Exports fail to keep pace — AgMinute for Sept. 5, 2013

Lower U.S. energy prices, a depreciating dollar and more available credit are positive factors for the U.S. agricultural trade outlook in FY 2014, but U.S. ag exports are forecast to slip by $5 billion from FY 2013’s record $140 billion.

Farmers and energy — AgMinute for July 12, 2013

Gov. Butch Otter has appointed a Caribou County dryland grain farmer and a Washington County rancher to a reconstituted board assigned to regulate oil and gas exploration and drilling in the state.

Read about how farmers are confronting controversy over biotechnology in "Surviving a Biotech Backlash," at http://bit.ly/BiotechBacklash

Census rising — AgMinute for Dec. 4, 2012

The next national Census of Agriculture will seek more specific data on internet use and alternative energy production on farms, ranches and dairies. The census is the only survey producers are legally required to complete.

AgMinute is sponsored by "Western Innovators," which is available at http://amzn.to/WesternInnovators

Subscribe to this podcast in iTunes or your favorite RSS reader.

To listen, click here.

AgMinute for June 14, 2012

Idaho irrigators aren't happy they will have to pay more for their power this year, but they admit it could have been a lot worse.

Subscribe to this podcast in iTunes or your favorite RSS reader.

To listen, click here.

Podcast: Housing developments and fish, PacifiCorp's ever-rising electric rates, and high-yield wheat

In this podcast, editors and reporters discuss a settlement that requires more federal oversight of housing developments that may harm fish populations, alarm among agri-businesses over rising electricity rates, and innovative research into high-yield wheat.

Subscribe to this podcast in iTunes or your favorite RSS reader.

To listen, click here.

'It's time to level the playing field'

In response to my inquiries about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's latest ruling allowing a higher mix of ethanol in gasoline, National Cattlemen's Beef Association president Steve Fogelsong e-mailed me this statement through a spokeswoman:

“NCBA members strongly oppose government mandates and intervention in the marketplace. We are disappointed that EPA has granted Growth Energy a waiver and will allow E15 in 2001-2006 vehicles. The corn based ethanol industry is of significance to the cattle industry because of its impact on feed prices. Rather than perpetuating the government’s continued intervention in the 30-year old corn-based ethanol industry, it’s time to level the playing field for all corn end users. NCBA encourages EPA and the federal government to reevaluate U.S. renewable energy policies and evaluate the consequences these policies continue to have on all corn end users. We look forward to working with the U.S. Congress to ensure our nation’s renewable energy policies create a level playing field and do not pick winners and losers.”

This week I teamed with Idaho-based reporter Carol Ryan Dumas to take an in-depth look at the impact the EPA's ruling will have on animal agriculture. Look for the story at CapitalPress.com later in the week.

Groups react to EPA ethanol ruling

Sent to Capital Press this morning by the American Meat Institute and National Chicken Council:

Diverse Coalition Responds to EPA Decision on E15

(WASHINGTON, DC) - A coalition of business, environmental, budget watchdog and public interest groups issued the following statements in response to today's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision to expand the scope of its October, 2010 decision to allow a 50 percent increase—from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15)—in the amount of ethanol permitted in gasoline. Today's decision by the EPA broadens its earlier decision to allow E15 gasoline in model year 2007 or newer automobiles. The new higher ethanol-content fuel will now be available for use in millions of cars in model years 2001 to 2006 as well.

Statements

“EPA’s decision to increase the ethanol blend to E15 will further increase volatility in the grain markets. This could hasten the reduction in wheat acres and raise Americans’ food bills. U.S. cropland is already stretched to its limit. Increasing the blend has the potential to further impact commodity stocks and ultimately food prices. The grain markets are currently experiencing near record volatility and prices have edged closer to the record levels of 2008.”

-Robb MacKie, President and CEO, American Bakers Association

“Why is the government forcing consumers to use an inefficient fuel that causes the price of food to skyrocket? Corn ethanol gets less miles per gallon, and is less efficient than gasoline. Now that more cars are ‘approved’ to use E15, according to the EPA, then we can expect the price of regular gasoline to increase to encourage use of this inefficient fuel. All subsidies and mandates to use ethanol should be repealed.”

