This is actually part 2 of a series, "Subsidized Crops Vs. Fruits and Vegetables.

1. Subsidized Field Crops
Vs
Fruits &Vegetables: Part II
(Fruits & Concluding Information)
Data Slides Fix the Myths

2. Date
Continued from Part I:
Introductory Information & Subsidized Field CropsVs.Vegetables
Parent Link: http://www.slideshare.net/bradwilson581525/presentations

3. Ok, how about Fruits? Downhill!
These fresh fruits have often fared better than 5 subsidized crops (including added subsidies,) but all have gone down.

4. 5 Fresh Fruits vs. 5 Subsidized Crops.
Here again, a total summary debunking the myth of subsidies as incentives.

5. Here again, the mass of details!
Again, a downward trend line for all, all in the same boat, especially subsidized crops.

6. How about these Citrus Fruits.
They’re more volatile, but do better over all. The blue line has been low since 2014.

7. Here’s the summary to clarify the other charts.

8. If you don’t like the summaries: details.
The summaries are averages of averages. Data for making true averages is hard to come by.

9. 6 Processing Fruits
Again, farmers are all in the same boat, though the subsidized crops fared worse, even with added subsidies.

10. 6 Processing Fruits: Total Summary

11. 6 Processing Fruits:The Complete Data
Note at the end that data for some crops was available, (when I compiled this,) only to
2014, while for others it went to 2015.

12. 4 Berries and Cherries! Back and forth.

13. Here are a few lower prices, like the subsidized crops (+ subsidies).
The subsidized crops have trended lower since 2014.

14. Details: 4 Berries and Cherries!

15. 3 Dried Fruits vs 5 Subsidized Crops (+ Subsidies)
Reductions started more slowly for the dried fruits. Subsidized crop prices have declined since 2014.

16. Total Summaries: Average of Averages

17. Details: 3 Dried Fruits, 5 subsidized crops
The choice of crops was made on the basis of the availability of data over the long haul.

18. Final Summary: 22 FruitsVs 5 Subsidized Crops

19. Grains, Cotton,
Fruits,Vegetables,
Livestock, Dairy:
Farmers Unite!
The Farm and Food Movement has been
divided and conquered over the Farm
Subsidy Myths of agribusiness. (“The
Farm Subsidy Myth: Scientifically
Invalid, Subverting Food Day,” https://
zcomm.org/zblogs/the-farm-subsidy-
myth-scientifically-invalid-subverting-
food-day/ ) This must Change! The data
is in!

20. The Myth of
Grain Farms
Switching to Fruits
andVegetables
While fruits and vegetables generally pay better than
major subsidized crops, even including the subsidies, it
makes no sense for the latter farmers to switch. 1. It
would quickly lead to massive overproduction,
considering the massive difference in acreages. 2. Those
fruits and vegetables aren’t much better off. 3. It would
take, in part, a new line of machinery, to take the risk. 4.
It would take processors and other places to sell the
fruits and vegetables.
I have looked at a lot more data on the harvested acres
for a wide range of crops, and may post more on this
later.

21. “Why not take some of the Midwest’s vast stock of
farmland—say, 10 percent?—and devote it to
vegetable and fruit production?”
✤ Tom Philpott, “The Midwest’s Vast Farms Are Losing a Ton of Money This Year,”
Mother Jones, 10/22/14. https://www.motherjones.com/food/2014/10/farmers-are-
losing-225-each-acre-corn/
✤
In 2009, for example, Corn and Soybeans alone were planted on 123,180,000 acres in just
10 midwestern states, (Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin). 10% of that is 12,318,000 acres.
✤
Meanwhile, in 2009, Fruits and Nuts, plus Commercial Vegetables, (fresh and
processing,) were planted on 6,955, 969 acres.
✤ So adding 12,318,000 acres to Fruits, Vegetables and Nuts would be an increase of
177%, to 277%! It would result in radical oversupply and would massively crash market
prices for fruits and vegetables. (Even a 1% move in this direction would be an 18%
increase.) On the other hand, it would help corn and soybeans. Any significant move in
this direction would take value away from the fruit vegetable states and give it to grain,
cotton and oilseed states, pitting them against each other.

22. Other kinds of Data Support My Findings
✤ Data on Return on Equity and Return on Assets for states and regions quite consistently shows that the major fruit and
vegetable growing states fare better than the major states growing the subsidized crops. See USDA-Economic Research
Service, Wealth and Income Statistics: Archive of Suspended Tables, “Table 1--Farm business balance sheet, December 31,
1990-2003,” and “Table 1-- Farm financial ratios indicating solvency and profitability, 1960 -- 2003,” https://
www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/data-files-u-s-and-state-level-farm-income-and-
wealth-statistics/ .
✤ Data on Net Farm Income, Net Cash Farm Income and Returns to Operators since the parity years of 1942-1952 also quite
consistently shows that the major fruit and vegetable growing states have fared better than the major states growing the
subsidized crops. See USDA-Economic Research Service, Wealth and Income Statistics: Farm Income Statements, U.S. and
States, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/data-files-u-s-and-state-level-farm-
income-and-wealth-statistics/ .
✤ Census data on types of farms, based on the Standard Industrial Classification of Farms, repeatedly shows that fruit and
nut tree, and vegetable and melon farms each have fared better than cash grain farms, on statistics like return on assets to
net cash income, (comparing returns to land, buildings, machinery and equipment assets from net cash income,) and
average market value of sales per acre. http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu/AgCensus/censusParts.do?year=1992 .
✤ Paradoxically, in the census data, the fruit and vegetable categories often receive more government subsidies per acre as
well. Cash grain farms are also more likely to be family sized.

23. Note: the 5 Subsidized Crops have stayed low/lower since 2014-2015
Since I updated my 2009 numbers to 2014 and 2015, the market prices for the 5 subsidized crops have remained low, and regular
subsidies have gone down, but they have received large temporary subsidies from the Trump administration, (with much lower total
net farm income, including subsidies, in the grain states). What has happened to fruits and vegetables?

24. These states get the biggest subsidies
These states have the biggest reductions in Net Farm Income in recent years, in dollars
and as a percent.

25. Plains States, Clearly Lower than Fruit/Vegetable States
Again, this is in spite of bigger recent subsidies. They get less.

26. Fruit &Vegetable States: Higher Net Farm Income, Lower Subsidies
But also down in recent years. Compare these fruit & vegetable states with the previous charts.

27. US as a whole: Recently worse than Fruit/Vegetable States
Except the bigger subsidies make up for a lot of it.

28. Return to Assets from Net Farm Income
The pattern continues. Source is linked in the next chart.

29. Here’s a look at all regions.
Only S.E. & Delta, (which has plenty of fruits and vegetables,) slightly surpasses the “Fruitful Rim” for blue and yellow bars. The cornbelt is
lowest in the yellow. The 1960-03 data is from the ERS archived series (at the bottom of the page here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/data-files-u-s-and-state-level-farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/). The rest is census data.

30. ROA from NCFI by FarmType
Census: Return on (land, buildings, machinery & equipment,) Assets from Net Cash Farm
Income. Farm type from Standard Industrial Classification of Farms.

31. Without Government subsidies.
Same as previous chart, but with the subsidies subtracted.

32. A Bigger Batch of Data
Standard Industrial Classification of farms. Note that, as of 1987 and 1992, Grain, oilseed and cotton farms had greatly
reduced asset values, due to a mass of foreclosures and deflation during the 1980s farm crisis, so figures are higher.

33. MarketValue of Sales: A Clue
Note that this is average per acre.

34. Pre-Parity Index, 1988 to 2002.
Data comes from Agricultural Statistics, Annual, ch. 9, various years.

35. Fruit/Vegetable Share down 4%
As the Agribusiness share increases 37%.

36. Farmers share of these grain products down 38%
So grain farmers share is down much more than Fruit Vegetable farmers share, 4%, on previous slide.
But both kinds of farms fare much worse than agribusiness buyers.

37. Cash Grains: Fewer “Big Ag” Farms
A sample from census data, probably for a year between 1987 and 2002. We’ve seen that cash
grain farms have low returns on assets. It takes a lot of sales value to make much income.
APAC, “$500,000 in sales does not (usually) a viable net income make,” http://agpolicy.org/weekcol/449.html .

38. Farm Size by FarmType:AnotherView
Farm Types from Census Data, from Standard Industrial Classification of Farms.
Again, probably for a year between 1987 and 2002, where this data is readily available.

39. Census data shows more subsidies forVegetables and Fruits
The difference is quite dramatic in this sample.

40. Farmers call for fair Price Floors, no subsidies needed.
Chart from “Family Farm Act of 1987,” https://familyfarmjustice.me/2016/12/09/family-farm-act-of-1987/. Data from
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Commodity Supply Management Program, 2-87. https://
econpapers.repec.org/paper/agsfaprsr/244143.htm.

41. The Family Farm Act of 1987
FAPRI 2-87 was the most comprehensive study of these differences. Other similar studies include FAPRI 1/85, https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/
agsfaprsr/244138.htm with charts at “The Farm Policy Reform Act of 1985,” https://familyfarmjustice.me/2016/12/10/the-farm-policy-reform-act-
of-1985/ and various studies from APAC http://agpolicy.org/publication.htm for the National Family Farm Coalition, http://agpolicy.org/blueprint/
APACReport8-20-03WITHCOVER.pdf , National Farmers Union,
http://agpolicy.org/publication/NFU-April2012-FinalReport-AsSentToNFUApr2-2012.pdf and Texas Farmers Union https://www.cambridge.org/core/
journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems/article/agricultural-supply-management-and-farm-policy/924833196C3149007F7B9D08B206FD6C .

42. Key Result: Making a profit above full costs on farm exports
Subsidies are needed when market prices are below full costs. 8 crops: corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice,
grain sorghum, barley, oats have been below full costs most of the time since 1981. See next slide.

43. Price Floors were Reduced & Ended
What Congress and Presidents did, was to reduce, (1953-1995,) and end (1995-2023,) Minimum Farm Price
Floor programs. Because of chronic market failure for agriculture, prices fell right down below full costs.

44. Result:Why subsidies have been needed.
Net value = value per acre - ERS full costs. Then it’s multiplied by acres to get these figures. (In 2019 dollars.)

45. Again: Parity Programs forVegetables & Fruits
✤ Most Vegetables and Fruits had Market Order or Marketing
Agreement Programs.
✤ These programs supported fair prices “indirectly.”
✤ Vegetables and Fruits achieved 100% of parity or more during
1942-1952. Agriculture as a whole achieved 100% of parity or more.
✤ Today parity still plays a role in “ 45 fruit, vegetable, and nut Federal
marketing orders.” The programs have become less effective, and
market prices have all declined a lot.

46. We must stop bashing the subsidized crops, stop being divided and conquered.
Farmers are all in this together. Subsidized Crop farmers want to unite with ALL farmers.
Farmers have long wanted to restore Price Floors (& end all subsidies). For example, this
was the top priority at the United Farmer United Farmer and Rancher Congress of 1986.
https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Delegate%20Approved%20Resolutions.pdf .

47. For further reading.
Brad Wilson, "Commodity Crops Vs. Vegetables? Data Slides Fix the Myth," Zspace,1/29/13, & see the links there.
https://zcomm.org/zblogs/commodity-crops-vs-vegetables-data-slides-fix-the-myth-by-brad-wilson/.