The Original How-to Magazine of Alternative and Traditional Crops, Livestock, and Direct Marketing—Established 1984 Editorials... From the Ridge: Mar/Apr 2008: Water, Water... Jan/Feb 2008: Keeping the Fire Going Sep/Dec 2007: A Look Back, and Moving On Jul/Oct 2007: The Truth: An Irate Editorial May/Jun 2007: Carbon Credits Mar/Apr 2007: A New Year Jul-Oct 2006: Say No to NAIS May/Jun 2006: Planning Ahead Jan/Feb 2006: Reading This Magazine Nov/Dec 2005: Show Lessons Sep/Oct 2005: A Farm by any Other Name... Jul/Aug 2005: Poor Planning: Patenting Life and Preemptive Laws May/Jun 2005: The Best Show in the Country Mar/Apr 2005: Our Connection to the Earth Jan/Feb 2005: Pricing Your Product Nov/Dec 2004: Better Than Ever Sep/Oct 2004: A Risky Business Jul/Aug 2004: Sustainable Ag in Danger in Missouri May/Jun 2004: Spring Renewal Mar/Apr 2004: A Mostly Happy Anniversary to Us Jan/Feb 2004: What Are Your Plans? Nov/Dec 2003: Ramblings From the Ridge Sep/Oct 2003: Some Risks You Have to Take Jul/Aug 2003: Problems with the Farm Problem—Technology is Not the Answer May/Jun 2003: Planning for the Show Mar/Apr 2003: Old Breeds and Old Seeds Jan/Feb 2003: A New Year, A New Cycle Dec 2002: Start Planning Now! The New Year Brings New Opportunities! Sep/Oct/Nov 2002: The Show is Here! Ten Years and Still Growing! Jul/Aug 2002: Saving Seeds Makes Your Farm More Sustainable May/Jun 2002: 10,000 for the 10th Show Mar/Apr 2002: Biotechnology is NOT Saving the World Jan/Feb 2002: Farm Numbers Dwindling? They Don't Have To. Nov/Dec 2001: The Farm Program. Yes or No? or Why? Sep/Oct 2001: Nothing is Inevitable Jul/Aug 2001: A Problem With Soybeans May/Jun 2001: Changes in Current Farming (and an apology) Mar/Apr 2001: Trade Show Talk Jan/Feb 2001: Changing Our Thinking Nov/Dec 2000: Good Life, Good Money Sep/Oct 2000: The GM Blues Jul/Aug 2000: Eurofarming May/Jun 2000: Doom and Gloom and Optimism Mar/Apr 2000: Opportunity Knocks Jan/Feb 2000: 2000 and Beyond Oct/Nov/Dec 1999: Choosing the Right Solutions Aug/Sep 1999: Attitude for Success Jun/Jul 1999: Sex in the Field–and in the Laboratory Apr/May 1999: The More Things Change... Feb/Mar 1999: Protecting the Future Contents: Home About Us Content / Subscriptions Country Store Books™ Books / Back Issues Advertising Writers’ Guidelines For the Farm (new and used products for your farm) Calendar Online Resources (links) 16th National Small Farm Trade Show & Conference™ November 6-8, 2008 • Schedule of Events • Audio tapes from past seminars & short courses Comments or questions about Small Farm Today Small Farm Today® 3903 W Ridge Trail Rd Clark MO 65243-9525 573-687-3525 (call for fax number) 800-633-2535 smallfarm@socket.net www.smallfarmtoday.com Site designed and maintained by Rebecca DeCourley ChaosDesignArt Feedback on our web site © 2008 Missouri Farm Publishing Inc.

