By Rep. Bob Haefner
New Hampshire State Grange
Legislative Committee and
Ranking Minority Member of
the Environment and Agriculture
Committee in the State
of New Hampshire House of
Representatives
Let’s discuss why we all should
care about agriculture here in
New Hampshire. Farms are small
business, and we New Hampshire
folks care about our small business.
They pay business profits
tax (BPT) when they make a
profit, and they pay the Business
Enterprise Tax, even if they lose
money. Additionally, these small
businesses pay unemployment
tax and real estate taxes. Our
farmers hire employees. Some
farm workers are seasonal staff
here on a work visa, but many are
local. I was at a farm stand in Litchfield
today and all four employees
there were locals.
Our farms are not islands unto
themselves. They buy seed,
fertilizer, pesticides, pay veterinarians,
and buy tractors and
large equipment, like plows, harrows,
and spreaders. They get
serviced and use lots of fuel, all
bought locally. They pay employees
who spend their earnings locally.
There is a large multiplier
effect to the local economy. It is
estimated that every cow in New
Hampshire brings $14,000 to the
local economy. Food trucked in
does not add anything to the local
economy, especially in the form
of a multiplier effect.
Agriculture, including agro tourism,
is a $950 million industry in
our state. It is the second largest
industry in New Hampshire,
after tourism. We should all care
about any industry that adds that much to our local economy. Agriculture
brings tourists from out of
state with their money to spend
in New Hampshire. Attractions,
such as farm stays and our several
wine and cheese trails, bring
tourists who also may spend the
night in a local inn, buy a couple
of meals, and then buy tobacco
products, alcohol, and gas before
they leave.
Farms represent open space.
Open space protects our air and
water quality and rural character.
Our 130 dairy farms account
for thousands of acres of opens
space. Each cow needs one to
one-and-a-half acres of crops.
Our vegetable farms have land
that is kept open. What about the
apple orchards? If these folks
stop farming, the next crop will be
housing. Say goodbye to open
space. Farmland is free open
space. Your town does not have
to buy land to keep it open, the
farmer does that. Farmers often
allow use of the land for hunting,
Snowmobiling, and walking.
Agriculture is a significant part of
our culture and history. Most conservatives
care about history and
our long-standing rural culture
and do not want to lose it. None
of us want to lose New Hampshire’s
rural character, and our
farms are much of that character.
Lastly, New Hampshire farms
provide us with safe, ripe, good
tasting, fresh, wholesome local
food. There have been salmonella
outbreaks around the country
in the last couple of years. None
of it, though, is originating in our
state. If there is ever a terrorist
attack on our food supply, we
had better have local food. Local
strawberries picked ripe are
far better than California berries,
picked two weeks before they are
ripe. Local cheese beats anything
coming out of the west. Do
you really want milk dehydrated
in Idaho and shipped across the
country, reconstituted and sold as
fresh milk? I don’t. Buy local his
season. Visit the farmers market
and our local farm stand and buy
local cheese. Go pick you’re your
own berries and apples.
Dairy farmers are losing money
and we are at risk of losing 25%
of our dairy farms in NH this year.
I often hear suggestions that if we
let a couple of farms fail, the free
market will take care of the rest.
I also hear that our farmers can
negotiate with their customers
(processors). The USDA sets the
price a farmer gets for his/her milk.
It is a broken system for setting
the farm price based on cheese
prices on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange. Cheese prices are
often manipulated. The milk processors
are dominated by very
few large processors. Folks, there
is no free market for milk. Unless
a farmer processes their own milk
(very high capital investment and
only niche markets), they must
sell to the one or two processors
available to them and expect to be
paid the USDA set price based on
a broken system.
Agriculture is an important asset
to our state. Support New Hampshire
farms and buy local this
season.
| PA Grange Member Testifies on Dairy Crisis Before PA Milk Marketing Board |
By Carl Meiss
Membership, Director
Pennsylvania State Grange
In an effort to preserve the “opportunity
for an eighth generation
to work our farm, if they choose to
do so,” Matt Espenshade, a seventh
generation dairy farmer from
Lancaster County, presented
testimony today on behalf of the
PA State Grange, requesting that
the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing
Board (PMMB) “extend the $2.15
over-order premium payment.”
Matt works with his father, on their
Lancaster County dairy farm,
which has been in the family
since 1867. They milk 80 cows,
with a 21,000-pound rolling herd
average, and raise their own heifers.
They have no hired help to
assist in the daily operations of
the farm.
Espenshade told the PMMB, “During the past 142 years,
our farm has weathered many
storms...the Great Depression, a
failed attempt at ‘going organic,’
threats of eminent domain seizure
for development. However...
at no time have we been as
close to a breaking point as we
are now.”
He explained that, “We estimate
our overall costs to be approximately
$17.00 per hundredweight,”
and continued, “In March, we were
paid $11.27 per hundredweight of
milk. This includes 79 cents worth
of premiums and bonuses that we
have earned by our efforts to produce
a quality product.” “Our feed
costs per hundredweight stood at
$7.93, leaving just $3.34 to pay for
every other expense on the farm,
a mere 32 cents for every gallon of
milk sold.”
Matt, who is the President of
the Elizabethtown Area Grange
#2076, said, “I have many non farm
friends, and we speak often
about our jobs and the challenges
we face. Many cannot understand
how [dairy farmers] can
operate for such a small portion
of the price of milk on the shelf.
I am reminded of these numbers
each week when I go to the store
and pay more than three dollars
for a gallon of milk, my milk, for
which I was paid 88 cents.”
