“Go Big or Get Out”

Audio version:

Earl Butz served as the Secretary of Agriculture under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and as Deputy Secretary under Eisenhower in the late 1950s. His nearly nine-year leadership tenure ensured that his radical policies, which favored large-scale corporate farming practices, became firmly entrenched within the federal government. The radical economic and regulatory changes that occurred during Butz’s tenure as Secretary of the USDA led to the swift decline of the American family farm in favor of large agribusinesses. The devastating consequences were economic, environmental, and social. They continue to shape U.S. agriculture and rural life today. Due to these agricultural policies, small towns have atrophied as people left the family farm to pursue better opportunities. Those who stayed faced many economic hardships. A reliance on the welfare state developed, with poverty becoming a common characteristic of rural America. Those who could leave, including generations of young adults, drifted away from their nuclear and extended families to find a better life in the booming suburbs and cities across this nation. In Butz’ own words:

The shift to a centralized food system, along with subsidies for commodity crops such as corn, oats, wheat, and soy, as well as the emergence of mega poultry and livestock operations, primarily benefited large-scale factory farms and agribusinesses (and Wall Street financiers), leaving small, diversified farmers unable to compete.

The reasons behind these sweeping changes were complex. Butz believed that modernizing agriculture meant adopting industrial methods and increasing scale. By encouraging “get big or get out,” his vision was to boost productivity, drive down costs, and maximize yields. Because the USA had a moral obligation to feed the world- was one common justification.

The policies aimed to produce more food at lower prices, making basic foodstuffs widely accessible to consumers. By pushing farmers to produce “fencerow to fencerow,” Butz intended to flood the market with affordable food. In fact, this is precisely what happened. But at what cost?

Butz saw New Deal-era supply controls and price supports as outdated “socialism.” Dismantling these programs and letting market forces determine prices, he argued, would make agriculture more self-sufficient and less reliant on government payments. But this wasn’t what happened. Government subsidies didn’t stop and, in fact, continued and increased, but they often came in the form of direct payments tied to production, farm loans, and crop insurance, rather than price guarantees and production limits. Over time, these developments encouraged even greater production, favoring large-scale, high-yield farming, particularly for industrialized grain crops.

The government believed that overproducing food could boost exports and turn food into a geopolitical tool, some might say a geopolitical weapon. Top officials saw America’s agricultural abundance as a way to increase exports and enhance U.S. geopolitical influence. This strategy involved large gifts of food aid to less developed countries, which disrupted local agricultural practices. As a result, rural populations in less developed nations often stopped producing their own food and became dependent on the low-quality mass-produced foods supplied by the U.S. government. Instead of feeding the world as Butz had envisioned, these food drops were exploited as a political tool by local elites. Countries remained as food insecure as ever, with periodic famines exacerbated by displacement and conflict. Additionally, the decline of small traditional farms meant that the nations were no longer independent, but had to rely on assistance from the USA to survive. Which, from a geopolitical power framework, was a win for the State Department and spooks – what we now refer to as the “deep state.”

In the USA, things are no better. In fact, over 141,000 USA farms have been lost from 2017 to 2022, according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This is a decline of about 7% over that period. Thus, the increasing regulatory burden initiated by Butz has continued to this day and continues to augment the decline of farming communities across the nation.

Below is a chart generated by Perplexity (AI)

Blowback

Butz and other policymakers viewed the migration of people from small farms to cities in the United States as part of the necessary economic modernization (and mobilization) needed for continued economic growth. They believed that consolidating farms would free up labor for industry, which would in turn lead to broader economic growth. USDA Secretary Butz and the concurrent White House administrations that he served decried the New Deal era agricultural policies as socialist. However, they then set about enforcing policies that would drive people off of generational lands. They did this to control the agricultural markets and to supply labor for industry in urban areas. Little did they realize that they were basically setting up a form of a command economy, as the government forced people off their land in a process of attrition. By controlling who can farm, their surreptitious “command economy” policies were no better than those of a socialist or communist regime, which they so purportedly despised.

