Locals weigh in on 2007 farm bill

With the House version of the 2007 farm bill already voted on, local farmers and people in the agriculture business are keeping an eye on the legislation's progress in the Senate.

In a recent visit to New Ulm, Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., spoke about his vision for alternative energy in the United States and here in his own backyard. He emphasized the importance of not allowing regional crops dictate politicians’ desire to increase efforts in producing renewable fuels.

“Sugar can’t stand alone. Corn can’t stand alone. Soybean growers can’t stand alone. The only way we’re going to have a good farm bill is if the southern folks will stand together with us in Minnesota. These are our Saudi oil fields right here.”

Gary Joachim is one of four national directors for the Minnesota Soybean Association. He said the increase of the price of energy and transportation has affected the price of food, growers are in a nice situation.

“It’s good for growers that prices are high, absolutely,” he said. “Biodiesel has helped soybean growers tremendously. But our current surplus of vegetable oil could disappear overnight for use in fuel.”

Kurt Watson, president of Minnesota Corn Growers Association, said the situation is similar for the farmers he represents.

“The good news is we’re selling corn in a domestic market — in dollars — to ethanol producers,” Watson said. “In a time when we’re relying more and more on imports, that’s a good thing.”

The bad news? Production costs for corn growers is expected to go up 165 percent next year.

Disaster relief

“In the past, disaster relief has always been ad hoc and after the fact,” Joachim said. “A lot of folks are able to cover their losses through crop insurance, but we’re glad Mr. Peterson has a provision that we wouldn’t have to go hunt for the money every year.”

While the House version of the farm bill does authorize a permanent disaster relief program, it does not define any way to fund it. Hunting season may not be over. And that’s where the Senate version gets hung up on such a proposal.

“We’re in good times now and people forget that we need safety nets,” Coleman said. “I think there’s a legitimate discussion about where the money is coming from. We have to look at the funding, but I think we can figure that out.”

Watson was concerned with the erosion of safety nets outlined in the 2002 farm bill including crop insurance, countercyclical payments and loan deficiency payments, but so far he’s happy with the House version when it comes to farmer support.

“It’s not an identical twin (to the ’02 bill), but it looks like it has the same parentage and we think that’s very good.”

For the full story, check out the Tuesday, Sept. 25 print edition of the Leader.

(Lesley Christianson is a staff writer for the Hutchinson Leader.)
christianson@hutchinsonleader.com