Category Archives: Uncategorized

DES MOINES, Iowa – A six-member advisory council met for the first time to review progress on Iowa’s new Local Food and Farm Program that seeks to increase farmer profitability and the number of jobs in local foods.

Craig Chase, interim coordinator of the Marketing and Food Systems Initiative at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, coordinates the new state program. He met with the newly appointed Local Food and Farm Program Advisory Council January 17 in Des Moines.

Coordinated within the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS), the advisory council has representatives from IDALS, the Iowa Farmers Union and Iowa Farmers Market Association, plus three people appointed by the Governor’s Office to represent Iowa’s Resource Conservation and Development Areas, a food processor or retailer and an expert in local food systems.

Members are:

• Maury Wills, bureau chief at IDALS and organic apple grower near Adel;
• Rick Hartmann, Iowa Farmers Union and owner of Small Potatoes Farm near Minburn;
• Barb Ristau, Iowa Farmers Market Association board member, Hampton;
• Warren Johnson, Executive Director of the Iowa League of RC&Ds, Chariton;
• Teresa Wiemerslage, coordinator of the Northeast Iowa Food & Farm Coalition and natural beef farmer in Allamakee County, and
• Andrea Geary, local food program manager at the University of Northern Iowa’s Center for Energy and Environmental Education and coordinator of the Northern Iowa Food & Farm Partnership, Cedar Falls.

“The Iowa Local Food and Farm Plan that the Leopold Center prepared for the legislature, and is the basis for this program, had 29 operational recommendations divided into six sections,” Chase said. “We’re looking at major barriers to developing a vibrant food system in Iowa and then at what we could do to eliminate these barriers.”

The six areas are: business development and financial assistance; processing; food safety; issues relevant to beginning, minority and transitioning farmers; program assessment and implementation of local food incentives. Leaders are assessing current challenges and successes, identifying what’s needed, and suggesting future activities.

“Some recommendations from the plan have been accomplished, such as adding a farmer member to the Iowa Food Safety Task Force. Others will require more attention, such as the food safety training that already has begun in northeast Iowa,” he said.

Chase said aggregation, storage, processing and distribution of locally grown food are among the larger issues, but he’s confident those efforts will grow, too.

Learn more about the Iowa Local Food and Farm Program at www.leopold.iastate.edu/marketing/iowa-local-food-and-farm-plan.

Des Moines, IA – Family farm advocates from across the state will convene at the Capitol on Tuesday, January 24th.  The Family Farm Lobby Day is hosted by the Iowa Farmers Union, an organization committed to creating policy change that strengthens independent family farms.

The Family Farm Lobby Day will be held on the afternoon of Tuesday, January 24th at the Capitol. Supporters are invited to ask for legislative support for local production of renewable energy and food. Family farm advocates will lobby for strengthening fertilizer application laws, limiting confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) tax breaks, and restricting Eminent Domain use on agricultural land.  The event starts at noon in the first floor rotunda with an opening from IFU President Chris Petersen. Participants will spend the afternoon attending agriculture committee hearings and meeting with elected officials. The Family Farm Lobby Day is free and open to the public.

Iowans need to gather in support of family farms at the Capitol to show solidarity. “The way of life for all family farms, from fresh vegetables to grain and livestock, is being challenged,” said IFU President Chris Petersen of Clear Lake, “it is important that we stand together to speak out.”

At the beginning of the 2012 legislative session, the Iowa Farmers Union will be launching its campaign of legislative priorities to protect and advocate for family farmers.

• Promote sustainable local food systems by implementing recommendations from the Local Food, Farms, and Jobs report created by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture;
• Encourage development of locally-owned and controlled renewable energy;
• Oppose any changes to the current prohibition of spreading manure on frozen or snow-covered land;
• Eliminate property tax exemption on CAFO manure storage facilities, tax animal confinement buildings at the industrial rate if property owner does not own the livestock, and support reforming Tax Increment Financing (TIF); and
• Fight the use of Eminent Domain to remove farmland from production for any reason.

The Iowa Farmers Union is a grassroots organization, founded in 1915, that empowers family farms through education, cooperation, and legislation.  To learn more about the Family Farm Lobby Day, go to: www.iowafarmersunion.org/events

AMES, Iowa — A microbiologist with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been named the next director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University.

Mark Rasmussen, supervisory microbiologist and director of the Division of Animal and Food Microbiology at the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine in Laurel, Maryland, will begin work no later than June 1.

