« Older Entries

A discussion with agricultural legislative leaders

By Roger Reierson, December 12, 2012
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsak

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsak

I was privileged to be in Washington, DC last week for an agricultural conference featuring the leading players in passing a new farm bill. All spoke of harmony and a team approach to getting the bill through. After listening I have my reservations, but I did agree any further delay in a new bill could have negative impact on agriculture and more directly the farm. Below I have highlighted some of their comments.

Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
“We are not going to do an extension, we will not kick the can down the road.” She believes the House and Senate versions are close and they can work it out. I asked her since they presented a bill previously that already made cuts, might they not come back to you and ask for further cuts? She avoided the answer, talking about the fiscal cliff and no one knows what those negotiations might bring. She said emphatically that direct payments would be gone (Sen. Lucas agreed with this). She said the major hold up is in the difference between the Senate bill and House bill around commodity title.

Representative Ag committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)
“I will not approve a Farm bill that does not include all agriculture.” This is in response to a version that leaves some commodity groups out of the bill language. He commented that the Senate version depends on just a revenue program; he believes the bill needs to include a price/loss coverage provision and give farmers a choice between the two. He said Representative Colin Peterson (D-Minn.) said it right when he said, “We have one chance to get this right.” As far as his thoughts on an extension, he is against it, but said a transition period may be needed in order to implement a new bill. He was questioned about the difference between an extension and transition.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
Vilsack called for “an adult conversation” with rural America. The Secretary called on all of agriculture to become more proactive in messaging and approach. He called for a new growth mindset by opening up to markets and promoting exports. Agricultural groups need to quit bickering between ourselves, we have a great story to tell and we have tremendous leverage. 
Without a change in tone and strategy rural America will continue to decline in political relevance. “Why no farm bill, yet?” Vilsack believes it goes beyond differences in policy. Rural America has a shrinking population; as a result it is becoming less and less relevant to the policy makers. Agricultural leaders better understand this and needs to come together to tell the positive story of what ag does for not only North America but also the world.

Other takeaways from Vilsack comments
• The Farm bill is attached to the fiscal cliff bill, won’t have one without the other.
• Renewable fuel standard is not dead.
• We need further research on double cropping and drought resistance.
• Study effects of climate change on ag.
• We need to do something about the declining opportunity in rural America. (17% today live in poverty)
• Need to invest in conservation and bring back recreation opportunities in rural areas.
• Need to create regional economies; community-by-community approach is not working.
• Need to expand exports.
• We are seeing more of a biology based economy; plants to make car bodies, hog manure being tested to pave highways, corn cob ingredients regenerated to make plastic bottles, and more.

Despite the talk of harmony and agreement, I think there are still major issues between the Senate and House to work out. The farm bill must fit within the fiscal cliff plan and therefore if they do not agree on a fiscal cliff plan, don’t hold your breath waiting for a farm bill. I do agree with the Secretary that ag needs to step up to the table to gain more respect in Washington. That starts with becoming more united in their communications, addressing adversary groups concerns and touting its importance on a global stage.

I want to acknowledge Farm Journal and Informa Economics for hosting this year’s Farm Journal Forum. As in the past it is a great day, with very timely information. I will post another entry commenting on other speakers and their view of global agriculture later this week.

Posted in Ag Events, politics | No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Who makes the call on animal welfare?

By Tyler Kelley, June 28, 2012

Consequences abound in coming changes to animal housing regulations.

Once upon a time producers, veterinarians and other experts shaped production practices for animal agriculture. Today, sadly, activist groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) force their way into executive board rooms of food companies, the halls of Congress and offices of state capitols to drive agendas that have consequences far beyond the farm.

For proof we need look no further than Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, the latest chain to require their pork supplies to come from farmers who don’t use gestation stalls to house pregnant sows. It is worthwhile to note that Domino’s Pizza stands alone in rejecting the HSUS resolution to study eliminating gestation stalls. Domino’s chooses to trust that the experts and their proven, science-based practices to know best how to raise their animals.

