Pork Industry Represents Small Part of U.S. Carbon Footprint (via Agri-View)

BY PEGGY COFFEEN, DAIRY/LIVESTOCK EDITOR Agri-View
June 28, 2012

Contrary to what some people may perceive, the estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that trace back to pork production is roughly one-third of 1 percent of all GHG sources in the United States. While this portion may be small, industry leaders are not resting on their laurels. Ongoing efforts led by the National Pork Board have estimated improvements among hog producers’ carbon footprint over the past 50 years, and they have also developed a tool for producers to estimate the emissions from their hog facilities.

“Safeguarding natural resources is one of six ethical principles and part of the pork industry’s We Care efforts. Producers work every day to adhere to these principles of safeguarding natural resources and the environment, improving quality of life and public health,” says Allen Stokes, director of environmental programs for the National Pork Board.

A recently completed study looked at resource demand and the environmental impact of the pork herd today versus 50 years ago (2009 versus 1959). Stokes pointed out that this time period is significant because it predates some of the innovations and additional steps taken in swine industry in regards to improved production methods and technology.

“We have made great strides relative to resource demand and impacts on the environment,” he notes. Over 50 years we have increased hogs marketed by 29 percent while decreasing the breeding herd population by 39 percent. “We produce more pigs in one litter today than we did in an entire year in the 1950-1970s,” he says, pointing out feed efficiency which today marks a 33 percent improvement per pound of carcass weight. Further, land and water use to produce one pound of pork has decreased by 59 percent and 41 percent respectively, and the overall carbon footprint has been reduced by 35 percent.

These improvements are the result of a number of things, Stokes says, including improved efficiency of swine-feeding regimens, low crude protein diets, and more precise diet formulation based on needs particular to gender and stage of growth. New techniques and technology for capturing and utilizing manure as a fertilizer resource has also reduced impact. The same goes for watering systems. Advancements in crop production have also helped to reduce the carbon footprint of feedstuffs.

“While we understand where we come from and think we have come a long way, we must also understand that the environment is a continual process to gain the trust of the public and we must do all we can to protect the environment and natural resources,” Stokes adds. That is why the pork checkoff is investing in research involving the four pillars of environmental sustainability: carbon, water, air and land. “When they all come together, these will be key components of an overall environmental sustainability program for the hog industry,” he says.

To estimate the impacts of these four areas, work has first been done on the carbon footprint. The University of Arkansas completed an overall emissions study that looked at two parts: how much GHGs are emitted by pork production and from where; and what can be done to lower these emissions.

Dr. Rick Ulrich, who led research efforts, explains the “cradle to grave” analysis that examined carbon emissions related to every step of the pork production process, from growing feed to throwing away bones. What he found was that most of the carbon was coming from two sources, manure and feed. He notes that while finishing barns emit more than a sow barn, manure and feed continue to lead carbon emissions in both live production stages. Fuel and electricity made up only a minor portion of emissions on hog farms; however, later on during the processing of pork where refrigeration and transportation are required, fuel and electricity become a larger contributor.

Through this study, Ulrich was able to compare emissions from hogs compared to other types of livestock used as major protein sources. While beef cattle top the list due to their ruminant nature, poultry are the lowest. Hogs are somewhere in between. “Emissions are understandable, and I think it is good to keep track of these for future awareness of what carbon emissions bring to the environment,” he says.

One of the conclusions of the study revealed little correlation between energy efficiency and reducing GHGs. “Americans have a knee-jerk reaction that saving energy reduces the GHG footprint,” he says, “This is not true.” Energy savings do not have a profound impact on GHG emissions on the farm, he states.

Ulrich also reached a couple of other conclusions. In regards to manure, emissions can be profoundly affected by farm location, or more specifically, temperature. For example, emissions would be greater in a warmer climate like North Carolina compared to a milder climate like Iowa. Location also impacts carbon emissions related to feed, including fertilizer, transportation and availability.

Because of the strong influence of these factors on GHG emissions, they were included in the carbon footprint calculator created by the University of Arkansas and Ulrich. The program accounts for 630 locations around the United States to best estimate weather, temperature, humidity and rainfall. The program also offers a drop-down menu listing several options of manure handling methods to create the most accurate prediction. Producers can enter in other details that most would know readily, including barn demographics and feed sources. With in a matter of seconds, the producer will have a bar graph of outputs showing where carbon emissions on their specific operation are coming from.

“We think this representation is the most comprehensive treatment of GHGs in agriculture. What has been done with pork is much more advanced than what has been done in other industries,” he notes. Further research is being done to put an economic estimation on what it would cost a producer to avoid or reduce emissions. “We need to know what it costs to reduce the carbon footprint. We might even find places where it makes money to reduce c footprint,” he adds.

