Legislators’ response will show whether Congress supports business as usual in agriculture or a more diverse and sustainable U.S. farm system.

Modern farm bills address many things besides food, from rural broadband access to biofuels. This brings out a dizzying range of diverse agendas.

Umbrella organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation typically focus on farm subsidies and crop insurance. Industry-specific groups all have their own interests. Environmental and conservation groups, local governments, hunters and anglers, bankers and dozens of other organizations have their own wish lists.

As a former Senate aide and senior official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, I’ve seen this intricate process from all sides.

Farm bills always are controversial because of their high cost, but this round is especially tricky. The past two years have seen major economic relief bills and measures to bolster the domestic economy. These follow unprecedented spending for farm support during the Trump administration. Now legislators are jockeying over raising the debt ceiling, which limits how much the federal government can borrow to pay its bills.

Agriculture committee leaders and farm groups argue more money is necessary to strengthen the food and farm sector. If they have their way, the price tag for the next farm bill would increase significantly from current projections.

On the other side, reformers argue for capping payments to farmers and restricting eligibility. In their view, too much money goes to very large farms compared to small and medium-size producers.

Many people are surprised to learn that nutrition assistance – mainly through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps – is where most farm bill money is spent. Along with a few smaller programs, SNAP will likely consume 80 per cent of the money in the new farm bill, up from 76 per cent in 2018.

Why have SNAP costs grown? During the pandemic, benefits were increased on an emergency basis, but that temporary arrangement expired in March. Also, in response to a directive included in the 2018 farm bill, the USDA recalculated what it takes to afford a healthy diet (an extra $12-$16 per month per recipient).

SNAP is where much of the budget battle will play out. Most Republicans typically seek to rein it in; most Democrats usually support expansion.

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act also provided $19.5 billion to the USDA for programs that address climate change.

This big pot of money has become a prime target for members of Congress looking for more farm bill funding. On the other side, conservation advocates, sustainable farmers and progressive businesses oppose diverting climate funds for other purposes.

There also is growing demand for Congress to require USDA to develop better standards for measuring, reporting and verifying actions designed to protect or increase soil carbon. Interest is rising in “carbon farming,” but without more research and standards, observers worry that investments in climate-smart agriculture will support greenwashing.

Mixed research results have raised questions as to whether establishing practice-based carbon markets is premature.

Nearly one-third of current members of Congress were first elected after the 2018 farm bill was enacted. This is their first farm-bill cycle. I expect that, as often occurs in Congress, new members will follow more senior legislators’ cues and go along with traditional decision making.

This will make it easier for entrenched interests, like major commodity groups, to maintain support for programs that provide revenue support for crops like corn, wheat and soybeans. These programs are complex, cost billions of dollars and go mainly to large-scale operations.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s current stump speech spotlights the fact that 89 per cent of U.S. farmers failed to make a livable profit in 2022, even though total farm income set a record. Vilsack asserts that less-profitable operations should be the focus of this farm bill – but when pressed, he appears unwilling to concede that support for large-scale operations should be changed in any way.

My dream farm bill would invest in three priorities: organic agriculture as a climate solution; infrastructure to support vibrant local markets and shift away from dependence on exporting low-value crops; and agricultural science and technology research aimed at reducing labour and chemical inputs and providing new solutions for sustainable livestock production.

In my view, it is time for tough policy choices, and it won’t be possible to fund everything.

This article first appeared in The Conversation, by Reuters.

The post Challenges that will shape the next farm bill — and how the U.S. eats appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Uneasy about losing NAFTA, an agreement they say is mostly working for them, they’re now even more jittery about becoming collateral damage in a China-U.S. trade war, despite President Donald Trump’s promise of protection.

Farmers prefer markets to largesse, two senior federal farm state legislators told members of the North American Agricultural Journalists (NAAJ) on Capitol Hill April 10.

“We need a market,” said Kanas Republican Senator Pat Roberts, who also chairs the Senate agriculture committee. “We need to sell our product. If we do that we don’t need to have some kind of crazy-quilt subsidy program that would set a precedent.”

In a separate meeting Collin Peterson, Minnesota’s seventh congressional district representative and senior Democrat on House agriculture committee, had a similar response.

• Read more: Senior American legislators optimistic about NAFTA talks

“On trade I am against a one-time bailout of the situation that was created by the (Trump) administration,” he said, adding he wants government money in the upcoming Farm Bill to offset low commodity prices.

