Doane News

Doane News http://www.doane.com RSS Feed for News en-us Tue, 21 May 2013 16:13:30 PDT <![CDATA[White House urges Senate to cut crop insurance in farm bill]]> http://www.doane.com/templates/Doane_News?itemID=208294121 Tue, 21 May 2013 13:40:00 PDT The U.S. Senate should cut crop insurance subsidies, the most expensive part of the farm safety net, by $1 billion a year before it passes the new farm bill, the White House said on Monday. The five-year farm bill would cost about $500 billion, with three-fourths of the money going to food stamps for the poor. Senators could vote on the bill within a week. The House was expected to debate its version in June. Both bills cut traditional subsidies by substantial amounts and put much of the savings into an expansion of federally subsidized crop insurance. They also cut conservation and food stamps. The House would make the biggest food stamp cuts in a generation, $20 billion, compared to $4 billion in the Senate. Farm bills, written every few years, are comprehensive legislation that cover farm exports, food aid, agricultural research, biofuels and rural economic development along with the headline issues of farm supports, conservation and public nutrition. Congress is months late in passing a new bill. In a statement, the White House said it "looks forward to working with the Congress to achieve crop insurance and commodity program savings that are not contained" in the Senate bill. The White House has proposed $38 billion in farm bill savings, with crop insurance reform the most controversial. It would reduce the federal subsidy on premiums, now averaging 62 cents of each $1, by 3 percentage points on the most heavily subsidized and most popular policies, which shield crop revenue from low prices and poor yields. Premium subsidies would be cut by an additional 2 points on policies that base the revenue guarantee on market prices at harvest time rather than the price projected at planting time. One analyst said those policies were unduly expensive in the 2012 drought because commodity prices soared in the fall. The administration also would limit insurers to a 12 percent rate of return, down 2 points, and lower the annual payment, now $1.3 billion, to defray overhead costs. Altogether, the reforms would save an estimated $1.1 billion a year. The White House said farmers should be required to practice soil and water conservation to qualify for subsidized insurance, a step written into the Senate bill. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow said she expected crop insurance to a central issue. "We'll have a lot of discussion, a lot of debate, on this," said Steabenow, a Democrat representing Michigan. Republican Arizona Senator John McCain proposed an amendment to end crop insurance subsidies for tobacco during a debate on Monday. Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said she may try to prevent cuts in food stamps by adopting some of the administration's crop insurance reforms. The farm bill includes a provision that requires the wealthiest farmers to pay a larger share of crop insurance premiums. Fifteen companies sell crop insurance. They range from privately held companies to subsidiaries of Wells Fargo & Co , Deere & Co and Archer Daniels Midland Co and insurance giants such as ACE Ltd and Endurance Specialty Holdings Ltd. <![CDATA[Syngenta opens new $72 million Advanced Crop Lab]]> http://www.doane.com/templates/Doane_News?itemID=208294161 Tue, 21 May 2013 13:00:00 PDT Syngenta unveiled its new crop research facility during a grand opening celebration at the company's Research Triangle Park (RTP) Innovation Center. The first of its kind, $72 million Advanced Crop Lab allows company researchers to simulate any agricultural climate and precisely measure plant inputs - the key to helping farmers grow more food from fewer resources. "Our new Advanced Crop Lab allows us to bring together components of all research where we can create environments for multiple crops from multiple regions - simultaneously," said Michiel van Lookeren Campagne, head of biotechnology for Syngenta. "Individual controls of temperature, light and carbon dioxide levels, as well as humidity control in many growth chambers, provide tailored environments that allow our talented researchers to work on specific grower challenges. In addition to innovative facilities, being in RTP, we have access to some of the greatest scientific minds to help farmers grow more from less." Housing 30 climate-controlled growth environments in all-glass greenhouses, Syngenta can simulate conditions from Iowa in one room and from Africa right next to it. This flexibility allows company researchers to focus on developing agricultural traits that optimize crop yields, use resources efficiently and resist various stresses that farmers face every day across the globe. During the grand opening, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, North Carolina Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, U.S. Senator Kay Hagan, growers and many others toured the new plant research