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.