Home

E-Mail

Back

Prairie Grains is the official publication of
the Minnesota
Association of
Wheat Growers,
North Dakota Grain Growers Association,
South Dakota Wheat, Inc., and the Minnesota Barley Growers Association.

Dean Stoskopf, Hoisington, KS, Vice President, Kansas Assn. of Wheat Growers and member, NAWG board of directors

The New Wheat Industry Conference and Exposition (formerly known as the National Association of Wheat Growers Convention) was held last month in Nashville. The theme was "Striking a new tune," and the conference was indeed new. It included meetings of the National Association of Wheat Growers, U.S. Wheat Associates, The Wheat Foods Council, and the Wheat Industry Research Forum.

The four groups attending the same conference were a welcome opportunity to bring the wheat industry closer together. NAWG is the policy arm of the wheat industry. U.S. Wheat works on the international market and promotion of our product. The Wheat Foods Council promotes the education and use of wheat in the United States. The Wheat Industry Research Forum brings together the top wheat researchers from across the country. One of the goals of the NAWG leadership has been to accomplish just this type of event.

The Wheat industry and NAWG are in a time of change. People’s attitude toward change can vary greatly. It can be seen as the end of things as we know it. It can be seen as a time of uncertainty and trouble. And others can see it as a time of great opportunity. I look at the change in NAWG with great optimism.

NAWG will look different in the future. It will be doing different things than in the past. But do you do things the same way you did 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago? Change can be very healthy if it is done with a purpose in mind. This is the case with NAWG. A long-range planning process was started three years ago. This was driven by the grassroots and the state associations. We are now starting to see the results of this process. All of the member states have been involved with this process, with the national officers a very important part of the process. NAWG has realized that we can no longer be strictly a lobbying arm for the wheat producer. There is so much more that needs to be done on a national level.

Research is an essential part of the wheat industry. At the present time, there is not a national focus on wheat research. This has put the wheat research community behind others in research concerning the exciting realm of biotech and expanded uses for wheat. NAWG is working on ways to solve this challenge.

Consolidation and integration are great concerns in agriculture today. Every day we read stories about this process. Where will the wheat farmer fit in? Do we form alliances or new cooperatives to survive the change? Do we become part of the process or do we let someone else tell us how we will farm in the next millennium? These are issues that the long range planning process is looking at. It is time that NAWG gets involved and helps chart a course for change.

The NAWG is undergoing change. There is a new CEO and new staff. Bill Flory, past president of NAWG, calls NAWG a federation. This federation is made up of member states whose members direct the states’ efforts. This process is alive and well. NAWG is about its members and their beliefs. We may not all agree on issues or policy, but, in the end, we develop a consensus and go forward. NAWG will face bumps in the road as we go forward. But we will go forward. One can look at change with fear or great opportunity. I believe that we have a great opportunity and look forward to the future.

Tips from a certified organic producer

Jaime DeRosier, Red Lake Falls, MN

A correction to the January ‘99 article, "Opportunities in Organic Farming." Information indicated that the Jaime DeRosier farm was not certified as organic. Correction is that most of the 1,500 acres which I farm are certified as organic.

Other comments that could be helpful for one looking at organic farming are:

1) Do not rely on soil test results; organic nutrients are hard to measure accurately and are released as crops need them. Test periodically to measure success.
2) Contract with several brokers.
3) Quality is everything.
4) Rotations are the key to feeding the soil.
5) Rotations within a rotation, as interseeding, along with winter crops and smoother crops are essential.
6) Good transitional land will be more profitable long term than low quality organic CRP land.
7) Plant a variety of crops.

If you want more help, I market an "Organic Production" booklet to aid in farming organic. Send $15 to Jaime DeRosier, RR1, Box 310, Red Lake Falls, MN, 56750.

