By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Minnesota News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
Paula Boles says her husband, Dale, didn't want to be a farmer, but when his father passed away he found himself in possession of the family farm. Growing up, he helped raise cattle, rice and tobacco. But together the couple decided to transition the farm into something new - a chicken farm - and that's when their problems began.
It's a story common to the contract chicken farming business. The Boles were told by Tyson that raising broiler chickens would allow the couple to make easy money in retirement. Instead, they found themselves spiraling into debt, struggling to stay afloat while Tyson continued to profit. "I considered ourselves indentured servants 'cause that's...the way we were treated," says Paula Boles.
Boles says she and her husband didn't just suffer financially. Raising broilers for Tyson jeopardized their mental health and strained their marriage. For the Boles, the path out of that crisis was to become one of the few early adopters to transition out of raising livestock - converting their chicken houses to greenhouses.
They aren't alone. Though the movement is still small, it is growing, thanks in part to efforts by projects like Transfarmation and Rowdy Girl Sanctuary. For the Boles, transitioning away from raising meat for corporations has helped reduce their stress and provide freedom that they hadn't enjoyed during their years of raising chickens.
In part that's because contrary to what they were told by Tyson, the business of raising chickens for the poultry conglomerate controlled their lives. Paula recalls having to get up at 3 AM to check on the birds and the sheds anytime an alarm would go off, alerting them to something amiss. The demand was so great that Dale Boles even missed their son's college graduation, as he was unable to leave the farm.
Factory Farming Linked to Stress
In 2018, the CDC identified farmers as the occupation with the highest rate of suicide. While that specific finding was retracted due to an inaccurate interpretation of the data, mental health struggles remain a challenge in the agriculture industry.
As a therapist focused on serving farmers in rural Minnesota, Ted Matthews has firsthand experience with the mental health crisis in farming. One of the major stressors Matthews points to is the increasing size of farm operations. "Not that long ago if you had 100 or 200 cows you were a big dairy," he says. But today some dairies have tens of thousands of cows. As competitors grow in size, it's becoming harder and harder to compete, driving smaller-scale farmers into predatory contracts with conglomerates like Tyson and Smithfield.
Once they've signed a contract, the farmer loses all control over how animals are raised and, as was the case for the Boles, they don't even own the livestock they're housing.
That lack of control over everything from stocking density to feed represents a major stressor for farmers, says Tyler Whitley based upon his meetings with dozens of them. Whitley spearheads Transfarmation, one of the projects focused on helping farmers transition out of livestock, like the Boles.
Trapped in a contract with Tyson, Paula watched as thousands of chicks were dumped unceremoniously into their chicken sheds, with no regard for the condition of the animals. "You can tell within 24 hours whether you're screwed or not," says Boles, as some of the flocks were from hatcheries that produced "better birds."
As the flock got older, she would walk through the sheds filled "wall to wall and door to door" with chickens. Sometimes while making the trek she'd see a bird stiffen and fall back, a sure sign of a heart attack. "It was just really inhumane," she says.
If the dead weren't removed daily, the other birds would start pecking at the carcasses. Cleaning up the expired chickens was no easy task. "Out of that many birds, you're going to have some die everyday," she says. And as they grew heavier, several trips were required to haul their dead bodies out.
She recalls feeling especially distraught when, just a few short weeks later, they would be caught, placed into cages and loaded onto the trucks. It wasn't uncommon for birds to die during loading or on the trip to the slaughterhouse. For Boles, the animal suffering was compounded by the fact that every dead bird represented money lost and more debt.
From Chicken Barns to Growing Greens
Eventually, they were able to leverage their retirement savings and Dale's construction experience to transition their chicken sheds to greenhouses for growing greens. Now ,they help guide other farmers looking to do the same.
Even though they now have greenhouses instead of chicken houses, the Boles are still dealing with the fallout of running a broiler farm. In 2020, Dale had a heart attack that the first responders didn't think he would survive. The cause: stress-induced heart damage that Paula believes was from their time running the chicken farm. His survival was thanks to "the grace of God," she says.
