One of the biggest changes from 2011 was the movement of soybeans. In 2011, the value of the soybean was $216 million and they placed 7th in the rankings. The revised number moved soybeans to number 6 and corn down to number 7.  Cottonseed as a separate category entered at #18 with nearly $12 million in cash receipts. Cotton lint, ranking at #12, is a completely different product than cottonseed. They come off the same plant but are sold differently. The lint is what we traditionally think of as cotton; it’s white and puffy just as you’d expect. Within that boll of cotton are seeds about the size of a small pea. At the gin the cottonseed is extracted from the lint. The farmer gets paid for his lint fiber, then he or she either gets a check for his seed by weight or a credit for the seed by weight which is used against the ginning fees. Virginia sends some cotton to other states such as Pennsylvania to be used to feed dairy cows. Most of it is exported, however, to countries like Korea or Japan. Cottonseed was in high demand in 2012 due to higher grain prices, thus making it more valuable. Many farmers were able to export their 2012 production and command higher prices than selling it in the U.S.

Almost 300 voting delegates representing 88 county Farm Bureaus statewide have gathered in Richmond to help shape Virginia Farm Bureau Federation’s state and federal policies for the coming year.

During this year’s VFBF Annual Convention, those delegates will discuss and vote on numerous policies that affect farmers and their livelihoods.

“This is the culmination of our grassroots policy development process,” said VFBF President Wayne F. Pryor, “and whatever is decided at the annual convention directs our lobbying efforts in the new year.”

Policy development is just one part of the convention, which will run Dec. 3-5 at the Richmond Marriott. The event’s theme is “Leading Agriculture into the Future.”

The convention kicked off Tuesday with a keynote address by Mark Gold, president, CEO and managing partner of Top Third Ag Marketing and a former member of the Chicago Board of Trade. Gold will speak on “Managing Risk in an Inherently Risky Business.”

“I’m very optimistic about farming, but there will be bumps in the road and farmers need to learn how to survive the cycles and not sell their land for parking lots or subdivisions,” Gold said.

His Top Third Ag Marketing’s mission is to help farmers manage the risks associated with producing commodities such as grains, livestock, milk, cotton and energy. The company’s goal is to help its customers market their products in the top third of prices available during a market year.

Gold also led an afternoon workshop titled “Get What’s Coming to You: Risk Management for Every Farmer.” A second workshop, “Things You Need to Know About Transporting Farm Products in Virginia,” featured speakers from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and the Virginia State Police.

During the business sessions on Wednesday and Thursday, voting delegates will elect members of the VFBF board of directors to represent Districts 3, 6, 9 and 12.
Throughout the convention, members can take advantage of a “Cyber Café” to get help with any technology needs they might have.

The Department of Environmental Quality is seeking comments on proposed changes to the general permit regulation for animal feeding operations. The permit will expire November 15, 2014, and DEQ is proposing changes before the permit is reissued for another 10-year period. The permit covers activities at AFOs such as dairy cattle, hog and beef cattle farms.

Any operation that confines animals for more than 45 days in a 12-month period with no ground cover during that period are affected by these regulations.  Those operations that are greater than 300 animal units must maintain coverage by a permit. In addition, those farmers wishing to utilize the manure generated by these operations for fertilizer as an “end user” should closely review these proposals.

Virginia Farm Bureau supports the renewal of the “General Permit.”  We also believe that transfers of manure to end users provides an alternative to producers with limited land application sites on their own farm.  However, the program should not be so restrictive that it makes the option useless.

Public comment period: November 18, 2013 to January 21, 2014

Four public hearings on the proposed changes have been scheduled. There will be an information session for each meeting starting at 6:30 p.m., and the public hearings will begin at 7 p.m. The dates and locations are:

December 11, 2013 (Wednesday) – DEQ Valley Regional Office, 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, VA 22801 (540) 574-7800.

December 12, 2013 (Thursday) – DEQ Piedmont Regional Office, 4949-A Cox Road, Glen Allen, VA 23060 (804) 527-5020.

December 18, 2013 (Wednesday) – DEQ, Blue Ridge Regional Office, 7705 Timberlake Road, Lynchburg, VA 24502 (434) 582-5120.

December 19, 2013 (Thursday) – Culpeper County Library, 271 Southgate Shopping Center, Culpeper, VA 22701 (540) 825-8691.

