“While the bill contains many provisions compatible with the core farm bill proposal offered by Farm Bureau, we recognize that no farm bill is perfect and there is always room for improvement. We are pleased that the Senate held firm to its intention of limiting cuts to $23 billion. That will help maintain workable and viable commodity and conservation titles by limiting program cuts to levels that are fair for farmers and ranchers.

“We also believe that the bipartisan compromise to oppose means testing, payment limitations or premium subsidy reductions for the crop insurance program and to formalize a tie between crop insurance and conservation compliance helped set the tone of cooperation for this bill moving forward. Overall, this bill meets our firm position that the farm bill be bipartisan in nature, reform-minded in structure and crafted around a broad, flexible, crop insurance-based program that provides our farmers certainty and extends much-needed risk management tools across more acres and more crops.”

Recently, a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation staff was interviewed on the subject of proposed changes to U.S. international food aid. The question was whether the United States should shift food aid donations to cash instead of American-grown food.

Like most interviews, this one went on for 15 to 20 minutes. The result was one pieced-together quote: “Exports via food aid are a small drop in the market. Our concern is less about decreasing an important revenue stream for U.S. agriculture. It’s more about the loss of a sense of pride.”

Once the article ran, some organizations pounced, effectively charging: How could American agriculture, solely out of pride, take food out of the mouths of 2-4 million people?

Facts do suffer when skewed through the prism of agenda-driven politics. Not that long ago, a fact sheet posted by USAID (the United States Agency for International Development) reported that cash or voucher humanitarian relief systems and programs are more expensive than those using U.S.-procured commodities. Interestingly, now that President Barack Obama has proposed using cash in lieu of commodities, USAID’s website, updated in late April, now says just the opposite.

There have been times when those programs accounted for a significant percentage of our exports. But that is simply not the case today.

In one breath, critics claim the Food for Peace program currently accounts for “less than two-tenths of 1 percent of U.S. agricultural production and about one-half of 1 percent of U.S. agricultural exports.” Then, in the very next breath, they claim this program dealing with “less than one-half of 1 percent” of our exports is driving “Big Ag” to come out with “guns blazing.” Their emotional response ignores a logical analysis of their own statements, and frankly gives Farm Bureau more credit than is due.

We will claim some credit for our nation’s long-standing success in helping those in need around the world. The very origin of the Food for Peace program can be traced to a September 1953 meeting of the Cheyenne County (Kansas) Farm Bureau. A young farmer named Peter O’Brien put into motion a grassroots idea that made its way through our policy development process, from Kansas to AFBF and then as legislation introduced by Sen. Andy Schoeppel (R-Kan.) that was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954.

If critics of Farm Bureau’s policy on food aid ask whether we are proud of our role in this program, the answer is an unequivocal, “You bet we are.” Are America’s farmers and ranchers proud of our contribution to feeding multi-millions of people around the world, thanks to a Farm Bureau idea? Again, “You bet.” Would we rather see crops produced here in the United States being used in these kinds of aid programs? Yes!

The problem with switching to cash donations is that cash too easily can be used for purposes other than feeding people. Food can only be useful going into someone’s stomach. Shipping a cargo load of food, rather than the money to buy food (if it is available), is the best and most secure way to ensure that taxpayer-funded international food assistance actually makes it to hungry people overseas. Without that certainty, the full impact of our nation’s donations could be easily slashed by administrative costs assessed by cooperating entities, or worse, siphoned off by inept or corrupt governments in recipient nations. That is why several international food aid organizations also oppose switching to cash donations.

Giving people sacks of food with “USA” on them is good international relations. Seeing those “USA”-labeled food donations in news photos does make a difference!

Our food aid program has excelled for nearly 60 years because it is built on the ability of America’s farm and ranch families to produce an abundant supply of food.

At a time when even hunger assistance comes into question due to our nation’s fiscal condition, it is vital to support efforts that clearly give our tax dollars more bang for the buck, and more certainty that our food aid will reach those in need.

To date, we have not taken a strong position on this issue, known in Washington as “cash in lieu of commodities.” We have listened to both sides. The recent misrepresentation of Farm Bureau’s motives now gives us the opportunity to go on record and stand boldly with many other farm groups and enlightened humanitarian non-governmental organizations in working to keep U.S.-produced food a part of the food aid program.

Our current approach to helping feed the world successfully ensures that we share our nation’s bounty. Those who would rather just have American taxpayers write another check to pay for uncertain results should focus on how to feed more hungry people, rather than criticize the organization that helped start Food for Peace or malign the farmers and ranchers whose work makes our food donations possible.

