Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway -- May '98

The MSAWG Livestock Policy Paper entitled Sustaining Land, People, Animals & Communities: Policy Principles for Sustainable Development (May 1998) was released on May 5 with the endorsement of 16 MSAWG member organizations. The paper includes policy positions on Research and Education, Technical and Financial Assistance, Credit and Tax Policy, Marketing, and Regulation of Concentrated Feeding Operations.

The paper builds on the 1993 MSAWG publication Sustaining Land, People, Animals, and Communities: The Case for Livestock in a Sustainable Agriculture and outlines reforms necessary to foster critically needed changes. We here at SAC thank Chirag Mehta for his work in finalizing the paper and all you MSAWGers for your time and energy in reviewing and commenting on the paper. Copies of the Policy Paper are available from the SAC office. Let us know how many you need, or if you would still like to endorse the report.

Through gritted teeth, the USDA thanked the more than 200,000 commentators on the National Organic Standard, as the comment period went out with a bang at the end of April. Almost immediately, the Secretary announced that the department was ruling out the “big three” (genetically modified organisms, sewage sludge, and irradiation) – for the time being, at least – and pledged to offer a revised rule for a second round of comment “later this year.”

Our suite-mates Mark Keating and Kathleen Merrigan from the Henry A. Wallace Institute burned plenty of midnight oil preparing their comments on the draft rule. Not counting a random pizza box or two that may have been stapled in the stack in the final rush, their review ran over one hundred pages, and focused on those issues “Beyond the Big Three” that must be addressed in a final organic rule. If you would like to see, and promise to read, this magnum opus, contact the Wallace D.C. office at (202) 544-0705

On May 1, the President inked his John Hancock (“Bill Clinton” being rather more prosaic) on the FY98 supplemental appropriations bill. It pays for a wide variety of disasters (tornadoes, freezes, droughts, et al) to the tune of $2.6 billion, plus expenses related to operations in Bosnia and other hot spots ($2.9 billion), veteran's compensation ($550 million), and regular (non- emergency) supplementals -- including a bit of pork thrown in here and there ($142 million), for a total cost of $6.1 billion.

The Administration failed to get House leaders to agree to include funds for the IMF and UN, so those big ticket items ($18.5 billion) await a possible second supplemental later in the year. After great battle, the conferees agreed not to "offset" any of the costs of the military part of the bill (makes you homesick for the early ‘80s, doesn’t it?), to offset the domestic emergency spending with a cut to "Section 8" low income housing funds (with the shaky promise to restore these funds in the regular appropriations bill later this year – now I’m REALLY having flashbacks here), and to fully offset the costs of the non-emergency domestic spending.

The offset decision was bad news for us on two fronts. First, 1998 funding for the Conservation Farm Option was scaled back from $15 million to $11 million -- by means of one of those infamous limitations on funding for USDA salaries to implement a CFO program that uses more than that amount from its 1998 authorization. Second, in a very complicated transaction, funding for farm ownership loans for beginning farmers was scaled back by an estimated $20 million.

The resulting savings from these two provisions went to pay for an increase in direct operating loans to farmers along the Red River in Minnesota and North Dakota and elsewhere. These particular offsets were unfortunately suggested by USDA and supported by Representatives Peterson (D-MN) and Pomeroy (D-ND). We were able to keep them out of the Senate version of the bill, but once the decision was made to offset non-emergency domestic spending, the conferees simply took the proposed offsets directly from the House bill.

Now, for those into the nitty gritty of complicated funding mechanisms, the credit deal went like this. (1) Regular appropriations for FY 98 yield direct operating loans of $495 million and direct ownership loans of $46 million. Of these amounts, 25% and 70%, respectively is reserved for beginning farmers. (2) Direct ownership loans, however, would have been increased to about $85-90 million through a statutory requirement transferring appropriated but unused funds for guaranteed farm operating loans to direct ownership loans for beginning farmers in August of each year. (3) But, the supplemental took $8.3 million from the unused guaranteed operating funds, out of a maximum projected surplus of $10 million, leaving very little to be transferred to beginning farmer loans this summer. (4) The supplemental added funds for direct loans, enough for an additional $70 million in direct operating loans (bringing the total to $565 million) and an additional $18.3 million in direct farm ownership loans (bringing the total to $64.3 million). (5) The final result is a big increase for operating loans (targeted heavily to "disaster" areas), an small increase in ownership loans available immediately, but a net decrease for farm ownership loans for the year as a whole, and, for beginning farmers specifically, a decrease of $20 million, give or take a few million. Got that? If so, please submit your resume to the SAC office. You're hired!

