In the fields of Arkansas, farmers rise before sunrise, checking prices and markets that determine whether their hard work will yield a profit or a loss. Scott Brown, a row crop farmer who grows corn, rice, and soybeans, wakes at 5:45 each morning to listen to Standard Grain for the latest market update. Three years ago, soybeans reached a high of seventeen dollars a bushel. This year they are down to ten dollars.
For many farmers, that means operating at a loss. For cotton, soy, corn, and rice, the average loss per acre is one hundred fifty to three hundred fifty dollars. For Scott and his peers, that is not a minor setback. “I was at all soybeans at one hundred fifty dollars an acre loss,” he said. “You’re looking at four hundred fifty thousand dollars of loss. For just doing my job, I am paying an additional four hundred fifty thousand instead of making anything.”
The public narrative often blames trade wars, particularly the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Chinese imports. While tariffs have added pressure, farmers argue that these are not the root cause of the crisis. “Think of it as being in a coffin and we are going to nail the lid shut. The tariffs are the final nail. This crisis was here before he did the tariff thing,” Scott said.
The real culprit, according to many farmers, is corporate consolidation in the agricultural sector, which allows a handful of companies to dominate the production inputs and the market for crops. From seeds to fertilizer to machinery, a few multinational corporations control almost every aspect of modern farming.
The High Cost of Inputs
The cost of farming inputs has risen dramatically over the past few decades, far outpacing what farmers can earn from selling their crops. Farmers pay three times more for seeds, fertilizer, and machinery than they did in the 1990s. Adam Chappell, who farms two thousand four hundred acres, explains that even if he earns five hundred dollars per acre gross, companies know it and can price their products up to four hundred ninety dollars. “The lack of competition is the reason they can keep those prices inflated, and there is nothing we can do about it,” he said.
These inflated input costs leave farmers trapped. Federal aid, while significant, often does not reach them directly. Over the last eight years, the federal government has sent more than one hundred thirty billion dollars in emergency farm aid. When farmers receive the money, it frequently passes through their hands straight to the companies they owe for seed, fertilizer, or machinery. “When I get an aid package, okay, that money will never come to me. It comes straight through my hands into whoever I owe the money to,” Adam said.
Consolidation in Seed, Fertilizer, and Machinery Markets
Over the last forty years, thousands of seed companies have merged into three major players. Forty-six fertilizer firms have merged into four. Two farm machinery companies dominate the markets for tractors and combines. Key mergers include Monsanto and Bayer, which eliminated direct competition between major seed producers, and similar consolidations in fertilizer and machinery industries.
This lack of competition allows these companies to maintain high profit margins while farmers barely break even. Farmers are left with no choice but to purchase at the prices set by these corporations. “Just for easy numbers, say I am going to make five hundred dollars an acre gross on an acre of whatever. Well, those companies know that, and they will price their stuff up to like four hundred ninety dollars,” Adam explained.
Farmers as Price Takers in a Global Grain Market
The consolidation problem extends to the selling side of farming as well. Four major grain companies, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, and Louis Dreyfus, control nearly eighty percent of the U.S. grain market. In many regions, farmers face only one or two of these buyers.
Farmers have little to no leverage in this system. They cannot negotiate higher prices. “We cannot negotiate with a buyer like ADM or Cargill and say, ‘No, ten dollars is not good enough. I will give you my soybeans for twelve.’ They will just go, ‘Well, okay. Get out and go on then.’ We have leverage against nobody,” Adam said.
Global trade policies have compounded this problem. American farmers now compete with Argentina and Brazil to sell soybeans, while multinational corporations profit from the free movement of crops across borders. Cargill, for example, is a major exporter in both Argentina and Brazil, which puts U.S. farmers at a disadvantage.
Federal Aid and Its Limits
While federal aid programs are intended to support farmers, the system often benefits the multinational corporations instead. Payments sent to farmers with debts quickly flow to the companies that supplied seeds, fertilizer, and machinery. As a result, taxpayer dollars subsidize corporate profits rather than directly increasing farmers’ income.
Adam Chappell summarized the frustration many farmers feel: “Instead of lowering their prices and taking a cut in their margin, they are just laundering tax money.” This reveals the inefficiency of current bailout policies and why simply increasing aid will not solve the underlying issues.
Real-World Impacts on Farmers and Communities
The consequences of corporate consolidation are visible in rural communities. Since 1997, the United States has lost over three hundred thousand farms, leaving rural towns depopulated and struggling. Cotton Plant, Arkansas, for example, once had forty or fifty farmers in the community. Now only four or five remain.
As farms disappear, so do local businesses. Schools close, stores shut down, and services vanish. Farmers are not only facing financial hardship but also witnessing the gradual decline of their communities. Scott Brown reflected, “All the schools are closed now, but that is what is left of the elementary school. High school is completely gone. They demolished it. When I was a kid, Cotton Plant probably had fifteen or sixteen hundred people in it.”
Possible Solutions and Policy Recommendations
Farmers and analysts argue that structural reform is essential. Breaking up monopolistic corporations and enforcing stronger antitrust regulations could restore competition. Supply management programs or price floors could guarantee a minimum profit for critical crops, allowing farmers to operate sustainably without relying on constant bailouts.
Diversifying production to serve domestic consumers instead of overproducing for export markets could also improve resilience. These changes would give farmers a fairer share of the profits generated by their work and help stabilize rural communities.
Ben Lilliston, a farm and trade policy analyst, explained that corporations such as Cargill and ADM are forced to pay farmers fairly in the market when competition exists, which would reduce the need for taxpayer subsidies. “It is not in the interest of multinational corporations to pay fair prices voluntarily. It is in the interest of policy to create conditions where they must,” he said.
Conclusion
The struggles of American farmers are not simply the result of trade wars or bad weather. Decades of corporate consolidation have created a system in which a few multinational companies control the cost of inputs and the price of outputs, leaving farmers trapped and communities in decline.
Without significant reform, bailouts and trade deals will continue to serve corporate profits rather than the people who feed the nation. Farmers like Scott Brown and Adam Chappell show that the crisis is real, personal, and urgent. Until competition is restored, until policies protect their livelihoods, and until rural communities are valued, the system will remain rigged against the very people who work the land.
