This week’s NSP board member spotlight is on Greg Krissek, the director of government affairs for ICM Inc., in Wichita, Kan.
He is one of the three new directors joining the NSP board this year.
Krissek brings knowledge, leadership and experience to the NSP board. He has served as chairman on multiple boards and has previous involvement with the Kansas Corn and Grain Sorghum Association.
“I started working on ag and rural issues 22 years ago, first for the Kansas Department of Agriculture and then for Kansas Corn and Grain Sorghum Producers, and I got hooked on working on rural development issues,” Krissek said.
Krissek’s extensive background in legislative, regulatory and government affairs will undoubtedly benefit the NSP organization as agriculture faces challenges with budget cuts and changing government regulations.
Krissek is also very optimistic about sorghum’s future role in the biofuels market.
“I see sorghum as one of the bright spots for meeting the biofuels production goals, especially as an advanced biofuel,” he said. “I’m excited to serve on the NSP board to help further this opportunity for ag producers and agribusiness.”
Krissek believes there are many opportunities for sorghum success, and he is very excited to be part of that effort.
“Identifying and supporting production research, market promotion and public awareness will be important for sorghum’s growth and success,” Krissek said.
Krissek and his wife Beth are the parents of two children. Their daughter is a senior animal science major at Kansas State University, and their son is a middle school math teacher in Dayton, Ohio.
Krissek will begin his new position as a NSP director October 1.
NSP voted to welcome three new directors to its board at its annual August meeting. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be highlighting these new members and getting to know them.
This week’s spotlight is Samuel Simmons, a sorghum farmer from Harlingen, Texas.
Simmons brings experienced leadership to the NSP board of directors. He has served on numerous cotton boards and was president of South Texas Cotton and Grain Producers. This fourth generation farmer typically grows 1,200 acres of sorghum each year, and there is no doubt he is optimistic about the future of the crop.
“Grain sorghum provides a lot of unique opportunities,” Simmons said. “I think it’s a market that will continue to grow as we find different venues for sorghum.”
Simmons is ready “to go to work” for sorghum. In light of the current budget situation, now is the time more than ever to provide grower involvement in the legislative process and Simmons is eager to take an active role on behalf of sorghum producers.
Simmons says Congress will have to make big decisions in the next year and a half and it will be important for sorghum and agriculture to make sure their voice is heard.
“We’re all going to have to tighten our belts, and it is unfortunate ag doesn’t have the number of votes we used to,” he said.
When asked about the future of NSP, Simmons says he is happy with the direction things are going and he would like to continue to educate producers about what types of sorghum will add value to their bottom line.
“Due to water shortages, sorghum fills a niche because other crops that are high in water consumption just don’t make sense right now.”
Simmons’ experience and knowledge will undoubtedly be an asset to the board as it moves forward.
“I would like to listen and help make this board better by being legislatively proactive and helping to further develop our resources,” he said.
Simmons has been a husband to his wife, Susan, for 31 years this October and is a father of two sons, Samuel, 28 and James, 25. The young men are fifth generation partners with their dad at Heritage Farms. In his spare time, Simmons enjoys fishing and spending weekends with his family at South Padre Island by the bay.
Simmons will assume his new position as a NSP director effective October 1.
As time plows forward, rules and regulations increasingly loom over the agriculture sector, and the government’s seemingly endless role of red tape has threatened farmers from the ability to do their jobs efficiently.
In recent weeks, it has become strikingly clear how out of touch President Obama is with the needs of our nation’s farmers and ranchers. The president’s recent stop on his Midwest bus tour proved his lack of knowledge about the regulatory red tape our farmers are facing today.
On Aug. 17 in Atkinson, Ill., a local farmer expressed his concerns to President Obama about the growing number of rules and regulations, including those concerning dust, noise, and water runoff. President Obama replied saying, “If you hear something is happening, but it hasn’t happened, don’t always believe what you hear.”
“Contact USDA,” Obama went on to say. “Talk to them directly. Find out what it is that you’re concerned about. My suspicion is, a lot of times, they’re going to be able to answer your questions and it will turn out that some of your fears are unfounded.”