“Dr. Rasmussen brings to us a broad-based background and exceptional scientific, agricultural and administrative strengths that will provide strong leadership for the Leopold Center and for Iowa agriculture,” said Gregory Geoffroy, president of Iowa State University.

At the FDA, Rasmussen has provided technical guidance and research support for regulatory decisions on drugs, feed additives and contaminants in animal feeds. He also worked 18 years as a scientist and research leader at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Animal Disease Center in Ames, including service as a collaborating faculty member in Iowa State’s animal science and biomedical sciences departments. He has held research positions in private companies and has farmed full-time in Nebraska.

Rasmussen was raised on a farm in northeastern Nebraska. He earned a bachelor’s degree in agriculture and a master’s degree in animal science from the University of Nebraska, a Ph.D. in dairy science from the University of Illinois and a master of business administration degree from Iowa State University.

His scientific expertise includes areas of microbiology, food safety, animal health, ruminant nutrition, veterinary medicine and antibiotic resistance. He holds two patents related to his research, including food safety technology used on an estimated 20 percent of the beef carcasses marketed in the United States.

For more about Rasmussen and to view his public presentation last month at ISU, go tohttp://www.leopold.iastate.edu/about/director-search

Iowa State University’s Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture is a research and education center with statewide programs to develop sustainable agricultural practices that are both profitable and conserve natural resources. The center is named for Aldo Leopold, a Burlington, Iowa, native known internationally as a conservationist, ecologist and educator. The center was established under Iowa’s Groundwater Protection Act of 1987 with a three-fold mission: to conduct research to identify and reduce negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts of agricultural practices; to research and assist in developing alternative practices consistent with a sustainable agriculture; and to work with ISU Extension to inform the agricultural community and the public of its findings.

##

Find this news release at:http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/01-05-2012/isu-names-microbiologist-direct-leopold-center-sustainable-agriculture

Family farm advocates from across the state will be gathering at the Capitol on Tuesday, January 24, 2012.  The Family Farm Lobby Day is hosted by the Iowa Farmers Union, an organization committed to creating policy change that strengthens independent family farms.

Participants will meet at noon in the first floor rotunda for an opening from IFU President Chris Petersen. Iowa Farmers Union staff, board, and members will spend the afternoon attending committee hearings and meeting with their elected officials. The Family Farm Lobby Day is free and open to the public.

At the beginning of the 2012 legislative session, the Iowa Farmers Union will be launching its campaign of legislative priorities to protect and advocate for family farmers. which include:

• Promote sustainable local food systems by implementing recommendations from the Local Food, Farms, and Jobs report created by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture;
• Encourage development of locally-owned and controlled renewable energy;
• Oppose any changes to the current prohibition of spreading manure on frozen or snow-covered land;
• Eliminate property tax exemption on CAFO manure storage facilities, tax animal confinement buildings at the industrial rate if property owner does not own the livestock, and support reforming Tax Increment Financing (TIF); and
• Fight the use of Eminent Domain to remove farmland from production for any reason.

Iowans need to gather in support of family farms at the Capitol to show solidarity. “The way of life for all family farms, from fresh vegetables to grain and livestock, is being challenged. It is important that we stand together to speak out.” said IFU President Chris Petersen of Clear Lake.

To learn more, visit www.iowafarmersunion.org/events or join the event on Facebook.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 28, 2011

Iowans Gather to Create Policy Agenda for 2012

Ames, Iowa – Iowans will be gathering from around the state for the Iowa Farmers Union Annual Convention to discuss the policies that affect their farms, rural communities, and the environment.  This year’s event, “Taking Agriculture in the Right Direction: Food, Energy, and Land Policy Summit,” will take place at the Iowa State University Memorial Union on Saturday, December 3^rd from 8AM to 4PM.

Last week’s failure of the super committee frustrated many who held high hopes for the 2012 Farm Bill.  Despite this and other national policy hiccups, the Iowa Farmers Union will be moving forward with setting a policy agenda to address agricultural policies for 2012.  Chris Petersen, President of the Iowa Farmers Union, sees this as a chance for Iowans to get involved in the process. “The super committee had a total lack of transparency.  Now, with its demise, the opportunity for input in the farm bill legislative process has been restored. This chance to engage should not be passed up,” he said.

Saturday’s participants will get state and federal policy updates and create the platform which will determine the priorities of IFU’s policy work for the coming year.  While the platform is essential for informing the work of IFU, the process will also be a rare opportunity for Iowans to gather and learn about the concerns and visions of their fellow citizens regarding agricultural policy.