One last note on the supplemental. The attempt by Senator Robb and Secretary Glickman to relax lending restrictions to farmers with previous debt restructuring agreements was not successful. Representative Clayton was not able to get the provision in the House bill, and the conference committee struck out Senator Robb's provision. Report language was added as follows: "The conferees further expect the Secretary and the congressional committees of jurisdiction to correct any unfair requirement of borrower ineligibility due to a lawful exercise of rights provided by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987." These rights, of course, were scaled back in the 1990 and 1996 farm bills and so far, at least, there is little indication from Ag Committee Chair Senator Lugar that he will bring this matter back up for consideration.

So, the cuts have already started and the funding game is just beginning. What next? Well, the House budget resolution has gone well past its April 15 deadline and still appears a week or more from coming to the floor. Trouble is, the GOP leadership can't decide what their game plan is. Go for more big cuts in domestic discretionary spending? That is what Budget Chairman and 2000 presidential contender John Kasich is pushing, to the tune of another $100 billion in spending cuts over 5 years, plus about $60 billion in tax cuts. Go for bigger election year tax cuts and smaller spending cuts? That is what Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer wants. Or stop any further domestic discretionary cuts beyond the 5-year, nearly $40 billion cut written into last year's balanced budget agreement? That is the view of Appropriations Committee Chair Bob Livingston, joined by most all of his committee. That is also the view of the already approved Senate budget resolution.

Four other issues further complicate the budget mess. First, the six-year, $218 billion highway bill (a.k.a. ISTEA, Ice-Tea or “The Other White Meat”) extravaganza spends $22 billion more than last year's balanced budget agreement allows. Assuming the bill passes and becomes law – overcoming veto rumblings out of the White House – this $22 billion will come directly out of all other domestic appropriations, i.e., education, environment, agriculture, etc. The combination of the domestic discretionary cuts from the balanced budget agreement and the highway bill will be $60 billion, with the biggest hits in 2001 and 2002, but the pain starting in FY 99. If Kasich and company are successful in pushing their additional cuts in the budget, this already staggering shortfall will climb.

The second factor is the tobacco bill. The Administration wants tobacco tax increases to pay for various Clinton spending priorities in health and education. The Senate budget resolution reserves all tobacco revenues for fixing Medicare, although lately there have been strong hints from Senate GOP leadership that it would be split between tax cuts and shoring up Medicare. The situation in the House is even more muddied. With the cash already accounted for and spent, it would probably be impolite to note that the tobacco deal (and the hope of any revenues thereby) is crumbling by the day.

The third wild card is the surplus itself, now estimated to be approaching $60 billion for next year. The President would reserve it until a Social Security deal is reached. At first, Speaker Gingrich and other key Republicans went along with this line, but recently have been shifting to using the surplus in the budget and tax cut mix.

The final budget consideration relates directly to agriculture -- the research bill. The key element driving passage of the research bill is the crop insurance rescue package it contains. Without this crop insurance deal, the agriculture appropriations bill for this year and years following would have to come up with an additional $200 million to pay off crop insurance companies. This $200 million, unless funded in the research bill, will come directly out of other items in the agriculture appropriations bill. The research bill awaits consideration in the House after the Memorial Day recess (see story in this issue).

All of the above, as you might imagine, is not making for happy campers over at Appropriations. They want you to feel their pain, so when they start cutting your favorite research or conservation or rural development program you know that, shucks, it just couldn’t be helped. Whose program gets gored, though, still very much hinges on the scope of the grassroots pressure being brought to bear.

Technically, the budget resolution must pass the House, then be conferenced with the very different Senate bill before the Appropriations "cardinals" (the Subcommittee chairs) decide how to divide up the pie (the "allocation" process). Once agriculture gets its allocations, then House markup takes place, followed by a floor vote, and then by parallel Senate action. However, because the House budgeteers are taking so bloody long to put the resolution together, the appropriators are making plain they will forge ahead with or without a budget. If without, they will markup based on the levels set in last year's balanced budget agreement. The Senate Appropriations chair has also recently indicated he won't wait on the House to act first, and may start mark-ups at any time now. Still, we don't expect any action until at least after the Memorial Day recess.

Breaking News: As we go to press (5/14), Senate Approps has rushed ahead and decided on allocations, breaking all budget protocol (not to mention that pesky Constitution thing about the House initiating spending bills). The allocation assume more or less level funding overall. For agriculture, there is a cut of about $200 million that largely would be recovered by the crop insurance deal in the research bill – assuming it someday passes. Even if this isn’t a declaration of war between Senate and House Republicans, it’s definitely not détente.

All of our discretionary spending priorities continue to need our attention. We have just completed a round of visits on the SARE-IPM increase. While general support is widespread, it remains unclear whether enough champions are in line to bring home the bacon. Also, be forewarned that once we know what the allocation for agriculture is going to be, we may need to rev up to protect mandatory conservation programs (EQIP, CFO, etc.) and the Fund for Rural America from assault.

The conference report on the research bill, now better known as the food stamp and crop insurance bill, was approved by the Senate on May 12 by a vote of 92-8. Only the most conservative members voted no to express their opposition for even partial food stamp eligibility restoration for legal immigrants. Despite passage, the funding for the bill is still at risk if the highway bill gets out of conference and back to the Senate floor, since it spends the same money. However, given the lopsided vote, using the money for the research bill would likely prevail.

No action is expected in the House until after Memorial Day recess, and even then, nobody is promising anything. The more numerous conservative activists in House will attack the conference agreement on the food stamp front. More crucial to the final outcome, however, may be the position taken by the appropriators. While they very much want the 5-year, $1 billion crop insurance rescue package which eliminates the need for them to use $200 million a year for crop insurance repayments in their bill, they remain opposed to the new 5-year, $600 million competitive grants research program (Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems), preferring to somehow capture that money for their own bill and keep research spending solely within their jurisdiction. If the appropriators team up with the conservatives, it could spell trouble with a capital “T” for the bill, but the betting is still on the bill eventually becoming law.

For details of what is in the bill, refer to last month's edition of the Washington Report. One item of interest not mentioned last time -- the new research bill would limit indirect administrative costs under both the Fund for Rural America and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems to not more than 19% of the total federal grant. Many Fund for Rural America proposals asked for considerably more than this, an issue which we were responsible for bringing to light and making an issue of both at USDA and on the Hill. The National Research Initiative and other competitive grants programs funded through the annual appropriations bill would continue to be limited to 14% for indirect costs. The 5% spread between the two limitations may serve to keep the issue hot for future debate.

On April 20, the Washington SAC office submitted comments to ARS national program staff on its draft “National Program Statement” for integrated farming systems. In ARS parlance, IFS includes sustainable agriculture and precision farming. If you would like a copy, give us a call.

The last Washington Report announced the proposed rule for the CFO and the availability of the request for proposals. CFO applications are due by June 1st, as are comments on the proposed rule. The notice of availability of the RFP appeared in the Federal Register on April 21st and, unfortunately, has added a complicating factor to proposal writers.

The notice of availability includes, almost in passing, a statement that no CFO funds will be available to groups other than through payments to individual farmers. This means that rather than applying directly for funds to administer a CFO pilot project and pay for such things as outreach, education, technical assistance, monitoring, evaluation and the like, group pilot project proposals must now indicate that farmers who participate in the particular CFO pilot will be asked to subcontract part of their payment back to the sponsoring group (or partnership of groups and agencies) to help pay for these items.