-Bill Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government

“Increased pressure on the corn supply has again pushed corn above $6.00 a bushel, levels not seen since 2008. This announcement only means that more corn will be diverted from an already thinning supply and increased pressure will be put on the meat and poultry sector which is already facing near record high feed costs. For consumers who are concerned about food prices, this decision will further increase prices at the grocery store. Burning our food and feed as fuel is not a sustainable approach to solving this country’s long-term energy needs.”

-J. Patrick Boyle, President and CEO, American Meat Institute

“With this decision, the Obama administration has just voided car warranties for millions of Americans at the behest of the corn and ethanol lobby. The confusion at the pump will be unimaginable, as will the costly burden placed on taxpayers as cars and small engines not made to burn corn ethanol break down after misfueling. Taxpayers have invested billions in a fuel that does little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while tearing up the land and polluting fresh water."

-Shelia Karpf, Legislative and Policy Analyst, Environmental Working Group

"The EPA's decision amounts to a New Year's gift to corporate ethanol interests that is bad for consumers and bad for the environment. Corn ethanol is a highly polluting fuel that causes more climate-damaging emissions than regular gasoline, according to the EPA's own scientific analysis. Consumers are bound to get confused at the pump, and using more ethanol in engines not configured to run on ethanol could lead to engine damage and increased emissions of toxic air pollutants."

-Kate McMahon, Biofuels Campaign Coordinator, Friends of the Earth

"Today's decision will divert even more food and feed to fuel, increasing food prices at a time when food prices are already rising. We urge EPA and the Obama Administration to put the needs of ordinary Americans ahead of the needs of the ethanol industry and reverse this decision."

-Geoff Moody, Director, Energy and Environmental Policy, Grocery Manufacturers Association

“Dairy processors and farmers are increasingly aware of the impact that ethanol policies are having on feed costs and ultimately what consumers are paying for dairy products. EPA’s decision is unfortunately another step in the wrong direction. “

-Jerry Slominski, Sr. Vice President, International Dairy Foods Association

“EPA’s decision is another giveaway to the ethanol interests and again demonstrates EPA cannot or will not balance the broad national interests on this issue. E15 may be good for ethanol producers and corn farmers but it is clearly detrimental to all other interested parties. To the extent EPA and the ethanol industry actually manage to force more ethanol into the nation’s motor gasoline, they will put even more pressure on the already very tight supply of corn. When consumers ask why their food costs are higher, it will be difficult for EPA to explain that today’s decision had no impact on the food shopper’s dollar.”

-Bill Roenigk, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, National Chicken Council.

“This decision literally takes food out of the mouths of American consumers in order to increase the profits of the ethanol industry. When corn and all the food products derived from it are diverted away from the dinner table, that drives up the cost of a meal for every American family whether they are eating in a restaurant or at home. Turning corn into ethanol and burning it as fuel should not take priority over feeding families at an affordable price.”

-Scott Vinson, Vice President, National Council of Chain Restaurants

"This decision to increase the ethanol blend in gasoline is environmentally shortsighted and virtually guaranteed to negatively impact U.S. food security."

- Barry Carpenter, CEO, National Meat Association

“For several decades now, Washington has propped up ethanol through subsidies, sweetheart tax deals, mandates, and other schemes. The EPA shouldn't encourage this dash for cash even further by using its authority to expand E15's usage. Taxpayers are already groaning under the weight of past mistakes with ethanol policy; it's time for government to stop breaking their backs.”

-Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union

“EPA’s decision completely disregarded significant scientific and economic evidence surrounding E15 and its potentially disastrous impact. It sends a terrible signal to an already volatile market at a time when corn supplies are very tight. The long-term potential for diverting even larger amounts of corn away from food and feed is a recipe for that could result in consumers paying more for food.”

-Joel Brandenberger, President, National Turkey Federation

Rove: 'The president has done nothing to prepare the ground for comprehensive immigration reform'

Former presidential advisor Karl Rove comments to the Capital Press about immigration, cap and trade and agriculture here.

TANC: Gone, but not forgotten

The TANC transmission project may be dead, but former Capital Press freelance writer Dylan Darling has a story this morning analyzing the map of another line envisioned to run from Oregon to Tracy, Calif.

The transmission system, which could be partly owned by PG&E, is still barely in the pencil-on-paper stages. But it appears that it would run through the Northern California community of Round Mountain, which was a hotbed of opposition to the TANC project.

