With the Food, Agricultural, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 expiring next year, debate over the 1995 farm bill is underway. To provide Indiana farmers with an opportunity to express their preferences for possible legislative provisions in the next farm bill, the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University conducted a mail survey in March 1994. The survey sample was randomly selected from the list of Indiana farmers maintained by the Indiana Agricultural Statistics Ser-vice. There were 466 completed questionnaires returned (31% of those mailed to a total sample of 1,500 farmers).

Representative Sample

 

Farmer characteristics were com-pared between farmers in the sample versus all farmers reported in the most recent Census of Agriculture data (1992). On this basis, the sample was judged to be representative of all Indiana farmers, even though not all characteristics were strictly identical. For example, 16%in the sample farmed fewer than 50 acres versus 31% of all farmers in the 1992 Census data. Farms with more than 500 acres accounted for 26% in the sample versus 15% in the Census. Percentages of farms in other farm size categories (by acre-age) in the survey are similar to the percentages in the Census. Comparison of farm size by gross sales suggests a similar pattern with smaller farms (annual gross sales under

$40,000) slightly under-represented (53% in the survey versus 67% in the Census) and larger farms (annual gross sales over $250,000) slightly over-represented (12% in the survey versus 7% in the 1992 Census).

Another measure of the validity of the sample is to compare program participation of farmers in the sample versus all Indiana farmers. On this basis, also, the sample is judged to be representative of Indiana farmers. According to Indiana farmers’ responses in the 1994 mail survey, 44% participated in the feedgrain program and 22% in the wheat program in 1993. Official records from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

(ASCS) indicate that, in 1993, 44%of the farmers in Indiana participated in the feedgrain program and 24% in the wheat program. It should be noted that this represented 76%of the corn base acres and 54% of the wheat base acres in Indiana in 1993.

The survey asked farmers to express their preferences on possible alternative provisions in the 1995 farm bill and related food policies. Key issues addressed in the survey include the size of budget outlays, environmental quality, nutrition and food safety, access to international markets, expenditures on domestic and foreign food assistance, technology, and rural development. A few state-specific questions also were asked.

Indiana farmers’ responses to the survey were analyzed statistically, both for all farmers as a group and by selected personal characteristics. The personal characteristics used were age, farm size (based on annual gross sales), years of schooling, primary source of farm income, farm type (grain, livestock, mixed, dairy, etc.), percent of land owned, off-farm income, and government program participation. This article summarizes the survey results.

Production Controls and Price Supports

Since the 1930s a central feature of U.S. farm programs has been provisions to limit crop production and support commodity prices. Indiana farmers’ views on production controls and price supports remain mixed. Nearly one-half (47%) favor a gradual elimination of all government price support and production control programs. Furthermore, 12% favor separating government payments from production requirements (sometimes called decoupling). About one-third of the respondents prefer a continuation of the provisions in the 1990 farm bill. Only 3% want mandatory production controls. Farm program preferences are fairly consistent across farm size, as measured by annual gross sales, for both gradual elimination of farm programs and continuation of the present program. However, those farmers who prefer mandatory supply control tend to be smaller, while those who favor decoupling tend to be larger. Also, participants in the wheat and feedgrain pro-grams in 1993 are more likely to favor a continuation of the current program, while nonparticipants generally favor a gradual phase-out of all commodity programs.

A similar survey of Indiana farmers was conducted in 1989 prior to the passage of the 1990 farm bill (Martin, Jones, and Shields). In both the 1989 and 1994 surveys, about one-third of the farmers were con-tent with the current farm program, but in this survey more farmers favor elimination of government pro-grams (47% versus 42%) and fewer want mandatory controls (3% versus 8%). Support for decoupling increased very slightly (12% versus 9%).

Target Prices

Target prices were frozen for the 5-year life of the 1990 farm bill. Among Indiana farmers, attitudes concerning target prices remain mixed. About 39% want to phase them out in the next farm bill, while 37% want them increased annually at the rate of inflation. Fourteen per-cent favor retaining the current level of target prices, while 5% suggest they be gradually reduced each year. Six percent had no opinion. About one-half the livestock producers favor a gradual phase out of target prices, while one-half the grain farmers favor an increase in target prices. Wheat and feedgrain pro-gram participants favor maintaining or raising target prices, while non-participants lean towards the gradual phase-out of target prices.

