“I think that Trump is a very educated man in his own way,” Eichler told reporters Jan. 17 at Ag Days. “Maybe he has to listen a little bit more than he talks… that is why we have two ears and one mouth. So let’s make sure we listen and we hope president-elect Trump listens. We have a feeling there are some strong people out there who are well connected with the president-elect and hopefully he will listen to them and give them the ear we need to have in order to make sure those relationships continue.”

President Trump received a lot of votes in farming states and many American farm groups support the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a deal President Trump said during the election campaign he would not ratify. He has also promised to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement if he can’t get a better deal for the U.S.

Some trade experts fear President Trump will spark an international trade war, in turn potentially causing a worldwide recession.

“I’m not overly concerned at this point,” Eichler said. “We will be able to tell a bit more in a couple of weeks when we see who the new secretary of agriculture will be in the Trump administration.”

Trump has since nominated 70-year-old former Georgia governor Sonny Perdue, who has a record of supporting agricultural trade. The Republican-led Senate is expected to confirm the nomination.

A veterinarian, Perdue, served two terms as governor and has run trucking and agricultural companies in Georgia since leaving office in 2011, the Ag Insider reported.

Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau and a Georgia farmer, praised Perdue as a strong voice for agriculture, adding as governor he “was always very good in promoting agricultural products” and encouraged exports.

Ron Moore, president of the American Soybean Association (ASA), said he thought Perdue would support agriculture exports, Reuters reported.

“I think he will be very much in favour of trade,” Moore said in a telephone interview with Reuters. The ASA, with 15 other farm groups, this month urged the incoming administration to “protect and enhance” agricultural trade and its impact on the rural economy.

Trade, a signature issue during the campaign in which Trump accused China of unfair practices, is critical for the farm economy. U.S. farm and food exports to China were more than $20.2 billion in 2015.

Prices for soybeans rose 16 per cent during 2016 on strong demand from China, which buys nearly 30 per cent of the U.S. crop. Soybean exports helped boost U.S. gross domestic product in the third quarter.

Some farmers are concerned that Trump’s criticism of China could lead to deteriorating trade relations and put exports at risk.

An influential Chinese state-run newspaper warned that U.S. agricultural imports and U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing could be targets for retaliation in any trade war triggered by Trump.

Agricultural trade is critical to the economies of Canada and the U.S., Eichler said.

“We can never forget that,” he said. “One in eight jobs in Manitoba is because of agriculture. You take exports out of there and we put more value added in, we all win. We cannot take our eye off that ball.”

Many American legislators recognize the importance of trade, which was discussed earlier this month at the State Ag and Rural Leaders group meeting in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Eichler attended and is now the group’s secretary, as did Canada’s Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay.

“We talked a lot about trade,” Eichler said. “That is one of the things that is the most important to us. We are their (U.S.) largest (agricultural) trading partner and they are ours so we want to keep that dialogue open. That message was loud and clear to the senators and of course to the state legislators as well. We know that trade is important.

“We have a great relationship, not only now but we hope into the future. It is all about having an open conversation, an open dialogue, in order to make sure we continue on those relationships.”

The post Agriculture Minister Eichler optimistic Trump will see value in ag trade 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.

“Farmers are sick and tired of these empty promises,” Friesen, the former longtime president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said in an interview. “The company will suspend production of that variety to force farmers to buy their new, improved version.” The patented variety will be available in time to replace the existing modified one.

He seemed doubtful other plant breeders would try to continue to produce the variety once the patent expires. “Monsanto has got farmers right where they want them.”

Monsanto has launched an information campaign about the impending end of patent on its original modified soybean. Farmers growing the seed this year won’t be able to save the seed under their existing technology use agreements, says Mike McGuire, Monsanto’s sales and marketing lead for Eastern Canada.

Under Technology Use Agreements, farmers can’t save GE seeds for future planting.

Next year, they could buy the seed from a company holding a valid licence for the variety without any contractual obligations or royalty payment to Monsanto, he added and save seed from that crop to plant in the future.