Is Group Housing Better?

The HSUS demand for the elimination of gestation stalls has come despite the lack of scientific proof that group housing of sows improves animal welfare.

Thanks to the National Pork Board for this photo.

Thanks to the National Pork Board for this photo.

In fact, evaluations by scientists at Texas Tech University,  researchers at the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and in Australia show the welfare of sows in gestation stalls — which are still the majority of sows — is equal to that of those raised in group pens. Pork producers use gestation stalls to keep aggressive “bully” sows from fighting or stealing food from more docile animals, as this Missouri pork producer explains.

Change At What Cost?

While it seems the sows’ welfare isn’t affected, the elimination of stalls will have a big impact on pork producers. Dr. Paul Sundberg, the National Pork Board’s vice president of science and technology, has said that these changes could cost the average pork producer millions of dollars.

And that’s the real issue: when biased or misinformed groups force a scientifically questionable agenda it can add millions of dollars in costs and drive some producers out of business. The result could be a decrease in pork supplies and an increase in the price of pork products to consumers.

When the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization shows that demand for food and fiber will nearly double by 2050, ill-informed regulations make little sense. Shouldn’t we encourage hard-working farmers and ranchers of the world to use every technology and production practice possible to meet the food and fiber needs of the growing world?

Tyler Kelley comes from a Northwest Missouri hog and cattle farm and now works as an AdFarm PR specialist in Kansas City.

Posted in Food Production, Uncategorized, politics | No Comments »

Tags: , , ,

Four more years?

By Dan Kirkpatrick, April 30, 2012

A few weeks ago, fellow AdFarmer Ron Wall posted a great overview of the remaining Republican presidential candidates’ positions on key issues important to agriculture. Since then Rick Santorum – the main challenger to Mitt Romney’s long-presumed nomination – has stepped out of the race.

The President has plans for American agriculture.

The President has plans for American agriculture.

With the final presidential pairing – Romney vs. incumbent Barack Obama – all but official, now’s a good time to take a similar look at the president’s positions on ag policy over the past four years, as well as what we might expect during a second term.

Passing grades?

As a native Iowan, I’ll admit to obvious bias for my home state, so I hope you’ll forgive me by starting this discussion with the presidential candidate report card that was compiled and released by the Iowa Corn Growers Association prior to the January 3rd caucuses that started the 2012 presidential marathon.  Each candidate was scored on the areas of energy, farm programs, trade, EPA and transportation. President Obama checked in with an overall B grade. Interestingly, candidate Romney registered exactly the same grade, which perhaps only reinforces conservatives’ concern that Romney isn’t conservative enough for their tastes.

When you look at President Obama’s tenure over the past three-and-a-half years, a key priority has been walking that fine line between supporting so-called “Big Ag” while also promoting and elevating small farmers. If progressives and conservatives alike both find fault, then the administration may indeed be achieving some element of balance, as is indicated in this insightful Politico profile on President Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

I See Budget Cuts…

While no one can predict with certainty what a second term would look like, the initial 2013 Federal Budget submitted in February by the Obama administration – including recent discussions over the 2012 Farm Bill – provide some strong clues.

  • It’s not surprising that in the year of a general election there is a strong appetite for reducing federal spending., Agriculture, –of course, is an easy target. The initial budget proposed cutting $32 billion over 10 years by eliminating direct payments, reducing crop insurance spending and “better targeting conservation spending.” The initial 2012 Farm Bill legislation approved by a 16 to 5 vote by the Senate Agriculture Committee on April 26th would reduce this figure to an estimated $23.4 billion over ten years.
  • The Obama Administration’s budget includes a recommended investment of $6.1 billion in renewable and clean energy, including support of ethanol and other current and next-generation biofuels.
  • The Obama budget also offers an element of support to smaller farmers, through slight increases in funding for the USDA’s Research, Education and Economics mission and the USDA-ARS (Agricultural Research Service).