Loan Rates

Commodity loan rates and government storage programs, with some modifications, have existed since the 1930s. Forty-three percent of Indi-ana farmers favor continuation of the current loan rate policy, which is based on a moving average of market prices. However, about an equal number (40%) would prefer the complete elimination of loan rates and associated commodity loans. A small minority (10%) prefer higher loan rates. About 7% have no opinion. Program participants and nonparticipants about equally favor the cur-rent market average price method for determining the loan rate level. While some participants seek a higher loan rate, about one-half the nonparticipants favor the elimination of loan rates and commodity loans.

 Budget Cuts

In recent years Federal budget pressures have resulted in reductions of farm commodity program payments from mid-1980 levels. If further bud-get reductions are necessary in the 1995 farm bill, Indiana farmers were asked to indicate where such cuts should be made. Indiana farmers’ views are rather mixed.

A plurality (38%) favor elimination of payments to larger producers, but with a continuation of income transfers to small and medium size farmers. Farmers were about equally divided between reducing target prices and deficiency payments and increasing the number of flexible acres for which no payments would be made. One-fifth of the respondents favored each of these two options. Only 16% favor farm program payments based on financial need. Such an approach would be conceptually similar to the cur-rent food stamp program where the level of assistance is based on financial need relative to the poverty line. Only 6% had no opinion.

Larger farmers, as measured by annual gross sales, prefer a reduction in payment acres and an increase in flexible acres, while smaller farmers prefer targeting the income transfer to small and medium size farms. Program participants are more likely to prefer a reduction in payment acres, while nonparticipants lean towards payments based on financial need.

Base and Flexible Acres

The majority (57%) of the respondents would accept an increase in nonpayment flexible acres in exchange for retaining their historic base acres. Such an approach would allow farmers more planting options while maintaining a basis for receiving deficiency payments in the future. Only 13% opposed this idea. However, about one-fourth were undecided. Larger farmers, as measured by annual gross sales, were much more concerned about retain-ing historic base acres than smaller farmers. This proposal also received more support from crop than live-stock producers. Program participants are much more likely than nonparticipants to want more flexible acres and retention of historic base acres.

Farmer-Owned Reserve

The Farmer-Owned Reserve (FOR) was relatively popular in the mid-1980s when grain prices, farm income, and exports were low (one-half favored its continuation in a 1984 survey). By the 1989 survey, only 37% favored its continuation. In the 1994 survey, 37% favor its continuation, 22% are opposed, and 37%are undecided. The current low level of private and public stocks of grain may have influenced farmers’ preferences in the 1994 survey. Larger farmers were less likely to favor continuation of the FOR.

Revenue Assurance

A Farm Bill Study Team in Iowa has proposed that the 1995 farm bill include an income safety net through a revenue assurance pro-gram in which each producer is assured 70% of normal crop revenue. The proposed program would eliminate target prices, acreage reduction programs, Federal crop insurance and disaster assistance, allow producers to plant whatever crops in any amount they desire, and maintain nonrecourse commodity loans and grain reserves.

This new proposal received very mixed reviews in the 1994 Indiana survey. One-third of the respondents favor the proposal, one-third oppose it, and one-third are undecided. Farmers’ views are not significantly associated with any of their personal characteristics.

Dairy Programs

It has been proposed that dairy pro-grams be financed by milk producer assessments and administered through a producer marketing board with the power to control production. For all respondents, the responses were mixed with 36% in favor, 28% opposed, and 32% not sure.

Only 5% of the respondents listed dairy as their primary source of farm income. Among dairy farmers there is strong opposition to this proposal. Seventy-four percent oppose it, 22% favor it, and 4% are undecided.

Conservation Reserve Program

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was introduced in the 1985 farm bill and continued in the 1990 farm bill. About 38 million acres of highly erodible land are currently in this program under 10 year con-tracts. Total annual government out-lays for the program are $1.8 billion. These contracts will begin to expire in 1995, with most of them expiring in 1996 and 1997. Two major concerns are being expressed with respect to the CRP—taxpayer costs and effectiveness in reaching environmental goals.