“This (possible one-time payment) is not what farmers want. They want their markets they’ve spent all these years building up left intact and not screwed up… Giving them some (aid) I don’t think is necessarily going to buy them off.”

That’s also the message from the largest U.S. farm group, the American Farm Bureau Federation.

“America’s farmers would vastly prefer to hitch their wagons to the export opportunities offered by trade,” a farm bureau official said in a published report earlier this month. “The economic value of our exports would be difficult to match, and we need to hear additional details from the administration.”

Tariff time

April 2 China imposed a 25 per cent import tariff on American pork and seven other products including recycled aluminum. It also set a 15 per cent duty on other American products including fruits, nuts, wine and steel pipes. All were in retaliation to U.S. plans to slap US$50 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese imports, which the Trump administration says is aimed at getting China to stop stealing American intellectual property.

In response to China’s duties, Trump threatened to add another US$50 billion in tariffs on other Chinese products exported to the U.S.

China responded with plans for a 25 per cent tariff on imports of American soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, sorghum, beef, orange juice, tobacco and whiskey.

American soybean farmers are especially concerned because China is the United States’ and world’s largest soybean customer. China typically buys one of every three bushels of exported U.S. soybeans.

“I understand the anxiety very well,” Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Censky told the NAAJ’s annual meeting April 9.

He should. Censky was CEO of the American Soybean Association for many years before being appointed deputy agriculture secretary.

Censky repeated Trump’s “I have their backs” message to farmers.

“He has directed (Agriculture) Secretary (Sonny) Perdue and us at USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) to make sure they’re doing all that is necessary to protect and preserve U.S. farmers and ranchers because we recognize that sometimes when we do take (trade) action… farmers and ranchers are on the tip of the spear when it comes to retaliation. We want to make sure that they are not harmed in that process.

“There’s nothing to announce yet, but certainly that’s a high priority… ”

Risks to China

Chinese consumers could be as negatively affected or even more by a soybean tariff since the country relies so heavily on American stocks, Censky said.

Although he didn’t say how Washington might compensate farmers, Censky said there are many options.

“We are looking at all of our authorities… we have under the Commodity Credit Corporation…” he said.

That means in addition to farm payments the U.S. government could buy surplus production in an effort to bolster prices.

With Canadian pork and soybean prices set in the U.S., if American farmers get subsidies to offset lower prices that would make Canadian farmers less competitive. It also raise the spectre of Canadian countervailing duties on American products exported to Canada.

American legislators haven’t thought about such unintended consequences, Peterson said.

“They are just trying to survive,” he said. “They’re trying to explain to people how it is that their president is doing this.”

However, Censky said any farm aid in response to Chinese tariffs will be “in compliance with our WTO existing obligations.”

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow and the Democrat’s ranking member on the Senate agriculture committee, shares Trump’s concern about unfair Chinese trade practices. But she told reporters America’s response must be “thoughtful and strategic.”

“We have to be careful in terms of unintended consequences,” she said April 10.

The post American farmers want markets, not subsidies, legislators say appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In 120 words Trump told the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual meeting Monday in Nashville he was working to get U.S. farmers better trade deals.

“To level the playing field for our great American exporters, farmers and ranchers as well as our manufacturers, we are reviewing all of our trade agreements to make sure that they are fair and reciprocal,” Trump said. “Reciprocal, so important.

“On NAFTA I am working very hard to get a better deal for our country and for farmers and for our manufacturers.” he said, triggering applause.

“It’s under negotiation as we speak. But think of it, when Mexico is making all of that money, when Canada is making all of that money, it’s not the easiest negotiation. But we’re going to make it fair for you people again. Now we want to see even more victories for the American farmer and for the American rancher.”

The farm bureau, like many other U.S. farm organizations, has urged the U.S. government “to do no harm” in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) talks triggered by Trump soon after his election last year.

Trump, who pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), has said he will tear up NAFTA if he can’t negotiate better terms for the U.S.

While most observers agree Trump can abrogate the 23-year-old agreement by giving Canada and Mexico six months’ notice, it’s also believed the U.S. Congress could save the agreement that resulted in US$60 billion in agricultural trade between the three countries last year.

AFBF president Zippy Duvall on Sunday stressed the importance of trade to farmers.

“Without those global markets, our already-depressed farm economy would go down even more,” he told the meeting. “Trade should not be a dirty word.

“We sell about half of what we produce to foreign markets around the world. If we lose those markets, where is that agricultural production going to go? Ag trade is an American success story.”

Later that day Canada’s Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay also promoted free trade.