This bizarre payment structure will not affect individual farmers who apply themselves as pilot projects, since in those cases the single farm will be the entire pilot. Those groups which had been considering CFO pilots with very small numbers of farmer participants may want to consider submitting as individuals rather than groups. Call us if you need further information.

Note: We will be sending out an action alert on commenting on the proposed rule soon.

On April 23, 1998, NRCS staff conducted a briefing on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, The Conservation Farm Option, and the agency's ongoing task of developing performance measures for the agricultural conservation programs that it administers. In addition to SAC representatives, those attending included representatives from the American Farmland Trust, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Ferd brought up the change in the CFO funding regs for organizations that assist farmers with CFO planning (see above). When talk turned to EQIP, NRCS announced that it will be releasing a Guidance for Local Working Groups which we hope will address problems with some of these groups, particularly limited outreach by local working groups to non-governmental organizations and individuals with expertise in conservation and sustainable agricultural practices.

NRCS also announced that the final rule on State Technical Committees is scheduled for release in July, without explanation for the delay in releasing this rule. SAC representatives also raised the issue of the adoption of innovative practices, including the need for clear criteria and guidance to State Conservationists in considering whether to approve innovative practices and methods for informing other State Conservationists and agricultural producers when pilot programs for new technology and innovation are approved.

The meeting ended with a discussion of NRCS' ongoing struggle to develop performance measures for its conservation programs. Measures such as number of farmers participating, practices adopted, scope of structural modifications, etc. remain important. NRCS, however, must also be prepared to provide information on environmental outcomes, e.g. demonstrated water quality improvements, increases in wildlife populations, etc. With regard to outcomes, NRCS is seeking information on what to measure and how to measure it. A related issue is evaluating "good science" (from bad science? or no science?) in this area of program performance evaluation.

The 1996 Farm Bill established a mega Research, Extension, Education, and Economics advisory board with broad advisory authority for all federal research activities, including program and funding priorities. The Board also has specific jurisdiction over the Fund for Rural America as the Fund's official "stakeholder" advisory group. The new research bill also gives the Board authority to review all research requests for proposals and to make recommendations to the Secretary on how to alter them in the future.

Part of the USDA excuse for problems with the first round of Fund for Rural America research grants has been the pressure exerted by the Board to do the wrong thing. While this is a weak excuse, it does underscore the seriousness with which this advisory board is taken.

The Board consists of 30 persons. Currently, 11 slots are open for nomination, including animal science, crop science, rural economic development, and representatives of a national livestock commodity, national consumer, and national conservation organizations. We are submitting several nominations each for 9 of the 11 slots. The decisions will be made later this spring or summer by Deputy Secretary Rominger and Undersecretary Gonzalez.

In last month's Washington Report we listed non-profit organizations who were awarded FRA standard grants. Based on expanded information now available on each project and the project collaborators, we can provide a more complete accounting. While counted among the standard grants, for this purpose we will leave out the food gleaning and the telecommunications grants. Underlined groups represent lead collaborators. Each semi-colon represents a separate grant.

Federation of Southern Cooperatives; Ke Kua'aina (a community development organization); California Cattlemen's Association, American Farmland Trust; California Latino Agricultural Association; Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF); Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF); Colorado Wool Growers, American Sheep Industry Association, Colorado Cattlemen's Association, Colorado Farm Bureau; Connecticut Farm Bureau, Connecticut Forest and Park Association; Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture; Friends of Rural America, Hardin County Citizens for Community Improvement, Iowa Environmental Council; Kansas & Nebraska Corn Growers Associations and Kansas & Nebraska Grain Sorghum Producers; Kansas Rural Center; Kansas Rural Center, Tallgrass Prairie Producers Co-op, Kansas Organic Producers, Rolling Prairie Farmers Alliance; Kentucky Farm Bureau, Kentucky Farm Workers Network, Council for Burley Cooperatives, Kentucky Pork Producers, Kentucky Dairy Council, Kentucky Haygrowers Association; The Composting Council, Rodale Institute; Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota; Farmers’ Legal Action Group, National Contract Poultry Growers Association; American Cancer Society, National MS Society, American Diabetes Association, Arthritis Foundation; Kansas Rural Center; New Mexico Community Foundation, New Mexico Organic Growers Commission, FlexNet Native Heritage Foundation; National Sludge Alliance, New York Farm Bureau; Environmental Impact RC&D (NC), North Carolina Pine Needle Producers Association, Sandhills Area Land Trust; Michigan Farm Bureau, Ohio Compost Association, Lake County Nursery Association; Central Oregon Hay & Forage Grower Association, Oregon Seed Council, Oregon Tall Fescue Commission; Oregon Tilth, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, New England Small Farm Institute, Rural Advancement Foundation International; US Apple Association; Pennsylvania Vegetable Growers Association, Northern Appalachia Leadership Initiative on Cancer; Georgia & Texas Pecan Growers Associations; Texas Wine and Grape Growers; The Nature Conservancy, Center for Compatible Economic Development; Washington Association of Wheat Growers; Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, World Wildlife Fund; New York Vegetable Growers, Organic Vegetable Growers; Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, American Oat Association, Tri-County Farmers Co-op.