TANC opponents and California Farm Bureau Federation representatives said they didn't think TANC's demise would signal the end of all such power line proposals, and it looks like they were right.

BREAKING: TANC project abandoned

From the Transmission Agency of Northern California:

TANC Commission Votes to Terminate TANC Transmission Project

The Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) announced today that its Commission has voted to terminate the environmental review process for TANC's Transmission Project (TTP).

Without the financial support of key TANC utility members to proceed with this process, TANC cannot undertake a detailed environmental analysis of the proposed alternative routes. As such, the TTP and the proposed alternative routes are no longer being considered.

Despite today's decision, TANC still agrees with the assessments of the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) that additional transmission must be built to meet California's goals for renewable clean energy and greenhouse gas reduction. TANC is committed to continue working with transmission owners, utilities, and others to identify solutions for providing reliable and cost-effective transmission service to customers throughout northern California, in accordance with California's energy goals and policies.

Opponents of the project tell me they're still afraid that the federal Western Area Power Administration could take it over and finance it.

For more on this issue, keep checking capitalpress.com.

Update: SMUD was concerned about location, regulation

I've got a call into the Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District over its decision to pull out of the Northern California transmission line project. Haven't heard back yet, but they told my former paper that they were concerned about "economic and environmental studies of renewable energy transmission."

SMUD decided to withdraw after spending $2 million of the $18 million it had budgeted for feasibility studies of the TANC line, said Elisabeth Brinton, director of communications and community relations for the utility.

Economic and environmental studies of renewable energy transmission raised concern for SMUD, Brinton said.

TANC planners have said the lines would allow members to tap wind and geothermal power that may one day be developed in Lassen County and western Nevada to meet state renewable energy requirements.

But Northern California renewables will deliver less energy at greater environmental cost than solar and wind farms in the Mojave Desert, according to a Renewable Energy Transmission Institute report released earlier this year.

SMUD is also concerned that a rapidly changing legislative and regulatory environment creates too much uncertainty for investment in an expensive, long-term asset like a transmission line, Brinton said.

"It really comes down to what's best for our customer owners," said Brinton.

I wrote about the RETI study at length for Capital Press a few weeks back. You can see the story here.

BREAKING: Largest partner withdraws from transmission line project

From the Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC):

TANC Statement on SMUD Plans for TANC Transmission Project

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) has informed the Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) that it intends to with withdraw from TANC’s Transmission Project (TTP).

In light of this recent development, all remaining public outreach meetings on the TTP that are scheduled during the month of July will be postponed. This time will enable TANC and its members, the Western Area Power Administration (Western) and other government agencies involved in the planning process to evaluate their options and to define the next steps in the process.

TANC believes it is important to keep the “public scoping” period open during this time. Allowing the scoping process to proceed will help determine where to put the transmission lines needed to ensure reliable and affordable electric service for the residents and businesses throughout northern California and to expand access to clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal and wind energy.

Keep checking capitalpress.com for updates.

No alien power lines allowed

The TANC transmission line project in Northern California has made another enemy. And this one's a classic.

Headline in my former paper:

Scientists say TANC could foil Hat Creek search for ETs

Yup.

The search for the slightest signal of intelligent life at the far end of the galaxy from a north state radio observatory could be jammed by the buzz of proposed power lines.

With more than $50 million invested in the Allen Telescope Array, scientists at the Hat Creek Radio Observatory don't want the proposed power lines of the Transmission Agency of Northern California to interfere with their sensitive equipment.

"We have a lot of reasons why we wouldn't like the power lines to be in our backyard," said Donald Backer, director of the array and the Radio Astronomy Lab at University of California at Berkeley. [ ... ]

Backer has joined the scores of north state residents filing comments about the power lines' proposed path. Running from Lassen County to the San Francisco Bay area, the 500-kilovolt line would travel over land in or near Cassel, Burney, Round Mountain, Oak Run, Millville, Happy Valley, Cottonwood and Red Bluff.

No telling whether he got any little green men to sign any petitions.

Examining TANC

Redding.com has a package of stories this morning -- including two by one-time Capital Press freelancer Dylan Darling -- examining the Transmission Agency of Northern California's proposed 600-mile transmission line system.

The stories:

North state residents worry about TANC's effects on property values, lives
TANC plans were hidden in plain sight
TANC and REU history intertwined
Faraway power companies are the big players in TANC proposal
TANC sparks "green" opposition

'Why not just go south?'

