Farm Bill Proposals Released

’12 DCP/ACRE Enrollment Begins Jan. 23

Scuse Nomination Impending

Farm Support Reporting Sought

Concerns Conveyed Regarding Biotech Advisory Panel

US and Mexico Review Weevil Eradication Efforts

Status Report Filed on ESA Mega-Lawsuit

Ag Research Tax Exempt Mechanism Proposed

New Reference Book Available Online

Sales Rebound, Shipments Steady

USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) announced that enrollment for the '12 Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program (DCP) and Average Crop Revenue Election program (ACRE) will begin on Jan. 23, '12.

Generally, enrollment had begun on Oct. 1 for DCP and ACRE contracts but the agency said signup is beginning later than normal to provide FSA offices with an opportunity to process '10 crop Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program applications and finalize supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs. Also, because the '08 farm law does not authorize advance direct payments for '12, there is no incentive for producers to sign up early.

The FSA announcement reminded producers that '12 ACRE elections may be made any time before June 1, '12.

The White House announced that the President intends to nominate Michael Scuse as undersecretary for USDA’s Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services. In that role, he would have responsibility for directing the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Foreign Agriculture Service and the Risk Management Agency (RMA). Scuse has served as acting under secretary since January.

If confirmed, Scuse would fill the vacancy left by Jim Miller, who left USDA in January to re-join the staff of Sen. Conrad (D-ND) to aid in crafting the next farm bill. Scuse served as deputy undersecretary of Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, with responsibility for administering the FSA and the RMA from ’09-Jan. ’10. From ’01-08, he was Delaware’s secretary of agriculture.

Australia, Brazil, Canada and the European Union have asked the United States to clarify how it reports several of its farm support programs to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The countries noted substantial increases in non-trade distorting “green box” payments and changes in the way it reported product-specific subsidies. Reportedly the countries asked for information about the changes in the way US farm support programs were reported.

In August, the United States notified the WTO of its domestic support commitments for market years ’08 and ’09. These include funding provided by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) for crop insurance programs, supplemental nutrition assistance, “amber box” subsidies and de-coupled income support payments, including direct and counter-cyclical payments.

Australia wanted an explanation of the “the rationale and methodology for the revised notification method” for crop insurance expenditures and whether these are “non-product-specific support.”

Brazil asked the United States to explain why the Supplemental Crop Revenue Assurance program was not included in the first version of the notification as the payments totalled more than $2 billion. Brazil also asked why decoupled income support payments increased from $5.7 billion in ’08 to $6.1 billion in ’09. Canada asked questions about supports provided through RMA.

The NCC joined members of the Ag Biotech Planning Committee (ABPC) in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Vilsack expressing concern about the directions concerning co-existence and compensation given to the recently reconstituted Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21).

The letter stated, “As a coalition representing all major parts of the agriculture value chain and a large majority of U.S. production agriculture, ABPC has a strong interest in the continued coexistence of different cropping systems to facilitate grower and consumer choice without undermining the exceptional record of innovation, productivity, and product stewardship in U.S. agriculture. We are writing to comment on the specific charge given to the committee—to recommend an appropriate compensation mechanism, if any, to address economic loss to growers from unintended presence of biotech materials—and offer suggestions on how the work of AC21, and the broader debate over the coexistence of commercialized biotech and non-biotech agricultural products, can remain constructive.”

The ABPC recommended that  USDA and AC21: (1) maintain a balanced perspective on the contribution of production agriculture to the US economy, the history of different agricultural production practices, and the interest in continued access to scientifically sound and safe technologies; (2) USDA reaffirm its commitment to evidence-based policymaking and adequate opportunity for public notification and comment; (3) seek input from all sources with appropriate expertise; and, (4) avoid neglecting topics that offer the most promise for facilitating coexistence. The letter concluded by stating that it is ABPC’s opinion that developing a compensation mechanism “will not deter or prevent lawsuits from being filed as USDA assesses and approves new biotechnology traits.”

The letter also was signed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Assoc., American Soybean Assoc., American Sugarbeet Growers Assoc., Agricultural Retailers Assoc., Biotechnology Industry Organization, Corn Refiners Assoc., Grocery Manufacturers Assoc., National Assoc. of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Assoc., National Grain and Feed Assoc., National Oilseed Processors Assoc. and North American Millers Assoc.

Upon recommendation by its Boll Weevil Technical Advisory Committee, the NCC’s Boll Weevil Action Committee (BWAC) agreed to create an International Technical Advisory Committee comprised of US and Mexican representatives, which will focus on the US’ southern Lower Rio Grande Valley and northern Tamaulipas, Mexico areas as one eradication zone. The committees met earlier this month in Dallas.