“Students look forward to sharing and learning from IFU members,” said Angie Carter, ISU graduate student and member of Sustainable Agriculture Student Association, co-sponsor of this year’s convention. “Engaging in policy platform creation is an important opportunity for those of us involved in advocacy, especially as the Farm Bill and next election cycle approach.”

Policy summit presenters will include Claudia Svarstad, vice president of the National Farmers Union, Threase Harms, CEO of Advocacy Strategies, and Craig Chase from the Leopold Center’s Marketing and Food System Initiative Program.

The Iowa Farmers Union is a grassroots organization, founded in 1915, that empowers family farms through education, cooperation, and legislation.

To learn more about the IFU convention, and to register, go to: http://iowafarmersunion.org/convention/

###

From the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (11/22/11)

In part one of this post, we discuss what might be next for the ongoing congressional budget debate and in turn for the new farm bill.  In part two we turn to details about what was in the short-lived and now dead 2011 Farm Bill deal.

What We Know About the Farm Bill that Did Not Happen – The Basic Outline

The basic cost-cutting outline of the farm bill deal did not change in gross terms from the time the Agriculture Committee leaders signaled to the Super Committee that they would aim to cut a net of $23 billion over the next decade.  The final deal tracked the original numbers – a $15 billion net cut in commodity programs, a little over $6 billion net cut in conservation programs, and a $4 billion slice from the largest of all farm bill programs, the SNAP or food stamp program.  About $2 billion was thereby freed up to help fund farm bill programs that lacked secured budget baseline after the current farm bill expires in 2012 and to fund new programs.

In round numbers, the combined commodity and crop insurance subsidy programs would therefore be cut by 10 percent, the conservation programs by 10 percent, and the food stamp program by a small fraction of one percent.   The conservation cut, however, would be considerably larger if the “changes to farm bill mandatory spending programs” in the agricultural appropriations bills are added, bringing the total to 15 percent, and much more than that if the appropriations bill continues in the same direction as this year.

Based on the best information available to us, the following should be a fairly accurate summary of some key provisions in the new proposed farm bill.  We stress, however, that without access to the bill itself or even an up-to-date detailed summary, we cannot be absolutely sure about each and every detail.

What We Know About the Farm Bill that Did Not Happen – Some Highlights

Local Food and Nutrition — The proposed bill adopted the policy provision contained in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA) for a competitive grants program that combined direct marketing promotion (formerly Farmers Market Promotion Program) and scaling up of local food systems for larger scale retail and institutional markets.  Called the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program (FMLFPP), the proposed bill would have funded the program at $100 million in mandatory money over five years.  The LFFJA advocates for $30 million a year, or $150 million over five years.

The Community Food Projects, a competitive grants program that aims to fight food insecurity by supporting the development of community-based food projects in low-income communities, would have received an increase in funding from $5 million a year to $10 million a year.  The LFFJA also includes this policy provision.

The proposed bill would have created a new nutrition incentives program, called Hunger Free Communities Incentive Grants.  Advocated for by the Fair Food Network, Wholesome Wave, and others, and modeled after already-existing state and regional examples, this new program was slated in the proposed bill to receive $100 million in mandatory funding over five years and would have incentivize purchases of fresh produce by SNAP participants at farmers markets and other direct marketing outlets.

Beginning Farmers — The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP)provides grants to institutions and organizations that offer education, training and outreach to beginning farmers and ranchers.  This program was slated to receive $50 million over the next five years, which is a significant decrease from its current mandatory funding levels of $75 million, and far less than the $125 million included in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act and advocated by NSAC.  However, BFRDP has no baseline after fiscal year 2012, so although funding is less than current levels, it nonetheless represented $50 million in new money over the next five years.

Organic Agriculture — The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), which provides competitive grants to fund public research on organic production systems, was slated to receive renewed mandatory funding of $80 million over five years, with an authorization for an additional $25 million in annual appropriations.  This is a slight increase in funding from its current mandatory funding of $78 million during the life of the 2008 Farm Bill.  However, per year funding levels would have decreased slightly from $20 million to $16 million, since OREI was funded at lower levels in fiscal year 2008.

The Organic Data Initiative (ODI), which facilitates USDA data collection efforts for the organic sector, would have also received a renewed $5 million in mandatory funding, plus an authorization for annual appropriations, in the proposed bill.