For more information on this study, visit www.pork.org/sustainability.

Advertisements

WTO Rules Against U.S. in Meat Labeling Case (via FoodMarket.com)

The United States lost much of its appeal against a World Trade Organization ruling on meat labeling rules today, as World Trade Organization judges upheld an earlier ruling backing Canada and Mexico.

The Appellate Body found the US country-of-origin labeling rules, commonly known as COOL, were wrong because they gave less favorable treatment to imported beef and pork from Mexico and Canada, which brought the case, than to U.S. meat. The US may have to stop forcing retailers to display the country of origin on meat they are selling.

Under U.S. law in force since March 2009, food processors must identify the nations from which cattle, hogs and some fresh produce originate. The legislation has its roots in the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, in a Canadian-bred animal in 2003.

Canada and Mexico said the provisions impose unjust costs on their exports, reducing their competitiveness. They complained at the Geneva-based WTO in December 2008, challenging provisions of the U.S. Food, Conservation and Energy Act that impose mandatory country-of-origin labeling, known as COOL, for beef, pork, chicken, lamb and goat as well as some perishables sold by U.S. retailers.

WTO judges agreed on Nov. 18 that beef and pork from Canada and Mexico were treated less favorably than the same U.S. products.

House GOP Seen Blocking Farm Measure (via The Washington Times)

The five-year farm bill, which cleared the Senate last week, could be headed for rough waters in the House with Republicans complaining that the upper chamber’s bill favors Midwesterners’ crops over Southerners’ produce and saying a final compromise will need to have deeper cuts to the food-stamp and crop-insurance programs.

Rep. Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has promised the House bill will cut at least $33 billion from the federal deficit — $10 billion more than the Senate version — with the cuts coming equally from food stamps and commodity programs.

The bill is likely to ignite fights along both regional and party lines.

Lawmakers from the corn- and bean-heavy Midwest tended to support the Senate version, which earned 16 Republican votes last week en route to passing 64-35. But Southerners have complained that the bill’s crop-insurance and risk-management programs aren’t as helpful to the rice and peanut farmers in their districts.

Complicating the fight, Democrats are opposed to cutting safety-net programs in the face of high unemployment, while House Republicans have already taken action to cut food stamps this year to reduce the deficit and avert automatic cuts in defense spending.

“It’s going to be very difficult for Chairman Lucas to walk that line and satisfy his deficit-reduction members but not alienate these Democrats they’ve typically relied on to pass this bill,” said Joshua Sewell, a policy analyst for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that opposes the Senate farm bill.

Senators said they did take some major steps toward reform, including voting to eliminate direct payments to farmers, who often pocketed sizable federal subsidies even if they didn’t plant any crops.

Instead of direct payments, the Senate bill would invest more in crop insurance and set up a new program to supplement it, where the government would pay farmers for their losses when their revenue falls below 89 percent of a benchmark based on five-year average prices and yields. For certain crops, this would guarantee a profit.

It would cost 2.3 percent less than the last farm bill with the shift to market-based subsidies, combined with cutting $4 billion in waste from the food-stamp program and consolidating conservation programs.

But that hasn’t quieted some Republicans who want to chop down the bill further and argue that the farm subsidies are still too cushy.

Mr. Lucas has indicated he supports a program that would reimburse farmers for some of the steeper losses crop insurance doesn’t cover, saying the Senate version provides for farmers when they suffer mild loses but would leave them hanging in a crisis.

“I want a real safety net,” Mr. Lucas told the Oklahoma Farm Report radio program last month. “Not just keep the good times the best, but if we have a free fall, I want something to catch us.”

Undergirding all the debate is lawmakers’ sense of urgency to agree on a bill before the current one expires at the end of September.

Republicans voted to cut the food-stamp program by $13.3 billion annually over the next decade as part of the House budget passed earlier this year. If they insist on similar cuts now, it could stall the farm bill, since Democrats have said cuts that deep are out of the question.

“The level that passed by the House in their budget resolution is absolutely unacceptable to me and the majority of those in the Senate,” Debbie Stabenow, Michigan Democrat, said after shepherding the Senate bill through the floor last week. “Certainly, that is not something I would support.”

This article can be accessed by visiting http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/house-gop-seen-blocking-farm-measure/

Excerpt: LIKE: Seven Rules and 10 Simple Steps for Social Media in Your Campaign

Below is an excerpt from LIKE: Seven Rulea and 10 Simple Steps for Social Media in Your Campaign (in Politics, Business or Otherwise). With 90 percent of registered U.S. voters today actively using social media, the millions of likes and dislikes they share every 60 seconds can make or break a candidate’s race or an organization’s reputations.

