Ag Policy Radar

AUDIO: Health Care Debate Continues in Rural America

noreply@blogger.com (Mitchell Nail) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:09:00 +0000

We have U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack on the phone with us to discuss how the health care reform bill affects the country's agricultural producers.

Mr. Secretary, please explain why health care reform is important to rural America.

What does it say about the bill to receive an endorsement from the National Farmers' Union (NFU), the second-largest general farm organization in the U.S.?

Mr. Vilsack, The NFU does not have a strong following in many southern states. How does an endorsement from this group affect ag producers in this region?

Mr. Vilsack, some opponents of the bill say it will raise health care costs and water-down the system itself. What do you say about these claims?

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has voiced concerns and downright opposition to the bill in its current form. Since this group is the largest farm organization, do you think it is important to gain their support for the bill, or are there simply too many differences involved?

We're also speaking with Arkansas Farm Bureau President Randy Veach. Mr. Veach, please explain a little about how Farm Bureau operates and how it has arrived at its stance on the health care reform bill.

Mr. Veach, what are some ways to improve health care in rural America?

Thank you, Mr. Vilsack and Mr. Veach for your input on this timely and important issue to U.S. ag producers!

Bayer Modified Rice Trial Jury Told of Crop Mystery

noreply@blogger.com (Mitchell Nail) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:25:00 +0000

ST. LOUIS, Mo.-(Bloomberg)--A Bayer CropScience executive who oversaw tests of genetically modified rice told jurors about the discovery of one variety of the grain where another was thought to have been planted five years before it was learned that U.S. crops had been tainted.

Dr. Kirk Johnson described the surprise appearance of the rice strain in a videotaped deposition played today for the federal court jury on the second day of a trial in which two Missouri farmers seek compensation for the company’s alleged negligence.

The farmers, and more than 1,000 others, sued the company and its corporate parent, Leverkusen, Germany-based Bayer AG, alleging that mismanagement of the testing program allowed the rice to contaminate crops in Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The trial before U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry in St. Louis is the first of a series of bellwether cases intended to allow each side to assess the strength of their positions for possible settlement negotiations.

Asked if the detection of one strain of rice approved for human consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration meant that a then-unapproved strain was planted elsewhere, Bayer’s Johnson said, “No.”

“If there was a flip-flop, we would have saw that flip- flop in the other location,” Johnson said. He said he wasn’t certain why a small quantity of the unexpected strain was found growing among other Bayer test plantings.

Appropriately Cautious

Bayer’s lead defense lawyer, Mark Ferguson, told jurors in his opening statement yesterday that the company had been appropriately cautious in its handling of the modified seeds.

The U.S. Agriculture Department, in August 2006, said the rice, engineered to survive being sprayed with Bayer’s Liberty- brand herbicide, was found in commercial rice stores.

Bayer and Louisiana State University had been testing the long-grain variety of the rice. Within four days of the USDA announcement, a decline in rice futures cost U.S. growers about $150 million, according to a consolidated complaint filed by the farmers.

Exports also fell, the growers said, as the European Union, Japan, Russia and other overseas markets slowed for testing or stopped their imports of the U.S.-grown long-grain rice.

‘Regrets This Happened’

“Everyone at Bayer regrets that this happened. Farmers are Bayer’s customers,” Ferguson told jurors during his opening remarks. “The one thing that they were trying to avoid, happened.”

The Bayer unit said biotech rice, called LibertyLink, posed no food safety issues.

During his two days of deposition testimony, which was edited for presentation to the jury, Johnson also told about his prior experience working as a rice breeder for the St. Louis beer brewer now known as Anheuser Busch InBev NV.

Johnson told attorneys questioning him that he was at times frustrated with the administration of the Bayer genetically modified rice testing program by Louisiana State University agronomist Dr. Steven Linscombe.

Linscombe, who was in charge of the on-site testing at LSU’s Crowley, Louisiana, testing site, “did not fully follow” protocols for breeding of the rice and once allowed genetically engineered samples to be shipped without papers required by the USDA, Johnson said.

Work Continued

Still, Johnson said, Bayer CropScience continued to work with Linscombe and relied on his expertise.

In a telephone interview today, the LSU scientist rejected the assertion he had been incautious with the Bayer test materials.

“We did everything that was called for” in standards set by the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, he said. “Our whole business is to be careful in handling seeds.

