Head-Scratching over Rural Nebraska

May, 2021

Lincoln — Rural Nebraska interests gained special attention this month in the Nebraska legislature, but in head-scratching ways.  

Rural regions have been losing population disproportionately.  In response, the Nebraska Farm Bureau made a presentation to the legislature's redistricting committee, asking that it make rural representation in legislative bodies a priority over other considerations, so as to stem the decline of rural voices.  

But it's the height of irony for the Farm Bureau to make that argument without acknowledging that the depopulation has been in large part due to the "get-big-or-get-out" farm policy long embraced by the Farm Bureau itself.  This was the doctrine first enunciated so pithily by the Nixon Administration's Earl Butz and repeated more recently by the Trump Administration's Sonny Perdue.   A lot of farmers got out, and now the Farm Bureau is pleading for the legislature to make up for it.  This is akin to the old saw about the child who murdered his parents but pleaded with the judge for mercy because he was an orphan.  

But reaction to another legislative development prompts downright forehead slapping.  A Lincoln Journal Star editorial commended the legislature for advancing, 43-0, a measure to develop local farm-to-school markets.  It offered, however, this analysis:

"[W]e question why local schools haven't always purchased from in-state farmers and why such an apparent no-brainer requires state legislation.  We are in the midst of America's breadbasket, aren't we? Farming and ranching represent a large chunk of Nebraska's economy and keep the state economy churning....

"[W]e'd still be remiss for questioning the need for appropriating about $100,000 annually, to hire a statewide coordinator for the program.  It seems that Nebraska's farmers would need no prodding in applying to be included in this networking opportunity....  In a $9 billion budget, $100,000 is a drop in the bucket. ... This is a worthy project, but it’s a shame it will take additional spending to make it happen."

Either this is written with tongue well into cheek or there is a serious need for the author to brush up on agriculture in Nebraska.  Part of the Butz vision (see above) was for Midwest farmers to produce crops for export markets, to plant corn and soybeans "fencerow-to-fencerow."  Nebraska consumers, including schools, would import food from other states rather than depend on local food from diversified farms, many of which disappeared.

As to spending $100 thousand to try to re-establish farm-to-school markets, it must be noted that the state has already spent hundreds of millions on research and extension to promote the Butz view of the world.  And in fairness to Earl Butz, a Purdue University economist before he became U.S. secretary of agriculture, his path was already partially cleared by another Purdue Ph.D., his predecessor as Nixon's first ag secretary, Clifford Hardin.  The East Campus at the University of Nebraska has erected larger than life statues to three Nebraska-linked U.S. secretaries of agriculture who espoused the export-import, get-big-or-get-out model for Nebraska agriculture. 

As a farm youth once myself, participating in 4-H and FFA, I remember the shift from small, diversified farms to single-crop production, enabled by chemical fertilizers and pesticides.  Many farmers welcomed it.  No more crop rotation requiring out-of-production fields for summer fallow, or raising legumes to plow under as fertilizer.  No more chores around the farmstead, taking care of chickens, hogs, and cattle.  Freedom in the wintertime to go to Arizona.  And bowl games.  Fewer neighbors, though.  

I have it on good authority that some on the East Campus, reconsidering, may have assisted in encouraging the farm-to-school bill.  Good for them.