“My message to you this morning is the government of Canada is committed to working with you to strengthen (the) Canada-U.S. relationship for the good of our people, our businesses and our economy,” said MacAulay, the first Canadian agriculture minister to address the 99-year-old farm organization.

“The fact of the matter is we’re friends whether we like it or not. We’ve worked together too long.

“No two nations depend on each other more for their prosperity and for their security than Canada and the United States. And today that is even more vital than ever.”

MacAulay emphasized NAFTA and trade are important for Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Since NAFTA came into force, its partners’ agricultural trade with each other tripled, while U.S. ag trade to Canada and Mexico quadrupled.

“Last year more than US$47 billion (C$60 billion) worth of agricultural products passed over our borders,” he said. “That includes more than $600 million right here in Tennessee.”

MacAulay said the U.S. has an $8 billion goods and services trade surplus with Canada; Canada is the top export market for two-thirds of U.S. states and trade with Canada supports nine million jobs — 170,000 in Tennessee alone.

MacAulay’s speech wasn’t all facts and figures. He employed some ‘down east’ charm delivered in a warm Prince Edward Island lilt that garnered laughter and applause.

“I think you are fortunate to have Sonny Purdue as your secretary of agriculture in Washington,” MacAulay said. “And he’s a good friend of mine. And he’s a farmer and I am. And he knows what we think.”

MacAulay spoke about their first meeting after he heard Purdue wanted to meet.

“I can tell you if the secretary of agriculture for the United States of America wants to see me he’s going to see me,” MacAulay said. “That’s the way this works.”

Noting trade is a two-way street, MacAulay said Canada has exported “pretty important stuff” to Nashville “like Shania Twain.”

And with the Nashville Predators looking like they could be in the Stanley Cup playoffs thanks to former Montreal Canadiens player P.K. Subban, MacAulay said: “I can tell you I want the Predators to help me on any trade deal.”

Later at a news conference in Nashville, MacAulay said Canada will not forsake Canada’s supply-managed dairy sector.

All countries have sensitive areas, he said, especially in agriculture, including the U.S., which protects sugar production.

Former Canadian agricultural trade negotiator Mike Gifford, noting Canadian dairy production is rising, has suggested a Canadian compromise would be to allow more U.S. milk to enter Canada by increasing tariff rate quotas.

Asked Monday about the idea by Canadian reporters, MacAulay said, “It has been made very clear myself and our government that we are going to fully support the supply management system because it has been, without a question, a model for the world.

“We see absolutely no reason to change our system. All counties have certain things that they wish to protect.

“The fact is, why would you dismantle a system that is so efficient?” he said in response to another reporter’s question.

‘Regulatory assault’

Much of Trump’s speech focused on the improving U.S. economy and reduced unemployment, for which the president took credit.

He also said farmers would be among the beneficiaries of the recently passed federal tax cuts, including farm family estates.

Trump also touted his cuts to regulations, including some aimed at protecting the environment, which he said got in farmers’ way.

“We are also putting an end to the regulatory assault to your way of life,” Trump said.

“For years many of you have endured burdensome fines, inspections, paperwork and relentless intrusion for an army of regulators at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and countless other federal agencies.”

“We are streamlining regulations that have blocked cutting-edge biotechnology, setting free our farmers to innovate thrive and to grow. Oh, are you happy you voted for me. You are so lucky that I gave you that privilege.”

After his speech Trump signed an executive order promoting the expansion of broadband internet in rural areas.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man. Follow him at @AllanReporter on Twitter.

The post Better trade deals coming for U.S. farmers, Trump says appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

On July 10, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that Lake Erie’s algal bloom will be “more severe in 2015” due to “historic rains in June.” On a scale of 1 to 10, forecasts NOAA, this year’s bloom will be 8.7, far higher than 2014’s mark of 6.5 “when Toledo suffered its drinking water problem.”

The problems don’t stop in Ohio.

Iowa’s water war — you may recall that the Des Moines Water Works sued three, hog-heavy Iowa counties last spring for high nitrate levels it said contaminated the city’s drinking water — began to boil anew July 7 after the Des Moines Register published an op-ed by Dennis Keeney, the now-retired, first director of Iowa State University’s Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

Keeney, a plain-spoken native son as well as a distinguished agronomy professor at Iowa State and the University of Wisconsin, chides “Midwest agricultural leaders” and Iowa’s politicians for choosing “to ignore the warning signs” of the state’s worsening water quality problems for decades.