While the Boles are by no means alone in their concern for the welfare of their animals, Matthews points out that many farmers view it as simply "part of the job." Some situations, however, are so horrible that basically everyone is impacted.
He points to hog farmers during COVID-19. Due to slaughterhouse shutdowns, farmers "had to euthanize pigs [who] were totally healthy." The farmers' job during that time basically became killing pigs and dumping the bodies. They have "nightmares about those kinds of things," says Matthews.
In Whitley's experience, even if poor animal welfare is considered just part of being a livestock farmer, it often contributes to why the farmers he works with want to transition their farms. "They'll name living next to a barn of screaming pigs or chickens [or] picking up dead chickens" as quality of life issues associated with being a farmer, says Whitley.
Compounding the issue is a reluctance to talk about their mental health. Farmers "don't look at it like mental health," says Matthews. "They look at it like mental illness," which makes them reluctant to seek help.
For Paula Boles, their experience has led to a better future, enabling her to help others struggling in her community. She spends her days growing flowers and produce in her chicken sheds turned greenhouses. Of the converted structures she says: "the same greenhouse I used to cry over at night [allows us] to grow...microgreens and bless people."
Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
A new mapping tool shows South Dakota is a big player on the farm conservation scene.
The online feature coincides with a new poll, revealing most farmers want stronger funding for climate-smart practices. In a survey of nearly 500 farms around the U.S., the National Wildlife Federation said three of four respondents support an increase in long-term funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's voluntary conservation programs. The initiatives incentivize farmers and ranchers to work their land in ways that make it more resilient to extreme weather, from prolonged droughts to widespread flooding.
Aviva Glaser, senior director of agriculture policy for the federation, said survey support was consistent across geographic areas.
"The poll also found that farmers not only supported this funding, but they got a lot of value out of this funding," Glaser reported. "They cited things like soil health and improved yields."
Congress is debating future funding levels for programs under the Farm Bill, which needs to be reauthorized for five more years. Conservation dollars usually enjoy bipartisan support but this year could be trickier with talks of spending cuts needed to offset tax cut extensions. Meanwhile, the map shows South Dakota farmers have enrolled more than 7 million acres in the Conservation Stewardship Program, above all other states.
Conservation in farming might seem like "inside information" to producers and policymakers. But Glaser and other advocates emphasized it benefits the public to learn about practices farmers adopt, to make their fields healthy and strong.
"That could be a range of different practices -- practices like cover crops or grazing management -- or it could be a conservation easement," Glaser outlined. "It could be putting in a buffer strip."
Buffer strips can slow and prevent harmful runoff, like nitrates, from leaving farm fields and finding their way into lakes and streams. Agricultural researchers said making landscapes less prone to flooding protects taxpayers, too, by not having to spend money on property cleanup for surrounding communities.
Disclosure: The National Wildlife Federation contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species and Wildlife, Energy Policy, and Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Tennessee News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
Since the beginning of April, President Trump has announced a number of new tariffs on countries around the globe, most notably China. While exactly which tariffs will remain in place long-term is changing day-to-day, the trade war with China appears to only be escalating. This is certain to have major impacts on the agriculture industry, and the consumers who rely on it for food.
Trump’s tariff plan, as originally announced, contained two different “layers.” The first was a 10 percent tariff on exports from all countries, while the second was an additional, “reciprocal” tariff on 60 specific countries. The reciprocal tariff rates differed from country to country, and were ostensibly going to be applied to countries with large trade deficits with the U.S.
Just hours after the tariffs took effect, however, Trump reversed course and announced a 90-day “pause” on the reciprocal tariffs. The first layer of tariffs remains in place, however.
In the same announcement, Trump said that tariffs on China will be increased to 125 percent. This comes after the Chinese government, as widely expected, imposed retaliatory tariffs on American exports in response to Trump’s initial announcement.
How the Tariffs Will Impact Agriculture
Trump’s tariffs will have major impacts on a wide swath of American industry, and agriculture is no exception. The exact nature of those impacts, however, may not be what the president is expecting.