Not only is this statement unrealistic, but one Politico reporter took the president’s advice and proved just that. After a day and a half of phone tag and being transferred from one organization or agency to the next, Politico reporter MJ Lee finally called the USDA’s main media relations headquarters and received this reply via email.
“Secretary Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers. Because the question that was posed did not fall within USDA jurisdiction, it does not provide a fair representation of USDA’s robust efforts to get the right information to our producers throughout the country.”
Lee concluded her article saying “So, still no answer to the farmer’s question.”
Obama’s response to a concerned Illinois farmer struck a nerve elsewhere. There are many champions for agriculture on Capitol Hill, and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, took it upon himself to educate the President last Friday in a letter outlining directives and regulations the administration has proposed or has in development that would affect farmers and ranchers in rural America. The letter comes following the town hall meeting the president hosted in Illinois on August 17.
Dear Mr. President:
I write to provide you with insight into actions your Administration is considering that could negatively impact rural America.
At a town hall meeting you hosted in Illinois earlier this week, a farmer expressed the concerns of many producers related to proposed regulations and directives impacting their farming operations. You asked the producer if there was a specific issue concerning him. He mentioned issues including dust pollution, noise pollution and water runoff. You responded, “Yes. Here’s what I’d suggest is the – if you hear something is happening, but it hasn’t happened, don’t always believe what you hear.” You then went on to imply that many of these concerns were created by lobbyists and associations in Washington.
I want to assure you that this farmer’s concerns are justified. To better inform you about the actions being taken by your Administration, included below is a list of proposed rules, directives and actions impacting rural America since your inauguration. While this list is not complete or comprehensive, it provides an overview of the increased regulations and resulting costs American agriculture and rural America face due to actual or proposed actions taken by federal agencies under your direction. The partial list of concerns is as follows:
GIPSA Rule Impacting Livestock Producers – USDA has proposed a new regulation for livestock marketing that will undo years of progress and innovation in the livestock industry. Many of the provisions of this proposed rule were rejected on a bipartisan basis during debate on the last Farm Bill, which was signed into law when you were serving in the United States Senate.
This proposed rule could eliminate the use of many alternative marketing arrangements in the livestock industry. A 2007 GIPSA study showed that over ten years a 25 percent reduction in alternative marketing arrangements would cost feeder cattle producers $5.1 billion; fed cattle producers $3.9 billion; and consumers $2 billion. If marketing arrangements were eliminated, the 10-year cumulative losses for producers and consumers would top $60 billion.
NPDES permits – This duplicative regulatory burden is scheduled to go into effect on October 31, 2011, less than three months from today. It will require 5.6 million applications of pesticides by 365,000 applicators to have NPDES permits to apply pesticides. These permits are duplicative, unnecessary and will add a new requirement under the Clean Water Act for pesticide applications, which are already regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone – EPA has proposed to strengthen the primary ozone standard. Under the proposal, the vast majority of counties with ozone monitors would be considered in nonattainment. If finalized, this could mean that additional rural and/or agricultural counties are designated as non attainment. This will limit the ability of farmers to manage crop residue on their farms and will create a substantial new burden on livestock operations where ammonia and methane are naturally emitted by animals.
PM 10/Dust – EPA is preparing to reconsider its large particulate matter (PM 10) standard. EPA’s Clean Air Advisory Committee has recommended lowering the standard. This is problematic because the current standard is already difficult for many rural counties, especially in the West, to meet. Working and harvesting farm fields is an inherently dusty business, as is driving down rural dirt and logging roads. A change in this rule will make it impossible for many farming and forestry operations to be in compliance and could result in substantial fines for many family operations.
Water Quality Standards Rulemaking – Last year, EPA announced it will propose a rule to strengthen anti-degradation standards, adopt a presumption that all U.S. waters should be fishable and swimmable, and require state decisions to be approved by EPA. In effect, this proposal would federalize decisions historically made by the states under the Clean Water Act.
Climate Change – Proposed new greenhouse gas regulations will increase the cost of virtually every input used in agriculture and forestry production. These regulations will not impact just producers but also agribusinesses. As these businesses face increased costs, those expenses will be passed on to producers and ultimately consumers. This will likely lead to higher food and fuel costs for all Americans while the economy is still struggling.