Bruce Ross, the editorial page editor at my former paper, isn't necessarily buying the line from the Transmission Agency of Northern California that to run power lines from would-be renewable energy sites in the Mojave Desert would be too much of a distance.

In responding to my story in this week's Capital Press, Bruce blogs:

Still, just what is the extra cost? Certainly, as part of the environmental impact report for the TANC project, it would be vital to give a serious look to that alternative and others. The proposed NorCal line might well be the best available option to meet the various new demands on utilities, but the whole point of the environmental process is to explore options and their effects in a transparent way. I look forward to that happening with this line. TANC hasn't made its case yet.

Oh, and I'll quote from the Phase 1A report, which eventually promises to explain the methodology of renewable-cost rankings but in the meantime offers this nugger of utility wisdom:

Foresight is required in the planning of transmission development for the purpose of exploiting renewable resources. If economically inefficient resources are targeted for development, then California may burden ratepayers with "stranded costs" to connect transmission to sub-par resources.

Obviously an expensive and inefficient project isn't TANC's goal, but it's a warning worth keeping in mind.

Meanwhile, TANC, whose board voted a week and a half ago to extend the comment period on its project, just got around to sending out the press release. Nice. And they wonder why people complain about the notice they give the public about their activities.

Peak mule

A farmer in Tennessee has resorted to using a pair of mules to pull a tractor rake to harvest hay.

T.R. Raymond says the mules are slower than a petroleum-powered tractor, but there are benefits.

"This fuel's so high, you can't afford it," he said. "We can feed these mules cheaper than we can buy fuel. That's the truth."

There's also video of the modified equipment, buy you'll have to sit through an ad and a talking head.

Searle outlines ag trends at CP staff meeting

Whenever statistics come out about a state, a newspaper always has a responsibility to report more than just the numbers.

A newspaper should look beyond the numbers: provide analysis of them, show how numbers are relevant to the newspaper’s audience and try to give some forecasts of what experts think will happen next.

Last week, Capital Press invited one of the experts from the Oregon Department of Agriculture to do a presentation to some of the newspaper’s staff. The purpose was to help us get a better understanding of what is happening but also what is coming next in agriculture.

Brent Searle, originally from a farm in Idaho, serves as a special assistant to ODA agriculture director Katy Coba in Salem.

Searle emphasized this his department does not collect the statistics, but evaluates those that are collected by others, whether at the state or federal level. One of the roles his department does is later put into context some of those other numbers: for example, he and his colleagues will point out mistakes in the data and hopefully influence changes to be made.

Some of the trends he outlined to CP staff included:

Productivity in Oregon agriculture has increased about two percent per year in the past decade.

But farm income has stayed flat because while its productivity has gone up, the cost of production has also risen.

USDA research probably underestimates Oregon’s input costs, such as in electricity and labor.

Government payments to farmers in the past had been mainly for program crops, but now conservation program are triggering more money benefiting Oregon farmers.

Custom farming and grass cleaning has increased.

Employment increased 30 percent in the last decade, and 80 percent of that is nursery-related. The payroll has gone up, almost doubled.

In the food processing sector, the state has lost 10 major food processors, and lost more than 20 percent during that time in jobs relating to that industry.

The food industry continues to consolidate: six major food retailers produce half the food in the U.S. Wal-Mart was especially aggressive in how it has grown: it has 12 percent of all U.S. food sales, and expects that to rise to more than 20 percent in the next 8 years.

Between 1995 and 2005, Oregon lost 73,000 acres of primary processing crops such as berries and vegetable crops. Taking their place to a large extent is grass seed, with more than a 100,000-acre increase during that same time period.

More U.S. children have visited a zoo than a farm, but there is growing interest in where food comes from and how it is grown.

More land is being involved in certification programs: a total of 2,613,000 acres are enrolled in 5 certification programs in Oregon as of last year, about 15 percent of the total acres under production. The certification includes 49,000 as organic and 2.5 million were with Food Alliance. Half of the wine production is certified under one of the programs.

The number of small farms declined last year in numbers, for the first time in the last decade, as urban pressure convinces people to sell — especially when their farms might not be very economically viable. Measure 37 is expected to also have an impact.

Searle spent a considerable amount of time discussing energy: the cost to the state, as well as the growth of alternative sources of energy. He noted that Oregon spends $12 million per day on energy, and 85 percent of that leaves the state.

