The majority of U.S. agricultural organizations are strongly in favor of free trade, whether it be global or bilateral. The “level playing field” phrase is most often used as the reason for that support. Exports are a significant part of the agricultural economy of our nation, and therefore of the economy as a whole. According to USDA, agricultural exports hit a record $79 billion this year. Next year that number is projected to be $83 billion.
“First, U.S. agricultural exports currently face barriers to entering these markets. Although we allow more than 99 percent of the agricultural exports from Colombia, Panama and Peru to enter our market in the U.S. duty free, we have virtually no duty free access in their markets…
Secondly, not signing these agreements does not mean that we can maintain the status quo going forward. As other nations put free trade agreements in place, we stand simply to lose market share….
The third and final reason… is simple. It’s a simple message because free trade is simply a good thing. It does level the playing field, creates jobs, it allows for fair competition for U.S. producers, and it does capitalize on the strengths of the parties that are involved.”
American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman noted that all of agriculture will see benefits from free trade with just the Peru, Colombia and Panama Trade Promotion Agreements. “These three agreements would increase U.S. agricultural trade by almost $1.5 billion once fully implemented,” said Stallman, “These gains would be spread across all sectors of U.S. agriculture, from livestock to fiber and from grains and oilseeds to fruits and vegetables.”
Former AFBF president Dean Kleckner says the benefit is doubled with Korea. “If Congress were to approve the four free-trade agreements currently on the table, these deals would generate more than $3 billion in additional sales for American farmers each year.”
Kleckner adds, “These trade agreements make economic sense. They’re worth enduring a little political aggravation.”
Senate Agriculture Committee action on the 2007 Farm Bill was delayed again this week, with Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin citing “scheduling difficulties” as the reason for further postponing mark-up.
The ag committee was waiting on the Senate Finance Committee to markup the Heartland, Habitat, Harvest and Horticulture Act of 2007 which will extend some tax incentives for renewable energy; establish the Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund, a permanent disaster program; give beginning farmers and rural development some assistance; and provide funding for the 2007 Farm Bill.
Funding is THE main issue for the 2007 Farm Bill and everyone is asking for a bigger piece of the pie. The National Wildlife Federation, for example, is asking for an increase of six-billion dollars for conservation funding while the National 25x’25 Alliance wants more energy funding.
At this point, it appears the Farm Bill will now wait until after the Columbus Day recess, probably the week of October 22 – maybe longer. The 2002 Farm Bill has already expired but a temporary extension was passed authorizing funding until November 16.
Maybe if the Senate spent more time this week working on the farm bill and less time worrying about what Rush Limbaugh did or didn’t say it would be done by now. I’m sorry, but Rush is a talk show host, that’s his job. Our Senators need to do their jobs.
Does the nation value wildlife and environmental protection more than ethanol and meat producers?So asked an article in theNew Orleans Times-Picayune on Sunday.
A continuing claim of the anti-ethanol bunch is that the pressure to grow more corn for food and fuel would lead to using environmentally fragile land for crops. They point to the 36 million acres in the federal Conservation Reserve Program as an easy target.
So far, it’s not happening.
Last spring, as crop prices climbed, the Department of Agriculture surveyed growers whose CRP contracts were set to expire over the next three years. They asked whether the growers intended to re-enroll their land or put it back into production. “The percentage of landowners choosing to remain in CRP is consistent with what we have seen in the past, despite speculation that re-enrollment would drop significantly due to high corn prices,” the department said.
On Friday. Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner announced there will be no early release from current CRP contracts. “The potential exists for increased double-cropping and the planting of fallow ground,” Conner explained in a news release. “Overall, I expect that market signals will continue to provide adequate acres…”
In other words, both growers and the secretary believe there’s enough land in production to continue to meet the need for food and fuel – just as farmers have said all along. Farmers know better than to sacrifice environmentally sensitive land for a quick profit.
Too bad the Times-Picayune isn’t reporting that. Instead the paper has chosen to focus on the Conner’s statement earlier last week that he was considering early release from CRP contracts. Over the years growers have shown an amazing talent for continuing to produce more on fewer acres. This year was no exception. Next year, they’ll be challenged again, and we’re confident they’ll continue to meet the challenge.
