National Grange joins Farm Bill Now coalition

The National Grange has joined forces with more than 40 other agricultural organizations as part of the Farm Bill Now coalition, and plans to rally with coalition members on Capitol Hill in September to raise public awareness about the importance of passing the 2012 Farm Bill. Provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill are set to expire on Sept. 30.
The coalition brings together groups from all sectors of agriculture, including dairy, livestock, energy, commodity crops, specialty crops, farm cooperatives, financial groups, non-profits and more. "I'm so glad that despite differing opinions and legislative priorities, all of these groups could join together to fight for our much-needed Farm Bill," said National Grange President Ed Luttrell. "Everyone in the agricultural community has been frustrated by the lack of action in Congress to get American agriculture the resources it needs to keep operating, and it's time we voice that frustration."
The rally on Capitol Hill is set for Sept. 12. "Calling the Farm Bill the 'farm bill' suggests its impact is limited only to farms and to the rural areas to which they are so closely tied," said the National Grange. "It's really a jobs bill. A food bill. A conservation bill. A research bill. An energy bill. A trade bill. In other words, it's a bill that affects every American."

Ag groups lobby for removing prime farmland from conservation reserve program

Congress should include legislative language as part of the 2012 farm bill that mandates the removal of millions of acres of “prime farmland” from the Conservation Reserve Program, according to a study conducted for the National Grain and Feed Foundation by Strategic Conservation Solutions LLC.
According to the study, "ReGaining Ground — A Conservation Reserve Program Right-Sized for the Times," as recently as 2007 (the most recent data publicly available) up to 8.7 million acres that the U.S. Department of Agriculture considers to be prime farmland were idled under 10- to 15-year Conservation Reserve Program contracts. The study recognized some prime farmland currently enrolled in the program as part of filter strips, grassed waterways and other highly-sensitive acres eligible for continuous signup in the program, that likely would remain idled. “But with CRP contracts that include more than 70 percent of the acreage enrolled — 21.2 million acres — set to expire over the next five years, there is an urgent need to manage the program so that the most productive land from the reserve is returned to production,” said the study.
The study suggests reducing the Conservation Reserve Program cap by phasing out existing enrollment and banning new enrollment of most prime farmland. It also includes several other legislative recommendations:

• Escalate the schedule for drawing down the program cap to coincide with the schedule for program contract expirations.
• Limit whole-field and whole-farm enrollments in the program by requiring such land to meet a more stringent environmental benefits index scoring threshold than partial-field enrollments.
• Mandate that the USDA offer program-contract holders a penalty-free early out as a means of reducing enrollments of prime farmland.
• Allocate sufficient funds to at least triple (to $75 million) the size of the Conservation Reserve Program Transition Incentives Program, which is designed to encourage retired or retiring landowners to transition eligible program land for production to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers.
• Consider designating a specific percentage- or acreage-based figure within the program for future enrollment of the most environmentally sensitive land.
• Restrict the USDA’s discretion to exceed the current 25-percent acreage limit on program enrollments in individual counties because of the adverse economic impacts such enrollments have had on rural communities.

US farm groups discuss commodity, risk management programs

A group of eight prominent agricultural associations has voiced its support for the U.S. Senate’s approach to the 2012 Farm Bill, and raised several issues related to commodity and risk management programs, in a letter to the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Co-signed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Sunflower Association, U.S. Canola Association and USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council, the letter commended the committee for adhering to its original proposal of $23 billion in deficit reduction. Additionally, the groups applauded the committee’s decision not to restructure the federal crop insurance program or to reduce its funding for deficit reduction purposes.
“Even with the clear and real need to reduce our federal deficit, it remains in the best interest of our nation to help ensure a basic level of risk management for farmers and our food supply,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. “Farming is a risky business. There is no doubt about that, and crop insurance is a key principle in the goal to provide farmers a dependable safety net.”
In response to concerns from other commodity groups about a revenue-based approach, the groups advocate making changes in the crop insurance program to enhance its viability as a risk management tool, while maintaining the effectiveness of the existing program for other commodities. The groups do not, however, support program alternatives that tie current-year production to fixed price supports, which can distort planting decisions and production between commodities when market prices decline.
In the letter, the groups also advanced their concept for a new program to complement the risk protection provided under crop insurance. “Our organizations support an approach that partially compensates for current-year revenue losses on a crop-specific basis,” said the groups. “We believe this approach would have an insignificant impact on planting decisions because of the percentage of risk covered. Also, revenue benchmarks would be adjusted annually to reflect recent average commodity prices, and certification of revenue loss would be required.”
Finally, the groups advocated the continuation of the marketing loan program, urging the committee to oppose any changes in current law regarding payment limitations or eligibility for farm programs based on adjusted gross income.

Peterson Prepares to Draft 2012 Farm Bill

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) last week began discussing elements of a new farm bill, a process that is expected to play out over the next 18 months. Many long-time Washington observers believe the next farm legislation could be significantly different from that of the recent past for a wide range of reasons.
The week of April 26, Peterson said his panel would hear from experts and academics on "the broad picture" of where they perceive the current bill is working or not working, and trends they see for the future." The first week of May will feature field hearings in Des Moines, Boise, Fresno and Cheyenne, Wyo. The week of May 14 Peterson will hold hearings Georgia, Alabama, Texas and South Dakota.
The chairman says that at this point, everything is on the table, and that he is not advocating that policy go in any specific direction. Rather, he said, what he wants now if for a discussion about whether the current set of programs "make sense for the future." Peterson says his overall interest "is providing a safety net for the average-sized commercial production farmer."
One program likely is a candidate for change" the U.S. cotton program, given the recent agreement between the United States and Brazil that averted sanctions being imposed on a host of U.S. products. Peterson has said in the past that commodity programs that were structured to closely resemble each other may not work in the future. "Is it right to do it [the next farm bill] on a commodity-by-commodity basis? Or should we look at a whole-farm approach?" Peterson asked. "I've gotten some push back on that, but we at least should think about it."
Peterson acknowledged the budget will be a factor but said he is "not going to get too excited about it until we get to the point of marking up a bill." And, he expects the amount of money that will be available for farm programs –– based on Congressional Budget Office projections of baseline spending –– will be considerably different than it is at present.
Peterson would not say whether direct payments to farmers need to be reduced, saying instead that the various components of the economic safety net for farmers needs to be looked at as a whole to see how they work together.
Some have suggested that the current commodity loan programs could be ended or changed significantly and the dollars allocated for use elsewhere. Peterson said the problem with the current loan program is that loan rates are set at such low levels that the program does not function properly, "And the money isn't there to raise those rates significantly."