“All that money is sucking out of our economy,” he said.

Searle’s job involves talking to groups and communities that are interested in creating renewable fuels plants, and he admits there has been a lot of “kicking the tires.” There have been 40 –50 groups he has talked to, and probably about 20 projects out there, he said. In ethanol, there’s “10 talking, 2 under construction, and a third that’s close” and he predicted maybe half that will be built.

However, he believes there continues to be a lot of potential for those in agriculture looking to build or be involved in producing another energy option, especially since he expects gas prices to reach $4 by summer. Searle doesn’t believe they’ll go below $3 per gallon again.

Searle gave the Capital Press staff a lot of fodder to think about, as well as ideas on what to write about. Now it’s up to CP staff to take those numbers and trends and make sense of them for an audience that is impacted by these statistics.

Links:
Capital Press
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Wal-Mart
Food Alliance

Technorati tags:
agriculture
Capital Press
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Wal-Mart
Brent Searle
Katy Coba
Food Alliance
organic
agriculture certification
energy
gas prices
Agriculture processing

Western farmers will watch if Bush follows through on promises

It was a more reserved, less smug president that addressed the Republicans and Democrats Tuesday night in Washington, D.C. during his State of the Union address.

George W. Bush pleaded for support of his plan to add additional troops in Iraq, and emphasized the role that America needs to serve in international affairs while still protecting itself at home against terrorism.

The tone was different than speeches made by the president during the last few years: there wasn’t the air of defiance against critics, the bragging of success, the vows to defeat the axis of evil or unflinching cheerleading by his fellow Republicans.

While there were plenty of standing ovations and considerable applause, the support didn’t break down along the tradition lines of the president’s own party supporting all he said. This was especially clear on issues such as when he stressed the need for a temporary workers program, when he noted that there’s a serious problem of global climate change, and when he discussed the plan to send more troops to Iraq.

While there was the expected harsh words from Democrats later criticizing Bush’s foreign policy and failed objectives on the domestic agenda from his years thus far as president, there still appeared to be some acknowledgement that there needs to be change and cooperation to get things done — and cautious commitment made to work with the president if he indeed is serious on dealing with health, education, immigration and energy issues in the next two years.

Bush sadly ignored the Farm Bill, international trade and those areas impacted by weather disasters as priorities in his speech at a time when they deserved attention.

What can the West’s farmers and ranchers expect for help from Bush’s speech and the direction he wants to influence the House and Senate?

There is hope that something will be done about immigration issues and the challenge to have the workforce that segments of the agricultural community need so much.

Bush brought up that border patrols will not do enough to secure America’s border, but that a temporary worker program is needed. “We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won’t have to try to sneak in — and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists.

“We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers — so there is no excuse left for violating the law,” Bush said. And then he touched on what many wanted to hear.

“And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country — without animosity and without amnesty.”

It was obvious not everyone in his own party or in the Democratic party supported him as he announced this. The media dutifully recorded politicians that did not applaud or stand up in support. Bush expected and acknowledged this in his speech.

“Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate — so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.”

Westerners will applaud Washington’s politicians finally confronting the immigration issue head on, resolving the problems that exist: there is a need for a legal work force, but most importantly, there needs to be a labor force in place when and where it’s needed. Too many commodities were hurt this year when there was a worker shortage at crucial harvest times. Fruit and vegetable growers were particularly vulnerable and frustrated.

An area where Bush did find more support on from the politicians he courted during his speech was when he urged his country to be less dependent on foreign oil supplies.

This is not a new direction, but it renewed hope that perhaps something will finally be done about it, and there was hope that agriculture can provide the alternative energy sources needed.

“It is in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply — and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power — by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol — using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes,” Bush said.

More specifically, Bush challenged everyone: “Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years — thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

“To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 — this is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks — and conserve up to eight and a half billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.”

Education, healthcare and the economy were other domestic issues on Bush’s agenda that deserved and received attention in his speech.

But for agricultural community in the West, if the farmers can’t find the workers when they need them, or afford their fuel for their machinery, the transportation costs to get to market, and the heat for their business operations or even their homes, it’s tough to think about some of the other domestic issues.


Technorati tags:
Agriculture
State of the Union Speech
George W Bush
immigration
energy