How does the Farm Bill impact bean production

By Bob Green
Michigan Dry Bean Commission
It finally looks as though the Farm Bill of 2007 (or does this make it 2008 and a half?) will be law in very near future. What a journey this has been for dry beans and all specialty crops. “The journey of a 1000 miles starts with the first step.” The problem for this Farm Bill and dry beans was: What is the first step and do we take it. And that was our question, what does it mean if we do end up in the Farm Bill, but also, what happens if we don’t.
The last time dry beans were in any type of Farm Program was back in the 60s. Even I was not a “beaner” back then, but from what I have heard, it was not fun.
Basically the government took ownership of all beans below a price, and the elevators or trading houses had to buy them back, before selling them on to end users.
So when this program ended, growers and dealers were similarly minded in that they wanted no more government in dry beans.
As they say, “and the years passed”. As they did, we were quick to pronounce around the world that there were no subsidies, support prices or government involvement in the production or marketing of U.S. dry beans.
Most areas of the world viewed our farm subsidies as available to all crops and frequently tried to add dry beans to list.
Then the 1986 Farm Bill came along, and we were in it. (Note: In reality the 1986 Farm Security Act (Public Act 99-260), which made technical corrections to the 1985 Farm Security Act, provided the first real “prohibition” when the words “or non-program crops” was deleted from the 1985 act to prevent the planting of non-program crops under the 50/92 program.)
Actually specialty crops were in Farm Bill, and that included all dry beans, but only to the extent that dry beans (and all specialty crops) could not be planted on program acres and have the farmer still receive his direct payment for those acres.
This was fine for all involved, and the dry bean business went along fine. When this happened, it was considered a non-event by growers and dealers alike.
No subsidies, direct or in-direct payments, a simple clause that stated a grower could not “double dip” by collecting direct payments for another crop while growing dry beans, or any other specialty crop.
Enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Brazilian Cotton case. The first time I head of this I thought: ‘I am into beans, I live in Michigan, and this is Brazilian cotton, so what does this have to do with me?”
Well as it turned out, a lot. Cotton is the receiver of a large yearly subsidy. Because those cotton growers, who received that payment, would not be eligible for yearly payments if they switched to specialty crops, Brazil argued, and won, that this influenced production.
Of course, what Brazil was really after was to get the U.S. to stop growing so much subsidized cotton.
Now roll forward to 2005, when the framework of the next Farm Bill was starting to form.
After hearing about the Brazilian case, several times in fact, I finally got the drift of what could happen. It was suggested by many involved in world trade talks and the upcoming Farm Bill, that we could lose our only involvement in the Farm Bill, the restrictive planting clause.
What could make it worse is that a non-traditional grower could receive his corn/soybean payment on that land if he decided to grow dry beans. Thus a non-traditional grower would receive a “payment” to grow beans while a traditional grower would not.
Rough calculations at the time indicated that a non-traditional grower, planting beans on his corn ground, would be about $2 a bag better off than a traditional grower – all due to the direct payment he would now be eligible for.
The main obstacles to overcome were the knowledge of the 1960s government program that still lingered throughout the dry bean industry, as well as virtually all U.S. growers and dealers who were pleased to NOT have the government involved in dry beans.
While this did take time and a lot of conversation to gain understanding, in the end, all growers groups across the U. S. agreed that we must retain the “restrictive” planting clause. And what a proactive group we had.
From the beginning, we were told by international trade watchers, that in all likelihood, the restrictive planting clause would be lost. The growers across the U.S. united and educated our legislators about what this could mean to dry beans and dry bean growers.
The message was clear, concise and unabated – we must retain the restrictive planting clause.
The U.S. Dry Bean Council (USDBC) assumed the leadership role that was needed to get our message heard by the right people. The Agricultural Issues Committee (of the USDBC) focused in on the Farm Bill, making sure that our congressional delegations where aware of the potential impact to dry beans and dry bean growers if the restrictive planting clause was lost.
The USDBC requested growers to participate in some of the Subcommittee Hearings held by the U.S. House of Representatives in reference to the new Farm Bill.
Both Cindy Brown, a farmer/processor from Wisconsin (and current Chair of the USDBC), and Mike Beltz, a farmer from North Dakota (Vice Chair of the USDBC’s Agricultural Issues Committee) gave testimony in favor of retaining the restrictive planting clause.
Cindy Brown’s comments on the new Farm Bill started with: “We feel strongly that the farm bill should provide a foundation for maintaining the present stability for dry bean growers and the industry, and for achieving long term growth and health for both growers and the industry.”
She continued: “…we strongly support maintaining the status quo for dry bean growers, which includes the retention of planting restrictions on non-program crops on program crop acres for producers who receive support payments on those acres.”
Assuming we are veto proof, we have obtained our goal. With passage in both the House and Senate, in numbers which would carry over a veto, it looks like the farmers in the U.S. will finally have their Farm Bill.
The House voted 318 to 106 for passage (318 votes in favor would be 73% of the 435 members).
The Senate passed the measure 81 to 15 (81 votes in favor would be 81% of the 100 members). With its passage, dry beans and other specialty crops will retain the restrictive planting clause, with some minor changes, but the specialty crops, including dry beans will also receive research and promotion dollars, unlike any previous farm bill.
As usual, the misinformation or lack of correct information seems to making the foreign as well as the domestic circuit.
First, growers will not receive full $289 billion that the Farm Bill is projected to cost. In fact, according to Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the new Farm Bill will distribute only 14 percent of its total cost projection to farmers. The largest portion of money, 73 percent, goes to domestic food and nutrition programs (food stamps, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, nutrition programs that address the rising cost of food, and immediate money to address food pantry shortages), approximately 13 percent for conservation and for crop insurance.
It looks like we have a new Farm Bill, one that dry bean growers and industry decided they wanted and then went after it.
This Farm Bill will keep our dry bean growers competitive, but without payments, subsidies or government involvement. It is a Farm Bill that will give the dry bean industry an opportunity to do additional research, both agronomic and health, and help that industry promote the results of that research to make a better industry for all concerned.

