“EVERYONE in pork production is more anxious than they have been for 20 years,” says Jimmy Tosh, a pig farmer from north-western Tennessee. As for the grain farmers, he reckons things are worse than at any time since the 1980s. The farmers’ latest worry is the five-yearly Farm Bill, which was submitted to Congress on April 18th. But Donald Trump, whom they overwhelmingly supported for the presidency, has provided them with plenty of other reasons to grouse.

Times were already tough. Farm income has halved from a peak of $124bn in 2013 to a forecast $60bn this year (see chart) because the supply of global grains is outstripping demand, the Chinese economy is slowing and demand for ethanol based on corn (maize) is slack.

The Farm Bill should be good news for farmers, covering, as it usually does, subsidies for them and, through the food stamps programme, for the poor. The previous bill included direct subsidies for farmers to the tune of $7bn a year, a land-conservation programme costing some $5bn and crop insurance, which comes at a price tag of up to $8bn. In the past, a deal between Republicans and Democrats has ensured that both farmers and poor people got their cash. But the farmers are worried, this time round, that Republicans are more determined to cut welfare and less concerned to protect farmers than they used to be. Not long ago, Mr Trump suggested cutting crop insurance by a third. Michael Conway, the congressman who submitted the bill, did not include the suggestion in his draft, but conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation have lambasted the bill for, in their view, doing nothing to cut wasteful subsidy programmes. It will be bitterly debated over the coming months. But trade is the farmers’ biggest worry. Mr Trump has pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a colossal trade agreement between 12 Pacific Rim countries, threatened to leave the North American Free-Trade Agreement and slapped tariffs on imports of steel (25%) and aluminium (10%). All those moves are problematic for agriculture. Mr Tosh says that he has already been hit by the steel and aluminium tariffs. He is planning to increase his herd of pigs from 750,000 to 950,000 and the costs of the new barns needed have gone through the roof thanks to the higher price of rebar, a steel rod for reinforcing concrete. He expects to be hit even harder by the 25% tariff on American pork imposed by the Chinese government on April 2nd in retaliation for Mr Trump’s tariffs. China is the third-largest market for American pigs and the biggest market for variety meats (pig feet, livers and hearts), which most Americans do not eat. Last year America sold China 496,000 tonnes of pork worth $1.1bn, or 20% of total pork exports. Farmers expect to lose most if not all of this business. Domestic prices are, as a result, expected to fall by $6-8 per pig. In Mr Tosh’s case this will translate into a loss of up to $6m a year. Soyabean farmers stand to lose even more than their peers farming livestock or other crops. One-quarter of their production is exported to China. With prices of soyabeans languishing at $10 a bushel (compared with $17 in 2013) they cannot afford to lose their biggest export market to Brazil and Argentina.

Support for Mr Trump among farmers seems to be slipping. According to a survey by AgriPulse, a trade website, 67% supported him in 2016 and 45% would now. In an apparent attempt to placate them, he suggested on April 12th that he might consider rejoining the TPP. But five days later, he completed the full 360 degrees, tweeting that “I don’t like the deal.”

Farmers may get more joy from concessions on the ethanol front. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, oil firms have to blend billions of gallons of ethanol into fuel each year. Around 38% of America’s corn is used to make ethanol, but the process is of questionable value to the environment, and the sale of fuel containing 15% ethanol is banned in the summer because of smog. Mr Trump has suggested that he might direct the Environmental Protection Agency to lift this ban. Another possibility is an increase in the ethanol mandate—the percentage that fuel must contain. At present it stands at 10%. “Even an increase to 12% all year would be a huge boon for corn farmers,” says Decker Walker, a partner at the Boston Consulting Group. This would incense not just environmentalists (who already hate Mr Trump), but also the oil lobby, which objects to the cost of the ethanol mandate, and big buyers of animal feed, whose bills go up if more corn is used to make ethanol.

But a shift in the ethanol rules would not make up for losing the largest market on the planet. Farmers are keen on the open markets that have benefited them greatly. Mr Tosh says he has now moved to the centre politically. At the upcoming Senate race in Tennessee he will vote for Phil Bredesen, the Democrat.