Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on a controversial California law that requires non-ambulatory livestock at slaughterhouses to be immediately euthanized and removed from the food supply and, based on their questions, it appears the justices are leaning toward a ruling in favor of the meat industry and the Obama administration.

The 2008 law, which was set aside by a federal judge pending this further legal action, was prompted by whistleblower video at a slaughterhouse that showed non-ambulatory, or “downer” cattle being shocked, kicked and hit with heavy equipment at one California facility. As The Iowa Independent earlier reported, state lawmakers sought to prohibit the sale of meat for human consumption from such animals, and mandated under its penal code that any “downer” livestock be immediately euthanized.

Federal law, however, requires that “downer” livestock be moved away from other animals and inspected. If inspectors find no disease or “adulteration” of the animal, it is allowed to continue through the slaughter process as a part of the food supply.

The National Meat Association, which sued on behalf of the pork industry, has asked SCOTUS to strike down California’s edict on grounds that it over-stepped the federal rule. California’s attorney argued mostly on the grounds of scope and semantics. The latter appeared to be an argument that did not resonate with the Court.

“In other words, you’re saying, ‘Well, just because the federal law says you can, doesn’t mean the state can’t say you can’t,’” noted Chief Justice John Roberts during the testimony of California Asst. Attorney General Susan K. Smith.

When Smith affirmed her argument, Roberts added, “Isn’t the exact flip side of saying … you can’t sell it, is that you can? So when federal law says you can, that preempts the rule from the states that says you can’t.”

Smith was arguing that because California was immediately removing “downer” livestock from the food supply, and the scope of federal law had to do with slaughterhouse operations leading to the food supply, that the state’s requirements remained outside of the scope of what federal authorities had already mapped out as their own territory. In other words, California needed to prove that it’s new law was attempting to “preempt,” or cancel out, existing federal law, which the Constitution holds as the winner in all conflicts.

The meat industry argued that the Federal Meat Inspection Act over-rules any state law that addresses cruelty or humane treatment of livestock slated for slaughter.

The state believes it has the right to explicitly decide what types of livestock can be slaughtered for human consumption, and that its decision in such matters is outside of the federal regulations regarding slaughterhouse operations because it is making its requirement in advance of the federal law. So, if the state decided that no purple hogs or white cows could be slaughtered for human consumption, the state believes the requirement would automatically remove such livestock from jurisdiction by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

“The federal law doesn’t say you must,” argued Smith. “It does not say that you must sell the meat or you must…”

Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, saying, “We are not talking about conflict preemption. If it said you must and the state says you can’t, then there would be conflict preemption. But we are talking about express preemption, which says in so many words no additional requirements. And I don’t know how you can get around the fact that this an additional requirement.”

The audio file embedded below provides a portion of the oral arguments in which the justices question Smith:

Source: Gfpeck, Flickr

A bill recently introduced by congressmen from Pennsylvania and Illinois could have a far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 union workers on Aug. 1.

Members of Minnesota and North Dakota’s congressional delegations have repeatedly warned that the company’s lockout could help undermine the congressional consensus around protections for the sugar industry.

“There are members of Congress whose natural constituency is agriculture; some who see themselves as champions of business, and others who fight for workers,” Sen. Al Franken wrote in late August. “Knowing that the program has worked so well for so many years for the hardworking growers who produce such a large percentage of our nation’s sugar beets and for the dedicated workers and skilled management, who turn those beets into the highest quality sugar in the world, has played no small role in creating this consensus.”

Big Sugar has maintained support from Congress by continuously lining the campaign coffers of both Republicans and Democrats, although there is also a tangible discontent among industries that use sugar products, who find domestic prices to be too high. Those upset with American Crystal Sugar’s labor practices could join with these discontented industries to repeal the protections.

Enter Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., who teamed up to introduce a bill that would protect the other sweet-tooth industries: candy companies that lie within their districts.

“We’ve heard from his constituents that the price of sugar is affecting business, it’s affecting jobs,” says Pitts spokesperson Andrew Wimer, who adds that Davis, the Chicago Democrat co-sponsoring the legislation, cites examples of factories that have shut their doors because of the high price of sugar.