Indiana farmers were asked what policy should be adopted when these CRP contracts expire. One-third favor an extension of the contracts on the most erodible land with new bids. One-fourth prefer to continue the current contracts at the same per acre payment rate. One-fifth think the CRP should be discontinued. About one-fifth (18%) suggest that the CRP be replaced with a conservation and water quality program with incentive payments. Smaller farmers, those with annual gross sales less than $100,000, pre-fer new bids on the more erodible acres, while larger farmers generally favor a continuation of the current CRP controls. Farmers who currently have some land enrolled in the CRP were twice as likely as non-participants to favor a continuation of the current program. Nonparticipants were about equally divided among the four alternative policies for highly erodible land.

Conservation Compliance

The 1985 farm bill required farmers with highly erodible land to file an approved conservation compliance plan with ASCS by 1990 and have the plan fully implemented by 1995. The 1990 farm bill continued this program. This program requires farmers to follow appropriate tillage and crop rotations that reduce soil erosion to acceptable levels on their farms. Farmers who are not in compliance are not eligible for government program benefits.

In the survey, Indiana farmers were asked if the conservation compliance program should be continued in the 1995 farm bill. The majority(55%) agree and about one-fourth disagree. Sixteen percent are not sure.

Water Quality

There is growing public concern about the impact of farming methods on water quality, especially pesticide and fertilizer use and run-off from livestock operations. Some environmental groups and others have proposed that the government should further regulate farming practices and land use to reduce pollution of underground and stream water.

Indiana farmers’ views seemed to be polarized on further regulation of farming practices with 43% opposed and 40% in favor. Fifteen percent are unsure. Older farmers are more willing than younger farmers to regulate farming practices to improve water quality; similarly, smaller farmers are more willing than larger farmers.

One way to protect water quality in some fields is to plant grass strips along stream banks and in waterways. One-half the respondents support this idea while 36% do not. About 15% are undecided. Farmers’ views on water quality policy are closely associated with farm size, as measured by annual gross sales; with smaller farmers much more likely than larger farmers to support government regulations to improve water quality such as grass waterways and protective strips along streams.

Farmers also were asked if the government should compensate them for planting grass protective strips along stream banks and in waterways. The majority, about two-thirds, agree that they should be compensated. However, one-fourth disagree, and 13% are undecided.

Takings

There is a growing debate over private property rights. Historically, land owners have been required to sell land under eminent domain for construction of roads or other public facilities. Now environmental and other regulations may limit how farm land may be used, e.g., wet-lands, land clearing, drainage, etc. In these cases, farmers usually are not compensated by the government and often incur additional costs and/or revenue losses which result in lower land value.

The vast majority (78%) think that when government regulations reduce the value of farm property, the owner should be compensated for this loss. Only 11% disagree, and 11% are undecided.

Wetlands

Both the 1985 and 1990 farm bills contain provisions to retain and pre-serve wetlands. There has been a heated debate over the definition of a wetland. When asked if farmers should be permitted to drain wet-lands and plant crops, one-half of the respondents think they should have the right to drain and crop wet-lands. One-third favor government regulations to preserve wetlands, and about one-fifth are undecided. Larger farmers and livestock farmers both are somewhat more likely to defend farmers’ rights to drain wetlands.

Pesticides

 

Over the last several years has been considerable public debate about pesticide use and potential negative impacts the environment, farm worker safety, and food safety. Concurrently, new, safer pesticides have been developed and many farmers have adopted integrated pest management techniques.

In the 1994 survey, Indiana farmers were asked how their per acre pesticide use rate (active ingredient) today compares to five years ago. Only 3% said they were using more pesticides per acre. Forty-four per-cent were using about the same amount per acre, and 42% were using less. About 12% did not respond. It is also worth noting that a few of the smaller farmers and cow-calf farms with hay and pasture land indicated that they do not use any pesticides. Larger farmers, as measured by annual gross sales, were much more likely to have reduced pesticide use than smaller farmers.

The 1990 farm bill requires farmers to keep records on restricted-use pesticides. In the 1994 survey, farmers were asked if they should be required to keep records on their use of all pesticides. A majority (53%) said yes. Thirty percent said no, and almost one-fifth are undecided. College-educated farmers are more willing to keep pesticide records.

Disaster Assistance

The drought of 1988 and the Mid-western floods of 1993 have increased public attention on the pro-duction and income risks that U.S. farmers face. The critical question is: Should the Federal government protect farmers from such disasters, and if so, how should it be done?