He then lists the names of those he says have chosen to “issue a stream of denials” instead of using their leadership positions for “embracing and forwarding solutions” to address Iowa’s deteriorating water quality over the last 30 years.

The list includes long-serving Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, the “Farm Bureau,” former Iowa ag secretary Patty Judge, “agricultural industries,” and two previous Democratic governors, Chet Culver and Tom Vilsack, now the U.S. secretary of agriculture.

“Where were these leaders when action would have helped create an environmentally sustainable agriculture?” asks Keeney. “(W)eak leadership,” he asserts, “crosses political lines” and “… responds not to the need of the residents of Iowa, but to the need to keep Iowa agriculture humming along on its pathway to industrial domination.”

So, Keeney writes, the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit was a long time coming.

What wasn’t a long time coming was a smoking-hot reply from Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. The Register posted his response on its website less than 24 hours after Keeney lit the fire under the water kettle.

Vilsack noted that as governor, then as secretary, he had “made water quality a state priority.” In fact, he had established Iowa’s first “comprehensive water-monitoring program,” sponsored its first “Water Quality Summit,” and helped shepherd $2.2 billion in federal money to “Iowa alone” for conservation programs since taking over the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2009.

Right, and the result — like that of most local, state, and federal water quality programs aimed at farms and ranches for decades — has been that “Iowa’s water quality has continued to deteriorate,” four prominent Iowa ag leaders wrote in reply to Vilsack. “We cannot expect different results if we continue to do the same thing.”

What these four leaders (Francis Thicke, a farmer and soil scientist; Fred Kirschenmann, former director and distinguished fellow of the ISU’s Leopold Center; Kamyar Enshayan, director of the University of Northern Iowa’s Center for Energy and Environmental Education; and Keeney) propose is a “middle ground”: farm-level water quality plans — much like today’s mandated, farm-level soil conservation plans — backed by federal dollars to initiate the use of local “practices that fit (Iowa’s) own farms.”

And, suggest the four, “A good place to pilot (or test) farm-level quality plans would be in the Iowa drainage districts being sued by the Des Moines Water Works for discharging nitrate into the Raccoon River.”

That’s a rock-solid idea that could get farmers and municipalities to work together to begin to address today’s big-and-getting-bigger water quality problems while pre-empting lengthy, costly and — like the just-confirmed American Farm Bureau-financed Chesapeake Bay appellate defeat — losing lawsuits.

Mr. Secretary, your turn.

The post Going against the flow on water quality issues appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Company executives have been criss-crossing the U.S. heartland, meeting with soybean and corn growers and a range of powerful farm lobby organizations to seek their support, company and farm officials say. And the company has launched a website promoting the benefits of the proposed US$45 billion acquisition of Syngenta, which the Swiss company has thus far rebuffed.

Monsanto leaders have also been making appearances on national and regional broadcasts to make their case that combining two of the world’s largest agricultural companies will help, not hurt, their customers.

The efforts follow weeks of Monsanto executive meetings with Syngenta shareholders.

It’s an all-out approach that analysts and marketing experts say is unusual in a corporate acquisition effort, and one that requires Monsanto to walk a fine line.

“If they soothe the worries of the marketplace that helps a lot,” said William Carner, a Westminster College business professor and marketing expert.

“They’ve got to show Syngenta how profitable this will be. At the same time they have to tell the markets they aren’t going to gouge them. It’s a nice little tightrope they’ve got themselves on,” Carner said.

Among those Monsanto has been lobbying is the American Farm Bureau Federation, which calls itself the “voice of agriculture.”

The group has no formal position on the proposal. But Dale Moore, who oversees its public policy arm, said there are questions about how prices and product innovation could be impacted.

Monsanto is the world’s largest seed company, while Syngenta is a global leader in farm chemicals.

“One question would be if this is going to cause a contraction in new R&D or leverage it. We love competition because competition usually means there is… choice,” Moore said.

Edward Jones analyst Matt Arnold said Monsanto’s push could help lower regulatory antitrust hurdles.

“If the customer gets on board… that would put less pressure on regulators to scrutinize the deal or block it,” Arnold said.

Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant said Friday he is frustrated with Syngenta’s refusal to come to the bargaining table.

“They need to get real and see if we can get this over the line,” Grant said in a televised appearance on CNBC.

— Carey Gillam is a Reuters correspondent covering U.S. agribusiness from Kansas City.

The post In bid for Syngenta, Monsanto woos U.S. farmer support appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Delegates at the annual meeting of the six-million-member American Farm Bureau Federation issued the call after U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked them to speak up for comprehensive immigration reform.

