Livestock Producers Say Coyote Control Program Essential

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment
The Virginia Cooperative Coyote Damage Control program works to help farmers resolve coyote predation problems, something that is essential for those who have lost livestock to coyotes.
Chuck Shorter of Montgomery County has lost sheep, cattle and goats to coyotes. Shorter, who has raised sheep since 1964, said coyotes first appeared on his farm in the 1980s. He lost 50 lambs.
“The specialists with the coyote damage program came out and helped me with my problem,” he said, by setting traps and providing technical assistance. “I’ve lost nowhere near that number since, but I also got out of the sheep business due to the coyotes.”
Shorter now raises goats. “Sheep stay in during the day and go out at night. That’s when the coyotes would be out grazing on them,” he explained. “Goats go out during the day and stay in at night, which helps, and our guard dogs keep an eye on them. But we do still lose a few each year to coyotes.”
Shorter called the Coyote Damage Control Program “very, very necessary.

“In Virginia we have a lot of coyotes, a lot of livestock and a lot of problems. I don’t know how (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Wildlife Services gets done what they do with such limited funding. The coyote problem has been around for a long time, and it’s not going to stop. So we need help with it.”
USDA Wildlife Services, which runs the program, provided direct control services to 195 livestock farms in 53 Virginia counties in fiscal year 2014. During that time, 285 sheep, 81 calves, and 32 goats were verified killed by coyotes on those farms. That represents a 39 percent increase in reported sheep predation and a 69 percent increase in reported calf predation from fiscal year 2013.
“Virginia is rare; there are few eastern states that have livestock protection programs like this with livestock professionals that can come out and help farmers with these types of issues,” said Scott Barras, state director for USDA Wildlife Services. “This is a real benefit for farmers. It’s bad enough to lose livestock to predation, especially now when livestock prices are what they are and farmers are really feeling the impact.”

The demand for livestock protection services is expected to increase due to the development of statewide program availability and observed increases in coyote population and predation. During fiscal year 2014, farms in 26 additional counties requested assistance, with 76 new farms requesting assistance

Legislators Consider Unpasteurized Milk, Homemade Food Sales Without Inspection

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment

Farm Bureau Governmental Relations Assistant Director Lindsay Reames was recently interviewed by NBC 12 in Richmond on a bill that would legalize the sale of unpasteurized milk.

Click here to see the story: Legislators consider unpasteurized milk, homemade food sales without inspection
//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/platform.js

From AgWeb: 10 Things to Watch in 2015

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment

Originally posted on AgWeb Dec. 31, 2014 by John Dillard in his column Ag in the Courtroom. John Dillard grew up on a beef cattle farm and now works as an agricultural and environmental litigation attorney with OFW Law. His blog analyzes legal issues and court decisions that affect America’s farmers and ranchers.

2014 was certainly an interesting year to be involved in agriculture. We got to see supply and demand in full effect. Good weather sent grain prices tumbling while continuing tight supplies have kept cattle prices soaring. The Republicans made strong gains and will enter 2015 with control of both the House and Senate.  In popular culture, Kanye West finally made an honest woman out of Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift swore off country music, and Serial has left us pondering the nature of truth.

While I have not spent the $27.68 necessary to acquire a crystal ball on Amazon, I do feel the need to join the crowded field of writers, bloggers and seers that are making predictions for the upcoming year. Accordingly, I have compiled a list of the 10 legal and policy issues that I see facing agriculture in 2015.

1.  Drones
2014 was supposed to be the year when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would release its proposed rules for integrating commercial drones into the national airspace. Because of this, I received a little flack for leaving drones off of last year’s list. However, FAA has continued to blow past every deadline that it has set for itself. Hopefully, this can be attributed to the agency trying to get the job done right the first time.