Well suited for the individual with little to no social media experience, LIKE outlines the steps and how to get into the habit of using digital media whether running for the school board, for the United States Senate, or leading inside any organization. LIKE offers common-sense advice on how to engage with a socially-networked democracy, and campaign with confidence.

LIKE: Seven Rules and 10 Simple Steps for Social Media in Your Campaign is now available at http://www.amazon.com/Like-Campaign-Politics-Business-Otherwise/dp/1105401421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331905806&sr=8-1

Foreword
Why LIKE can help any campaign

Before we start, take a minute to examine your own feelings on the
subject at hand: social media.

Is social media something you choose to ignore? Do you
pray that it’s some passing fad? Do you scoff at invitations to join
Facebook, because an actual friend is better than a virtual one?
Do you wonder aloud if a tweet and a twit are the same thing?
And when forced to deal with social media, do you automatically
turn to your youngest staffer (or worse, your own children) and
expect them to handle it, because you have neither the time or
interest?

If you said yes to one or more of these questions, then this
book is for you.

The premise of LIKE is simple: follow the rules, and take the
right steps to use social media in any campaign — or to deliver any
message.

Here’s why: Hundreds of millions of individuals today,
around the world, have the power of choice – and a voice – more
than at any point in the history of humankind. Young or old, urban
or rural, in nearly every economic class, we have online access like
never before, with more ways than ever to connect: a computer, a
mobile phone, a smart phone, even a television or an automobile.
We can — and do — share everything, from anywhere, and
everywhere, whenever we want.

At the time of publication, people do the following every 60
seconds (source: Go-Globe.com):

• Run nearly 700,000 Google searches
• Post more than 695,000 status updates to Facebook
• Post 12,000 new ads to Craigslist
• Post 600+ new videos (25 hours of content) to
YouTube
• Tweet 98,000+ updates through Twitter
• Create more than 100 LinkedIn accounts

The key question is: what do all of these numbers actually
mean?

Numbers of this size are intimidating — and easy to
misunderstand. However, they are merely incidental, showing how
fast the information is moving, or the number of eyeballs following
social media at any given point in time. They’re outputs. Trying to
grasp them can be overwhelming and paralyze smart thinking as to
ix the true nature of social media, and how to engage society through
their diverse menu of channels.

Instead, try looking at the numbers this way:
Every 60 seconds, millions of individuals are telling each
other what they like, and what they dislike.

• They are searching for answers on Google
• They are sharing information with friends on Facebook
• They are trading goods and services on Craigslist
• They are creating and watching videos on YouTube
• They are telling their Twitter followers what they think
• They are networking and seeking job opportunities through
LinkedIn

Like. Dislike. The key to understanding social media is to focus
not on the volume or speed of the information, but rather how these
expressions are shared so willingly via social media channels — and
how you, in turn, can navigate your own campaign and
communications strategy through the “likes” and “dislikes.”
The seven rules of LIKE, and the 10 steps outlined in this
book, are well suited for the individual running for elected office
— whether that office is the local school board or the United States
Senate. The rules and steps are intentionally simple, to help those
with a more novice sense of social media to grasp why these
channels are critical in today’s campaign cycles, and how to get
into the habit of using them effectively and efficiently.

But while an election campaign is the illustration, this is not a
guide solely for those seeking public office. These rules and steps
have universal appeal and are applicable to virtually any cause,
campaign, or effort that is seeking help to get on board with social
media: Nonprofit cause, grassroots campaign, academic outreach,
fundraising, community organizing — it can even help a business
focus its online activity.

Moving forward, the seven rules of LIKE are essential for
everything we do. When the number of active social media users
worldwide exceeds the total populations of several countries, it’s
probably time to stop wishing it will go away.
The way we have conversations with constituents has
permanently shifted, thanks to the tools and channels of social
media. Whether we want to lead in our communities, fix our
country, or solve the world’s problems, it is imperative that we are
mindful of relationships and conversations with those we are trying
to engage. We can no longer assume that citizens — or customers,
for that matter — will just take our word for it. They have their
own opinions, and buying into your campaign promise, or your
organization’s message, is entirely optional.

Ultimately, they will choose whether to “like” what you stand
for, and whether you will win.

So let’s get started.

List of Amendments to the Senate Version of the 2012 Farm Bill

Below is a complete list of the actions taken on all of the amendments considered by the Senate during debate regarding that chamber’s debate on the Senate version of the 2012 Farm Bill.

The bill (as amended) passed the Senate by a vote of 64 – 35.
Please contact RDL & Associates at daveladd66@gmail.com with questions or comments.