Linscombe also said Bayer asked him to send one shipment to a private research facility about 40 minutes away, which sent the rice out of state. “I was not aware that rice was being shipped out of state. I did not ship it out of state,” he said.

The rice strain’s later appearance at private farms “had nothing to do with paperwork or rice shipped out of state without a label,” he said.

Bayer spokesman Greg Coffey today declined to comment on the LSU scientist’s role, if any, in the spread of its genetically modified rice.

Linscombe has also given videotaped deposition testimony which may be shown to the jury later in the trial, Ferguson said outside court.

The trial may last until early December, Perry has said.

The case is In Re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, 06- md-01811, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).

House Republicans Want More Ag Committee Hearings on Climate Change Legislation

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:09:00 +0000

WASHINGTON-(Farm Futures)--The Senate Finance Committee resumed discussion of climate change legislation Tuesday. The day's topic was the allocation of emissions allowances under a proposed cap and trade tax system. In his opening statement Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reminded members that the Congressional Budget Office has made clear that these allowances hold value and therefore represent federal revenues.

Some say there will be no net cost to the American people because the federal government is creating a commodity that holds value and can be sold to recoup the costs or even make money. According to Grassley this makes it sound as though we've stumbled upon the economic equivalent of the mythical philosopher's stone that can turn lead into gold. He was quick to point out there is no such thing as a free lunch and the government cannot create wealth through regulation.

Grassley cautioned this is not free money, rather he says it is a national energy tax on all Americans, one that will exacerbate the negative impact of other taxes on economic growth and jobs. The challenge, according to Grassley, is to mitigate as much as possible those painful effects on the American people.

Meanwhile in the House, 18 Ag Committee Republicans sent a letter to Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., requesting additional hearings on H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The legislation received a favorable House vote on June 26, but the 18 Republicans want it reviewed. In their letter they state the Speaker's accelerated schedule did not give the Committee sufficient time to properly consider the complex proposal.

The letter continues that there are a number of different analyses on cap and trade that show reductions in farm income reaching all the way up to 94% by 2035. And it is being reported that the Environmental Protection Agency is projecting this legislation would take 56 million crop acres out of production due to forestation. The Representatives believe as new information about H.R. 2454 continues to become available this legislation continues to warrant the Ag Committee's consideration as it will have far reaching effects on the agriculture community for generations to come.

VIDEO: Former U.S. Ag Secretary John Block Weighs in on Cuba Trade Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:48:00 +0000

Secretary John Block on Cuba Policy @ Yahoo! Video

VIDEO: AFBF President Bob Stallman Testifies Before Senate Committee

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:59:00 +0000

AFBF President Bob Stallman said that the House-passed climate legislation will have little to no impact on global temperatures.

AUDIO: U.S. Ag Secretary Speaks on Climate Control Legislation

noreply@blogger.com (Mitchell Nail) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:25:00 +0000

WASHINGTON-(AgWatch)--U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack says the offsets of the climate change legislation will outweigh the negatives and benefit ag producers.

Vilsack says he sees three basic purposes of the climate control legislation.

AUDIO: U.S. Ag Secretary Addresses Rural Issues, '08 Farm Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Mitchell Nail) — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:18:00 +0000

JONESBORO, Ark.-(AgWatch)--U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack was in Harrodsburg, Ky. this week addressing USDA's plans to help revitalize Kentucky's rural economy and infrastructure. AgWatch Network's Rick Crawford had a chance to discuss these rural issues with Vilsack along with some of the controversy surrounding the 2008 Farm Bill.

Political Environment Clouds Climate Legislation

noreply@blogger.com (Mitchell Nail) — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:50:00 +0000

JONESBORO, Ark.-(AgWatch)--This week on our homepage, we ran two separate stories on soybeans and global warming. The first of the two ran in STL Today with the headline, "Global Warming Policies Make It Harder on Soybean Farmers".

This article said many soybean growers have concerns toward the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. One of the article's main sources, Joe Jobe of the National Biodiesel Board, said "They're (EPA) trying to hold us accountable in the United States not only for our own carbon dioxide emissions, but for hypothetical international emissions decades into the future, based on decisions by millions of people around the world. It's extraordinary."

The second article, posted on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's homepage, had the headline, "Ozone Damage Hurts Soybean Yields". In this article, NASA claims its scientists have data that proves global warming costs U.S. soybean growers $2 billion annually.

