Farm policy was in focus this week at the 2011 Farm Progress Show with the 2012 farm bill discussions right around the corner.
Two congressmen from the state of Illinois visited the big show in Decatur. Freshman Congressman House Agriculture Committee member Bobby Schilling (R-IL) participated in a press conference with the National Corn Growers Association on Tuesday. “I think as most people are aware, it’s been quite a storm in Washington, D.C., the last seven months,” Schilling said. “Coming out of the business sector right into Congress, it’s been quite frustrating for me to see what’s happening in our nation’s capitol.”
As far as the farm bill is concerned, Schilling says the “super committee” on reducing the deficit may make decisions that will impact farm programs so the agriculture committee needs to make recommendations on how spending could be cut. “Because if we don’t they will just go after dollar amounts without looking at where appropriate cuts could be made,” he said.
Listen to some of Congressman Schilling’s comments during the press conference here. Cong. Bobby Schilling
Congressman Tim Johnson (R-IL), who also serves on the House Agriculture Committee, visited Farm Progress Show on Wednesday to meet with farmers like Illinois Corn Growers President Jim Reed (R) pictured here with him. Johnson says he is optimistic that they can come up with a farm bill that’s “workable and still meets the confines of what we have to deal with in terms of limited dollars.”
He wants to make sure there continues to be a safety net for farmers. “And we need to make sure the House Agriculture Committee and people who know American agriculture are the people framing policy,” Johnson said.
Johnson also shares the concerns that farmers in the state have about government regulations making it more difficult to farm. “USDA, USDOT and most particularly EPA tying our left hand is a real burden,” he said. “This administration more than any other administration in history has done more to damage the ability of farmers to make a living.”
Listen to Meghan Grebner of Brownfield Ag News and me interview Cong. Johnson here. Cong. Tim Johnson
For the vast majority of Americans, the idea of personally visiting their House or Senate representatives in Washington sounds somewhere between intimidating and uninteresting. Despite the fact that they, together with the other members of their state or district, directly determine if said legislator keeps his or her job, most citizens simply do not feel heard or as if their opinion is truly valued.
Last week, I had the opportunity to accompany a group of farmers as they met with two House members and one Senator from their home state. The experience left me hopeful that our government might actually work for us if only we made the effort to tell them what we think is best for the country.
While most often we met with staffers, who appeared to be quite young, two of the three representatives that we visited took the time to greet the delegation and briefly discuss a few key issues. One particularly interested House member even asked a grower speaking with him on farm policy to walk with him as he headed to the floor to cast a vote.
He did this because he was interested. The staffers were just as interested and, in most cases, already knew about our concerns over ethanol, trade agreements and transportation issues from National Corn Growers Association staff if DC. After the second visit, it began to set in that these people are in DC, devoting countless hours to their work, because they honestly believe that government can improve the lives of both Americans and the world as a whole. It also became obvious that an organization like NCGA merely sets the stage on an issue but it is the individual constituents that turn up the volume and make the message stick.
Maybe what sets them on fire, that same deep seated conviction, is what they saw in the farmers. These two men were not paid to be there. They had traveled a long way, during a busy season, because they too believe that government impacts their life and, with information and dialogue, they too could create change for their families, their farms and their fellow corn growers
As I tiredly descended the stairs that day, I felt like we had truly accomplished something. Unlike when politicians hold partisan battles with one another for the cameras, when ordinary Americans enter their legislators’ offices they can be open and receptive without the fear of being vulnerable. They can take the time to try and understand what impacts the lives of their constituents without worrying about the next sound bite. They can listen.
So, the impetus is on us. We must let them hear what we need as an agricultural community. The first step toward actively informing your legislators on farm issues may take time and effort, but it will be worth it. Someone will make the visit to the Hill to speak with legislators personally. Let’s make sure that they see the same passion from us and get a personal update on how legislation is effecting what is arguably our most important industry.
As high school English teachers hand out research paper assignments to eye rolls and sighs, they must know that their students feel nearly certain that the knowledge gained in carefully sourcing their final assignment will never serve them later in life. This attitude remains pervasive into adulthood it seems as many legislators, food elitists and a broad array of anti-ag activists have forgotten one of the keys to a successful assignment: Always base your thesis on information from academically credible sources.