Agriculture has a direct stake in the issue, given its need for a steady and reliable supply of labour to stop certain crops from rotting in the field.

“The reality is we’re only going to solve this through comprehensive immigration reform,” said Bob Stallman, the group’s president.

Immigration reform became a front-burner issue after overwhelming support from Hispanic voters figured in President Barack Obama’s re-election.

The U.S. agricultural industry employs 1.5 million workers annually in temporary or full-time jobs. Many of them, perhaps 500,000 to 900,000 in all, are believed to be undocumented.

Despite the high unemployment rate, farmers and ranchers say it is a perennial struggle to find enough workers to perform the back-breaking labour of fruit and vegetable harvesting, or the daily care of livestock.

The post Farm group backs U.S. immigration reform appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Many of the 1.5 million farm workers employed in the United States annually — perhaps 500,000 to 900,000 in all — are believed to be in the country illegally.

Farmers, ranchers and nursery operators say the immigrant workforce is vital because it is difficult to recruit Americans for the low-paying, often back-breaking labour such as fruit picking, vegetable harvesting and daily care of livestock.

In a four-page outline, the senators say “agricultural workers who commit to the long-term stability of our nation’s agricultural industries will be treated differently than the rest of the undocumented population because of the role they play in ensuring that Americans have safe and secure agricultural products to sell and consume.

“These individuals will earn a path to citizenship through a different process under our new agricultural worker program,” said the bipartisan group, which includes two of the top-ranking Democrats in the Senate and Arizona Republican John McCain.

Right direction

The phrasing was similar to a proposal from a dozen agricultural and nursery groups, working as the Agricultural Workforce Coalition, for a new farm labour program to replace the guest worker program now in place.

Coalition members regard sens. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, and Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, as key legislators in the drive.

“We view this as a step in the right direction,” said Kristi Boswell of the American Farm Bureau Federation, a coalition member. Ken Barbic of Western Growers Association, another coalition member, said his group was “largely encouraged” by the senators’ proposal and that it mentioned agriculture twice.

Craig Regelbrugge of the American Landscape and Nursery Association said “it is essential that experienced farm workers are incentivized to continue working in the sector.”

Besides the separate path for agriculture labour, the framework said reform would include “a workable program to meet the needs of America’s agricultural industry, including dairy, to find agricultural workers when American workers are not available.”

Ag coalition wants new worker program

Under the farm coalition proposal, undocumented workers who agree to work in agricultural jobs for several more years would obtain permanent legal status and the right to work wherever they choose. The coalition would replace the H2-A guest worker program with a system of seasonal and full-year visas.

The bipartisan group said it aims to convert its guidelines into legislation by March and to send it to the House later this year.

“We believe this is the year Congress finally gets it done,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat.

The last major attempt at U.S. immigration reform was in 2007. Estimates say there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Earlier this month the six-million-member Farm Bureau, the largest U.S. farm group, urged a new immigration law. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has also urged the farm sector to speak up for comprehensive reform.

The post Separate path for farm labour in U.S. Senate immigration plan appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But lawmakers aren’t expected to break their deadlock over enacting a five-year, $500-billion Farm Bill covering a wide range of agricultural policy from food stamps to crop subsidies and soil conservation.

The worst drought to hit the Midwest Farm Belt in half a century should double the cost of crop insurance this year, and the nagging drought threatens 2013 crops as well.

Another key question for farm policy watchers after the re-election of President Barack Obama is whether Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will serve a second term. Since the 1960s, only one USDA secretary has served two terms.

Ethanol likely benefited from Obama’s victory, said analyst Mark McMinimy of Guggenheim Securities, noting that Obama and Vilsack are biofuels backers.

The Environmental Protection Agency may decide this month whether to relax the requirement to use ethanol in gasoline. Livestock producers say they are being ruined by high grain prices as more U.S. crops are diverted to fuel.

With Democrats still in narrow control of the Senate and Republicans keeping their majority in the House, analysts said a short-term extension of the 2008 farm law, probably into spring, is the likely outcome.

Odds against five-year Farm Bill

“Odds are against a five-year Farm Bill in the lame-duck (session) unless it’s part of a budget agreement,” and that’s unlikely, said Pat Westhoff of the think-tank Food and Agricultural Policy Research.

Crop insurance already is the biggest part of the farm safety net, costing the government around $7 billion a year. The cost is expected to jump to $15 billion or more this year because the government will shoulder most of the underwriting losses for the 16 insurance companies in the field.

