Colorado is blessed with natural resources vital to renewable energy development. Whether it is bright sunlight, strong and consistent winds, or abundant supplies of biomass from agriculture and forestry, Colorado can reap the benefits of the new energy economy. Our abundant natural resources are supported by thriving research and development network, including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, outside of Denver. Colorado has the resources, the know-how, and even the workforce we need to meet our ever-growing demand for energy. Rural America is where the need for new jobs is most acute, and rural Colorado is no exception. Renewable energy development can put rural Americans to work.

But that won’t happen unless the Farm Bill continues to promote renewable energy development. Renewable energy depends upon developing energy resources on our rural lands, and the Farm Bill plays a major role in those efforts. What we call “the Farm Bill” is the primary federal support for our nation’s agricultural productivity, but the bulk of the bill funds food support programs for the disadvantaged, and it also provides programs to ensure national energy security. Today the farm bill is under threat of significant cuts, and renewable energy programs, a small but vital part, are particularly targeted.

The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) could lose its funding. REAP provides grants and loan guarantees to farmers and rural communities for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Every state has rural areas rich in renewable resources, and REAP guarantees bring development projects within reach. REAP projects in every state are creating jobs in rural America, contributing to U.S. energy security, and promoting new markets for agriculture.

Two other vital programs are the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) and the Biorefinery Assistance Program. BCAP encourages farmers to grow dedicated energy crops, and the Biorefinery Assistance Program provides grants and loan guarantees for the construction of advanced biorefineries. Biomass energy has tremendous potential, especially in Colorado. Today, the main biomass feedstocks for power are paper mill residue, lumber mill scrap, and municipal waste. Agricultural residues such as corn stalks, leaves, and husks show great promise, as do crops like perennial grasses and algae. BCAP and the Biorefinery Assistance Program are vital to continued development of this technology.

With a robust energy title in the next farm bill, Congress can help farmers and others in rural America become more energy efficient and more profitable. Congress can ensure that we develop new markets for agricultural and forestry producers. With federal support, farmers and ranchers can continue to make a vital contribution to our food and energy needs, which are crucial to national security. These are all goals worth achieving even in tough economic times.

Farmers and ranchers understand the importance of a balanced budget. But it’s a false economy to cut programs that will lead to significant economic growth. Renewable energy is a rapidly growing industry. We should not handicap our country’s economic growth by cutting vital farm bill energy programs such as REAP, BCAP and Biorefinery Assistance.

As Congress searches for budget savings, please take a moment to tell your representatives that you support the energy title in the Farm Bill.

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union posted a comment with the Department of Labor urging that proposed new federal regulations on child labor avoid unintended hardships to family farms and ranches. “We are concerned that the regulations do not clearly exempt family operations that have incorporated,” said Kent Peppler, a Mead, Colorado, farmer and President of RMFU. “We support regulations to improve the safety of young farm workers, but the regulations shouldn’t place unnecessary burdens on farm and ranch families whose children participate in the family work.”

As a grassroots organization working to protect family farmers, ranchers and their rural communities, RMFU advocates for safe agricultural workplaces and supports programs that encourage young people to get experience and training that will lead them to a fulfilling life in agriculture. “We value the health and safety of all farm workers, whether family or hired help,” the comment asserted, “and we support the student-learner programs of rural schools, which offer hands-on training in a safe environment.”

Family-oriented agriculture is the most environmentally, economically and socially responsible model for agricultural production. Families have an inherent concern that  their natural resources are sustainable, that their livestock are handled with humane husbandry, and that workers, who include spouses, children, and the extended family, have a safe workplace. The agricultural family has a vested financial and emotional interest in keeping the workplace safe. The proposed rules lack clarity regarding their impact on farms owned by a closely-held family corporation or partnerships consisting of family members. “This could be another case of creating rules that do nothing to curb industrial abuses while creating hardship for conscientious families in agriculture.”

