Water is a touchy subject, especially when it comes to our agriculture and environmental discussions these days. I have to admit that I was worried about this from day one. The Environmental Protection Agency announced it intends to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.
Zippy Duvall, first elected president of the American Farm Bureau Federation in 2016, is very concerned about the EPA decision to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Act. (Photo from fb.org)
American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall his organization is very concerned about the idea and its potential impact on the nation’s farmers.
“The American Farm Bureau Federation is extremely disappointed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement that it intends to reverse the environmentally conscious Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” Duvall says, “which finally brought clarity and certainty to clean water efforts. Farmers and ranchers care about clean water and preserving the land, and they support the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.
“Administrator Regan recently recognized the flaws in the 2015 ‘Waters of the U.S. Rule’ and pledged not to return to those overreaching regulations,” he added. “We are deeply concerned that the EPA plans to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which puts the future of responsible protections at risk. We expected extensive outreach, but today’s announcement fails to recognize the concerns of farmers and ranchers.”
Duvall, a third-generation Georgia farmer, says this is an important moment for EPA Administrator Michael Regan and will be pivotal to his ability to earn the trust of farmers on this and other administration priorities. Duvall says the EPA boss must “keep his word” to recognize the efforts of agriculture and not return to flawed, overly-complicated and excessive regulations.
EPA Chief Michael Regan announced that his agency is planning to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Rule put in place by the Trump Administration. (Photo from eenews.com)
“We call on the EPA to respect the statute, recognize the burden that overreaching regulation places on farmers and ranchers, and not write the term ‘navigable’ out of the Clean Water Act” Duvall says. “On this issue, and particularly prior converted croplands and ephemerals, we also urge Secretary Vilsack to ensure that we don’t return to the regulatory land grab that was the 2015 ‘WOTUS’ Rule.
Duvall adds that clean water and clarity are paramount, which is why farmers shouldn’t need a team of lawyers and consultants to farm.
From a personal perspective, why can’t we meet in the middle here? You do realize that farmers don’t get to stay in business and pass on the operation to their kids if they don’t take care of their environment?
Am I anti-environment by being concerned about farmers? I’m not. I’m saying there has to be a way to preserve the environment and still allow farmers to make money. After all, they do feed us, remember? Food doesn’t just show up at Safeway.
COVID-19 has put a serious crimp in the U.S. economy and nowhere is that more evident than in agriculture. More specifically, American hog farmers are struggling to stay on farms because they’re having trouble getting their hogs to market. Big trouble, in fact. Hogs are so far backed up on the farm that producers may have a tough decision to make in the not-too-distant future.
Those of us in the agricultural media don’t often hear the word “euthanize” in press conferences. Unfortunately, it came up multiple times during a press conference hosted by the National Pork Producers Council. As prices for hogs have plummeted, Howard ‘A.V.’ Roth, NPPC President, says things are as bad as they’ve ever been after several years of a depressed farm economy.
Hog farmers are hurting and the “other white meat industry” could be in trouble. COVID-19 has only accelerated a price decline that began almost two years ago during the U.S.-China trade war. Pork farmers are reaching out and asking for help. (Photo from the duluthnewstribune.com)
“We are now an ag sector in dire crisis,” Roth said to reporters. “Farmers are already exiting the business and the damage will only intensify without direct intervention from the federal government.”
Speaking as a hog producer himself, Roth says the pork industry has a list of several things it needs in order to help keep as many farmers in operation as possible. The first item on their wish list would clear out a tremendous amount of stored pork supplies as quickly as possible, plus it would get food into the hands of people who need it.
“Over $1 billion in pork purchases by USDA to clear out a backed-up meat supply, while supplementing food bank programs around the country facing increased demand for food as unemployment continues to rise,” Roth said. “These purchases should come from packaged pork that was intended for restaurants and other segments of the foodservice market.”
In all the years I’ve covered agriculture, I can tell you from firsthand experience that farmers want to make their living from the markets, not government handouts. How desperate are pork farmers to stay in business?
“We need direct payments to producers without eligibility restrictions,” Roth says.
They’re also hoping to see China remove retaliatory tariffs on U.S. pork that are still in place despite the Phase One trade agreement between the two countries. Roth points out that it’s no secret China needs a reliable source of affordable pork after their herds were decimated by the African Swine Fever virus.
“Removing those damaging tariffs would get us back on a level playing field with our international competitors,” Roth says. “Dr. Dermot Hayes, an economist with Iowa State University, says removing those tariffs would allow U.S. exports to China to more than double their current volume.”
How badly does China need pork, one of the most preferred proteins in the Asian diet? Let’s just say that Chinese pork producers, who can’t ever hope to meet their country’s domestic demand, are enjoying some pretty high prices for their products right now.
“While Chinese producers are enjoying record pork values, U.S. producers are facing a dire decision on our farms,” Roth said. “Sadly, it’s true. Without significant assistance, euthanizing is a question that’s going to begin coming up on our farms.
“Let me be the first to say, as a pork producer, we care about our animals,” he added. “The last thing we ever want to do is euthanize even one animal. We’re going to do everything in our power to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
Producers may be able to at least push that decision back somewhat, thanks to a recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency. Michael Formica, Assistant Vice President of Domestic Affairs and Counsel at NPPC, says hog housing restrictions have been temporarily relaxed.