AFOs may operate waste storage, treatment or recycling activities and may apply manure, wastewater, compost or sludges to the land. The current permit regulation requires that manure generated at an AFO is applied in accordance with a nutrient management plan approved by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Where the land application of waste is limited by reasons such as elevated phosphorus soil test levels, the further treatment and transfer of waste off the farm is becoming necessary. New technology is making the transfer and possible marketing of manure-based products off the farm more common and also is prompting the consideration of importing other wastes to supplement treatment processes. The current permit regulation does not address manure transfer, the construction and operation of alternative manure treatment and storage facilities, or the management of waste materials generated offsite to be used to feed an on-farm digester or other manure treatment technology.

The changes are being proposed to address alternative waste treatment and storage, management of materials generated offsite, and end-users of waste that is transferred off farms covered by the general permit. The proposed end-user requirements are modeled after the requirements for the transfer of poultry waste.

How to comment: DEQ accepts written comments by hand-delivery, email, fax and postal mail. All written comments must include the full name, address and telephone number of the person commenting and be received by DEQ no later than on the last day of the comment period. Verbal and written comments will be accepted at the public hearings. Comments also may be submitted through the Public Forum feature of the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall web site at  www.townhall.virginia.gov.

How a decision is made: After DEQ has reviewed the comments, the State Water Control Board will make the final decision. People who submit statements during the comment period may address the board at the meeting at which a final decision is made.

Contact information:  Anyone wishing to submit written comments may do so at the public hearing or by mail, email or fax Betsy Bowles, P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218, phone 804-698-4059, fax 804-698-4032 and betsy.bowles@deq.virginia.gov.

Comments may also be submitted through the Public Forum feature of the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall web site at www.townhall.virginia.gov.

Written comments must include the name and address of the commenter. In order to be considered comments must be received by DEQ by the close of the comment period.

• Continue to support inclusion of $7.6 million for Phase-2 research dairy facilities at Virginia Tech (VT) in the capital expenditure authorization.

Phase 1 (herd barn) will be paid for by Virginia Tech.  Planning funding for Phase 2 was approved by the 2013 General Assembly.  Now, the funding for Phase 2 needs to be continued in the Commonwealth’s capital expenditure authorization process.

• Protect the private property rights of landowners by resisting expansion of the term “navigable” to include all waters of the Commonwealth or the United States
• Maintain a minimal burden of proof of “Crown Grant” properties and their associated rights

Not matter how it is justified or what level of government executes the policy, an expanded definition of “navigability” will lead to further intrusion by the public and government in to our private property.

Ann Slemp President of Lee County Farm Bureau

• Support compromise legislation to set a baseline for the regulation of on-farm activities on agricultural operations

More than 1,700 scientific studies find GMO foods are safe 

The consensus of a research review of 1,783 scientific studies of genetically modified crops has determined that those foods are as safe as, or safer than, conventional or organic foods. 

“Anti-GMO proponents claim that genetically modified crops have not been tested or that the research has been done only by the companies that produce the seeds. But this review of scientific research proves that GM crops have been analyzed numerous times and ways,” said Lindsay Reames, assistant director of governmental relations for theVirginia Farm Bureau Federation.
Although there has been considerable research conducted regarding crop biotechnology, it had never been catalogued until recently. A team of Italian scientists decided to summarize 1,783 studies on the safety and environmental impacts of GM foods. 

They couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” researchers concluded. 

The research review was publishedin Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September and spanned the past decade. 

Leigh Pemberton, a Hanover County farmer who grows GM corn to feed his dairy cows, said he has always believed that genetically modified crops are safe, but he’s glad there is now unbiased scientific evidence to back that up. “I see no problems with the seed industry continuing to offer more GM technology, and I think it’s a good thing, especially if we’re going to continue feeding a growing population,” Pemberton said. 

In 2012, roughly one-quarter of the world’s cropland was used to grow biotech crops. “Many farmers rely on GMO seeds to grow their crops, and without them farmers won’t be able to continue increasing their yields so they can help feed the world’s ever-growing population,” Reames said. “GMOs not only increase yields but also have been able to change gene traits in products to make them more appealing to consumers. For example, certain apple varieties that have been enhanced through biotechnology don’t turn brown.” 

The Italian scientists found “little to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings. The team also found no evidence that approved GMOs introduce any unique allergens or toxins into the food supply. All GM crops are tested against a database of known allergens before commercialization, and any crop found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed. 

Biotech crops currently available on the market are the same from a compositional and nutritional standpoint as their non-GM counterparts. For example, GM corn is the same as non-GM corn, Reames explained. Testing has shown, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviews have confirmed, that GMOs are nutritionally equal to non-GM crops and have the same levels of key nutrients like amino acids, proteins, fiber, minerals and vitamins. 

In short, Reames said, “genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. The paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: There is no credible evidence that GMOs pose a threat to the environment or the public’s health.”