Can farmers benefit if agricultural product supply and demand are kept moderately tight to protect prices?

According to some media reports, at the China Rural Development High-Level Forum that ended on July 31, Zhang Tianzuo of the Department of Industrial Policy and Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture said that at present the prices of many of China's agricultural products do not fully reflect their value, agricultural costs have risen sharply, and the benefits of planting and breeding are declining day by day. This causes cheap agricultural products to be wasted by consumers, and producers to overuse chemical fertilizers. He proposed that policy should ensure that the supply and demand of agricultural products remain moderately tight.

“Policy should ensure that the supply and demand of agricultural products remain moderately tight” - it is unknown whether the reporter who first reported this recorded it accurately. If this is really the case, how the Ministry of Agriculture can ensure it through policy is a major problem. But more critically, if supply and demand alone are affected to ensure the prices of agricultural products, will the above problems really be solved? The current problem is that no matter how high the price is, the proportion farmers receive is always very small. Relying on tight supply and demand to keep the prices of agricultural products high, but from the small amount by which they rise, farmers can only get a small cup of broth. Is this the goal the Ministry of Agriculture wants to achieve? With this small cup of broth, can farmers' income growth really be achieved? If farmers do not significantly increase their incomes, will China's agricultural modernization really have genuine momentum?

⟦NL> As Director Zhang said, the prices of many agricultural products do not fully reflect the scarcity of agricultural production resources and the value of labor costs, the costs of agricultural inputs, labor, and land rent have risen sharply, while the benefits of planting and breeding are declining day by day. This has led to the waste of agricultural products and the destructive use of agricultural resources. But it should be seen even more clearly that under such circumstances, most of the agricultural profits are earned by suppliers of agricultural materials, technology, and other services, while farmers, as the providers of labor and the holders of land contracting rights, can only obtain a small share of them. Therefore, farmers as cultivators will overuse chemical fertilizers and pesticides and blindly pursue crop yields per unit area, leading to agricultural non-point source pollution and environmental overdraft problems, and even the younger generation of farmers who cannot get into the cities are unwilling to return to their hometowns. How could the solution to these problems be merely to “create” a moderately tight supply and demand pattern through policy, without changing the structural problem that farmers' share of agricultural profits is too low? Moderately tight supply and demand can only raise the prices of agricultural products a little more, but it cannot change the key fact that farmers' share of agricultural profits is too low.