Right now, arguments against corn-based ethanol, corn sugar and production agriculture have gained a significant amount of public attention. What we must do is question the information the nay-sayers build their arguments upon because, as high school also taught, popularity does not equal substance.
But it seems legislators forgot these valuable lessons as the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment decided to invite chicken lobbyists, environmentalists and Big Oil to testify during a hearing examining the science behind E15. While each of these groups most certainly has an opinion, albeit a self-serving one, on ethanol, none can claim to have conducted the unbiased, scientific research that would lend their arguments credibility.
If the subcommittee had truly intended to take a hard look at the scientific knowledge on E15, there were many groups who could have offered more pertinent, reliable data. Institutions that publish actual research that holds weight in scientific circles, including the Rochester Institute of Technology and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, have conducted extensive research on the matter. Yet, somehow, our elected officials chose to listen to groups with obvious agendas and little expertise in the matter.
Food elitists have taken the same route as the armchair activists who perpetuate the idea that corn sugar, also known as high fructose corn syrup, somehow adds to the obesity epidemic, predisposes persons toward diabetes or is just generally bad. A majority of the HFCS-bashing public cannot accurately explain why they believe it to be worse beyond knowing that they heard something about some study.
Performing a routine Facebook search for the term yields telling results immediately. The very first result offered is a page advocating a complete ban of HFCS. Put together by a high school graduate with no discernible other credentials, the page explains that corn sugar differs from other sweeteners as the body metabolizes fructose and glucose differently. He even cites scientific evidence.
It is time that we ask as much of ourselves as was required in high school – that we act as critical thinkers. The assignments today include developing sensible policies that serve the public good and are based in science and not propaganda-driven hysteria. Much more is at stake than an A this time so follow your English teacher’s instructions and make sure that the information you share comes from a source deserving of your trust.
A sad story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this morning tells how one of the area’s animal shelters was raided and 195 dogs and cats were rescued for the second time in their miserable lives. In today’s economy, donations are down at shelters and more pets are being abandoned and dropped off, creating a bad situation for people who want to help animals.
But at the same time here in Missouri, Proposition B, the so-called “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,” which passed by a narrow margin in last year’s election, is under review by a state legislature anxious to take a fresh look and lawmakers are being attacked in the local media. While animal rights activists are calling foul, they are ignoring a simple fact most voters were unaware of … shelters like the one raided are exempt from the new law.
If Proposition B was just simple language all about the welfare of dogs, why did those forces pushing for it last year exempt themselves? If the Missouri legislature cannot dilute or delete Proposition B, perhaps lawmakers should take the opposite approach — try to remove the exemptions and force the shelters to explain why they should not be held to the same scrutiny they impose on others.
Thanks to this morning’s paper, I can think of 195 silent witnesses for the prosecution.
A few weeks ago NCGA participated in a press conference with nine other agricultural organizations on the importance of reforming the estate tax. While some may not realize the importance of the number of organizations getting together, believe us when we say getting 10 organizations that represent everything from cotton to beef to milk and don’t agree on a large variety of issues together for a common cause, it’s a huge feat.
The issue of estate taxes is a key issue NCGA has been working on that really doesn’t get much exposure. I can honestly say that I didn’t quite understand the magnitude of the situation until I really started reading and listening to what farmers from across the country had to say. One farmer in particular who stuck out in my mind mentioned his farm had been in his family since 1722. To put it in perspective, that’s 54 years before the Declaration of Independence was written! If soil could talk, just imagine what stories it could tell.
But the image that stuck in my head the most was of the one painted by this farmer who had tilled the land all his life. He wasn’t a young farmer by any means but he has the hopes of handing their farm to the next generation and the next. He even has hopes of throwing one heck of a bash in 2022 to celebrate 300 years. But he also mentioned that if the estate tax was not extended, the amount his family would have to pay would be devastating to their farm.
Without action by Congress before they adjourned, estate taxes would have been reinstated at the beginning of 2011 and farmers would see only a $1 million exemption and a top rate of 55 percent. A lot of Americans would see that number and think it was astronomical. But American farmers fear for the future. When you add in land value, machinery and buildings, $1 million adds up pretty quickly.
Last week, Congress passed and the President signed legislation that will reform the estate tax for two years at a $5 million exemption and reduce the maximum tax rate to no more than 35 percent. This allows our farmers let out sigh of relief and we thank Congress for their action.
