2007 Farm Bill Update/Status Thread

[kobear]

I met with some Congressional staffers, USDA staff, and one REPRESENTATIVE.

USDA thought farmers needed a farmbill to "plant for" like when they farmed the government.

Senators thought everything was hunky dory and we would all get what we wanted any day now.

White House promising a veto.

The REP said farmers weren't worried if the bill got done they are planting for the market not farming government, senators being entirely unreasonable garunteeing a veto, and the comittee isn't neccessarily interested in another extension. The '49 permenant law would put corn support at $3.78 or more, milk at $32 a hundredweight, and halt conservation signups in CRP, WRP, and GRP but continue payments.

Review the 1948-49 laws impacts at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/02/0062.xml

Sorry, they are politicians.

[UGUIDE]

Great posts. It appears the ethanol boom is turning into a conservation bust by driving shortfalls in grain markets.

Maybe CRP has to go away before we really value it again (non hunters). I am sure we will see wildlife impact this fall based on existing CRP loss.

This is definitely a tough time to get a conservation bill done but I believe our leaders will get a bill done. It always gets heated right down to the wire.

[kobear]

The bill has been extended to April 18th, if you want to sign up for CRP you still can for selected practices (read as activities).

Authority to approve new offers for enrollment into CRP has been extended through April 18, 2008, as described in Notice CRP-585.

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Notice/crp_585.pdf

Want to sign up for the CP-38 SAFE Back Forty stop in and give the NRCS your name and express interest it may help alot later.

[Dotch]

from today's Pro Farmer:

Congress exits still minus a farm bill deal

Congress is in the midst of a two-week break, heading out to meet

with constituents without a completed farm bill and still lacking a

deal on funding extra spending beyond the budget baseline. Some

work continued last week, but nothing concrete has emerged from

those deliberations.

Just ahead of the break, House Ag Committee Chairman Collin

Peterson (D-Minn.) noted “a glimmer of hope” in discussions with

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on

the funding issue. That kept Peterson from forging ahead on a “fallback”

approach in order to try and get things worked out.

But not a lot more progress appeared to have happened last

week. One complicating factor remains that House Ways &

Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is still not

back in Washington after being hospitalized for the flu. That has

kept discussions at the staff level between his panel and the

Finance Committee.

Now permanent disaster aid is looming as a problem. Sens.

Baucus and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) rejected a proposal by Peterson

and Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to

spend $2.2 billion on permanent disaster aid over the life of the bill.

Baucus labeled the proposal “dead on arrival” and Conrad

chimed in that it was “unacceptable.” Both indicated that could

scuttle efforts to get a deal on funding extra spending in the bill.

Meanwhile, Rep. Peterson has instructed his staff to work on

issues in the farm bill that don’t deal with or aren’t affected by any

of the sought-after increased spending.

BOTTOM LINE:With the 2002 Farm Bill extended to April 18, some

lawmakers say that gives them a “sense of urgency” to get things

wrapped up. Frankly, the way lawmakers have tossed around terms

like “soon” or “days” or “weeks” when they talk about the need to

get a farm bill done (and that goes back well into 2007!), it’s hard to

take them seriously that this new “deadline” will result in a deal.

And if things aren’t in hand by the time April 18 approaches, then a

one- or two-year extension of the 2002 Farm Bill can’t be ruled out.

Even though that would leave areas like nutrition, specialty crops,

conservation and energy without the extra spending they would get

if a new farm bill is completed.

[Dotch]

Here it is, from Pro Farmer:

Finally, a farm bill

by News Editor Roger Bernard and Washington consultant Jim Wiesemeyer

With congressional farm bill action behind us (House approval 318-106; Senate approval 81-15), the focus now turns to first overriding a promised presidential veto and then the all-important task of implementing the next version of U.S. farm law. Following are key provisions in the bill as we move toward the implementation phase that Members need to be aware of as they make their plans for 2009 crops and beyond:

Payment limits

ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME (AGI) LIMIT: Producers with a threeyear

AGI of more than $750,000 in farm income will lose direct

payments. Those with a three-year AGI of more than $500,000

in non-farm income will lose all program eligibility.

DIRECT ATTRIBUTION: Three-entity rule eliminated, but spouse

will be able to qualify for a separate limit.

DIRECT PAYMENTS: $40,000 limit (same as current law).

COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS (CCPs) or ACRE: $65,000.

Those with less than 10 acres will no longer get payments,

unless they are poor or disadvantaged producers.

LDP/MARKETING LOAN GAINS: Certs eliminated; no payment limit.

