The Last Farm Bill?

2014 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-319
Author(s):  
Barry J. Barnett

“Farm bill” is a colloquial term for omnibus legislation that authorizes various government programs related to agriculture, food, and rural areas. Some of these programs have their roots in New Deal legislation. Others were initially authorized after the New Deal and subsequently included in farm bills. Some debate exists about exactly which omnibus legislation was the precursor of modern-day farm bills. However, since at least 1973, farm bills have included titles related to farm programs, trade, rural development, farm credit, conservation, agricultural research, food and nutrition programs, and marketing. Beginning in 2008, crop insurance-authorizing language was also included in the farm bill.Farm bills generally have a life of approximately five years. In the case of farm support programs (typically authorized in Title 1), the farm billtemporarily amends permanent legislation. When the farm bill expires, theseprograms revert to permanent legislation (from the 1930s and 1940s) unless a new farm bill is adopted that again temporarily amends permanent legislation. The permanent legislation would put in place price supports, at extremely high levels, for many agricultural commodities, distorting markets and greatly increasing federal costs. The specter of reverting to permanent legislation has, through the years, been used by Congress to ensure that future Congresses will replace expiring farm bills with new legislation.

1996 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-132
Author(s):  
James W. Dunn

The 1996 Farm Bill marks a new direction for the government in agriculture. By decoupling payments from price levels for crops, it undermines long-run political support for programs. Dairy price supports will end in 2000, and nutrition programs will be on a separate reauthorization schedule from farm programs. Together, these actions should weaken the farm bill coalition, making the remaining programs much more difficult to reauthorize than in earlier years. The 1996 Farm Bill may be the last farm bill of its kind and the beginning of the end to active government involvement in agricultural markets.


1997 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Duffy

A year ago, apprehensive about writing this address, I spoke with former president Joe Broder. He advised me to pick something I cared about deeply. That advice, although well meant, left me rather stymied. I care about teaching, but Joe Broder's own presidential address had handled that topic better than I thought I could. So I floundered for a while, without gaining a focus. Then came August and the signing into law of the new welfare bill. A few months earlier, farm programs had also been vastly modified. My topic finally came together. The combination of the 1996 Farm Bill and the new welfare legislation clearly signaled major changes for the rural South, and I wondered what these changes would entail.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary Hoynes ◽  
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach

1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh J. Maynard ◽  
Jayson K. Harper ◽  
Lynn D. Hoffman

Stochastic dominance analysis of five crop rotations using twenty-one years of experimental yield data returned results consistent with Pennsylvania cropping practices. The analysis incorporated yield risk, output price risk, and rotational yield effects. A rotation of two years corn and three years alfalfa hay dominated for approximately risk neutral and risk averse preferences, as did participation in government programs under the 1990 Farm Bill. Crop rotation selection appeared to impact net revenues more than the decision to participate in government programs.


2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung Sun Lee ◽  
Joan G. Fischer ◽  
Mary Ann Johnson

Author(s):  
Barry Croke ◽  
Wendy Merritt ◽  
Peter Cornish ◽  
Geoffrey J. Syme ◽  
Christian H. Roth

Abstract. This paper presents an overview of work in West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and SW Bangladesh through a series of projects from 2005 to the present, considering the impact of farming systems, water shed development and/or agricultural intensification on livelihoods in selected rural areas of India and Bangladesh. The projects spanned a range of scales spanning from the village scale (∼  1 km2) to the meso-scale (∼  100 km2), and considered social as well as biophysical aspects. They focused mainly on the food and water part of the food-water-energy nexus. These projects were in collaboration with a range of organisations in India and Bangladesh, including NGOs, universities, and government research organisations and departments. The projects were part funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, and built on other projects that have been undertaken within the region. An element of each of these projects was to understand how the hydrological cycle could be managed sustainably to improve agricultural systems and livelihoods of marginal groups. As such, they evaluated appropriate technology that is generally not dependent on high-energy inputs (mechanisation). This includes assessing the availability of water, and identifying potential water resources that have not been developed; understanding current agricultural systems and investigating ways of improving water use efficiency; and understanding social dynamics of the affected communities including the potential opportunities and negative impacts of watershed development and agricultural development.