I am confident that FAA will release its proposed regulations for small drones (< 55 lbs.) some time in early 2015. The agency has acknowledged that it considers agricultural uses relatively low-risk and it understands that many farmers are moving ahead with adopting the technology regardless of the absence of regulations. Once FAA proposes its regulations for small drones, we’ll have a better idea of how the final rules will look in terms of operator qualifications, aircraft requirements, and allowable operations. This will be welcome news for those looking to capitalize on this new technology and the farmers and consultants that have been “recreationally” monitoring their crops for the past couple years.

2. The “Waters of the U.S.” Rule
While many hoped that Congress would use the recent “CROmnibus” (ugh) bill to stop EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers from implementing a broad definition of “waters of the United States,” the legislation failed to do so. This means that EPA and the Corps will continue to move forward on this measure. The agencies received almost half a million comments during the public comment period, with most in opposition to the new power grab. EPA and the Corps are expected to finalize the rule sometime in the first half of 2015. Once the rule is finalized, there will almost certainly be a lawsuit filed to enjoin the rule.

3. Vermont’s GMO-labeling Lawsuit
In 2014, Vermont became the first state to pass binding legislation that will require food manufacturers to label products containing ingredients produced through genetic engineering. This law places an onerous and undue burden on food manufacturers in an attempt by the state of Vermont to stigmatize genetically-engineered food. With no firm scientific basis for requiring labels, Vermont’s law is particularly vulnerable to a legal challenge on First Amendment and Commerce Clause grounds. Grocery Manufacturers Association, joined by the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed suit against the Vermont’s Attorney General this summer to enjoin the law.

There will be a preliminary injunction hearing on January 7th to decide whether Vermont should halt moving forward on implementing this law while the courts decide this issue on the merits. Regardless of the outcome, I suspect that this case will reach at least the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Other states that are considering similar labeling measures would be wise to watch the outcome of this case.

4. Rep. Pompeo’s GMO-labeling Preemption Bill
In that same vein, the GMO-labeling preemption bill being pushed by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) may gain some traction in the 114th Congress. This legislation would preempt states from enacting their own GMO-labeling laws and codify our federal government’s current GMO policies. It would limit mandatory GMO-labeling to only ingredients that are unsafe or materially-different from their conventional counterparts. It would also require genetically-engineered crops bound for human consumption to receive approval from the federal Food and Drug Administration (this is currently a voluntary measure).

Pro-GMO labeling advocates vehemently oppose this legislation and it was initially dead-on-arrival in the 113th Congress. However, this bill has started to gain some momentum and faces better prospects in the new Congress. I would not be surprised if we saw this come to a vote in 2015.

5. Lawyers, Dust and Feathers: Rose Acre Farms v. N.C. DENR
Remember the Altcase? A West Virginia poultry producer sued EPA over its claim that she needed a NPDES permit based on dust and feather “discharges” from her farm’s ventilation fans. EPA asserted that a permit was necessary because these particles would enter “waters of the U.S.” during precipitation events. A federal district court judge disagreed. EPA initially appealed and then cynically withdrew its appeal to avoid the prospect of a precedent that would tie the agency’s hands.

The Rose Acre case is another opportunity to litigate the dust-and-feathers issue in federal court. Although there are some technical differences between the Rose Acre case and the Alt case, the court will ultimately be asked to determine whether the Clean Water Act allows dust emitted from poultry barns to be controlled as a “point source” discharge. This case may have huge implications for agriculture as it could set the boundaries for what does and does not constitute a point source discharge.

6. Mississippi River Basin Numeric Limitations on Nutrients
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL was supposed to be EPA’s case study in approaching large scale watershed restoration efforts. EPA’s plan was to take the lessons that it learned from the Bay TMDL and apply it to other watersheds across the country, with the Mississippi River being the ultimate goal. However, some environmental groups were impatient with EPA’s approach. They petitioned EPA to develop numeric limitations for nitrogen and phosphorus for all waters in the Mississippi River Basin. When EPA denied this petition, the environmental groups took them to court. A federal court held that EPA has to respond to the petition and determine whether numeric nutrient limitations are appropriate for the Mississippi River Basin. EPA has appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were heard on the appeal on December 4, 2014. We can expect a decision from the court in the first half of 2015.