Creating an international panel that reviews the areas as one zone will improve communication and provide for better coordinated activities on both sides of the US and Mexican border. Besides reviewing activities, the international panel will provide zone operation recommendations to the BWAC, which will review the recommendations, forward approved recommendations to USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and urge coordinated eradication efforts on both sides of the border.

The meeting was well attended and included representatives from the US Cotton Belt, APHIS and several Mexican states as well as a key Mexican federal official, Dr. Javier Trujillo, general director, Plant Health and Food Safety.

Presentations were given by Larry Smith of the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation and by Carlos Campos of the Tamaulipas eradication program. This allowed participants to focus on the eradication challenges presented on both sides of the border. Smith and Campos began having routine meetings this year to discuss activities adjacent to both programs and share boll weevil trap data. Both say the meetings provided positive results and were beneficial to both programs.

The Center for Biological Diversity, EPA and Intervenors [Crop Life America and American Farm Bureau Federation (on behalf of NCC and others)] filed a joint status report on Sept. 30 on settlement negotiations in the Endangered Species Act mega-lawsuit. The report updated the court on settlement talks (no substantive agreements have been reached) and asked for a 30-day continuation of the stay of the litigation and the postponement of the Oct. 14 status conference until Nov. 18 (see 8/12/11 Cotton’s Week). It is believed that the court will rule on these requests next week. Settlement discussions are continuing.

In January, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Pesticide Action Network (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against EPA, alleging that EPA had failed to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the effects of registered pesticides on endangered species throughout the United States. The plaintiffs asked the court to require EPA to initiate and complete the consultation process, and to compel EPA to restrict pesticide uses that may result in their entering endangered species’ occupied or critical habitat until the consultation process is complete (see 4/1/11 Cotton’s Week).

There are more than 300 pesticides named in the suit, many of which are commonly used in cotton production (including Orthene, Finish, Karate Z, Bidrin, Cotoran, Imidacloprid, Lannate, Dual II Magnum, Diamond, Gramoxone, Caparol and Dropp — to name a few). The complaint alleges that 216 endangered species are affected. This action could potentially disrupt every type of agriculture – from row crops to specialty crops – nationwide.

Bipartisan legislation recently introduced in the House and Senate would establish a legal structure for tax-exempt organizations that fund agricultural research.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Thune (R-SD) are the principal Senate co-sponsors. They were joined by seven additional co-sponsors including, Sens. Bennet (D-CO); Blunt (R-MO); Brown (D-OH); Cochran (R-MS); Coons (D-DE); Inhofe (R-OK); and Wyden (D-OR).

The bill was authored and introduced in the House by Rep. Nunes (R-CA) with 15 original co-sponsors, including House Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas (R-OK).

The legislation would authorize the establishment of public charities, called agriculture research organizations or AROs, specifically focused on agriculture research. The legislation uses similarly-structured medical research organizations as a model. AROs would be required to be associated with a land-grant university or other agriculture college. AROs would have the same status as other charitable organizations, which would allow donors – individuals or families – to contribute funds to agricultural research and receive tax advantages.

The legislation's authors believe this could attract new funds to agriculture research to supplement dwindling federal financial support. According to various sources, agricultural productivity has risen dramatically but funding for agricultural research has fallen behind other federal agencies since the '70.

The Cotton Foundation announced its publication of STRESS PHYSIOLOGY IN COTTON, the seventh in the Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series. Made possible by a grant to the Foundation from Monsanto, the book was edited by Dr. Derrick M. Oosterhuis, U. of Arkansas. It is available in a digital format at www.cotton.org/foundation/stressphyscontents.cfm.

The Foundation reference book series was launched in ’85 with the publication of COTTON PHYSIOLOGY, edited by J.R. Mauney and J.M. Stewart. The cotton physiology series is being continued with the use of a smaller book format with each future book covering a specific pertinent topic. The smaller book format will facilitate timely publication and reduce costs. Each book will incorporate a special symposium on a topic chosen by members of the Agronomy and Physiology Conference and held at the Beltwide Cotton Conferences.
 
The other reference books and their publication dates include: COTTON PHYSIOLOGY, ’86; WEEDS OF COTTON: Characterization and Control, ’92; COTTON INSECTS AND MITES: Characterizations and Management, ’96; VEGETABLE OILS AND AGROCHEMICALS, ’94; and COTTON HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Use and Influence of Harvest Aids and BOLL WEEVIL ERADICATION IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1999, both in ’01.

Net export sales for the week ending Sept. 22 were 229,400 bales (480-lb). This brings total ’11-12 sales to approximately 7.1 million bales. Total sales at the same point in the ’10-11 marketing year were approximately 9.2 million bales. Total new crop (’12-13) sales are 185,800 bales.

Shipments for the week were 85,100 bales, bringing total exports to date to 809,500 bales, compared with the 1.5 million bales at the comparable point in the ’10-11 marketing year.