This article's lead source, Elizabeth Ainsworth, a professor of crop biology at the University of Illinois, was quoted as saying, "Yields across the country are lower than they otherwise would be. We are losing a very significant chunk of the potential yield."

Now, I fully support maximizing crop yields and certainly do not buy into conspiracy theories, but I find it odd that scientists have released this data during the debate over climate legislation.

It seems as if the study's supporters want to say, "You might as well back our regulations because you'll end up losing your crop if you don't."

Still, I find it ironic and almost funny this study comes out when soybean yields are near record highs. In 2008, the average soybean producer harvested 39.6 bu./acre. That figure certainly falls below 2005's 43.0 bu./acre, but it shines when compared with previous decades.

For example, between 1983-2000, only one year (1994's 41.4 bu./acre) had a yield that surpassed or even matched 2008. In fact, the average yield didn't pass 35 bu./acre until 1992.

This data suggests the climate legislation's supporting studies have a politically motivated basis. They may or may not have a scientific backbone and should be reviewed and critiqued carefully before arriving at any conclusions.

Let me know what any of you think!

Cap-and-Trade Showdown on Capitol Hill

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:29:00 +0000

WASHINGTON-(The Hill)--A committee chairman is threatening House leaders to either give him a role in shaping climate change legislation or risk losing every Democratic vote on his panel when the bill hits the floor.

Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.), the outspoken Democratic chairman of the Agriculture panel, has been making it well-known that he wants his committee to have full jurisdictional authority over whatever climate change bill emerges from Chairman Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) Energy and Commerce Committee.

But Peterson is no longer making idle threats. Peterson earlier this week met with the 26 Democrats on his panel and emerged with a “virtually unanimous” agreement that his committee members would stand with him in opposition to a climate change bill that didn’t adequately address the concerns of the agriculture industry, according to one of those Democrats.

Click HERE for the full story.

VIDEO: Vilsack Weighs In On "Swine Flu"

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:10:00 +0000

VIDEO: Is the Farm Economy Taking a Toll on Farmers?

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:00:00 +0000

Crop Subsidies Common and Increasing Outside the U.S.

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:05:00 +0000

LUBBOCK, Texas-(Newswise)--U.S. agriculture subsidies may get lambasted by the international press for suppressing farm prices abroad, but a study by Texas Tech University economists finds that developing countries are equally, if not more, prone to protecting their agricultural sectors.

Researchers in Texas Tech’s Cotton Economics Research Institute studied the agricultural subsidies and protection applied by 21 countries to seven major crops: corn, cotton, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugar and wheat.

The resulting report, Crop Subsidies in Foreign Countries: Different Paths to Common Goals, found that while policy tools employed by governments may differ, agricultural support is increasing not only in industrialized countries such as the U.S. or Australia, but in developing economies such as those of China or Brazil.

"U.S. agriculture has been openly criticized by international organizations and eminent academicians for its subsidies and protection programs," study authors wrote. "Overall, the study concludes that agriculture has a special status in both developed and developing countries with a wide variety of subsidy and protection instruments in place. Developed countries certainly subsidize and protect their agricultural sectors."

Developing countries employ higher tariff protection than their industrialized peers, researchers found, and also tend to supplement their price support program with input subsidies, which are excluded from World Trade Organization support calculations but still distort trade.

Click HERE to access the full report.

Funding for the research was provided by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA through the International Cotton Research Center and Texas Tech’s Larry Combest Chair of Agricultural Competitiveness.

VIDEO: Texas Cotton Growers Concerned About Farm Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:48:00 +0000

Texas Farm Bill Worries PKG - For more amazing video clips, click here

VIDEO: Changes In Farm Policy May Not Help Farmers

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:01:00 +0000

Globalization and technological developments have changed the face of agriculture. Farmers are wondering if new farm policies will help them deal with these changes or ultimately hurt them.

Questions Pile Up From WTO Members

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:13:00 +0000

WASHINGTON-(Farm Progress)--World Trade Organization members met last week to focus on monitoring how WTO members are implementing their present commitments in agriculture. A long list of questions was posed to the United States. They covered: counter-cyclical payments, direct payments, and the new Farm Bill's "Average Crop Revenue Election" program.

There is also an issue with China's exports of poultry being held up by U.S. law. The United States has repeated its statement that the government is talking to relevant authorities in Washington to try to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

Other questions deal with details of support for dairy and sugar products, food aid, crop insurance, support for bio-energy, crop disaster payments, and a range of support programs. Some key questions are likely to continue to pile up until the Obama Administration has someone setting in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The Senate is slated to vote on nominee Ron Kirk this week.