PERSPECTIVE: In effect, a husband/wife combo will still be able

to earn up to $2.5 million in farm and non-farm income without

losing program eligibility. This area was the main source of

“heartburn” for the Bush administration.

Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE)

THE BASICS: In exchange for a 20% reduction in direct payments

and a 30% reduction in loan rates, producers will be

able to enroll in ACRE — a state-level revenue counter-cyclical

program — beginning in 2009.

THE GUARANTEE: A guarantee on acres planted or considered

planted equal to 90% of the product of a 5-year state average

yield factor (excluding the highest and lowest yields) times the national season average price for the previous two years for the commodity.

IMPORTANT NOTES:

Once you choose the option, you are in ACRE for the

duration of the bill.

Once the ACRE guarantee is set, it cannot vary by more

than 10% from the previous year’s guarantee.

Payment acres are 83.3% of base acres for the 2009-11

crop years and 85% of base acres in 2012.

Farm Bill Overview

• Overall bill cost: $289 billion over five years — 73.5% for nutrition ($10.4 billion above budget baseline); 16.1% for

commodities, disaster aid ($3.85 billion program) and crop insurance ($6 billion below baseline) and around 7% for

conservation programs ($6.5 billion above budget baseline). Extra spending paid for primarily by Customs user fees.

• Includes $2.5 billion to $3 billion for specialty crops and adds a livestock title.

• Increases loan rates and target prices for some crops.

• Adjusts payment limits (starting in 2009) and adds a revenue-based farm program option.

• Direct payments reduced via a cut in payment acre percentage.

Key Direct Payment Change

DIRECT PAYMENTS: Per-unit rates the same as the 2002 Farm

Bill, but the payment is reduced by cutting the percentage of

base acres on which you get a direct payment to 83.3% for

the 2009-11 crop years (goes back to 85% in the 2012 crop

year so the budget baseline is restored). Advance payments

of 22% of the total payment are to be available to producers

for 2008-11 crops; no advance direct payment for 2012.

Target price adjustments

2008: Target prices unchanged, except cotton is reduced

from 72.4¢/lb., to 71.25¢/pound.

2009: Unchanged from 2008, except target prices are established

for dry peas ($8.32/cwt.), lentils ($12.81/cwt.), small chick

peas ($10.36/cwt.) and large chick peas ($12.81/cwt.).

2010-12: Target prices increase for wheat ($3.92 to $4.17), grain sorghum ($2.57 to $2.63), barley ($2.24 to $2.63), oats ($1.44 to $1.79) and soybeans ($5.80 to $6.00). Corn, dry peas, lentils, small and large chickpeas and cotton remain at 2009 levels.

Loan rate adjustments

2008: 2007 rates apply.

2009: Dry peas are reduced to $5.40/cwt from $6.22; lentils

are reduced from $11.72/cwt to $11.28; and a loan program for

large chickpeas is created at $11.28/cwt.

2010-12: Increases for wheat (from $2.75 to $2.94/bu.), barley

($1.85 to $1.95/bu.), oats ($1.33 to $1.39/bu.) other

oilseeds ($9.30 to $10.09/cwt), graded wool ($1.00 to

$1.15/lb.) and honey (from 60¢ to 69¢/lb.).

NOTE: No loan rate changes occur for corn, grain sorghum,

upland cotton, extra long staple cotton, rice or soybeans.

Presidential hopefuls AWOL

The three presidential hopefuls — Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) — did not vote on the farm bill, nor did they vote in December when the Senate passed its bill. Clinton and Obama would have voted for the plan

— Clinton issued a statement hailing the bill. McCain said he’d

veto it if he were president, so obviously he’s in the “no” column.

But none have a vote on this bill they can tout.

Livestock & dairy highlights

Livestock: First-ever livestock title includes compromise

language on mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

and interstate shipment of state-inspected meat, but does not

include a ban on packer ownership of livestock.

Dairy: Modifies the milk price support program to directly

establish purchase prices for butter, non-fat dry milk and

cheese (inventory control provisions included). Milk Income

Loss Contract (MILC) continued with payment percentage

boosted to 45%. Pounds eligible also raised to 2.985 million

pounds. If the National Average Dairy Feed Ration Cost for a

month exceeds $7.35/cwt., the MILC payment is increased by

45% of that difference. Forward contracting is revived.

[UGUIDE]

Under the House Version of 2007 farm bill, if cropping history was rolled forward (2002-2007) I would be eligible to enroll 500-600 acres of currently cropped ground in high priority continuous CRP windbreak, riparian buffers, filter strips, and wildlife buffers.