Clean Water Act Strategy – Earlier this year the Administration announced new “guidance” for federal employees to implement the Clean Water Act, thereby expanding the water bodies included under regulation. This action was taken without adherence to federal regulatory process through the promulgation of a regulation in the Federal Register. This expansion of the Clean Water Act will impact farmers and ranchers, not to mention increased burdens on States.
Spray Drift Policy – Last year, EPA proposed a rule to help states identify and prevent drift. The proposed rule counters decades old EPA policies that acknowledge small levels of spray drift are unavoidable. In fact, EPA has long recognized some de minimus level of spray drift will occur from most or all applications as a result of using pesticides. The proposed policy establishes a precautionary principle approach and is inconsistent with FIFRA.
Prior Converted Cropland – In April 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted a policy that “once a property changes from agricultural use to non-agricultural use, a prior converted cropland (PCC) designation is no longer applicable.” Therefore, the moment agricultural use ceases on PCC, the PCC designation is no longer valid and a jurisdictional determination will be conducted under a provision in the Corps’s Wetlands Delineation Manual that allows the Corps to assert jurisdiction over areas that do not exhibit all three wetlands characteristics. This is contrary to current Corps of Engineers policy and was adopted without any public input.
Atrazine – In response to a New York Times article, EPA has announced an unscheduled re-review of atrazine. Atrazine was favorably reviewed by EPA in 2006 and is scheduled to begin registration review in 2013. Reviews should be based on scientific justifications and established timelines and should not be done in response to a single press report.
Arsenic and Dioxin Risk Assessments – EPA is considering a cancer risk factor for arsenic that will cause virtually all soils to exceed the agency’s target risk range as well as a risk factor for dioxin that will cause nearly all agricultural products to exceed the agency’s level of concern. This means rice, wheat, corn meal, peanuts, apples, lettuce, carrots, onions, sugar, and tap water would be considered unsafe. Since 2000, the incidence of dioxin contamination has dropped 90 percent.
Mr. President, I hope this list of regulations provides more clarity on the real, proposed regulations and directives by your administration that will add costs to every farming, livestock and forestry operation in this country. They will also increase costs for consumers and limit opportunity for economic activity in rural communities across the country. I urge you to do all that you can to put the brakes on this regulatory agenda aimed at further weakening the economy in rural America.
A new proposal from the Commodity Futures Trade Commission, if passed, could require all oral communication between a farmer and country elevator to be tape recorded and has many people within the industry concerned and frustrated.
The proposal, outlined in a 48-page commodities document in the Federal Register was published on June 7 but somehow flew under the industry’s radar until the first of August. The proposal makes a number of “conforming changes” for the commodity industry in line with the landmark Dodd-Frank market reform legislation signed in July 2010.
The legislation, passed in the wake of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, aims to “reduce risk, increase transparency, and promote market integrity,” the agency notes.
Grain traders have zeroed in on a section that would require firms that are members of futures exchanges “to record all oral communications that lead to the execution of transactions in a commodity interest or cash commodity.” The recordings, which must be stored for five years in addition to full electronic records of transactions, will need to “be identifiable by counterparty and transaction.”“What they’re trying to do, in my mind, is overstepping their bounds,” said Paul Dubravec, merchandising and ag price risk management consultant for Advance Trading Inc. “They’re trying to link this to the 2008 financial debacle and that just doesn’t make sense. This is just more regulation that does nothing to promote growth within the industry.”
Although some elevators do currently record communication with farmers, it is typically in the interest of protecting themselves. With government imposed restrictions, elevators that do not already have the proper procuring systems to record all oral conversations are looking at spending thousands of dollars to meet the proposed standards. According to the documents in the Federal Register the FCTC estimates startup costs for a large grain entity to be $55,000 and at least $10,000 for smaller entities that do not already have a system in place. That does not include the burden elevator owners would incur when spending and estimated 135 hours to set up the system or the amount of money they would be forced to pay a computer specialist at a recommended rate upward of $50 per hour.