We need to keep America’s farms in the family. And when 2022 rolls around, I hope to somehow score an invite to the shin-dig in North Carolina.
According to the Oil and Gas Journal, all U.S. oil companies combined control less than 10% of the world’s oil reserves, and the world’s ten largest oil and natural gas companies are 100% owned by foreign governments.
Ponder that statistic for minute and then tell me our quest for more and better alternative sources of domestic energy is a bad idea. In the latest “Standing Out in the Field” blog they make a well reasoned response to critics who either have contrary agendas or simply have not done enough research.
The public debate over ethanol, and specifically the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Exemption (VEETC), has been prominent in recent weeks so it seems a good time to look at why Congress passed this legislation originally and why it continues to be a sound decision.
An analysis by AUS Consultants shows the elimination of VEETC would result in consumers paying $3 billion more in higher gasoline costs, including $500 million in federal gas taxes, household income falling by $2.9 billion, and 120,600 more Americans having to file for unemployment. Another study shows the American ethanol industry has generated an estimated $33.4 billion in federal tax revenues and nearly $17 billion in state and local tax revenues since 1978 – a 5 to 1 return on investment of the VEETC.
Economist Donis Petersan notes a 100 million gallon-per-year ethanol plant results in:
$70 million to the local economy during construction
Expansion of the local economic base by $233 million each year
45 direct jobs, plus 101 indirect jobs throughout the area
Household income raised by $7.9 million annually.
So until legislators are willing to apply the same yardstick to all fuel sources regarding incentives, including oil, the debate in Washington, DC should be decided in ethanol’s favor.
For years discovering how many perks, incentives and subsidies the global oil industry receives has been the Holy Grail of biofuels supporters. They are so numerous and come from so many places it is mind boggling, troubling and something akin to finding the Loch Ness monster. Thanks to Todd Neeley of DTN a hint of our true exposure is surfacing in part one of a new “must read” series.
This is critical information because consumers should know what their addiction to imported petroleum is really costing them and Big Oil has never been shy about bashing incentives for the domestic ethanol industry, the only real competition they face in the marketplace. They try to be-little the contributions of family farmers and the American ethanol industry that now produce as much ethanol as what we currently import from Saudi Arabia.
At the end of the day you have to question why a century old industry like oil, whose major players consistently rank in the Fortune 100 companies, conservatively receive 10 times the incentives received by ethanol. As Neeley says, “Using the most liberal definition of public financial support, including tax breaks on equipment depreciation and foreign investments, oil’s total benefit from the public treasury can be as much as 10 times that of ethanol.”
DTN’s tally for state and federal tax incentives for oil comes to $17.9 billion annually. All told the tax deductions, credits and other public benefits the oil industry receives, U.S. taxpayers support oil to the tune of between $133.2 billion and $280.8 billion annually. “The comparable figure exclusively for ethanol is $7.1 billion. This does not include tax credits and other incentives that both industries share, such as the blenders’ credit or VEETC”…or the roughly $7 billion to $28 billion in military costs to protect oil supplies. Let’s not forget the White Elephant of lives lost either.
Interestingly, oil interests say they need the taxpayer largesse to do research and explore for more petroleum to continue our legacy of dependence. Makes you wonder what the impact would be if they invested the $200 billion oil says they spend on research in making ethanol more efficiently and from even more sources.
And as for oil exploration, I would rather invest my money in ethanol. . We know where farmers live and what their productive capabilities are when they are challenged to meet market demand. Eight record crops in the last eight years prove it.
Last week’s Conservation in Action Tour in Virginia included several farms where Chesapeake Bay area farmers have a rich history of good conservation practices, most notably no-till. In fact, many farms in the area have been in continuous no-till for decades! The tour is conducted each year by the Conservation Technology Information Center. I participated and spoke with Wayne Kirby, Virginia corn farmer and Chairman of the Virginia Corn Board. Wayne says a lot of people are interested in agriculture in their area and especially what’s happening with the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort.
The restoration effort is very important to corn growers since regulations and policies are being set that have direct impact of farming. Wayne says corn growers been working diligently to improve their production practices and the tour provided an opportunity for them to show what they’re doing to other farmers as well as farm policy makers who also participated. In my interview with him he describes how much of what area farmers are doing is not being taken into account in the models used for watershed management.
