 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
News from the Minnesota Association of Wheat |
|||||||||
GREGORY CUOMO APPOINTED NEW HEAD OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA'S WEST CENTRAL RESEARCH AND OUTREACH CENTER AT MORRIS MN
Cuomo "brings energy and enthusiasm to the position, as well as commitments to
working with Research and Outreach staff and colleagues, area producers, and communities to generate positive results." Dr. Cuomo came to the University of Minnesota and the West Central Research and Outreach
Center in 1996 from Louisiana State University. He holds a B.S. in range science from Texas A&M; an M.S. (also in range science) from Texas Tech University, and a Ph.D. in agronomy from the University of
Nebraska. Cuomo holds tenure in the Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics. Keith Davison, a member of the search committee said " the committee is confident that Dr. Greg Cuomo embodies the innovative ideas
and high ideals that we sought in a new leader." Cuomo was cited as the candidate most likely to provide unique approaches and solid solutions to agriculture's challenges. The search committee noted Cuomo's
outstanding leadership and communication skills, as well as the vision, multi-disciplinary understanding, and perseverance to make good things happen in Morris. Cuomo has demonstrated the ability to work well with
colleagues and coworkers at all levels, as well as the ability to coordinate the efforts of diverse contributors. Dean Muscoplat indicated that since Dr. Cuomo already knows the Morris area; its local farmers,
community leaders, and area professionals, his informed leadership will help the West Central Research and Outreach Center move swiftly forward. Source: West Central Research and Outreach Center 320-589-2525
ROBERTS AT NAWG CONFERENCE: "AG TRADE POLICY IN SHAMBLES"
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
was the keynote speaker at the Conference banquet, where he accepted the National Association of Wheat Grower's Wheat Leader of the Year Award. In presenting the award, NAWG president Jim Stonebrink called Roberts
"a consistent, understanding and effective friend of the U.S. wheat industry." In his speech, Roberts didn't mince words about his thoughts on the Clinton Administration's handling of agricultural trade
policy. "Ag trade policy is in shambles. No domestic farm program can work without an aggressive, consistent and effective trade policy. Yet this Administration has failed to provide the leadership farmers need to
open up world markets for agricultural products," Roberts said. "Congress shares some of the blame for foreign policy trade failures," Roberts conceded. "But the Administration's leadership and
budget commitment (on trade) continues to fall short of what agriculture needs to survive." In a prepared statement released prior to his speech at the NAWG banquet, Roberts outlined a list of domestic farm
policy and trade priorities In the statement, Roberts provided no timeline for
his ambitious agenda in a campaign-shortened year in Congress. One of the first measures to move forward on Roberts' list will be crop insurance reform. He said he is optimistic that a "strong difference of
opinion" between a plan put forth by himself and Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb) and a plan by Senate Ag Committee Chair Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) can be compromised into a plan that will be approved by the Senate.
Roberts said he thinks the Senate has the votes to pass PNTR for China, and that he is pleased that USDA Secretary Dan Glickman has pledged his support for it. "But the president has to weigh in. No more flip flops
like in Seattle. He has to weigh in on this, and I think he'll do that." Roberts criticized the Clinton Administration for its handling of the opening ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in
Seattle, which set back the trade agenda like "shattered glass." The Administration expresses itself to be pro-trade, yet "the Seattle trade talks failed because the administration pandered to political
factions and anti-trade radicals." He said that the Administration failed to bring Fast Track negotiating authority before Congress and blocked attempts to pass it. And "while granting waivers for grain
sales to Iran, Libya and the Sudan, the Administration failed to provide credit, thus preventing any grain sales." The Administration's real test of trade support will be its support for China PNTR, Roberts
repeated. Roberts pledged his support for the use of agricultural biotechnology, and several times referred to his preferred biotech terminology: Rather than "genetically modified organisms," he said he
prefers "genetically enhanced crops." Research Committee defers biotech resolutions Of 13 new resolutions proposed to this year's NAWG Research Committee, seven dealt with biotechnology issues.