“It’s a knee jerk reaction to issues in the past,” says Barry Evans, owner of Evans Grain in Kress, Texas. “A contract should be sufficient. I can’t imagine recorded conversations being necessary. That’s just not practical at all.”
NSP expects the CFTC proposal to gain little traction after the comment period as the resulting effect, if implemented, would severely limit elevator willingness to forward contract grain from producers.
Let’s get real. With economic downfall, drought, flooding and legislative turmoil, why would the government even consider suffocating the industry with yet another regulation? Rural America isn’t Wall Street, and a firm handshake and a signature means something here.
Using a Global Positioning System has become a common, everyday tool for many people. Whether I’m in my car getting directions or finding the best place to eat in my vicinity, GPS technology has become a staple in my everyday life, and I wonder how some individuals would cope without it.
The FCC recently granted a waiver to LightSquared, a wholesale-only integrated 4G-LTE wireless broadband and satellite network, which allows them to repurpose the satellite spectrum immediately neighboring that of GPS. This will be a low-ground, high-powered signal that is a billion times stronger than the GPS low-powered signal. This will cause severe interference with GPS signals impacting millions of GPS receivers.
Today GPS is commonly used by most industries, including not only agriculture, but also federal agencies, state and local governments, first responders, airlines, mariners, civil engineers, construction and surveying, and everyday consumers in their cars and on handheld devices.
As we have seen in the farming industry, technology has helped pave the way for increased efficiency and accuracy. Farmers have been met with the demand to produce more food, fuel and fiber in a timely manner and the involvement of GPS has strongly aided their ability to do so.
GPS technology enables farmers to perform a multitude of tasks like mapping fields, roads and irrigation systems, and applying fertilizer and chemicals. They often have the benefit of being able to continue to work in low-visibility conditions, as well.
Farmers have spent thousands of dollars upgrading to these high-tech GPS systems. Combines, tractors, spray rigs and many other implements are equipped with this technology. With loss of GPS signals, these high-powered, high-cost machines will lose the efficiency they were designed to provide and cost producers thousands of dollars.
“In agriculture, the loss of a stable GPS system could have an impact of anywhere from $14 to $30 billion each year,” said Ken Golden, director of global public relations at John Deere. “That could significantly erode the strong competitive global position of U.S. farmers in the world agricultural economy.”
Ellis Moore, a farmer from Sunray, Texas, has 14,000 acres of farm land and uses GPS extensively on his operation.
“We strip till on 20 inch rows in a circle, and it is virtually impossible to do that without GPS,” he said. “The loss would cost me anywhere from $2-2.5 million. I would conservatively lose 50 bushels per acre, as well.”
An online coalition is working to resolve this serious threat to GPS, agriculture and other industries.
As the amount of land designated for agricultural use decreases and concrete begins to grow in place of crops, the disconnect between agriculture and the urban population continues to grow at an exponential rate. A new law policy proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is another reminder of how distant our government has become with rural America.
The proposal from USDOT would force those who operate any farm machinery, i.e. tractors and combines, to have a Commercial Drivers License (CDL). This potential regulation poses numerous issues to those who live and work on farms. Not only does it impose unnecessary fees and constraints on farmers, but it would also impede youth from operating a tractor and contributing to the family farm.
Like most kids who grew up on farms, I learned to drive a tractor before I learned how to drive a vehicle. I learned how to safely maneuver a tractor around the farm, pull implements, and operate the front-end loader. Not only did it teach me to be a functional contributor to the farming operation, but it always helped me become a responsible operator of a motor vehicle when I turned 16 – even though I was driving a truck around the farm well before that age. Safety always came first. Quite honestly, I think kids who grew up driving tractors are much better and more responsible operators of motor vehicles than most people on the roadways who have driver’s licenses!
If a CDL is required to drive a tractor –big or small– youth in agriculture will be robbed of the chance to do what I did growing up, because in order to be eligible for a CDL you have to be at least 18 years of age.
While considering the new law, officials should also keep in mind farm equipment is typically only driven in rural America where most have either driven a tractor or are familiar with them. Most equipment travels minimally on public roadways and has only one occupant making it seemingly pointless for CDLs to be required because it’s drastically different from driving something like a semi.
