For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if a federal proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law.

“This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do,” said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the proposal. It would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.

The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year.

He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and “all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them.”

“We’ll let other countries put food on our tables like they are putting gas in our cars. Other countries don’t have the health standards we have,” Sparks said. EPA spokesman Nick Butterfield said the fee was proposed for farms with livestock operations that emit more than 100 tons of carbon emissions in a year and fall under federal Clean Air Act provisions. Butterfield said the EPA has not taken a position on any of the proposals.

But farmers from across the country have expressed outrage over the idea, both on Internet sites and in opinions sent to EPA during a public comment period that ended last week. “It’s something that really has a very big potential adverse impact for the livestock industry,” said Rick Krause, the senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation. The fee would cover the cost of a permit for the livestock operations. While farmers say it would drive them out of business, an organization supporting the proposal hopes it forces the farms and ranches to switch to healthier crops.

“It makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses,” said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman in Washington for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “We certainly support making factory farms pay their fair share,” he said. U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican from Haleyville in northwest Alabama, said he has spoken with EPA officials and doesn’t believe the cow tax is a serious proposal that will ever be adopted by the agency.

“Who comes up with this kind of stuff?” said Perry Mobley, director of the Alabama Farmers Federation’s beef division. “It seems there is an ulterior motive, to destroy livestock farms. This would certainly put them out of business.” Butterfield said the EPA is reviewing the public comments and didn’t have a timetable for the next steps.
—From AP newswire

Team studies perennial fix to perennial problem
The solution to a perennial problem of farming could be, well, perennials.

Researchers at Iowa State University are experimenting with the placement of perennial prairie strips in corn and soybean fields as a way of lessening runoff and soil erosion – problems nearly as old as farming itself. “We know the farmers need to make a profit, but how do we interject some of these strips so that the farmers can still do what they need to do, but we can have other benefits?” asked Lisa Schulte, an assistant professor at Iowa State and project investigator. Perennials – plants that grow back naturally, year after year – may offer the solution.

Preliminary research on the project, done in coordination with Iowa State’s Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, shows that placing the strips at key points in and around crop fields can lead to a 10 percent to 20 percent reduction in sediment loss. Soil erosion is a long-term problem for farmers, who collectively are often criticized by environmental groups for not taking enough care to prevent runoff from reaching waterways. Chemicals used in farming are blamed for a variety of problems in waterways, including the growth of the so-called Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

The idea behind the project is to take a concept already common to farming – buffer strips – and improve it with more strategic thinking, said Matt Helmers, an assistant professor and extension agricultural engineer at Iowa State. Helmers and other researchers believe there are environmental and practical benefits to precision placement of the strips. Farmers may be able to keep more land in use by incorporating the system, he said, while it would also help protect waterways and natural ecosystems.

“This is taking some land out but trying to maximize the environmental benefit of all of the land that’s out-of-production,” Helmers said. “We have some birds who are here who are only using the strips,” she said. “Birds that were already doing well within the agricultural fields we don’t need to worry about. We need to worry about these birds.”

Schulte said the project was geared at finding a way to blend the needs of farmers with long-term environmental concerns.
—From Iowa State University release

Economists: Credit will tighten for farmers
The nation’s credit crunch had little effect on farmers this year, but economists say that will change when planters attempt to secure loans next year. Farmers are usually good credit risks for banks and their balance sheets have continued to improve since the mid-1980s when the agricultural sector had significant financial problems.

David Schweikhardt, a professor of domestic policy and international trade issues in the Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics at Michigan State University, says even farmers with good credit scores and history with a bank may have trouble getting loans in 2009. “People are being lulled into a sense of false confidence,” Schweikhardt said. “We hear a lot of discussion that agriculture is not going to be impacted by the economic downturn because we haven’t seen it so far. I think that has to do with the timing more than anything else.”

Most farmers had already received loans to buy the seed, fertilizer and equipment they needed because the credit markets were at the time not frozen by an economy in recession. Schweikhardt said high commodity prices and good yields in recent years has also caused many people to assume the agricultural sector’s balance sheets will be positive and producers will have no trouble borrowing the money next year. Those assumptions are wrong, Schweikhardt said, because banks will raise their lending standards and demand more information than they did previously when making new loans.

“For the same amount of money they might have borrowed last year, producers will have to put up more collateral and provide more evidence that they’ll be able to pay back that money,” Schweikhardt said. “Lenders will be asking people more questions about the profitability of their operations and their ability to repay loans under worst-case scenarios.” John Anderson, agricultural economist with the Mississippi State University Extension Service, said Mississippi producers typically go to the bank in late November or December to apply for loans for the next year’s growing season.

Anderson recommended farmers prioritize expenses, carefully consider all purchases, and make only those needed to improve efficiency and keep the operation viable. “Be prepared with a plan when you go to the bank,” Anderson said. “Have all your financial statements up-to-date and in order, and have as specific a plan as possible to demonstrate how the loan will be repaid and what your cash flow will look like in timing and amounts.”
—From AP newswire

Survey: Iowa farmers see new value in hog manure
High fertilizer costs have some Iowa farmers coddling up to a previously shunned byproduct of the business – manure.

Farmers and experts said that’s because manure is a much cheaper alternative to commercial fertilizer. As Lake City farmer Dwight Dial sees it, people are willing to endure the smell for the savings. “One year you’re smelly and stinky and they really didn’t want you there,” said Dial, who farms corn, soybeans and raises hogs near the central Iowa town. “And the next year – ‘Oh my. We have access to your hog manure to save us money.’” Matt Russell, a food policy project coordinator with the Agricultural Law Center, said the survey of 61 farmers from across the state offered a window into the decision-making of farmers who have been faced with higher input costs than in previous years.

“The value of manure to farmers has definitely increased,” Russell said. “It’s primarily related to commercial inputs and farming costs. The cost of nitrogen has gone up so the cost of commercial fertilizer has gone up and you can get some of the same nutrients from manure for a fraction of the cost.” “We have gone, because of fertilizer prices, from a situation where the person who owned manure was maybe even paying to get rid of it, to now, someone is paying them for manure,” Russell said. Paul Mugge, who farms near Sutherland in northwest Iowa, said he has never been anti-manure, but he understands why more people are taking a second whiff of manure now.

“It’s never been a scourge to me at all. I’ve always used it. I need every bit of manure I have,” Mugge said. “For most people, now I think it’s about economics. Chemical fertilizer got so expensive this year that we’re all looking for alternatives.” Mugge and Dial, the Lake City farmer, both said they expect manure will lose some of its charm if fertilizer costs fall in years ahead. For now, though, farmers are smelling only savings. “When commercial fertilizer becomes cheaper, hog manure will stink again,” Dial said.
—From Iowa State University release