A news release yesterday from the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicated that, “Acting Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Michael Scuse today announced that the federal crop insurance program will provide additional flexibility to farmers. The modifications center on the practice of growing two crops on the same field at different times of the year, which is known as double cropping.

“‘We are constantly looking for ways to meet the needs of our farmers and seek out their feedback so we can best provide them with the tools and resources they need to grow and support their operations,’ Scuse said. ‘After receiving input from a number of stakeholders, we made these changes to the federal crop insurance program to provide greater flexibility and better reflect current agricultural practices.’

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Risk Management Agency (RMA) worked to provide additional flexibility requested by farmers. Double cropping requirements are revised to adequately recognize changes in growing farm operations or for added land. This change will address both land added to an operation, and account for multiple crop rotations. These changes will be in effective for the 2017 crop year for most crops, starting with winter wheat.”

Yesterday’s release noted that, “Working with producers, RMA has developed innovative and well-received products to adapt the program to today’s diverse farm operations. Special focus has been given to more diversified farms, small farms and beginning farmers and ranchers. Crop insurance is sold and delivered solely through private crop insurance agents. Contact a local crop insurance agent for more information about these changes. A list of crop insurance agents is available at all USDA Service Centers or online at www.rma.usda.gov/tools/agent.html.”

AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick reported today that, “Senators have a bipartisan deal to require labeling of genetically modified ingredients nationally, a week before a labeling law in Vermont goes into effect.

“The deal announced Thursday by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee would require the nationwide labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in packaged foods for the first time. But it would be more lenient than Vermont’s law, allowing food companies to use a text label, a symbol or electronic label accessed by smartphone. Vermont’s law would require items to be labeled “produced with genetic engineering.”

“The agreement couldn’t become law before Vermont’s law kicks in July 1, since the House is on vacation until July 5. Legislation passed by the House would make the labeling voluntary, but that measure stalled in the Senate earlier this year.”

The AP article stated that, “The industry’s main lobbying group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said it is backing the senators’ deal. The group has opposed mandatory labeling nationwide but advocated for electronic labels in negotiations,” and added that, “The Agriculture Department appeared to endorse the legislation, as well, issuing a statement encouraging members of the House and Senate to move quickly on the deal. The bill would give the USDA two years to write the labeling rules.”

House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson (D., Minn.) indicated on Thursday that, “Today’s announcement brings us closer to providing clear labeling guidelines for genetically engineered crops. A patchwork of labeling laws across state lines is simply not workable and I am committed to finding a solution that balances the consumer desire for information with the scientific evidence of the safety of these crops. I will be closely reviewing this bill and listening to stakeholder input as this process moves forward.”

Christopher Doering reported in today’s Des Moines Register that, “Conservation measures by farmers have reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff in Iowa and other states in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, according to a federal government study released this week.

“Using existing water quality data, researchers at the Agriculture Department and the U.S. Geological Survey determined voluntary agricultural conservation practices helped reduce nitrogen downstream in the Upper Mississippi River Basin watershed by as much as 34 percent. The impact on phosphorus reduction was less promising, with reductions topping out at 10 percent. Iowa is part of the Upper Mississippi and Missouri river basins.”

The Register article noted that, “[U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack] said he hopes that as lawmakers work on the budget and begin discussions about the next farm bill, the government’s report ‘would certainly emphasize the need for continued investment and continued support for conservation.’ He said conservation can be successful by providing incentives to farms rather than requiring change through regulation.”

Associated Press writer Caleb Jones reported earlier this month that, “The fight over regulating genetically engineered crops in three Hawaii counties was back in a federal courtroom as some agricultural giants look to protect their farms from bans against modified food.

“The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Honolulu Wednesday on ordinances that seek to regulate or outlaw genetically engineered crops in Hawaii, Kauai and Maui counties.

“Agrichemical companies and trade associations sued each county, and federal court rulings sided with the businesses. The counties and interested environmental groups want the 9th Circuit to overturn the decisions.”

Mr. Jones indicated that, “The state Department of Agriculture regulates harmful plants in Hawaii, however, and attorneys representing the agrichemical companies said the state could and would specifically regulate genetically engineered plants if they felt it was warranted. The department has not said genetically engineered crops are harmful.

“‘The issue in this case isn’t whether pesticides or GE plants should be regulated or what those regulations should be. The only question here is who does the regulating. Under current Hawaii law, the answer is clear,’ said Chris Landau, representing the companies in the Kauai and Big Island cases. ‘The state has comprehensive schemes in place.'”

The AP article added that, “U.S. District Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway ruled last June that federal and state law pre-empts that county’s ban on cultivating genetically engineered crops, making it invalid. She stressed then that her order addressed only the question of county authority.

“Two years ago, Kauai and Hawaii counties adopted measures regulating GMO crops and pesticides. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren struck them down, saying state law superseded them.”

Associated Press writer Lisa Rathke reported earlier this week that, “Northeast dairy farmers who have been strapped for months by low milk prices say a voluntary insurance program that was supposed to be a safety net isn’t helping.

“The margin protection program provides financial assistance to enrolled farmers when the gap between the price of milk and national average feed costs falls below the coverage levels picked by individual farmers.

“‘It’s a complete failure,’ said Les Pike, of Keewaydin Farm in Stowe, Vermont, which has been losing money for months. ‘If it doesn’t pay in a year like this, it’s completely useless.'”

The AP article noted that, “Farmers say the margin protection program is not based on Northeast farmers’ feed costs but on the national average feed cost, which is less. The chairman of the National Milk Producers Federation testified in Washington last month that the program needs improvements. Randy Mooney, who is also a Missouri dairy farmer, said the formula for calculating feed costs was changed and no longer reflects the true cost of feeding a herd while the insurance premiums for farmers were not reduced.”

Ms. Rathke added that, “Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House by Vermont Rep. Peter Welch, a Democrat, New York Rep. Chris Gibson, a Republican, and Democratic Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut that would amend the Farm Bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to use data from each state to calculate average feed costs and dairy production margins for the insurance program.

“But there is a lot resistance to reopening the Farm Bill before it expires, Welch said. The current Farm Bill was passed in 2014 and expires in 2018, his office said.”

Becky Krystal reported earlier this month at The Washington Post Online that, “If you’re a frequent farmers market shopper, you’ve probably noticed how a single item can vary in price among not only different vendors at the same market but also the same vendors at different markets.

“Consider the tomato. We informally surveyed area market managers about what their vendors would be charging for the summertime staple and got answers that were, well, all over the map. The upshot: Vendors charge higher prices, for the most part, at urban markets.”

The article noted that, “Demographics play into another aspect of pricing, said Eli Cook of Spring Valley Farm and Orchard in Romney, W.Va. He estimates his field-grown tomatoes will range in price from $2.99 to $3.49 per pound this summer, depending partly on which items he sends to which markets. At his markets in the city, including Dupont and FreshFarm’s White House location, more customers may want heirloom varieties, which are harder to grow, leading to higher prices. (Cook said his yield on heirloom tomatoes is around 50 percent, while it’s 70 percent on more-standard varieties.)

“Those urban customers are more likely to be single people, Cook said, which means he has to hire more people to work the stand to handle the greater volume of smaller transactions: $7 to $9 vs. the average $30 to $40 in more family-heavy Burke, where Spring Valley also sells. Those wage costs may be a driving factor in higher prices, as well.”

The Post article also indicated that, “Being in the city can affect prices in other ways. Miller said that, for example, when his team comes to sell at the Capital Harvest on the Plaza market at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, parking challenges mean they have to drive a smaller truck that carries less stock. It’s classic supply and demand: less supply, more demand and higher prices. ‘We want to take stuff that’s going to pay the bills,’ Miller said.

“Vendors may also vary their prices based on market fees. Fairfax County, for example, manages a dozen markets and charges a flat annual fee of $325 for a 10-by-10-foot tent, with $150 per additional tent.

“Municipally managed markets tend to charge lower, one-time-only fees, Cook said.”