It seems the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is most interested in exploring the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce and whether operations of commercial motor vehicles within the boundaries of a single state are subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The administration will also look at the factors the states are using in deciding whether farm vehicle drivers transporting agricultural commodities, farm supplies and equipment as part of a crop share agreement are subject to CDL regulations, as well if off-road farm equipment or implements of husbandry operated on public roads for limited distances are considered commercial motor vehicles.
Unfortunately, the window for commenting closed Aug. 1. However, NSP encourages you to call your elected officials and make your voice heard on this issue.
USDOT welcomed comments while claiming that “in many ways, agriculture is the backbone of our economy – feeding hundreds of millions of Americans and billions more around the world. As the largest user of freight transportation in the nation, the agricultural industry is also one of USDOT’s most important constituents.”
USDOT, American farmers are under enough regulation as it is, and another burden from the federal government will make it increasingly harder to stay in business of feeding and fueling the world.
NSP External Affairs Director Lindsay Kennedy and her twin sister Natalie frequently joined their dad in the tractor cab on their family farm in Arkansas. Photo taken in 1986.
By David L. Thomas, Sorghum Partners LLC, New Deal, Texas
Three weeks ago, I (and several sorghum farmers) had the opportunity to travel to Morocco, Spain and Belgium with the U.S. Grains Council on a sorghum export mission.
This 10 day tour reaffirms my long held opinion that sorghum is the crop of the future.
We saw and experienced how sorghum export markets work. We visited end users of U.S. sorghum and discussed with them their needs, desires and concerns for feed grains. We also met with EU administrators in Brussels to discuss tariffs and the “political bureaucracy” that hinder and manipulate all international grain trade.
The bottom line is sorghum works!
The international grain buyers/sellers can trade sorghum the same way they trade any feed grain, when they are allowed. The politics of pitting one grain against another grain is rampant. Grain traders like sorghum because their customers like sorghum!
The end users of sorghum we met favored sorghum for a number of reasons. The flourmill we visited liked sorghum because sorghum flour has no gluten, and sorghum flour was his entry into the human health food market. We had the opportunity to tour several giant feed mills. These mills were using sorghum because it was their “safe grain”. Sorghum has no aflatoxin, sorghum is higher in protein than corn and sorghum is less expensive than corn.
Dairies, beef and pork feeders, and poultry farms all were using sorghum (grain and/or silage) in all aspects of their operations. These end users were using sorghum they had produced or purchased directly, and they were using sorghum that was in the commercial feeds they purchased.
Their comments can be summarized as, “sorghum is safe, less expensive, and a quality feed.” None of the operations we toured produced their sorghum, but some are considering sorghum production because they are running out of water! Sound familiar?
When I think about sorghum in today’s economical environment, political environment, health environment and natural resources environment, it becomes very clear that sorghum IS the crop of the future.
Consider the following:
Sorghum can be produced on 80 perrcent of the world’s arable land.
Sorghum uses 20-30 percent less water to produce than corn.
Sorghum is a great health food – no gluten and higher protein than corn.
Sorghum is a universal feed – grain or forage.
Sorghum grain produces the same amount of ethanol per bushel as corn.
Sorghum biomass produces energy through burning (like coal), through sweet juice (like sugar cane), and through cellulosic ethanol production.
Sorghum genetics are extraordinarily diverse and under explored.
When there are little or no government ag programs, what is the safest and most reliable grain to produce on the high plains of the U.S.?
Meeting and talking to people all over the globe reinforces my belief that sorghum truly is the logical crop for the future.
The U.S. Grains Council sorghum trade team gathers in front of Atlas, a feedmill in Morocco.
David and other mission participants examine feed grains, including sorghum, at the COPAG dairy facilities in Morocco.
Port of Tarragona on the Mediterranean coast of Spain is a vital port for the importation of grains from the U.S. Spain has been the No. 2 international customer of U.S. sorghum in the 2010/2011 marketing year.
The group tours the Casagrains storage facilities in Casablanca, Morocco.
This week’s NSP board member spotlight is on Greg Krissek, the director of government affairs for ICM Inc., in Wichita, Kan.
By David L. Thomas, Sorghum Partners LLC, New Deal, Texas
