For some time I have wondered why South Dakota's Republican leadership has consistently favored big ag over small ag, going to great (possibly criminal) lengths to recruit investors for megadairies and meat processing plants and subsidizing big cheese factories while imposing greater regulatory burdens on small dairy producers and shutting down raw milk producers on bogus inspections. Why would Republican leaders not pay at least as much attention to small farms?
Then I read gubernatorial chief of staff Tony Venhuizen's contribution to Seth Tupper's thoughtful Sunday report on the demise of the South Dakota Democratic Party, and policy and politics click:
One of the themes he noticed during his research was the tendency of Democrats to make gains in gubernatorial politics during periods of “agrarian discontent.”
That’s no longer the case, Venhuizen said, because farm numbers have declined so far that even a massive shift of farmers to the Democratic Party could no longer swing an election.
The numbers support the theory. There were more than 80,000 farms in South Dakota during the 1930s, but a steady drop has reduced that number to about 32,000 today. That’s a 60 percent decline, even as the state’s population has grown by 20 percent during the same period [Seth Tupper, "The Seeds of Democratic Decline: Theories Attempt to Explain Party's Nov. 4 Drubbing," Rapid City Journal, 2014.12.21].
Despite the state's antipathy and a collapse in dairy numbers, South Dakota added nearly 1,500 small farms from 2007 to 2012. But that's not nearly enough to restore the leverage McGovern Democrats used to have to play to agrarian discontent. Republican leaders can focus their ag policy on big players, scratching their backs with EB-5 money, tax breaks, and other corporate welfare. Those big players scratch right back at election time with votes and campaign contributions.
I know, I know, I shouldn't peddle conspiracy theories. A political party would never let its selfish political interests sway its policies. South Dakota Republicans would never drive small independent farmers out of business just because small independent farmers helped McGovern rebuild the South Dakota Democratic Party. South Dakota Republicans would never ignore the input of teachers and make bad education policy that drives teachers away from the state just because teachers tend to vote Democratic. South Dakota Republicans would never squeeze out unions with "right-to-work" laws just because labor is an important Democratic power base. South Dakota Republicans would never make it harder for Indians to vote just because Indians pick D over R 90% of the time.
But Venhuizen's observation makes on thing clear: top Republicans are perfectly aware that fewer farmers, as well as a higher proportion of the remaining ag player beholden to Republican state largesse, aligns perfectly with South Dakota Republican political fortunes.
My, what a tidy gift under the tree. Ag producers are so afraid of coming off the teat that they only can see the big R in the voting bloc. Looks like Democrats will have to concede the ag vote as it is way to corrupt for them to touch as they have been bought off. The good news though, is that the ag community is getting smaller. So they will seal their own demise by their continued support of a corrupted party. Lets see how the next couple of years go with the gangsters in charge of the country. Lets see how the gangster induced "dynamic scoring" will affect the bottom line of the ag producers that think they have sealed the Faustian Bargain in good faith.
We could easily bring back the number of farms in South Dakota by limiting the number of acres a person could own, require all farm implements to have 1930's specs, put restrictions on grain handling and storage capacity, limit electricity access, ban the use of hybrid and drought resistant seeds, ban overseas grain exports, ban soil conservation practices, ban the use of fertilizer and pesticides and ban birth control to increase the work force. Polio was big back in the 30's, should we bring that back too?
The Deuel County Planning and Zoning Board, after midnight, voted against the 4900 unit dairy in the Hidewood (via Dakota Rural Action).
Common sense prevails in Deuel County! Thanks for the news Paul.
quite an indictment, cory! "I know, I know...."
erx, any toughts?
Excellent article Cory! I think that small farmers are getting organized and making some great impacts on legislation in our state. The raw milk issue will be dealt with again this year to tidy up some negotiations. Mr ElRayoX - I'm sorry but your comment forgot to mention how much healthier our food and livestock were in the 1930's...in other words, how much healthier we as consumers were too. (No growth hormones in our meat and milk, no genetic modifications entering our bodies) Someone please, sell me a small farm for a few small dollars. I would be so happy!
Paul: the Deuel board was up past midnight? Wow—that must have been a heck of a conversation! Who was bankrolling the Hidewood project? Can they appeal?