Agriculture requires a diverse skill set and a substantial amount of capital to get started. Once people left the family farms, there was no turning back. What did happen was that the accumulation of wealth went to large agribusinesses and highly efficient farms. In contrast, smaller farmers faced poverty and the loss of their family lands. Causing rural folk to transition into low-wage jobs elsewhere. The predicted economic growth primarily benefited the wealthy, rather than the middle class or the working poor. The oldest story in history.

Soil depletion- cause and consequence

Finally, after decades of damaging federal policies, there is now an opportunity to reimagine agriculture in the United States as moving away from the Nixon-era “get big or get out” edicts from the USDA. Questionable farming practices, such as reliance on petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, as well as automated mechanization, have gained prominence at the cost of overall soil fertility and micronutrient availability. All sacrificed on the altar of progress to achieve greater productivity and profitability of increasingly larger farms.

Farmers in the United States continue to use several highly toxic pesticides and herbicides, some of which have been banned or severely restricted in other countries. These chemicals pose risks to human health, farmworkers, consumers, and the environment.

Furthermore, farmers no longer rely on soil regeneration through the use of livestock manure and rotational nitrogen-fixing crops; instead, they use synthetic fertilizers. Urea, made from ammonia, in turn typically produced using natural gas, is one of the most common.

The ammonia used in fertilizer production is mainly created through the Haber-Bosch process, which combines nitrogen from the air with hydrogen. The primary industrial source of hydrogen is natural gas (methane). In this process, natural gas reacts with steam to generate hydrogen, which is then combined with nitrogen to yield ammonia. This is then applied as a liquid or pelletized fertilizer to crops. So, this fertilizer is here today and gone tomorrow, as these fertilizers are soon run off into streams, lakes, and finally, the ocean.

This nutrient runoff fuels the rapid growth of algae, causing “algal blooms” that can cover large areas of water. The decomposition of these blooms depletes oxygen in the water, creating hypoxic “dead zones” where most aquatic life cannot survive. As an example, the Gulf of America “dead zone” is a hypoxic area spanning thousands of square miles and is primarily caused by fertilizer runoff from the Mississippi River Basin.

USDA policy has broad dietary consequences

Roughly fifty major beef slaughterhouses handle 98% of all cattle in the U.S., with the 11 largest processing 46%. This trend results mainly from USDA policies dating back to Secretary Earl Butz. Therefore, it is vital to amend federal regulations to support local slaughterhouses, as these facilities are essential for providing access to farm-to-table meat products.

USDA agricultural regulations have created major obstacles for local slaughterhouses. Uniform standards, high compliance costs, inspector shortages, and inflexible rules have led to industry consolidation, making it difficult for small-scale, local, and niche producers to access nearby slaughter and processing services.

When people continually consume non-nutritious, ultra-processed foods, mostly made of chemicals, preserved imported meats, seed oils, grains, sugar, simple carbohydrates, and legumes, the result is a chronic epidemic of obesity. Whole foods in the form of vegetables, fruits, nuts, quality dairy, and meats are what can turn the health of Americans around. These are the very same foods that the USDA mostly turns a blind eye to. These small farms are primarily off the radar of the USDA. They can and must operate independently from the immense regulatory burden placed on big agriculture. This is the niche where the reemergence of the family farm can make a significant difference, as they utilize traditional, organic, and regenerative farming practices to produce healthier food. Small farms are the ideal workshop to create a healthy American diet.