Akaka amendment #2440 (highly fractionated tribal lands) – Agreed to by voice vote
Akaka amendment #2396 (tribal relations office) – Agreed to by voice vote
Baucus/Tester amendment #2429 (Livestock) – Agreed to by voice vote
Bingaman/Hutchison amendment #2364 (multi-state aquifers) – Withdrawn
Brown-OH amendment #2445 (rural development) – Agreed to by a vote of 55 – 44
Cantwell amendment #2370 (pulse pilot) – Agreed to by a vote of 58 – 41
Casey amendment #2238 (technical/study -federal milk marketing) – Agreed to by a vote of 73 – 26
Coons/Chambliss amendment #2426 (poultry insurance study) – Agreed to by voice vote
Feinstein/Kyle/Boxer amendment #2422 (conservation innovation grants) – Agreed to by voice vote
Snowe/Gillibrand amendment #2190 (milk marketing order reform) – Agreed to by a vote of 66 – 33
Ayotte amendment #2192 (value added grants) – Rejected by a vote of 38 – 61
Collins amendment #2444 (dairy) – Withdrawn
Grassley amendment #2167 (pay cap marketing loans) – Agreed to by a vote of 75 – 24
Sessions amendment #2174 (SNAP) – Rejected by a vote of 43 – 56
Nelson-NE amendment #2243 (SNAP) – Agreed to by voice vote
Sessions amendment #2172 (SNAP) – Rejected by a vote of 41 – 58
Paul amendment #2181 ($250,000 income limit) – Rejected by a vote of 15 – 84
Feinstein/Chambliss amendment #2309 (insurance recall) – Agreed to by a vote of 76 – 23
Gillibrand amendment #2156 (SNAP) – Rejected by a vote of 33 – 66
Alexander amendment #2191 (wind loans) – Rejected by a vote of 33 – 66
McCain/Kerry amendment #2199 (catfish) – Agreed to by voice vote
Toomey amendment #2217 (organic/AMA) – Rejected by a vote of 47 – 52
DeMint amendment #2263 (broadband funding) – Rejected by a vote of 45 – 54
DeMint amendment #2268 (Loan guarantees) – Rejected by a vote of 14 – 84
DeMint amendment #2276 (checkoffs) –Rejected by a vote of 20 – 79
Manchin amendment #2345 (dietary study) – Agreed to by voice vote
Merkley/Snowe amendment #2382 (organic crop insurance study) – Agreed to by a vote of 63 – 36
Schumer amendment #2427 (acer) – Agreed to by voice vote
Stabenow amendment #2453 (NAP) – Agreed to by voice vote
Udall-CO/Thune amendment #2295 (add funding for insect infestations and related diseases/bark beetle) – Agreed to by a vote of 77 – 22
Warner amendment #2457 (rural broadband) – Agreed to by voice vote
Wyden amendment #2442 (microloans) – Agreed to by division vote
Wyden amendment #2388 (farm to school) – Agreed to by voice vote
Leahy amendment #2204 (rural development) – Agreed to by voice vote
Nelson-NE amendment #2242 (rural housing) – Agreed to by voice vote
Klobuchar amendment #2299 (transportation study) – Agreed to by voice vote
DeMint amendment #2273 (Limit rural broadband access grants) – Rejected by a vote of 44 – 55
Coburn amendment #2289 (MAP) – Rejected by a vote of 30 – 69
Coburn amendment #2293 (Limit Millionaires) – Agreed to by a vote of 63 – 36
Kerry/Lugar amendment #2454 (North Korea) – Agreed to by a vote of 59 – 40
Kyl amendment #2354 (North Korea) – Rejected by a vote of 43 – 56
Lee amendment #2313 (Forest Legacy) – Rejected by a vote of 22 – 77
Lee amendment #2314 (Repeal of CSP & CRP) – Rejected by a vote of 15 – 84
Boozman amendment #2355 (Ag research, law info) – Agreed to by voice vote
Boozman amendment #2360 (TEFAP) – Rejected by a vote of 35 – 63
Toomey amendment #2226 (energy title) – Rejected by a vote of 36 – 63
Toomey amendment #2433 (sugar) – Rejected by a vote of 46 – 53
Hagan amendment #2366 (crop insurance – plain language) – Agreed to by voice vote
Kerry amendment #2187 (commercial fishermen) – Agreed to by voice vote
Landrieu amendment #2321 (rural development loans) – Agreed to by voice vote
Carper amendment #2287 (poultry feed research) – Agreed to voice vote
Sanders amendment #2254 (biomass) – Agreed to by voice vote
Thune amendment #2437 (crop insurance) – Rejected by a vote of 44 – 55
Durbin/Coburn amendment #2439 (crop insurance) – Agreed to by a vote of 66 – 33
DeMint amendment #2262 (Sense of the Senate Free MKT) – Agreed to by voice vote
Lee Motion to Recommit (FY 2008 levels) – Rejected by a vote of 29 – 70
Johnson-WI Motion to Recommit – Rejected by a vote of 40 – 59
Chambliss amendment #2438 (conservation crop insurance) – Agreed to by a vote of 52 – 47
Chambliss amendment #2340 (sugar) – Rejected by voice vote
Chambliss amendment #2432 (FMPP) – Rejected by voice vote
Ayotte amendment #2195 (GAO crop insurance fraud report) – Agreed to by voice vote
Blunt amendment #2246 (veterans) – Agreed to by voice vote
Moran amendment #2403 (food aid) – Agreed to by voice vote
Moran amendment #2443 (beginning farmers) – Agreed to by voice vote
Vitter amendment #2363 (pets) – Agreed to by voice vote
Toomey amendment #2247 (paperwork) – Rejected by a vote of 41 – 58
Sanders amendment #2673 (genetically engineered food) – Rejected by a vote of 26 – 73
Coburn amendment #2214 (convention funding) – Agreed to by a vote of 95 – 4
Boxer amendment #2456 (aerial inspections) – Rejected by a vote of 47 – 47
Johanns amendment #2372 (aerial inspections) – Rejected by a vote of 56 – 43
Murray amendment # 2455(sequestration) – Agreed to by voice vote; 60 vote threshold waived
McCain amendment #2162 (Sequestration report – DoD) – Withdrawn
Rubio amendment #2166 (RAISE Act) – Rejected by a vote of 45 – 54