The National Organic Program (NOP), which administers the USDA organic certification program, was slated to receive first-time ever $5 million in mandatory funding, plus authorization for appropriations up to $15 million per year.

Specialty Crops — The Specialty Crop Block Grant (SCBG) program provides grants annually to assist State Departments of Agriculture in enhancing the competitiveness of specialty crops (fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery crops).  The program would have received an increase in mandatory funding from $55 million a year to $70 million a year.  On the negative side, though, the policy provisions for this program contained in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA) were not included.  LFFJA includes set-asides of program funds for local and regional specialty crop market development and research and includes a more equitable division of program funds across the specialty crop sector.

The Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), which funds research on fruits, vegetables, and other non-commodity crops, was slated to receive renewed funding at $40 million per year, over ten years – a slight decrease from its current annual funding levels of $50 million.  The SCRI has no baseline for funding beyond fiscal year 2012, so this would have represented $400 million in new money over the next ten years and ensured funding would be available for this program in the following farm bill.

Crop Insurance — The proposed bill’s crop insurance title included a provision in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA) that would have authorized the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to develop a whole farm revenue insurance product for diversified operations, including specialty crops and mixed grain/livestock or dairy operations.  As in the LFFJA, the proposed bill would have set the coverage level at 85 percent, provided a bonus for diversification, and classified costs necessary to get products to market (e.g. the cost of packing materials) as allowable costs.  Unlike the LFFJA, in the proposed bill, RMA would have had the option of contracting out the development of the new product if it decided not to do it in-house.

The proposed bill would also have increased the incentive for private consulting firms to develop new risk management products for specialty crops, and would have returned to RMA the general authority to develop products in-house.

Renewable Energy — As far as we know, only one program within the Energy Title of the proposed bill was slated to receive renewed mandatory funding.  The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which has been funded in the current farm bill cycle partly by mandatory funds and partly by appropriated funds, would have continued down that path, though with a very significant reduction in mandatory funds.

The mandatory funding for the controversial Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) would have been allowed to expire in the proposed bill, but the program would be authorized to receive up to $75 million in annual appropriations for projects and for collection, harvest, storage, and transportation.

What We Know About the Farm Bill that Did Not Happen – Conservation Title

If the proposed farm bill had become law, the total cut to the Conservation Title would be $6.3 billion over ten years.  Roughly 60 percent of the cut to conservation ($3.8 billion) would come from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).  The program’s total acreage cap would be ratcheted down over 3 years from its current level of 32 million acres to 25 million acres.  To a significant degree, this reduction would track changes in CRP enrollment expected as a result of market forces, though with the declining cap the opportunity for new general sign-ups would be small.

Related to CRP, $25 million in renewed funding would have been retained for the CRP-Transition Incentives Program (CRP-TIP), which offers a special incentive of two years of extra CRP rental payments to owners of land that is currently in the CRP but returning to production, who rent or sell to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers who will use sustainable grazing practices, resource-conserving cropping systems, or transition to organic production.  The bill would not have expanded CRP-TIP to cover intra-family deals under certain circumstances, as had been proposed in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act (BFROA).

The proposed bill would have cut the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) by $2 billion, or approximately 10 percent.  The average payment rate would have remained at $18 per acre, however the acreage cap would be reduced to 10.34 million acres a year from 12.769.  The proposed farm bill also included a number of positive substantive changes to CSP beyond the numbers.

The proposed bill would have combined the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) into a single program and cut total funding by $1.865 billion, or approximately 10 percent.  As has always been the case for EQIP, 60 percent of the consolidated program’s funding would go to livestock operations.  The program would have also included a 5 percent set aside for wildlife in lieu of WHIP.  The statutory language that led to creation of the EQIP Organic Initiative would not change.  Both the Beginning Farmer and Rancher and Socially Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher set asides within EQIP would have been retained at 5 percent.  The advanced EQIP cost share for Beginning, Socially Disadvantaged, and Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers would have also been retained at 30 percent, as opposed to 50 percent proposed by the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act.

The proposed bill would also have combined the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI), and Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to create a single regional partnership program.  While the CBWI and AWEP had a combined baseline of $1.1 billion through 2012, the new regional partnership program would have had a $1 billion baseline, equating to a $100 million or slightly less than 10 percent cut.  Like the current CCPI, 6 percent of EQIP and CSP funds would be reserved for the regional partnership program.  However, unlike the current CCPI statute, which splits funding authority between the states (90 percent) and national (10 percent), the new bill would have split the authority between national (50 percent), states (25 percent), and “critical areas” (25 percent), which would include the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, Ogallala Aquifer, Red River, Great Lakes, Everglades and other areas determined by the Secretary.  The regional partnership program would also have had an easement option through existing programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).