FROM THE RIDGE: Changing Our Thinking Editorial from the January/February 2001 issue of Small Farm Today® magazine. Have you ever had thoughts about a subject, then all of a sudden, you read about some prominent person who says just what you were thinking and comes up with some great data to prove that thought? That happened to me when I attended the Rural Life Day at the Newman Center in Columbia, Missouri, where Dr. Daryll Ray gave an excellent talk concerning the 1996 Farm Bill and the expected results versus the actual results. Dr. Ray, an agricultural economist, holds the Blasingame Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy at the Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee (UT) in Knoxville, Tennessee, and is the Director of UT's Agricultural Policy Analysis Center. Dr. Ray is one of a handful of people who tell it the way it is. From his facts, we can see what we need to do about farm policy and another way to think about agricultural marketing and policy. I am giving up most of my editorial space this issue to reprint one of his "Policy Pennings" from the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center: A funny thing happened... by Daryll E. Ray With Freedom to Farm, the miracle of "free markets" is supposed to make agriculture an export powerhouse, so prosperous that subsidies will subside and the dreaded acreage set-asides and stock programs will remain permanently, well, set aside. But a funny thing happened on the way to the market.... We ploughed into a major cost overrun. More money–over $25 billion more–has been spent in the last four years for farm programs than the $43.6 billion that was budgeted fro the full seven years of the 1996 legislation. In the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, net government outlays for agricultural commodities and programs will be the largest in the history of agriculture, a staggering $32.3 billion. That payment amount includes payments that overlap crop years. For example, the recently approved $5.4 billion aid package for the crop to be harvested this fall is included. But the fact remains that grain, soybean, and cotton farmers are far more dependent on government payments now than before Freedom to Farm was passed. So what is the problem? The problem is we are producing more grain, soybeans, and cotton than can be sold at profitable prices. If Ford Motor Company were operating like agriculture, it would run all its vehicle assembly plants at full capacity al the time–three shifts a day–while actively seeking technological advances to further expand output. It would continue to do this even though the price required to unload the large supply of cars would cover only a fraction of the full cost of producing a car. Then, rather than reducing output to meet demand at a profitable price, Ford's executives (Congress) would implore their stockholders (taxpayers) to fork over billions of dollars to compensate for the low prices they receive fro the cars (grain). Of course, Ford does not operate that way. It adjusts both short-term output and long-term capacity to meet market conditions and to meet price and profit targets. It intends to have more productive capacity than it usually needs and it has no qualms about leaving a portion of it idle on average. And under no circumstances would Ford allow the price of their cars to approach the variable cost of producing a car, that is, the cost of the materials, labor, and other expenses specifically required to produce a given vehicle. If Ford shows a loss for a quarter or year now and then, it is a loss after deducting the full cost of operating the company–executives and managers (we call them operators in agriculture) receive their full pay, for example. Crop agriculture farmers, on the other hand, do not have the ability to influence their price and profits by adjusting industry output in the short-run or industry capacity in the long-run. Each farmer can only affect what happens on his or her own farm. No one major-crop farmer produces enough to calibrate industry out put to demand and thus influence price. Prior to the 1996 Farm Bill, government provisions were in place that allowed the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict and moderate industry output and marketings. Neil Harl, the well-known and highly-respected agricultural economist/lawyer at Iowa State University, likens this Secretarial function under previous legislation to being the CEO of agriculture, who could do for agriculture what agriculture could not do for itself. The new legislation stripped the Secretary of Agriculture of programs to influence crop out put and marketings. This lack of mechanisms to moderate agricultural output is only one of the elements that explains why agriculture did not perform as it was assumed it would under Freedom to Farm. There are many more: What happened to the export demand explosion scenario? Why don't lower prices cause demand to expand greatly and production to contract sufficiently so that the low price problem self-corrects? Originally published in MidAmerica Farm Grower   The reason I shared Dr. Ray's writing with you is because I think it is time we recognize the truth about our agriculture; what it is, what it isn't, and why we foolishly keep following the same "doesn't work" farm policy. At Rural Life Day, Dr. Ray pointed out some basic facts (verified by USDA facts) that we as a society and we as farmers continually ignore:  • The consumer is King, and we as farmers should do everything we can to satisfy our consumers;  • Once lost, trust is hard to regain the marketplace;  • Farmers make decisions on acreage of crops that will make the most money;  • Farmers cannot affect price;  • Accelerating exports are followed by a crash in prices;  • Reducing market prices means farmers should reduce production–but this is not true in today's market. Ag policy is now mostly written for large grain producers; it furnishes little for livestock producers, and nothing for the multifunctional nature of agriculture, which includes small farms, sustainability, agri-tourism, and the consumer, to name a few. We need to change our thinking and our policies. As we recently learned in Florida, each vote really does count. It is up to you to communicate your needs and the needs of your fellow farmers to your legislators. Offer your solutions (don't just gripe about the problems). Call or write them today. Happy and Profitable Farming, Ron Macher Publisher/Farmer Prayers for the Berg Family On Saturday, December 23, 2000, while viewing Christmas light displays around Columbia, Missouri, the Berg family was involved in a very serious car accident. Paul Berg, this magazine's managing editor, his wife Rebecca and his mother Joann were taken to a hospital in critical condition, where Joann died six days later. Two other family members had minor injuries. Paul is still in critical condition with a head injury as of this writing, December 29, 2000. Rebecca has returned home. Rebecca is responsible for our excellent web site and she assists Paul with layout for each issue. Paul, as you readers know, is the glue that holds the magazine together. As managing editor, Paul basically creates each issue from scratch. He contacts writers, edits stories, selects photographs and designs every page of each issue. He is the guy who knows where everything is stored. Not only does he use the computers, but he can tear them apart and fix them. The rest of the magazine staff is pulling together to put out a quality magazine in Paul's absence. We are optimistic about Paul's prognosis because Paul is the kind of person who gets things done, whether putting together a magazine or what will be a long and difficult rehabilitation process. Cards and letters can be sent to the magazine and we will deliver your sentiments to Paul's family.