The Toomey amendment #2247 (paperwork); Sanders amendment #2673 (genetically engineered food); Coburn amendment #2214 (convention funding); Boxer amendment #2456 (aerial inspections); Johanns amendment #2372 (aerial inspections); Murray amendment # 2455 (sequestration); McCain amendment #2162 (Sequestration report – DoD); and Rubio amendment #2166 (RAISE Act) were subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold.

Update #3: List of Cleared Amendments to the Senate Version of the 2012 Farm Bill

Below is a list of the amendments to the Senate’s version of the 2012 Farm Bill that have been dispensed as of 3:33 p.m Central.

Please contact RDL & Associates at daveladd66@gmail.com with questions or comments.
Akaka amendment #2440 (highly fractionated tribal lands) – Agreed to by voice vote
Akaka amendment #2396 (tribal relations office) – Agreed to by voice vote
Baucus/Tester amendment #2429 (Livestock) – Agreed to by voice vote
Bingaman/Hutchison amendment #2364 (multi-state aquifers) – Withdrawn
Brown-OH amendment #2445 (rural development) – Agreed to by a vote of 55 – 44
Cantwell amendment #2370 (pulse pilot) – Agreed to by a vote of 58 – 41
Casey amendment #2238 (technical/study -federal milk marketing) – Agreed to by a vote of 73 – 26
Coons/Chambliss amendment #2426 (poultry insurance study) – Agreed to by voice vote
Feinstein/Kyle/Boxer amendment #2422 (conservation innovation grants) – Agreed to by voice vote
Snowe/Gillibrand amendment #2190 (milk marketing order reform) – Agreed to by a vote of 66 – 33
Ayotte amendment #2192 (value added grants) – Rejected by a vote of 38 – 61
Collins amendment #2444 (dairy) – Withdrawn
Grassley amendment #2167 (pay cap marketing loans) – Agreed to by a vote of 75 – 24
Sessions amendment #2174 (SNAP) – Rejected by a vote of 43 – 56
Nelson-NE amendment #2243 (SNAP) – Agreed to by voice vote
Sessions amendment #2172 (SNAP) – Rejected by a vote of 41 – 58
Paul amendment #2181 ($250,000 income limit) – Rejected by a vote of 15 – 84
Feinstein/Chambliss amendment #2309 (insurance recall) – Agreed to by a vote of 76 – 23
Gillibrand amendment #2156 (SNAP) – Rejected by a vote of 33 – 66
Alexander amendment #2191 (wind loans) – Rejected by a vote of 33 – 66
McCain/Kerry amendment #2199 (catfish) – Agreed to by voice vote
Toomey amendment #2217 (organic/AMA) – Rejected by a vote of 47 – 52
DeMint amendment #2263 (broadband funding) – Rejected by a vote of 45 – 54
DeMint amendment #2268 (Loan guarantees) – Rejected by a vote of 14 – 84
DeMint amendment #2276 (checkoffs) –Rejected by a vote of 20 – 79
Manchin amendment #2345 (dietary study) – Agreed to by voice vote
Merkley/Snowe amendment #2382 (organic crop insurance study) – Agreed to by a vote of 63 – 36
Schumer amendment #2427 (acer) – Agreed to by voice vote
Stabenow amendment #2453 (NAP) – Agreed to by voice vote
Udall-CO/Thune amendment #2295 (add funding for insect infestations and related diseases/bark beetle) – Agreed to by a vote of 77 – 22
Warner amendment #2457 (rural broadband) – Agreed to by voice vote
Wyden amendment #2442 (microloans) – Agreed to by division vote
Wyden amendment #2388 (farm to school) – Agreed to by voice vote
Leahy amendment #2204 (rural development) – Agreed to by voice vote
Nelson-NE amendment #2242 (rural housing) – Agreed to by voice vote
Klobuchar amendment #2299 (transportation study) – Agreed to by voice vote
DeMint amendment #2273 (Limit rural broadband access grants) – Rejected by a vote of 44 – 55
Coburn amendment #2289 (MAP) – Rejected by a vote of 30 – 69
Coburn amendment #2293 (Limit Millionaires) – Agreed to by a vote of 63 – 36
Kerry/Lugar amendment #2454 (North Korea) – Agreed to by a vote of 59 – 40
Kyl amendment #2354 (North Korea) – Rejected by a vote of 43 – 56
Lee amendment #2313 (Forest Legacy) – Rejected by a vote of 22 – 77
Lee amendment #2314 (Repeal of CSP & CRP) – Rejected by a vote of 15 – 84
Boozman amendment #2355 (Ag research, law info) – Agreed to by voice vote
Boozman amendment #2360 (TEFAP) – Rejected by a vote of 35 – 63
Toomey amendment #2226 (energy title) – Rejected by a vote of 36 – 63
Toomey amendment #2433 (sugar) – Rejected by a vote of 46 – 53

