cultural plan generally left small- and medium-scale
operations without the resources to continue. More
and more farmers gave up farming for urban occu-
pations.
Much of the farmland sold in the 1980’s to satisfy
mortgages left the hands of small- and medium-scale
farmers and was acquired by foreign investors, non-
agriculturalists, or large-scale farmers. The Farm
Credit System’s rules stated that the land it had fore-
closed upon could be purchased at 4.9 percent inter-
est, with 40 percent of the purchase price paid imme-
diately. Large and well-financed entities were the only
ones capable of meeting these conditions. Accord-
ingly, insurance companies more than doubled their
land holdings from 1985 to 1986, and investor-owned
farm-management companies increased their hold-
ings by 36 percent between 1979 and 1987.
In order to face the exigencies forced upon them,
many farmers turned to alternative products. Arti-
chokes, catfish, wildflowers, herbs, crayfish, honey,
and garden truck were all touted as the solution to
the farmers’ woes, as were llamas and alpacas. Still,
most farmers maintained their traditional crops, be-
cause they were the ones the federal government
would subsidize. This preference for subsidized, tra-
ditional crops, however, added to the surplus of
grains already on the market.
Also adding to the surplus was the introduction of
biogenetic seed stock. Grain stock was modified to
be more resistant to disease, as well as to tolerate the
chemical herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides
used during the growing season. Superior yields re-
sulted, often rendering impotent the government’s
programs to reduce grain surpluses. Genetically
modified livestock became available to farmers.
These livestock could be raised on less feed, inocu-
lated to encourage growth, and marketed sooner.
Again, these innovations decreased costs, but they
also increased supply, driving down the prices farm-
ers could receive for their products.
The federal government sought other avenues of
surplus reduction throughout the 1980’s, including
Secretary of Agriculture John Block’s Payment in
Kind (PIK) endeavor. PIK, referred to by President
Reagan as a “crop swap,” allowed farmers to take
land out of production in return not only for cash
payments but also for payments in grain, which they
could then sell on the open market. As a tool to aid
farmers, the program was accepted at first as an
emergency measure. As land was taken out of pro-
duction, however, tenant farmers and farm laborers
lost their livelihoods, implement and fertilizer deal-
ers were bereft of customers, and taxpayers were left
with ever-increasing taxes in order to support grain
prices, even with PIK in place.
Replacing PIK as the nation’s premier farm policy
in 1985 was the Food Security Act (FSA). Generally
considered a failure, the five-year plan was intended
to maintain farm income while reducing the costs of
production. Target prices were projected to drop
closer to the market price, saving the federal govern-
ment money. If agricultural surpluses became exces-
sive, the legislation had a clause to pay farmers for re-
ducing their acreage. The FSA also allowed for the
retirement of 45 million acres under the Conserva-
tion Reserve Program, designed to retire highly
erodible land from production. Despite these mea-
sures, overproduction and low prices prevailed for
the remainder of the 1980’s.
Public Responses Despite the failure of measures
intended to elevate farm prices, the image of the
farmer rose during the 1980’s. As the decade wore
on, more and more non-farmers came to support
higher taxes as a way to preserve a viable agricultural
economy. Slightly more than 50 percent of Ameri-
cans declared that they would pay more in taxes to
help farmers keep their land. Clearly, a corner had
been turned with regard to the image of the farmer
and farming. While negative images of farmers had
prevailed throughout much of the twentieth cen-
tury, the image now shifted to a more positive view.
As the 1990’s dawned, it became clear that American
agriculture was changing. Federal and state laws
and regulations, the introduction of biogenetics, en-
hanced and enlarged farm equipment, a declining
and aging farm population, larger farmers, fewer in-
dependent operators, and prices below the price of
production all would be taken into consideration inBack to the Future.
Impact Agricultural conditions during the 1980’s
changed the face of the American countryside. As
debts rose and profit margins fell, many farmers
were forced from their farms by foreclosures. Fore-
closed land was often acquired by large-scale farm-
ing corporations, insurance companies, and inves-
tors. Farmers and their families left the countryside
for the cities, leaving churches, schools, businesses,
and other entities that depended on them to close
as well.The Eighties in America Agriculture in the United States 37