Ultimately, the goal of tariffs is to incentivize domestic production and disincentivize imports — in other words, to reduce international trade. But this is a mistake, says Andrew Muhammad, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of Tennessee Knoxville.
“International trade is a means by which you can consume beyond your ability to produce,” Muhammad tells Sentient. “It’s good for an individual. It’s good for a city, it’s good for a state and, of course, it’s good for a country.”
“Good,” of course, is relative. Increasing our consumption options in this regard might make our lives feel more plentiful, and more consumption is certainly good for producers’ bottom lines. But overconsumption is a problem; we already consume the planet’s resources at an unsustainable rate, and this definitely is not good for the environment, animals or our long term prospects as a species.
Nevertheless, it’s helpful to look at what happens when international trade is artificially restricted via taxation in the way Muhammad describes. And that’s exactly what Trump’s tariffs — and all tariffs — aim to do.
Higher Costs & Lower Profits for Producers
Although it’s impossible to say with certainty how this trade war will pan out, it’s almost certain to result in higher prices and lower profits for Americans, at least in the short term.
Higher Costs & Lower Profits for Producers
From an economic standpoint, Trump’s tariffs will likely cause pain for both agricultural producers and everyday Americans. That’s because tariffs usually cause what’s called a price wedge — a type of economic inefficiency that results in buyers paying more, and sellers earning less, than they otherwise would have.
On the production side, the tariffs will make business less profitable and more costly. Retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. will result in less international demand for American agricultural products, which will hurt agricultural exporters’ bottom lines.
Any American company that sells beef to China, for instance, will see a dip in their profits thanks to the tariffs, as their products will suddenly cost more for Chinese buyers. This, in turn, will incentivize Chinese importers to buy from non-American sources instead, and it’s already started happening: Since Trump’s tariff announcements, China has started buying more beef from Brazilian producers, a move that experts predict will lead to increased deforestation in the Amazon.
But it’s not just exporters. A whole lot of farming equipment is manufactured abroad, and even products that are built in America are often sourced from foreign parts. Because of this, any agricultural producer who uses foreign products at all will have to pay more for them than they would without the tariffs. This applies to tractors, backhoes, combine harvesters, captive bolt pistols and any other piece of equipment that might reasonably be used on a farm.
Muhammad points out that, thanks to the complex and highly interconnected nature of modern economic markets, plenty of agricultural producers who might not think of themselves as exporters or importers are nevertheless deeply enmeshed in international trade, and will be impacted by the tariffs.
“Whether you think you’re connected to global markets or not, there’s a high likelihood that a retaliatory tariff will depress the prices you receive in the market,” Muhammad says. “Trade dynamics with China will filter down into the market prices [producers] receive.”
Higher Prices for Consumers
All of the above factors mean that American food producers will likely make less money than they were before as a result of Trump’s tariffs. The cost of doing business will go up, and if history is any guide, producers will respond to this by charging more for their goods.
A key factor for producers is whether the Trump administration’s U.S. Department of Agriculture will provide financial relief to farmers as the Department did during President Trump’s first term.
For now, it appears Americans will almost certainly be paying more money for groceries than they were before. Foods that are primarily or largely sourced from other countries will likely face the highest price hikes, and Muhammad cites hamburgers as a prime example of this.
Beef As Case Study
The U.S. beef trade is a complicated topic, as America is both a leading exporter and a leading importer of beef. This might seem odd, but it’s because beef is sourced and produced in different ways depending on the country. Generally speaking, the U.S. imports lower-quality forms of beef and exports higher-quality cuts.
Burgers are made from ground beef, and between 20 and 30 percent of ground beef in America is imported from abroad. American burger producers are especially reliant on imported lean trimmings, a lower-quality form of meat that they combine with domestically produced fat trimmings to create ground beef.
Tariffs will make it more expensive for these producers to acquire lean trimmings from abroad. You might think that this would compel them to purchase more trimmings from American cattle farmers; however, due to the way cattle is fed in the U.S., American beef farmers are not well-equipped to produce lean trimmings at the volumes needed to replace foreign trimmings.