—————————————–

Bob Stallman, a rice farmer and cattle rancher from Texas, is president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

“Montana Farm Bureau worked hard to protect family farms and ranches this session and agriculture’s voice was heard, so we were very dismayed that after all the work the legislature did to address the wild bison issue, the efforts ended up being vetoed,” notes MFBF Lobbyist Nicole Rolf.

Rolf said that at least eight bills regarding control of wild bison were introduced, “which shows that this is an important issue in our state,” says Rolf. She says bills that allowed bison-hunting and provided more details of how landowners and agencies could control migrating bison never made it to the governor’s desk.

“Unfortunately, the three that did make it to the governor were all vetoed,” Rolf laments. “One of those bills would have required FWP and DOL to obtain permission from county commissioners before wild bison could be translocated into their county.  This well written, local control bill made it through the Legislature with flying colors and no amendments but was vetoed by the governor.”

Rolf says one bill introduced by Senator Jim Peterson clarified the definition of “wild” bison or buffalo. “It was amended in the House and Senate, went to a conference committee where Senators and Representatives from both parties worked out a compromise, but was vetoed by the Governor,” she says.

“Likewise, there was a bill which would have required FWP to estimate costs that would be incurred if wild bison damaged private property and made them liable for damages,” Rolf says. “Unfortunately, after a long legislative process to work out all the kinks, it too was vetoed.”

“These vetoed bills would have done a lot of good for farmers, ranchers, and landowners but were all killed by the governor.  Consequently, despite the best efforts of many legislators and other interested parties, yet another Montana Legislative Session has closed without enacting any legislation to protect agriculture from inherent dangers of free roaming bison,” Rolf concludes.

Obviously the benefits to farmers and ranchers in signing up more voting members is giving MFBF an increased voice in Montana. However, there are other great incentives to sign up your friends and neighbors: prizes.

“Beginning May 1, any Ag Producer member recruited or retained by a Farm Bureau volunteer will be entered into a drawing. The drawing for the ceremonial 20,000th member will be held at the MFBF Summer Conference June 11-13 in Bozeman,” says MFBF Director of Membership Development Scott Kulbeck. “The member who recruits or retains that 20,000th member will receive airfare to the AFBF Convention in San Antonio in January 2014 and a $200 VISA gift card.”

The recruitment incentive program continues long after the Summer Conference, and allows recruiters to take advantage of the 15-month membership year through October 2013. “We’re encouraging volunteers to recruit five new members, and each month will offer prizes.  Any member who recruits the 5 required new members during the allotted time period is entered into a drawing to be held at the Awards Banquet during Convention and the winner will receive a new pair of boots worth at least 20,000 pennies!” said Kulbeck.

For all the scoop on the One by One to 20K, click here.

“By this amendatory veto, the governor stripped money from two very important entities,” noted MFBF Vice President of Governmental Affairs John Youngberg.

In his letter to Secretary of State Linda McCullouch, the governor said of both the MAES and Extension Service, that if their funding is a priority, the Extension Service and MAES have more than sufficient appropriation authority to cover these expenses.”

“Given the current status of the budget and the Legislature’s failure to meet my minimum ending fund balance requirements, I cannot support this additional earmark,” the Governor wrote about both Extension and MAES.

Youngberg doesn’t agree. “Agriculture is Montana’s number-one industry. MAES and Extension are invaluable to farmer, ranchers and all rural landowners,” he noted. “They are the ones doing research on new and better crops, crops that use less fertilizer, crops that thrive in drought. Many people rely on the Extension for accurate information, whether it’s about pest control or the best grasses to grow in Montana. The fact that our governor doesn’t recognize the true value of MAES and Extension is certainly discouraging.”

“Everyone wants to modernize and improve, and farmers are no different,” notes MFBF Vice President Bruce Wright, a Bozeman-area farmer. “American agriculture has made significant advancements in the last 100 years with improvements in how farmers grow crops, raise livestock and manage risk. Biotechnology is a great tool that allows farmers to better manage droughts, pests, and weeds with fewer resources. It also provides a major boost to American farmers that face an increasingly competitive international market ”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that as much as 90 percent of commodity crop acres utilize seeds improved through modern biotechnology. Trade disruptions caused by barriers to biotechnology derived crops hurt both American farmers and the international customers they serve. Regulatory asynchrony, zero tolerance policies, and re-registration requirements are among the most prevalent and costly regulatory hurdles.

