|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|||
|
2002 North Dakota Small Grains Conference: Crop Insurance, Biotech Wheat Highlight Issues By David Boehm Crop insurance changes and biotech wheat were two of the front burner issues discussed during the 2002 North Dakota Small Grains Conference involving the North Dakota Grain Growers Association, the U.S. Durum Growers Association, and the North Dakota Wheat Commission, held recently in, Minot, N.D. Doug Hagel, regional director for the USDA’s Risk Management Agency, based in Billings, Mont., said that beginning in 2003, social security or employee identification numbers will be required for anyone who has a substantial benefit if the farming interest, including spouses. These identification numbers must be provided by March 15 for new applicants, or by the acreage reporting deadline for carry-over policies. If adequate I.D. is not provided, new applicants will be rejected and carry-over policies will be reduced by 50%. Hagel also outlined changes underway that, in the broader picture, are designed to improve the federal crop insurance program, and eliminate the need for disaster programs. Hagel said changes include more focus on “whole farm” revenue insurance coverage. Under the intent of whole farm coverage, insurance payments would kick in when whole farm revenue drops, thus allowing for normal price fluctuations of crops or livestock. He outlined several federal crop insurance changes in store for 2004. One change will limit multiple insurance benefits in a single crop year. If a grower’s first crop is lost and insurance is collected, and a second replanted crop is also lost, qualifying for another indemnity, the first crop’s insurance payment will be reduced to 35%. Also, if a producer plants a second crop for harvest, a preventative planting indemnity for the first crop is limited to 35% of the preventative planting guarantee. Under this change, a producer could not hay or graze the second crop, or harvest any volunteers, until after October 30. Hagel said changes have also been made to help in preventing fraud. Producers will now lose coverage if they err by more than 5% in reporting acreage or yield history. An error in any unit will cause loss of whole farm coverage. Organic farming practices will gain better insurance coveragebeginning in 2004, Hagel said. Under current rules, an organic producer who does not have a written agreement will be insured using coverage for conventional farming practices. Separately, the durum industry is working to develop federal crop insurance coverage for losses in durum yield and quality. Mark Birdsall, a Berthold, N.D. durum grower and a leader of the United States Durum Growers Association, says he is hopeful insurance to cover for losses in durum quality will be in place for the 2005 crop year. The insurance product for durum is still under development, and has passed an initial rating feasibility phase. The next phase is program approval by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board of directors. Leaders in the durum industry, including the Dakota Growers Pasta Co., Philadelphia Macaroni Co., Miller Milling Co., American Italian Pasta Co., and the North Dakota Wheat Commission, are investing funds to help bring durum insurance to market, which could cost upwards of $150,000. Same Protocol for Organic May Apply to Biotech Using current protocols for organic crop production, and testing along various stages of seed production, will help keep biotech and non-biotech seed stocks separate, he said. Still, buyers will have to recognize tolerance levels once biotech wheat is commercialized, since guaranteeing 100% biotech-free grain would be unattainable. Hauck said the release of biotech wheat would not take place until or unless: 1) approved grain handling protocols with rules for detection and sampling are established; 2) varieties meet or exceed industry standards for end-use quality; and 3) buyers, such as Japan, are identified who will procure and use biotech wheat ingredients. Along with research, the other primary objective at NDSU is education. Hauck said that the NDSU Extension Service holds various workshops to educate K-12 science teachers and adult leaders such as extension agents and vocational agriculture instructors about biotechnology. Darrell Hanavan chairman of a biotechnology committee comprised of the National Association of Wheat Growers, U.S. Wheat Associates, and the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee, said that the committee has set goals which need to be met prior to the release of biotech wheat. These include the development of identity-preserved systems and testing programs, the development and implementation of regulatory and education programs to ensure buyer acceptance, and the development of governmental protocols to establish consistent and reasonable threshold levels in non-biotech wheat. Hanavan said that consumer acceptance of ag commodities derived from biotechnology is higher in the U.S. domestic market than in export markets. A wheat industry advisory committee is advising and counseling Monsanto on biotech wheat issues. The committee is comprised of growers, seed trade representatives, county elevators, transportation providers, millers, bakers, and exporters. Hanavan said it is within the best interests of the wheat industry for public universities to be working with private industry on the development of biotech wheat. “Since most biotech traits are produced by the private sector, they could bypass public breeding programs entirely if there is no cooperation,” he said.
Doane said that the European Union has released a Biosafety Report which said that “the use of more precise technology and greater regulation and scrutiny probably make (biotech derived plants) even safer than conventional plants and foods.” Roundup Ready wheat will give growers an 11-14% yield advantage, an increased supply of high quality wheat, and less dockage and foreign material, Doane said. Monsanto is working on biotech crops with other traits: Drought stress tolerant genes for wheat, corn and soybeans; cardiovascular health benefits (Omega-3 fatty acid) in soybeans and canola; rice enhanced with vitamin A, and anti-allergenic wheat. Doane said that Monsanto is working with the wheat industry to build market acceptance for biotech wheat. Market acceptance and industry approval will key Monsanto’s decision to commercialize Roundup Ready wheat, Doane said, and points to the company’s biotech sugarbeet project as an example. Even though Roundup Ready sugarbeets have been ready since 1998, Monsanto has not commercialized the product, as recommended by the sugar industry, which did not believe that timing was right yet. “It is not in Monsanto’s interest to release seed that is not accepted,” said Doane. New NDGGA Resolutions for 2003 The NDGGA: • supports an increase in the investment in, and research of, biotechnology enhanced wheat products at NDSU. • urges the wheat industry’s joint biotech committee to develop and execute a strategy to gain market acceptance of biotech wheat as soon as possible. • supports efforts of a new task force designed to find efficiencies in the operation of the national wheat organizations. • opposes opening of the new farm bill. • supports an increase in the North Dakota wheat checkoff to finance policy efforts of the NDGGA. • supports the concept of dual mechanism of an escrow account for deferred payment contracts and indemnity fund for delayed price credit sales. • supports research, development and the advancement of biotechnology for the opportunity it provides consumers, processors, and production agriculture, and encourage the education, promotion, registration and customer acceptance of genetically enhanced wheats worldwide. • is opposed to a moratorium on the research and development of biotech crops. ------------------------------------------- Pros and Cons with Higher Seeding Rate Kent McKay, NDSU extension crops specialist at the North Central Research and Extension Center in Minot, said that some area durum and hard red spring (HRS) wheat growers are wondering if there are advantages to increasing their seeding rates, particularly to influence tillering. A typical rate for durum is 1.5 million seeds per acre, while normal rates for HRS are 1-1.5 million seeds/ac, with the lower end of that range recommended in western North Dakota. The difference in the recommended seeding rates between durum and HRS is because durum plants generally develop fewer tillers compared to HRS. McKay said that research at Langdon, Minot, and Carrington has shown that higher seeding rates of HRS resulted in a decrease in tillers, spikelets, kernels per head, and days to heading. The number of main stem heads increased, and the window for heading decreased. Less tillering and more uniform head development can result in more consistent timing of fungicide application for suppressing Fusarium head blight, McKay said. Higher seeding rates resulted in less weed pressure, but increased lodging and leaf diseases such as tan spot, septoria, and leaf rust. HRS yields increased at Minot with a higher seeding rate, while test weight and protein increased slightly at Carrington. Generally, however, research indicated that higher seeding rates had no affect on HRS protein. For durum, McKay said trials at Langdon and Minot showed no significant increase in yield or test weight above the 1.5 million seeds/ac rate. McKay’s conclusion: The recommended durum planting rate of 1.5 million seeds/ac is adequate, although HRS rates of 1.5-1.8 million seeds/ac can be justified, especially in areas where the risk of FHB is moderate to high. He advised growers not to forget about the importance of straw strength and leaf disease resistance when selecting varieties for the next growing season. |
|||
Michael Doane, Monsanto’s industry affairs manager
and a former executive with the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers, said that reports and surveys favorable toward biotech products can be overlooked in the arena of public opinion. He pointed to an
International Food Information Council survey, which indicated that 72% of Americans were aware of biotechnology, and that 71% would buy biotech derived food products. The report indicated that
30% of Americans completely accepted biotech wheat and another 37% somewhat accepted biotech wheat. Another survey has indicated that 80% of Asians were willing to try foods with biotech ingredients.