Missouri Farm Bureau
|
Kevin Craig - "Liberty Under God"
|
| Government
Farm Program |
|
| We believe
farmers should receive a reasonable
profit for their products. We believe this can best be
achieved through a market oriented system by expanding foreign trade
and developing new domestic uses for agricultural products. Government
farm programs should provide a "safety net" for
farmers without unduly interfering with the movement of farm
products in the market place. We believe farmers should have the
flexibility to respond to the market place. |
What is "reasonable" should be
determined by a Free Market, not a government edict.
Government should not be in the welfare
("safety net") business.
|
| We believe
continued low farm prices and increased energy costs are a critical
problem and recognize the seriousness of the situation facing our
state's family farmers. We believe it is imperative that every
effort must be made to reduce concentration in the production and
processing sectors serving farmers, lower taxes, reform burdensome
regulations and expand opportunities to increase domestic and global
demand for U.S. agricultural products. |
Does this include government-subsidized
exports which out-compete and crush the poor of developing nations? |
| In
implementing the 2008 Farm Bill, we favor: |
|
1. Allowing
the aggregation of base acres for determining farm program
eligibility,
2. Maintaining the current definition of “actively engaged” in
farming. |
|
| We believe
the 2008 Farm Bill should be implemented and administered in a
manner consistent with our international trade obligations. |
|
| In future
farm policy, we believe: |
|
| 1)
farm program payment limitations should not be reduced below current
levels or targeted based on size of farm operation; |
|
| 2)
funding from the commodity title should not be shifted to other
programs; and |
|
| 3)
funding for conservation programs should not be
significantly increased at the expense of commodity programs. |
|
| We believe
more emphasis should be placed on working lands programs such as the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) rather than land
retirement programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). |
|
| We believe
criteria for enrolling Missouri farmland in the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP) and other conservation programs should
emphasize the importance of "working lands" so as not to
create unfair competition by taking entire farms or fields out of
production. |
|
| With passage
of the federal renewable fuels standard and our nation's goal to
reduce our dependence on foreign energy, we believe some
Conservation Reserve Program acreage eligible for reenrollment would
be best used for renewable energy production rather than remaining
in the program. The production of crops for renewable energy and the
processing of those crops into energy will provide a strong economic
boost for our rural communities. |
|
| We believe
the U.S. Department of Agriculture should undertake a study to
better determine the impact of renewable energy production on
agricultural producers and rural communities. Such a study should
include the potential impact of bringing into production lands
currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. |
|
| Early exit
from the Conservation Reserve Program should be allowed without
penalty for farmers who pledge to leave land in grass and forage for
livestock production or produce biomass as feedstock for renewable
energy. |
|
| For the
purpose of current or future CRP sign-up, USDA should define
reseeding as 1) from forage to row crop to forage, 2) from one
forage species to another, or 3) broadcasting seed over an existing
stand to diversify current populations. |
|
| We support
providing federal and/or state incentives for erosion control
improvements on CRP acreage returning to agricultural production
beginning in the first year. |
|
| We support
giving priority to farmers in traditional production agriculture
regarding distribution of EQIP funds. The priority should be on
livestock and cropping systems with the goal of assisting producers
in optimizing positive environmental impacts. |
|
| We support
the allocation of a portion of Missouri EQIP funds for local
resource needs to be distributed on a county basis at levels
comparable to those of recent years. |
|
| We believe
individual agricultural practices contracted in both EQIP and the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) should be paid as written in
contracts. |
|
| We believe
the Farm Service Agency should be required to improve the formula
used to set Posted County Prices (PCPs) to ensure they accurately
reflect local conditions and that the differential between the cash
price and PCP does not penalize producers or county elevators. |
|
| We support federal
or state funding of
low interest loan programs for the construction of farm grain
storage bins. |
|
| We support
legislation and programs seeking to utilize Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) owned commodities for direct distribution in lieu
of food stamps. |
|
| We
are opposed to any efforts to reduce payment limitations below
current levels or targeting farm program payments based on size of
farm operations. |
|
| Aquaculture |
|
| We support
the efforts of Missouri colleges and universities, Missouri
Departments of Agriculture and Conservation, the Missouri
Aquaculture Association, and the Missouri Aquaculture Advisory
Council in establishing facilities and programs in aquaculture
research and development in Missouri. |
|
| Beekeeping |
|
| We support
efforts to keep the apiculture industry viable in the United States.
