Provided to the LVN
As this month’s piece is being written there are lots of eyes looking toward Washington, D.C. and what might be playing out in Congress.
The clock is ticking and long before you read this, we’ll know whether the last-minute crisis was solved or we end up in a wreck because nobody had the ability to blink.
At the very best we possibly got the necessary extension to kick the can down the road for not having to shut down government spending. Perhaps there was also a last-minute extension provided for the Farm Bill that expired on Sept. 30. Whether something was included to provide additional financial support for farmers is one wild-card that we don’t know as this is being written.
Again, using our time reference as the time where this is being written, there has been a flurry of activity, partly as there are less than four days until the existing Dec. 20 government funding deadline. Part of the flurry involved frantic calls for action, contacting elected representatives and stressing how important it is for them to adopt legislation to provide financial assistance for identified farmers who grow certain crops. The framework being contemplated for this support action is HR 10045, primarily sponsored by Congressman Trent Kelly of Mississippi’s 1st District. There were 48 additional House members who signed onto the proposed legislation.
The purpose of HR 10045, nicknamed “FARM” Act (for Farmers Assistance and Revenue Mitigation Act of 2024), is to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to make emergency assistance payments to agricultural producers to mitigate high input costs and low commodity prices during crop year 2024.
The commodities covered by the proposed legislation include: corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, sorghum, oats and barley. Under the proposed operations of the Act, if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that the expected gross return per acre of one of the agricultural commodities that are noted above are determined to be below the expected costs of production per acre – the Secretary will make a one-time economic assistance payment to each producer no later than 90 days after the Act is passed and signed into law.
As we have already highlighted this will likely be all settled out, one way or another, by the time that you are reading this article. Perhaps some would question why write something that is out of date and so uncertain even while the details are being written.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO AREN’T COVERED?
The point for writing this isn’t to point out that Congress may or may not have come through and delivered the needed assistance that was being sought. Whether the Farm Bill was extended or even properly written as new legislation that takes account of the current economic realities in agricultural production and markets isn’t really the point either.
If there had been a new Farm Bill drafted that correctly “put the farm into the Farm Bill” or provided the safety net provisions that it should have correctly applied – there would be very little protection or assistance to those who produce the commodities that Nevada farmers grow and make a living doing. Whether that is a good thing or should be changed to address the needs of Nevada producers is possibly a debatable discussion.
The Farm Bill does provide conservation programs which benefit Nevada agricultural producers who participate in programs through the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS). The Farm Bill provides some marketing assistance, on a small scale, for specialty crop producers in helping them with marketing resources. There is research funding for some support for Nevada’s land-grant college. There is also some assistance for risk management and crop insurance policy protection.
Overall, the greatest level of funding that comes into Nevada through the Farm Bill comes in the form of various food assistance programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP).
Nevada’s most significant crop production takes the form of alfalfa or other forms of hay. It is no secret that this year’s hay market situation is less than ideal. If alfalfa was included in one of the “eligible” commodities that are highlighted within the text of the proposed FARM Act, it would be very likely that the Secretary of Agriculture would be able to determine that the expected gross return per acre of alfalfa would be below the expected costs of production per acre.
There’s no argument that those who produce the commodities that are included in the Farm Bill program crops and which are included on the list of eligible crops for the FARM Act are facing significant difficulties.
Inflationary input costs are slamming the expense side of farm ledgers and the market prices for production outputs are providing returns that are extremely below the costs of production. A properly renewed Farm Bill, with the necessary changes to the mechanisms that are supposed to provide workable safety net benefits should have been helpful for those encountering the challenges that they are now dealing with.
Regardless of whether these foundational pieces would be in place or were added to the actions that Congress took in wrapping up their 118th Session — the circumstances that Nevada crop producers are dealing with would not be any different than they are now. For better or worse (and one might be able to make a strong case for the advantages of relying on markets rather than government) Nevada agricultural producers can’t rely on whatever Congress decides because there is no government back-up that’s provided for their crops.