While the computers at our offices were humming the last week of April with a veritable tome of comments on organic food standards submitted to USDA by our office mates, the Wallace Institute folks, Martha and Ferd were busting to finish off comments on EPA's Draft Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) Strategy and USDA's Nutrient Management Policy by May 1.

The AFO comments incorporated and elaborated on the points made in the MSAWG Livestock Policy Paper, with the major focus on (1) minimum national standards, including land application standards, implemented under individual Clean Water Act permits for large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, (2) joint responsibility and liability for animal waste imposed on vertical integrators, (3) compliance financial assistance limited to small and mid-sized AFOs with problems, and (4) a strong request that EPA's assessment of research and innovative approaches to livestock production should emphasize sustainable agriculture practices.

The next major step in the AFO Strategy will be a proposal from EPA and USDA describing the role that each agency will take in dealing with AFO problems and the plan for coordinating the actions of the two agencies. This proposal is scheduled for public release in July.

SAC’s comments to the USDA on the proposed revision of the NRCS nutrient management policy are actually preliminary comments. As we informed most of you, NRCS published a copy of its proposed revision in the Federal Register on April 22 with a final date of June 22, 1998 for submitting comments on the revision. This policy will guide NRCS field staff (and crop consultants and dealers who contract for services with NRCS) for technical and program (financial) assistance.

We see some major problems with the proposed policy. As drafted, the policy will allow ten years or more of NRCS technical assistance resources, EQIP, and other financial assistance to support animal feeding and other livestock operations that cannot utilize manure at agronomic rates. In addition NRCS funds could be targeted to areas with very high animal-to-land ratios and to large-scale confinement operations.

Let us know if you would like a copy of the U.S. EPA's Draft AFO Strategy, SAC's comments on the Strategy, the proposed revision to NRCS' nutrient management policy and/or SAC's preliminary comments on the policy.

Maybe it’s just me, but somehow the title “Animal Waste Summit” did not call to mind bracing alpine winds or the rustle of Gore-Tex and cold clink of climbing gear before dawn. In what may be characterized as a "one-Senator hearing," Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa continued his quest for information on animal feeding operations (AFOs) and their regulation by hosting a summit meeting on Capitol Hill on May 5th.

Invited speakers included our own Ferd Hoefner representing the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. Senator Harkin is a strong supporter of national minimum standards for AFOs, in large part to prevent vertical integrators in the livestock sector from playing the states against each other in an attempt to avoid regulation. The summit focused on the current regulatory framework and the proposed EPA AFO strategy.

The summit began with comments from U.S. EPA Administrator Carol Browner and USDA Secretary Dan Glickman on how happy they both were to be cooperating on efforts to regulate CAFOs but they left specifics on how they would cooperate for the release in July of their proposal on joint action on AFOs. Then, Jim Lyons, USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, and Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, discussed the need for funding for research and assistance to livestock producers.

