GALESBURG, Ill. — Federal crop insurance programs, environmental regulations, conservation enhancement measures and expanding markets for U.S. agricultural products were a few concerns of 10 farmer witnesses selected to testify during a farm bill field hearing last Friday in Galesburg.

The hearing, one of only four scheduled in the country, was chaired by U.S. House Ag Committee Chair Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.) and paneled by representatives Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) and Robert T. Schilling (R-Ill.)

The farmers hailed from throughout the Corn Belt and represented virtually all facets of Midwest crop production and animal agriculture. Producers from Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and Illinois testified in front of the committee regarding what should and should not be considered for the upcoming farm bill. About 300 people attended the field hearing.

The following is a sampling of what some of the producers told the House Ag Committee:

David Erickson, corn and soybean producer from Altona, Ill.: “I continue to support the efforts to open, develop and further expand markets for all agricultural commodities, both domestically and globally. Congress must limit unnecessary and burdensome regulations that increase costs, reduce productivity and decrease opportunities for current and future generations.

“We must be prudent stewards of our natural resources ... I feel that conservation programs are important to the farm policy decisions that we make ... I urge Congress to consider simplifying and consolidating current conservation programs.

“I know that much of the discussion to date about the new farm bill has led to the proposed elimination of direct payments ... Direct payments in our farming operations were beneficial and cost-effective. A reasonable safety net must still be a part of the farm bill to ensure that production agriculture can withstand the inevitable variability in prices and production, neither of which are in our complete control.”

Deborah L. Moore, corn, soybean and beef producer from Roseville, Ill.: “Let me review five of the farm bill titles and my position: Commodity Title – we support risk management proposals and other programs that enable us to better manage risk, maintain planting flexibility, avoid restructuring of the existing crop insurance program and are in compliance with current U.S. World Trade Organization commitments.

“Conservation title – we support programs for conservation practices on working lands. We would like to reduce the acreage cap on the Conservation Reserve Program in order to achieve budget savings and allow U.S. producers to respond to growing demand.

“Energy Title – we support reauthorization and funding for the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program and Biobased Market Program, and would like to see reauthorization of the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels.

“Research Title – we would like to see the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative reauthorized for competitive research grants and funding maintained for research at land-grant universities.

“Trade Title – we need reauthorization and funding for the Foreign Market Development Program at $34.5 million annually and the Market Access Program at $200 million annually, and continue Food for Education and food aid programs.”

Craig Adams, corn, soybean, wheat, hay and beef producer from Leesburg, Ohio: “With high commodity prices and an overextended federal budget, there is a push to eliminate or substantially reduce government support of agriculture. I believe everyone receiving federal USDA dollars should share equally in reductions.

“Spring is the time of renewal, with baby animals entering the world and crops peeking through the warm soil seeking the sun’s energy. Be like a farmer, Chairman Lucas, and nurture our farm bill to passage.”

David W. Howell, corn, soybean, pumpkin and tomato producer from Middletown, Ind: “We are seeking a modification of federal law that restricts Midwestern farmers from growing fruits and vegetables on program acres ... Since 1996, farm policy generally has prohibited the production of fruits and vegetables on base acreage. However, this was not a significant problem until the 2002 farm bill made soybeans a program crop. This change meant that virtually all of the quality farmland in states like Indiana now have program base.”

Gary Asay, pork, corn and soybean producer from Osco, Ill.: “Enhancing programs that keep feed grain prices competitive with the rest of the world would be very beneficial. 

Feed comprises 60 to 70 percent of my input cost of producing a market hog.

“Developing a world-class disease surveillance system is vital to the continued viability of the U.S. pork industry ... Completion of CISS (Comprehensive and Integrated Surveillance System) is critical to maintaining the pork industry’s disease-free status, which is critical to maintaining and expanding our exports.

“Expanding markets to U.S. pork products increases producers’ bottom line and contributes significantly to the U.S. economy, prompting job growth and increasing the U.S. gross domestic product. Protecting producers against disruptions in trade is paramount. Producers ... need better risk management tools to protect their operations should export markets ever be interrupted by a serious animal disease outbreak in this country.

“Dictating how the U.S pork industry buys, sells and raises its animals would severely cripple the competitiveness of pork producers. Pork producers do not believe that Congress should legislate on these issues as part of the 2012 farm bill.”

John Williams, sorghum, corn, wheat and soybean producer from McLeansboro, Ill.: “On my operation, I plan defensively and understand the upside and downside of risk. I have seen what can happen to friends and neighbors when they do not plan for risk, underscoring the need for meaningful risk management tools that producers can utilize. Therefore, my first priority is to ‘do no harm’ to Federal Crop Insurance, and I feel the program should be built upon in the following ways:

“The APH methodology should be reformed and county T-yield system improved so as to reduce the impact of local weather phenomena and allow the producer’s insurable yield (pre-deductible) to reflect what the producer and his lender would actually reasonably expect to produce in that year.

“I would also support improvement to the product development processes so that there would be a clear pathway to bring new policies, like one for sweet sorghum or high biomass energy sorghum, to market.

“In no case should the crop insurance tools, which are purchased by the producer, be weighed down with environmental regulation or other conditions that fall out of the scope of insurance. I would encourage RMA (Risk Management Agency) to include sorghum in the trend adjusted yield pilot program.”