NSAC members and allies fought hard to remove unjustified barriers to participation in crop insurance programs for organic producers in the 2008 Farm Bill.  USDA’s Risk Management Agency has required all organic farmers participating in crop insurance programs to pay a 5 percent surcharge.   Adding insult to injury, organic producers are only reimbursed for the conventional rather than organic crop price when they suffer a loss.

In the 2008 Farm Bill Congress directed RMA to evaluate available data on risk of loss between organic and conventional systems and to determine whether the surcharge was justified.   The Farm Bill also directed RMA to offer producers of organic crops an additional price election that reflects actual prices received by organic producers for crops.

The crops for which the surcharge is now being removed are figs, pears, peppers, prunes, macadamia trees, Florida citrus fruit, Texas citrus fruit, Florida fruit trees, and Texas citrus trees.  The surcharge will continue for now on all other crops.

Also on Tuesday, USDA released three reports here, here and here which evaluate available data on risk assessment and organic prices.   In its release USDA promises to continue to accumulate and evaluate data necessary to eliminate the surcharge and offer an organic price election on a wider range of crops.

This is a good first step but it would appear that USDA has yet to justify the surcharge as the 2008 Farm Bill requires and more progress needs to be made in providing appropriate risk management options to organic producers.  Hopefully additional announcements will be forthcoming soon.

Videos and transcripts from the workshop will be available for review at a later date on this page on Antitrust Division’s website.  Individuals seeking more information on the workshops can contact agriculturalworkshops@usdoj.gov or visit this web page.

Hundreds of livestock producers and poultry growers have already sent in comments to the USDA in support of these rules.

A comment submitted by six neighboring beef producing families from Iowa said, “We hope that the proposed changes will help bring back competition in the cattle business and reduce the stranglehold of the meat packers. Vertical integration is killing independent producers financially… By entering into contracts with some cattle producers — or by actually owning cattle — they can process the cattle they control if and when cattle prices rise past survival mode for us producers. The result is that both consumers and independent cattlemen lose big-time.”

From a livestock producer in Wyoming: “Market manipulation by packers through cattle trading amongst themselves and granting preferential treatment to certain feedlots destroys our cattle business.”

A former poultry producer said, “Had these provisions been in place years ago, it would have protected me from the major financial loss that I experienced when my poultry company cancelled my contract without warning, after I had made significant investments in my poultry houses…I strongly support these provisions as well as all of the other important poultry provisions of the proposed rule.”

Opposition to the rule from packers, processors and their friends has also been fierce.  The National Chicken Council, a DC-based lobbying organization for the nation’s poultry companies, is urging its member companies to distribute a document that provides misleading information about the rules to their growers. Poultry company personnel are delivering the papers to growers in person.

“The companies are using fear and intimidation to coerce growers to act against their own self-interest,” said Becky Ceartas, director of the Contract Agriculture Reform Program at the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, a member of NSAC. “Ironically, these regulations are designed to rein in these kinds of tactics.”

This is our best shot in decades to restore a level playing field for family farm livestock and poultry producers.  We need to let GIPSA know that these rules are needed.  You can learn more here, here and here.

A big ‘thank you!’ to all the NSAC member groups around the country who promoted and did outreach on this initiative.  Your work is bearing fruit (and vegetables)!

As of July 22, there are 2,307 high tunnel/hoop house contracts worth $12.5 million!  Glen Elsbernd, an organic, beginning farmer in Winneshiek County, Iowa will receive assistance from the EQIP Organic Intitiative to install a 3o foot by 72 foot hoop house this fall.

“It[the hoop house] will help me get an early start on the growing season and a higher quality crop,” Elsbernd said. “The high tunnel will also give me a head start on the competition.”  Click here to read Elsbernd’s story.

The date for states to opt into the NRCS Seasonal High Tunnel Pilot Program closed on January 29 with 43 states (Arizona joined late), including Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, choosing to participate.

Wisconsin currently leads the way in total number of contacts, followed in order by Missouri, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Iowa, Alabama, and Vermont, rounding out the top ten.

In terms of total dollars, Alaska leads the way, followed by Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Missouri, Vermont, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Alabama, rounding out the top ten.