Tips on using Raptor for weed control in dry beans
By Robert Wilson
University of Nebraska Weed Specialist

The herbicide Raptor has gained popularity among dry bean producers for its ability to control broadleaf weeds in the growing crop. Raptor is labeled to be applied to dry beans at the first trifoliate growth stage when weeds and beans are actively growing.

Over the years there have been a number of suggestions on the best way to apply Raptor to get optimum weed control. University researchers first started working with Raptor in dry beans in 1998. Over the past 10 years, numerous trials have been conducted to examine tank-mix partners, rates, application timings, and adjuvants for optimizing Raptor performance.

The first thing that became apparent was that Raptor alone was not doing a good job of controlling common lambsquarters, kochia, and cocklebur. Further research showed that mixing Raptor with Basagran improved common lambsquarters, kochia, and cocklebur control. Early experiments showed that adding Basagran at a rate of one quart per acre improved weed control but had a negative impact of increasing dry bean injury.

Later it was found that the Basagran rate could be reduced to one pint per acre without a significant loss in weed control but with much improved crop safety. During the last few years, several suppliers of agricultural chemicals have also been promoting substituting Basagran with Rezult Herbicide. Rezult Herbicide contains Basagran in combination with Poast plus a proprietary combination of adjuvants. The resulting Raptor plus Rezult combination is advertised as providing both broadleaf and grass control. In practice, grass weed control is improved with the combination, but dry bean injury also increases. The problem is complicated because suppliers of agricultural chemicals have also been recommending the addition of various spray adjuvants with combinations of Raptor plus Rezult even though Rezult already contains adjuvants.

Research has shown that mixing spray adjuvants with Raptor plus Basagran can dramatically influence dry bean injury. The most consistent weed control has been observed when either ammonium sulfate at 12-15 pounds per 100 gallons of spray solution or 32 percent nitrogen at 2.5 gallons per 100 gallons of spray solution have been combined with Raptor plus Basagran.
In addition to adding nitrogen, it has also been found that a nonionic surfactant needs to be added for optimum herbicide performance.

It was found that dry bean injury increased when crop oil concentrate or methylated seed oil was utilized as an adjuvant. Some of the adjuvants being promoted not only contained methylated seed oil, but also contained combinations of buffers, nitrogen solutions, emulsifiers, organosilicone surfactants and nonionic surfactants. Adding some of the adjuvant combinations have been found to produce unacceptable dry bean injury.

In University trials, a combination of Raptor plus Rezult plus 32-0-0 plus the adjuvant Z64 caused a 42 percent reduction in dry bean vigor. Raptor plus Rezult plus 32-0-0 plus only methylated seed oil caused a 21 percent reduction in crop vigor, while Raptor plus Basagran plus 32-0-0 plus a nonionic surfactant caused a 10 percent reduction in crop vigor.
Weed control obtained from the three treatments was identical and indicates there was no benefit to the grower in adding some adjuvant combinations. In fact, the combination of Raptor plus Rezult plus 32-0-0 plus Z64 resulted in reduction in dry bean seed yield and delayed crop maturity.

Therefore, the take-home message from this research is to be careful in what adjuvants you combine with Raptor plus Basagran. Use an adjuvant system that doesn’t produce significant crop injury and doesn’t cause rapid burning of dry bean leaves.

Over the past 10 years, the most consistent approach for using Raptor in dry beans is as follows:
1. Apply the herbicide when dry beans are in the first trifoliate growth stage.
2. Apply Raptor at four ounces per acre in combination with Basagran at one pint per acre, plus 32-0-0 at 2.5 gallons per 100 gallons of spray solution and nonionic surfactant at one quart per 100 gallons of spray solution.
3. It is also important to combine the Raptor plus Basagran postemergence treatment with a herbicide applied at the time of planting.

Large crowd takes in Bean Day festivities

By Teresa Clark
Editor
Nearly 450 people ventured out in nice weather to attend Nebraska Dry Bean Day held at the Scotts Bluff County Events Center in January. The event serves as the annual meeting of the Nebraska Dry Bean Growers Association, but also provides growers with research results, industry and marketing information and new technology.

Over 20 businesses participated in the trade show this year and 18 recipes were entered in the Fifth Annual Nebraska Dry Bean Cookoff.

The day kicked off with Rob Ford, a PHT representative with Simplot, talking about Avail—the Phosphorus Fertilizer Enhancer. He was followed by three dry bean experts from the University of Nebraska Panhandle Research and Extension Center discussing the dry bean breeding program, fertilizer expense and dry bean fertility and controlling volunteer corn in beans and Nightshade drydown at bean harvest.

During the NDBGA annual meeting, Craig Henkel, Mike Hoehn and Jeff Nichols were all reappointed to serve another three year term on the board of directors. Jeff Nichols, vice president of the NDBGA, presented Mike Hoehn and Craig Henkel with plaques honoring them for their nine years of service to the NDBGA.

Northern Feed and Bean sponsored the noon meal of roast beef sandwiches, baked beans, 3-bean salad, chips and a bean cookie. The morning session of coffee and doughnuts was sponsored by Farm Credit Services. First National Bank sponsored the afternoon session. Pepsi supplied the beverages for the event. Gowan Company also provided sponsorship for the day-long event.

During the afternoon program, Senator Ben Nelson dropped by to discuss the new Farm Bill with the growers. His presentation was followed by a marketing report from John Parker, who is an international dry bean marketing analyst. The final speaker of the day was Steve Pickett of Pickett Equipment, who discussed how his equipment fits into dry bean production in the United States and other parts of the world.

Many businesses donated door prizes that were handed out throughout the day. At the end of the day, Jeff Nichols held the winning ticket for a 20” flat screen television donated by Platte Valley National Bank.