I keep hearing about the new normal of "frugality is the new fashion" and a "secular shift toward prudence and conservatism", but sometimes the optics don't add up. I see smart phones everywhere and tech companies continuing to invent things like iPads and other stuff we seemingly "need". Dunno, however, the proverbial "wrench thrown into the transmission" Urban refers to like the Israelis/Iran thing, Irish defaults or a hacker's paradise can come out of nowhere to upset the turnip wagon. Yes, that would throw agriculture off our game. Double dip, we'll see, but its those things that happen on some unexpected Tuesday which can really "change the game."

Phillip: Thanks for the comment. It's true that the optics can confuse. I had dinner two nights ago at an expensive restaurant in a suburb of Birmingham, Alabama, and it was packed. What we don't know, and why we rely on statistics rather than anecdotes when taking the economy's pulse, is whether in better times another expensive restaurant would have opened across the street that would also be packed.

Urban: This is a very timely article. I was working in the field of economics in the early 1980s when the agricultural economy cruised right through the bruising of the automobile and steel debacle of that era, coupled with double-digit inflation. Remember, it was in the mid-1980s when high interest rates, the Carter Trade Embargo with Russia, and crushing commodity prices took out the agricultural economy. Today is much, much different I do believe, for many reasons. First, interest rates are at historical lows and inflation levels are similarly low, thus lowering the cost structure and the break-even points for producers and landowners. Secondly, the generally more open agricultural markets are creating huge demand for grain from overseas markets. Thirdly, we have over 6 billion people on the planet, many of them in growing economies, who desire a greater variety of grains and meats in their diets. Finally, Urban, as I have mentioned before in your thought-provoking columns, agriculture is now much more than mere food production. It is energy; it is all forms of cellulosic products (ink, adhesives, etc.); and it is ubiquitously demanded across the globe. One further note, most of the weak and inefficient suppliers in agriculture were forced out of the markets in the mid-1980s. Today the suppliers are stronger and smarter. Good column Urban! Tom in Ohio

I agree, Tom, today is very different from the 1980s for all of the reasons you mention. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts.

I`ve read all the articles on size of farms and how the bigger farms, $1,000,000 in sales or more, make up a small percentage of the farms. Did any of you writing about this stop to realize $ 1,000,000 in sales is not that hard to acheive. That`s a 2000 acre farm in 50/50 corn soybean rotation. Or a cattle farm that sells about 950 steers/year. These are 2 examples that l can relate to because l farming full time 950 acres(400 corn for feed, 400 soybeans and 150 in wheat) and sell 800 hd of steers/ year and had sales over $1,000,000. I do this with part time help from my son who is in high school. I need to be this size to make a living and don`t consider myself a large farmer.

Thanks. I ran your comment by Marcia Zarley Taylor, one of the authors. Her response: "Yep, we took that into consideration. USDA doesn’t report data on farms over $1 million regularly, so we went with the biggest that they had so we could compare how the segment has grown for historical purposes...The 0.3% of operators with $5 million in sales which USDA counted in last census for the first time will be the interesting ones to watch. I haven’t seen a breakout of how many of the 5,500 of them are grain farmers."

Your article says that alot of million dollar farms have sprung up in the last five years. Could that coincide with the general run up in grain prices the last few years. I would like to think that we are all good at what we do, but I know that selling grain for much higher prices than five of six years ago, benefits the bottom line faster than anything else I do.

This comment on the Elena Kagan item came in by email: Two out of three isn't good enough for someone who is being appointed for life to the highest court in the land, and making a statement doesn't equate with telling something like it is. ("Letter From the Editor: Congressional Trickery, Legislative Activism, Unusual Uncertainty," by Urban Lehner, Vice President, Editorial, posted Friday, July 30.) "... to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection, from personal attachment and from a view to popularity." from the Federalist No. 76 is what Sen. Lindsey Graham cited. Is not the Progressive idea of a "living Constitution" a viewing toward popularity? It certainly is not a viewing toward the original intent. Likewise, by Graham's measure, 1) Qualification, 2) Character and 3) Understanding the difference between being a judge and a politician is not immediately fulfilled because Graham deems it so. Again, the Progressive claim that the constitutional interpretation should change with time runs counter to the purpose for having a constitution and counter to the purpose of having an amendment process. It also makes the Congress irrelevant by putting judges in the position of determining the will of the people, which just so happens to blur the line between them and politicians. So the question before our Senators is, "Does Kagan espouse the view of the Progressives?" and they are not obligated to take Graham's or anybody's word for it. Brad Hennen Ghent, Minn.