Some contracts are still being finalized, so the final number and dollar amount for the pilot program in 2010 will still go up some, but we have high tunnels by state with contract totals to date.

Urge Your Representative to Move Forward Now on
Farm to School Funding in the Child Nutrition Bill!

If your Congressman sits on the House Education and Labor Committee – See Chart Below –  please make a call in support of a healthy school lunch. Time is running short for Congressional re-authorization of the federal school lunch and breakfast programs.  The House must take action soon to ensure this critical first line of defense against childhood hunger doesn’t expire on September 30th.

The Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act (H.R. 5504) includes $50 million in mandatory funding over five years for Farm to School program connecting local farmers to school lunch programs nationwide, as well as many other important improvements to child nutrition programs.

The House Education and Labor Committee will likely consider the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act next week.  Please call your representative and urge him or her to move this bill forward now, with the $50 million in mandatory funding for the Farm to School program included.

An investment in Farm to School programs will help schools to serve fresh and healthy food produced by local and regional farmers.  That’s an investment that will pay dividends in improved child health, scholastic achievement and farm and rural economic vitality.

CALL TODAY!

Please tell your Representative on the Education and Labor Committee that it is important to you that the Committee act NOW to pass this crucial piece of legislation.

It’s easy to call. Please call or fax your representative at the numbers provided in the chart below.  Ask to speak to the staff person listed.  If the staff person is unavailable leave him or her a voice mail message that includes your name and phone number, or simply leave a message with the receptionist.

The message is simple.  “I am a constituent of Representative _____________, and I am calling to ask him/her to move forward now on the Child Nutrition bill — H.R. 5504, the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act. Tell him/her that you particularly support the provision in the Act providing $50 million in mandatory funding for Farm to School programs as a wise investment in our children and our local and regional farm economy.”

Background

If funded, the Farm to School Program would offer competitive grants to schools or non-profit organizations to develop purchasing relationships with local farmers, plan seasonal menus, start school gardens, develop hands-on nutrition education, and provide solutions to infrastructure problems including storage, transportation, food preparation, and technical training.

Farm to School grant program was authorized in the 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act, but USDA has never requested any funding for the program.  Congress now has an opportunity to fund this important program when it reauthorizes the Child Nutrition Act in 2010.

• Farm to School initiatives around the country have demonstrated that Farm to School is a win-win-win for children, schools, local communities and farmers — providing abundant reasons why this initiative should be available to schools throughout the country.
• The choice of healthier produce options in the school cafeteria through Farm to School results in children consuming more fruits and vegetables, leading to lifelong improvements in their diets.
• Schools report a 3 to 16 percent increase in school meal participation when farm-fresh food is served, bringing more school lunch funds to the schools.
• Working creatively with local producers, some schools have found ways to save money while supporting local agriculture by purchasing locally.
• The transaction from Farm to School keeps dollars in the local economy, strengthening local economies and creating jobs.
• Schools provide an important new market opportunity for small and mid-sized family farmers and ranchers.

111^th CONGRESS: HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE

Democrats

Republicans

On Tuesday, July 6, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1437, which requires all sales in California of shell (whole) eggs for human consumption to comply with the state’s Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. This act prohibits the confinement of egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow the birds to fully extend both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens, effectively banning the use of battery cages.

The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, also known as Prop 2, was brought into law through a successful November 2008 state-wide ballot measure. It phases out the use of battery cages by Californian egg producers by January 1, 2015, while the new assembly bill extends that ban to out-of-state producers selling to consumers in California.

The Associated Press reports Schwarzenegger as saying the new law is a positive step both for California egg producers and for animal welfare. With just under 40 million consumers, California is the most populous state in the nation. Observers expect AB1437 to have significant impacts on egg production methods outside of the state.

The bill as a whole came in at $23.1 billion, about $200 million less than FY 2010 and just a hair under the amount requested by the Administration.  The Food and Drug Administration funding was $2.6 billion, with most of the rest going to USDA.

In a huge victory for sustainable agriculture, the Subcommittee bill adopts the USDA-requested level of $30 million for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) competitive grants program, a 50 percent increase over current year funding.  The new funding includes $10 million to launch the SARE Federal-State Matching program that was authorized in 1990 but has never before received funding.