NCGA has a new video out and you can watch it on YouTube. It focuses on the connection between the nation’s corn growers and the land they farm. (Part One, Part Two, Part Three)
Titled “Growing for the Future,” the story includes reminiscences from corn growers about the farming practices they grew up with, and how they’ve been able to take advantage of new technology to protect soil from the continuing threat of water and wind erosion, reduce agricultural inputs and improve the long-term health of their fields.
“This is an important step to communicate with people who may not have any first-hand knowledge about agriculture,” says NCGA President Ken McCauley. “With all the concern about the impact of agriculture on the environment, it’s vital for people to know the role agriculture has in protecting our environment.”
Corn growers from Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri speak from the heart about the challenges they faced in their environmental efforts. “We’re changing fertility, we’re changing the amount of water that we apply, we’re changing the tillage, we’re using variable rate technology for both insect control, disease control and also nutrient management,” noted agronomist Mike Petersen. “That’s huge!”
The video also brings out the link between growers and the land, making it clear that environmental responsibility is a part of their lives. “The soil has given back to us over the years,” concluded Byron Weathers, of Yuma, Colo. “If we take care of it, it will take care of us.”
The new video is part of a broader campaign by NCGA to provide factual information to the public about corn and the environment. The video is available for download on the NCGA Web site. The video runs approximately 10 minutes, and is viewable and in three sections. An NCGA “white paper” on sustainable agriculture (pdf) and smaller topic briefs are also available on the site.
This was too good a photo to pass up coming out of the Farm Progress Show. This convenience store is on Hwy. 48 just north of Decatur, IL and less than a mile from what many people call the “Super Bowl of Farm Shows.”
Somehow the title says it all. We can have food and fuel if we want to. If you could see the area around this store you’d see corn and soybean fields. It truly is an oasis of food and fuel!
The large annual farm show featured the products and technology from many companies who are working to make agricultural production more efficient not only to produce food but also fuel which will not only lessen our dependence on foreign oil but also improve our environment.
Producing more from every acre while reducing the environmental footprint on the farm are the hallmarks of U.S. farming today, says Leon Corzine, past NCGA president and one of five recipients to receive the new Abraham Lincoln National Agriculture Award. Leon received the inaugural award at the Farm Progress Show, in Decatur, Ill. for his efforts on behalf of technology.
For those of you know Leon, you know that he’s a champion for the contributions of the American farmer. He was recognized for his national involvement to promote and adopt biotechnology in agriculture, advocacy for a governmental standard for the use of renewable fuels which led to aggressive market demand for ethanol, plus additional technological developments in grain storage, in export shipping containers, as well has his leadership for new locks and dams on the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. All in days work, huh, Leon?
Brownfield Network’s Tom Steever, caught up with Leon at the Farm Progress Show (mp3). “We really have changed things in rural America and across the country. We have done things to make our country better, I truly feel…Every time, the American farmer has stepped up to the plate.”
Other award recipients are John Block, an Illinois farmer and former U.S. ag secretary; Jim Evans, a University of Illinois agricultural communications professor emeritus; Congressman J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; and John Huston, executive vice president emeritus of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).
Hats off to you, Leon, and the other award winners; America is better off because of your efforts.
You can also listen to an interview I conducted with Leon at the Show after receiving his award:
Peppered with choice four-letter words, the article is a re-hash of every criticism about ethanol there is, with no balance and no responsible alternative to suggest.
Where to start? Okay, let’s start with subsidies. According to the Stone, Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 — twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans.
One might ask the author if he has any clue how the federal farm programs actually work. One might also ask if he knows that in 2006, those subsides (which are mostly deficiency payments paid by the government when corn prices fall short of break-even) fell substantially. Why? Because the prices rose to the point where farmers were actually making money on the crop without government assistance.
So much of the article is blah, blah, blah – we have heard all this before and there is no way to argue with these people because they believe what they want to believe. They won’t accept that ethanol production continues to become more efficient, for example. They are convinced we will never be able to produce cellulosic ethanol to help meet the Congressional mandate of 36 billion gallons by 2012 when corn ethanol can only hope to come up with 15 billion gallons.
Stone says The remaining 21 billion gallons will have to come from advanced biofuels, most of which are currently brewed only in small-scale lab experiments. “It’s like trying to solve a traffic problem by mandating hovercraft,” says Dave Juday, an independent commodities consultant. “Except we don’t have hovercraft.”