Before the current Trump administration, the last presidential administration to be aggressively pro-small farm was that of President John F. Kennedy. Kennedy supported initiatives to improve rural economies, which indirectly benefited small farmers. The Area Redevelopment Act (1961) aimed to stimulate economic growth in rural areas through infrastructure and job creation, helping small farmers in economically depressed regions. The Rural Electrification Administration (REA), expanded under previous administrations, continued to provide loans for electricity and telephone services in rural areas, aiding small farmers with modernization. Kennedy’s administration promoted conservation programs, such as the Soil Conservation Service, which provided technical and financial assistance to farmers for sustainable practices. Small farmers could access these resources to improve land management, though participation required navigating bureaucratic processes. And he actively used the “bully pulpit” to emphasize the importance of the small farm in American culture and the economy. Kennedy’s speeches, such as his remarks at the National Conference on Rural Life (1962), emphasized rural community development and the importance of family farms, suggesting a rhetorical commitment to small farmers.

More recently, with the second Trump administration, Secretary of the USDA Brooke Rollins has launched the Farmers First: Small Family Farms Policy Agenda, which aims to remove barriers and increase support for small and family-owned farms. Rollins’ policies have been positioned as a response to the economic pressures and regulatory hurdles that led to the loss of over 141,000 farms in a recent five-year period. Her focus has been on removing obstacles rather than adding new regulations, and on creating an environment where small farms are not disadvantaged compared to larger agribusinesses. Whether these policies are too little, too late, or whether, over time, they too will become tainted by regulatory edicts, remains an open question.

What we have learned over the last fifty years is that the United States can not and should not “feed the world.” Because those cheap grain and soy-based foods that we have an overabundance of are the very same products that are making us all sick. Ultimately, these regulations have mostly served the interests of Wall Street and large agricultural investment corporations. They certainly have not served the interests of the American farmer or the American consumer. Furthermore, we aren’t doing any great service to other nations, either. Nation-states must determine their own fate and not rely on the soft power of the United States government to survive.

What we need now is an emphasis on decentralized, local production. Enabling, not necessarily forcing, the food supply manufacturing process out of big Agriculture, by supporting small farmers’ efforts to sell their products directly to local consumers.

With minor changes to the regulatory framework at the USDA, we can look forward to a revitalization of the small farm. And then we can revitalize the small towns. This will then revitalize the “flyover” states and their “deplorable” residents.

These small regulatory changes include removing governmental barriers that hinder small farms. By reorganizing the USDA and the FDA’s general policy in ways that are farmer-friendly, with a more decentralized approach that enables innovation, things can turn around. Rather than promoting big agriculture, the government needs to allow more small farms and their suppliers to thrive by loosening regulatory control. Let the consumer decide if the meat they buy at the farmer’s market or directly from the farmer or butcher is or is not of good quality. In this model, the USDA and the FDA might be likened to a label that would provide the consumer with some assurance that certain standards have been met, but that their stranglehold over farmers would be loosened.

Why do we have all of these masses of regulations? Who wins in a highly regulated industry? The answer is that a highly regulated environment benefits big business. The reason is simple here. The more expensive something is to get to market, the less competition there is. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry comes to mind as the poster child for this type of regulatory capture.

As an example, numerous other industries have limited competition primarily through government regulation and regulatory barriers to entry. Highly regulated industries are often created by lobbyists representing the very industries that are being regulated. These barriers frequently include licensing requirements, safety requirements, patent or trademark protections, exclusive rights, or complex compliance frameworks that discourage or outright block new competitors. Some of the industries that have used regulatory capture to drive small businesses out of existence include banking, insurance, telecommunications, and healthcare providers, among others.

The people and organizations that win in a highly regulated framework are the “big boys.” They’re the only ones that can afford to comply. And so, they have an incentive to lobby for more and more regulations because they’re the only ones who can handle the costs associated with such regulations. This is an anti-competitive strategy, and it represents an unfair advantage for them. Government regulations become a weapon to keep small competitors out. This is absolutely part of the dynamic that’s going on with big agriculture.

Big agriculture, through its surrogates, the USDA, the FDA, and the CDC, has wrapped its tentacles around almost all aspects of American farming. Take the poultry egg industry. This industry has become highly regulated, with the FDA, USDA, and CDC all requiring compliance by poultry farmers.