EDIS ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 2007 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney L. Clouser ◽  
Nathan B. Smith ◽  
Michele C. Marra ◽  
James L. Novak

FE686, an 8-page fact sheet by Rodney L. Clouser, Nathan B. Smith, Michele C. Marra, and James L. Novak, describes the demographics and education of participants in the survey, as well as their relative ranking of farm bill goals, their sales and income, past participation in government programs, and land ownership and use. Includes tables and references. Published by the UF Department of Food and Resource Economics, March 2007.


2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (60) ◽  
pp. 8388-8400
Author(s):  
OO Ikelegbe ◽  
◽  
DA Edokpa

Although agriculture is t he major economic activity in Nigerian rural areas , its inhabitants are among the most vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity. Therefore, any effort aimed at minimizing food and nutrition insecurity must start from rural areas. This study examines agricultural production, food and nutrition security in rural areas of the Benin region in Nigeria , highlighting the major constraints . A measure of household food and nutrition security used in this study is based on dietary intake, real wage rates, employment , and incidence of illness and adequacy norms. This study is based on a food frequency questionnaire survey administered using systematic random sampling technique , participatory assessment technique, interviews with stakeholders and published materials . So me indices employed in measuring food and nutrition security i n this paper are physical access , which is measured in relation to availability of agricultural infrastructure such as roads , while economic access is measured in terms of income, expenditure and estimated profit margins. Two pre - tested questionnaires were administered in 20 rural communities in the Benin region to elicit information from respondents were analysed using simple descriptive techniques like charts, tables and percentages. Subsistence agriculture is the main stay of the studied rural economies and is dependent mainly on rain - fed, low - technology - driven cultivation with no access to modern farm inputs. Farming alone is the main source of income for 57% of the respondents , while fishing and trading account for the other 43%. T he study reveal s that although 60% of respondents are engaged in agriculture, their access to food and nutrition is in secure due in part to unstable incomes , seasonality of harvest and inadequate health and sanitary conditions . Also, lack of storage facilities in these rural communities has increased post - harvest losses and has reduced farmers ’ /household incomes , thereby worsening their food insecurity situation . The study also found that rural - urban migration result s in shortage of manpower for agricultural activities . L ack of access to fertilizer and poor infrastructure are major factors for the decline in agricultural production in the last five years in the sampled communities. The study recommends t he need for a considerable and sustained government investment in agriculture and the provision of basic facilities to support education, health care, sanitation and safe drinking water supply . This will help to ensure food and nutrition security and help to curtail rural – urban migration .


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (24) ◽  
pp. 13853
Author(s):  
Reima Mansour ◽  
Pranee Liamputtong ◽  
Amit Arora

Food security among migrants and refugees is a concern across the globe, with the dearth of evidence on food labels and their influence on food security affecting disadvantaged communities especially. This paper discusses the experiences of food security among Libyan migrant families in Australia. The study is situated within the food and nutrition security framework. A qualitative approach was adopted with in-depth interviews conducted with 27 Libyan migrants. Thematic analysis identified three themes: food security, food label comprehension, and strategies for dealing with food insecurity and food labelling difficulties. Food security had different meanings to different individuals. Access to culturally appropriate (halal) foods was problematic for families in regional and rural areas due to a lack of availability outside the main cities. In terms of food labelling, the language and terms used were a common issue for most families in both rural and city environments. Many families attempted to find ways to counteract food insecurity; however, lower-income families found this more burdensome. It is crucial that health and social welfare providers consider means to reduce food insecurity among Libyan migrants to allow them to live a healthier life in Australia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document