Is Carbon Cap & Trade Good Ag Policy?

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:05:00 +0000

New Energy Economics: Carbon Cap & Trade

FARGO, N.D.-(NDSU)--The Obama administration is developing a cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This is an important development for the renewable- energy industry because carbon credits created from the use of biofuels and wind energy will help meet established national goals. It also is of concern for the northern Plains because coal is used extensively for plant heating and electrical generation, so any reduction in emissions will raise user costs.

Under cap-and-trade, the government sets an annual cap on carbon emissions.

President Obama's budget calls for a cap 14 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2050. To assist affected firms, the government will issue a fixed number of credits for emissions under the cap. Unlike implementation of Europe's plan, under which the credits were handed out, President Obama proposes to auction off these credits.

Money that will be collected from the initial sale of carbon credits - $78.7 billion in the first year (2012) - is included in the president's federal budget. By 2019, revenues from cap-and-trade are expected to exceed $525 billion. President Obama's deficit reduction plans heavily rely on this new source of revenue.

To offset some of the burden of the program, the president proposes to use some of the auction revenue for tax relief. Approximately $15 billion a year will be used to fund research on new clean-energy technology. A $400-per-person tax credit also is being proposed to help individuals defray the higher energy costs that are expected.

Cap-and-trade is not the only strategy for reducing carbon emissions. A carbon tax also has been proposed. Economists generally prefer a carbon tax over cap- and-trade because it is more transparent and firms can plan accordingly. At the moment, it is uncertain what the prevailing value of carbon credits in the new cap-and-trade auction market will be worth. Consequently, firms have a tough time deciding if they should be bidding on those credits or purchasing new clean energy technology to reduce emissions and avoid having to buy carbon credits.

With a tax, firms know exactly what the cost will be and can budget for it thoughtfully.

It is uncertain what the prevailing price of a carbon credit will be. In the U.S., carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange generally have been trading for under $5 per ton. In Europe, carbon credits have been trading in auction markets for some time and are worth four to five times that level, depending on economic conditions and energy policy.

Regardless of whether cap-and-trade or a carbon tax is implemented, carbon credits generated from renewable energy will become more valuable. For example, coal-fired electricity releases 2.13 pounds of carbon dioxide for each kilowatt- hour produced. Wind energy releases zero pounds. Thus, a 2-megawatt wind turbine can create 2.13 tons of carbon credits that could be worth $14 a ton, according to recent energy market studies.

The program's value for biofuels is far less clear. A couple of key issues are documenting actual savings generated at farm and plant locations. Farmers will have to prove they actually are reducing net carbon levels from their operations at the present. Even though a producer may have adopted minimum tillage and reduced applied inputs in the past, the new benchmark will be to determine how much reduction has occurred from the operation as it currently exists. In addition, the whole use-of-land issue debated nationally again arises. To what extent does land taken for the production of biofuels in the U.S. result in a greater use of land in a foreign country?

(Source: Cole Gustafson, Biofuels Economist, NDSU Extension.)

Farm Bureau: Farmers Need Policies That Promote Economic Growth

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:19:00 +0000

WASHINGTON-(AFBF)--As the new Congress and the Obama administration prepare to take up proposals to address the current economic recession and climate change concerns, they must enact policies on taxes and the environment that promote economic growth, said delegates at the 90th American Farm Bureau Federation annual meeting.

"Where Congress and the administration must propose and enact new laws and regulations to deal with our nation's challenges, Farm Bureau will work to ensure those new measures do not threaten farmers' and ranchers' profitability," said AFBF President Bob Stallman, "but, rather, capitalize on opportunities to maintain a strong agricultural economy and bolster rural America."

As Congress is expected this year to revisit the issue of climate change, the delegates have reaffirmed their opposition to caps on greenhouse gas emissions that would drive up the cost of fuel, fertilizer and other inputs needed to produce farm commodities.

Continuing to support America's transition to energy independence through the production of biofuels, the delegates felt, was the right direction. They approved a policy supporting an increase in the ethanol-to-gasoline blend rate to more than the current 10 percent.