The FDA regulates chicken eggs to ensure food safety, primarily focusing on preventing contamination from pathogens such as Salmonella enteritidis. The FDA’s Egg Safety Rule, which took effect in 2009, requires egg farms with more than 3,000 laying hens to follow certain practices when storing and transporting eggs. These practices include biosecurity measures, cleaning and disinfecting housing, controlling flies and rodents, and disease testing. Additionally, the rule mandates that eggs be refrigerated on the farm within 36 hours of being laid.

The FDA also offers guidance for “egg producers” who permit hens access to outdoor areas, ensuring compliance with standards to prevent Salmonella contamination. Additionally, the FDA has implemented new allergen labeling regulations that require more detailed identification for eggs from other types of fowl, such as ducks, geese, quail, or other birds. In contrast, chicken eggs will continue to be labeled simply as “eggs.”

The USDA has established regulations for chicken eggs to ensure safety, quality, and proper labeling. These regulations cover various aspects, including animal welfare, handling, and labeling requirements. For instance, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service oversees the safety and inspection of egg products, ensuring they meet federal standards. Additionally, the Egg Safety Final Rule aims to prevent Salmonella contamination by requiring egg producers to implement specific safety measures.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides guidelines on the safety of chicken eggs, particularly about potential contamination from pathogens such as Salmonella and Avian Influenza.

Technically, all of this regulation flows from the constitutional interstate commerce regulation powers vested in the Federal government. So if a farmer is not engaging in interstate commerce, the legal authority of USDA, the FDA, and the CDC is minimal. Nice in theory, but very few family farmers have the resources to hire a constitutional lawyer to put these federal agencies in their place if they come knocking.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has highlighted that the USDA is the lead agency in a bird flu outbreak, but even the Department of Homeland Security has been given a role in the regulatory processes regarding poultry. The DHS would assume the lead role in coordinating the federal response if a national emergency for Avian Influenza is declared. The GAO also recommended that USDA make fuller use of DHS’s expertise and resources for prevention and response planning.

So, there isn’t just one government entity regulating egg production, but many. And we haven’t even begun to address the newer regulations being placed on poultry farmers regarding the newer Avian Influenza strains.

Yet, the data show that even as far back as 1986, there have been almost no major outbreaks in the USA related to eggs and Salmonella. In fact, the larger outbreaks of Salmonella occurred long after most of these regulatory measures were enacted. Even then, at most 130+ cases were reported – most likely due to the new surveillance techniques regarding poultry and COVID-19, as well as H5N1. Mass testing for these infectious diseases in poultry and livestock is currently the newest fad in public health.

Large producers face annual compliance costs exceeding six figures. Costs that are directly passed down to the consumer.

Funnily enough, despite the numerous regulations regarding the environment and food safety that have imposed a significant financial burden on American farmers, the actual data do not support the claim that our food is actually safer.

Compared to official numbers from the 1960s, there are not substantially fewer reported cases of foodborne illness per capita in the USA today than before all of these regulations. Reported case numbers actually appear similar or higher now! However, the agricultural-industrial complex and the US government claim that this is an artifact. The US government claims that the rise in foodborne illnesses per capita is due to significantly improved detection and documentation. However, there is no solid evidence to support this promoted explanation of why the number of food-borne illness cases has remained relatively stable since the 1960s despite the explosion of regulations, compliance costs, and oversight. These regulations have increased the size of the vast agricultural-industrial complex, while the number of small farms has declined.

In analyzing what has led to the downfall of small farms, the question arises whether this was an organized conspiracy to gut rural America by a successive series of White House Administrations from the 1950s through to the present (interrupted only by JFK), or was this simply a naturally emergent phenomenon that would have occurred, regardless of whether Earl Butz and the USDA had not stepped in. Having studied the historic public statements, it is clear that this was intentional. Explicitly clear that Earl Butz and Richard Nixon conspired to dismantle family farms throughout America. They did so because they realized that the family farm is a generational link that stymies industrialization. This is not a “conspiracy theory” but rather is supported by historic policy statements of the time.