However, Committee members decided on Friday to table all 13 for consideration later by a new joint biotech committee of NAWG and U.S. Wheat Associates. The NAWG/USW Biotech Committee consists of three representatives
of the NAWG and three from USW, and is facilitated by Colorado Wheat Administrator Darrell Hanavan. "The Committee felt that any recommendations on this sensitive issue should be made as a joint wheat industry
position," said Duane Grant, an Idaho wheat producer and Research Committee chairman. Other research recommendations: A committee of wheat researchers will study the issue of marketing wheat on a fixed
moisture basis and report back to the NAWG Research Committee next year, with a comprehensive study on how the issue will affect different wheat regions of the country. A group of wheat producers and researchers will
schedule visits with lawmakers in Washington in March and concentrate specifically on six key wheat research issues, including scab, wheat quality, and funding at several federal wheat labs in the U.S. The Committee
urges that members of state commissions participate in Research Committee discussions, since research plays a key role in the wheat checkoff mission of all wheat states, and research decisions and recommendations may be
made on a more comprehensive basis. NAWG research resolutions along with resolutions on domestic farm policy, membership, international policy, business development, and environmental policy were finalized by NAWG's
board of directors on Saturday. Goal of new committee to facilitate value-added business Facilitating new value-added opportunities for wheat producers is a key objective of the NAWG's new business
development committee, which previously encompassed value-added and marketing. Resolutions adopted by the NAWG each year start off as ideas, and following are some of the key ideas finalized on Friday by participants
of NAWG's business development committee: Short-term objectives: a.. A means of identifying the possibilities for identity-preserved on-farm storage. b.. A volunteer member
database to help link members with value-added business ventures, and a database to help members find funds for value-added capitol. c.. Staff help to work with states and companies to facilitate
such information. Long-term objectives: a.. A checkoff for development of value-added programs. b.. Niche marketing for different wheat varieties.
c.. Help inform and prepare producers for the "value-added world." Of course, not all of these ideas may become a part of the NAWG's resolutions for 2000. At the very least, they are ideas
to get producers thinking about new directions and trends affecting the wheat industry. "The purpose of (the NAWG's business development committee) is to find opportunities where we can fit, and then attack those
opportunities," said Arkansas producer Davey Farabough, the committee's chairman. NAWG business development resolutions along with resolutions on domestic farm policy, membership, international policy, research,
and environmental policy were finalized by NAWG's board of directors on Saturday. Marketing can be art as much as science The economics of supply and demand play a role in grain marketing, but marketing still
can be viewed as much as art as it is science, said Curtis Goulding, of the Iowa-based Farmers Commodities Corporation, in a marketing education session at the recent Wheat Industry and Expo in Las Vegas. Said
Goulding: "The commodities market is not a static thing, where programmed tactics and formulas can predict pricing. It's dynamic, with constantly changing variable dictated by what a lot of different individual
people think will happen. Charts and data give some insight into pricing, but the process that really sets price is how buyers and sellers fell supply, demand, weather and politics work together to influence commodity
availability. That human opinion element is what makes pricing volatile, almost like a human being." Goulding doesn't think U.S. wheat acreage in USDA's March 31 prospective plantings report will decline as much
as some analysts believe, with LDPs providing price support. He doesn't believe corn acreage will fall far from last year either at today's prices, while the loan rate will keep soybean acreage stable. The loan rate for
oilseeds will continue to result in producers "farming the government, not the ground" in 2000, he said. Some producers may turn to marketing their grain through livestock this year. "There's a strong
feeling by some that the fat cattle market could move up to the $80 level, so that would turn $1.50 corn into some reasonable numbers." Goulding says weather will become more of an issue as spring draws nearer.
Grain markets are entering a 60-day window that could result in some of the highest prices this year. "The market is transitioning attention away from weather in South America to weather in the U.S., and the
potential for problems may mean volatility and possible rallies." April may be the best timeframe for wheat producers to make old and new crop sales, he said.
CLOSING THE "DIGITAL DIVIDE" IN RURAL AMERICA Drabenstott, in his keynote address Thursday at the Wheat Industry Conference and Expo in Las Vegas, said that
in the short-term, the agricultural economy is slowly climbing out of its slump. Grain stocks continue to weigh on prices, but the global economy is rebounding and "iffy" weather this year could
cut into production. Farmland values are holding steady, he said, while net farm income hovered above the average in the 1990s, but only because of record government payments that totaled $23 billion in 1999.