Alana Semuels reported recently at The Atlantic Online that, “The face of the American farmer today may look a little bit like Diane Henry Freutel’s. She is wearing pearl earrings, a blue hard hat, a denim shirt, jeans, and running shoes as she saws down a small tree on the farmland she inherited from her parents. Later she will drag the tree, along with other scraps and weeds, into a pile, and burn it. It’s all part of managing the 100 acres of farmland that unexpectedly became hers when her father and brother died in rapid succession two years ago.”

The article states that, “Many who inherit farms, like Freutel, aren’t ready to give them up. By 2030, older women may own 75 percent of transferred farmland, according to the American Farmland Trust.”

Ms. Semuels went on to explain that: “Women operated 14 percent of all U.S. farms in 2012, up from 5 percent in 1978, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  ‘Women live longer than men, so we’re seeing a lot of farming widows,’ said Jennifer Filipiak, a natural-resource conservationist with the American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit that promotes conservation practices on farms.

“The average age of principal farm operators in 2012 was 58.3 years, up from 50.5 years three decade ago, according to the agricultural census. More than 600,000 principal operators of farms are between 55 and 64 years old; more than 250,000 principal operators are over 75. And less than one-third of farms have a designated successor in the family.

“Women who suddenly find themselves the principal operators of farms realize they have to negotiate with banks or insurance companies or fertilizer dealers or property-tax assessors. Some of them decide to continue to farm the land themselves, others rent out the land to tenants. Women represent 37 percent of all principal landlords of farmland, according to the American Farmland Trust. (Nearly 40 percent of all farmland is rented or leased, according to the USDA.)”

The Atlantic article noted that, “Now, the American Farmland Trust is holding ‘learning circles‘ across the country to educate women who are new farm owners about how to handle things like soil sampling and conservation practices. It is also trying to help women who decide to lease out land understand how to negotiate rates and write leases. There are certain clauses owners can put in their leases to govern how their land is farmed, requiring farms to use practices that conserve the soil or are better for the environment, for instance, and sometimes tenants push back, Filipiak said.’I’ve met women who have terrific relationships with their farmers, I’ve met women who are being completely ripped off by their farmers,’ she said.”

And the article added that, “Karla Thieman, the chief of staff of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Tom Vilsac, also runs a Women in Ag mentoring network. The department also has the ability to provide specific Farm Service Agency loans for women in agriculture, because women are considered ‘underserved and socially-disadvantaged’ members, according to spokesman Matthew Herrick. Annual lending to underserved producers increased to $827.3 million in 2015, from $379.4 million in 2008.”

Yesterday’s Morning Agriculture report from Politico stated that, “Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said late Monday that she and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) are ‘narrowing the issues‘ surrounding GMO labeling legislation and are ‘close‘ to reaching a deal — but have not shared a draft in the Senate. She said they have been meeting constantly. But questions remain over one of the most fundamental issues: whether on-pack labels should be part of a mandatory disclosure system. Come July 1 on-pack labeling will become the de facto national standard, as food and beverage manufacturers will be forced to comply with Vermont’s law or potentially face a $1,000 fine per day, per product.

“Hope for a voluntary labeling standard faded in March when legislation offered by Roberts failed to secure the 60 votes needed to move forward. Shortly thereafter, companies like Mars and General Mills announced they would start labeling products containing GMOs, while PepsiCo appeared to quietly make the move in April. The pro-labeling camp is keeping track. Just Label It, a coalition of consumer advocacy, environmental and organic industry groups, has created a Facebook page featuring photos of products featuring disclosures about genetically engineered ingredients. The Grocery Manufacturers Association and biotech and agricultural industry groups worry that these products will be unfairly stigmatized by anti-GMO activists and companies will reformulate away from biotech ingredients.”

The Politico update added that, “There are 10 calendar days left before Vermont’s law takes effect, but Stabenow and Roberts really only have four legislative days left, considering the House won’t be in session all next week, the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food warned.”

And Ken Anderson reported yesterday at Brownfield that, “Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, says he hasn’t heard anything new on the issue.

“‘I have seen no breakthrough that would give me any indication something could happen,’ Grassley says. ‘But sometimes when you’re up to a deadline, that helps to get things done.'”