If subsidies were removed, there is no doubt that in many countries all farmers would be forced off the land and agriculture would become concentrated in low-income nations where farm income can buy a reasonable living standard. Countries like Japan and Switzerland, for instance, would see farming disappear completely.

However, on two seemingly opposing grounds it is hard for me to see this as necessarily a desirable outcome.

For one thing, even were food production in developing countries able to provide the world with enough food with little production in developed nations, there is no certainty it would be ecologically sustainable. Though most developing nations (Africa south of the Zambezi excepted) do not possess the extreme ecological fragility of ecosystems in my Australian homeland, soils in poor countries are generally less fertile than those of Europe, North America, New Zealand or East Asia. Many poor nations also have more limited water resources than Europe or North America or New Zealand or East Asia, so that there is more risk (though still nothing compared with what farming has created in Australia) of ecological sustainability being a loser from placing agriculture at the mercy of the market.

Secondly, would products unsuitable for those nations in which farming can remain economic still be produced?? Given that those nations in which agriculture could buy the best living standard generally have relatively similar monsoonal-type climates, I am tempted to say there is no certainty that the present range of foods would remain available.

Another point, as the brilliant demographer Phillip Longman (”The Empty Cradle”, “The Return of Patriarchy”) is that his analysis of the demographic “time bomb” faced by almost all nations in Europe and East Asia, as well as Canada and New Zealand, is that uncontrolled rural depopulation caused by farmers being forced from the land by economic factors is a major factor behind the extremely low fertility rates that in the future could easily prove the undoing of their entire societies.

Thus, even if large agricultural subsidies are undesirable, it is possible that they avoid a worse demographic and ecological fate for the world.

Bottom line is that subsidies or no the small american farmer as well as the rural farm village are fast disappearing. Hardly anyone under 30 is staying in a lot of the rural great plains.

As for biodiesel, its almost certainly a net energy loss to grow corn for biodiesel. Soy is a gain and actually I’ll be working on a project with waste vegetable oil and biodiesel this summer.

For a twist- I read one person who suggested that we turn the Great Plains into an ecotourism park. Like the savanna, but with buffalo.

…Biotechnology is another factor in the efficiency of American farmers…
…American farmers are the most efficient in the world…

One new market opening for domestic farm goods is bio-diesel as Americans seek to reduce their dependence on foreign oil. Great article in last weeks economist…

Generally speaking I am a free market kind of guy. However, there is an aspect of this debate that relates to national security. Should the US rely on foreign sources for its most important food staples? Completely opening up the US’s agricultural markets exposes Americans to possible security motivated trade manipulations by other countries less committed to free market ideals. Farm subsidies are disruptive and expensive, but I do not think that they shouuld be completely abolished.

If by a smaller farming industry, you mean streamlined and efficient, that’s exactly what we expect of the rest of our industries. Somehow the family farmer deserves more protection than the family grocer put out of business by Safeway or the family general store owner under-sold by Wal-Mart. If this is the direction of the market, so be it.