Update #2: List of Cleared Amendments to the Senate Version of the 2012 Farm Bill

Below is a list of the amendments to the Senate’s version of the 2012 Farm Bill that have been dispensed as of 7:51 a.m Central.

Please contact RDL & Associates at daveladd66@gmail.com with questions or comments.
Akaka amendment #2440 (highly fractionated tribal lands) – Agreed to by voice vote
Akaka amendment #2396 (tribal relations office) – Agreed to by voice vote
Baucus/Tester amendment #2429 (Livestock) – Agreed to by voice vote
Bingaman/Hutchison amendment #2364 (multi-state aquifers) – Withdrawn
Brown-OH amendment #2445 (rural development) – Agreed to by a vote of 55 – 44
Cantwell amendment #2370 (pulse pilot) – Agreed to by a vote of 58 – 41
Casey amendment #2238 (technical/study -federal milk marketing) – Agreed to by a vote of 73 – 26
Coons/Chambliss amendment #2426 (poultry insurance study) – Agreed to by voice vote
Feinstein/Kyle/Boxer amendment #2422 (conservation innovation grants) – Agreed to by voice vote
Snowe/Gillibrand amendment #2190 (milk marketing order reform) – Agreed to by a vote of 66 – 33
Ayotte amendment #2192 (value added grants) – Rejected by a vote of 38 – 61
Collins amendment #2444 (dairy) – Withdrawn
Grassley amendment #2167 (pay cap marketing loans) – Agreed to by a vote of 75 – 24
Sessions amendment #2174 (SNAP) – Rejected by a vote of 43 – 56
Nelson-NE amendment #2243 (SNAP) – Agreed to by voice vote
Sessions amendment #2172 (SNAP) – Rejected by a vote of 41 – 58
Paul amendment #2181 ($250,000 income limit) – Rejected by a vote of 15 – 84
Feinstein/Chambliss amendment #2309 (insurance recall) – Agreed to by a vote of 76 – 23
Gillibrand amendment #2156 (SNAP) – Rejected by a vote of 33 – 66
Alexander amendment #2191 (wind loans) – Rejected by a vote of 33 – 66
McCain/Kerry amendment #2199 (catfish) – Agreed to by voice vote
Toomey amendment #2217 (organic/AMA) – Rejected by a vote of 47 – 52
DeMint amendment #2263 (broadband funding) – Rejected by a vote of 45 – 54
DeMint amendment #2268 (Loan guarantees) – Rejected by a vote of 14 – 84
DeMint amendment #2276 (checkoffs) –Rejected by a vote of 20 – 79

Update: List of Amendments to the Senate Version of the 2012 Farm Bill

Below is a list of the amendments to the Senate’s version of the 2012 Farm Bill that have been dispensed as of 4:40 p.m. Central.