On the easement side of the Title, three programs–the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP),Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), and Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)–would have been combined into a single easement program with two branches.  The first branch would combine FRPP and GRP into an ‘agricultural lands easement program.’  The second branch would consist of wetlands easement program very similar to the WRP.  Nationally, the split between wetland easements and agricultural land easements would be 60/40, respectively; however, each state conservationist would be able to request an adjustment to that split to better reflect the needs of their state.  Perhaps most importantly, the easement program would have had a 10-year baseline of $3.2 billion.  The WRP and GRP have been funded one farm bill at a time, so while the funding available, especially for WRP, would be lower, the tradeoff was to create a permanent, more secure baseline.

The bill would have made no changes to the Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) program.  It would have funded the Voluntary Public Access (VPA) program at $30 million and theWatershed Rehabilitation Program at $150 million over the course of the farm bill.  The VPA program and Water Rehabilitation Program previously had $50 million and $100 million, respectively, and both lack baseline funding after 2012 if not renewed.

Finally, under the proposal, all conservation programs would now be “no year funding” programs, which means that unused money in a given year does not revert back to the general treasury.  Under current law, if a conservation contract is broken, for example, because a contract holder dies or just decides not to go through with a conservation project, that money must be sent back to the treasury.  A significant amount of mandatory conservation money is lost from the Conservation Title through this process.  Instead, under a situation like the one described above, the money would be retained within the Conservation Title.

What We Know About the Farm Bill that Did Not Happen – Some Lowlights

Commodity Payments – The commodity title of the proposed farm bill would have replaced direct payments (payments based on historical base acres and paid each year regardless of market price or farm income conditions) with a “grab bag” of commodity support options.  Producers would be able to decide which program to enroll in.

One option included a farm-level shallow loss program to pay commodity crop producers when they experience small but long-term losses in revenue.  Payments would cover losses between 13 and 25 percent, would be triggered by revenue circumstances at the individual farm level, and would be made on 60 percent of planted and prevented planted acres.  It was expected that many corn, soy, and wheat producers would choose this option, though likely a considerably smaller percentage than if it were the only option available.

A second option was substantially higher target prices with ongoing receipt of counter cyclical payments when prices fall below the target, expected to be of most interest to rice, peanut, and sorghum producers, but perhaps many corn, soy, and especially wheat producers as well.

A third option was a special revenue insurance program for cotton (only) known as the Stacked Income Protection Plan or STAX.  The movement of cotton’s share of commodity title funding to the crop insurance side of the ledger, via STAX, would have moved cotton out of adjusted gross income eligibility standards, payment limitations, and conservation requirements.

Due to the proposed termination of direct payments, saving nearly $5 billion a year, and to the relatively rosy projections of future commodity prices over the next decade, all of these commodity options could be put in the bill and estimated to result in a $15 billion savings over the next decade, or about $1.5 billion a year.  If, however, a substantial price drop occurred outside the predicted range, the taxpayer exposure could be very high, easily wiping out any savings.

Payment Limits and Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) — The new payment limitation for the shallow-loss revenue program option and counter-cyclical program option would have been $210,000 for a married couple.  This is significantly higher than the current $130,000 payment limit for counter-cyclical and revenue insurance payments.  The new higher payment limit is the result of adding the current $80,000 payment limit for direct payments to the total.  This outcome is baffling, given that direct payments were being proposed for elimination.

(Note: The proposal to the Super Committee from Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Johnson (D-SD), which had NSAC’s support, would have established a $100,000 per farm annual limit on revenue and counter-cyclical payments.  In June, Grassley and Johnson introduced the Rural America Preservation Act of 2011 to lower the per farm cap on farm commodity program payments, simplify eligibility, and ensure that payments flow to working farmers.  Visit our blog on the bill to read more about their effort to build a reasonable payment limit into the new farm bill.)

The proposed bill would have done nothing to close the biggest legal loophole that has been built into the support system over the last two decades, a loophole that allows individual farming interests to secure nearly unlimited taxpayer support.  The loophole — allowing people to dodge the requirement to be “actively engaged in farming” to be eligible for support — allows mega farms to capture multiples of the nominal payment limit.  These taxpayer-provided funds in turn can be used to bid land away from young, beginning farmers trying to get a start in farming.  Unlimited payments over-inflate land values, increasing the land carrying costs for all farmers.