facility. "Syngenta invests more than $1.25 billion annually to directly focus on solving challenges for farmers. As we consider global food security, the research conducted in our new crop lab will be essential to meet that demand," said Vern Hawkins, Syngenta North America region director. Design elements of the new facility include insulated glass walls that provide a virtually shadowless indoor environment, a liquid "fertigation" system to feed and water the plants and an automated roof-washing system. The building is Green Globes Certified, which recognizes the company's sustainable construction processes. In constructing the new facility, Syngenta reclaimed a former industrial site and recycled more than 85 percent of those materials. The 136,000-square-foot facility is located within the 50-acre Syngenta RTP Innovation Center. Construction began in 2011 and was performed by nearly 300 local contractors, requiring roughly 500,000 man-hours to complete. Syngenta added 15 highly-skilled jobs to its existing RTP workforce. <![CDATA[Farmland values: Not falling but not accelerating as fast]]> http://www.doane.com/templates/Doane_News?itemID=208291501 Tue, 21 May 2013 12:30:00 PDT <a name="%img|200"></a>Soft landings are desired by airline travelers and economists.  But in the case of farmland values, a soft landing is much more preferable than the bursting of some bubble.  And when current data on farmland values is examined, it may seem the throttle is being pulled slowly back for a soft entry into price stability. No one is saying land values have stopped rising or are declining; but the rate of acceleration has slowed, and it may be an early indication that the exponential rise in farmland prices has moved into middle age, so to speak. Commercial bankers throughout the Corn Belt have a vested interest in the price of farmland.  They may carry a mortgage on it, finance the next buyer of it, or earn income from financial services provided to the owner of the farmland. They are tied in rather tight to the farmland market and have been reporting values of land transactions, price trends, loan rates, and creditworthiness of borrowers to the Federal Reserve Banks that shepherd the region. <a name="%img|200|r"></a>Seventh Federal Reserve District—Chicago Economist <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/agletter/2010_2014/may_2013.pdf" target="_blank">David Oppedahl </a>says the value of good farmland is still on the rise, as he surveyed commercial bankers in the first quarter of the year.  But he added, “Signs of moderation in farmland value gains emerged.” Oppedahl reported that land values rose 7 percent in the last three months of 2012, and said that was more than the succeeded months of 2013, “District agricultural land values rose 4 percent in the first quarter of 2013 relative to the fourth quarter of 2012, easing down from the quarterly increase of last year’s final quarter. However, the year-over-year increase in District farmland values was 15 percent in the first quarter of 2013, almost matching the annual gain of 2012.” That annual 2012 gain was 16 percent, reported by Oppedahl earlier this year. Data compiled on farmland sales in Wisconsin for the period of January through March of this year actually showed a 3 percent decrease compared to the first quarter of 2012.  Oppedahl said, “For Illinois and Iowa, the increases in farmland values on a year-over year basis were close to those of the previous quarter, although these District states’ quarterly increases were softer than those of the last quarter.”  Of the 219 bankers surveyed, he said 59 percent reported higher demand for farmland than a year ago, but there was also an increase in the amount of farmland available for sale as well. Eighth Federal Reserve District—St. Louis Softer farmland values are even more pronounced in the St. Louis District which encompasses parts of the Corn Belt and the Delta regions.  <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/afm/" target="_blank">Economists </a>surveyed 55 commercial bankers in the Eighth District and said, “Surprisingly, reported quality farmland, ranchland, or pastureland prices are down slightly relative to the prices indicated in the fourth quarter of 2012. In this quarter’s survey, the reported value of quality farmland decreased by an average of 2.3 percent and that of ranchland or pastureland decreased by an average of 5.1 percent from last quarter.” The economists at the St. Louis Fed say the bankers they surveyed still expect land values to continue rising, but those banker expectations for future land value increases have moderated somewhat.  Apparently fewer commercial bankers believe land values will continue to climb over the next quarter.  And they are “moderately tempering” their short term expectations for cash rents. Tenth Federal Reserve District—Kansas City Across the Western Corn Belt, Fed economists ventured into similar territory, comparing prior quarters that had much more rapid growth in land values.  