Robert Pore's Ag Blog

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — A power shift in Congress likely means a new emphasis — with a capital E — in agricultural policy, said Allan Gray, a Purdue University agricultural economist.

With Democrats winning majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in this month's midterm elections, Gray said he believes Democrats will chart a course that follows what he calls the "four E's."

"There are going to be some shifts in agricultural policy issues with the Democrats assuming power in January," Gray said. "I think Democrats will focus on extension, environment, equity and energy."

All four topics are likely to be addressed in the 2007 Farm Bill, which Democrats will play a significant role in writing, Gray said. The 2002 bill, estimated to spend $180 billion over 10 years, expires next September.

"Extension" refers to farm subsidy payment provisions. Gray said he believes Democrats will extend the agricultural support payment programs from the 2002 Farm Bill.

"Some Democrats who are taking over chairmanships in the ag committees have generally been pretty favorable to the commodity title, or the subsidy system, of the 2002 bill," Gray said. "I think it is highly likely that they are going to push for an extension of those programs, meaning that direct payments, counter-cyclical payments and marketing loan payments are likely to stay the same.

"Under current market conditions with commodity prices being so high, it might not be too hard to keep those programs in place because they are not going to be as costly as they would be if we had low commodity prices."

The 2002 Farm Bill added counter-cyclical payments to the traditional direct payments and marketing loans. A farmer can receive counter-cyclical payments on qualified crops if market prices fall below a government-set target price. Target prices vary from crop to crop.

Gray also expects the new Congress to push for greater environmental protections in agriculture.

"If the past holds true, the environment — the second E — is likely to be more of a focus for the Democrats," Gray said. "For example, Sen. Tom Harkin, who is to be the chairman of the Senate ag committee, was the author of the Conservation Security Program in the 2002 Farm Bill. Due to some changes in appropriations, that program never got funded as it was supposed to. I think Sen. Harkin will push to have that program become a bigger part of the next farm bill."

The Conservation Security Program would provide financial incentives for farmers and ranchers who follow good conservation practices on working lands in agricultural production.

Gray predicted Democrats would try leveling the playing field between those agricultural producers who receive large government subsidies and those who receive smaller subsidies, or none at all. "Equity" could be a buzzword word in the 110th Congress, he said.

"There's been a lot of talk on Capitol Hill lately — even from the Republican-appointed secretary of agriculture — about the fact that a few large farms that produce corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice receive the bulk of the subsidies and that we should instead be thinking about making those payments to a broader base of farmers," Gray said.

"Congress could move to get more people involved in the subsidy-based system, including livestock producers and fruit, nut, vegetable and vine producers. The new House speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi from California, is going to be interested in programs that help fruits, nuts, vegetables and vines because of the prominent nature of that part of the ag industry in California."

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are expected to support legislation promoting biofuels and other initiatives in energy, Gray's fourth E.

"I think both the Republicans and Democrats have an area here where they agree," he said. "That is, that biofuels are part of our overall strategy for energy independence in the United States. I think the Democrats are likely to push that agenda a little bit harder. They are probably going to be a bit more in favor of subsidizing the use of corn ethanol, extending the renewable fuels standard and developing cellulosic ethanol. They'll also likely be more favorable to biodiesel."

Gray foresees congressional Democrats proposing tougher fuel efficiency standards for new cars and trucks, as well as requiring automakers to build more vehicles capable of running on biofuels.

Other agricultural policy changes in the Democrat-led Congress are possible, Gray said, including:

• Disaster assistance. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., has called for adding provisions within the next farm bill to make it easier for farmers affected by drought, floods or other natural disasters to receive federal assistance.

"Rep. Peterson would like to add wording to the farm bill allowing the secretary of agriculture to make disaster payments to farmers whenever the need arises without needing Congress to pass a new bill every time," Gray said.

• Food safety. Lawmakers could propose legislation expanding country-of-origin labeling laws and strengthening current efforts in livestock identification/traceability, and mad cow disease and food contamination prevention.

"With the Democrats in control, those are going to be issues that will be debated," Gray said. "Even environmental issues, like programs that are in place to ensure we both encourage producers to do a better job of handling manure waste and make sure confined animal feeding operations are properly regulated, should be the topics of some lively discussion."

Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.

Long shadow

The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.

But such rapid growth exacts a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options. “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

Land and water

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.

Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.

Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock’s presence in vast tracts of land and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline, with livestock identified as a culprit.

Remedies

The report, which was produced with the support of the multi-institutional Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, proposes explicitly to consider these environmental costs and suggests a number of ways of remedying the situation, including:

Land degradation – controlling access and removing obstacles to mobility on common pastures. Use of soil conservation methods and silvopastoralism, together with controlled livestock exclusion from sensitive areas; payment schemes for environmental services in livestock-based land use to help reduce and reverse land degradation.

Atmosphere and climate – increasing the efficiency of livestock production and feed crop agriculture. Improving animals’ diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, and setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure.

Water – improving the efficiency of irrigation systems. Introducing full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage large-scale livestock concentration close to cities.

These and related questions are the focus of discussions between FAO and its partners meeting to chart the way forward for livestock production at global consultations in Bangkok this week. These discussions also include the substantial public health risks related to the rapid livestock sector growth as, increasingly, animal diseases also affect humans; rapid livestock sector growth can also lead to the exclusion of smallholders from growing markets.