RMFU expressed support for prohibitions on young workers using electronic devices, including communications devices, while operating a tractor. “The risks of ‘distracted driving’ are a mounting problem in the digital age,” Peppler said. However, the comment urged further consideration of the proposed rule requiring a valid state driver’s license to operate a tractor on public roads. Most states have already established their regulations with reference to operating licensed vehicles on public roads.  RMFU supports requiring appropriate markings on slow moving equipment to improve operation safety. But  national regulations overriding local statutes will degrade the student-learner’s involvement in operation of the farm or ranch. “Operator training is the key to farm safety,” Peppler said.

The proposed rules eliminate many the student-learner and certification exemptions from Hazardous Occupations (HO) rules. This modification will have a direct impact on training the next generation of farmers and ranchers and recruiting young adults into agriculture-related businesses. RMFU urged the Department to provide justification for specific changes within a task area covered by the rule.

“The new  regulations would prohibit young family members from learning key skills for raising livestock,” Peppler said. “Young people should have appropriate training, safety conditions, and supervision on the job, but we cannot support prohibiting student-learners from participating in basic animal husbandry.”

RMFU’s comments supported new prohibitions that correct omissions in existing statutes, such as prohibiting hired farm workers under the age of 16 working in silos or grain storage bins, in manure pits, or handling pesticides. “Farm safety is important to RMFU, as important as the health and safety of our own children. The future of American agriculture requires an experienced and trained new generation. We commend the Department’s efforts to make workplaces safer for young workers. However, these regulations go too far in their zeal to protect our young people from their own families. Nobody wants their children working in unsafe conditions. But the Department of Labor must not allow new regulations to have unintended consequences like  adverse effects on family farmers and ranchers and on learning and certification programs.”

In a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union has urged the Obama administration to stand up to corporate agriculture and implement the USDA packers and stockyards (GIPSA) rules. “The Packers and Stockyards Act was passed 80 years ago,” RMFU President Kent Peppler said, “and the regulations mandated by the 2008 Food and Farm Bill, which would control the virtually monopolistic power of industrial livestock operations, have been ‘reviewed’ for nearly two years. Meantime, family livestock operations are trying to stay afloat in a market that is notoriously controlled by a handful of multinational companies. Time has run out for a lot of my neighbors. It’s running out for local and natural meat providers. If these rules are not implemented, time will run out for the credibility of the Obama administration among small agricultural producers.”

In September, RMFU commended Colorado Senator Michael Bennet for addressing this issue with the administration. In a letter to the President, Sen. Bennet urged finalizing the rule published in the Federal Register more than a year ago. RMFU agrees with Bennet that we want “a fair and transparent market in which all livestock and poultry producers compete on a level playing field” and RMFU membership joins in his call to prioritize implementing the rule.

“This is not a political issue,” RMFU’s Peppler observed. “It’s a question of selling out another part of America’s struggling middle class, the independent ranchers whose operations are effectively being reduced to sharecroppers for corporations that own 80% of the meat produced in the U.S. Corporations are not people; they are machines that make money off the hard work of people producing our food, fuel, and fiber. Americans have made it clear that they don’t want industrial meat products if they can choose meat produced through ranching and animal husbandry. If the small rancher is not protected from the predatory practices of the big players in the livestock market, consumers won’t have that choice.”

On behalf of family producer operations in Colorado, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union commends Senator Michael Bennet for his fair and thoughtful statement about the controversy surrounding the USDA’ packers and stockyards (GIPSA) rules. In a letter to the President, the senator gave his support for finalizing the rule published in the Federal Register more than a year ago.

“The multinational livestock corporations have tried every trick in the book to thwart the democratic process and protect their privileged status,” said Kent Peppler, RMFU President and fourth-generation Mead farmer/rancher. “The game was over almost a year ago, and it’s time for them to stop whining and move on. The GIPSA rules give small livestock operations a level playing field when they compete with corporate interests. If the corporations don’t think they can win a fair fight, too bad.”