The Free Market Sugar Act would repeal the sugar loan program and amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (known as the Farm Bill), perhaps the most important piece of legislation impacting U.S. sugar interests. Written every five years, the Farm Bill helps sugar growers with farm subsidies (which some dismiss as “corporate welfare”) and a series of quotas that tightly control the supply of imported sugar, a benefit to the handful of American sugar producers who pocket around $1 billion in excess profits a year, and a detriment to candy companies that buy U.S. sugar at prices two to three times higher than the global market rate.

Federal legislation also calls for the sugar program to be operated on a no-cost basis, a provision some sugar insiders project will remain for years to come.

“In general, [the Free Market Sugar Act] seeks to reform the sugar program so that the government is not controlling how much sugar is produced and imported,” says Wimer. ”It loosens the controls on production and importation, so that the U.S. price for sugar can be more closely aligned with the world price.”

In addition to amending the sugar price support program, the bill pushes for more transparency in the sugar industry, and an overhaul of how it does business. If enacted, the bill would replace quota import provisions with a tariff rate quota. “Right now the USDA is tightly controlling how much raw cane sugar comes into the U.S.,” says Wimer. “Instead of blanket eliminating quotas, we are modifying it so it’s not as unfair to the current market.”

Pitts and Davis have also recently announced the formation of the Congressional Sugar Reform Caucus, a bipartisan group that also includes Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Jean Shaheen, D-N.H.

The Minnesota Independent’s Jon Collins contributed to this report.

The ad features a number of farmers, one of whom says the EPA wants to regulate methane coming from cattle.

“For thousands of years, 60 million buffalo roamed these prairies in Iowa,” one farmer says. “Who regulated them?”

EPA regional spokesman David Bryan told our sister site, The Iowa Independent Monday that “there’s no truth to that at all.”

“There are a number of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and different types of ambient air quality standards, but trying to say we’re putting a tax on emissions from cows is just a little ridiculous,” Bryan said.

Another claim in the ad, that the EPA wants to regulate dust on farms, is also a myth. Bryan said every five years the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to evaluate air standards, but EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson made it clear in a note to Congress that there is no intention to regulate dust on farms.

“You can’t plow a field without dust, you can’t drive down a gravel road without dust,” a farmer says in Cain’s ad. “My dog makes dust.”

The EPA focuses on regulating coarse particulates, Bryan said, such as dust from construction, demolition and industrial sites.

“We center our monitoring of air mostly on urban areas where it affects the most people,” he said. “We’re going to leave the dust standards where they are.”

Dean Kleckner, former head of the Iowa Farm Bureau and the American Farm Bureau, endorses Cain in the ad, saying, “He reminds me of Ronald Reagan, and I knew Ronald Reagan.”

“Over-regulation is killing the American farmer,” Kleckner says. “I think Herman Cain is the answer. Running a farm is a business and Herman Cain is a proven CEO.”

Bryan said the EPA has worked to counter the false claims that the EPA wants to regulate methane and dust, but not everyone is getting the message.

“What further method do we have other than you folks to say we don’t intend on doing this?” Bryan said.

“As part of the deficit reduction process, the agriculture committees are responsible for reviewing existing programs and identifying where the Congress can find savings,” the House members wrote on Nov. 3. “However, we are greatly troubled by any attempt to use the Joint Select Committee to authorize costly new mandatory programs without adequate congressional review.”

The Super Committee is tasked with cutting $1.2 trillion over the next decade. In a bid to avoid deeper cuts, four members of congressional agriculture committees, including Rep. Collin Peterson (DFL-Minn.) have been working on a proposal to cut $23 billion from the Farm Bill. Although the plan hasn’t yet been released, it’s expected to eliminate direct payments to farmers in favor of programs focused on lost revenues. Peterson did not reply to a request for comment on the status of the legislation.

“We urge the Joint Select Committee to resist proposals that would go beyond its mandate of deficit reduction and authorize new, complicated agriculture programs that have not been the subject of congressional review,” the letter reads. “If the agricultural committees believe that these cuts will require a fundamental redesign of agricultural programs, those committees can and should move legislation through regular order.”

As the Minnesota Independent reported last week, agricultural lobbyists are gearing up to influence the Farm Bill, which will only be subject to an up or down vote if the Super Committee accepts it. Advocates from environmental and other groups have mobilized against the process.

“Anyone who thinks a bill driven by industry lobbyists, written behind closed doors and negotiated in secret, will be a good deal for taxpayers or the hungry should have their head examined,” said Jim French of Oxfam America in a statement lauding the letter. “Members of the Super Committee should reject the ‘Secret Farm Bill’.”

The full text of the letter is below:

November 3, 2011

The Honorable Patty Murray
Co-Chair, Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Jeb Hensarling
Co-Chair, Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
129 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairwoman Murray and Chairman Hensarling:

We are writing to express our concern with reports that the House and Senate Agriculture Committees intend to use the expedited legislative process of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to authorize new Farm Bill programs and entitlements outside of regular order. As part of the Deficit Reduction process, the Agriculture Committees are responsible for reviewing existing programs and identifying where the Congress can find savings. However, we are greatly troubled by any attempt to use the Joint Select Committee to authorize costly new mandatory programs without adequate Congressional review.

As you know, Congress charged the Joint Select Committee with the task of reducing the deficit by $1.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021 and provided for its legislative recommendations to be brought to the floor of both the House and the Senate for expedited consideration. Furthermore, its recommendations are not subject to amendment or filibuster. Congress implemented these rules to dull the pain of politically contentious but fiscally responsible measures. Yet, it has become apparent that some believe they can create new programs and entitlements with limited Congressional scrutiny and input.

We urge the Joint Select Committee to resist proposals that would go beyond its mandate of deficit reduction and authorize new, complicated agriculture programs that have not been the subject of Congressional review. The Joint Select Committee should instead act to find efficiencies within existing programs. If the Agricultural Committees believe that these cuts will require a fundamental redesign of agricultural programs, those Committees can and should move legislation through regular order.

Sincerely,

Ron Kind
Earl Blumenauer
John Campbell
Donna Christensen (Virgin Islands)
Steve Cohen
Peter DeFazio
Keith Ellison
Jeff Flake
Raul Grijalva
Rush Holt
Hank Johnson
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Tom McClintock
Gwen Moore
Jim Moran
Mick Mulvaney
John Olver
Ron Paul
Tom Petri
Joe Pitts
Adam Smith
Jackie Speier
Pete Stark
Bennie Thompson
Ed Towns
Henry Waxman

Source: Gfpeck, Flickr

One day after 90 percent of union workers rejected the most recent contract offer by American Crystal Sugar, members of the region’s congressional delegations are calling for both parties to return to the bargaining table.

About 1,300 union workers have been locked out of their jobs by American Crystal Sugar since Aug. 1. Since the lockout started, the union and company have only met twice, both times at the urging of a federal mediator. Following the rejection of Monday’s offer, there are no plans to meet again.

Sen. Al Franken said “it’s imperative that both sides continue to work to come to an agreement that will end this lockout and get workers back on the job,” pointing out that all sides play a role in the sugar industry’s success.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Collin Peterson released a joint statement highlighting the impact of the lockout on communities across the Red River Valley: “We continue to urge both Crystal Sugar management and workers to come together at the negotiating table to work out an agreement that allows workers to return to their jobs as soon as possible. American Crystal and these jobs are very important to the region.”

Locked out workers in Minnesota are receiving unemployment benefits, but those who live in North Dakota are denied them under state law. Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said in a statement that the “lock-out is taking a serious toll on families in North Dakota and Minnesota and the economic and social impact can be felt up and down the Red River Valley.”

In an interview with the Grand Forks Herald, Conrad admitted that the dispute could harm the chances of a farm bill. Franken has warned in the past that American Crystal Sugar’s tactics of locking out workers could alienate pro-worker members of Congress who have previously supported protections for the sugar industry.

Conrad told the Grand Forks Herald that the “company needs to think long and hard about the consequences, about the implications of their strategy.”

Following a ruling Friday by a federal judge, thousands of farmers who endured racial discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the 1980s and 1990s should start receiving portions of a $1.25 billion settlement.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his written opinion that the proposed settlement, which creates a system of compensation for black farmers and their descendants who joined the class-action suit claiming discrimination by the government, is fair and workable.

“Historical discrimination cannot be undone,” Friedman wrote.

There are two compensation streams available to the farmers, depending on the individual paper trail in each case. The first stream, known as “Track A” would provide an uncontested payout of $50,000 to qualified claimants. The second stream, known as “Track B,” could provide up to $250,000, but requires more documentation of wrongdoing. Farmer must choose one track or the other, and it is estimated that nearly 70,000 farmers across the nation will be eligible for compensation. More details regarding the plan can be found in an earlier report by The Iowa Independent.

The black farmers’ case is an outgrowth of Pigford v. Glickman, a federal class-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999. The farmers alleged that the USDA had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by maintaining a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American farmers.  Such pattern and practice delayed, denied, or otherwise frustrated the efforts of African American farmers to obtain loan assistance and to engage in the vocation of farming, they said.

The Obama administration agreed in February to provide a second round of damages to people who were denied earlier payment because they had missed  filing deadlines. The person who pushed to allow more black farmers to join the case and for more money to be set aside for settlements was Iowa’s own U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley. In a February press release, Grassley noted that “many people were shut out of the process.”

But not all elected officials have been similarly supportive. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, while on a recent tour of flooded areas near the Missouri River in Iowa, characterized the government settlement with black farmers as fraud. Bachmann and King, while noting the damage done by the flooded Missouri, said the money set aside for the discrimination settlements could have been put to better use if it had been given to the flood victims.

It isn’t the first time that U.S. Rep. Steve King and Bachmann have beat on this particular drum. Bachmann sent out a press release last November alleging that the numbers of farmers involved in the settlement didn’t add up, because there were many more claims than black farmers — a claim nearly identical to what has been made by King. In addition, King has referred to the settlement as “slavery reparations.”

King said in November 2010 that the American people should be outraged by the development, since it sends the message that “if you’re a minority, you deserve a check from the government.”

The Obama administration is “focused on race,” King said in an interview with WHO-AM’s Jan Mickelson. Essentially, the entire lawsuit was pitched to black farmers as their “40 acres and a mule,” he added, referencing the Civil War era practice of providing land to former slaves who became free as Union armies occupied areas of the Confederacy.

“The Department of Agriculture has admitted that discrimination occurred,” Grassley said during a Senate floor speech on the matter. “We are obligated to do our best in getting those who deserve it, some relief. This is a chance for people who believe they were wronged to show their case before a neutral party and have it judged on the merits. It’s time to give justice to these claimants who were previously left out, and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.”

Final approval for the settlement came after a fairness hearing in early September. Although some farmers argued they should be allowed to pursue higher damages, Congress left little flexibility into the plan, which prevented Friedman from pursuing such alternatives.

In a statement distributed by the White House, President Obama said, “The U.S. District Court’s approval of the settlement between the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and plaintiffs in the Pigford II class action lawsuit is another important step forward in addressing an unfortunate chapter in USDA’s civil rights history. This agreement will provide overdue relief and justice to African American farmers, and bring us closer to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on. I especially want to recognize the efforts of Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Holder, without whom this settlement would not have been reached.”

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he is “thrilled” by the court’s decision, and looks forward to the process being completed.

Since my first day at USDA, I made it a priority to treat all Americans with respect and dignity and to ensure equal access to our programs. Court approval of the Pigford settlement is another important step to ensure some level of justice for black farmers and ranchers who faced discrimination when trying to obtain services from USDA. President Obama, Attorney General Holder and I are thrilled by the court’s approval so we can continue turning the page on this sad chapter in USDA history. In the months and years ahead, we will not stop working to move the Department into a new era as a model employer and premier service provider for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.

Government officials estimate that it will take a year, if not more, for all the affected farmers to work their way through the compensation process.

Source: istockphoto.com

Pumping that golden elixir — corn-ethanol — into the gas tank can do a world of good, or so goes the argument.

It relieves the U.S. from dependency on foreign oil, some reports say, and it reduces the pollution spewed out the tailpipe.

But, those benefits may take a high human toll.

Over 80 percent of the world’s supply of corn comes from five countries. The U.S. leads the pack, supplying over half of world’s exports, according to a study released Oct. 13 at the World Food Prize in Des Moines.

Three years ago, the world went through a food crisis generated in part by high prices and experts still debate the extent to which ethanol production should be blamed.

There was enough food on the market, but high prices reduced many of the world’s poor to hunger, said Josette Sheeran, the director of the United Nation’s World Food Program. Contributing to the crisis, were countries that cut exports of in-demand crops.

Hunger is not limited to these periods of extreme global crisis. Every ten seconds a child dies of hunger, Sheeran said in a speech in July.

By 2050, there will be roughly nine billion people to feed on this planet. Already, one in seven people suffer from chronic hunger.

“We are living in a post-surplus world,” Sheeran said. “The world has to be a lot smarter about how we are using our supplies.”

The food market is increasingly volatile, the International Food Policy Research Center says. The use of biofuels ties food prices to the volatile oil market and contributes to low supplies.

During the 2008 food crisis, the price of food shot up about 43 percent, according to a release by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Experts worry low food stocks, high demand and food price volatility could lead to future food crises.

While people in many nations struggle to find money for food, most people in the U.S. don’t. They spend roughly 6.4 percent of their budgets on food eaten at home, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service. But in low-income countries, like Pakistan and Kenya, people spend roughly 45 percent of their budgets on food, the research service reported.

The Food and Agriculture Association says using agricultural land to produce biofuels “substantially affects food production.” As the production of biofuels doubles to meet policy requirements, the impact “would probably be intolerably high…for the next few years until the production of food has increased to meet the growing demand,” the association said in a report released after the 2008 food crisis.

Such numbers provide the backdrop for a contentious food-versus-fuel debate among politicians, farmers and humanitarian aid groups.

U.S. Ethanol Policy Impacts World Food Supply
Government subsidies for ethanol production in the U.S. has become part of the controversy.

A federal subsidy and a protective tariff on foreign imports, which are set to disappear at the end of the year, have buttressed the corn ethanol industry in the U.S. for years.

The subsidy commands $5 billion from the federal budget, which translates to 45-cents per gallon given to blenders who use ethanol. The tariff, a 54-cent tax on imported ethanol, helps to keep U.S. ethanol competitive with ethanol from Brazilian sugarcane and other sources.

To help the industry even more, a federally mandated Renewable Fuels Standard requires the production of 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol this year and 15 billion by 2015.

But those measures may soon undergo major changes. Opposition to the subsidy has emerged in the Republican Party’s presidential nomination campaign. And a bill introduced on Oct. 5 would make the mandate dependent upon the supply of corn. If in effect today, the proposal would lower the Renewable Fuels Standard by 25 percent due to recent low corn stocks, said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) a sponsor of the bill

Dermot Hayes, a professor of economics and finance at Iowa State University, said subsidies won’t have a major impact on ethanol production, because they were mainly used to get the plants built.

However, Hayes, who holds the Pioneer Hi-Bred International Chair in Agribusiness, said if the government shut off all its support for ethanol and the industry got stuck purchasing expensive corn without aid, it would “go broke.”

Lucy Norton, managing director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, said, “We have enough supply to provide crops for all markets.”

Norton said a third of the corn used for ethanol returns to the market as distiller’s grain, a production by-product used as livestock feed. The price of grain, including corn, has increased due to the end of a period of artificially low prices, when the price of corn was below the cost of production, she added.

Jason Hill, an assistant professor in bioproducts and biosystems engineering at the University of Minnesota, disagreed. Hill said the large amount of corn devoted to ethanol not only affects the price of corn, but also soybeans and cotton.

“Acres of cotton are shifted out to make room for soy as soy is shifted out to make room for more corn,” Hill said. “It’s simple economics. Using corn for ethanol rather than feed does have a global effect.”