“We reached out to EPA to ensure that if we were ever in a situation like the one we face now, producers would have an option to hold animals on their farm,” Formica said. “All of the farms are permitted to hold a certain number of animals. If they exceed those numbers, they have to go through new permitting.
“We asked EPA for a temporary waiver of the thresholds during the crisis we’re facing,” Formica said, “and thankfully, they granted that request a couple of weeks ago. That’s a tool that many farmers can use to hold animals on their farms while additional animals come through the pipeline.”
He says it’s important to point out that’s an advantage for farmers only if they have adequate additional space. If the backup continues indefinitely, they will run out of space and that’s when they have to start culling otherwise healthy animals from their herds, simply because there won’t be enough space to take care of them.
Why is it all piling up on hog farmers so quickly? Nick Giordano, Vice President of Global Government Affairs and Counsel for NPPC, says hog producers were the first to be hit hard by the trade war with China.
“Hog farmers were there at the tip of the Chinese retaliation spear,” he said. “Trade retaliation from two key markets, Mexico and China, in 2018 and 2019, took $20 off the prices that producers received for every hog.
‘Unlike a lot of the other segments in our economy that came into the COVID-19 outbreak with record profits and a full head of steam, our producers were already hurting. This has made a bad financial situation infinitely worse.”
How far have things fallen across the industry? Iowa State’s Dr. Hayes says in just one month, from March 10 to April 10, the pork industry has lost $5 billion in value. Something has to change.
Here’s the complete podcast with Scott Irwin of the University of Minnesota, talking about his solution to the squabble between ethanol and the oil industry over the Renewable Fuels Standard. You can download and listen to it later or play it here.
Professor Scott Irwin at the University of Illinois has a potential solution to the fight in Washington D.C. surrounding the Renewable Fuels Standard
Renewable Fuels seem like such a good idea to me. After all, fossil fuels are a finite resource, right? We grow lots of corn and other biofuel feedstocks. Why can’t we use some of them to stretch our fuel supply even further into the future? That’s rhetorical, of course. Big Oil has lots of money. One University of Illinois Professor says that money has put Big Oil squarely in the driver’s seat with the Environmental Protection Agency.
The clash between the ethanol and oil industries over the Renewable Fuels Standard is continuing with no end in sight. Scott Irwin of the Agricultural and Consumer Economics Department at the University of Illinois says there may not be a “win-win” deal in a debate like this.
Irwin wrote an article on the University of Illinois’ farm doc daily website called “Clearing the Logjam on the RFS and SREs: A Simple Proposal.” His idea would divide the refiners into large and small operations, while the ethanol proponents are treated as one group.
By doing it that way, the Environmental Protection Agency won’t be waiving any future volumes of ethanol. He realizes that the large refiners won’t be happy with his proposal, which Irwin says restores what the RFS was originally designed to do.
Irwin says his solution would satisfy two-thirds of the people and groups involved in the debate, which might be the best we can do. By way of comparison, the current situation is a mess.
Again, Scott Irwin is with the University of Illinois. Follow the link here if you’d like to read his full report on the Farm Doc Daily website.
Dicamba is an important tool for farmers when it comes to controlling weeds. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) wants to remind pesticide applicators of the state-specific dicamba cutoff for the 2019 growing season. Product application cannot take place in Minnesota after June 20.
The 2019 Minnesota dicamba cutoff is in addition to those established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The affected formulations are XtendiMax by Monsanto, Engenia by BASF, FeXapan by DuPont, and Tavium by Syngenta.
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture is reminding farmers and pesticide applicators that the dicamba cutoff date is set for June 20th. (photo from agweb.com)
“We understand that late planting this season has caused concern for growers who want to use this crop management tool,” said Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen. “However, delaying applications in an attempt to control later emerging weeds can result in poor control and presents other risks. If you are one of the growers that has invested in dicamba technology, now is the time to use it for the dicamba cutoff date. The University of Minnesota Extension says late planting combined with pre-plant tillage can offer advantages for weed control.”
The June 20, 2019, the dicamba cutoff date is based on the MDA’s ongoing investigations and informal surveys into reports of crop damage from alleged dicamba off-target movement over the past two growing seasons. In 2017, the MDA received 253 reports of alleged dicamba drift; 55 of those were formal complaints requesting investigations. Those reports impacted an estimated 265,000 acres. After state restrictions were put in place for the 2018 growing season, the number of complaints dropped dramatically to 53 reports, of which 29 were formal complaints. Just over 1,800 acres were impacted in 2018.
This year’s dicamba cutoff date was first announced on December 10, 2018. Over the winter, approximately 5,800 pesticide applicators attended trainings across the state as required by the product labels.
Dicamba is most effective early in the growing season. Product labels recommend application on small broadleaf weeds that are up to 4 inches tall.
To manage weeds after June 20, growers can use herbicides from Group 9 (Glyphosate), Group 2 (Pursuit, Classic, FirstRate), and Group 14 (Flexstar, Cobra, Cadet, Ultra Blazer). If you have herbicide resistant weeds such as water hemp, follow University of Minnesota Extension recommendations on layering of residual herbicides such as Dual, Outlook, Warrant, and Valor.
In Minnesota, the XtendiMax, Engenia, FeXapan, and Tavium formulations of dicamba are “Restricted Use Pesticides” for retail sale to, and for use only by, certified applicators.