We can import honey, but we cannot import the pollination benefits
of the beekeeping industry to American agriculture. |
|
| We support
research to prevent and eliminate the diseases and pests that are
threatening the beekeeping industry. |
|
| Census of
Agriculture |
|
| The Census of
Agriculture is the most comprehensive set of information on
agriculture available nationwide on the county level. It is in the
best interest of the entire agricultural community that the Census
of Agriculture be complete and accurate. |
|
| Corn |
|
| We urge
public agencies and private companies to eliminate the 50 percent
acreage restrictions on Bt corn in Southeast Missouri. |
|
| Cotton |
|
| We believe
existing textile agreements should be rigidly enforced. |
|
| We believe
all options should be pursued as to support the domestic textile
industry. |
|
| We favor the
enactment of legislation which prohibits changing the classification
of a bale of cotton after it leaves the grower's control. |
|
| We recommend
that cotton grading standards be continually monitored and upgraded
to accurately reflect the true value of cotton. We insist on a
system that is reliable and repeatable. |
|
| We believe
that the equipment now available for HVI can be greatly improved.
The further refinement and improvements of both the instrumentation
and process used to class cotton are still needed. |
|
| We request
that the University of Missouri (Delta Center) continue to be a
leader in research and development of new production techniques for
quality cotton in the Northern Delta Area, including working with
irrigation, particularly scheduling and amount of water applied to
maximize yields and conserve use of water and energy. |
|
| We support
continuation of the USDA's Cotton Marketing Advisory Committee. |
|
| We encourage
more research in the use of whole cottonseed for feed. |
|
| We ardently
support the boll weevil eradication program. We also favor a
concerted effort between Midsouth states on this vital endeavor. |
|
| We support
state financial aid for implementation of the boll weevil program in
Missouri, and we support federal financial support for boll weevil
eradication in Missouri and all cotton producing states. |
|
| It is crucial
that producers not be placed at the mercy of one of two dominant
companies for seed supplies of major crops. Therefore, we urge that
the Agricultural Experiment Stations, in collaboration with Cotton
Incorporated, pursue a vigorous cotton breeding program to ensure
the release of superior public cotton varieties. |
|
| We support
the programs of Cotton Incorporated and the mandatory checkoff. We
also support the National Cotton Council. |
|
| Dairy |
|
| We favor a
program that stabilizes profitable milk prices over a long period of
time. |
|
| We believe
that changes to the current milk pricing system need to be
implemented to make market prices more timely and transparent. We
support modifications to the current Federal Milk Marketing Order
structure and the formulas and price classes used to compute milk
prices to better reflect current market conditions. A competitive
milk price that is directly negotiated with handlers/processors
might be an alternative, but at this time we do not have adequate
information to evaluate such an option.
|
|
| To provide a
more realistic safety net for dairy producers we believe the Milk
Income Loss Contract (MILC) program’s trigger point should be
based on a milk price/cost ratio and not just milk price alone.
|
|
| Milk protein
concentrates (MPC) should be classified as a dairy product in trade
negotiations and agreements. We encourage more MPC production in the
United States. |
|
| We support
industry efforts with the CWT (Cooperative Working Together) program
and encourage 100% participation. We believe penalties for not
complying with the herd retirement contract provisions should be
increased to at least 20%. |
|
| We support a
dairy self help program to enhance exports, funded and controlled by
the producers. |
|
| We support
increasing minimum solids to current California standards.
|
|
| We oppose the
Missouri “Unfair Milk Practices Act Section 416.415” and support
repealing said law. |
|
| We believe
the Missouri Department of Agriculture should increase funding for
the Johnnes Disease eradication program.
|
|
| We oppose the
sale of raw milk except for the current exemptions provided for in
Missouri statutes. Producers who choose to sell raw milk to the
public should be required to have some type of premise inspection by
the State Milk Board or their contract agents.
|
|
| Equine |
|
| We believe
equine farms, businesses and related operations should be recognized
as a bona fide segment of Missouri agriculture. We believe equine
should be classified as a "livestock entity" and strongly
oppose any efforts to relate equine as "pets" or
"companion animals". |
|
| We believe
the slaughter of cull and/or unsound horses should not be prohibited
by state or federal statutes or regulations. A ban on the slaughter
of such horses would only increase the likelihood of abuse or
neglect. Starvation or lack of medical treatment for unwanted horses
is a far worse fate than humane euthanasia. |
|
| We oppose a
federal ban on horse processing. We oppose the elimination of funds
for federal inspection at processing facilities. Furthermore, we
strongly oppose the prosecution of individuals moving, selling,
purchasing or transporting horses to be processed either in the U.S.