Use available tools for optimum productivity

Joel Hashbarger, Hope, ND

I am a spring wheat/soybean/corn farmer in east central North Dakota and I receive your Prairie Grains publication. I would like to make some comments on the article titled "Weathering Market the Slump"costs and found in the February 1999 issue. The article states that farmers should cut input instead of having a spring wheat yield goal of 50 bushels per acre we should set our sights on 30. I disagree. I can survive if I grow 50 bushel $3 wheat even with the inputs to get there. However, I can’t survive 30 bushel $3 wheat under any circumstances. A yield of 50 bushels per acre is realistic and attainable for many farmers in my region as 1998 proved. Yields between 50 and 60 bushels per acre were common in 1998, and 60 to 70 were not unheard of. Yields are something we as farmers have some control over whereas price we do not.
The article suggests cutting fertilizer, fungicides/insecticides, and using bin run seed. Yet years of testing and data prove that quality certified seed, adequate fertilizer, and the correct timing and application of fungicides/insecticides all give a good return on investment. We need to take advantage of that.
We in the United States are competing with other countries to produce food for the world. We are being asked to produce more for less. With our resources and technology that becomes possible. But we need to make use of the tools that are available to us to be the best we can be.

Editor’s notes: There’s no easy answers in managing today’s tough times, only different answers. For some it might be producing a different commodity; others off-farm income. For some it might be farming more acres; others less. Some will try to cut back on input expenses, others will try to produce more bushels. You raise an excellent point, Joel. University of Minnesota Small Grains Specialist Jochum Wiersma explores your view further in his column.,"Production Tips by Johchum Wiersma."

EU is the bigger bear eating your market lunch

Bruce Hamnes, Stephen, MNMWRPC Chairman

If you and I were farming in say, California or Georgia, do you think we would pay much attention to the grain trade problems the United States has with Canada? Probably not. We would probably be concerned with issues affecting our peanut, tobacco, fruit and vegetable production if we lived there. But we live here, in the northern-tier states. We grow wheat, barley, and other commodities that our neighbors right across the border do as well. The close proximity to our primary trade competitor (and trade partner) only serves to magnify the trade problems we have with Canada.

So much so, that at times we forget the bigger bear that’s been eating our lunch in the global market— the European Union.

As Tim Galvin, then Glickman trade advisor and now USDA Foreign Ag Service administrator pointed out at the annual MN-ND Wheat and Barley Conference last December, under the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now called the World Trade Organization, or WTO) developed countries cut expenditures for export subsidies by 36% and subsidized quantities by 21%. However, put another way, countries can still subsidize up to 79% of wheat export shipments at up to two-thirds the pre-GATT subsidy payment price when the agreement is fully phased in. By the year 2000, the EU is still allowed to outspend the U.S. on export subsidies by more than 10 to 1 ($8 billion vs. $600 million). And they’ve been exercising this advantage, undercutting our already low wheat prices.

Global trade is also distorted by the EU’s substantial domestic farm subsidies. The EU proposes to follow the U.S. lead with its Agenda 2000 reforms, but the fact remains that even if Agenda 2000 is enacted as proposed, their decoupled grain payments would be maintained at close to current levels, if not more, in contrast to our situation here in the U.S., where financial support for farmers has been generally on the decline. A study at the University of Guelph last year shows that for a "benchmark" farm growing corn, soybeans and winter wheat, the average per-acre safety net support amounts were $23.70 for the U.S., $27.35 for Ontario, and for France— $162.72.

The results show that the relative amounts of support differed among years, with Canadian support varying according to crop prices, and U.S. and European support being a flat rate per acre independent of crop price. To calculate U.S. support levels, the study used an average of per-bushel support levels over the seven-year Freedom to Farm period.

If that’s not enough, the EU also uses "high food safety standards," ie market protectionism, as a non-tariff barrier against crops developed with biotechnology. This is called a "sanitary and phytosanitary issue," using false or unproven health concerns to block ag trade.

We have legitimate grain trade problems with Canada that need to be addressed. But I would argue we have an even larger trade threat to combat in the EU. Put another way, say a farmer has two fields infested with aphids, but only enough resources to spray one field. One of the fields is real close to his shop and he can see two aphids per head, while the other field is 15miles away and it has 20 aphids per head. Which one of the fields would you choose to spray? I know which one I would.