The Kansas City <a href="http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/research/indicatorsdata/agcredit/AGCR1Q13.pdf" target="_blank">economists </a>said, “Land values climbed further in the first quarter of 2013. District  cropland values rose 20 percent and ranchland values rose 14 percent year-over-year, a modest slowdown compared with the first quarter of  2012.” Summary: The Federal Reserve Bank surveys all found similarities in the trends of land values in their respective districts.  While land values had not fallen, or were stable, they were all still rising, but at a lower rate.  The commercial bankers reporting to the Fed still expect higher land values, but the rapid growth seen in the past 1-2 years has moderated and the rate of acceleration has slowed. http://media.dairyherd.com/images/farmland89.jpg <![CDATA[Farmland]]> http://www.doane.com/producer/news/general/Farmland-values-Not-falling-but-not-accelerating-as-fast-208291501.html http://media.doane.com/images/FederalReserveDistrictsMap.jpg <![CDATA[Federal Map]]> http://www.doane.com/producer/news/general/Farmland-values-Not-falling-but-not-accelerating-as-fast-208291501.html <![CDATA[Corn planting pace turns from record slow to record fast]]> http://www.doane.com/templates/Doane_News?itemID=208191371 Tue, 21 May 2013 12:00:00 PDT Drier weather last week gave farmers the opportunity they needed to make up for lost time. After struggling for weeks against the wetter weather, they were able to get 71 percent of the corn in the ground. <a name="%img|250|r"></a>This is 43 percentage points higher than last week, making it the biggest single-week gain ever reported by the Crop Progress report. The previous record was set in 2011 with a weekly gain of 28 percent. According to AgriMoney, America’s farmers were able to plant an area “nearly as big of Florida” in just one week.  Many experts had been skeptical that producers could advance so quickly, even with the better weather conditions. Many expected corn planting to reach 40 to 50 percent instead.  <a href="http://www.agrimoney.com/news/us-farmers-to-break-corn-planting-record--5849.html">Read more here.</a> Despite the quick turn-around, the nation’s corn planting still remains below the five-year average of 79 percent. One year ago, corn planting was nearly finished. Several states gained ground in corn planting this week, including Iowa (71 percent), Michigan (78 percent) and Minnesota (70 percent). More emerged corn was also reported this week, jumping from 5 percent last week to 19 percent. All of the top corn-producing states have reported some progress in corn emerging. For soybeans, the report showed that 24 percent have been planted, which is quadrupled the progress from last week. Three percent of soybeans are now emerged in most states, with the exception of Kentucky, North Dakota and Wisconsin. <a href="http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProg/CropProg-05-20-2013.pdf">Read from the Crop Progress report.</a> The next round of wet weather may slow corn planting again this week, according to Reuters. "It's going to be slow going. Already the west is seeing 1.0 to 1.5 inches in a widespread area, and that will spread into the eastern Midwest early this week," said John Dee, meteorologist for Global Weather Monitoring. Planting will slow especially in Iowa, one of the largest corn- and soybean-producing states in the nation.  Currently 71 percent of corn and 16 percent of soybeans have been planted.     <a href="http://www.agprofessional.com/news/Rains-to-bog-down-already-record-slow-US-corn-plantings-208118021.html">Read, “Rains to bog down already record-slow U.S. corn plantings”</a> http://media.porknetwork.com/images/emergedcorn-250.jpg <![CDATA[Emerged Corn]]> http://www.doane.com/producer/news/general/Corn-planting-paces-turns-from-record-slow-to-record-fast-208191371.html <![CDATA[Commentary: GMOs: How do I hate thee?]]> http://www.doane.com/templates/Doane_News?itemID=208185181 Tue, 21 May 2013 11:00:00 PDT You know something’s arrived as an “issue” of substance when it has its own Top Ten list. With all the opponents—irrational and otherwise—that the science of genetic engineering has generated, the only question about a Top Ten Reasons to Hate Biotech is this: What took you so long? Well, thanks to the Food Consumer group (<a href="http://www.foodconsumer.org" target="_blank">www.foodconsumer.org</a>), we now have that list. Let’s explore it, shall we, and along the way, helpfully point out the group’s ignorance, bias and overall wrongheadedness. In the spirit of dialogue, of course. Here are their Top Ten Reasons Why We Don’t Need GM Foods: 10). GM crops won’t solve the food crisis. Probably not—at least all by themselves. To date, genetic engineering has been deployed primarily to develop crops that can withstand the application of broad-spectrum herbicides, which significantly simplifies cultivation and weed control. It also has the side-effect of enabling no-till farming, which helps the soil preserves moisture from rainfall, prevents erosion, dramatically reduces nutrient and pesticide pollution in rivers and waterways and helps minimize the consumption of fuel, since plowing is greatly reduced. So, yes—genetic engineering’s no panacea, but its full potential has yet to be tapped. 