By TIM ALEXANDER

Illinois Correspondent

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. — An impromptu coalition of state corn and grain associations has issued a statement that a farm bill without an optional “revenue-based” safety net is little better than no bill at all.


The leaders of the Illinois Corn Growers Assoc., Iowa Corn Growers Assoc., Indiana Corn Growers Assoc., Maryland Grain Producers Assoc., Ohio Corn Growers Assoc. and the Virginia Grain Producers Assoc. said while Congress continues to debate the farm bill, the verdict is already in from their associations.


“The business dynamic of agriculture today is completely different than even a few years ago, so ag policy legislation should lead the way to make this a positive transition,” said Illinois Corn President Art Bunting. “Much of the new farm bill as drafted puts window dressing on an outdated approach that serves neither corn growers nor the public well.”


The group said the merging of old and new ideas has led to a widening gap in House and Senate versions of the bill, and the disaster aid component as written is “insufficient and risky,” while showing “little regard for the corn industry.” The coalition targets the following key components in a revenue-based product:


•Should be based on market, not target price


•No “double-dipping” – utilizing the revenue-based option should be exclusive of other programs or program approaches such as non-recourse marketing loans


•To get a viable revenue-based safety net, there should be a willingness to negotiate direct payments


•Should be targeted and designed to activate based on need
•The revenue-based program would not be based on a national trigger but, rather, a state or county trigger


Tim Recker. Iowa Corn president, said the goal should be to ensure a safety net for farmers and consumers who rely on corn-based products. “A farm bill without a revenue-based program is extremely inadequate and could present significant economic consequences to corn producers throughout the Corn Belt,” Recker stated.


The corn groups said focus group studies revealed that corn producers believe farm programs should be based on low income rather than low prices and the current farm bill should be reformed rather than extended, due to the exposure growers currently face.


“Today’s higher prices come with higher input costs, meaning much greater risk and uncertainty for farm families,” said Matt Gibson, Indiana Corn president. “Under the current proposal, a producer who experienced yield losses similar to those we faced in 2005 would have no real safety net available to help them farm another year.


“We need a program that provides assistance when we need it most, not one that is in place because we’ve always done it that way.”


Bunting added that farm policy makes it difficult to negotiate international trade agreements and increase exports.
“A revenue-based bill helps address this concern,” he said. “We also need to remember this is the nation’s farm program, not just farmers’. The revenue-based concept is more consumer-friendly and will save taxpayers funds over time without sacrificing access to the reasonably priced corn-based products we have all come to expect.”


Soybean growers bash House farm bill

The Illinois Soybean Assoc. (ISA), with the support of the American Soybean Assoc. (ASA), expressed its displeasure with the proposed farm bill on Feb. 18.


While the Senate and House continue to debate, discuss and massage the bill, President Bush maintains he will likely veto the final product due to its costliness, which could result in the passage of a watered-down bill the House has offered that would be “detrimental to soybean growers,” according to the ISA.


ISA and ASA representatives are talking with members of the House and their staffs to express soybean producers’ concerns. ISA is concerned about the House version, saying it includes moving the target price back to the 2007 level of $5.80, tying the counter-cyclical income revenue program to a national average instead of regional, “dramatically under-funding” the CCC bioenergy program and creating rules that would cause growers to lose beneficial interest on their crops for which they take an LDP.