It is difficult to find time to debate every detail of a bill when the Republicans do everything they can to slow the legislature process.

Well put Brad.

Wll put, Brad.

No it is TKO Congress....Takers Kicked Out. A "for sure" about the Founding Fathers is that they did not expect corrupt, career, paid, and pensioned politicians to run the lives of the citizens. TKO Congress. It couldn't be worse. If you can't change the people, change the people.

Urban: The real problem is they have been getting too much done...the kinds of things that are undermining the private enterprise sytem and placing us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world! I rue the day when this Congress and Administration "get something done" in agriculture like they have auto, health care, banking, insurance, and other industries. You will then understand why our founders created a system in which "getting anything done" was considered an improbability. Nothing personal, Urban, but when the Congress "gets something done," it generally means they will be in your pocket and making you less competitive. Don't expect any work on the estate tax. This Congress and Administration do not want you passing on wealth to your next generation. In fact, this darned private ownership of farmland gets in their crawl every day!

Tom: Thanks for the comment. I guess you're one of those I was alluding to when I wrote, toward the end of the piece, "I imagine more than a few would agree with a veteran political reporter I knew in the 1970s, who was fond of saying, 'Every day the Congress is out of session, the republic is safer.'"

I have long thought that sanctions do little in most cases but create jobs and income for other parts of the world's economy. We give it up, somewhere it will be picked up.

Thanks for the comment. The only way to get around what you're talking about is to get all of the producing nations to agree to the embargo--and then prevent cheating.

I enjoyed this piece, a very honest American comment regarding sanctions on Cuba. From a Canadian perspective, we've never understood, but moved quickly to trade with Castro after the embargo. In fact, Canada has never cut relations with Cuba, in fact many Canadian farmers over the last 30 years have vacationed on Cuban shores. It is one of the most popular Canadian tourist destinations. I've always thought, "its one of those things." American domestic politics in Fla, are too toxic to change it. Outliving Castro seemed better than taking off sanctions. To me it doesn't make much sense anymore. Of course the time is coming when sanctions will be no more. The question is are we only one day closer, or is it just around the corner?

Thanks, Philip. I'm not sure about "around the corner," but the legislative calendar for the Senate especially is so jammed that it seems unlikely a bill to ease sanctions will be taken up this year.

A move to the Constitution would be better, I could care less about left or right. Here's what scares me: Sen. Coburn asked her if owning a firearm for self-defense was a "fundamental" right. (Forget about the politics over gun-control) Kagan's response: "To be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution." This is shocking...it would imply she has either little or misguided understanding of why OUR government exists. More troubling is the rights of life, liberty and property are not in the Constitution, but are included in the Declaration of Independence....let's hope (if she is confirmed) she not implying the government is granting me my "Natural" rights. What a joke every branch of government has become.

This comment came in by email from Jay McGinnis of New Park, Pa.: I agree more with you then my many urbanite friends that have a some notion that organic farming will increase yields and petro farming is killing the soils. However it is only a matter of time that oil depletion will take us to forced organic agriculture, it won't have to be politically mandated, it will come on its own. Since my family bought my farm in 1850 only half that time have we been farming with oil and its huge yield increases, that isn't much time in the history of human existence. People for some reason believe technology will save us from oil depletion but I still don't see any way it will, they are 2 very different things. We are part of a very large experiment in human existence and 100% dependent on a very finite resource. If technology is gong to save us it better get moving, we have done very little since our first oil shortage experience in 1970! But organic is the future, (rather we like it or not, even if it isn't as environmentally friendly)just like Deepwater Horizon type drilling is the future.