7. FSMA Finalization
FDA is required to finalize its major rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) by June 30, 2015. The agency has been scrambling to put together the safety rules to meet this deadline over the last couple years. Except for produce operations, many farmers will not be directly affected. However, FSMA is going to have a substantial impact on the livestock feed and human food industry. Many of the requirements will not go into place until 2016, but we can expect to see several regulatory headaches this year as agribusinesses and food companies begin to implement the FSMA requirements.

8. Immigration Reform
A relatively small number of agricultural workers received relief under President Obama’s recent executive action that postponed deportation for approximately 5 million undocumented immigrants. The new Republican majority would like to override President Obama’s executive order. However, the President will most certainly veto any measure that does not offer a suitable alternative to his order. It is possible that Congress may answer the President’s challenge and propose immigration reform measures. There is hope that agriculture’s immigration issues could be addressed in this legislation if it comes to fruition.

9. Trade Agreements
Most of the growth opportunities for U.S. agriculture depend on increasing foreign demand. Agriculture has benefitted substantially from our free trade agreements (FTAs) with Canada, Mexico, and Central America. However, many valuable markets remain restricted due to protectionist tariffs and burdensome trade barriers. The U.S. Trade Representative is currently negotiating two major FTAs – the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Agriculture is one of the main sticking points in these negotiations, due in large part to America’s cost advantages. In particular, Japan is seeking to protect much of its agriculture sector from competition with American farmers while the E.U. is trying to use biotechnology as a wedge in the negotiations. The White House should make agriculture’s inclusion in these FTAs non-negotiable. Furthermore, it should ensure that all non-tariff trade barriers have a basis in science, not protectionism. Congress should fully support these efforts.

10. Country-of-Origin Labeling and the WTO
Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (mCOOL) for meat products, especially pork and beef, has proven to be an expensive measure for Canadian and Mexican livestock producers as well as packinghouses that depend on slaughtering imported livestock. Meanwhile, the only apparent winners so far have been attorneys. While a challenge to the law in the federal court system failed, the governments of Canada and Mexico were successful at challenging the labeling measure before the World Trade Organizations (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body. The U.S. Trade Representative is attempting to appeal this decision; however, it is unlikely that it will be overturned. This means that U.S. industries could face substantial retaliatory tariffs by this summer unless the mCOOL law is changed. It is highly unlikely that Congress is willing to let other industries suffer just to keep mCOOL going. Hopefully, Congress will put mCOOL out to pasture.

John Dillard is an attorney with Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz P.C. (OFW Law), a Washington, DC-based firm that serves agricultural clients and clients with issues before federal and state courts, EPA, FDA, USDA, and OSHA.  John focuses his practice on agricultural and environmental law.  He occasionally tweets at @DCAgLawyer.  This column is not a substitute for legal advice.

Governor McAuliffe Announces Third Round of Agriculture, Forestry Planning Grants

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment
Governor Terry McAuliffe has announced the award of four planning grants from the Governor’s Agriculture and Forestry Industries Development Fund (AFID).  Three local projects in Fauquier, Buckingham, and Charles City counties and one regional partnership consisting of the Commonwealth Regional Council, and Appomattox, Buckingham, and Cumberland counties, have been awarded more than $61,000 to support the growth of agricultural and forestry projects in the Commonwealth.  The AFID planning grant program encourages local governments to promote agriculture and forestry and incorporate the needs of these important industries into their long-term strategic economic development planning efforts.

Speaking about the planning grant awards, Governor McAuliffe said, “In my strategic plan to help grow and diversify Virginia’s economy, it is essential to ensure that two of the Commonwealth’s largest private economic drivers, agriculture and forestry, are a major part of our efforts, especially in rural areas.  Using our greatest resources to support local efforts and strengthen these critical industries is an important component of my economic development strategy as we work to build a New Virginia Economy.  I applaud the leadership in Fauquier, Charles City, Buckingham, Cumberland and Appomattox for exploring how best to leverage their agricultural assets for future job creation opportunities.”