or abroad. |
|
| We strongly
support reduction of feral equine numbers on federal lands by
methods other than adoption. Alternative population control measures
may include birth-control drugs and neutering. |
|
| We encourage
the University of Missouri Extension and Outreach Program to support
Missouri's growing equine industry by providing a full-time equine
specialist to assist local Extension centers. |
|
| We encourage
Missouri Farm Bureau to help coordinate an equine education program. |
|
| We support
seeking the necessary funding for an annual comprehensive National
Agricultural Statistics Service survey for equine. |
|
| We support
legislation that preserves the use and access for horses and mules
on state and federal public lands where sufficient acreage and
conditions exist to permit such use, and scientific data by
appropriate authorities does not exist to preclude such use. |
|
| We support
the inclusion of equine in federal disaster assistance and farm bill
programs. |
|
| Forestry |
|
| We support
the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) and USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Agency in the effort to encourage the planting of
trees. The CRP, WHIP, WRP, EQIP and other similar programs of these
agencies provide valuable resources to forest landowners and should
be utilized in all 114 counties. In addition, we recommend that
policy, application and approval processes be streamlined to provide
efficient and effective services to landowners. |
|
| We recommend
the Missouri Department of Agriculture recognize forestry as an
agricultural commodity. We further recommend that the Missouri
Department of Agriculture include forestry commodity information and
alternative forest product information in the publication Missouri
Farm Facts. |
|
| We support
sustainable, multiple-use forest management. We support programs
that encourage sustainable forest management like the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative and the Missouri Tree Farm Program. |
|
| We urge the
University of Missouri and the Missouri Department of Conservation
to jointly research forest management practices that will improve
the quality and health of our forests in this state. |
|
| We support
the efforts to assist private landowners to improve forest health
and conditions so that they are less susceptible to the threat of
natural and exotic pests. We further support efforts to eradicate
exotic pests keeping in mind the preservation of private property
rights. |
|
| We urge the
cooperation of all government agencies in efforts to improve the
management of private and public forests. We urge research to
improve the quality and productivity of private, non-industrial
forestlands. We support the development and implementation of
enhanced educational, technical and marketing assistance programs
for private landowners. Enhanced educational efforts should stress
the economic and environmental benefits of Best Management
Practices. |
|
| We strongly
support the preservation of private property rights as landowners
consider timber production and marketing options. We support
voluntary logger training and certification. We oppose the
implementation of new regulations that: |
|
| 1. impose a
severance tax or conservation bond on timber sales, |
|
| 2. restrict
the size or method of timber harvest, |
|
| 3. require
prior notification of a timber harvest, |
|
| 4. require
reforestation or reseeding, |
|
| 5. impose
diameter limits on trees processed by chip mills and forest biomass
processors, |
|
| 6. establish
a permit system for wood processed by chip mills, |
|
| 7. adopt a
Forest Practices Act, and |
|
| 8. impose a
moratorium on chip mills operating in the state of Missouri. |
|
| We strongly
encourage the Missouri Department of Conservation to continue
technical forestry assistance and the quarterly price trend report
for private landowners. |
|
| We support
continued efforts to reduce the threat of wildfires by using sound
science and management techniques such as prescribed burns and
selective logging to decrease high fuel loads. |
|
| We continue
to believe alternative #5 in the 2005 Land and Resource Management
Plan for the Mark Twain National Forest best represents the needs of
Missouri landowners and other stakeholders. |
|
| Horticulture |
|
| We urge Farm
Bureau members to become aware of the possible relaxation of Q-37
restrictions by the USDA. Q-37 regulates the quantities of plants
and plant material entering the U.S. through inspection points. |
|
| We support
the clarification of horticulture as an agricultural activity that
should receive appropriate sales tax exemptions. |
|
| We support
Farm Bureau's membership in the Minor Use Farmer Alliance. We
believe there are legislative changes that could improve the
regulatory climate for minor use chemicals as well as provide
incentives for manufacturers to maintain and pursue new
registration. |
|
| We believe
full funding should be provided for the USDA's IR-4 to cut the cost
of collecting reregistration data. |
|
| We recommend
that Missouri universities and the Cooperative Extension Service
increase research in production, processing and marketing of
horticultural crops. |
|
| We oppose
laws that require horticultural container volume labeling and
producer name. |
|
| Minimum
Pricing |
|
| We oppose
efforts to achieve the goals of minimum pricing legislation by
establishing interstate grain marketing compacts among states. |
|
| Pork |
|
| We favor
increased research in assisting farmers in marketing pork by
developing new products to satisfy the convenience market and urge
the continued promotion of pork products in fast food restaurants
and institutions. |
|
| We support a
standardized pork value pricing system and an accurate reporting of
prices. |
|
| We support
programs by producer-controlled groups that take the lead in
education of producers and activists in the state on the issue of
medication residues--informing them of proper use, benefits, and
safety of feed and water medications. |
|
| We encourage
producers and packers to work together to keep packers and jobs in