What the USDA, under the direction of Earl Butz, did was to lay out the government’s strategy for severing families and family members from each other. That moving men out of rural America was by design. Industrialized societies rely on and promote a workforce that is willing and able to relocate, both geographically and socially, to adapt to the constantly changing demands of technology, the market, and the broader economy.

Workforce mobility is considered crucial for economic resilience, innovation, and sustained growth. In industrial societies, more functions, such as childcare, elder care, and education, shift from the extended family to the state, and the nuclear family becomes increasingly isolated from its extended family. In the case of small farm families and rural communities, Secretary Butz and his co-conspirators in the White House planned and delivered the demise of the family farm to create a highly mobilized urban workforce.

This is partly why the modern western nation-state places such an emphasis on “higher education”. A college education, where children move away from their childhood homes, breaks family bonds. This creates a workforce willing to move for career opportunities, permanently breaking the bonds of both nuclear and extended families.

Research on the migration patterns of college-educated youth in the United States shows that a significant number do not return to the regions where they grew up after earning their degrees. This is particularly true in rural America. Many small towns in the fly-over states have almost become ghost towns. Consider what this means for the family and traditional values.

With all this said, the truth is that the government failed in its plot to break the family farm. Many of these farm families just went underground. As the USDA no longer had anything to offer them, they began selling produce, eggs, raw milk, niche livestock, and meats to local markets. They came to rely on creating local markets for their farm products, for which the USDA has little interest in regulating.

Many such farmers rely on a single income, often from the women in their family, to maintain credit, secure health and life insurance, and hold bank accounts through outside jobs – most often lower-paying positions, as these are what are available locally. The other partner in these arrangements will functionally homestead and be responsible for providing energy in the form of firewood, eggs, produce, niche livestock breeding and sales, as well as meat, often through hunting. Or the man will work outside the farm in the trades, while the woman tends to the farm during the weekdays. Many times, children are home-schooled, with an emphasis on learning a trade and traditional family values. This is the face of the modern homesteader, and it represents a rapidly growing movement.

The annual USDA Agriculture Census is the most comprehensive survey of U.S. farming available. Still, it does not fully cover small, low-sales, and farms that do not participate in programs. The number of farms not counted varies each year and by region, but for the smallest farms, the undercount rate is estimated by the USDA to be nearly 30%. Frankly, we believe that number is much higher than that. It is not in any small farmer’s interests to declare their farm to the US government.

Take, for example, the sale of small farm-to-consumer eggs or eggs from a backyard flock for personal use. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) supports and sometimes requires random or risk-based surveillance of both commercial and backyard poultry in all 50 states. By declaring that one keeps backyard chickens, the government can then come knocking on your doorstep, take samples, and then, if any birds test positive, the entire flock will be killed. Some states even require people to register their backyard flocks. Even when a few chicks are bought from a retail store in some states, the names and addresses of the buyers are recorded. One only has to drop into almost any poultry social media group, and it becomes clear that practically no one wants to be a part of that.

After all the billions spent on avian influenza over the past two years, what has been the result? From 2024 through July 2025 (the last case reported was in February 2025), the United States reported a total of 70 confirmed and probable human H5N1 avian influenza cases, with one fatality – of a person with many co-morbidities, who died with H5N1 but most likely, not of H5N1. Massive numbers of chickens have been slaughtered, to the detriment of the small farmers who produce poultry and eggs for American consumers.

The right to privacy has to be protected by keeping the government off of our lands, out of our business, and away from our livestock. Hence, many small farmers steer clear of governmental overreach by not self-reporting their farming activities. And this is how homesteading has become a force for resistance against governmental tyranny.

We must have faith in the free market and American values. Small farmers can be trusted to monitor the health of their animals and other farm products. Let’s have faith in the ability of the American people to make informed decisions about their health if they’re given access to real food, along with honest information about good nutrition.