Hill questioned whether distillers grain sufficiently replaces corn devoted to ethanol.

“Let’s assume one-third does go into distillers grain,” Hill said. “That still leaves two-thirds.”

He rejected arguments that corn used for ethanol doesn’t come from a food source. Any corn not used for ethanol or eaten as a vegetable or high fructose corn syrup is used for food, because it is fed to the livestock that we eat, Hill said.

“What is a chicken,” former Agricultural Minister for Brazil Roberto Rodrigues asked, when discussing his country’s increased production of poultry in an interview. “It is an egg full of corn and soybeans that flies.”

The Politics of Ethanol
The ethanol industry has boomed in the U.S. largely because of politics, Hill said. There is no credible study proving ethanol decreased greenhouse gases, and that it has only a negligible effect on reducing our dependence on foreign oil, he added.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard to the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel.

Biofuel from corn is capped at 15 billion gallons, so the corn-ethanol industry is not expected to expand much once the cap is reached in 2015.

The production of corn ethanol is notably inefficient, but the government continues to subsidize its production. Meanwhile, Brazil produces far more efficient biofuel from sugarcane, but representatives from the Brazilian biofuels industry say the U.S. use of tariffs prevent ethanol development.

The gap in energy yield between corn and sugar cane is stark. One unit of fossil fuel energy is required to produce 1.5 units of corn ethanol, according to a study on bioenergy development published by the World Bank. In sharp contrast, the same amount of fossil fuels will produce eight units of sugar cane ethanol.

Cellulosic biofuel, or fuel made from non-food sources like switchgrass, corn stover or forest residues, was supposed to reach 16 billion gallons by 2022 in accordance with the fuel standard. However, a study released by the National Research Council, said meeting this mandate is unlikely as production is not yet possible on the commercial scale.

Lack of Land Seen as the Problem
Hayes argued that whichever way you plant it, land is the scarce resource, not corn.

“Here in Iowa you can grow switchgrass, corn, soybeans,” Hayes said, but planting switchgrass would still take that corn out of production.

A July report commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Foundation concluded that no single factor causes food price increases.

Crystal Carpenter, a senior consultant for Informa Economics, said the report does not argue that biofuels haven’t had any impact, but rather that ethanol is one of many factors, including energy costs, weather, and the economic exchange rate, many of which cannot be controlled.

“But, producing biofuels could be a balancing force to help mitigate volatility in energy prices, and it is one thing we do have control over,” Carpenter said.

Corn Stocks
U.S. markets are linked to foreign markets, even in remote regions of Africa, Sheeran said during a press conference at the World Food Prize. Sheeran described a 2008 visit to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where “everything was moving on donkeys.” But, even there, the Internet permeated, she said.

Sheeran said she spoke with a man selling teff, a type of small grain.

“When I asked him how he set his prices, he said, ‘I go on the Internet every morning and check the prices on the Chicago board of trade. I use those prices, but discount them 10 percent since we are a poor nation.’”

Low stocks and high prices in the U.S. spell bad news for foreign consumers.

Devoting over one-third of corn to biofuels contributes to price volatility because the mandates are too rigid to respond to fluctuating supplies, according a report at the World Food Prize by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Abandoning Ethanol Called Unrealistic
The biofuels industry has become a significant presence in Iowa’s economy. With 41 ethanol plants and 14 biodiesel refineries, the industry supplies roughly 577,000 jobs and provides an income source for farmers, according to the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association.

Ethanol production reduced gas prices by roughly 25-cents a gallon from 2000 to 2010, a study conducted by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University says.

“Five years ago, gas was more expensive than diesel prices,” Hayes, a co-author of the study, noted. He said the biggest gas-price declines were in areas with higher ethanol use.

Ethanol provides about 10 percent of the gas moving American vehicles, Hayes said. Stopping ethanol production would require more imports in an already tight oil market, which would raise gas prices by 41 to 92 percent, the study estimates. But, Hayes said the rise would be short-lived.