This comment came in by email from Herb Putz of Cooper, Texas and Madison, Virginia: YOUR COMMENTS AG VS MEDIA - THE PROBLEM - AND THIS IS NOT LIMITED TO AGRICULTURE - IS THAT IN THE LAST 10 YEARS A NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPED WITH THE I.T. AGE - THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. INORDER TO GET THEIR OPERATING CASH AND BONUSES - THEY DREAM UP HALF ASSED SENSATIONAL TWISTS. THEY ARE WORST THEN THE ENQUIRER EXCEPT THE "SOCIETY' ACCEPTS THEIR REPORTING AT FACE VALUE. THESE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS ACCELERATE THEIR SENSATIONAL TWISTED REPORTS TO KEEP COLLECTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM PEOPLE AND TRUSTS. WITH THIS CASH THEY CAN GENERATE NEW SENSATIONAL REPORTS WHICH THE MEDIA LIKES TO PUBLISH TO INCREASE THEIR CIRCULATION AND OFFER CONTRIBUTIONS TO ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SUPPORT THEIR SENSATIONAL AND OUTRIGHT STUPID DEMANDS - LIKE THE WILD HORSE ACT WHICH CAUSES THE HORSE TO BE SHIPPED THOUSAND OF MILES IN ADVERSE WEATHER TO BE KILLED IN CANADA. THEY SIMPLE "BUY" ACCESS TO INFLUENCE 'SOCIETY' AND LAW MAKER. NOW WHAT CAN THE AG SECTOR DO - EVEN IF WE FOLKS ARE TRYING HARD? WE DO NOT HAVE THE TWISTED STORIES TO TELL TO ATTRACT MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS OR GET THE MEDIA INTERESTED WITH A SENSATIONAL STORY SO THEY CAN INCREASE THEIR CIRCULATION. HOW EXCITING CAN AN AG REPORT TO SOCIETY BE - THAT US AG DELIVERS TO THE CONSUMER EVERY WEEK 750,000 HEAD OF CATTLE, 3.5 MIO HOGS, 17 MIO CHICKENS AND 642 MIO LBS OF WHEAT AND THAT WE SPEND BIO OF DOLLARS FOR SPARE PARTS WHICH CREATE JOBS. WE JUST DO NOT HAVE SENSATIONAL ITEMS TO REPORT. WE JUST DO NOT HAVE DISASTER STORIES TO SELL EXCEPT SOME FLOODING OF WHICH NOBODY GIVE A HOOTS. NOT EVEN MR. LE BON IN FRANCE WITH BURNING A MCDONALDS COULD GET SOCIETY INTERESTED IN IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THEIR FOOD. MATTER OF FACT SOCIETY GAVE HIM A JAIL SENTENCE BECAUSE HE VIOLATED THEIR DEMAND FOR MCDONALDS FRENCH FRIES. WE - AGRICULTURE - ARE THE LONELY BORING VOICE WITH LITTLE CASH. WHAT WE NEED IS THE BUNDLING OF INTEREST BY FARM BUREAU, CORN, WHEAT, SGHM, SOYBN GROWERS ORGANIZATIONS THEY HAVE THE CASH TO FINANCE A CAMPAIGN TO "EDUCATE" THE SOCIETY AND COME UP WITH SENSATIONAL REPORTS ABOUT THE SOCIETIES POLLUTION (LAWN MOWERS, OUTBOARD MOTORS AND BOATING, LEAKING OILPANS,DUMPING DRUGS -LEGAL OR ILLEGAL - IN THE SEWERSYTEMS, THROWING BOTTLES AND CANS AND PLASTIC ON THE ENVIRONMENT, CAUSING ENVIRONMENTAL ADVERSE FOOT PRINTS DUE TO OBESITY - A 707 WITH 140 PASSENGERS HAD A NET LOAD OF 21,000 LB IN THE 1970 TODAY THE SAME 140 PASSENGERS WEIGH 31,500 LBS - I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON TO DREAM UP SENSATIONS TO SHOW THE SOCIETY WHAT THEY DO COMPARED TO AG - BUT WOULD YOU PUBLISH SAME AND WOULD MR. GATES AND THE SAGE IN OMAHA SEND ME MONEY??.

In 2006 there were many farm protests in Ontario and Quebec. During these protests farmers put themselves in urban landscapes (downtown Toronto, downtown Ottawa) and provincial 400 series highways to protest Canadian agricultural policy. For the most part when farmers bumped up against urban people and society, "curiosity" broke out. The Canadian urban media gave farmers the benefit of the doubt despite the inconvenience which was caused. However, at the end of the day, I think the Canadian urban media mirrors their cousins in the US. I once had an urban reporter tell me his editor had a choice between covering a farm protest and a "lost dog" story. Needless to say, the "lost dog" story won out, as the editor thought his urban audience would be more interested in it. So it is a long and winding road and one I don't think is going to change. As our society becomes more urbanized, more and more people are farther away from the farm. Inviting them to the farm is a good thing, but often when I sell sweet corn to urbanites in the summer months, they look at me as if I was from Mars. Yes, that might be a comment on me, but I think its more a comment on the gulf between the farm and our urban cousins. Two minutes after they leave the farm, it's out of sight and out of mind. Ditto for our urban media. Changing that will be a continuing challenge.

Thanks for the comment and I think you're right on. I especially like your lost-dog versus farm-protest example. I would mention, though, that over the years I've heard many an editor talk about the rewards of putting a story (better yet, a story with a photo) about a dog on page one. Readers love dogs and dog stories; hardly anything, much less farm protests, can compete.

Mr Lehner, A very true statement, "Ag media talks to agriculture and we in agriculture have got to so beyond talking to ourself." I would like to add to that, when we do talk to ourself we need to include the consumer. If the EPA is doing something that affects my cost of production and I am to stay in business that affect will be passed on to my customers, the consumer. I, we need to be sure that we say that. It's not just about me it's about us and I, we need thier help. That what I will challenge you guys in the Ag media to be sure happens. That we in agruculture talk to and about our customer.

Did they mention that the garden cannot be certified as organic due to sewage sludge application on the lawn during the Clinton years? I wonder if they would have certified otherwise. It seemed like that from the early publicity. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/michelle-obamas-toxic-veggie-nightmare-white-house-organic-gar/19114069/ I do agree that the overall message should be about healthy, affordable food, although I believe that people are responsible for choosing their own diet and taking care of their own health.

The following comment came in by email. It's from Professor Darryl Ray of the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.Urban, Couldn't agree with you more. Both alternative and traditional agricultures are (or should it be is?) the future as far as I can tell. Neither can eliminate the other so why not accept instead of demonize... Marcia's piece on land investments in Brazil and elsewhere, and the potential land area that can/will come into production, are important stories that US farmers and policy makers need to know about and prepare for. We have been telling the worldwide-land-availability-story in most of the presentations over the last 3 to 5 years. In fact, Marcia was in attendance at a conference of the agricultural bankers portion of ABA in Milwaukee in the Fall of 2007 when that topic was part of my presentation. This topic is important because each time we have a dramatic price rise there is a draconian increase in supply capability and supply quantities that cause misery to crop farmers the following decade. It happened in the 1970s and it is likely to happen now. That is why we have believe that it is not in farmers' best interest to experience crop prices that are 100, 200, or 300 percent above their existing costs of production. It causes an inordinate amount of additional resources to be drawn into agriculture worldwide. Excess capacity results and once the capacity is added, it is used year after year, and only very gradually does/can the productive capacity adjust downward (on its own). Thus, contrary to conventional wisdom, excess capacity problems for crop agriculture are likely not over. In fact, excess capacity may well become more severe and be even more of a worldwide phenomenon than in decades past. (That does not mean that worldwide hunger will be eliminated--that is mostly a different issue.) Farmers need to understand that $2 corn can indeed return. (Of course, it might not too because of circumstances that we cannot foresee.) Policy makers also need to take that possibility into serious consideration. For example neither the traditional DCP programs (because of outdated levels for loan rates and target prices) nor, especially, the ACRE program (because once prices have declined to devastating levels, ACRE only guarantees farmers a fraction of those devastatingly low prices [revenues]) will be adequate. That is why we keep talking about keeping prices within a (reasonably wide) band, having reserves to address the times like the 70s and 2008, and in general better matching supply to demand needs at prices that are within the band. The cost, degree of market disruption, and the hardship to livestock and crop farmers, here and around the world, could be cut dramatically compared to the payments based policy of today--which greatly distorts long-term price signals during low price times like the 1998-2001 period and high prices such as the 70s and beginning in 2008 and therefore ensures future instability. More than I intended to say but I think it is important to consider the question: What if the general consensus about future (reasonably or highly profitable) crop prices is wrong. It has been wrong without exception during similar times over the last 150 years (not to mention Malthus). Thanks for your indulgence and for steering DTN between all the rocks and hard places. All the best, Daryll

Urban: This is an excellent and thought-provoking piece of journalism. I own and manage seven grain farms here in Ohio and in all instances are using what you call "conventional agriculture." This is a business to me and I recognize it as such. The fact that it is a business has brought me to the point of converting one of my smaller grain farms to an organic produce farm. I am going to be phasing this in over the next few years. Why am I doing this? Well, quite frankly I am beginning to see outstanding opportunities in the organic local produce movement. I see the prices organic produce is bringing and I know that my farmer partners and I can be very, very profitable growing organic produce. In fact, I can see more than"fractionally higher" profits for organic produce than conventional grains. The farm I have chosen for organic produce has good acreage, is both road and market accessible, and has a 15 acre lake on it with a virtually limitless supply of fresh, clean water from local aquifers. Urban, I am experimenting with organic produce not because of some ideological movement, but because it is offering outstanding profit potential. I think the two can coexist quite well. Just like soybeans were unknown in this country prior to the 1950s, organic food production is not well understood by conventional farmers. But once the profits are there and visible, then the suppliers will follow, ideology or not. I do thank you for an excellent narrative on the issues.