Sen. Bennet’s letter takes into account the issues raised by livestock commodity organizations. As the senator observes, they have had extensions to the comment period for the rule, which the senator called “a valuable forum.” There may be room for improvement in the rule, but until it is implemented, there’s no way to know. RMFU agrees with Bennet that we want “a fair and transparent market in which all livestock and poultry producers compete on a level playing field” and RMFU membership joins in his call to prioritize implementing the rule.

“Family livestock operations and small, local packing plants have been bankrupted by big business tactics the GIPSA rule will curb,” Peppler said. “Americans are tired of hearing that big corporations are going to fail if we don’t give them special privileges. And we aren’t frightened by the threats that they’ll get even by raising prices. Local producers are the lifeblood of a secure food supply, and the GIPSA regulations will give them a fair chance to return to the success our country was built on.”

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union hosted a roundtable discussion Thursday, July 14, at RMFU’s offices in Denver with National Farmers Union (NFU) President Roger Johnson. The program focused on consumer issues, including the environment, organic foods, health care, and nutrition programs. Roughly 70% of the budget for the “Farm Bill” is dedicated to nutrition programs like SNAP (formerly “food stamps”). The discussion was moderated by RMFU President Kent Peppler, a fourth-generation Mead, Colo., farmer.

“In addition to its impact on farmers, ranchers, and agriculture, the Farm Bill addresses many food and nutrition issues,” said Peppler. “As the time to shape national policy on food and farming approaches, RMFU and National Farmers Union will hold listening sessions to see that everyone with a stake in the bill gets a fair hearing. Our first meeting emphasized the common interests of consumers and producers. In the coming months, we intend to keep the needs of family farmers and ranchers, and the needs of rural America, in front of Congress during the debate on agricultural policy.”

Panelists included Dan Grossman of the Environmental Defense Fund, Rocky Mountain Organics Farmers Union President Claudia Ferrell, Moe Keller and Amanda Callahan from Mental Health America of Colorado, and Kathy Underhill and Katherine Moos of Hunger Free Colorado. After brief presentations by the panelists on each area of expertise, the morning was spent in lively discussion.
Roger Johnson and Kent Peppler provided overviews of the Farm Bill and the legislative process that historically shapes it. Johnson pointed out that direct agricultural interests actually make up a small percentage of the total bill, more accurately termed “the Farm and Food Bill.” Kathy Underhill pointed out that child nutrition is the key to maintaining our social fabric, rural or unban, and the panelists agreed that nutrition, conservation, and agriculture have common interests that outweigh any differences.

After the meeting, Johnson said, “Americans pay less for food than citizens in any other industrialized country, and they get the safest, most abundant food supply in the world. This is because America’s family farmers and ranchers have a safety net and can keep producing in tough times. We must make sure they continue to be protected in the next farm bill, so that they can keep producing food for all of us.”

“We are pleased to see USDA Secretary Vilsack standing up to the nation’s meat packing lobby on the GIPSA rules,” said RMFU President Kent Peppler, a Mead, Colo. farmer. In a letter to Congressman Frank R. Lucas, Vilsack recently declined the request for a comprehensive economic analysis of the rules on livestock market competition published in June by the USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

The livestock commodity organizations, representing the four or five companies that control 80 per cent of meat processing in the United States, are crying disaster,” Peppler said, “but what they mean is that they are too big to be held accountable. Meat packing giants have been gouging the livestock grower and the consumer for decades. In the process, by controlling markets, they’ve effectively destroyed independent, family-based chicken and hog farming, and they were well on their way to turning cattle growers into sharecroppers when Secretary Vilsack and the Department of Justice stepped in.”

R-CALF USA, which represents independent ranchers in Colorado, Wyoming, and the Rocky Mountain West, dismissed the call for a new economic analysis as an obvious effort to delay and derail GIPSA regulation of livestock markets. R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard called the claim that the GIPSA rule will harm to the economy “absolutely baseless and irresponsible.”