The proposed bill included no limit at all on marketing loan gains or loan deficiency payments, no limit at all on STAX subsidies, and no limit at all on highly subsidized crop insurance premiums.  For each of those, the sky was the limit.

Finally, the adjusted gross income (AGI) limit for eligibility for commodity and conservation program payments was proposed to be $950,000, including both farm and non-farm adjusted income (generally multiplied times two if married).  This is down $50,000 from the $1 million limit that was included in the FY 2012 agriculture appropriations bill that became law last week.  The AGI test excludes from income all regular business expenses including the costs of renting or purchasing additional land or equipment; hence the AGI test  encourages farm expansion by anyone who receives commodity subsidies and makes more than a million dollars a year, or a couple of million in the case of married persons.

For more information on payment limits, visit NSAC’s commodity program payment limitations and adjusted gross income limitations page.

Conservation Compliance — Despite the call of 56 national farmer and conservation organizations, including NSAC, to maintain and strengthen conservation compliance provisions in the farm bill, the bill would neither reattach conservation compliance to crop insurance nor establish a nationwide Sodsaver provision.  Conservation compliance helps ensure that producers do not farm the most environmentally sensitive land, primarily highly erodible land and wetlands.  In 1985, conservation compliance requirements have applied to commodity, crop insurance, and conservation program payments, but since 1996 it has not applied to receipt of crop insurance subsidies.

With direct payments gone, the proposed new farm bill would have only applied this minimum standard of environmental protection to counter-cyclical payments and the shallow-loss revenue insurance program.  There would be no conservation compliance requirements for those who choose to receive STAX benefits or those who receive crop insurance subsidies only.  NSAC has consistently advocated that crop insurance, which is the single largest farm subsidy, should be part of the same social contract that applies to commodity, credit, and conservation programs.

The agreement also did not include a nationwide “Sodsaver” provision.  Sodsaver would have strengthened existing compliance rules by prohibiting all commodity and insurance subsidies on all native prairie and permanent grasslands and other remaining native land that does not have a cropping history if such land were to be cropped.  In doing so, it would have protected prairie, critical habitat and biodiversity, reduced the cost of subsidy programs, and taken the pressure off of already over-subscribed conservation incentive programs.  This Sodsaver provision was included in the last farm bill, but only as a voluntary pilot project that never got off the ground.

The bottomline is the proposed bill’s commodity and crop insurance titles would have encouraged and subsidized farm consolidation and diminish economic opportunity for young and beginning farmers.  It would have created a “too big to fail” protection that could have left the taxpayer with a huge new exposure should the market tumble.  Despite an ongoing economic crisis and need to spur rural job growth, the bill would have maximized payments and insurance subsidies to the nation’s largest farms while putting almost no money into rural economic development.  There would have also been no improvements at all to the existing weak set of conservation conditions required as a condition of being eligible for production subsidies, and no re-linkage to crop insurance subsidies.  These are all very major failings that need to be addressed when farm bill consideration resumes.

Rural Development –The Rural Development business programs did not fare well in the bill from a funding standpoint.  The Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program, which provides competitive grants to create or develop value-added producer-owned businesses, would have been the only rural development program to receive farm bill funding.  The VAPG program, however, would have received only $15 million in mandatory funding over five years, a very nominal amount.  This is the same amount of funding from the 2008 Farm Bill, which was used up entirely in the first year of that farm bill cycle.  In LLFJA and the BFROA, NSAC is advocating for $30 million per year in mandatory funding for the program, which has a proven track record in boosting farm income and creating rural jobs.  The proposed bill would have authorized up to $40 million a year in discretionary funding, the same as under current law, but current appropriations are at only 40 percent of that level and the pressure on appropriations bills from discretionary cuts already approved by Congress will grow each year.

The Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program (RMAP) provides entrepreneurs in rural areas with the skills necessary to establish new businesses and continue operation of existing rural microenterprises.  While the 2008 Farm Bill included $15 million over four years in mandatory funding for the program, the proposed new bill would have included no mandatory funding for the program at all and authorized only $20 million a year in discretionary funds compared to $40 million a year last farm bill cycle.

Additionally, many of the policy proposals included in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act(LFFJA) that would bolster “food hub” and value chain activities are not found in the new bill.  For instance, the Business and Industry (B&I) Direct and Guaranteed Loan Program bolsters rural businesses and industries and includes a minimum five percent set-aside for local and regional food system activities including aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and marketing.  LFFJA proposes an increase of this set-aside to ten percent and makes other improvements; however, the proposed new bill did not adopt this proposal.