He told the PMMB that in 2008,
his farm paid over $131,000 to purchase feed, compared to
$80,000 just five years ago. The
Espenshade's have not been able
to afford to use fertilizers on their
fields for three years thus reducing
their forage output.
Matt’s wife must work off the
farm to supplement the family
income and provide for health insurance
for the couple and their
two young boys. But this then
necessitates paying for day care
for their children, which takes another
$11,000 a year chunk from
their income.
In an effort to become better
dairy farmers in the 21st century,
both Matt and his wife, who grew
up on a Wyoming County dairy
farm, received ag-related college
degrees, Matt at Penn State and
Charlene at VA Tech. How do
you encourage a college graduate,
with more than $20,000 of
college debt, to return to a farm
that would struggle to pay a fair
wage?
Matt stated, “The money you
choose to invest in the over-order
premium is not just supporting the
local farmer, but the businesses
they depend on as well.” In asking
the PMMB to at least maintain,
if not increase, the $2.15
over-order premium for milk sold
in Pennsylvania, Espenshade
said, “As a seventh generation
dairy farmer, in the end, I want
only one thing in life: that there be
an opportunity for an eighth generation
to work our farm, if they
choose to do so. Thank you for
your assistance to dairy farmers
in the past and your consideration
of the matter before you today.”
| EPA Addresses Chesapeake Bay Restoration |
By Brenda Shambaugh,
National Grange Legislative
Consultant
The Chesapeake Bay watershed
stretches across 64,000 square
miles and encompasses parts
of six states and the District of Columbia.
On May 12, 2009, President
Obama issued Executive
Order 13508 to protect and restore
the Chesapeake Bay and
its watershed. The Executive
Order called the Bay a national
treasure and directed the federal
government to exercise action to
repair this watershed. According
to the Executive Order restoring
and protecting the Chesapeake
Bay requires “bold new
approaches and renewed commitment
to controlling pollution,
protecting and restoring habitats
and living resources, conserving
lands, and improving the management
of natural resources.”
The President’s Executive Order
established a Federal Leadership
Committee chaired
by EPA with senior representatives
from the departments
of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Homeland Security,
Interior and Transportation.
As called for in the Executive Order,
on September 9, federal
agencies submitted draft
reports to the Committee to address
key challenges in the Bay
and its watershed, and recommend
actions for addressing
them.
Executive Order 13508 called for
federal agency reports to address
seven key challenge areas:
- Reducing pollution and meeting water quality goals
- Targeting conservation practices
- Strengthening storm water management at federal facilities
- Adapting to impacts of a changing climate
- Conserving landscapes
- Strengthening science for decision making
- Conducting habitat and research activities to improve outcomes for living resources
To meet water quality goals from the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake
Bay Tributary Strategy, nitrogen
and phosphorus pollution
must be reduced by 44 percent
and 27 percent respectively, despite
expected population increases
of 30 percent between 2000
and 2030. This will require significant
reductions in pollution from
urban, suburban, and agricultural
lands; municipal and industrial discharges;
leaching to surface waters
from septic systems; and atmospheric
deposition of nitrogen
to the Bay and its watershed.
EPA is mandating the establishment
of a “Total Maximum
Daily Load” (TMDL) for the
Chesapeake Bay states and
the District of Columbia that will
include quantitative loading limits
for nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediments from point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. These
states will be required to develop
detailed implementation
plans with clear milestones
to reduce pollution in major
Bay watersheds as needed to
meet their water quality goals.
These plans will need to articulate
precisely how states will reduce
loads from non-point sources,
such as storm water and
agricultural runoff. Stiff penalties
will be imposed if states
do not take sufficient actions
to reduce pollution to the
Bay and its tributaries.
Specifically related to agriculture,
EPA will require the
states to expand their definition
of Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs) and
set new minimum performance
standards for permits, including
regulating the land application
of animal manure. Regulatory
municipal storm water
programs will also be expanded
to include high growth areas and
establish stringent minimum performance
standards within permits
consistent with Bay water
quality goals. EPA wants to ensure
that any new or expanding
discharges are offset by reductions
from other sources.
EPA has identified high priority
watersheds and critical acres
for immediate conservation action.
They are planning on focusing
conservation programs on
priority practices, and coordinate
with USDA and other research
partners to foster innovation and
outreach, marketing and technical
assistance. They are planning
on establishing environmental
outcome measures by monitoring
and assessing the conservation
effects.
EPA considers climate control to
be an integral part of the Chesapeake
Bay Clean up. They
support a Center for Climate
Science Research and Assessment,
which would be a regional
Chesapeake Bay component
to address climate change. EPA
is also considering the establishment
of aquatic protected areas
and networking these areas with
land based preserves. They want
to enforce permit compliance to
protect habitat functions and improve
regulatory predictability,
and want to implement the National
Fish Habitat Action Plan.
They also want to develop a Bay
wide ecological strategy including
monitoring priority species and
habitats.
Ultimately, EPA wants to increase
regulatory scope and oversight
while increasing compliance and
enforcement of existing regulations.
They support setting a
higher standard for federal and
state actions. EPA also wants to
enhance monitoring information
to use for enforcement practices.
They justify their new goals by
stating that conserving habitats
is far more cost effective than restoring
degraded habitats or building
new infrastructure.
The next steps in the EPA Chesapeake
Bay Restoration project are
for the Federal Leadership Committee
to conduct a policy review
of the reports and provide comments
to lead agencies by early
October 2009. The draft-coordinated
strategy, along with revised
versions of the seven reports, will
be made available for public review
and comment beginning
November 9, 2009. Finally by
May 2010, the strategy will be released.