“Like any big, unregulated corporate power, the packers consider their own profits a matter of national security,” Peppler said. “We’ve seen what ‘too big to fail’ means, and I think Americans are tired of hearing multinational corporations claim they are entitled to more than their fair share of the consumer’s meat dollar. The new GIPSA rules will put an end to practices that let the packing industry hold the livelihoods of small ranchers hostage. An unregulated livestock market only serves the interests of companies big enough to bully their suppliers and their customers. If we don’t control their greed now, we may not get another chance for a long time.”

The rules process has already been delayed once, when the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association successfully lobbied for a 90-day extension of the comment period. Consumers, ranchers, and packers have had five months to submit their responses, and the next step is for GIPSA to respond to those comments. “The GIPSA rules are a Bill of Rights for small ranchers,” Peppler said.

In cooperation with R-CALF USA and Colorado Independent Cattle Growers, RMFU is sponsoring workshops in Colorado and Wyoming to help farmers and ranchers prepare for the USDA/DoJ hearing in Fort Collins on August 27, which will focus on livestock markets.

On August 27,for the first time since the creation of the Department of Agriculture by President Lincoln, the USDA and the Department of Justice will hold a joint meeting. Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are scheduled to attend.

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard will make a whirlwind tour of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming during the fi rst week of August. His presentation, Under Siege, documents the concentration of cattle markets and the impact on both consumer prices and producer revenues. The workshop (see schedule, right) will prepare attendees with details on how corporate control of the market has driven consumer costs up while crushing the “wholesale” value of the independent ranchers’ livestock to little more than the cost of production.

We need to preserve the future of rural America and the independent livestock producer who cares about land, cattle and consumers. Bullard’s presentation will explain the threat to rural economies and to the American family farmer and rancher, leaders in agriculture for the world.

Livestock Meetings Schedule

Monday, Aug 2 – Delta, Colo.
Bill Heddles Recreation Center
530 Gunnison River Drive, Delta, Colorado
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM

Tuesday, Aug 3 – Steamboat Springs, Colo.
Steamboat Springs Community Center
1605 Lincoln Avenue, Steamboat Springs, Colorado
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM

Wednesday, Aug 4 – Lander, Wyo.
Oxbow Restaurant
170 Main St, Lander, Wyoming
6:30 PM – 8:30 PM

Thursday, Aug 5 – Laramie, Wyo.
Ramada Center Hotel
I-80 & Hwy 287, Laramie, Wyoming
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM

Friday, Aug 6 – Julesburg, Colo.
Sedgwick County Fairgrounds Exhibition Hall
Julesburg, Colorado
7:00 PM – 9 PM

Thursday, Aug 12 – Burlington, Colo.
Burlington Livestock Exchange
Burlington, Colo.
11:00 AM – 1 PM
Thursday, Aug 12 – La Junta, Colo.
La Junta Senior Center
La Junta, Colo.
7:00 PM – 9 PM

In a statement submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, RMFU President Kent Peppler urged the USDA not to relax protections against importation of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). “Our members are concerned that a change in status for Santa Catarina, Brazil, will endanger our domestic meat and dairy supply,” Peppler said. “The change will threaten the livelihood of family farmers and ranchers, the health of livestock and wildlife populations, and the food security of our nation. The economic interests of other countries should not be allowed to trump those of our citizens.” June 15 is the final day for comments on the USDA’s proposal to change the FMD status of Santa Catarina.

FMD is a crippling, often lethal disease that can cross species from any hoofed animal to another. The virus can be transmitted to its victims by humans, by other animals, and even by wind or contact with contaminated objects. An FMD outbreak could cross the entire United States in three days. Any animal that might be infected must be killed and the body destroyed.