Senators voted overwhelmingly in June to reduce the federal insurance subsidy for the wealthiest farmers. This could save $1.1 billion over a decade. The House of Representatives has not yet decided on this issue.

Costs could be cut further through an across-the-board reduction in the premium subsidy — currently the government pays 62 cents of each $1 in premiums — or by requiring insurers to accept a larger share of losses.

Crop insurance under attack

The major U.S. farm groups made a strong crop insurance program their top priority for the bill, even if it meant cutting other agricultural supports.

“Why start attacking the one tool we’ve been guiding people toward for 25 years?” asked Dale Moore, a lobbyist for the six-million-member American Farm Bureau Federation.

The House splintered over how deeply to cut crop subsidies, many of which go to well-off farmers, and food stamps that are a lifeline for millions of low-income Americans.

This summer, House Republican leaders refused to call a vote on the bill — which would slash $16 billion from the food stamp budget over 10 years — saying there was not a majority for it.

That’s a cut four times larger than what’s proposed by in Senate’s version of the Farm Bill. And many Washington watchers expect that version will be the model for a new Farm Bill. The Senate bill would end traditional crop subsidies, mainstays of U.S. farm law for eight decades, and instead compensate farmers when revenue from a crop was 11 to 21 per cent below normal. Crop insurance would cover deeper losses. The leading House plan would also boost crop support prices by up to 40 per cent.

Vilsack to stay or go?

Farmers, in general, are not Obama fans. The president’s share of the rural vote dropped to 41 per cent on Nov. 6 from 46 per cent in the 2008 election, according to the Center for Rural Strategies.

But Vilsack, Obama’s agriculture secretary and a former Iowa governor, has been a mostly popular USDA chief with a strong focus on overseeing programs as diverse as nutrition, farm exports and the national forest system.

Vilsack is widely expected to continue at USDA, at least for another year or two.

The post U.S. crop insurance a post-election target appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“It could be $23 billion. It could be $48 billion. It could be $33 billion,” Vilsack said on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the six million-member American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF).

AFBF president Bob Stallman also told reporters there was strong pressure to cut agriculture spending. Vilsack and Stallman said budget pressures will make it hard to write a new farm law this year despite a Sept. 30. deadline.

A cut amounting to $48 billion would be about five per cent of farm bill funding, and twice the $23 billion suggested by Agriculture Committee leaders last fall.

The White House has suggested $33 billion in cuts. Republicans in the U.S. House voted for $48 billion last spring.

Crop subsidies and conservation payments are expected to bear the brunt of cuts. A chief target is the $5-billion-a-year “direct payment” subsidy to grain, cotton and soybean farmers.

There is no consensus on a new farm law. Some proposals would end crop subsidies created during the Depression era.

While crop subsidies are the headline issue, three-quarters of Agriculture Department money is spent on food stamps and other nutrition aid to the poor.

Convention delegates were to vote this week on a proposal by Farm Bureau leaders to end most existing crop subsidies and to create an insurance-like program in its place. It would assure growers of getting 70-80 per cent of their usual crop revenue.

Large cuts to traditional farm subsidies could make federal crop insurance the primary shield for growers against steep losses.

The post Bigger U.S. subsidy cuts considered appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The figure was larger than earlier reports of three million acres of flooded farmland and amounts to 1.1 per cent of land usually planted in the two dozen principal U.S. field crops.

Arkansas is the hardest hit with one million acres flooded, including 300,000 acres of rice and 120,000 acres of wheat, said the American Farm Bureau Federation, based on a survey of its state affiliates.

The federation listed flood totals as 650,000 acres in Tennessee, 600,000 acres in Mississippi, 570,000 in Missouri, 500,000 acres in Illinois and 280,000 acres in Louisiana.

The economic impact of the flood will be massive but some growers still may be able to plant a crop this year, said Bob Young, the organization’s chief economist.

“There is no doubt about it, the effect of the flooding on farmers and ranchers is being felt deeply across the south,” said Young.

Analysts say flooding and a rainy, cold spring may disrupt farmers’ plans to expand U.S. corn plantings by five per cent this year, to 92.2 million acres, and rebuild lean stockpiles. One estimate says corn plantings will total 89.5 million acres and soybean planting would reach 75.1 million acres, compared to the 76.6 million acres estimated by USDA based on a survey of growers in March.

Doubts about the size of the U.S. corn crop are driving up futures prices. The next USDA crop survey comes out on June 30.

The post Flood, Cold Spring Threatens U.S. Crop Output appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.