Local Food and Nutrition – The proposed new bill did not contain any of the EBT or school food provisions contained in the LFFJA.  The LFFJA includes a leveling of the playing field so that direct marketing outlets such as farmers markets and CSAs can serve as SNAP vendors just as wired retail outlets do.  The LFFJA’s school food provisions includes a “local food credit program” that would allow School Food Authorities to use up to 15 percent of their commodity dollars for making purchases of agricultural products from local and regional farmers and ranchers.  Not only would this foster economic development but it would also bolster farm to school relationships.  Additionally, while the proposed new bill would have maintained funding for the Department of Defense Fresh program, which gets produce into schools, the bill would not have allowed schools to use these dollars for their own purchases of more fresh, local food.  On a positive note, the proposed new bill would have allowed USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to continue to pursue a pilot program that explores avenues for local sourcing in the program.

Organic Agriculture — The National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (NOCCSP), which assists producers in 34 states and handlers in all 50 states with the regulatory costs of entering into organic production, was left in tatters in the proposed new bill.  It would have ended any farm bill mandatory funding for the program and placed a five-year benefit limit on each farmer if, as is unlikely, the program were to shift from the farm bill to the appropriations bill.  The proposed bill would have allowed farmers in the 12 Northeastern states plus HI, NV, UT, and WY to receive mandatory funding from a different source for organic certification cost share.  The result would have been an absurd situation where eligibility for a farm program benefit depended on which state one resides in.  For comparison, imagine if corn program subsidies were available only in 16 out of 50 states – it would not have passed the smell test.

The proposed bill also did not include the provisions in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA) regarding organic crop insurance.  The LFFJA would eliminate the organic premium surcharge and would direct RMA to complete development of an organic price series to allow organic policies to pay out at the organic price.

Minority Farmers and Ranchers

The proposed bill left the Outreach and Technical Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers program (also known as “Section 2501” program) high and dry.  The program received $75 million in mandatory funding under the current farm bill, but was left unfunded in the proposal.

Beginning Farmers and Ranchers

The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts (BFRIDA) Pilot Program also was not provided with farm bill funding under the proposal.  The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act proposes to fund the innovative pilot program at $5 million a year in mandatory funding.

Many credit programs that are essential to helping beginning farmers start farming, would have been reauthorized, including the Conservation Loan Program, the Down Payment Loan Program, and funding set-asides for beginning farmers within the guaranteed farm ownership and direct operating loan funds.  None of the important policy changes that are needed and are contemplated by the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act were included, however.

Research and Extension

While the proposed bill would have provided important renewed mandatory funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, and Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Act, it contained no policy changes that we know of to other programs and offices with the research area.

As the November 23rd deadline approaches for Congressional ag committees to submit their 2012 Farm Bill proposal, Nourish has launched a short video, “The Farm Bill,” featuring Michael Pollan.

http://www.nourishlife.org/2011/11/video-michael-pollan-the-farm-bill/

“It isn’t really a bill just for farmers,” says food journalist Michael Pollan, in this video from Nourish Short Films. “It really should be called the food bill because it is the rules for the food system we all eat by.”

We invite you to share the film with your networks to raise awareness and generate dialogue around this critical legislation.

GREENFIELD, Iowa — Organic crop systems can provide similar yields and much higher economic returns than a conventional corn-soybean rotation, according to thirteen years of data from a side-by-side comparison at Iowa State University’s Neely-Kinyon Research and Demonstration Farm.

The Long-Term Agroecological Research Experiment (LTAR) began in 1998 with support from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. The LTAR is one of the longest running replicated comparisons in the country. Kathleen Delate, professor in ISU Agronomy and Horticulture, leads the project.

“The transitioning years are the hardest years,” Delate said, explaining that the project was originally designed to help farmers make the shift into an organic system. To sell a product as organic, the crop must be raised on land that has received no synthetic chemicals for three years prior to harvest.

The LTAR experiment shows that organic crops can remain competitive with conventional crops even during the three-year transition. Averaged over 13 years, yields of organic corn, soybean and oats have been equivalent to or slightly greater than their conventional counterparts. Likewise, a 12-year average for alfalfa and an 8-year average for winter wheat also show no significant difference between organic yields and the Adair County average.

