Farm Bill stalled, legislation could impact local farmers
CHENANGO COUNTY – Last Friday, further progress on the 2007 Farm Bill ceased and the Senate’s Thanksgiving vacation started with Democrats and Republicans both arguing that the other can’t get any work done.
Considering the final vote on the bill was expected to happen last week, when the Senate resumes after its two-week break it’s likely there won’t be room in the schedule to consider the nation’s largest food-related legislation, meaning it will get pushed back with extensions until 2008.
Locally, the expansive farm bill and its delay will have an impact, Chenango County Farm Bureau President Bradd Vickers says.
“The sooner we can get it passed, the better,” said Vickers, explaining that delayed agriculture policies could impact how farmers plan, if nothing else. “We hoped that (the Senate failure to vote) wouldn’t happen ... but we’re optimistic that when they get back they’ll discuss their concerns, come up with solutions and pass it.”
Vickers expects that if the debate moves on into 2008 that the current legislation, last revised in 2002, will be extended.
As for the bill itself, Vickers says the Northeast has been given much more consideration than in years past.
“We’re better off this time around than we were last time around,” he said.
Funding for national nutrition programs, like food stamps, alternative energy initiatives, and stepped-up environmental conservation efforts are three components of the bill that will directly impact Chenango County farmers and consumers, Vickers said. For local dairy farmers, an extension and expansion of the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) – which pays back producers a percentage of the money they lose on milk when the price falls below $16.94 per hundred pounds – is arguably the most critical of the bill’s policies up for debate.
“MILC is has been quite a concern,” Vickers said. “There were some fears it wouldn’t happen.”
Often referred to as a “vital safety net,” there were questions in Congress regarding whether or not to keep the MILC program in place.
Area producers have mixed feelings about it.
Guilford dairy farmer Terry Ives says the program helped many local farmers keep afloat when milk prices tanked in 2006.
“It’s definitely a help here,” said Ives. “It doesn’t provide for any added frills, but it helped a lot people make up some of what they lost and cover more of their bills when milk prices were down.”
At the opposite viewpoint, South New Berlin farmer Ken Dibbell calls MILC “a hoax,” and says fair market rewards, rather than government subsidies, should be the solution to what he says is an unnecessary struggle small farm families are having.
“MILC provides a percentage of what?” he asked. “It’s a hoax. It’s just sad.”
Currently, when milk prices fall below $16.94 per hundred pounds, 34 percent of the difference between the lower price and $16.94 is paid back to farmers per however many hundred pounds they produced that month (up to 2.4 million pounds).
The 2007 Farm Bill would expand the percentage from 34 to 45 and the cap from 2.4 to 4.15 million. Charles Schumer, New York’s senior Democratic Senator, is calling the expansion a win for the state’s dairy farmers. In Chenango County, Ives says the majority of dairy farms don’t produce enough milk to benefit from the bigger production cap.
“It helps the bigger guy get a better price for their milk,” he said.
Expanded or not, Dibbell says MILC is fundamentally flawed. For starters, he believes $16.94 is too low a price floor, arguing that with fuel and feed hikes, it costs farmers between $22 and $26 to produce one hundred pounds of milk.
“But incompetence and lobbyists rule,” Dibbell said, arguing that big money and political influence allow large dairy cooperatives and processors to control markets and keep small dairy farms under the heel of “social programs.”
“Last year we lost 30 dairy farms in Chenango County under MILC,” he said. “Some safety net.”
Since July, milk prices have hovered between $24 and $25 dollars per hundredweight, a 58 percent increase compared to 2006. The MILC check was only required in January and February.
Ives says now is the time, when prices are high, for small dairy farmers to have discipline.
“We have to have the discipline to hold our production and get a better price for our milk,” he said, explaining that the tendency is for producers to increase their herds and milk production to take advantage of the high prices, but in effect they lower the price by flooding the supply.
Right now, the United States Department of Agriculture sets federal milk prices. Until cost of production and market factors are allowed to figure into those prices, Dibbell says nothing will change.
“This Congress in not capable of doing what’s right for this country,” he said.
Considering the final vote on the bill was expected to happen last week, when the Senate resumes after its two-week break it’s likely there won’t be room in the schedule to consider the nation’s largest food-related legislation, meaning it will get pushed back with extensions until 2008.