AFBF delegates also approved policies aimed at bolstering the rural economy. For example, the Obama-backed economic stimulus proposal should fund improvements to the nation's infrastructure, including expanding broadband Internet access in rural areas and funding the Water Resources Development Act, which authorized construction of new locks and dams on the inland waterways.

The delegates indicated that federal lawmakers and the new administration also should complete an unfinished immigration bill left over from 2008. They expressed support for immigration reform that provides a more efficient temporary worker program for agriculture. They voted to support improved training for employers to help them understand and better use the current H-2A seasonal agricultural worker program, and better information delivery for new users of the program.

Permanent repeal of the estate tax, which impedes farm families' ability to keep farms in the family, was another issue on which the delegates indicated renewed support.

The delegates also approved a resolution stating that the concept of "sustainable agriculture" should be flexible and recognize the benefits of accepted agricultural practices. They supported scientific research and education that encourages all participants in the agricultural industry to produce, process and distribute safe food and feed.

"Our nation faces serious challenges and our leaders must deal with those," said Stallman. "But in doing so, they also have opportunities to put policies in place - on issues such as energy, immigration, taxes and infrastructure - to make us stronger in the long run."

Citing anti-livestock campaigns such as last year's Proposition 2 in California, the delegates urged the AFBF board of directors to continue the Ag Challenges Initiative, a program that helps producers tell their story of responsible care for animals.

At this AFBF annual meeting, 369 voting delegates representing every state and agricultural commodity deliberated on policies affecting farmers' and ranchers' productivity and profitability. The policy approved at the annual meeting will guide the national farm organization's legislative and regulatory efforts throughout 2009.

Poll Shows Farmers Leary of Obama Administration

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:51:00 +0000

SAN ANTONIO-(Reuters)--A recent survey indicates a majority of U.S. farmers are in favor of a farm subsidy cap of $250,000 a year and strict rules on payment eligibility. However, they are not strong supporters of who will be responsible for making these changes: Barack Obama.

Click HERE for the full story.

Could Vilsack Be Re-Assigned to the Commerce Department?

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:12:00 +0000

President-elect Obama is quickly searching for a new Commerce Secretary since his his first pick, Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) withdrew his name from consideration due to an ongoing federal corruption investigation. There is some speculation that his pick for Ag Secretary, Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa) could be shifted to fill that vacancy in the Commerce Department.

Here's the story from Washington:

Obama Looking for New Commerce Candidate

WASHINGTON-(Farm Progress)--President-elect Barack Obama is trying to find a replacement for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who has withdrawn his name from consideration to be Secretary of Commerce in the Obama cabinet. Richardson has been sidelined by a federal ethics probe into a $1.5 million state contract to CDR Financial Products of California.

There has been some speculation that the President-elect may do some shuffling within the cabinet because of a lack of alternatives for the Secretary of Commerce. According to the New York Daily News, an anonymous source has said that former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack may be moved from the Secretary of Agriculture slot into the commerce position. Some believe there are more viable candidates to select from to head USDA.

A 50-Year Farm Bill?

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:59:00 +0000

Is a 50-year Farm Bill the cure to what's ailing U.S. agriculture? At least two people think so, and they're ag professionals. Following is the opening paragraph of an Op-Ed that appeared in the New York Times on January 4 written by Wes Jackson, a plant geneticist and president of The Land Institute in Salina, Kan., and Wendell Berry, a farmer and writer in Port Royal, Ky.

THE extraordinary rainstorms last June caused catastrophic soil erosion in the grain lands of Iowa, where there were gullies 200 feet wide. But even worse damage is done over the long term under normal rainfall - by the little rills and sheets of erosion on incompletely covered or denuded cropland, and by various degradations resulting from industrial procedures and technologies alien to both agriculture and nature.

A plant geneticist and a farmer: sounds like a couple of guys who you'd expect to really know their stuff - but do they?

Read the FULL ARTICLE and judge for yourself.

VIDEO: Obama Names Ag and Interior Secretaries

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:40:00 +0000

President-elect Obama made two more cabinet picks this week, both of which will figure prominently in future ag policy development and implementation. Here's more:

New House Agriculture Ranking Member Opposes CFTC Merger

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:13:00 +0000

WASHINGTON-(Farm Progress)--Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., has been named ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee for the next Congress. He succeeds Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who had to forfeit his leadership position because of under House Republican Conference rules limiting to six years a member's holding a committee leadership position.

Outlining his priorities as new House Agriculture ranking members on Wednesday, Lucas said implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill and addressing the problems with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are his immediate concerns.