Hill said the present fuel solution lies more in the field of efficiency and conservation than in biofuels. A one-mile increase in gas mileage would do more for energy independence than the annual production of 14 billion gallons of ethanol would, Hill said.

This story was produced by IowaWatch.org, the news website of the non-profit, non-partisan Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism.

The intention is to come up with a concrete plan to make real the recent proposal from agricultural leaders, including Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, to voluntarily cut $23 billion from agriculture. That willingness to cut was spurred by a fear that the congressional “super committee,” which is tasked with chopping $1.2 trillion from the federal budget in the next decade, would otherwise cut even deeper into agriculture.

The bill will likely include cuts to direct commodity payments, conservation and nutrition plans. Lobbyists for agribusiness like the National Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association are pushing for Congress to cease direct payments in favor of improved crop insurance, which the Associated Press reports is pitting farmers in the south, who grow crops like cotton that benefit from direct payments, against those in other parts of the country.

One lobbyist described the relationship between lobbyists and congressional aides as “free-flowing and open,” Gannett reports.

The bill, if taken up by the “super committee,” will be forced into an up-down vote, with no amendments to the legislation being possible. That’s drawing alarm from groups critical of farm subsidies, Gannett reports.

“Given the amount of money involved, and given the implications of the farm bill for our food and the quality of our environment, there’s a lot of folks in Congress that ought to have a voice in where this ends up other than the agriculture committees,” said Craig Cox, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the Associated Press Monday that the administration wanted the farm bill to increase disaster aid, following a difficult season for farmers.

The congressional leaders plan to release details of the bill by Nov. 1.

Four leaders of congressional agriculture committees sent a letter to congressional “super committee” members proposing $23 billion in agricultural cuts Monday.

The cuts would come in the Farm Bill, which expires next year. The committee members hope the voluntary reductions, which they propose to put together in detail by Nov. 1, will inoculate agriculture from further cuts from the congressional super committee.

The letter is signed by Agricultural Committee Senate Chair Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), House Chair Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and ranking member Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

“We are currently finalizing the policies that would achieve $23 billion in deficit reduction and will provide a complete legislative package by November 1, 2011. Deficit savings at this level is more than any sequestration process would achieve and should absolve the programs in our jurisdiction from any further reductions.”

Mary Kay Thatcher, director of Public Policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation told American Agriculturalist that nutrition and crop insurance programs will probably be mostly safe.

“There aren’t really specifics as far as how much cuts are coming to commodities versus conservation versus nutrition,” Thatcher said. “Certainly the word on the street has been fairly significant that the committees are recommending elimination of direct payments and moving toward more of a revenue loss program but nothing in writing that spells out those kinds of details.”

Some House Republicans have proposed higher cuts of up to $50 billion, according to Agriculture.com. Earlier in the month, two congressional Republicans proposed to cut $40 billion from agriculture, including steep cuts to farm subsidies, conservation and nutrition.

As crop prices pushed toward record highs in 2011, farmland values have followed. After slowing somewhat during the 2007-09 recession, cropland has surged since 2010, with values jumping 20 percent or more compared to a year earlier. In some cases, fertile land that sold for $6,000 an acre in 2009 is now going for $12,000 an acre.

But, this surge in farmland values has raised some concerns about its sustainability. Recent figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that while farmland values have risen 40 percent since 2004, cash rents have risen only 17 percent. …

“The apparent decoupling of land values and rents suggests that other factors could be driving the farmland value surge,” said Jason Henderson, vice president and Omaha branch executive at the Kansas City Fed. “One of these factors could be interest rates, which remain at historically low levels and are likely helping drive the rise in land values.”

Despite strong export demands and tight supplies, corn and wheat prices have doubled since June 2010. According to the report, much of the export demand is due to countries such as China, “where rising incomes, improved diets and a weaker dollar are making U.S. agricultural exports more attractive.”

… For now, agriculture market observers don’t see a high probability that crop prices will fall soon. … As a result, aggressive bidding at land auctions appears to remain in play for at least the near term. …

The full report is embedded below by our sister site The Iowa Independent:

Growing Value: Is the farmland boom sustainable?