By CAROL ANN GREGG
MERCER, Pa. — Farmers took time out of their busy spring schedule to take advantage of having someone from Washington listen to their concerns.
Rep. Collin Peterson, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, spent time recently answering questions from northwestern Pennsylvania farmers. About 35 farmers attended the forum in the Leslie N. Firth Education Center.
“We are beginning to work on the next farm bill,” Peterson said. “The 2008 farm bill basically responded to the wishes of the farmers to not make any significant changes from the previous farm bill.
“We did add some things like specialty crops, that included vegetables and fruits and organic and an energy title,” he said. “The bill has proven to have shortcomings. The price supports didn’t meet the needs of farmers.”
Dairy
The different segments of the dairy industry have been meeting and trying to reach a consensus.
“We are using a new approach. I asked that they (different segments of agriculture) look at the money that is being spent. ‘If you were going to start over what would you do with this budget? How would you do it?'” Peterson said. “Many times we are only putting Band-Aids on the problem. The MILC (Milk Income Loss Contract) was some help for the dairy producers, but is was only a Band-Aid.
“There should be a safety net for people who are actually farming,” he said. “I want this bill to be completed and implemented by September 2012 so wheat and rice farmers can plant knowing what to expect. I want to have the bill marked up by the end of 2011 so we can get it to the Senate.”
Questions
The forum then turned to the concerns of area farmers. Brady Kadunce, president of Clarion, Venango, Forest Farm Bureau asked if the agriculture committee supported the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
Farm Bureau and other farm organizations are concerned that proposals to remove the word “navigable” from the language in the bill would greatly impact agriculture across the country.
“This legislation doesn’t have the votes to get it out of committee in the House, but the Senate is a different story,” Peterson said.
In the Senate there has been what they perceive as a compromise but it still would destroy the equity in farmland.
“How can you keep EPA in check?” asked beef producer Dick McElhaney from Beaver County. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates U.S. waters. EPA is also being asked to control greenhouse gases.
“Through a court case in Massachusetts, greenhouse gases are a public endangerment and EPA will be responsible for controlling greenhouse gases.” Peterson said. “Indirect land use is being included to show that greenhouse gases, that are produced by producing ethanol is the cause of destroying the Brazilian rain forest. The House is proposing a disapproval of EPA’s involvement.”
This action hasn’t been voted on yet.
ID system
Dave McElhaney, Beaver County beef producer, representing the Beef Quality Assurance program, asked about the mandatory identification system. Peterson supported the mandatory system but the outcry from western ranchers forced USDA to try a voluntary system that also didn’t work.
“We spent $136 million on trying to get some kind of system in place and never did. Only about 40 percent of the premises are identified. Canada got a mandatory I.D. in place in two years for $10 million dollars, said Peterson, noting that not having a system in place will hurt our export markets.
Bud Wills, Clarion County, representing the Pennsylvania Equine Council, asked about the return of humane slaughtering of horses. “Horses are part of agriculture. They are not pets,” Wills said.
“There are efforts being made to find a solution to the problem,” Peterson said. “This is another case of people not understanding what we (people in agriculture) do.”
ODOT rules
Farmers were also concerned about the new regulations being forced on the states by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
“The representative that is pushing this effort, Rep. Oberstar, is big on safety,” Peterson said.
Non-farmers don’t understand that farmers are only driving large trucks for maybe a month during harvest, he said.
Vonda Minner, dairy producer from Mercer County, asked why farmers who sell milk pay the hauling and for everything else the buyer of a product pays the shipping costs.
“I believe this originated with the co-ops then the private processors followed the co-op model,” Peterson said. “The agriculture committee is a bi-partisan committee. Both sides have to agree before things pass. All farms that make economic sense should be encouraged,” Peterson said in regard to large and small farm operations.
Bank loans
The new regulations on banks are impacting farmers who want to borrow. Because the value of the cows, machinery and the land has dropped, the equity in the farm is reduced, Peterson said. “Bankers in my state are asking 60 percent collateral before they will lend a farmer money.”
Cheryl Vanko, Warren County, representing the Farmers’ Union Milk Producers Association, asked that the milk pricing system be changed to reflect cost of production.
“The National Milk Producers Federation was in recently and is proposing keeping Class I fluid milk and putting all other current classes of milk in Class II. We (the dairy industry) have to come together as an industry.
“If dairy splits into two or three camps, you’re not going to like the outcome. NMPF said that all milk would be included this time — that includes California. The current pricing system is only for about 70 percent of the milk. Farmers need to protect and cover the price of production.”
Gratitude
John Courtney a beef, sheep and tree farmer from Mercer County, thanked Peterson for all the programs that are provided by the federal government, like cooperative extension, wildlife service and conservation agencies.
“Agriculture is a dynamic industry; we can’t stay the same or food will double in price or we will be importing our food which is a national security issue,” Peterson said. “We need to educate the public as to what we do. They really have no idea.”