Indiana farmers were adversely impacted by the drought of 1988, but benefitted in 1993 from higher prices due to crop losses in the western Corn Belt. When asked in March 1994 if the Federal government should protect farmers from major crop losses, nearly one-half (48%) of the respondents said no. They suggested that farmers should be able to purchase private crop insurance if they wish, but not be dependent on government subsidized crop insurance or special disaster assistance.

Not all farmers agree, however. About one-fourth (27%) prefer a permanent government disaster pro-gram for losses that exceed 50%. Farmers could purchase additional private crop insurance if they wish. A minority (12%) prefer that the U.S. Congress decide each year on a case-by-case basis whether to authorize any disaster assistance. Another minority (9%) favors a mandatory crop insurance program for all farmers as a condition for eligibility for additional disaster payments.

A subsequent question asked if a voluntary subsidized crop insurance program were available but no disaster assistance, what type of Federal crop insurance farmers would prefer. Nearly two-thirds (61%) favor a voluntary crop insurance program with the insurance coverage based on actual individual farm yields. Slightly over one-fourth (29%) would prefer premiums and coverage based on county average yields. Very few farmers (5%) favor a mandatory program which would require all farmers to purchase Federal crop insurance. While all age groups pre-fer individual farm yields to county average yields, younger farmers expressed stronger support for individual farm yields. Older farmers are somewhat more likely to prefer county yields as a basis for Federal crop insurance. Larger farmers tend to prefer farm to county yields as a basis for Federal crop insurance.

International Trade

Consideration of international trade arrangements, especially the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), influenced the previous two omnibus farm bills. Since the 1990 farm bill, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been ratified by the U.S. Congress and implemented. The GATT Agreement will be before the U.S. Congress later this year and will likely be implemented prior to the passage of the 1995 farm bill. With this as back-ground, Indiana farmers were asked several trade-related questions.

Indiana farmers apparently perceive economic benefits from international trade negotiations that reduce trade barriers. Two-thirds favor further bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. Only 6% are opposed, while about one-fourth are undecided. Younger, college-educated, and larger farmers are all more likely to favor trade agreements.

Export subsidies on commodities such as those authorized by the Export Enhancement Program

(EEP) have been widely used in recent years, especially for wheat. While 40% favor the continuation of export subsidies, nearly as many (37%) are unsure. One-fourth oppose the use of export subsidies. These rather mixed policy preferences suggest that this issue merits further analysis and debate.

A related question was on the merits of an export subsidy on value-added products such as meat or processed commodities. One-half the Indiana farmers who responded are unsure if this is a good policy. About one-fourth favor it, and one-fourth do not. This is clearly a policy issue that merits additional analysis and discussion since so many are unsure about the merits of a subsidy on value-added products.

The United States has offered food aid to low-income countries for 40 years under the Food-for-Peace or P.L. 480 program. The main goals of this program are to reduce hunger in low-income countries, reduce U.S. surpluses, and open new export markets. Under the 1990 farm bill, bud-get outlays on this program have been modestly reduced. In the sur-vey, farmers were asked if the U.S. government should continue to reduce funding of foreign food aid. A majority (54%) agree that foreign food aid should be reduced even further. Almost one-third (31%) are not sure. A minority (16%) does not favor further reductions. Smaller farmers with annual gross sales of less than $100,000 are much less supportive of foreign food aid pro-grams than are larger farmers.

Domestic Food Aid

Food stamps and related domestic food assistance programs (Women, Infants, and Children; School Break-fast; School Lunch; etc.) now account for about one-half the budget of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Several reforms in the current domestic food aid programs have been proposed.

One proposal is for the Federal government to make block cash grants to each state and then let each state distribute the funds for food assistance to needy families. One-half of the 1994 survey respondents favor this change in funding and shift in program implementation from the Federal to the state level. One-fifth are opposed, and 29% are undecided. Those respondents with less off-farm income are more supportive of this proposal.

Another proposal would distribute food assistance only to the elderly and families with children that have incomes below the poverty line. This proposal received substantial support with three-fourths of the respondents agreeing and only 11%disagreeing. Thirteen percent were undecided.

Food Safety

Consumer concerns about food safety have become a national policy issues as people worry about pesticide residues, bacteria in meat , and food additives. Modification of the Delaney Clause to move from a zero tolerance to an acceptable risk criteria has been pro-posed in the U.S. Congress.

One way to reduce health risks from food consumption is improved consumer education in proper food handling and preparation techniques. Nearly three-fourths (72%) of the Indiana farmers who responded to the survey favor placing instructions for proper storage and cooking on all meat and meat products sold at retail stores. About one-fifth oppose this idea, while 8%are undecided.

Another proposal calls for food inspections to be strengthened to ensure safer and better quality food. The vast majority of farmers (78%) think that this is in their best interest and favor such a proposal. Only 12% disagree and 10% are undecided. Smaller farmers are some-what more supportive of stronger food inspection efforts.

One controversial issue in the NAFTA and GATT debates was the safety of imported food, especially regarding possible pesticide residues. In the survey, Indiana farmers were asked if they believe food imported into the United States now meets domestic food safety standards. From their responses, there appears to be considerable confusion or lack of information on this question. While 37% said yes, about one-third were not sure, and 29% said no. Part of the difference in views may be based not on what the U.S. laws and regulations require (i.e., imports must meet U.S. standards) but on concerns about either the effectiveness of the U.S. food inspection system or the effectiveness of border controls; especially when people see illegal drugs being imported despite massive efforts to control drug trafficking.

Nutrition

In recent years the American public has become more nutritionally conscious. The food industry has tried to respond with new products and nutritional labelling. The U.S. Department of Agriculture released in 1993 a food pyramid that guides consumers to increase their consumption of fruits, vegetables, and grain products and limit their consumption of red meat and sweets. In the survey, farmers were asked a two-part question. First, have they seen the new USDA food pyramid. Second, do they think it is a useful educational tool.

Nearly one-half (47%) have not seen the USDA food pyramid. Forty-four percent have seen it. Nine per-cent were not sure. Of those who have seen the food pyramid, two-thirds think it is a useful education tool. Thirteen percent are not sure and 19% do not think it is a useful educational tool. Farmers with more years of schooling are more likely to have seen the USDA food pyramid.

Despite the increased amount of diet and nutrition information in food labels, some people think this is not enough. Almost two-thirds (63%) of the respondents favor additional diet and food labeling information on food packages, about one-fifth are not sure, and 18% disagree. Presumably, more nutritional information would not only encourage consumer demand for farm products, but also help farm families as food consumers.

Farmers also were asked if they read the labels currently on food packages. The majority (54%) said they occasionally read them. Forty percent said they read them often. Four percent said they never read food labels. Those under age 35 are the least likely to read food labels.

 

Biotechnology

The private and public sectors in recent years have invested billions of dollars in biotechnology research. Some of the first agricultural applications are now on the market. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Monsanto’s version of bovine somatotropin, a growth hormone that when injected in dairy cows stimulates milk pro-duction. The FDA also recently approved Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato, a tomato that has one gene altered to give it a longer shelf life so that the tomato can be vine ripened and shipped long distances, yet retain a fresh taste.

Since there has been considerable public debate concerning the environ-mental, food safety, economic, and ethical implications of agricultural biotechnology, Indiana farmers were asked two questions in the 1994 sur-vey about their views on the possible benefits of biotechnology to producers and consumers. The majority of the respondents (61%) expect to benefit as producers from the application of biotechnology. Only 8% dis-agree, and about one-third are not sure. A similar majority (61%) expect consumers to benefit from agricultural biotechnology. Only 6%disagree, and about one-third are unsure. Those farmers with more years of schooling and who operate farms with higher annual gross sales are much more likely to expect producers and consumers to benefit from biotechnology.

Subsidized Fuel

For over a decade there has been considerable analysis and debate on subsidized fuels derived from crops. As air pollution has become more severe in large cities and political pressure for cleaner air has increased, there has been renewed attention to blending the alcohol derived from corn (ethanol) with gasoline. Also, some recent technological developments indicate soyoil might be an acceptable substitute for diesel fuel. In fact, buses in some cities are using soy diesel on an experimental basis. The key issue for both fuels is cost. With current petroleum price levels, both soy diesel and gasohol must be subsidized to be cost competitive.

Most Indiana farmers strongly favor using tax money to subsidize fuels from crops such as corn and soybeans (62%). However, one-fifth oppose this idea, and 18% are undecided. Farmers who receive 50% or more of their income from livestock sales are less supportive of subsidizing fuels derived from corn and soy-beans than are crop farmers. This difference in views may reflect a concern that such a policy could increase feed costs.

Targeting Agricultural Research

The structure of American agriculture continues to change as farm numbers decrease, farm size increases, and specialization becomes more common. As a result of the historic trend towards fewer and larger farms, some have pro-posed that publicly funded research should be targeted towards the needs of medium and small size farms. Examples of such research might include crops or livestock for niche markets, direct-sale farmer markets, organic farming, etc.

Two-thirds of the respondents in the Indiana survey favor efforts to target the benefits of research towards smaller farms. About 15%disagree with this proposal and 18%are undecided. There is a strong correlation between size of farm and response to this question, however. Of those respondents with annual gross sales less than $250,000, almost three-fourths agree with targeting agricultural research. Conversely, of those respondents with annual gross sales in excess of $250,000, only about one-third favor targeting.

Rural Economic Development

New jobs, economic growth, and improved quality of community life are key policy goals of rural community leaders. The Clinton Administration and Secretary of Agriculture Espy have expressed interest in helping rural communities. A challenge for all public policy officials is how to meet multiple community goals with limited human and financial resources. Information on farmers’ priorities could help rural community leaders establish priorities among alternative programs.

About one-half (53%) of the responding farmers favor increased Federal funding to expand employment and economic activity in rural communities. About one-fifth (21%) are opposed and about one-fourth (26%) are undecided.

In the survey, farmers were asked to select, from a list of eight items, their three highest priorities for economic development in their communities. Other suggestions were possible. Nearly two-thirds (61%) ranked new or improved roads as a high economic development priority in their community. The second highest ranking was for business development (48%). The third highest ranking was for more financial support for public education (42%). About one-third (35%) listed more law enforcement and crime prevention as a community priority. About one-fourth of the respondents listed new or improved bridges (26%), public training to improve workers’ skills (25%), and improved health care facilities (21%). Few people saw a need for new or improved sewage treatment plants (9%). Other suggestions included: lower property taxes, access to health care, and health insurance for the self-employed.

Indiana Issues

In addition to questions related to the 1995 farm bill, several Indiana-specific questions were asked.

Bankruptcy of grain dealers with subsequent loss of income to their patrons has become a concern to numerous Indiana farmers in recent years. Farmers were asked if they favored an insurance program to indemnify farmers if a fund were created that would be financed by a premium of one-fourth cent per dol-lar of grain sales collected at the point of sale with the insurance fund capped at $10 million. Farmers’ views are quite mixed on this proposal. About one-third (35%) favor such a proposal. However, about the same proportion (31%) do not. Furthermore, another one-third are undecided. Clearly, this is an issue of concern to some farmers, but this specific proposal to generate funding from an insurance premium paid by farmers did not receive support from the majority of the respondents.

Property tax for public school funding is a hotly debated policy topic in Indiana and neighboring states. Last year Michigan passed a law prohibiting the use of property taxes to fund schools. Indiana farmers were asked if they would favor eliminating property taxes as a source of funding for schools and raising money from state income and/or sales taxes. About one-third (34%) favor the elimination of property tax for school funding and replacing this tax source with higher state income and sales taxes. A similar proportion of farmers (31%) favor only an increase in sales taxes to replace the property tax. Seven percent favor an increase in only the income tax. However, about one-fourth (24%) would prefer to continue the current property tax system for funding public schools. Smaller farmers with annual gross sales under $40,000 are more likely to want to continue the current property tax system while larger farmers (annual gross sales over $250,000) would prefer to replace the current property tax system with a higher sales tax. College-educated farmers tend to favor higher sales and/or income taxes to replace the current property tax system for funding public schools.

County-level USDA offices might be merged under a Clinton Administration proposal. If some local USDA offices (ASCS, SCS, FmHA) were closed, the services would be provided at another location, perhaps in a neighboring county. Farmers were asked how far they would be willing to drive for these USDA services. About one-half (49%) would drive only 20 miles or less. About one-fourth (26%) would be willing to drive up to 30 miles. Only 10% would drive 40 miles. Very few would drive further; 3 percent would drive up to 50 miles and 4%up to 60 miles. Larger farmers are willing to drive further than smaller farmers.

An Indiana “Right to Farm” law was passed in 1981. According to the survey, only about one-fifth (18%) of Indiana farmers are familiar with its provisions. Nearly two-thirds (61%) are not, and another one-fifth are not sure. Of those farmers who are familiar with the provisions of the Indiana Right to Farm Law, nearly two-thirds (61%) do not think it will protect agricultural investments from the encroachment of nonagricultural land uses. A few (11%) think it may help. The rest (28%) are not sure. Familiarity with the “Right to Farm” law increases among respondents as farm size and educational levels increase.