the U.S. and to improve public opinion. |
|
| Program
Compliance |
|
| We are
opposed to off-setting and cross compliance on commodities and/or
farm units in determining compliance with government farm programs. |
|
| We believe
guidelines need to be clearer in regard to the conservation
compliance program so that landowners might have the privilege of
caring for their land without getting agency approval on every
practice they wish to undertake. |
|
| We favor
common-sense guidelines in regard to residue cover that take into
consideration year to year conditions which vary due to weather and
other conditions out of the control of producers. |
|
| Rice |
|
| We support
research on blackbird repellent and other methods to control
depredation. |
|
| We urge USDA-NASS
to separate long and medium grain rice production and sales figures
when calculating CCP payments so one will not weigh heavily on the
other. |
|
| We believe
the rice check-off should be applied to rice imports. |
|
| Risk
Management Insurance |
|
| We believe
that a properly developed and subsidized crop insurance program
would provide an excellent risk management tool. |
|
| Excluding
pilot programs, we believe all producers in all states should have
access to crop insurance programs and policies. Limiting the
availability of programs and policies discriminates against some
producers. |
|
| We oppose any
reduction in crop insurance premium subsidies. |
|
| We oppose
requiring producers to purchase crop insurance in order to be
eligible for direct crop payments. |
|
| To develop a
workable insurance program would require the revamping of field maps
with insurance rates based on the real productivity of the land over
the past 10 years. Field types in the same operation would need to
be broken out separately. Up until now, the federal government has
not subsidized the program enough to attract widespread use. |
|
| We support
crop insurance premiums that more accurately reflect individual
operators and crop loss ratio histories on insurable farm units. |
|
| We believe
crop insurance actuarial maps should be updated to reflect current
flood history in regard to high risk crop insurance premiums. |
|
| We believe
that producers with farming operations in more than one county which
pay the catastrophic coverage crop insurance premium in one county
should be exempt from premium costs in additional counties if the
total acres farmed in the additional counties are less than 50 acres
per county. |
|
| We support
the Risk Management Agency's Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) and
Pasture, Rangeland and Forage (PRF) insurance program. |
|
| We support
the development of risk management programs for identity-preserved
and other value-enhanced products including specialty grains. |
|
| Soybean rust
has the potential to cause damage to the soybean crop. We believe
the Risk Management Agency should continue to provide timely
information to producers regarding guidelines and potential
qualifications for insuring soybean acreage that may be impacted by
soybean rust. |
|
| School
Lunch Program |
|
| We encourage
the use of more red meat, poultry, and fish as well as other farm
products in the school lunch program. |
|
| Only
domestically produced products should be used in the school lunch
program. |
Why should schools not use the cheapest
or highest quality products? |
| States should
be allowed to handle their own school lunch programs using block
grants. |
|
| Sheep
& Goats |
|
| We recommend
increased state and federal funding for sheep and goat research at
the University of Missouri and Lincoln University. |
|
| We support
the continuation of a strong sheep, wool, and mohair industry in the
state of Missouri and recognize the need for continued promotion. |
|
| We support
and encourage further development of marketing programs that
increase consumer demand for lamb and chevon. |
|
| We support
the development of a long-term government support program addressing
the health issues of the sheep industry (e.g., scrapies eradication,
foot rot and internal parasite resistance). |
|
| We support a
long-term government program addressing the quality of meat and wool
production. |
|
| We encourage
continued research into medication and vaccines for minor species of
livestock. |
|
| The sheep
check-off should apply to both foreign and domestic lamb. |
|
| We support an
increase in the number of USDA graded markets in Missouri for sheep
and goats. |
|
| We support
increased market reporting for sheep and goats by the Missouri
Department of Agriculture. |
|
| Implementation
of a national identification system for livestock in the sheep and
goat sector should not be duplicative of the National Scrapie
Eradication Program or Country of Origin Labeling requirements. |
|
| We strongly
support the continuation of the funding of the Livestock Protection
Program of the USDA Wildlife Services. |
|
| We support
youth programs that encourage participation in the sheep and goat
industries. |
|
| We recognize
an increasing need for sheep shearers and encourage programs to
develop qualified shearers. |
|
| Soybeans |
|
| We believe
that vegetable oil in a product should be labeled as to type, such
as soy oil, peanut, palm or coconut as opposed to the current
"and/or" label. |
|
| We support
the alternative uses of soybeans in products such as soy-diesel fuel
and soy ink. |
|
| USDA
Reorganization |
|
| We support
efforts to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of all federal
agencies not just USDA. |
The priority should be on eliminating all
federal intervention across the board; eliminating federal
programs, not merely tinkering with existing programs. |
| We oppose
efforts to move certain USDA functions, such as meat inspection and
soil and water conservation programs, to other agencies of the
federal government. |
|
| We oppose any
effort to reduce the local control of the locally elected FSA county
committee and we oppose federalizing any and all legacy ASCS
positions (positions before reorganization and FSA's responsibility
for farm loan programs) . |
|