Please contact RDL & Associates at daveladd66@gmail.com with questions or comments.
Akaka amendment #2440 (highly fractionated tribal lands) – Agreed to by voice vote
Akaka amendment #2396 (tribal relations office) – Agreed to by voice vote
Baucus/Tester amendment #2429 (Livestock) – Agreed to by voice vote
Bingaman/Hutchison amendment #2364 (multi-state aquifers) – Withdrawn
Brown-OH amendment #2445 (rural development) – Agreed to by a vote of 55 – 44
Cantwell amendment #2370 (pulse pilot) – Agreed to by a vote of 58 – 41
Casey amendment #2238 (technical/study -federal milk marketing) – Agreed to by a vote of 73 – 26
Coons/Chambliss amendment #2426 (poultry insurance study) – Agreed to by voice vote
Feinstein/Kyle/Boxer amendment #2422 (conservation innovation grants) – Agreed to by voice vote
Snowe/Gillibrand amendment #2190 (milk marketing order reform) – Agreed to by a vote of 66 – 33
Ayotte amendment #2192 (value added grants) – Failed by a vote of 38 – 61
Collins amendment #2444 (dairy) – Withdrawn
Grassley amendment #2167 (pay cap marketing loans) – Agreed to by a vote of 75 – 24
Sessions amendment #2174 (SNAP) – Failed by a vote of 43 – 56
Nelson-NE amendment #2243 (SNAP) – Agreed to by voice vote
Sessions amendment #2172 (SNAP) – Failed by a vote of 41 – 58
Paul amendment #2181 ($250,000 income limit) – Failed by a vote of 15 – 84

Senate Agrees on Way Forward on Farm Bill (via Roll Call)

Senate negotiators stuck a massive amendment deal on the pending farm bill tonight, working through contentious battles on the floor, in the cloakroom and in Capitol corridors to inch closer to potential passage.

Although final Senate approval is far from guaranteed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced a 73-amendment agreement just before 8:30 p.m., hours after Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and ranking member Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) could be seen and heard wrangling with rank-and-file Members in the chamber.

The amendment package, which was agreed to by unanimous consent, includes measures both germane and nongermane to the bill. But it wasn’t secured easily.

Stabenow and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) exchanged words on the floor, with Sanders getting red in the face and at one point brushing away Stabenow’s hand within full view of the gallery. The two then took their conversation into the cloakroom, where one source said their exchange was even more heated.

Multiple sources indicated it was amendment-related and a Sanders measure on genetically engineered food was included near the end of the list of announced provisions.

While Stabenow was working Sanders, Roberts was across the chamber talking to several Republicans trying to resolve their outstanding issues. As the two bill managers worked the floor old-school Senate style, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) was delivering a speech on the DREAM Act, looking back at Stabenow and Sanders at one point in his remarks because their conversation had gotten so loud.

“Bernie appreciates the leadership of Senator Stabenow on the farm bill. He also believes it is important to recognize that the overwhelming majority of Americans support labeling genetically modified foods,” a Sanders spokesman said in a statement. “He is pleased that there will be a vote on his amendment to let states require straightforward labeling.”

Republicans have long claimed that the $969 billion farm bill extension, required of Congress every five years, would pass if Reid allowed for an open amendment process. This week, they will get the chance to back their words with actions on what Stabenow called on the floor late Monday a “path to final passage” and Reid dubbed a good but not great deal.

The Senate will begin voting on the amendments Tuesday afternoon, with the measures that are relevant to the bill receiving a simple majority approval and nonrelevant provisions subject to a 60-vote bar.

Sources were cautiously optimistic that the Senate will approve a bill that received a bipartisan 16-5 vote out of committee. But it is also clear that certain regional disputes will be tougher to bridge and that even if the Senate does pass the bill, the road to the president’s desk likely will be difficult, if not impossible, with a Republican-controlled House.

For example, the Senate approved a transportation and infrastructure bill in March with 74 votes, but the conference committee tasked with finding a final package is faltering. The House did not come to the table with a comparable bill, failing to produce its own legislation that would have enough votes to pass its chamber.

Moreover, the conservative wing of the House GOP is government-spending averse, and even though the Senate version of the farm bill would shave $23.6 billion from the deficit, it’s likely House Republicans would defect over funding programs such as crop insurance or food stamps.

Because the farm legislation includes deficit savings, some aides had suggested it might be used in negotiations later in the year as an offset. But today, a now-or-never attitude pervaded the Senate side of the Capitol, as aides milled about the hallways just off the chamber, working their cellphones and conferring with each other and with Senators.

Multiple sources familiar with Democratic negotiations said this week would be the do-or-die week for the bill, and the agreement reached later in the evening suggests there is life for legislation that just one week ago seemed to be headed toward a legislative coma.

If and when the Senate wraps work on the farm bill, multiple aides said flood insurance legislation would be taken up next.

