Are the Govt. policies in agriculture really farmer-friendly???

Question

The issues like subsidy in seed cost, crop insurance, renovation of existing water bodies for irrigation purpose had been into news for a long time. Do these things have been implemented in the recent times?

What Should the Govt. do to make cultivation a lucrative option to the rural people? As we know India is an agriculture based country, why farmers are financially poor in most of the states in India and shifting to industries as labourers ???

Answer 1

If there is any thought that the cities will run short of food, policies will be put in place to avoid that event, whether by growing more or by importing more.

When government moves to increase food production it is to avoid having to pay more for food in the near future.

So, if India is taking steps to assist agriculture, it is not intentionally being farmer friendly so much as protecting its supply lines. The whole objective is, and always has to be, to feed the people.

In the event that people are going hungry, those same governments will take money away from agriculture to import food. What else could a government elected by the people do?

Answer 2

Some government policies are good for the farmer, some aren't. It is hard lump them all together and get a definitive answer to your question. You have to keep in mind that the policies are made by politicians and they are generally going to do what makes themselves prosper and the fate of the farmer is secondary in the long run. A lot of the times the farmer would be better off if the government kept out of their business. But over the years a lot of policies have helped the farmer.

Edit for Rex K below: In case you didn't know it "the stupid Republican House Members" don't control the House any longer. So I guess it had to be the Smart Democratic House members that voted that in. Also it is good to see the farmers making good profit for a change.

Answer 3

At the present time..yes..Payments given..not because crop prices are low..but because the farmer once produced corn, wht etc.   The government is also subsidizing the production of ethanol..by payment of .51 cents pr  bu to the manufacturers..The demand of grain for ethanol has driven crop prices to all times highs..The result being consumers are paying more for most food products.

& still the stupid Repub House Members voted to leave the Farm Program as is..No reduction in crop payments..

Answer 4

thanks to ohiorganic for the bashing those of us who farm several thousand acres say that not all programs are friendly to the farmer and it does not matter if you farm 100 acres or ten thousand acres the goverment payments are  the same per acre also in some aspects of the goverment subsidy they put capps on how much you can draw from a program so that leaves some of the large farms drawing actually less than the small farms while even as i am being bashed by the organic farmers they cant produce enough to feed the people in the world there for the goverment will provide subsities to those of us who can and will feed the world but to answer your question no the programs are not friendly to the farmer and it would be better if the goverment would get out of ag and i think the profit would rise they only subsidise to keep food cheap

Answer 5

USDA policies are very friendly to mono cropped, commodity growing, GMO using big farms. As long as you grow corn, wheat, soy, cotton, cattle, swine or poultry you are just fine as long as you farm several thousand acres or raise at least 500 head (50K for chickens) and it is in a confined feeding operation. You will get subsidies, you will qualify for crop insurance.

But if you are organic, diversified, small, grow produce, raise specialty meats or anything that is not "normal" and "real" farming you get nothing from the USDA.

As a matter of fact the small and medium sized farms that raise livestock are facing NAIS which will mean registering their premises with the gov't and putting rfid chips in all their animals. The big operations will not have to do this.

During the Clinton Admin it was decided that the USDA needs to get the population of farmers down to around 100K and those people will manage all the farmland in the USDA via big machinery, gps and likely robotics. So you can see with that policy the USDA is actually hostile to small and medium sized farmers

Answer 6

Probably not, but if it's related to politics rules, regulations or laws might apply.

Answer 7

what is not known publicly, is that  these programs are really a National Security concern...i cant fault any of the answers posted....but the programs is to keep producing farmland in service...mostly grains...i have seen the 1950 national security food document and what a food crisis was projected to do..the document is an ongoing document...may be as good as oil in diplomacy if crop failures occur. in other nations..the government needs the export of grains to offset the value of the dollar...in short, have initiatives to keep them on the farm for national security