You can download (mp3) and listen to my interview with Wayne here:
California is attacking corn ethanol again. The newest affront is complements of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) who has created a new working group to study soil sustainability provisions of biofuels. The current crops under review include corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, wood based fuels, palm oil, and soy biodiesel. The ultimate goal is that biofuels’ greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reductions will be measured by both indirect land use and also soil sustainability to be given a final GHG reduction number.
So what factors are considered to impact soil sustainability?
Carbon content
erosion
crop rotation
nutrition/chemical use
productivity
crop expansion
I believe that several recent events have led to these new proposed biofuels provisions, the biggest one being the ongoing attack of environmental organizations, such as Friends of the Earth, who are opposed to all things corn ethanol and commodity farming. What I find interesting is that many environmental groups seem to oppose everything – fossil fuel use, alternative energy and production farming. It’s almost like they oppose all things energy.
Similar to the same path CARB has traveled regarding indirect land use, a theory light on scientific support, this new path is also one with little to no scientific support in terms of how to “categorize” biofuels based on soil sustainability. You simply cannot create effective policy this way.
The other issue I take with these types of provisions within California policy making, is that they don’t include any provisions for gasoline. What are the indirect land use effects of oil production? No one asked until University of Nebraska finally studied them and found that they are even greater than originally estimated.
What are the ‘soil sustainability’ or should we say, ‘environmental impacts’ of oil production? Drilling impacts soil. Spills impact soil.
Until more people become educated about the benefits of corn ethanol, we continue to have a fight on our hands, one that the agricultural industry is taking very seriously. I encourage people to reach out to organizations like CARB and enlighten them regarding the errors of their ways through the sharing of facts.
No matter how hard the anti-ethanol factions continue to fight, we still have one truth on our side: corn ethanol is a more environmentally friendly fuel at its worst, than gasoline is at its best.
Dear New York Times…Your editorial today regarding corn-based ethanol is superficial, either uninformed or malicious, and a disservice to the citizens of this nation looking for real energy solutions we can implement today.
Before addressing some of the onerous points in your piece, please take a look at the attached photo. This is not from the BP spill in the Gulf but rather the latest incident in Michigan which has dumped a million gallons of oil into a river and is now 80 miles from polluting Lake Michigan. Oil is and always has been a loaded gun from an environmental perspective. From leaking tanks at service stations to oil tankers grounded on coral reefs in storms. No more explanation needed on this one.
However, perhaps the biggest point you fail to address is wind, coal, and geothermal don’t make your car go. Natural gas can be used as an automotive fuel but it too is not renewable and has other issues I won’t go into here today. Solar….I’ll race you with my bicycle.
Will ethanol be made from other sources some day? Undoubtedly. Other biomass sources show real potential and will come with the proper research and development, but corn-based technology and infrastructure is the very launching platform for this effort. Yet opponents would have us build our domestic energy house without a foundation.
Ethanol…dubious environmental benefit? Line up the hundreds of studies regarding ethanol, look at the funding sources and consider what is left. What you will find is a long trail of reputable scientists and institutions public, private and governmental that clearly shows the environmental benefits of ethanol.
When compared to petroleum especially, ethanol is a rock star in regard to cleaning the air, maintaining water quality, and soil management. On the oil side think tar sands.
Your reference to the land use issue is also comical. Incredible productivity on our existing corn acres is easily supplying the growing ethanol industry while also meeting the needs of other markets. And yield growth is accelerating.
And finally, I think we must aggressively pursue all forms of renewable, domestic energy given the finite nature of petroleum and do so in good conscience because of the legacy we stand to leave future generations. To suggest we put our entire energy investment in “maybe someday” sources while ignoring a viable and tested source like ethanol is shortsighted at best.
Farm policy was in focus this week at the 2011 Farm Progress Show with the 2012 farm bill discussions right around the corner.
Congressman Tim Johnson (R-IL), who also serves on the House Agriculture Committee, visited Farm Progress Show on Wednesday to meet with farmers like Illinois Corn Growers President Jim Reed (R) pictured here with him. Johnson says he is optimistic that they can come up with a farm bill that’s “workable and still meets the confines of what we have to deal with in terms of limited dollars.”
Last week’s Conservation in Action Tour in Virginia included several farms where Chesapeake Bay area farmers have a rich history of good conservation practices, most notably no-till. In fact, many farms in the area have been in continuous no-till for decades! The tour is conducted each year by the 