Agreement Reached Regarding Farm Bill Amendments

After a week of being stuck in idle, Senate leadership has reached a global agreement as to the scope and number of amendments that will be in order as the chamber moves forward with consideration of the 2012 Farm Bill. Afer extensive negotiations, the number of amendments was eventually whittled from almost 300 to 73. The Senate is expected be begin voting at approximately 2:15 p.m. Eastern on June 19, 2012.

The list of amendments (as provided by Agri-Pulse Communications are as follows:
1. Akaka amendment #2440 (highly fractionated tribal lands);

2. Akaka amendment #2396 (tribal relations office);

3. Baucus amendment #2429 (Livestock);

4. Bingaman amendment #2364 (multi-state aquifers);

5. Brown-OH amendment #2445 (rural development);

6. Cantwell amendment #2370 (pulse pilot);

7. Casey amendment #2238 (technical/study -federal milk marketing)

8. Coons amendment #2426 (poultry insurance study);

9. Feinstein amendment #2422 (conservation innovation grants);

10. Feinstein amendment #2309 (insurance recall);

11. Gillibrand amendment #2156 (SNAP);

12. Hagan amendment #2366 (crop insurance – plain language);

13. Kerry amendment #2187 (commercial fishermen);

14. Landrieu amendment #2321 (rural development loans);

15. Manchin amendment #2345 (dietary study);

16. Merkley amendment #2382 (organic crop insurance);

17. Schumer amendment #2427 (acer);

18. Stabenow amendment #2453 (NAP);

19. Udall-CO amendment #2295 (bark beetle);

20. Warner amendment #2457 (rural broadband);

21. Wyden amendment #2442 (microloans);

22. Wyden amendment #2388 (farm to school);

23. Leahy amendment #2204 (rural development);

24. Nelson-NE amendment #2242 (rural housing);

25. Klobuchar amendment #2299 (transportation study);

26. Carper amendment #2287 (poultry feed research);

27. Sanders amendment #2254 (biomass);

28. Thune amendment #2437 (crop insurance);

29. Durbin-Coburn amendment #2439 (crop insurance);

30. Snowe amendment #2190 (milk marketing order reform);

31. Ayotte amendment #2192 (value added grants);

32. Collins amendment #2444 (dairy);

33. Grassley amendment #2167 (pay cap marketing loans);

34. Sessions amendment #2174 (SNAP);

35. Nelson-NE amendment #2243 (SNAP);

36. Sessions amendment #2172 (SNAP);

37. Paul amendment #2181 ($250,000 income limit);

38. Alexander amendment #2191 (wind loans);

39. McCain amendment #2199 (catfish);

40. Toomey amendment #2217 (organic/AMA);

41. DeMint amendment #2263 (broadband funding);

42. DeMint amendment #2262 (SoS Free MKT);

43. DeMint amendment #2268 (Loan guarantees);

44. DeMint amendment #2276 (checkoffs);

45. DeMint amendment #2273 (broadband);

46. Coburn amendment #2289 (MAP);

47. Coburn amendment #2293 (Limit Millionaires);

48. Kerry amendment #2454 (North Korea);

49. Kyl amendment #2354 (North Korea);

50. Lee amendment #2313 (Forest Legacy);

51. Lee amendment #2314 (CSP/CRP cut);

52. Boozman amendment #2355 (Ag research, law info);

53. Boozman amendment #2360 (TEFAP);

54. Toomey amendment #2226 (energy title);

55. Toomey amendment #2433 (sugar);

56. Lee Motion to Recommit (FY 2008 levels);

57. Johnson-WI Motion to Recommit;

58. Chambliss amendment #2438 (conservation crop insurance);

59. Chambliss amendment #2340 (sugar);

60. Chambliss amendment #2432 (FMPP);

61. Ayotte amendment #2195 (GAO crop insurance fraud report);

62. Blunt amendment #2246 (veterans);

63. Moran amendment #2403 (food aid);

64. Moran amendment #2443 (beginning farmers)

65. Vitter amendment #2363 (pets)

66. Toomey amendment #2247 (paperwork);

67. Sanders amendment #2310 (genetically engineered food);

68. Coburn amendment #2214 (convention funding);

69. Boxer amendment #2456 (aerial inspections);

70. Johanns amendment #2372 (aerial inspections);

71. Murray amendment # 2455(sequestration);

72. McCain amendment #2162 (Sequestration report – DoD); and

73. Rubio amendment #2166 (RAISE Act).

The Toomey amendment #2247 (paperwork); Sanders amendment #2310 (genetically engineered food); Coburn amendment #2214 (convention funding); Boxer amendment #2456 (aerial inspections); Johanns amendment #2372 (aerial inspections); Murray amendment # 2455 (sequestration); McCain amendment #2162 (Sequestration report – DoD); and Rubio amendment #2166 (RAISE Act) be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold