Roll Call Quotes Collin Peterson as a "NO"  

Matt Fuller with Roll Call writes that the top Democrat on the House Ag Committee wants nothing to do with a Farm Only Farm Bill. In his latest report, Fuller writes "The Agriculture Committee's ranking Democrat, Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, released a statement Wednesday night saying he would not be supporting the measure.

"I still believe splitting the farm bill is a mistake in the long run," Peterson's statement said. "They are ignoring the advice of most of the groups affected by the bill, and I see no clear path to getting a bill passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President."

"Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., said if Peterson votes against the measure, then he would be "hard put to get more than two or three Democrats to vote for it. You heard me."

Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., said on Wednesday he hoped no Democrats would vote for the GOP proposal. "It's a terrible, misguided approach," he said. "They're obviously a deeply divided party."

"The farm bill failed because of a lack of bipartisan support," Hoyer said. "They lost 62 Republican votes. Well, if that's the case what would the rational response be? Well, we need more Democrats. What do you do? You move toward the Democratic position. They moved in exactly the opposite direction."

Click here to read his full report on the Farm Only Farm Bill push that may culminate in a vote late Thursday morning.

Obama Administration Hates House Ag Committee Farm Bill- With or Without the Nutrition Title 

For the second time in as many months, the Obama Administration has rattled the veto threat in advance of a vote on a 2013 farm bill House vote.  Back in June, they did not like the twenty billion dollars in spending cuts to the Nutrition title and urged a no vote then.  Last night, the story was that the President does not like the idea of having no Nutrition title (and as a result- NO spending cuts to the Nutrition programs) and again urged a NO vote and threatened veto.

Click here to read the brief statement from the Administration regarding H.R. 2642.

Smithfield Sale to Chinese Worrisome to Senate Ag Committee

The Senate Agriculture Committee met Wednesday to examine the proposed purchase of Smithfield Foods by China's Shuanghui (shawn-way) International. Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow stressed the importance of taking a long-term view of the proposed acquisition - saying the purchase would be precedent-setting as it would represent the largest purchase of a U.S. company by a Chinese firm ever.  

The Committee hearing looked at how the government review process of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies addresses American food safety, protection of American technologies and intellectual property and the effects of increased foreign ownership of the U.S. food supply. Smithfield CEO Larry Pope and experts on U.S.-China trade relations, global business, food safety and foreign acquisitions testified before the Committee.


Pope was the major cheerleader for the deal. "It provides enormous benefits for our two companies, for American manufacturing and agriculture. It is a partnership that is all about growth, and improving the agricultural environment in both the US and China. 

Click here to read more of Pope's comments and more.

R-Calf and NFU Team Up (with other smaller groups) to Claim National Security and Food Safety Risks if Smithfield Deal Allowed

The National Farmers Union, R-Calf and others have joined together in writing to the Cabinet officers of the Obama Administration, telling them it's imperative that the Smithfield sale be stopped dead in its tracks.

The groups wrote that the proposed sale "poses an unacceptable national security risk, undermines the safety and security of the U.S. food supply, threatens the environment and economy of rural communities, provides significant taxpayer-financed technology and intellectual property to foreign competitors and will raise the cost of food for American consumers."

Click here to read more of the story and for the link to the entire letter.

Colin Woodall Offers Us the NCBA Take on Lawsuite Against USDA Over COOL Rule  

A lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block the mandatory country-of-origin labeling rule finalized by USDA in May. The suit - filed by eight organizations that represent the U.S. and Canadian meat and livestock industries - challenges the rule from three angles. First - the groups claim the rule is unconstitutional. They argue the final rule violates the Constitution by compelling speech in the form of costly and detailed labels on meat products that don't directly advance a government interest. The lawsuit contends the government can't require the labels because they offer no food safety or public health benefit - yet impose costs the government modestly estimates at 192-million dollars. They also argue the rule goes beyond the bounds of the original law and that it is arbitrary and capricious.


One of the organizations involved in this legal action is the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.  We talked on Wednesday with Colin Woodall of the NCBA's Washington office- and we have his take on the COOL rule and the litigation being brought by these eight groups.

Click here for our latest Beef Buzz- featuring our conversation with Colin Woodall of the NCBA.  

Coming Up- USDA Releases Supply Demand Numbers at 11, Coverage Ag in the Classroom at Major State Ed Meeting and Canola 

USDA will release its latest Crop Production and World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) reports at 11 a.m. CDT Thursday.

According to Darin Newsom of DTN- it's all about the corn numbers this month- " Domestic ending stocks of new-crop corn. That's it. The sum total of what traders, analysts and reporters will be looking at in the July round of USDA numbers. Sure, I could go on and on about this, that and the other thing, but in the end, all that will matter will be what USDA pulls out of its hat for domestic corn ending stocks.

"Pre-report estimates showed an average of 1.874 billion bushels (2013-2014), as compared to the June estimate of 1.949 bb. The fact the average estimate is lower than the previous month is interesting, pointing out once again how meaningless pre-report estimates actually are. The logic of a lower ending stocks number is murky at best given USDA's increased planted acreage number and the strong possibility it could add the 1.5 bushels per acre back to national average yield it took away in June. After all, haven't crop conditions increased over the last number of weeks? And while USDA doesn't use its own crop condition data in putting together its projections, one can't help but think it shades the opinion.

"Let's start with beginning stocks (ending stocks for 2012-2013). The average pre-report estimate drops this from June's 769 million bushels to a possible 722 mb. However, using USDA's third-quarter stocks figure of 2.764 bb and assuming normal fourth-quarter demand, old-crop ending stocks could be closer to 695 mb. Next is production. If USDA does raise yield projections back to 158 bushels per acre, using the June 28 acreage numbers results in total production of 14.1 bb. If yield is left unchanged at 156.5 bpa, production could come in at 13.9 bb. Total supplies then could be calculated between 14.7 bb and 14.8 bb."

We will have analysis with Justin Lewis with KIS Futures on Midday Oklahoma as heard on KOAG AM1640 at about 12:10 PM- and we will post his comments by around noon on our website as well.

**********