The U.S. has not had a case of FMD since 1929. Jeopardizing that record would be criminal folly, according to RMFU. An outbreak in Great Britain, nearly ten years ago, resulted in the slaughter and waste of ten million head of sheep and cattle, as well as untallied indirect economic losses from quarantine. An outbreak of FMD could effectively destroy the U.S. livestock industry, on a scale comparable to the Gulf oil spill’s impact on fisheries.

In his statement, Peppler asked the USDA to “re-consider the disastrous economic impact that FMD can have if introduced in the United States.” The statement asks the USDA to reconsider the risk assessment report from its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Santa Catarina shares a 100-mile border with Argentina, which has had outbreaks as recently as a few years ago and is not considered FMD-free. The Brazilian government has made it illegal for slaughterhouses to purchase animals from anyone who cannot demonstrate that their cattle were produced on properly deeded land. Thus, there is a high risk that a black market will develop in Santa Catarina for undocumented cattle from both Brazil and Argentina. “The USDA has not addressed the risk posed by unregulated, black-market cattle,” Peppler said. “If they end up in the conventional market, they could be exported to the U.S.”

The APHIS risk assessment for Santa Catarina states that “The proposed action is not expected to result in beef or other ruminant meat exports to the U.S. of any appreciable quantity, and trade effects for pork products are likely to be insignificant.” RMFU asks how small the benefits are that we are willing to take such risks for. The USDA itself has issued dire estimates of those risks.

Testifying before a joint House committee addressing livestock diseases as a threat to national security, APHIS Chief Veterinarian Dr. John Clifford described a study conducted recently by the USDA’s Economic Research Service which simulated a FMD outbreak in a small hog operation in the midwest. The estimated losses were between $2.8 and $4.1 billion. Another study, based on a hypothetical FMD outbreak in California, projected losses between $8 and $14 billion.

The APHIS risk assessment is the final barrier to importing livestock from Brazil. “If APHIS approves this risk assessment, our domestic livestock industry will be jeopardized by a disease threat that could destroy our domestic supply and international markets,” Peppler said. “We urge the USDA to retain current restrictions on imported livestock from Brazil.”

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union presented the following statement to members of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee in a hearing on the 2012 farm bill in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

America’s farm and food policy has an impact on all our citizens, but the small minority of Americans who grow our food must have a respected voice in that policy if it is going to be fair and usable. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union appreciates the hard work of the House Agriculture Committee to ensure that family producers get a fair hearing, and their expertise is respected. Here are our reflections on the status of farm bill programs and the priorities we hope you will choose in the coming months.

Farm and food policy must reflect the impacts of increased high energy costs, multiple years of natural disasters, variable market prices for commodities, and the loss of young people and job opportunities in rural America. Our national security depends on domestic food and fuel, and we must invest in those vital resources. The farmer has a unique business model that requires a safety net against economic or weather disasters. If America wants to avoid the twin dangers of dependence on imported food and dependence on the safety and nutrition offered by the corporate food industry, then we must continue to address the economic viability of family farming. Crop insurance and permanent disaster relief programs are a vital part of the solution.

RMFU was pleased to see, after our years of campaigning for it, a permanent disaster relief program in the 2008 farm bill, which made it possible for farmers and ranchers to recover quickly from the devastating setbacks that weather can have on crops and livestock. However, the current program has been inadequately funded, and a change of administration in 2009 has delayed implementation of rules and regulations. In the fields, farmers with claims going back to 2007 are still waiting for their relief. We urge Congress to fully fund the program and to adopt partial advance payments similar to those for conservation programs. Piles of bureaucratic red tape are never welcome, but there’s no worse time for them than when your cattle are dying in snowdrifts or your corn crop is flattened by a tornado.

The crop insurance program is as important as permanent, funded, and prompt disaster relief.  Crop insurance allows individual farmers to have some risk management on their side while they take on the financial risk of growing America’s food. Talk of redirecting the minimal funds in this program to the huge budget of nutrition programs (already 70% of the farm bill) is misguided. Without this increment of insurance, there is no guarantee that we will have the food to feed the hungry. We suggest that all risk management programs should be based on actual production history (APH), where available. For situations without APH, the qualified yield should not be lower than county Farm Service Agency yields. We urge the establishment of APH yield floors to protect the producer in the event of successive crop disasters.