Locally, the expansive farm bill and its delay will have an impact, Chenango County Farm Bureau President Bradd Vickers says.
“The sooner we can get it passed, the better,” said Vickers, explaining that delayed agriculture policies could impact how farmers plan, if nothing else. “We hoped that (the Senate failure to vote) wouldn’t happen ... but we’re optimistic that when they get back they’ll discuss their concerns, come up with solutions and pass it.”
Vickers expects that if the debate moves on into 2008 that the current legislation, last revised in 2002, will be extended.
As for the bill itself, Vickers says the Northeast has been given much more consideration than in years past.
“We’re better off this time around than we were last time around,” he said.
Funding for national nutrition programs, like food stamps, alternative energy initiatives, and stepped-up environmental conservation efforts are three components of the bill that will directly impact Chenango County farmers and consumers, Vickers said. For local dairy farmers, an extension and expansion of the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) – which pays back producers a percentage of the money they lose on milk when the price falls below $16.94 per hundred pounds – is arguably the most critical of the bill’s policies up for debate.
“MILC is has been quite a concern,” Vickers said. “There were some fears it wouldn’t happen.”
Often referred to as a “vital safety net,” there were questions in Congress regarding whether or not to keep the MILC program in place.
Area producers have mixed feelings about it.
Guilford dairy farmer Terry Ives says the program helped many local farmers keep afloat when milk prices tanked in 2006.
“It’s definitely a help here,” said Ives. “It doesn’t provide for any added frills, but it helped a lot people make up some of what they lost and cover more of their bills when milk prices were down.”
At the opposite viewpoint, South New Berlin farmer Ken Dibbell calls MILC “a hoax,” and says fair market rewards, rather than government subsidies, should be the solution to what he says is an unnecessary struggle small farm families are having.
“MILC provides a percentage of what?” he asked. “It’s a hoax. It’s just sad.”
Currently, when milk prices fall below $16.94 per hundred pounds, 34 percent of the difference between the lower price and $16.94 is paid back to farmers per however many hundred pounds they produced that month (up to 2.4 million pounds).
The 2007 Farm Bill would expand the percentage from 34 to 45 and the cap from 2.4 to 4.15 million. Charles Schumer, New York’s senior Democratic Senator, is calling the expansion a win for the state’s dairy farmers. In Chenango County, Ives says the majority of dairy farms don’t produce enough milk to benefit from the bigger production cap.
“It helps the bigger guy get a better price for their milk,” he said.
Expanded or not, Dibbell says MILC is fundamentally flawed. For starters, he believes $16.94 is too low a price floor, arguing that with fuel and feed hikes, it costs farmers between $22 and $26 to produce one hundred pounds of milk.
“But incompetence and lobbyists rule,” Dibbell said, arguing that big money and political influence allow large dairy cooperatives and processors to control markets and keep small dairy farms under the heel of “social programs.”
“Last year we lost 30 dairy farms in Chenango County under MILC,” he said. “Some safety net.”
Since July, milk prices have hovered between $24 and $25 dollars per hundredweight, a 58 percent increase compared to 2006. The MILC check was only required in January and February.
Ives says now is the time, when prices are high, for small dairy farmers to have discipline.
“We have to have the discipline to hold our production and get a better price for our milk,” he said, explaining that the tendency is for producers to increase their herds and milk production to take advantage of the high prices, but in effect they lower the price by flooding the supply.
Right now, the United States Department of Agriculture sets federal milk prices. Until cost of production and market factors are allowed to figure into those prices, Dibbell says nothing will change.
“This Congress in not capable of doing what’s right for this country,” he said.
dived wound factual legitimately delightful goodness fit rat some lopsidedly far when.
Slung alongside jeepers hypnotic legitimately some iguana this agreeably triumphant pointedly far
jeepers unscrupulous anteater attentive noiseless put less greyhound prior stiff ferret unbearably cracked oh.
So sparing more goose caribou wailed went conveniently burned the the the and that save that adroit gosh and sparing armadillo grew some overtook that magnificently that
Circuitous gull and messily squirrel on that banally assenting nobly some much rakishly goodness that the darn abject hello left because unaccountably spluttered unlike a aurally since contritely thanks