The AFID Planning Grant program was developed in 2012 to encourage local and regional governments to think strategically about how they can better support and integrate agriculture and forestry-based industries into their communities’ overall economic development efforts.  The planning grants are part of the larger Governor’s AFID program, a discretionary, performance-based economic development tool specifically tailored for assisting businesses that add value to Virginia-grown agriculture and forestry-related products. 

“I am pleased to see the continued use of the Governor’s AFID planning grant program to assist localities to fully integrate agriculture and forestry into their overall economic development and strategic plans,” said Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Todd Haymore.  “With these four projects, the AFID planning grant program has leveraged more than $465,000 since its inception to support 48 localities interested in building on their agriculture and forestry assets and seeking new initiatives that can have lasting positive impacts for their region.”

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) administers the AFID program, and planning grant applications are accepted on a rolling basis throughout the fiscal year.  Successful funding requests must demonstrate a clear need, a proposed solution, strong support from local government and the agriculture and forestry community, and the ability to provide cash or in-kind matching funds.  Localities interested in applying may visit http://vdacs.virginia.gov/agribusiness/planning.shtml, or contact AFID Fund Coordinator Stephen Versen at stephen.versen@vdacs.virginia.govor 804.786.6911 for more information.

Details on the grant awards are below:
Project Title: Fauquier County Cost of Community Services Study
Applicant:       Fauquier County
Award:           $6,190
Summary:       Fauquier County is seeking funding to complete a cost of community services study to obtain a better understanding of the fiscal impacts of various land use categories.  This study will be completed by UVA’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service and overseen by the County Agricultural Committee.  The study will document, among other things, the fiscal impact working agricultural lands offer the County. 
Project Title: Feasibility of Alternative Energy Production Options using Local Agriculture and Forestry Feedstock           
Applicant:       Buckingham County
Award:           $10,000
Summary:       Buckingham County is seeking funding to have an outside consultant conduct a feasibility analysis and planning proposal for alternative energy options for public buildings using local agriculture and forestry feedstock in the County.  The study will include an economic feasibility analysis of local government and school buildings for conversion to biomass heating systems, feedstock availability, and a review of policies and ordinances that might assist or impede possible conversion.  This effort will develop a template for other communities to follow for evaluating possible conversion of their public buildings to biomass heat.
Project Title: Buckingham Agricultural Resource Network (BARN)
Applicant:       Commonwealth Regional Council in partnership with Appomattox, Buckingham and Cumberland counties
Award:           $35,000
Summary:       The Buckingham Cattlemen’s Association, representing 235 producers over 20 counties in Central Virginia, is seeking funding to partner with local government, VDACS and the Tobacco Commission to construct a large, new multi-use facility and outside sales arena that will allow for on-site sale of cattle and hay that will offer substantial cost savings, as well as provide a viable venue for other activities to benefit the broader community.  Grant funds will be used for the completion of interior finishes, including the installation of kitchen equipment donated by Buckingham County Schools.
Project Title: Charles City County Agriculture and Forestry Economic Development Plan
Applicant:       Charles City County
Award:           $10,000
Summary:       Charles City County is seeking funding to add a robust agriculture and forestry component to their newly launched Economic Development Strategic Plan.  Specific issues to be addressed include improving land-use and zoning policies, developing eco- and agri-tourism attractions, expanding their timber industry, and supporting a new wine industry.

Governor McAuliffe Recognizes Farmers for Conservation and Water Quality Measures

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment
Governor Terry McAuliffe has presented 10 farmers with 2014 Virginia Grand Basin Clean Water Farm Awards for implementing practices to protect water quality. The governor also recognized the first Virginians to implement an agricultural resource management plan under a newly created program.
The presentations took place in Roanoke at the annual meeting of the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
“I applaud these farmers and farm owners for doing what’s right for their businesses and what’s right for our natural resources,” Governor McAuliffe said. “They have chosen to take important steps toward protecting water quality across the Commonwealth. Winners of the Virginia Grand Basin Clean Water Farm Award stand out because of their exemplary implementation of conservation practices that, in many cases, also improve their financial bottom line. They truly are role models for producers across the state.”
The Clean Water Farm Award recognizes farm owners and operators who have adopted and implemented innovative conservation tools, technologies and practices that reduce the amount of runoff pollution entering local waters. Each recipient was nominated for the award by their local Soil and Water Conservation District. Top winners are selected from each of Virginia’s 10 major river drainage basins.