Of course, retaliatory tariffs make it less profitable to export beef, too. With that being the case, couldn’t U.S. farmers simply use high-quality, domestically produced cuts of beef that they otherwise would have exported to fill the gap in lean trimmings?
Not exactly. In addition to the fact that this would result in a different-tasting burger that customers might not prefer, ground beef goes for a cheaper price on a per-pound basis than steaks, roasts and other products made using high-quality cuts of beef. It wouldn’t make economic sense for beef producers to grind up that meat and sell it for a lower price than they were receiving before.
“It has sort of two compounding effects,” Muhammad says. “You have depressing beef prices in terms of what we export, but inflating beef prices in terms of what we import. And since we export something very different from what we import, that’s not going to balance out.”
No matter how you slice it, the end result is the same: more expensive burgers.
(Some) Empty Shelves
In addition to raising prices for everybody, buyers of agricultural goods could face an additional consequence due to the tariffs: shortages.
This doesn’t mean Americans will suddenly be facing a food scarcity crisis. What it does mean is that some manufacturers might be disincentivized to produce certain foods, specifically those with very low margins.
Blueberries, for instance, have a very low markup. They’re only sold for slightly more than they cost to produce, and so in order to be profitable, producers need to sell them in very high quantities. But if the price of importing them increases, even by a little bit, it may no longer be profitable to sell blueberries at all.
“If you are an importer of blueberries, you’re making your money off the fact that a bunch of people will buy blueberries, not that on a per-unit basis, you’re making a high [profit],” Muhammad says. “When tariffs make that low markup non-competitive — when you can’t pass the price along to consumers, because they’re only going to pay so much for blueberries — you could actually then see some decreases in availability, as well as higher prices.”
In a broader sense, any agricultural goods that can’t be produced domestically, or can only be produced in relatively small quantities, may be in short supply as well. This includes out-of-season fruit and vegetables, and goods that are required to be made in another country, such as Mexican beer or Scotch whiskey.
Will Tariffs Increase Domestic Food Production?
The “upside” of tariffs, at least according to their proponents, is that they make domestic producers more competitive with their foreign rivals. Will U.S. food producers “rise to the challenge,” and begin producing more food domestically?
Not necessarily. Making more food in the U.S. would require farmers to increase their production capacities, and this costs money. But such an investment would only be worthwhile for as long as the tariff is in place; the moment it’s gone, this excess production capacity becomes a wasted investment, as there’s no longer a market for the extra food being produced.
As Trump has already shown, tariffs often don’t remain in place for very long. The administration has even stated that the tariffs are a “negotiating strategy,” and as such, American firms have little incentive to treat them as anything other than temporary.
“All they’re gonna do when they’re temporary is just raise prices,” Muhammad says. “In theory, they’re supposed to also increase domestic production. But unless there’s some excess capacity unrealized, where we can ramp up production without investment, you won’t get any increase in output unless someone can guarantee that the tariffs are permanent. But the problem is, even if they last four years, that’s still not permanent.”
Will Tariffs Increase Farm Consolidation?
Over the last half-century or so, small farms have increasingly been acquired or put out of business by large agricultural producers. This phenomenon is referred to as consolidation, and because tariffs will hurt farmers’ bottom lines, they could accelerate consolidation in the agricultural sector.
But they might not, either. Muhammad says that, although increased consolidation is a possibility, large producers may be reluctant to buy up smaller farms, given that the tariffs may only be temporary.
“If I wanted to acquire another firm, I would need to know that these tariffs are in place for life,” Muhammad says. “What’s the point of investing in expanding capacity to take advantage of economies of scale when I need a tariff to still be competitive?”
The Bottom Line
This isn’t the first time Trump has waged a trade war. He did so during his first term as well, and the results were not good: The U.S. economy shrank, American companies lost nearly $46 billion and an estimated 300,000 Americans were put out of work.
It’s too soon to say exactly what the results of these new tariffs will be. But there’s little reason to believe that they’ll be any different than the last time, and if that’s the case, things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better, including in the agricultural sector.
Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