The summit turned to a roundtable with representatives from agri-industry (NPPC, NCBA, NMPF, NBC, and the National Turkey Federation), the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of State Departments Of Agriculture, the National Association of Conservation Districts, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund, the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, and the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Ferd's comments summarized many of the positions on CAFOs presented in the MSAWG Livestock Policy Paper, and merited a quote in the next morning’s Bureau of National Affairs “Daily Report for Executives.” A few other intriguing remarks included both the NPPC representative and the National Conference of State Legislatures representative opining that animal waste nutrients should be matched with sustainable uses. Only the NCBA representative expressed blanket approval of the current regulatory framework and openly opposed land application regulations.

The afternoon session consisted of 3 audience participation workshops on research and technology, program delivery, and national standards. MSAWGer Karen Hudson, representing Families Against Rural Messes (F.A.R.M.), presented a number of photographs, documenting environmental problems arising from CAFOs in Illinois, to the workshop and to Senator Harkin.

The summit also provided us with an opportunity to distribute about 40 copies of the MSAWG Livestock Policy Paper to the press, congressional aides, and other organizations working on the livestock waste issue.

Surprise, surprise – not all members of Congress are pleased with EPA's proposed strategy to tighten Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulations and increase enforcement actions. On May 13, Representative Combest (TX) of the Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research of the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing with regard to the EPA's activities concerning livestock feeding operations.

The stated purpose of the hearing was to determine if current state regulatory programs were sufficient to deal with CAFO animal waste problems. In addition to a statement from Representative George Miller (CA) and EPA and USDA witnesses, there were two state program witnesses, one from the California Environmental Protection Agency and the other from the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, testified. The hearing did not resolve questions regarding the adequacy of state programs, for a number of reasons.

Martha was shocked and appalled as a few of the Representatives revealed through their questions an astounding ignorance of the workings of the Clean Water Act. Of particular note, she was amazed that they did not realize that many states administer NPDES programs and that tightening EPA regulations does not mean that EPA will administer a program separate from the state program.

Welcome to Washington, Martha, and don’t leave that turnip truck there in the “No Parking or Standing After 4:00 p.m. On Alternate Thursdays and Snow Emergencies” Zone. The hearing unearthed very few specifics on the level of state regulation of CAFOs, and state CAFO programs are a moving target with a number of states considering both pending legislative and administrative measures for dealing with animal waste.

Community Food Projects. The Request for Proposals for USDA's Community Food Projects was released in the Federal Register on May 12. The RFP contains complete instructions needed to apply, including objectives, eligibility criteria, and application procedures. Applications are due by June 19th. If you do not have Internet access, you May access the RFP through the Community Food Security Coalition web site at http://www.foodsecurity.org. We can also fax one to you if you prefer. For further information from USDA call Mark Bailey (202-401-1898) or Liz Tuckermanty (202-205-0241).

Rural Cooperative Development. USDA’s Rural Business Cooperative Service announced in the April 23 Federal Register the availability of $1.7 million for Rural Cooperative Development Grants in FY1998. To be eligible for 1998 funds, non-profits or institutions of higher education need to submit preapplications by June 15, 1998; “successful” applicants will be invited to submit the real thing prior to September 1 (which is also listed as the final award date, so I’d say the preapplication is pretty important). Grants will be made for establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development, which are intended to provide technical assistance to multiple cooperatives. For more information, contact Richard Dines of the National Cooperative Business Association at (202) 383-5442 or James Haskell, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Cooperative Services, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, at (202) 720-8460. Copies of the announcement are available through the GPO website at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html or from the SAC DC office.

Rural Cooperative Research. The RCBS also announced in the May 12 Federal Register the availability of $1.9 million for “cooperative agreements for research related to agricultural and nonagricultural cooperatives serving rural communities.” Applications are due by June 30, 1998 and non-profits are eligible. Several of the objectives listed in the announcement are worth noting, as they include “the role of cooperatives in filling the farm income safety net ‘void’,” “the role of cooperatives in highly integrated agricultural industries,” and “Barriers to small and new farmer membership in agricultural marketing cooperatives,” among others. For more information, contact Richard Dines of the National Cooperative Business Association at (202) 383-5442 or Dr. Thomas Stafford, Director, Cooperative Marketing Division, RCBS/USDA at (202) 690-0368. Copies of the announcement are available through the GPO website at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html or from the SAC DC office.