And the Stone, like most ethanol critics, pooh-poohs the idea that we could “only” replace seven percent of our current energy needs with ethanol. What’s wrong with that? What is wrong with producing at least SOME of our energy here in the United States, keeping the money at home instead of sending it to countries that hate us?
The Stone completely discounts the idea that cellulosic ethanol, “even if the engineering hurdles can be overcome,” will ever become a reality for reasons like logistics and land use – and because it would mean “wrestling the future away from Big Corn.”
“It’s pretty clear to me that the corn guys will use all their lobbying muscle and political power to stall, thwart and sidetrack this revolution,” says economist C. Ford Runge.
Really? Runge obviously has not talked with anyone in the corn ethanol industry, all of whom are promoting the future of cellulosic ethanol. Growers are investing in plants with the firm idea that other feedstocks will be used in the future – and they can grow them too!
It’s unfortunate that we even have to respond to these kinds of attacks that are going on relentlessly. But, make no mistake, the reason ethanol is being attacked so viciously is BECAUSE it is good and it is right. Stand firm, make sure the facts get out there and people don’t blindly believe this kind of dross.
Incidentally, Renewable Fuels Association president Bob Dinneen did take the time and effort to respond to the Stone article with a letter to the editor, which was subsequently lambasted by the article’s author. In the middle of it all is a blogger by the name of Robert Rapier – a UK oil-industry engineer and contributor to “The Oil Drum” blog – whom Rolling Stone author Jeff Goodell used as a source for many of his claims about ethanol. Dinneen challenged the “energy blogger’s” figures and in turn has been challenged to a debate by Mr. Rapier. To my knowledge, Mr. Dinneen has yet to take up the offer, but I think he should – somebody should. We can’t sit back and be weenies and keep taking this lying down.
LifeLine Foods is opening a new generation ethanol plant in St. Joseph, Missouri that could eventually put to rest the whole “food versus fuel” issue.
The facility features a mill in the front of the plant that separates the corn kernel into fiber, protein and starches. This technique enables increased utilization of the starch within the kernel. The resulting higher quality starches will be used for food products while the lower quality starches will be used to produce ethanol.
In addition, the plant utilizes the fiber in the corn kernel to produce energy. This process reduces the plant’s dependence on natural gas and allows the plant to generate its own fuel.
Ken McCauley of White Cloud, Kansas is one of the plant’s 600 farmer-owners. He is also president of the National Corn Growers Association and he says this plant is a new innovation in the ethanol industry. “When you talk about food and fuel, this is the epitome of it,” said McCauley. “It’s the perfect answer to somebody who says you’re just taking food and making fuel. No, we’re not. We’re making the most out of every kernel of corn.”
McCauley explains how it works. “This is the perfect fractionation process because you’re breaking it down at the front end. So, you’re actually getting the germ out, which is the corn oil. You’re also taking the endosperm out and you’re getting what we call snack grits, that make the snack products. What’s left is starch, already broken down and ready to make ethanol.” Finally you have a high protein product leftover.
The slogan for LifeLine’s plant is “Fueling America, Feeding the World” and McCauley says it’s important for agriculture to step up and start defending itself against the critics of ethanol. “There’s nobody going hungry in the world because of ethanol,” he says.
Bill Becker, CEO of LifeLine, says using the fiber to create energy for the plant is also a major part of the equation. “One of the misnomers about the ethanol industry is that it takes more energy to produce it,” he says. “That might have been true 35 years ago but there’s been great strides in efficiency. And I believe we will continue to see improved efficiencies to the point that the fiber will supply 100 percent of our energy needs (in the plant). And I think that’s within 2-3 years.”
LifeLine produces ingredients for dry cereal, snacks and tortillas. Some of the flour they produce has been distributed around the world in the Food for Peace program through USDA.
When we think of the term “corn fed” we often think of some fine U. S. beef. Well now you can think music, as in, Shannon Brown’s new album and title track. Shannon is an Iowa native and Nashville artist who performed last week at the opening of the VeraSun Charles City, IA ethanol plant.
Here in this picture she’s performing for the video of the song, “Corn Fed.” You can watch that video on her website. The video takes place in a corn field and John Deere is going to be happy to see their green equipment featured as well.