Organic crops fetch a premium price on the market and eliminate the need for expensive inputs like herbicides and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they are far more profitable than conventional crops. Craig Chase, interim leader of the Leopold Center’s Marketing and Food Systems Initiative and extension farm management specialist, calculated the returns to management—that is, the money left over for family living after deducting labor, land and production costs—for both systems. He based his calculations on actual LTAR data from 1998 to 2004, as well as scenarios modeled with enterprise budgets.

Both methods gave the same result: On average, organic systems return roughly $200 per acre more than conventional crops.

In addition to its profitability, organic agriculture helps build healthy soils. While conventional LTAR plots receive synthetic herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer, organic plots receive only local, manure-based amendments. Total nitrogen increased by 33 percent in the organic plots, and researchers measured higher concentrations of carbon, potassium, phosphorous, magnesium and calcium. The results suggest that organic farming can foster greater efficiency in nutrient use and higher potential for sequestrating carbon.

Delate said they use “a whole suite of practices to manage weeds” in the organic plots, including timely tillage and longer crop rotations. Allelopathic chemicals from rye and alfalfa help keep weed populations under control, as does growing an alfalfa cover crop in winter, which provided cover for beneficial insects and animals.

“I think there’s a strong future for organic agriculture,” Delate said.  “My phone is ringing off the hook. The interest hasn’t waned.”

When Delate became Iowa State’s first specialist in organic agriculture in 1997, the Leopold Center provided start-up funds to develop a program and set up LTAR research plots. The Center has provided annual operating funds for LTAR and, in 2010, the work was moved to a competitive grant in the Leopold Center’s Cross-Cutting Initiative.

LTAR’s findings concur with recently published results from the Rodale Institute’s 30-year Farming Systems Trial in Pennsylvania. The Rodale Institute also concluded that organic systems can provide similar yields and greater profits. In addition, they calculated that organic crops required 45 percent less energy, and contributed significantly less to greenhouse gas emissions. Organic corn proved especially profitable during drought years, when its yields jumped up to 31 percent higher than conventional.

Download a brochure about the LTAR project at www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs-and-papers/2011-11-ltar-experiment. Read the Rodale Institute report at http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst30years.

from Iowa Farmer Today

CHICAGO — Chris Petersen has a simple solution to the concern over excessive use of antibiotics in food animals.

“I will be the first one to give a pig a shot if it needs it, but only if it needs it,” Petersen said at a symposium here Oct. 27. “But, I only do that if it’s sick, and nothing else.”

Petersen, who farms near Clear Lake and is president of the Iowa Farmers Union, was one of several hundred livestock industry stakeholders at a symposium sponsored by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture.

Petersen believes the move to large-scale livestock production has contributed to what many believe is over use of antibiotics in the livestock industry.

“I truly believe if we have more family farms and more diversified production, we would not have this problem,” he said.

“We need to use husbandry more than we use antibiotics.”

Many groups and consumers are concerned excessive use of antibiotics in food animals could contribute to antibiotic resistance in humans.

Scott Hurd, a veterinarian at Iowa State University and former deputy undersecretary for food safety with the USDA, said it is important to differentiate concern with risk.

“Concern is not equivalent to risk,” he said. “Antimicrobial-resistant bacteria are found in many places.”

Hurd said the debate is really based on values.

Several factors come into play, he said, including the acceptance of modern farming, the level of suffering of animals, veterinarian oversight and what is acceptable risk.

He said there is concern with resistant bacteria, given the fact they are present in the environment.

“Antimicrobial resistant bacteria are a potential hazard, but hazard does not equal risk,” Hurd said. “Risk comes when you take the hazard and multiply it by the dose, and that is when you have risk. ”

Hurd said a causal pathway must be present to create risk. If any item is removed from that pathway, such as pathogens in meat, then there is no risk.

He said the risk to the public may be higher if animals are unhealthy.

“A healthy animal makes safe food,” Hurt said. “If there is a decrease in animal health, there will be public consequences.”

Before determining appropriate antibiotic use, several factors must be considered, said Mike Apley, a veterinarian at Kansas State University.

Those factors include:

• Antimicrobial pressure;
• the bacteria of interest;
• the interaction between the antimicrobial and bacteria of interest;
• the outcome of the interaction;
• the definition of resistance; and
• concern about transfer of resistant bacteria or transmissible resistance elements.

Apley said limiting the antibiotics available to the livestock industry will negatively affect animal health.

“This isn’t just about public perception,” he said. “It’s about veterinarians being able to fight food-animal disease.”