Will government payments be part of the equation for net income in 2000? "With this year being divisible by four, my guess is that supplemental income will be coming," said Drabenstott, referring to
this year's elections. Still, he said that the longest economic boom in U.S. history "is not a tide that's lifting all boats." Job creation in remote rural areas is more than a full percentage point
off the pace. Better ways need to be found to tap into the engines of the "new economy," which includes the Internet and digital communications. Ideas from public subsidization much the same as rural
electrification to incentives for the private sector to invest in rural America must be considered. Drabenstott noted that the Center has just hired a specialist from Sprint Communications to
help evaluate these issues. And like the programs that attracted homesteaders to develop the prairies a century ago, programs need to be adopted that attract entrepreneurs to rural areas. "Entrepreneurs
are the yeast in the mix," he said. "Without it, the bread doesn't rise." Leveraging change occurring in agriculture-which includes a greater focus on farm products, not commodities-requires a new perspective on
how, who, and where agriculture does business, said Drabenstott. "We need to find ways to keep farmers in the game in a supply-chained world," he said. Sano Shimoda's big picture for ag: a carbohydrate economy
He predicts that the industry faces two to three years of negative market forces, before market sentiment turns positive."At the end of the day, better
understanding of the science and recognition of the economic and social value of products derived from biotech will ultimately validate the value of this technology and drive its adoption," said
Shimoda. "The ability to calm the controversy, before it creates serious long-term commerial impacts, will require all stakeholders to work together to build public trust and confidence in the
technology." The power of biotechnology applied to agriculture has the potential to move our economic and industrial base towards a carbohydrate or plant-based economy, he said. Specialized traits will create broader
market opportunities that will eventually link a broad spectrum of non-conventional industrial-based sectors to agriculture. Health (pharmaceuticals) food and nutrition, construction and building materials
(chemicals, plastics, wood) and energy are some of the sectors where agriculture will see new product and business opportunities, Shimoda said. These advancements will create new linkages between markets, industries,
and companies that do not exist now. The changes will eventually redefine farmers' role in the agricultural production system. He said farmers will focus more on marketing, made-to-order production and
increasing net value per acre. Shimoda said biotech development of wheat has lagged partly due to the greater complexity of wheat breeding, genetic transformation difficulties, and a saved seed market where there are
fewer incentives to develop seed. However, biotech development in agriculture has accelerated and is spreading across more crops, including rice, fruits, vegetables, and cereal grains, including wheat. A
broad number of wheat traits will be brought to market around 2005 and beyond: --Input traits-Such as herbicide tolerance, disease resistance, insect resistance. Plant performance traits-Yield, kernel uniformity,
weather tolerance, salinity. --Output or quality traits-Improved milling and baking properties, modified lipids to enhance energy content, modified starch, nutrition and flavor. "The future of agriculture is going
to be extraordinary in terms of creating value growth," Shimoda said. "But opportunities will be available only to those who meet the changing needs of the marketplace."
Abridged legislative calendar will limit farm policy debate An abridged legislative calendar because of election year campaigning-There are 132 working days in Congress this year versus the usual 211 days-will
probably limit farm policy legislation this year to crop insurance reform and more ad hoc assistance to offset the likelihood of poor commodity prices, according to Mechel Paggi, director of the Commission on 21st
Century Production Agriculture. Paggi discussed the future of domestic farm policy during a session of the National Wheat Industry Research Forum Thursday during the Wheat Industry Conference and Expo in Las Vegas.