With current cropping history of 2002 Farm Bill (1996-2001) I am eligible for 0 CRP acres.

Under the proposed Senate Version of 2007 Farm Bill, which Bush just vetoed, I would also be eligible for 0 CRP acres.

The reasoning to leave cropping history the same as 2002 Farm Bill was to not incent landowners to break ground just to get land in CRP.

That all sounds good and is a trade-off for not having a sod buster provision in the Bill but in reality I think the people that would actually do this as a primary strategy are very few.

I believe this limit may overly restrict the few conservationists that are ready and willing to implement High priority/High quality new CRP.

Here is link to the farm bill.

Farm Bill

And here is specific information about the proposed CRP programs.

CRP Components of Farm Bill

[brittman]

CRP grave has been dug. Fat lady stage left...

Inflation on food - it will not be wise to reduce acres and limit food production.

Heavy lobbying by ADM, Cargill, Implemment dealers, fertilizer companies, diesel fuel producers and distributors will push to limit CRP acres - each benefits greatly by more acres planted.

Small town economies likely benefit more via more jobs in ag - trickle down ... than they do via hunting industry. Total money influx maybe debatable, but money will be spread across more people via ag.

Young farmers will have a little less competition for land, since more acres will be available.

CRP was great while it lasted. To be honest I kill plenty of birds on heavily tromped public land. I kill plenty of birds on private land not enrolled in or even near CRP. I measure a great day hunting - not by limit killed in minimum time, but by the good dog work and the opportunity for everyone in the group to shoot at their limit throught the course of the day.

Devils advocate says sure bird numbers will be down, but so will hunter numbers ... lodges and outfitters will be forced to liberate more birds to keep the SHOOTERs happy or maybe close.

Land that holds a few dozen birds will no longer be leased like land that holds hundreds or thousands. Maybe access will improve?

[croixflats]

I'm rather suspicious on the whole crp program. I know the benefits but now I see that there is talk on letting people out of there contract, with no penalty, and going back to farming.

That would be waisted tax payer money. Yea, I know it takes money to convert farm land into habitat. but when you change it back its money down the drain that taxpayers spent.

[UGUIDE]

Brittman, pheasant hunters generated $219 million for the state last year.

Croix, the battle is on. Tax payers should fight for their right. They want cheap fuel, cheap food, clean air and clean water and don't want to die from cancer causing chemicals.

The Farm Bill has to have big shoulders. Producers outweigh conservationists. This is concerning....we only have one earth.

[croixflats]

I really dont know what the battle is. People dont want cheap food or cheap fuel we want it fair and affordable.

No, I dont believe more land has to be farmed in order to feed the world. That's just like saying we need to drill more to keep oil prices down. When in my opinion, its the uncontrolled trading in the commodities market that unjustly setting prices on things.

The reason I see people wanting to convert there crp back to farm land is to take advantage of the out of control market.If they want to do that, fine just pay back what the state gave them or pay the penalties. Dont make us supporters of the crp program look like money launders

[brittman]

$219 million is a "soft" number that is calculated by surveys, etc... What state?

I would suspect ag is a multi-billion dollar industry in MN, SD, and ND. It is the life blood of ND and outside of the Black Hills, number 1 in SD too.

Ethanol is the old wolf in sheep's clothing. Ethanol and its supporting US government policies will drive CRP away, food prices higher and make no dent in the domestic fuel prices...

[UGUIDE]

$219 million is a "soft" number that is calculated by surveys, etc... What state?

SD.

[Augusta]

And how much does ag contribute to the SD economy......

[brittman]

Billions. It is the reason that SD and ND are not indeed Buffalo Commons. Dakotas are great place and I grew up on the northside - ag is what makes these states tick...

[Augusta]

I couldn't agree more......great states, great people.....

[UGUIDE]

And how much does ag contribute to the SD economy......

Augusta, I venture that AG will contribute even more to these states as many acres of grass continue to be rolled and sprayed in pursuit of additional corn yields. Many producers are in hot pursuit of getting out of CRP early so they can realize higher return for cash rent from producers or to farm it themselves.

I can't help but feel that SD and ND will follow similar paths as other AG states like IA, MN, ILL, IN, MI that used to have good bird numbers but the power of AG $$ has had a major influence on habitat acres in those states.

Maybe some of that $219M will pursuade some farmers to not turn all their croppable acres to corn.

[Augusta]

I think it would be worthy to note that ND and SD are ag states, they're not their neighbors "playground" states....