Shannon has put lyrics and music to a theme you’ll hear time and time again from farmers—their love of life in rural America, their love of country and a pride in being part of agriculture.
The latest food industries to blame ethanol for rising prices are German beer brewers and gummy bear makers, according to this article from Spiegel International.
To answer that, CARD says knowing how U.S. consumers spend their food dollars and how higher commodity prices influence food prices will give us a better understanding of whether we’ll be spending more or less on food in the future.
One indicator of a nation’s standard of living is the proportion of income that its citizens spend on food. Typically, this share is measured using after-tax or disposable income. This share in the United States has fallen from 20 percent in the early 1950s to about 10 percent today. In contrast, Canadians today spend an average of about 14 percent of their disposable income on food, and Mexicans spend 26 percent. It would be even less than 10 percent if we didn’t spend about HALF of our food dollar dining out, and the main reason food prices have risen more slowly than other prices over the years is “rapid productivity growth on the farm and all along the food chain.”
Okay, so what happens when the price of corn goes up? According to CARD, as an example, “if a $1.00 can of soda contains 2¢ worth of corn that is contained in high-fructose corn sweetener, then a doubling in the price of corn would increase the cost of producing the soda by at most 2¢.” But, corn makes up a smaller share of the final price for all foods consumed AWAY from home than food consumed at home because of additional labor costs.
In a recent study, CARD researchers estimated that a 30 percent increase in the price of corn, and associated increases in the prices of wheat and soybeans, would increase egg prices by 8.1 percent, poultry prices by 5.1 percent, pork prices by 4.5 percent, beef prices by 4.1 percent, and milk prices by 2.7 percent. For all food consumed at home, average prices would increase by 1.3 percent. For food consumed away from home, average prices were estimated to increase by 0.9 percent. So, across all food consumed, 30 percent higher corn prices increase all average food prices by 1.1 percent, according to our estimates.
Ethanol may be a convenient scapegoat for food companies and others to blame for higher prices, but there are too many other factors that may be having a much larger impact. CARD uses milk as an example, saying that “the primary cause of high milk prices is that international demand for dairy products has outstripped international supply.”
Not sure if that is the case with beer and gummy bears, but ethanol does give those folks a good reason to increase their prices and lay the blame elsewhere while they make more money.
“First, U.S. agricultural exports currently face barriers to entering these markets. Although we allow more than 99 percent of the agricultural exports from Colombia, Panama and Peru to enter our market in the U.S. duty free, we have virtually no duty free access in their markets… 
The ag committee was waiting on the Senate Finance Committee to markup the Heartland, Habitat, Harvest and Horticulture Act of 2007 which will extend some tax incentives for renewable energy; establish the Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund, a permanent disaster program; give beginning farmers and rural development some assistance; and provide funding for the 2007 Farm Bill.
This was too good a photo to pass up coming out of the 
Producing more from every acre while reducing the environmental footprint on the farm are the hallmarks of U.S. farming today, says Leon Corzine, past NCGA president and one of five recipients to receive the new Abraham Lincoln National Agriculture Award. Leon received the inaugural award at the Farm Progress Show, in Decatur, Ill. for his efforts on behalf of technology. 
Brownfield Network’s Tom Steever, caught up with 
So much of the article is blah, blah, blah – we have heard all this before and there is no way to argue with these people because they believe what they want to believe. They won’t accept that ethanol production continues to become more efficient, for example. They are convinced we will never be able to produce cellulosic ethanol to help meet the Congressional mandate of 36 billion gallons by 2012 when corn ethanol can only hope to come up with 15 billion gallons.
Ken McCauley of White Cloud, Kansas is one of the plant’s 600 farmer-owners. He is also president of the 
When we think of the term “corn fed” we often think of some fine U. S. beef. Well now you can think music, as in, Shannon Brown’s new album and title track. Shannon is an Iowa native and Nashville artist who performed last week at the opening of the 
The latest food industries to blame ethanol for rising prices are German beer brewers and gummy bear makers, according to 
Okay, so what happens when the price of corn goes up? According to CARD, as an example, “if a $1.00 can of soda contains 2¢ worth of corn that is contained in high-fructose corn sweetener, then a doubling in the price of corn would increase the cost of producing the soda by at most 2¢.” But, corn makes up a smaller share of the final price for all foods consumed AWAY from home than food consumed at home because of additional labor costs.