U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–498 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–170 

GROWING JOBS AND 

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY: 

PERSPECTIVES ON THE 

2018 FARM BILL FROM MICHIGAN 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 6, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/ 
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

JAMES A. GLUECK, JR., MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

ANNE C. HAZLETT, MAJORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, CHIEF CLERK

JOSEPH A. SHULTZ, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

(II) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FIELD HEARING(S): 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm 

Bill from Michigan ............................................................................................... 1 

Saturday, May 6, 2017 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 6 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ..................... 3 

Welcome Panel 

Hendrick, Ronald, Dean, Michigan State University College of Agriculture 

and Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI ......................................................... 2 

Panel I 

Fritz, Janna, JDF Farms, LLC, Bad Axe, MI ....................................................... 9 

Alpers, Chris, RedPath Orchards and Alpers Farms, Lake Leelanau, MI ......... 11 

Gerstenberger, Rick, Gerstenberger Farms Inc., Snover, MI .............................. 13 

Siemen, Darrin, Prime Land Farm, Harbor Beach, MI ....................................... 14 

Snider, Andy, Snider Farms, LLC, Hart, MI ........................................................ 15 

Williams, David, W Farms, LLC, Elsie, MI ........................................................... 17 

Adam, Ingrao, Bee Wise Farms, Lansing, MI ....................................................... 19 

Miller, Pam Bouma, Hopyards of Kent, Greenville, MI ....................................... 20 

Panel II 

Hesterman, Oran, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fair Food Network, 

Ann Arbor, MI ...................................................................................................... 31 

Watson, Faith, Montcalm County SNAP Recipient, Greenville, MI .................... 33 

Nugent, Jim, Fruit Grower and Chairman, Michigan Tree Fruit Commission, 

Suttons Bay, MI ................................................................................................... 34 

Rorah, Kyle, Great Lakes & Atlantic Region Policy Specialist, Ducks Unlimited, Ann Arbor, MI .............................................................................................. 36 

Hebron, Jerry Ann, Farmer and Executive Director, Northend Christian CDC, 

Detroit, MI ............................................................................................................ 37 

Thompson, Collin, Manager, Michigan State University, USDA Organic Certified North Farm, Chatham, MI ........................................................................ 39 

Matson, Kristen, Inventory & Planning Specialist, Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources Forestry Division, Shingleton, MI ...................................... 40 

Hance, Bob, President and Chief Executive Officer, Midwest Energy Cooperative, Cassopolis, MI .............................................................................................. 42 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Alpers, Chris ..................................................................................................... 50 

Fritz, Janna ...................................................................................................... 56 

Gerstenberger, Rick .......................................................................................... 59 
Page

IV 

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued 

Hance, Bob ........................................................................................................ 77 

Hebron, Jerry Ann ............................................................................................ 81 

Hendrick, Ronald .............................................................................................. 85 

Hesterman, Oran .............................................................................................. 89 

Ingrao, Adam .................................................................................................... 96 

Matson, Kristen ................................................................................................ 105 

Miller, Pam Bouma .......................................................................................... 111 

Nugent, Jim ...................................................................................................... 113 

Rorah, Kyle ....................................................................................................... 115 

Siemen, Darrin ................................................................................................. 118 

Snider, Andy ..................................................................................................... 128 

Thompson, Collin .............................................................................................. 134 

Watson, Faith ................................................................................................... 138 

Williams, David ................................................................................................ 142 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Roberts, Hon. Pat: 

‘‘Good Agricultural Practices and Good Handling Practices Audit 

Verification Program’’ ................................................................................... 148 

Hance, Bob: 

‘‘The Need for Better Broadband in Rural America’’ ..................................... 185 

Miller, Pam Bouma: 

Specialty Crop Block Grants ........................................................................... 187 

Export Opportunity Analysis ........................................................................... 194 

Pictures submitted for the Record .................................................................. 206 

Snider, Andy: 

Animal Agriculture Commission, letter of support ........................................ 217 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Alpers, Chris: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 222 

Fritz, Janna: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 224 

Gerstenberger, Rick: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 225 

Hance, Bob: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 226 

Ingrao, Adam: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 227 

Matson, Kristen: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 229 

Miller, Pam Bouma: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 230 

Rorah, Kyle: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 231 

Siemen, Darrin: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 233 

Snider, Andy: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 234 

Williams, David: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 236 
(1) 

GROWING JOBS AND 

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY: 

PERSPECTIVES ON THE 

2018 FARM BILL FROM MICHIGAN 

Saturday, May 6, 2017 

SAGINAW VALLEY RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTER, 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 

Frankenmuth, MI 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., Eastern 

Time, at the Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center, 

Michigan State University, 3775 S. Reese Road, Frankenmuth, 

Michigan, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Roberts and Stabenow. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning. I call this hearing of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to order. 

Senator Stabenow, ladies and gentlemen on the panels, others here 

in the room, and those watching across the country, welcome to the 

Committee’s second hearing on the next farm bill. 

We started the journey to a successful and timely upcoming farm 

bill in Manhattan, Kansas—the Little Apple, home of the ever optimistic and fighting Wildcats—several weeks ago, and we continue 

that listening process here in Michigan today. 