While those of us in Iowa have been living with presidential politics for more than a year, the race – as they say – has only just begun. As it progresses through the summer and fall, it will be interesting to see if the differences in agricultural policy between the two candidates are real or rhetoric.

Dan Kirkpatrick is an AdFarm PR and business development guy who lives and works in Iowa.

Posted in Perspectives, politics | No Comments »

Tags: , , ,

Promises, Promises.

By admin, March 23, 2012

ron elephant head thumbnail imageGingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum – where do they stand on agriculture subsidies, ethanol, environment, the Farm Bill? Based on their campaign promises, what might farmers expect from them should one be elected as President of these United States?

Election campaigns are not known for being the place where substantive discussions about policy occur. After all, why let facts get in the way of a good sound bite, a clever quip or sharp rejoinder?

The same applies to agriculture policy and what will become of the Farm Bill, should one of the contenders be elected President in November. Now that the field has been trimmed to four candidates, here’s a brief overview of where each one stands.

Thanks to the good folks at Harvest Public Media. They did most of the heavy lifting and sifting through the news sources, forums and speeches. I’ve excerpted their findings here. They are presented based on the poll numbers and number of delegates at the time of publication.

Gov. Mitt Romney

When it comes to the Farm Bill, Gov. Romney has said little on crop insurance and conservation. According the Iowa Corn Growers Association’s presidential candidates’ report card, he got a “C” for his support of the ACRE program which provides revenue insurance to commodity crops. However, he did receive an “A” for his stand on supporting free-trade agreements.

He has said that he will put tariffs on imports from China to compensate for the country’s low currency but has not addressed what impact that may have on the Chinese imports of U.S products such as corn, soybeans and pork.

Not a fan of rules and regulations that hold back business, Romney has said that he would take aim at the EPA saying in a December 2011 interview with Fox News, “of all the agencies in Washington, it is the one most being used by this president to try to hold down, crush and insert the federal government into the life of the private sector.”

Sen. Rick Santorum

Sen. Santorum has said that the government’s crop insurance program may need to be scaled back due to budget issues. A supporter of agricultural subsidies in the past, Santorum specifically backed the Milk Income Loss Contract for dairy farmers. However, he does oppose subsidies for ethanol production and prefers a free-market approach to the energy.

“I believe we have to get rid of all tax incentives to all energy industry. I don’t think we should create a heart attack for any industry but we should phase them out over a period of time,” he said at an Iowa candidates forum last November.

Like Romney, Santorum favors overturning EPA regulations put in place during the Obama administration. He, too, is a proponent of expanding free-trade agreements with Columbia, Panama and South Korea.

Newt Gingrich

The Iowa Corn Growers Association awarded former Rep. and Speaker of the House Gingrich with an “A” for his stand on farm programs, the EPA, transportation, trade and energy. A firm believer in free-trade, Gingrich has advocated for tax write-offs of 100 percent for farm equipment made in the U.S. He has proposed a flat tax on income of 15 percent and strongly opposes estate taxes, calling them a “death tax.”

Calling his environmental position “green conservatism,” Gingrich says that conservation on the farm is a “useful way to support farmers while protecting the environment.” He believes that all energy should be sourced domestically and that bio-fuels will be an energy leader in the future.

If elected, Gingrich would replace the EPA with an “environmental solution agency.” He believes that “entrepreneurial environmentalism is a superior approach to bureaucratic, litigious, unrestrained regulation.”

Rep. Ron Paul

Like him or not, there is no doubting where Rep. Ron Paul stands on just about any issue. Here’s what he wrote about the 2008 Farm Bill:

“Those who believe federal farm programs benefit independent farmers should take note that after 70 years of this type of government intervention, small farms continue to struggle while large corporate farms control an ever-increasing share of the agricultural market. Subsidies for agribusiness should be stopped and the free market should be allowed to work.”

Rather than subsidies, Paul would like to see alternative energy technologies such as enthanol produced through tax credits rather than government subsidies. Under a Paul administration, the EPA is gone and polluters face property owners in court instead of going through Washington. He opposes all “unnecessary regulations on small businesses and entrepreneurs” exemplified by his support of raw milk, “I think you should make your own choice on whether you drink raw milk or not.”

In a nutshell, that’s where the four GOP contenders stand on agriculture. Have they told you enough to choose one over another? Is there something you’ve heard lately about where they stand on agriculture, food and farming?

Ron Wall was born in Saskatchewan, lives in Missouri and writes from both sides of the border.

Posted in Culture, Perspectives, Uncategorized, politics | No Comments »

Tags: , ,

Keeping the Conversation Straight

By Heather Koehler, March 13, 2012

Proposed Farm Child Labor Laws – Part 2

The agricultural community has been engaged in discussions about proposed changes that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has put forward for the regulations governing youth labor in agriculture. While discussion is a good thing, the conversations have in some cases included speculation, and in other cases missed important points entirely.

Partially True Point #1: “My kids won’t be able to help with farm chores that help shape our values, such as a hard work ethic.” This argument is brought forward in opposition to the proposed changes. It is somewhat true and also somewhat false.

A long, hot summer on the Koehler farm.

A long, hot summer on the Koehler farm.

The truth is that after receiving a strong response from the farming community, the DOL says it has changed its stance on the “parental exemption.” This exemption states that farm owners or operators’ children of any age will still be able to perform any activity otherwise prohibited to workers deemed too young. This exemption is supposed to include a farm organized as a corporation or partnership, as long as the parent has a “substantial interest” in the farm.

The term “substantial interest” remains vague. The farm community will have to monitor how the DOL defines it. Another unknown is whether grandchildren could work on their grandparents’ farms or nieces and nephews on uncles’ or aunts’ farms.

There should be another opportunity for public comment on the parental exemption in a revised DOL proposal, due out in early summer.

Partially True Point #2: “FFA and 4H livestock programs will be outlawed.” This concern is mostly false. The proposed rules apply to farm employees. FFA and 4H students would not be affected if they are performing animal husbandry on volunteer time, i.e., as long as they are not paid for their time working on FFA or 4H projects.

For FFA and 4H students who are interested in animal husbandry and who do not have farming parents, the proposed changes make high-school jobs like caring for livestock very difficult. Anyone younger than 16 years old would not be allowed to be paid for:

  • branding, breeding, castrating, dehorning, vaccinating, or treating sick or injured animals;
  • working in a yard, pen or stall with an in-tact stallion, boar or bull older than 6 months of age, a sow with suckling pigs, or a cow with a newborn calf;
  • catching or cooping poultry;
  • or herding animals on horseback, using motorized vehicles including ATVs, or in confined spaces such as feedlots or corrals (so basically any herding).

Remember, farmers’ children will be exempt from these rules. But those grandkids, nieces, nephews and children of parents who own a “less than substantial interest” in a farm corporation or partnership are still TBD.

Missing Point of Discussion: The proposed changes will reduce the maximum height at which hired farm workers under age 16 may work. It reduces the maximum height from the current standard of 20 feet to just 6 feet. This would include work on structures, ladders, vehicles, machines and implements.  So no more working in a haymow or stacking hay on a wagon or climbing to the top of a newer model combine or sitting on top of a detasseler carrier. This rule change could eliminate a large number of summer jobs for high-school kids in rural areas.

The farming community needs to keep focused on the DOL’s proposed rule changes. They could alter the way in which many children grow up in rural America, developing their love and respect for farming. Stay updated by viewing the Department of Labor website dedicated to the subject.

What other proposed changes do you think the farming community should question?

Heather Koehler works on the AdFarm public relations team. She and her brothers grew up working on her family’s eastern Pennsylvania farm that has employed the talents of young adults for years.

Posted in Food Production, Perspectives, politics | 1 Comment »

Tags: , , ,

« Older Entries