The next farm bill must address the dire straits and economic risk faced by domestic dairy producers. Clearly we need a new dairy policy, including a comprehensive, effective safety net. RMFU looks forward to helping the committee shape such a policy.

The addition of a Competition title to the 2008 farm bill was a major victory for family farmers and ranchers, and the USDA/DoJ hearings on concentration in agricultural markets will provide useful information for the committee as you consider legislative responses to the looming threat of corporate monopoly in seed, inputs, crops, and livestock. We look for stronger legislation on competition, comparable to the successful efforts of Congress to get country of origin labeling operational in 2008. We can begin by requiring federal agencies to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act and other existing antitrust laws. Like oversized banks, corporate producers “too big to fail” are a threat to the well-being and security of all American citizens from Main Street to Rural Route 2.

Our members include foresters and residents of forested areas, and forest health is an issue we are concerned about. We know first-hand, from our efforts to develop a forestry co-op, that this is an area that needs attention, and we are pleased to see a panel devoted to it at the Cheyenne hearing. We must establish incentives and programs to involve the private forester in the restoration of healthy forests. We need to see better communication, cooperation and collaboration between Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife, and the Forest Service, and we need to see support for the agricultural producers maintaining our forests and leasing land for sustainable livestock production.

We have worked closely with USDA Rural Development to strengthen cooperative businesses, to promote renewable energy and local foods, to assist small business growth in rural communities, and to improve our nation’s infrastructure. These are rural investments that the government and our citizens can be proud of, with returns in economic terms that are easy to measure. We hope the Rural Development program will continue to grow with healthy funding and Congressional support.

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union represents family farmers and ranchers, a small economic minority, but one that the vast majority of our fellow citizens rely on for life’s essential food. We support nutrition programs, not just as legislation but with donations and our labor as well, helping build programs like Farm to School. But the House Agriculture Committee must not forget why this bill is known as “the farm bill.” Without a viable farm economy, one that has a fair risk of loss balanced against the chance for prosperity, there will be less food for nutrition programs. Farmers don’t make money; they make food. And when the farmer can’t afford to do that any more, no amount of money will buy what doesn’t exist.

Representative Jim Oberstar’s America’s Commitment to Clean Water Act goes too far in its attempt to define and regulate America’s waters, according the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union board of directors. “We support protecting our water supply,” said RMFU President Kent Peppler, a Mead, Colo., farmer. “We understand the need that Representative Oberstar is trying to address, but we are worried that the definition of ‘body of water’ is too broad in his legislation.”

If the bill passes, it will include mudflats, sandflats, “intermittent streams,” and wetlands in the EPA’s oversight. “These aren’t scientific terms,” Peppler pointed out. “A cattle pond on my rangeland with some cattails around it could be called a ‘wetland,’ and suddenly it’s under the jurisdiction of the EPA. We need clear definitions to have legislation that’s clear.”

The difficulty, in the minds of many farmers, is that the definitions, the legislation, and the rules are written by people who don’t actually live on rural property or practice agriculture. “That’s why we get legislation like that in California that says your fields aren’t safe if animals can get in,” Peppler added. “Whoever wrote that rule must have never even had a garden in their own back yard.”

The board called on Congress to look closely at the implications of the bill for agriculture.

RMFU has a record of supporting stewardship of natural resources, but its primary mission is protecting family farming and ranching as a way of life and a source of America’s food and fuel security. “We all balance environmental concerns against our personal needs, whether you’re a mechanic in Denver or a rancher in Delta. When regulations don’t impact us directly, it’s easy to forget that we are in this together. When regulations drive up prices, we all suffer, but the producers most of all.”