How Arkansas Farmers Voted Their Way Out of Business

 

The Tyson Trap: How Contract Farming Became a One-Way Street

By SDC News One IFS News Writers Staff

By the early 2020s, the warning signs were everywhere. By 2025, the collapse was undeniable.

WEST MEMPHIS, AR [IFS] -- In towns across eastern and northwest Arkansas, farmers are selling land their families worked for generations. Equipment dealers sit quiet. Grain elevators operate on reduced hours. Poultry houses—once pitched as “guaranteed income”—stand empty, stripped of birds and value.

The explanation most often offered is global markets, inflation, or bad luck.

But the deeper truth is more uncomfortable: Arkansas agriculture is collapsing under a political and economic model rural voters helped build—one that concentrated power in corporate hands, stripped farmers of leverage, and hollowed out the protections that once kept small producers alive.

The Tyson Trap: How Contract Farming Became a One-Way Street

Nowhere is this clearer than in poultry.

Tyson Foods, headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas, pioneered the modern contract-farming system decades ago. On paper, it looked like a lifeline: farmers borrowed heavily to build chicken houses, while Tyson supplied the birds, feed, and processing.

In reality, it was a debt trap.

Farmers typically took on $1–2 million in loans to build poultry houses—often at Tyson’s encouragement—based on contracts that could be canceled at will. The farmers did not own the chickens, did not set prices, and did not control their income. They owned only the debt.

For years, farmers warned lawmakers that the system was abusive:

• Contracts were opaque

• Pay was determined by “tournament systems” that pitted farmers against one another

• Retaliation was common if farmers complained or spoke publicly

But when the Obama administration attempted to strengthen enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, rural conservative politicians and agribusiness lobbyists fought back hard. Arkansas voters consistently elected lawmakers who promised to “get government out of farming.”

That promise delivered exactly what it said.

By the late 2010s, enforcement of farmer-protection rules had been gutted. Under the Trump administration, USDA rolled back key provisions that would have allowed farmers to sue for unfair treatment without proving industry-wide harm.

Then came the cancellations.

In the early 2020s, Tyson quietly terminated contracts with independent growers across Arkansas, citing “efficiency” and “market conditions.” Farmers who had borrowed millions were left holding facilities no bank would refinance and no competitor would buy.

Many lost everything.

John Deere and the Vanishing Cotton Economy

Further south and east, another collapse played out in cotton.

John Deere’s inability to sell even a single new cotton-picking machine in parts of Arkansas is not about technology. It’s about scale.

Modern cotton pickers cost $700,000 to over $1 million. They are built for massive operations farming tens of thousands of acres—not for the small and mid-size farms that once defined Arkansas’s Delta.

Why did that change?

Because federal farm policy, shaped by decades of conservative voting patterns, rewarded consolidation:

• Subsidies flowed disproportionately to the largest producers

• Antitrust enforcement was abandoned

• Right-to-repair laws were blocked, raising equipment costs

• Rural credit tightened while corporate finance expanded

As farms consolidated, smaller operators were pushed out. When they disappeared, so did the customer base for equipment dealers. Today, Deere machines sit unsold not because cotton is gone—but because only a handful of mega-operations remain, and they already own what they need.

The rest of the farmers are gone.

The Oklahoma Lawsuit: Pollution, Politics, and a Reckoning

The slow-burning fuse finally reached the courts in 2005, when the State of Oklahoma sued Tyson Foods, Cargill, and other poultry giants, accusing them of contaminating the Illinois River watershed with phosphorus runoff from poultry litter.

For twenty years, Arkansas politicians framed the lawsuit as an attack on farmers. Yard signs went up. Talk radio raged. Voters were told environmental regulation would “destroy rural livelihoods.”

But the lawsuit wasn’t against farmers. It was against corporations that had externalized waste costs onto land and water systems.

In 2023, after nearly two decades of litigation, courts largely sided with Oklahoma. The ruling forced cleanup, monitoring, and accountability—costs that companies quickly shifted downward.

Who paid?

Not Tyson executives.
Not shareholders.
Not the politicians who defended them.

The farmers did.

Many were required to change litter practices, invest in new systems, or stop production entirely—often without meaningful financial assistance. Some lost contracts altogether as integrators downsized to reduce liability.

The same voters who had rejected environmental safeguards now faced the harshest possible version of regulation: court-ordered compliance with no safety net.

The Political Feedback Loop That Crushed Rural Arkansas

This collapse didn’t happen overnight. It followed a predictable pattern:

1. Vote for deregulation and corporate-friendly policy

2. Corporations consolidate power

3. Farmers lose bargaining rights

4. Debt increases

5. Markets tighten

6. Corporations exit

7. Farmers collapse

At every stage, rural voters were told that government was the enemy—and that corporations were their partners.

The opposite proved true.

When farmers needed protection, government was absent.
When corporations needed defense, government was present.

What Happens to These Farmers Now

The outlook is bleak.

• Land consolidation accelerates as private equity and large operators buy distressed properties

• Former farmers become wage laborers or leave the region entirely

• Rural tax bases collapse, hollowing out schools, hospitals, and infrastructure

• Equipment, seed, and feed dealers close, eliminating remaining support networks

There is no cavalry coming.

The same politicians who presided over this collapse now offer culture-war explanations—blaming immigrants, environmentalists, or urban voters—while quietly approving the next wave of consolidation.

The Hard Truth

Arkansas farmers did not fail because they were lazy or inefficient.
They failed because they were systematically stripped of power—and voted for the people who did the stripping.

They were told:

• Deregulation meant freedom

• Corporate scale meant stability

• Environmental rules were tyranny

What they got was debt, dependency, and disposability.

The tragedy isn’t just economic. It’s political.

A farming culture that once prized independence traded it for ideology—and learned, too late, that markets without rules do not reward loyalty, history, or hard work.

They reward scale.
And scale does not need farmers—only land.

- 30 -