The Commission was established in the 1996 Farm Bill to review current farm policy and recommend policy options for federal lawmakers to consider when current legislation is scheduled to expire in 2002. Blended
into the commission's recommendations, scheduled to be completed by the end of this year, will be views of the commissioners (appointed by Congress and the Administration, consisting mostly of farmers) insight from the
public, and "a sense of congressional interest." "One does not want to present a plan that's off the radar screen on the Hill," Paggi said. The commission is still seeking public input. More information about
the Commission may be found on its website, Along with Paggi's presentation, a variety of research topics relating to wheat development, management, marketing, and policy were discussed. The National Wheat Industry Research Forum resumes at the Wheat
Industry Conference and Expo on Friday. Proceedings of the Research Forum can soon be found on the National Association of Wheat Growers Internet home page at:
CHINA TRADE, SAFETY NET FIX AMONG TOP GLICKMAN PRIORITIES By Tracy Sayler Better trade
with China, a national initiative for cleaner wheat, and resolving thorny global grain trade matters in negotiations of the World Trade Organization will all go a long way to improving the profit picture for U.S. wheat
producers. However, better trade is only part of the profit equation. Fixing the safety net holes in current domestic farm policy is the other, said U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, in
a keynote address that highlighted the Wheat Industry Conference and Exhibition program on Wednesday. High tariffs, and a longstanding ban on U.S. wheat exported to China through Pacific Northwest ports because of
concerns of a minor grain fungal disease called TCK, have kept a lid on U.S. wheat exports to China, both the biggest consumer and user of wheat in the world. Efforts of U.S. Wheat Associates and the National
Association of Wheat Growers to clear these trade barriers paid off last year, when the U.S. and China signed an historic agreement which Glickman said "opens the borders" to increased trade with China, including
U.S. wheat. Chinese wheat imports are expected to soar over the next decade, to an average of 5 million metric tons annually. "And with the TCK issue behind us, I expect us to compete effectively for those
sales," Glickman said. However, Chinese membership in the World Trade Organization, along with congressional approval of permanent Normal Trade Relations status for China this year, is a key step in normalizing trade
with China, a market that could boost annual U.S. farm exports by $2 billion. "This may be the biggest test yet of our nation's commitment to the global economy. It is critical that Congress pass PNTR," he
said. Glickman expressed support for a proposed initiative under which USDA would fund efforts to ship cleaner wheat for export. "Most larger grain companies don't want USDA involved at all," he said of the
initiative, which both the NAWG and USW support. Nevertheless, he said that in a global wheat market where competition is tight, "we must sell the highest quality product we can in the world, and we need the means
to ensure this. I don't want to give buyers any excuses not to buy our grain." USDA will announce details of a new global food aid donation plan within the next few days, Glickman said. Last year, the U.S.
donated about 8 million metric tons of U.S. farm commodities as food aid to about 50 different nations, with about 6 MMT of that consisting of wheat and wheat flour. In a news conference after his conference address,
Glickman hinted that the new round of food aid will again include a good share of U.S. grain, but perhaps not as much as in 1999, which was almost five times the 1998 tonnage and the highest level of food aid in several
years. "I think people will be pleased with the tonnage," he said. "But last year was a high water mark. A lot will depend on world needs as well."Glickman said that for all the obstacles preventing
the export of more American wheat, "the fact is that our sales in volume have held steady. It's low prices that arekeeping export values down." While the government is no longer in the business of managing
supply, it can mitigate the effect of low prices, and indeed, has done so the last two years with $15 billion in ad hoc market and disaster assistance. "People ask, 'Are you going to amend Freedom To Farm?' I
say they already have," he said, referring to the ad hoc assistance to shore up the 1996 Farm Bill's shortcomings. Glickman discussed details of the Administration's new $11 billion, two-year safety net proposal,
which he said would "enhance and fortify the 1996 Farm Bill by rebuilding the safety net." Key components of the plan: The centerpiece of the proposal, however, is $6.9 billion (over two years) in supplemental income assistance. The
assistance would be countercyclical, with payments increasing at times of greatest price distress and tapering off when the farm economy rebounds. The payments would be on top of, not in lieu of, existing AMTA payments
which would continue. The supplemental income assistance would also be targeted to those who actually work the land, not landlords. A controversial feature of the supplemental income assistance plan: The
combination of AMTA payments plus supplemental income payments could not exceed $30,000 per person. Glickman was quick to point out that 92 percent of all farmers would not be affected by the cap, but acknowledged
that it could change when the plan reaches Congress. "That is something we can talk about and work with Congress on, but it's important to have a plan that's a starting point." The text of Glickman's prepared
speech may be found online at the USDA's web page,
$9 BILLION MAY BE STARTING POINT TO QUEST FOR BALANCED SAFETY NET
By Tracy Sayler From 1979 to 1999, the U.S. government spent an average $9.1 billion on farm programs. That may be a starting point for federal lawmakers to use in evaluating possible fixes to the 1996 Farm
Bill, according to Abner Womack, co-director of the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, who spoke Wednesday at the Wheat Industry Conference and Exposition. FAPRI Womack said that FAPRI has conducted a comparative analysis of "Freedom To Farm" compared to the old Farm Bill, and found that one will definitely be better than the other at certain periods. Farmers
made out better with the new bill in 1996 and 97, but would have been better off the last two years under with the old bill. Over the seven-year bill, however, the two bills compare about the same. One thing
Freedom to Farm did do:"It unmasked the market in ways we've never seen it before." Womack says programs before F2F provided a buffer, and "with this kind of farm program, you just don't have brakes"
on either side of prices, highs or lows, because the government isn't controlling stocks. FAPRI researchers have evaluated several policy proposals put forth by federal lawmakers looking at ways to fix safety net
holes in domestic farm policy. One proposal is "Flex Fallow." This policy idea would have producers idling land in exchange for higher loan rates. FAPRI's analysis suggests the idea would be attractive
for producers in the near-term. However, incentives would decline as prices strengthen longer term. There may be other negative implications as well: it would have less income affect on wheat producers than
other crops; it may have a negative effect on U.S. export markets, and it may not be legal under international trade rules. FAPRI also evaluated a Supplemental Income Proposal, one counter-cyclical payment
proposal. Under the plan, payments would be made when the current year's national gross revenue falls below some percentage of the 5-year moving average of national gross revenue. FAPRI's analysis indicated
that such a proposal would have benefited producers in an extremely poor income year like 1999, but would be difficult to trigger otherwise: It generally would be triggered only two or three times over a 10-year period.
What lawmakers need to do in evaluating farm policy changes, said Womack, is "to find balance" among key reasons that many countries have farm programs. That includes the needs of producers, food security,
trade with other countries, conservation and environmental preservation, rural stabilization, and federal budget parameters.
GETTING WHAT WE WANT FROM INTERNATINAL TRADE By Tracy Sayler The effect of regional trade agreements is one of the least discussed
but one of the most critical factors to overshadow global trade, said Carol Brookins, Chairman and CEO of World Perspectives Inc., Washington D.C. Brookins took part in a panel discussion, "How To Get What We Want
From The WTO Round" during the afternoon general session of the Wheat Industry Conference and Exhibition. Nearly 175 regional trade agreements have been reached around the world since 1948, said Brookins, with 67
agreements taking place since 1985 and 38 between 1989 and 1994. The European Union has been involved in more than 65% of these agreements, omitting agriculture from most if not all of the agreements. That
has the potential to distort global trade talks under the World Trade Organization. At the same rate, Brookins said the United States should use regional coalitions to help "outflank the EU" on trade issues such as
biotechnology, the application of which many countries support. She said resolving agricultural issues may be "a piece of cake" compared to many of the issues that reared up in Seattle, labor concerns chief among them.
Brookins pointed out that the U.S. for years has publicly reported details of all its grain export sales within seven days of the transaction, something that state trading enterprises (such as the Canadian Wheat
Board) do not do. It's a point that needs to be recognized during the WTO negotiations, she said. She also said lawmakers must do more to ease unilateral trade sanctions, including the longstanding embargo
against Cuba that has done nothing to influence policy and only hurts U.S. trade. "We need to stand up for ourselves here. Clinton is willing stand up for Elian Gonzalez, but not U.S. farmers."U.S. approval
of Permanent Normal Trade Relations status of China is also critical, said Brookins "If we don't get China in PNTR, every other country will go laughing to the bank keeping us out of the market." Joe Glauber,
deputy chief economist, USDA, said that one key issue that needs to be kept in mind is how to keep domestic farm policy objectives "in sync" with international policy obligations. Chris Shaffer, the U.S. wheat
industry's representative at the WTO talks and chair of U.S. Wheat Associates, said that the U.S. has several means of leverage against the EU in the WTO talks. He points out that a "peace clause" implemented
during the Uruguay Round provides the EU a level of protection against some of its distorting trade practices. However, that expires in 2003. A farm bill structured with a larger safety net will also keep
the EU interested in reform, he said. Another big stick to keep the EU interested in trade reform: Shaffer points out that a bill by Sen. Max Baucus would create a trigger mechanism that would annually appropriate $2
billion to EEP and tack on an additional $1 million for the Foreign Market Development program in the second year of operation. "Which means not only will we subsidize exports, we're going to let loose our sales
force and beat you at your own game. It's a hammer to get them to come to the table," Shaffer said.
NEW PESTICIDE CERTIFICATION POLICY AFFECTS PRIVATE APPLICATORS |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||