On April 23, USDA released acreage information on CRP to date. The data indicate a net decline in CRP acres since the farm bill of 6.5 million acres, for a current total of 29.9 million acres. The figures also show that the total acreage to date for the continuous sign-up of partial field enrollments of strips and buffers is only 536,000 acres. The current top 10 states by total CRP acres are TX (3.6 million), ND (3.2), MT (3.1), KS (2.5), CO (1.9), SD (1.5), IA (1.4), MO (1.3), MN (1.1), NE (1.0). For the continuous sign-up, the leader of the pack is Montana at 137,000 acres (predominantly saline seeps), followed in order by SD, ND, IL, IA, MN, WA, OH, KS, OK, and MO. Relative to their total acreage in CRP, SD, IL, and OH are doing very well in partial field enrollments, while TX, CO, and NE are doing very poorly. The 18th sign-up for CRP will occur this fall. More on that in the next issue.

The WHO (the World Health Organization of United Nations/Black Helicopter fame, not the aging rockers) just released a report entitled The Medical Impact of the Use of Antimicrobials in Food Animals, which summarizes a WHO meeting on the issue held in October 1997. (Note: we’re using the word “antimicrobials” as used in the report, rather than “antibiotics.” Just think of it as another brick in the road to total UN world subjugation.) The report concludes that there is evidence for the growing concern that use of anitmicrobials in food animal production may lead to the development of anitmicrobial resistance in pathogens which infect human populations. A particular area of concern is the subtherapeutic use of antimicrobials as growth promoters in animal production. The 1997 Report reiterates a recommendation of a 1994 WHO report that antimicrobials should not be used as growth promoters in animals if the antimicrobial is used in human therapeutics or is known to select for cross-resistance to antimicrobials used in human medicine. The report is posted on the WHO website at http://www.who.ch/programmes/emc/zoo/oct97.pdf. If you cannot access the web, contact our office for a copy.

Michigan Integrated Food And Farming Systems (MIFFS) is searching for a full-time executive director to provide leadership (“visionary leadership” they said, but be careful what you ask for…) for the newly-incorporated MIFFS, manage staff and fundraising, and generally direct executively. Contact Christine Lietzau (lietzauc@state.mi.us or 517-373-9800) or Susan Smalley (smalley@msue.msu.edu or 517-432-0049) for more information. Meg Moynihan, MIFFS Interim Executive Director, enthusiastically encourages folks to apply for this position, although she does not intend to do so herself. She does promise to make an entrance at the MSAWG August Meeting in Ohio, so look for her there.

The Alternative Energy Resources Organization (AERO) has re-opened its search for a full-time Executive Director with experience, creative energy and commitment to leading, nurturing, developing and managing this 24-year-old non- profit membership organization. The Executive Director is directly responsible to a 12 to 15-member Board of Directors. The Executive Director manages five staff and three to five contractors. For more information contact Pam Mavrolas between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. MST at (406) 443-7272 ; fax (406) 442-9120; or e-mail at AERO@desktop.org or pmavrolas@desktop.org.

The Western Organization of Resource Councils is drumming up comment to the Secretary of Agriculture in support of their petition on packer captive supplies in the beef market. They’ve made real progress in turning the department (particularly the Secretary) around on the issue, but need help to finish the job. For more information, contact John D. Smillie at 406-252-9672 or see WORC's web page at http://www.worc.org.

The National Conservation Buffer Council is looking for a few good watersheds, to “magnify the effectiveness of USDA programs to promote the establishment of buffers and other conservation practices.” While it’s not entirely clear what that will entail, NCBA brings together the support of various crop associations, ag corporations and others to promote buffer strips, probably through advertising support. If you have a watershed in mind, contact Dave Staywick of the NCBA at (202) 879-0253.

• April '98
• March '98
• Feb. '98
• Jan. '98
• Oct. '97
• July '97

Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway --