By ANN HINCH
Assistant Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C. — If its members are involved in agriculture production, chances are good that an organization had praise for passage of the House’s Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007 on July 27.

More commonly known as the farm bill, the legislation passed by a 231-191 vote in the House, but the Senate has yet to present its version of the bill. Various groups weighed in last week to comment on specific aspects of the bill.

It is no surprise that national organizations for corn, soybean and sorghum growers were quick to praise the bill, as it preserves and, in some cases, raises price supports for those crops. The National Sorghum Producers (NSP) credits it with maintaining direct payments, calling this “sorghum’s top priority for the bill,” and with expanding funding for cellulosic ethanol research which may include forage and sweet sorghums.

The organization also likes that the bill improves sorghum’s “safety net”  by equalizing its county loan rates with corn. “The level of revenue assurance needs to reflect actual sorghum revenue in the counter-cyclical program that the House created,” said NSP President Dale Murden, of the Senate proposal yet to come.

Chris Novak, executive director of the Indiana Soybean Alliance, Indiana Corn Marketing Council and Indiana Corn Growers Assoc., said soybean growers’ key interest was to rebalance their crop’s target price over the 2002 farm bill. The House bill raises the proposed target from $5.80 to $6.10 per bushel for calculation of counter-cyclical payments.

This is still under the 2.5-to-1 ratio soybean prices usually are to corn, he said, and not as high as the $6.80 for which national soybean organizations lobbied (corn is being held at $2.63 in the House bill). Still, he said Indiana growers are glad for the increase.
“At this stage, where we’ve got a strong market, those target prices aren’t necessarily determining what a farmer may plant,” Novak said. But, history has shown the market can dip below target price and he added “we have to recognize this is a five-year bill we’re writing.”

He said the farm bill also supports programs designed to boost usage of soy protein both at home and internationally to improve nutrition. The American Soybean Assoc. came out in support of the bill, which it also praises for encouraging biodiesel production and including an incentive program for growing seed varieties that eliminate trans-fats.

This year, the National Corn Growers Assoc. (NCGA) pushed an optional counter-cyclical program that would base payments on a farm’s revenue rather than simply kick in below a certain crop market price. Novak explained the House proposal would take into account yield as well as market price for those growers not producing enough to meet their historical income levels.

President John Thaemert of the National Assoc. of Wheat Growers said of the bill, “Supporting American agriculture is supporting an industry that provides employment for 20 percent of the U.S. workforce and contributes $3.5 trillion a year to the U.S. economy.”

Conservation allowances
The National Assoc. of Conservation Districts (NACD) favors the House bill due of its conservation title that emphasizes what First Vice President Steve Robinson described as working land for conservation funding. NACD, he said, believes practicing conservation and farming the same ground should go hand-in-hand.

Robinson, a Marysville, Ohio, corn, soybean, wheat and hay farmer, said the House bill would give local conservation districts the authority to convene local work groups to determine local priorities.

“Different areas of the country are different, depending on what you do,” he said.

The bill provides a 35 percent increase for conservation programs, though he said it doesn’t include the Conservation Security Program, which typically applies to watershed areas though Robinson would like to see it expanded nationwide.

“But, we’ll work on (funding) in the Senate,” he said, adding NACD is happy with the House bill. “I think it’s better than I thought we would get, in the beginning.”
Dissent

One non-ag organization also voiced its opinion, against the House bill. Taxpayers for Common Sense accused the bill of promoting “protectionism, over-production, and market interference” and stated “corporate agribusiness special interests will be celebrating the bill’s passage, which guarantees buckets of money to farmers who don’t need it, while taxpayers across the country get the slop bucket once again.”

Ryan Alexander, president, said, “Multi-millionaire ‘farmers’ living in the heart of San Francisco, New York City and Washington, D.C., will continue to receive government handouts, and insurance companies will continue to get hundreds of millions of dollars in profits directly from Uncle Sam, courtesy of this bill.”

Livestock groups happy

Other groups supporting passage of the House bill included the Ohio Farmers Union (OFU), the Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA) and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). The OFU noted while the bill authorizes a permanent disaster program, it does not fund the same.

“Additionally, competition reforms, such as a ban on packer ownership of livestock, were not addressed,” the organization noted in a statement, adding it is hopeful the Senate farm bill will address these issues.

DFA supported many components of the bill, including the dairy product price support program, promotion assessment on imported dairy products, trade expansion to promote U.S. dairy overseas, conservation programs, human nutrition programs and animal and public health protection programs.

The NPPC cited its support for conservation and energy titles “that recognize pork producers’ role in protecting the environment.”