9). GM crops do not increase yield potential. Again, give the science a break. Genetic engineering is in its infancy, and since so much of the low-hanging fruit (pardon the pun) in food production has already been captured, incremental gains in crop yields and farm productivity have become harder and harder to achieve. But when really smart people, like the ones working on food security for the Gates Foundation, start investing in biotech as a pathway we need to travel if we hope to feed another two billion people in the next couple decades, 8). GM crops increase pesticide use. True and not true. Some studies have indicated that in terms of “pounds on the ground,” the widespread adoption of GM crops (ie, Roundup-Ready) has resulted in a slight (somewhere around 7%) increase in the use of herbicides. But Round –up is a relatively benign chemical; it readily biodegrades and has far less adverse effects, environmentally speaking, than many alternatives. And with cotton in particular, genetically engineered Bt cotton crops have dramatically reduced the use of some very harsh and ecologically detrimental pesticides. The bottom line is that biotech has been developed for other ends; it’s overall impact on chemical use is close to neutral. 7). There are better ways to feed the world. I don’t mean to be snarky, but: Such as? Let’s hear them, and I’m not referring to the usual geo-political rant about “better distribution of food among haves and have-nots,” or “if we’d just stop eating meat, all that corn could feed the entire developing world.” Such statements dismiss economic realities and ignore the most promising way to leverage food security: Ramping up food production across Africa. If farming in the areas of Africa—and we’re not talking about mowing down rainforests or somehow irrigating the Sahara Desert—where agriculture is prominent could even be approach North America productivity, the world’s food crisis would be well on the way to being solved. And one way to shortcut that process is biotech crops that can survive in semi-arid climates and produce in poor soils. 6). Other farm technologies are more successful. Here, the Food Consumer people reference “Integrated Pest Management and organic methods (?) of controlling pests” as alternatives to pesticide use. 5). GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat. Yeah, we need another 20 years of people consuming genetically modified corn, soy and other crops by the trainload before we can have any assurance that these foods aren’t going to cause the people who eat them to drop dead on the spot. Please. 4). People don’t want GM foods, so they’re hidden in animal foods. You could make the argument that most of the ingredients are “hidden” in animal foods, although the labeling’s right there if you care to check out Fluffy or Fido’s bag of kibbles. As for feeding livestock, since virtually everyone raising food animals wants them to be healthy and productive, if the feed rations fed to cattle, pigs and chickens actually were repositories for “dumping” GMO ingredients—and they adversely affected the livestock that consumed them—the suppliers of such chow would be out of business overnight. Farmers and producers aren’t stupid. They buy feed to grow their animals, and if the formulations aren’t working, they switch to something else. Period. 3). GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers. Get serious. Farmers don’t make these decisions on which sees to buy or which crops to grow at the expense of their farmland. They not about to willfully destroy the source of their livelihood, and liely that of their children and generations to come. Let’s give them minimal credit for being smart enough to make economic decisions without the “input” of anti-GMO activists who’ve never so much as harvested an ear of corn in their lives. 2). GM and non-GM cannot co-exist. Maybe not. And if so, that’s not an argument for condemning biotech. It might be a reason to abandon conventional farming. Anyway, organic certification—which is what this argument is really about—is based on production methods, not on the purity of the crops, so it’s a moot point. 1). We can’t trust GM companies. You knew they’d save this one ’til last. If you peel back all the pseudo-science and political ideology, the beating heart of anti-GM opposition is simply fear and loathing of big corporations—specifically Monsanto. They’re all about profit, critics complain, to which one is tempted to reply, “What’s your point?” Monsanto’s seeming dominance of the seed market is not because they can hold metaphorical guns to farmers’ heads, but because they offer  growers the opportunity to capture better margins through greater efficiencies and more predictable quality. That’s not a cause for criticism, it’s what the rest of us like to call free enterprise. Anti-GMO haters ought to look into it sometime. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.