Urban: Your article hints at the most important issue in agriculture today---and one that we've recklessly neglected in the past that's caused present day troubles. That is the devisiveness across the breadth of agriculture that threatens to weaken it to the point of lost production globally---something that will have tragic consequences for millions of humans in a few short years. Since my USDA service where they were daily available, I watch "clipping services" each week to measure the mood within the industry---and the challenges from the outside. The gap of what we agree on is growing from within; at the same time the issues being posed by those that make a living pointing out the weaknesses in the system are growing exponentially. I can recall my anxiety from 1992 when I left USDA the first time having worked to try to manage the Spotted Owl issue confronting the Forest Service and the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest. If past is prologue, then agriculture would one day face the same challenge. We have. And we are doing a rather poor job of controlling our own "activist patriots" to quit lobbing grenades internally while we're taking so much external fire. In this case, why do we even need to have the organic question brought to the table? It comes unfortunately I suspect from internal to our societal mission of producing food. I would suggest more than likely by those in agriculture that simply don't understand the current fight on our hands. And likely some of it from those closest to the situation in DC---those representing agricultural issues at that level of our function in society. To many of them life in that city is all about the fight. That's what they do on a daily basis, so it's a natural response to make a negative comment when egged on by the journalist looking for a conflict story to put in print. We must stop this internal bloodletting---it will not only continue to hasten the diminishment of meeting world food needs; it's responsible for causing it. As expected, due to the broadening expanded government role in our lives which I personall disagree with, I'm not an Obama enthusiast; but I do applaud the effort of trying to promote the production part of what practically every person does everyday if they can---eat. And to do so in it's simplist form (as simplistic as anything in Washington DC can possibly be)---to grow a few consumable crops on a patch of land and see that they get consumed by people that have really no idea what it takes to produce food. There's a strong message there that we've lamented about in agriculture for several years concerning the lack of consumer understanding of what it takes to grow the product. Now we have an example, albeit it simplistic, and yet we fight internally about even that. This is a symptom of the condition that plagues us in agriculture in our mission to humanity. Perhaps we need to contemplate our navel for a while before we recklessly lob the next grenade at those within the mission? And I would finally mention---neither side (it seems to be more of a 3-D octagon than a sheet of paper) is without blame. So please keep bringing this up; we need more preachers if we are to keep our head above water in the sea of issues that are now flooding our landscape. Jim Moseley Former Deputy Secretary USDA

Jim: This was an astoundingly informative comment. There is one item I would like to add to your thinking. The organic movement is admittedly weak on the production or supply side. However, it is very, very strong on the demand side. Whether we in agriculture understand it or not, consumers (and remember they are "kings" in a market economy) resoundingly support organically grown food. That is a fact of life. Now, we might not be able to completely fulfill food needs with organic production, but the higher prices and profit potential of organics will ultimately bring new suppliers and new organic technologies into the market, enabling organic production to increase. Jim, my point is that this -- organics are being driven more by the consumer than by the regulator.

Thanks, everyone, for these interesting and thought-provoking comments. Here's a comment that came in by email: The USDA is giving 50 thousand dollar grants to those thay want farm organic. It is hard to see why when there has ever been any research that shows organic is any better or safer than conventional grown food. People in USA being mislead by loud mouth chicken littles want to tll every one what to do. Carlton Haynes Mechanicsville Va

I wonder if the White House garden could be certified as organic considering the fact that it is watered, not from a well, but from the city water supply which has been treated and contains Chlorine and Flourine. I also would like to know what type of fertilizers is used and where they are found that they are organic. Manure is about the only type of organic fertilizer I know of and even much of that on the market should not be called organic since it has been treated to prevent bacterial growth while in transport or storage. I would also like to know who many hours are spent to keep the garden free of weeds. I would be willing to bet it is more than just a few hours a day by a single individual. Now try to do that over a hundred acre field. How many thousands of people would be required to keep a plot that large looking like the Obama garden. I will also be interested in seeing how long it can continue to produce at that level since for years it had been fertilized so heavily to keep the lawn so green and so far has only been using up a lot of the excess fertilizer that was in the soi.