“Only with the continued hard work and commitment of our agricultural producers will we be able to meet our water quality goals for all of Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay” said Secretary of Natural Resources Molly Ward. “These farmers show that water quality protection and profitable and sustainable farming go hand in hand and I applaud their accomplishments.”
2014 Grand Basin Clean Water Farm Award recipients:
Big Sandy and Tennessee River
James M. “Mike” Harris, Tazewell County
Nominated by the Tazewell County Soil and Water Conservation District
Chowan River
Scott Bridgeforth of Windy Hills Farms, Lunenburg County
Nominated by the Southside Soil and Water Conservation District
Coastal
Rick Hall of Loblolly Farms, Accomack County
Nominated by the Eastern Shore Soil and Water Conservation District
James River
Ronnie Morris of Fox Mountain Farm, Albemarle County
Nominated by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District
New River
Brian and Kayla Umberger of Mountain Spring Farms, Wythe County
Nominated by the Big Walker Soil and Water Conservation District
Potomac River
Joe Rogers, Jr. of Terra Farms, Loudoun County
Nominated by the Loudoun Soil and Water Conservation District
Rappahannock River
Frank and Janet Ott of Marshfield Farms, Fauquier County
Nominated by the John Marshall Soil and Water Conservation District
Roanoke River
David and Liisa Wallace of Mulberry Farm, Patrick County
Nominated by the Patrick Soil and Water Conservation District
Shenandoah River
Willis and Krystal Heatwole of Bethel Bend Farm, Rockingham County
Nominated by the Shenandoah Valley Soil and Water Conservation District
York River
Helen Marie Taylor of Bloomsbury Farm, Orange County
Nominated by the Culpeper Soil and Water Conservation District
In addition, Governor McAuliffe recognized Clem and Keith Horsley, who own and operate Holly Springs Farm in Gloucester County. The Horsleys are the first to fully implement a resource management plan through a new state program that encourages farmers to use high-level conservation practices to reduce runoff pollution into local waters. The voluntary program launched in July. Farmers and farm operators who implement resource management plans are deemed to be in compliance with any new state water quality and sediment requirements for nine years.
“Resource management plans are a key part of Virginia’s strategy to clean up rivers, streams and the Chesapeake Bay,” Governor McAuliffe said. “In addition to expanding farmers’ use of conservation practices, the program also will give us better data about practices already being implemented. I’m proud to join Virginia’s conservation community in recognizing the Horsleys for their contribution to clean water.”
Both the Virginia Clean Water Farm Award and resource management plan program are administered by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, in partnership with Virginia’s 47 Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

For more information about either program, visit www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water, or contact a local soil and water conservation district office.

Pro-GMO Side ‘Wins’ in NPR Online Debate

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment

Supporters of genetically modified crops were declared the victors in a National Public Radio program debate held Dec. 3.

 Robb Fraley, executive vice president and chief technology officer with Monsanto and University of California-Davis genomics and biotechnology researcher Alison Van Eenennaam spoke about the benefits of GMOs. They debated on the program, “Intelligence Squared,” against Charles Benbrook, a Washington State University research professor with the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Margaret Mellon, science policy consultant with the Union of Concerned Scientists.The program was streamed online from a New York studio.

At the end, a victor was declared based on the percentage of a studio audience swayed by arguments. Before the debate, 32 percent of the audience agreed GMO crops are necessary and 30 percent opposed them. A vote after the debate revealed 60 percent of the audience favored GMOs and 31 percent opposed them, with 9 percent still undecided.

Listen to a podcast of the debate at http://intelligencesquaredus.org.