't have a problem with it being printed, but I wish people would understand it isnÕt all profit," said Beaver Creek farmer Roland Crawford.
"They all see that and say, 'h, they are making a whole lot of money.' It isn't like we made a whole bunch and they are giving us that on top."
He said accepting subsidies is a necessary evil. "If we would get paid so we could make a living ... With commodity prices so low there has to be some incentive to keep going."
The average return per acre in south central Minnesota without government payments was a negative $62.04 per acre for corn and a positive $1.60 per acre for soybeans, according to information provided by Extension Educator Kent Thiesse.
Hills farmer Gary Esselink said subsidies have become part of doing business. "There are payments, yes, but it all balances out with the low commodity prices," he said.
Esselink said commodities are a safety net for farmers. In his opinion, when the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act or the "Freedom to Farm Bill" was enacted the government never expected the prices to go so low, but overproduction and a strong dollar on foreign markets sent demand and prices plummeting.
"It's a tough call. The government wants cheap food for the consumer. If they are going to do that they are going to have to help us out some," Esselink said.
"It's frustrating. Any farmer you talk to about this says this is not the way they want to farm. They would rather have corn at $3 per bushel and beans at $7 to $8 per bushel."
Beaver Creek farmer LeRoy Kellenberger said he is paid the same price for his crops as he was paid 30 years ago, while his expenses have increased by three-quarters. He said without government subsidies he wouldn't be in business.
"Do I feel good about it? No, I don't. But that's the price farmers have to pay," he said. "We just can't operate on $1.50 corn; that's what we got 30 years ago. It just isn't a gift. Most farmers would just as soon have the price."
Who are the top 10 percent?
The preliminary results of EWG's analysis of 2000 USDA farm subsidy payments indicated that two-thirds of the $27 billion paid out in federal farm subsidies last year went to 10 percent of the nation's farmers.
Thiesse points out the percentages can be very misleading unless that factor is accounted for.
He said the "highest 10 percent of farm program recipients" in most counties are family-based and operated by persons who live in their communities, support their local businesses, attend their schools and churches and serve many leadership roles.
Kellenberger agreed, "When you look at the dollars spent in Rock County (on subsidies), farmers turn around and spend that money. It goes right back into the system."
More complicated than numbers indicate
Thiesse said payments for "market loss assistance" and "oilseed" have been added in the last three years of this study (1998-2000), and again in 2001, to offset low commodity prices and reduced farm incomes.
The Loan Deficiency Payments or LDP's and "non-recourse" marketing loans were established to encourage farmers to market grain, even when it was below CCC loan rate.
Continued low commodity prices for the past two years led to the large amounts of payments listed for LDP's and gains in marketing loans on the database, according to Thiesse.
Because these payments are based on the county loan rate, for the most part, these payments should not be considered as payments that usually enhance net income.
"It (the database) makes the farmer look like he is getting a handout from the government," when what farmers really want, according to Steen farmer Alan Baker, is a fair price.
"They should put an explanation why we get that (the payments) and how we get that. What it's based on, how we get the farm program payments," said Baker.
"We all need each other. We are all just a link in the puzzle, but unfortunately we all like to fight each other."
Public's right to know vs. farmers' rights to privacy
Most Rock County farmers have found their own names and possibly the names of their neighbors and the amount of farm subsidies received on the site. All have an opinion on the availability of such information, and it is not favorable.
"It is federal money. There is other federal money spent and I feel it all should be printed," said Crawford.
"Do they publish what doctors get from Medicare, the government?" asked Kellenberger.
Many wonder how the USDA information was available to place on the Web site to begin with and if any data privacy policies were violated.
The Web site information was obtained by EWG through the Freedom of Information Act, according to their Web site. The data was made public as a result of a 1996 lawsuit won by the Washington Post. A federal judge ordered the United States Department of Agriculture to open its records to the public.