There has been talk of merging the CFTC with the SEC, which would bring it under the jurisdiction of the House Financial Services Committee that Lucas is also a member of. However he said he is opposed to such a move and thinks the Agriculture Committee can respond to strengthen the CFTC's power.

Before the Thanksgiving recess, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, introduced legislation that would require credit derivatives be sold through regulated exchanges under the CFTC as a way to deal with commodity speculation. Earlier this week, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said he wants to put a similar bill through the House in January to ensure greater transparency.

Who Are the Candidates for Ag Secretary?

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:44:00 +0000

As President-elect Obama continues filling out his cabinet this week, the focus will now shift to some of the less glamorous positions - among them Secretary of Agriculture. There have been a few names bandied about in the weeks since his election but three of them are now receiving the most attention.

The Washington Post weighed in on that very subject late last week. Click HERE to view the article.

The Obama-Biden Farm Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:48:00 +0000

LENEXA, Kan.-(AgNetwork)--Rural communities face numerous challenges but also economic opportunities unlike anything we have witnessed in modern history. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that together we can ensure a bright future for rural America. They will help family farmers and rural small businesses find profitability in the marketplace and success in the global economy.

Ensure Economic Opportunity for Family Farmers

Strong Safety Net for Family Farmers: Fight for farm programs that provide family farmers with stability and predictability. Implement a $250,000 payment limitation so we help family farmers -- not large corporate agribusiness. Close the loopholes that allow mega farms to get around payment limits.

Prevent Anticompetitive Behavior Against Family Farms: Pass a packer ban. When meatpackers own livestock they can manipulate prices and discriminate against independent farmers. Strengthen anti-monopoly laws and strengthen producer protections to ensure independent farmers have fair access to markets, control over their production decisions, and transparency in prices.

Regulate CAFOs: Strictly regulate pollution from large factory livestock farms, with fines for those that violate tough standards. Support meaningful local control.

Establish Country of Origin Labeling: Implement Country of Origin Labeling so that American producers can distinguish their products from imported ones.

Encourage Organic and Local Agriculture: Help organic farmers afford to certify their crops and reform crop insurance to not penalize organic farmers. Promote regional food systems.

Encourage Young People to Become Farmers: Establish a new program to identify and train the next generation of farmers. Provide tax incentives to make it easier for new farmers to afford their first farm.

Partner with Landowners to Conserve Private Lands: Increase incentives for farmers and private landowners to conduct sustainable agriculture and protect wetlands, grasslands, and forests.

Support Rural Economic Development

Support Small Business Development: Provide capital for farmers to create value-added enterprises, like cooperative marketing initiatives and farmer-owned processing plants. Establish a small business and micro-enterprise initiative for rural America.

Connect Rural America: Modernize an FCC program that supports rural phone service so that it promotes affordable broadband coverage across rural America as well.

Promote Leadership in Renewable Energy: Ensure that our rural areas continue their leadership in the renewable fuels movement.

Improve Rural Quality Of Life

Combat Methamphetamine: Continue the fight to rid our communities of meth and offer support to help addicts heal.

Improve Healthcare: Work to ensure a more equitable Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement structure that often gives rural healthcare providers less money for the very same procedure performed in urban areas. Attract providers to rural America by creating a loan forgiveness program for doctors and nurses who work in underserved rural areas. Promote health information technologies like telemedicine.

Improve Rural Education: Provide incentives for talented individuals to enter the teaching profession, including increased pay for teachers who work in rural areas. Create a Rural Revitalization Program to attract young people to rural America and retain them. Increase research and educational funding for Land Grant colleges.

Upgrade Rural Infrastructure: Invest in the core infrastructure -- roads, bridges, locks, dams, water systems and essential air service -- that rural communities need.

Ag Groups Have 'Wishlists' for Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Crawford) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:35:00 +0000

TWIN FALLS, Idaho - Following the historic election of Barack Obama as the 44th U.S. president, agriculture groups across the country are hoping the new president will work with them toward meeting the needs and challenges of the food and fiber industry and rural America.

“Farmers and ranchers, like all Americans, have a list of issues that they expect the administration and Congress will address. The issues include the economy, energy, immigration, trade, implementation of the farm bill, and many others,” said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

“We look forward to working with the new administration and Congress to create those opportunities that will improve agriculture and rural America,” he said.

Click HERE to read the full story.