Local zoning ordinances can help protect agricultural investments and land use. Over one-half the respondents (54%) think zoning ordinances should prohibit the con-centration of residential development in prime agricultural land areas outside of urbanized areas. A few (13%) think land zoned for agricultural uses should be permitted to shift to nonfarm use without additional restrictions. About one-third of the respondents are undecided on the issue of zoning ordinances and land use. Livestock farmers are much more likely to favor zoning that prohibits concentrated residential development in agricultural areas. College-educated farmers are more likely to favor such regulations, also.

 

Diking chemical storage facilities to protect ground and surface water from potential spills of fuel, pesticides, and fertilizers for farmers who store more than minimum specified quantities is now required by Indiana law. Who should bear the full cost of this regulation is still a policy issue. About one-half the respondents (48%) think a percentage of the cost of diking should be allowed as an income tax credit. About one-fourth (24%) think farmers should bear all of the cost. About one-fifth (22%) would prefer a cost share payment from ASCS. Younger, and all but the smallest, farmers tend to prefer an income tax credit. Farmers with more schooling favor an income tax credit, while farmers who have not completed high school have more diverse preferences.

Wetlands policy has been a contentious issue for nearly a decade. Current regulations restrict the conversion of wetlands to cropping or other agricultural uses. When asked if a farmer should be allowed to tile a field that has been farmed for more than 10 years, even though it has been officially classified as a wetland, an overwhelming majority (85%) responded yes. Only 6% said no and 9% were undecided. Younger (under 50) and larger farmers are more likely to support the tiling of farmed wetlands.

Conclusions

Indiana famers’ views remain divided on many food, environmental, and agricultural policy issues. But, over time their views have changed modestly. Relative to previous surveys (martin Jones, and Shields),  Indiana famers currently seek even less government involvement in commodity programs. However, most want target prices and loan rates continued with an increase in flexible acres if necessary to reduce taxpayer costs. Retention of historic base acres continues to be important to most farmers.

Quality of the environment is important to most Indiana farmers as indicated by their desire to continue in some fashion the Conservation Reserve and Conservation Compliance Programs. However, Indiana farmers are polarized on water quality policy and further government regulations on farming practices such as planting grass protective strips along stream banks and waterways. Many also want the right to drain wetlands, especially to replace or add tile to farmed wet-lands that have been cropped for at least ten years.

Most Indiana farmers are reducing their use of pesticides. Also, most favor record keeping on all, not just restricted-use, pesticides.

Indiana farmers generally favor private versus Federal crop insurance. If there is Federal crop insurance, the majority prefer premiums and benefits based on actual farm versus county average yields.

Indiana farmers perceive eco-nomic benefits from international trade negotiations that reduce trade barriers. However, they question the merits of export subsidies and many favor further reductions in foreign food aid.

Indiana farmers favor improved government food inspection services and food labeling to provide safer and higher quality foods and to improve diet decisions.

Biotechnology is viewed as very beneficial to farmers and consumers. But many farmers, especially the smaller ones, favor targeting agricultural research to efforts that would primarily benefit the medium and smaller size producers.

Most Indiana farmers favor subsidizing production of fuels from crops such as corn and soybeans. They also favor government funding for some rural development programs that improve roads, create jobs, and enhance public education.

As the 1995 farm bill is written, Congress will face several challenges. There will be strong political pressure to improve environ-mental quality, maintain some aspects of traditional commodity programs, comply with NAFTA and GATT agreements, and further reduce farm program budget outlays. This survey offers some insights into Indiana farmers’ preferences for agricultural and related public policies. The survey results should provide guidance to farm leaders and government officials as laws and regulations are written and implemented.

References

Martin, M.A., B.F. Jones, and D. Shields (1989). The 1990 Farm Bill: Preferences of Indiana Farmers, Purdue Agricultural Economics Report, August, pp. 5-9

United States Department of Agriculture. (1991). Provisions of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Economic Research Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin 624, Washington, DC, June, 168 pp.

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1994). 1992 Census of Agriculture: Indiana, Volume 1, Part 14. Washington, DC, January, pp. 10 and 82.