However, when seed companies were surveyed by the Manitoba Co-operatoronly Pioneer Hi-Bred was committed to supplying the seed in 2012, and it requires farmers to sign a contract restricting them to one-time use.

Friesen said the issue highlights the impact of the federal decision 15 years ago to get out of most agriculture research in favour of working with companies. “We’re at the mercy of the private sector.”

FNA is pushing to have the terms of technology use agreements opened up to give farmers more flexibility, Friesen said.

Lorne Hepworth, head of CropLife Canada, said that the patent expiration should lead to farmers having more choice in seed suppliers. While farmers may welcome the change, the real issues farmers should be focusing on is a coming explosion in GE traits from approximately 30 now permitted to 125 by 2015. Breeding work is being done by companies around the world. “It will change the landscape of GE technology. We will move away from input traits (like pesticide resistance) to a wide variety such as nutritional benefits.”

That will likely bring the debate back to whether GE wheat is acceptable, he predicted.

Other first-generation biotech crops will be coming off patent in the next couple of years and the American Farm Bureau wants the biotechnology industry to develop a way to avoid seed shortages or trade disruptions.

Up to two dozen GE seed varieties will be off patent, the bureau says. Growers and seed groups want to know if generic versions of the modified seeds will be available in time and if other nations will accept the crops. It also wants seed developers to be given a head start on breeding generic varieties before patents expire.

The post Little Gain For Farmers From Off-Patent Soybean appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“There’s a real sense that the proposed NCBA changes leave no strong role for state beef councils and non-NCBA members. Who speaks for them if these changes are adopted?”

– NANCY ROBINSON

Of all the political hot rocks farm groups are juggling now in Washington, D. C. – cap and trade, cuts in crop insurance, shrinking farm program budgets – I’ll bet you a cup of coffee you cannot name the issue that recently united ag heavyweights as diverse as the American Farm Bureau and National Farmers Union.

That issue is the proposed changes in governance at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association that will give it a virtual lock on the tens of millions of dollars spent each year by the mandatory beef checkoff.

On March 18 several farm groups sent a toughly worded, four-page letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack that suggested NCBA’s grab “will further erode the separation between the checkoff side and the policy side” and “will move the checkoff towards more exclusivity rather than inclusivity.”

REPRESENTATION

What that means west of the Potomac, explains Nancy Robinson, vice-president of government and industry affairs at the Livestock Marketing Association, is that checkoff-paying producers who are not members of NCBA – and 32 out of every 33 American cattle owners are not – need to be heard in checkoff issues.

“There’s a real sense that the proposed NCBA changes leave no strong role for state beef councils and non-NCBA members,” says Robinson. “Who speaks for them if these changes are adopted?”

It’s a question the ag powerhouses privately posed to NCBA months ago. Getting no clear answer, they asked the secretary for one. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, after all, has oversight of all federally chartered commodity checkoffs.

Importantly, too, recent Supreme Court decisions clearly labelled checkoffs “government speech,” which, say several checkoff observers, makes USDA the first among equals in how checkoff dollars are collected, budgeted and spent.

RUN BY PRODUCERS

Which is exactly the point the farm groups’ letter makes: “There are currently 18 active research and promotion programs for agricultural products. These

programs are overseen by the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA, but are run by producers for the benefit of all producers who invest in the programs.”

In fact, the letter continues, “In every program, except the beef checkoff, the checkoff boards USDA appoints have complete control over the expenditure of the funds. In the case of the beef checkoff, NCBA currently controls the budgeting and spending of a large portion of checkoff funds.”

So what gives? Why is NCBA now reaching for all beef checkoff bucks it can grab?

According to longtime NCBA critic, Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, an 8,000-member cattle group based in Billings, Montana, NCBA needs the money.

“The proposed changes will give it more access to checkoff dollars and without those extra dollars NCBA probably can’t exist,” says Bullard. “This is all about the future of NCBA, not the future of the checkoff.”

As might be expected, NCBA didn’t take kindly to the farm groups’ letter. On March 22, it fired back with its own five-page letter to the secretary “to correct several errors.”