Wright is no stranger to biotechnology. “I’ve planted Roundup Ready canola, which allowed me to use safer chemicals that would kill weeds but not the plant. Biotech traits can be used to keep insects away, which results in less pesticide use,” Wright says. “They can help you grow a specific crop in a drier area, as well as reduce the amount of nitrogen fertilizer applied.”

He points out that sugar beets in the eastern part of Montana are one of the larger GE crops successfully grown in the state (most soybeans and cotton are now genetically engineered). “That allows farmers to do what I did with my Roundup Ready canola. Because of the genes in the plants, a farmer can use less fertilizer and pesticides. That’s good for the environment, for agriculture and for you,” he says.

“Given the widespread adoption of biotechnology by American farmers, it is imperative the USDA further raise the priority of biotech regulatory issues in discussions with our trading partners, emphasizing the importance of facilitating robust international trade,” Wright concluded.

“All in all, I’d say some good bills were passed that will help farmers and ranchers,” noted Youngberg. “We were pleased that the wolf management bill that liberalized the hunting of wolves was signed by the governor.  A bill requiring Fish, Wildlife and Parks to estimate damages caused by wild, translocated bison to private property and making the Department liable for damages if they occur passed the legislature but still awaits the governor’s signature. We were disappointed Governor Bullock vetoed a bill that would have required county commissioners to approve the introduction of wild bison into their counties. There were multiple bison bills introduced in the 63^rd legislature and all were very contentious.”

Other victories for farmers and ranchers this session were the passage of the revised Business Equipment Tax Relief bill and the defeat of the ‘corner crossing’ bill.

“The Business Equipment Tax Relief Bill passed the House and Senate, but hasn’t been acted on yet by the governor,” noted Rolf. “The bill that came out at the end of the session is a combination of two bills. It creates an exemption of $100,000 and lowers the tax rate to 1.5 percent on any equipment over the $100,000 exemption level and up to $6 million in market value. This provides some tax relief to the vast majority of farmers and ranchers while fitting in the budget.”

Rolf praised the defeat of the “corner crossing” bill which would have allowed trespassing across the corners of private land to access public land. “This bill would have eroded private property rights so it was rewarding to see it defeated.”

“Grain farmers worked to pass a grain elevator bonding bill,” said Rolf. “This bill was amended severely but the final version kept the “deadman’s switch” language which means if a farmer is contracted to deliver grain but the elevator declares bankruptcy, the farmer no longer has to deliver.”  In its original form, the bill would have also increased bonding requirements for elevators. Even though those provisions were eliminated, the creation of a deadman’s switch does provide additional protection for farmers.

Water bills flowed freely. “There were numerous bills affecting senior water rights,” noted Youngberg, who handles water issues for Farm Bureau. “We had a bill pass that allows for water development in closed basins yet protects senior rights and a bill that will allow people who were exempt from filing on small appropriations to get into the system.  Another good bill allows people with water rights to offer short-term water leases to provide water for development projects, such as hydraulic fracking, but only short-term.”

“Regarding the State Fund, we managed to kill a bill that would have forced the new Worker’s Comp fund to pick up a $60 million debt from the old fund without raising rates,” explained Youngberg. “It is a bad idea because when the legislature tries to control rates without reviewing actuarial information, there is a potential to jeopardize the entire program.”

“It was generally a good session for us but is becoming more difficult because we have fewer and fewer boots under the desks. Many of the new legislators coming into office don’t understand water rights, prior appropriations and other issues that really affect agriculture,” Youngberg concluded.

On-line Registration:  Click the link below to redirect to the shopping cart where you may select event registration options. If you want to remove an option, click the red dot at the top right of the option to remove it. Simply leaving the number of attendees set to “0″ for any particular option will cause an error.

Click Here to Download the Summer Conference – Registration Form

Tuesday, June 11

• 8:00 AM Foundation Board of Directors Meeting
• 9:30 AM MFBF Board of Directors Meeting
• 12:00 noon Registration Opens
• 3:00 PM Coffee Break
• 3:30 PM YF&R Committee Meeting
• 3:30 PM Women’s Leadership Committee Meeting

Wednesday, June 12

• 7:30 AM Registration Opens
• 8:30 AM General Session
  • Opening Address: President Bob Hanson
  • Keynote Speaker: Dr. David Parker, MSU Political Science Department – Montana’s Changing Political Landscape
  • Closing Remarks: Jake Cummins, EVP
• 10:00 AM Coffee Break
• 10:30 AM Joint Informational Sessions
• 12:00 noon Lunch
• Keynote Speaker: Zoe Ann Stoltz, Montana Historical Society – The History of Brands in Montana
• 1:30 PM Business Meetings
• 3:00 PM Coffee Break
• 3:30 PM Business Meetings
• 6:00 PM MFB Foundation Social & Fundraising Dinner – Wild West Casino Night – Wright’s Big Yellow Barn