El Rayo X, I have no desire to return to the 1930s. I would like to go back to pre-1930 rural population densities, as would traditionalist Jeffersonian agrarians. Look at it this way: how much bang could the state get for its buck if it diverted half of the resources it currently funnels toward big factory agriculture to promoting small-scale agriculture like raw milk and Cycle Farms in Spearfish and the market gardeners who supply the farmer's market in Sioux Falls? We don't have to turn all our technology back 80 years to make room at the table again for local farmers growing real food for their neighbors to buy and eat.
Think of non GMO grain products that could be sold at premium prices for those that do not want to ingest poison. Corn that has actual nutrinal value rather than ethanol. Truck garden fresh vegetables and fruits grown in controlled environments with the necessary heat provided by ground sources. Organically grown beef, pork, chicken, lamb as well as duck, goose and buffalo. Take a look at the prices for these items in the stores and you will see there is a demand for them. Farmers and ranchers could make a whole lot more moolah for way less exposure by doing cell grazing with livestock to promote organic products and stop with the nitrogen and pesticides for the row crops. Smaller would be better.
Cory, I don't know all the particulars on the Deuel dairy farm but DRA's organizers in Brookings have been working with the opposition on this. Lots of opposition in Minnesota on this project.
In other words Jerry what you really want is more expensive food.
The Blindman
No, what I really want is good safe food. I do not feel that we are getting that when the products are jacked up with antibiotics and genetic input that makes it impure. That makes no sense to me. If the products were to be grown regionally as opposed to coming in from Mexico, that would make a great deal of sense to me. The marketing of produce is smoke and mirrors if someone can tell me that you can grow produce in Mexico and then ship it to stores cheaper than you can by growing it here and not tell me that it is slave labor that is producing it.
We would be able to grow an incredible amount of food with way less of a footprint of water waste as well. Regarding animal products. If you utilize rotation cell grazing, you can make a smaller ranch produce an incredible amount of quality beef. What you have to do is let the land work for you by paying attention to it. Why are we raising food to feed to livestock? We pollute the lands with fertilizer and nitrogen to grow corn that feeds livestock, that does not make sense to me in the amounts this livestock is being pumped full of. You can take a grass fed critter, age it properly and you have one helluva meal. You know that Blindman as you are a cattleman. The government right now does all it can to keep prices low for the food we consume. It really does not matter if it is good for us or not. A happy belly is not a revolutionary. We could do it differently with a whole lot less waste and damage to the environment.
Cory, you mention of adding nearly 1500 farms from 2007 -2012. A lot of them new farms were the division of a bigger farm that added their wife as an operator so the could get around the payment limitations. It is true that there are very viable farms run by female operators, but many of these new so called operators were added to max out payments and not really involved in crop or livestock production.
Interesting point, Greg! I had been hoping that those increased farm numbers included a surge in small garden farms. Does USDA or SDSU Extension or someone have data on how many of those new operations are the subsidy splitters you refer to and how many are entirely new operations?
Cory, I am not sure where you would get that data. When these farms are split some are legitimate and some are very questionable. I have been on a county FSA committee for many years and by law they are approved.
Sure—I don't imagine there's anything illegal about structuring a business to minimize expense and maximize benefits. But the demographic question is important, both for the overall health of local economies and culture and, in the context of this post, the ability of the Democratic Party to capitalize on agrarian discontent. I'd like to read an increase in farm numbers as a sign that there might be a regrowth of some Democratic base. But your statement indicates that the 1,500 increase in farms is mostly a fiction, not representing any new voters or farmers who weren't there before... and not representing any viable rebuttal to the charge that South Dakota ag development policy has encouraged the decline of real farm numbers.
These could be the answer to feeding folks in all areas of the country. If you take a 10 acre area of land, as an example, you could put up enough of these greenhouses, along with melons in the summer and chickens that would be free range, to be successful. You would not only provide fresh food for sale, you would provide employment and water control. This really is not rocket science...or is it? http://rapidcityjournal.com/lifestyles/home-and-garden/colleges-team-up-to-build-greenhouse-on-pine-ridge-reservation/article_be9ba9db-475b-5f9c-a325-0355340e4ec2.html
Congratulations to the Mines graduate that is going to NASA. How cool is that?
well, NASA science supports the concept of global warming, ... so not very cool, and contrary to don kopp's and many nat'l republican officeholders' understanding of that science. is he still in office?
:)