The closing sentence of the NCBA letter, however, confirms what the farm groups and Bullard say is behind the proposed changes: “We are convinced,” wrote the cowboys, “these improvements will enable NCBA to better serve the checkoff-paying cattle farmers and ranchers of America.”

Good grief, it’s not about what’s best for NCBA. It’s about what’s best for the more than 800,000 U. S. cattle owners and beef importers who pay nearly $80 million per year to the checkoff.

Had it been more about cattle owners than cattle groups maybe beef demand would have risen, not fallen, in 17 of the beef checkoff’s 23-year, nearly $1.8-billion life.

The post U. S. Cowboy Checkoff Fight Grows appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In fact, you name the biofuel issue and API and its fat cheque-book made it into a bare-knuckle brawl.

Given that history, it’s more than curious that the American Farm Bureau Federation, and, to date, seven of its state affiliates are fronting for API to sponsor “energy citizen” rallies around the nation this fall to fight climate change legislation.

Golly, it’s one thing to oppose the recently passed House of Representative’s carbon “cap-and-trade” plan or, despite scientific evidence, even deny the existence of global warming. Honourable, fair-minded people disagree on both issues every day.

But it’s entirely different for the nation’s largest farm group, the self-described national “Voice of Agriculture,” to partner up with the most rabidly anti-ethanol lobby to conduct phony anti-cap-and-trade rallies in nearly every ethanol-producing state in America.

According to an August memo sent by API CEO Jack Gerard to surrogates to plan the fake “rallies,” the effort is 100 per cent Astroturf.

The leaked memo, made public by Greenpeace, makes it clear that the rallies are political theatre, complete with captive audiences.

“(O)ur member company local leadership – including your facility manager’s commitment to provide significant attendance” at the rallies will “(achieve) the participation level that senators cannot ignore.”

And API will supply cash, expertise and message, Gerard continues.

“To be clear, API will provide the upfront resources to ensure logistical issues do not become a problem. This includes contracting with a highly experienced events management company… providing a field co-ordinator in each state, conducting a comprehensive communications and advocacy activation plan for each, and serving as central manager for all the events.”

So, farm and ranch yokels, get out of the way and let Big Oil and its billions kill climate legislation because we know what we’re doing. After all, we kept ethanol bottled up for decades, didn’t we?

Anyway, turn out those fake crowds: “Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies.”

And ssshh… “Please treat this information as sensitive and ask those in your company to do so as well… we don’t want critics to know our game plan.”

“Hey, depending on the issue, politics makes strange bedfellows,” says an AFBF Washington spokesman Aug. 25, when asked to comment on AFBF’s climbing in bed – his metaphor, not mine – with API. “What can I say?”

You could say that the American Farm Bureau has more principle than to front for the richest antibiofuel gang in the world – on anything.

You could say, in complete honesty, that many state Farm Bureaus have energy subsidiaries that could get nicked under cap-and-trade and that’s why they’re maybe fighting for their narrow, short-term interests instead of the broad, long-term interests of rural America.

You could say AFBF is putting together a bold plan that will lead U. S. farmers and ranchers to greater energy sustainability a generation from now rather than being mercenaries to fight climate change, an issue it has yet to even take a public stand on.

There’s a lotta things you could say. But hey, save the hot air. Your actions, like the company you keep, say it all.

– Alan Guebert, a syndicated farm columnist, writes from Delavan, Illinois.

The post These Grassroots Are All Astroturf appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“With that kind of volatility you just lose track of fundamentals.”

–Illinois farmer Garry Niemeyer

Iowa farmer Gordon Wassenaar says he is optimistic about 2009, displaying a sometimes puzzling “glass half full” mentality needed in a profession in which Mother Nature can wipe out months of work overnight.

He and other U. S. farmers notched record profits in 2008 as crop prices soared to all-time peaks, but economists say they may be lucky to break even this year because grain prices have plunged 50 per cent while farm costs remain high.

“We’re cautiously optimistic, but nobody thinks that prices are going to go anywhere near as high as they were in 2008,” he said from his 1,500-acre farm at Prairie City, about 30 km east of Des Moines.

