Ethanol disinformation and dirty tricks

An article in the The New Yorker magazine, The Dirty Trickster, portrays the life of Roger Stone, a political operative who takes credit for roles in Watergate, the Florida recount, and the fall of former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. And that's not even the half of it. If Stone's story can be believed, there's certainly a lesson about how you get ahead in Washington: play dirty.

A few folks from the farmer side of the ethanol debate are finding political life to be rough and tumble these days. A recent story in Agriculture Online reported Iowa Senator Charles Grassley's claim that a lobbying group funded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association engineered a "smear campaign" against the ethanol industry.

The anti-ethanol forces have blamed the alternative fuel for everything from high gas prices and global food shortages to global warming and deforestation. A beltway public relations firm hired by the Grocery Manufacturers Association was responsible for the campaign, Grassley (R-IA) said on the Senate floor last week.

Industry defenders, like Charlie Martin, an ethanol plant grain buyer, point out that a "dollar rise in the cost of a gallon of gasoline has up to three times the impact on food prices as a dollar rise in the price of a bushel of corn." Higher commodity prices are to blame for only about 20% of the cost of a rise in food prices, corn growers say.

Looking in from press row here, it appears that the "disinformation campaign" has made a big impact on the public perception of ethanol. What a switch from the time not so long ago when corn was viewed as green for its contribution to renewable energy.

One of Roger Stone's rules is "Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack." Don't be surprised if the war of words continues....

Weather folklore 'simply dangerous'

A new discussion thread in Agriculture Online centers on the question of whether farmers pay any attention to the phase of the moon anymore. Some farmers do apparently, or at least they remember that their fathers and grandfathers had their eye on the zodiac when they performed chores like planting crops or handling livestock.

The discussion made me think too about the weather proverbs that you hear from time to time. Things like, "Red sky at morning: Sailor take warning. Red sky at night, sailor's delight."

Digging around on Agriculture Online, I found a story from a few years back, Weather folklore 'simply dangerous. ' The story debunks a number of myths about tornados, one being that you can outrun a twister with your vehicle. Oh, and you better not believe the old saw that lightning never strikes the same place twice, Kansas State University experts tell us.

I'm getting ready to head through the tornado alleys of Nebraska and Kansas in the next couple weeks, so guess I'll take this warning to heart.

Why many farmers would veto farm bill

Would farmers really veto the farm bill? You wouldn't think so, given how all the critics believe the thing is a big fat handout for everybody. John McCain is the latest to condemn the plan. A wire story outlining his dissent, which appeared in the Washington Post today, included mention of the Agriculture Online poll that shows farmers in favor of a presidental veto.
Dan Looker, Successful Farming business editor who covers the farm bill for Agriculture Online, gives these reasons for farmer disfavor for the legislation:
* They agree with President Bush and Senator Grassley that more reform is needed by lowering the adjusted gross income to $200,000.
* They might believe it spends too much on food stamps (a sure bet before the current food price inflation but I’m not so sure now).
* The safety net of marketing loans and countercyclical payments in the farm bill is irrelevant in today’s market.
* Continued direct payments are irrelevant in today’s market.
* Continuing the conservation reserve program makes no sense in today’s market.
What's your theory? Take the poll and add your own comments.

Farmers would veto farm bill?

The farm bill has been called a lot of things by a lot of people--mostly by people whose business it is to make policy and talk policy, and mostly by people inside the Beltway. Out in the country there is not near as much talk about the thing, it seems. One wonders what the working farmer thinks of the much-debated, much-maligned legislation, now that it seems destined for passage.

Is it a little bit of a shock to look at the early returns from the new Agriculture Online poll: Would you veto the farm bill?

In one comment on the poll, a North Carolina farmer worries about the public perception that farmers are ripping off the public: "All we can hope for is a national consciousness that realizes that feeding ourselves is a genuine national security issue. Maybe then they'll be willing to keep us around on the payroll for a while longer."

Take the poll, add your own comments....

Planting proverbs

John Pfaffinger

Hang around farmers long enough and you hear these kinds of expressions:

"Rain makes grain."

"Plant in the dust, bins bust."

"Plant in the dust, crop's a bust."

One of these old saws kicks off an Agriculture Online blog entry by Minnesota farmer John Pfaffinger:

"Plant in the mud, your crop is a dud. Well, the farmers here are going to test out the theory. Saw many going today in terrible soil conditions. I saw 2 stuck planters and 1 stuck digger. Several leaving mud holes as well. So it is late going in cold wet soils and today it was 25 degrees below normal....48 degrees when I was working outside late this afternoon."

Farmers across the nation are concerned about the status of planting, and of crop emergence. And a big majority wonder if the markets are adequately reflecting the impact of the weather, according to a new Agriculture Online poll. Take the poll and add your own comments.

A SURE thing in the farm bill

One of the new provisions in the farm bill, if the thing ever gets passed, is an add-on to the disaster payment program, called SURE (SUpplemental REvenue Assistance Payments).

"This is the permanent disaster program that generated a lot of debate during the writing of the Farm Bill," Agriculture Online Business Editor wrote in a new story on the topic.

"At times it pitted Corn Belt members of the agriculture committees against those from the Great Plains, where crop insurance and other safety net programs haven’t always worked well for wheat farmers facing multiple years of drought," Looker wrote.

One change with this approach to disaster assistance is that it would be directed only to producers who can actually show a loss, rather than just live in a county or an adjacent county that has suffered a loss."

And you must buy at least low-value, catastrophic coverage to get disaster payments.

Dan's story details how the program works and what the numbers look like in different situations.

Facts we can stomach

An opinion piece in the Sunday New York Times, titled Change we can stomach, contends that chefs and consumers can change how farmers farm by buying "delicious" food. The author, Dan Barber, is the chef and co-owner of a New York restaurant and apparently is regarded in some circles as a leading food writer. In Barber's mind, delicious means only locally produced, organic food.

There is much to be said for this movement in agriculture, including the opportunities it provides for young and beginning farmers. Barber, though, sounds false notes on several fronts. This line rings flat, for example: "Until now, food production has been controlled by Big Agriculture, with its macho fixation on 'average tonnage' and 'record harvests.'"

Until now? You mean ever since we were hunting and gathering, we've been Big Agriculture? If we're not helping serve $100 meals in NYC, are we then, all the rest of us, big bad Big Agriculture? And,by the way, has anyone in ag journalism ever used the phrase "average tonnage"?

Later in his piece Barber claims that "organic fruits and vegetables contain 40 percent more nutrients than their chemical-fed counterparts." What?

Here's what the Organic Farming Research Foundation says on the topic of the nutrient superiority of organics versus conventional: "The definitive study has not been done, mainly because of the multitude of variables involved in making a fair comparison between organically grown and conventionally grown food."

On Barber's Web site, he talks about working with the Kellogg Foundation and other organizations to "minimize the political and intellectual rhetoric around agricultural issues…." Dude.

Farm bill plan pleases Pelosi at least

One farm state politician recently compared the farm bill funding process to passing a kidney stone. The bill's main critics seem to put it in the same league as the articles establishing the Soviet Union, and farmers themselves, I think, are mostly uninterested at this point, given the marathon pace the whole thing has taken.

And when it's finally done you'll likely hear faint praise all around, with a bit of nose-holding, as is the case with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In a statement Friday, she cited the bill's potential to "ease the strain of rising food prices," and for its conservation provisions, and "commitment" to nutrition, fruits and veggies.

In the nose-holding part she says she "would have preferred more commodity reform," and she she notes the reduction in the tax credit for corn-based ethanol.

But, any back slapping in the halls of Congress may be premature, according to a new story by Agriculture Online Business Editor Dan Looker.

Ag Secretary Ed Schafer told reporters Thursday that President Bush will veto the farm bill. In response, Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin said the plan isn't perfect but that deserves the President's signature.

"Inexplicably, the White House seems intent on destroying the harvest just as the seeds are being planted," Harkin said.

Bashing biofuels

With the growing public concern about the impact of biofuels on global food supplies, farm groups and farm state politicians are stepping up their case in the debate. New stories on Agriculture Online make the case that ethanol and other biofuels are a relatively small contributor to higher food prices and actually are helping temper skyrocketing fuel prices.

Yesterday, Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) defended the ethanol industry by urging EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson not to roll back the Renewable Fuel Standard, which was part of last year's federal energy bill.

"At a time when a barrel of crude oil costs nearly $120 and gasoline prices are approaching $4 a gallon, the fuel produced by the U.S. ethanol industry is helping to extend our fuel supply and keep prices lower," the senators said.