Thursday, June 13

• 8:00 AM Tour bus departs – Includes tentative tour stops at Bozeman Fish Technology Center, Amaltheia Diary, Bacterin, and Roughstock Distillery
• 8:30 AM Golfers tee off at Bridger Creek Golf Course -Includes eighteen holes of golf, a cart, lunch, refreshments and great prizes.
• Evening on your own! Relax and Enjoy!

There are many pressures on livestock farmers today. Many of these pressures are not the typical economic and resource challenges faced by all businesses, but additional political pressures related to antibiotic use in food production.

Setting aside the politics, all scientific risk assessments published to date have shown a negligible risk to human health from resistant bacteria resulting from food animal antibiotic use.

Those that argue against the use of any antibiotics in livestock raised for food should consider that animals not treated for and exhibiting residual effects of illness are more likely to cause foodborne sickness in humans.

Further, failure to prevent or treat animal illness causes unnecessary animal suffering and death. It’s also important to note that infectious diseases occur in both modern animal confinement facilities as well as in outdoor group housing situations.

Every farm with animals is both a maternity hospital and a day care. Animals need medicines at times, just like kids do. This becomes a moral and ethical issue. At what point will we deny treatment? It’s not right to withhold veterinary care from animals. Antibiotics for animals are needed because illnesses can move quickly through populations and livestock cannot “stay home” when they are sick.

“Meat without drugs” or “antibiotic free” meat may lead to very negative consequences to animal health. In fact, meat produced without drugs may very well mean “animals without medicine.”

A relatively new area of scientific inquiry is the question of whether animal health is quantitatively correlated with public health risk. Slogans promote the concept that “healthy animals make safe food” and it is a concept we all “feel” good about. However, the research is just beginning and much more is needed. One interesting study showed an increase in human illnesses from non-resistant bacteria caused by eating broiler chickens with residual effects of illness due to denial of antibiotics.

Farmers and veterinarians are committed to maintaining the public’s trust by promoting and documenting appropriate use of all medicines used for animals raised for food. Learn more at http://www.hurdhealth.com.

Click here to watch the Senate Finance Committee Hearing

Montana Farm Bureau President Bob Hanson testified on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations before the Senate Finance Committee today. Hanson noted that strong leadership by U.S. government officials in the current Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations will yield positive results for American agriculture. Major issues of concern at this time on this issue are related to ensuring continued progress on the negotiations and the addition of Japan to the talks.

“Trade with Japan has been a vital part of the Montana economy for decades,” said the White Sulphur Springs rancher. “We produce high-quality beef and grain products that are in great demand in foreign markets. It is particularly important to our cattle producers. In fact several years ago a group of Montana Farm Bureau members made a trip to Japan to encourage them to open up their markets after they were closed due to BSE concerns. Japan’s willingness to accept cattle at 30 months of age shows they are more open to trade negotiations than in the past.”

“Japan is our fourth-largest agricultural export destination, with $13.5 billion in sales in 2012. However, while Japan is a top market for U.S. agricultural exports of wheat, corn, soybeans, beef and pork it has many restrictive policies in place that inhibit U.S. agricultural imports. Existing barriers, such as tariffs used to to restrict the import of U.S. dairy and poultry products and a variety of Sanitary and Phytosanitary barriers across the region, are a challenge that must be addressed in these negotiations,” Hanson said.

He noted that there is concern about the administration’s consideration of a “safe harbor” proposal for tobacco regulation. “This is not a good way to go. It would allow a country to simply stop trade on a product they deemed as unhealthy. That would create a new and troubling precedent that undermines existing trade disciplines. We are concerned this new safe harbor concept will lead to additional protections and exceptions for products, and lead to regulatory experimentation without the constraints of international trade rules.”

Hanson said the aim of the TPP is to reach a comprehensive, high-standard agreement that will improve the conditions of trade between the participating countries, which currently include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.

“The Asia-Pacific region holds great promise for Montana grain and beef, and U.S. agriculture and its role as the food supplier for Americans and the world,” Hanson concluded.

While in Washington, Hanson and Senator Max Baucus had the opportunity to dine at the residence of the Japanese Ambassador.