“Realistically, unless you have an exceptionally good crop, you’re going to have to have (corn) prices over US$4 a bushel to make any money at all,” said Wassenaar (all figures US$).

“For soybeans, we probably need somewhere between $8 and $9 a bushel, but we’re in an area where we normally get pretty good soybean yields.”

As of Jan. 6, corn futures prices are near $4 a bushel, an historically high price for corn but still down 50 per cent from the record high of $7.65 posted last summer. Soybeans are around $9.80 a bushel, down 41 per cent from last summer’s all-time peak of $16.63.

Scorching demand for grains and oilseeds from livestock and poultry producers, exporters and the rapidly expanding biofuels industry helped drive the historic bull run in 2008.

An influx of investment fund money into grains and other commodities further fuelled the advance to record highs. But markets turned sour by the fall as the housing market bubble burst, credit markets seized up and financial markets dived, sending investors fleeing the traditionally volatile commodities markets.

“Farmers are certainly nervous about where the general economy is going. The umbrella that’s making everybody a little nervous is how deep the recession will be and how long will it last,” said University of Illinois agricultural economist Darrel Good.

Demand questions

The export market is a concern as the global recession drags on. Domestic demand for feed grains is also off.

Producers of beef and dairy cattle producers and hogs reduced herds in response to the summer’s soaring feed grain costs, while poultry producers scaled back flocks.

Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., the largest U. S. chicken producer,

filed for bankruptcy protection in December, citing high feed costs and low meat prices.

The ethanol industry remains a bright spot for corn growers despite struggles after fuel prices tumbled. But many producers remained locked in high-priced contracts with corn suppliers.

The turmoil prompted some ethanol producers to shelve new plant construction. Verasun Energy Corp., the No. 2 U. S. ethanol producer, toppled into bankruptcy in October.

St i l l , U. S. Agriculture Department data projects ethanol makers will consume 3.7 billion bushels of corn in 2009, roughly 31 per cent of U. S. production – up from about three billion bushels in 2008, about 23 per cent of production.

Farmers view the new administration as supportive to renewable fuels such as ethanol and soy biodiesel.

Production costs

Farmers across the U. S. Midwest are watching grain prices closely as they buy seed, fertilizer and farm chemicals in preparation for the upcoming 2009 crop year.

Economists at Iowa State University estimated production costs for the average farmer in Iowa at between $4 and $4.50 a bushel for corn and up to $10 a bushel for soybeans.

But actual costs will range more widely than usual from farm to farm because prices of inputs have been as volatile as crop prices, said Iowa State agricultural economist Chad Hart.

According to the American Farm Bureau, the wholesale price of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer has fallen from more than $1,000 a ton in the summer to around $500 while diammonium phosphate dropped from $1,100 a ton to $600.

Grains markets appear to have detached themselves somewhat from the wild swings in outside markets like crude oil at the moment. But the extent to which another energy market rally would take grains along remains uncertain.

Crude oil peaked at over $147 a barrel in July but has since fallen back to around $48 a barrel.

“If the crude oil rises again with a potential war in the Middle East and the fact that OPEC is going to reduce production, will the price of corn increase as well?” said Garry Niemeyer, a corn and soybean farmer at Auburn, Illinois.

“When corn got above $7 a bushel it was probably too high and when it got to $2.80 it was probably too low. With that kind of volatility you just lose track of fundamentals. How do you know where these markets are going now?”

The post U. S. farmers remain hopeful even as profits erode appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

California voters passed Proposition 2 on Nov. 4, which bans the confinement of egg-laying chickens, veal calves and pregnant pigs. Endorsed by animal welfare groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States, the law will become effective in 2015.

“California often is a bellwether, so it’s likely this ban will be pushed in other states,” Bryan Black, president of the National Pork Producers Council, said in a statement. “We certainly don’t expect the Humane Society to stop with California.”

Black called it “regrettable” that farmers and ranchers “who treat their animals humanely and provide them a safe, healthy environment” were vilified by animal rights groups.