Other important victories included a restoration of the $5 million funding level for Organic Transitions research, a program proposed for termination by the Obama Administration.

For the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), the Subcommittee increased funding by $50 million over current year levels to $312 million.  This was considerably less than the $429 million requested by the Administration, though still a very sizable increase.

With respect to 2008 Farm Bill programs with mandatory spending, Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) held true to form and to promises and limited cuts to the customary $270 million cut in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), bringing it to $1.32 billion, and the zeroing out of the small watersheds dam rehabilitation program.  A GOP amendment brought by Representative Rodney Alexander (R-LA) to kill the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) failed on a party line vote.  The Obama Administration had proposed significant cuts to multiple farm bill conservation programs, but most of those were rejected by the Subcommittee.

No limitations were placed on farm bill programs with mandatory funding for beginning farmers, minority farmers, farmers markets, organic research, rural microenterprise, renewable energy, biomass crop assistance, or specialty crops.

The bill matches the USDA request for $3 million for the new Office of Advocacy and Outreach (which deals with small, beginning and minority farmer issues and farmworker issues) and $4 million for a farm labor grant program to be administered by the new Office.

The National Organic Program would also receive the requested level of $10.1 million, a $3.1 million increase over current levels.

The new Healthy Food Financing Initiative to support loans and grants to build grocery stores and other types of markets in food deserts, an initiative backed by the First Lady, gets $40 million in the bill.  An amendment offered by Ranking Member Jack Kingston (R-GA) to scale it back to $5 million was defeated on a party-line vote.  The bill also provides $2 million to USDA to help staff its Farm to School Tactical Teams to help school districts purchase more local food from local farms.

The regional rural innovation initiative proposed by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to set-aside funds from within existing programs to support regionally-based rural development efforts, including for development of local and regional food systems, was scaled back in the Subcommittee bill relative to the USDA request, but survived.  It too was the subject an amendment to remove it from the bill, sponsored by Representative JoAnn Emerson (R-MO).  Like the other amendments, this one failed on a party-line vote.

We are still awaiting details on a variety of other priority programs for the sustainable agriculture community and will hopefully report on those in a follow-up posting soon.

It is not yet clear what happens next to this bill.  Normally, it heads to another markup in full committee within a week or two, but it is uncertain this year whether there will be a full committee markup or not.  Senate subcommittee markup is expected at some point in July.  Many observers then think the bill will be put on hold until after the November elections, though nothing is certain at this point in time.

Chairwoman DeLauro’s press release on the bill can be read here and a one page, big picture funding summary here.

To read more about NSAC’s appropriations campaign, look here.

Nearly one-half the acres in the Basin are planted to corn or soybeans, so the Report focuses on the effects of nutrients and sediment from agricultural land on water quality in the Basin. Key findings of the Report include:

• Suites of practices work better than single practices;
• Targeting critical acres improves effectiveness significantly; practices have the greatest effect on the most vulnerable acres, such as highly erodible land and soils prone to leaching;
• Uses of soil erosion control practices are widespread in the basin. Most acres receive some sort of conservation treatment, resulting in a 69 percent reduction in sediment loss. However, about 15 percent of the cultivated cropland acres still have excessive sediment losses and require additional treatment; and
• The most critical conservation concern in the region is the loss of nitrogen from farm fields through leaching, including nitrogen loss through tile drainage systems.

The Report emphasizes that conservation practices have resulted in reducing nitrogen losses from the surface by almost 46 percent but have reduced losses from leaching, including tile drainage, by only 5 percent. Moreover, measures to control soil erosion may result in increased loss of nitrogen below the surface, unless nutrient management practices are also implemented.

The Upper Mississippi River Basin report is the first of twelve regional reports on conservation practices on cropland that will be issued as part of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP).  The Project is intended to assess the effects of conservation practices on the nation’s cropland, grazing lands, wetlands, wildlife and watersheds.  It is a multi-agency, multi-resource effort led by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.  Additional information, including a powerpoint presentation on the Upper Mississippi River Basin report, is posted on the NRCS website for CEAP.

CSP is a comprehensive working lands conservation program established by the 2008 Farm Bill to provide technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to manage and maintain existing conservation systems and to implement additional conservation activities on land in agricultural production.

Karl’s assertion came at the end of a full day of briefings with USDA officials and Congressional staffers.  Karl and other farmers presented innovative marketing strategies and supply network ideas for mid-sized farmers.  They emphasized the importance of USDA funding opportunities for producers using innovative techniques to market their products.  As Karl explained, opportunities for innovation inspire young, farmer-entrepreneurs and can re-vitalize rural America.

The day’s briefings included four presentations by producers from across the country.  The farmers engaged the audience with stories and photos from their family farms while highlighting the crucial role mid-sized farms play for both rural development and the sustainability of regional food systems.  Mid-sized farms connected to local and regional marketing chains offer a tremendous engine for economic growth in rural communities.

While the number of very small farms and very large farms and ranches has increased over the last decade, mid–sized farms continue to disappear.  Too small to serve global commodity markets at a reasonable profit and too large to rely solely on direct-to-consumer marketing, mid-sized farmers often struggle to find their marketing niche.

However, mid-sized farms are an indispensable component of the U.S. food system. These farmers can produce at a scale and with an agility and flexibility that is attractive to institutional and wholesale markets while maintaining sustainable production practices and fueling their local economy.

The four presenters each employed innovative marketing strategies and channels that allowed them to compete and thrive.  Although each approach was unique, common strategies included entering value based supply chains by differentiating their products as local, organic, grass fed or family farm raised, participating farm-to-school programs, and utilizing USDA funding resources such as the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), Value-Added Producer Grants, and Small Business Innovation Research programs.

The presenters included:

Diana Endicott, a Kansas farmer, who more than a decade ago saw the income opportunities of marketing through a local and regional food network.  She founded Good Natured Family Farms (GNFF), a cooperative alliance of more than 150 family farms in Kansas and Missouri producing a cornucopia of meats, milk, cheese, eggs, fruits and vegetables using environmentally sustainable farming practices.

Producers share their stories

GNFF markets their pesticide, hormone and antibiotics free fare to 38 supermarket and institutional customers including Hen House Markets, Balls Price Chopper Supermarkets, and the Community Mercantile in Lawrence, Kansas under the Good Natured Family Farms label.

Gary Pahl, a 5th generation farmer, who participates in retail, wholesale, institutional and direct marketing opportunities, including farm to school.  On 1,110 acres in Minnesota, he grows flowers, sweet corn, cabbage, green beans, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, squash, and pumpkins.  Although surrounded by urban development, he keeps his farming practices sustainable through integrated pest management, low-till and no-till practices, and planting cover crops.  Pahl created his own farmers market to sell his products retail right on his farm, while also marketing directly to local school districts and restaurant chains such as Chipotle and utilizing regional distributors to sell his produce wholesale.

Regina Beidler, a dairy farmer in central Vermont, joined the Organic Valley Cooperative, the largest Organic Cooperative in the U.S.  In 1988, Regina and her husband purchased their farmland at agriculture value from the Vermont Land Trust.  With assistance from a SARE grant, they immediately began the transition to organic production, and became organic certified in 2000.  Now, with 30 to 35 milking cows, the Beidler family produces about 56,000 gallons of milk each year.  As a member of Organic Valley, Regina explained, organic dairy producers receive steady raw milk prices set according to regional costs of production.  With a cooperative structure that includes farmers in the decision-making process, Organic Valley members are “price makers,” shielding them from the volatile milk prices on the conventional market.

Congressional staff packed the room to hear the producers

Karl Kupers, who utilizes value-added regional marketing as a means of saving the family farm.  The winner of the 2010 Business Leadership Award from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Kupers co-founded Shepherd’s Grain, an alliance of 33 family farms in the Pacific Northwest producing and milling wheat for consumers in their region.  Shepherd’s Grain flours are marketed as local and sustainably produced.

Although the producers identified gaps in the federal support system, such as the lack of risk insurance for specialty crops and the need for more USDA funding for the new “bricks and mortar” of the emerging local and regional food system, they each presented inspiring examples of innovation and resourcefulness.

The briefing was co-sponsored by Farm Aid, Organic Valley, and Heifer International US Country Program, and was organized by Jess Daniel, an NSAC policy intern.