The American Farm Bureau and the state’s egg industry argue the law will increase costs to produce eggs, which likely will have consumers buying less expensive eggs shipped in from other states.

“It will have a big impact on the California egg production industry,” said Mace Thornton, spokesman for the Farm Bureau. “It represents a trend of the Humane Society of the United States being able to successfully put these questions to the voters without an understanding of farm practices.”

The California Poultry Federation claims it will cost about $1 more to produce a dozen eggs from cage-free chickens, a cost that will not be borne by producers from other states.

“The public felt those were false arguments,” Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, told Reuters.

Pacelle said the Humane Society expected to push other states to adopt similar measures and to encourage retailers to buy eggs and other products from producers who do not confine chickens and livestock.

While the proposition also applies to veal, California does not have a veal industry, according to the American Veal Association.

“We certainly hope we don’t see more of these measures on the ballot in other states, but the animal activists have a lot more money than the American veal farmer,” said Chip Lines, president of the American Veal Association.

The post California cage ban might be contagious appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“He knows agriculture and he has been a real supporter of agriculture,” said Rick Tolman, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association, a powerful lobbying organization representing more than 30,000 U. S. farmers.

Obama, an Illinois senator whose election Nov. 4 will make him the first black U. S. president, built his campaign around a promise of bringing change to Washington.

His defeat of Republican John McCain came amid widespread dismay over President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy and hopes that Obama would be able to bring stability as the nation slides into a recession.

Such economic woes, including tight credit, sliding crop prices and high costs for fertilizer, fuel and other production inputs, are key concerns of U. S. crop and livestock producers. Related industries such as food manufacturers, seed and equipment dealers, ethanol producers and others are similarly effected.

Challenges

“We’ve got a number of challenges confronting us,” said National Farmers Union president Tom Buis. “We are going to have a president who does want to work with rural America and address these issues.”

Farm policy did not get much attention in the lead-up to Tuesday’s election as both tickets focused on finding a fix for the U. S. economy.

But farm industry leaders said Obama’s positions were much more friendly to their needs than McCain’s.

Obama has made it clear that he believes U. S. farms need a safety net. He supported the 2008 Farm Bill, which continues direct federal payments to farmers that totalled about $5 billion in 2007, though he has said he wants a subsidy ceiling of $250,000 a year per farm.

Ethanol support

And Obama favours federal support for ethanol, which U. S. biofuel producers make mostly from corn, another issue near and dear to many farm families.

“We’re happy with Obama’s stance on biofuels,” said Michael Ott, executive director of BIOWA, a trade association for bio-based products. “He has supported corn ethanol as a base to grow from. We like that position.”

Economic problems have hit the ethanol industry hard this year, with a string of companies sliding into bankruptcy.

Tolman said his industry wants the Obama administration to encourage ethanol use through more concentrated blends with gasoline and incentives for more flex-fuel vehicles.

Both ways

The ethanol mandate plays both ways in rural America, however. Some livestock producers blame ethanol production for jacking up the price of the corn they feed to their animals, which in turn erodes their profit margins.

Still, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said Wednesday it had been assured “a seat at the table” for discussions on food and fuel policy-making.

One of the farm sector’s biggest fears is that Obama may not be friendly to trade policies it favours. Obama has stated he is for open markets but believes trade agreements should include certain requirements for labour and environmental standards.

“Obama is talking about environmental and labour standards, which will probably bring the bilateral talks to a halt,” said National Chicken Council spokesman Richard Lobb. “He is also talking about reopening NAFTA. It took a long time to negotiate. We wish he would just leave it alone.”

Farm sector leaders said they were also on edge over how tightly an Obama administration may seek to regulate animal-feeding operations. Obama has significant backing from environmental groups and has expressed a desire to see a tighter crackdown on pollution from large animal-feeding operations.

“We are a little concerned about what some of the regulatory approaches to agriculture may look like,” said American Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman. “But we’ve been through changes before and we hear he is pragmatic. That is really all good as far as we’re concerned.”

The post U. S. farm sector cautiously welcomes Obama win appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.