I am very proud to welcome my partner, Senator and former 

Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow. We are colleagues, we are friends. 

I am grateful to her for inviting us back to Michigan, and we will 

again work together to craft a new farm bill. We have done it before; we can do it again. 

Before we offer our opening remarks, we will hear a welcome 

from the distinguished Dean of Michigan State’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. I now turn to Senator Stabenow for 

her introduction, and then we will turn it over to you, Dr. 

Hendrick, for your remarks. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

First, to everyone here, we need to recognize the fact that Senator Roberts is the only Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee 

who has also been Chair of the House Agriculture Committee. So 

welcome to Michigan. We are glad to have you. 

[Applause.] 

Senator STABENOW. I am so pleased to introduce the dean of my 

alma mater’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Dr. 

Ronald Hendrick. Dean Hendrick holds both his bachelor’s and doctorate degrees from Michigan State University. Prior to his current 

role at MSU, he served as interim dean for the College of Food, Ag-
2 

riculture, and Environmental Science at Ohio State. We will not 

hold that against you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. He saw the light and came home. So, again, 

welcome and thank you so much for sharing your time and your 

remarks with us today. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD L. HENDRICK, PH.D., PROFESSOR 

AND DEAN, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, EAST LANSING, 

MICHIGAN 

Mr. HENDRICK. Thank you. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member 

Stabenow, members of the Michigan agriculture community, on behalf of Michigan State University, I would like to welcome all of 

you to the MSU Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center 

and today’s Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee 

field hearing, where we will highlight growing jobs and economic 

opportunity. We are all honored that the Committee has chosen to 

hold this hearing on issues important to Michigan’s agricultural 

community here in Saginaw Valley. 

I would like to begin by acknowledging our venue. This center 

has served farmers in the Saginaw Valley since the early 20th century. Here our MSU researchers and area farmers work on increasing productivity, profitability, and sustainability. With much of 

Michigan’s sugar beet and dry bean production located in this part 

of the State, it makes sense for MSU to meet growers where they 

are. We in turn have been generously supported by both industries, 

as evidenced by this new facility. 

I serve as dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and while I consider myself relatively new to the university, I am indeed a two-time alumnus, so my return is a bit of a 

homecoming for me. 

Michigan State University was founded in 1855 on the landgrant missions of teaching, research, and outreach. As dean, I oversee the college, MSU Extension, and MSU AgBioResearch, the entities that serve those mission areas. 

While that mission, the founding mission, is well over a century 

old, it is relevant just as much today as it was in 1855. It is our 

charge to pivot, to adapt, and to provide leadership in areas of food, 

energy, and environment. It is work we take very seriously, and 

you will hear today from people who have been impacted by the 

work that we do. 

There are more voices today, though, that you will not hear. I 

think about those we serve daily, our constituents, as people who 

woke up this morning with access to nutritious breakfasts and 

clean water and a clean environment, but also those who did not, 

and their voices matter in this conversation as well. 

There is perhaps no greater time to be involved in research pertaining to sustainable and nutritious food production. The world’s 

population is growing by about 80 million people a year. That is expected to continue for decades into the future. In our country, the 

USDA estimates that 13.1 million children are living in homes with 

insufficient food, while at the same time children are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes at an ever-increasing rate. 
3 

MSU remains committed to discovering practical, adoptable solutions that address these and other serious issues. It is through research and outreach that these answers will continue to be unearthed, shared, and put into practice at home and around the 

globe. Our research in the areas of food, energy, and environment 

happens broadly across campus, across the State, and around the 

world because we do not approach and solve problems in a vacuum. 

Solutions to crisis issues like clean water and nutritious and 

abundant food mean not only providing and growing food and 

water, but understanding human behavior and the challenges that 

face people across the country and around the world. We cannot 

just grow more nutritious food and provide clean water; we also 

need to find ways to distribute those and understand the importance of both. 

As folks in this room are keenly aware, we all need to better 

communicate about the economics of food and agriculture so that 

people from all walks of life understand the vitality of the food and 

agriculture industry. To that end, MSU works hand in hand with 

community organizations to address issues facing growers and producers throughout the State, focusing on solutions for everything 

from disease management to food processing. As you know, MSU researchers received nearly $40 million in 

USDA grant funding in 2016, which puts us in the top five agricultural research institutions in America. We are very proud of this 

accomplishment, and we are also very grateful for the Federal investment in that. 

The only thing about this kind of work that we can say is that 

there is always more to do. There is pent-up demand for additional 

capacity for research, for outreach, and for teaching. MSU and the 

Nation’s other land-grant colleges stand ready to do our part in 

feeding growing populations with healthy, nutritious food and improving the economic climate for the food and agriculture industry. 

Again, I want to thank everyone gathered with us today. We 

want to wish you a warm welcome to Saginaw Valley, and I look 

forward to a robust hearing. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hendrick can be found on page 

85 in the appendix.] 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Dr. Hendrick. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I now recognize the distinguished Senator 

from Michigan, Deborah Stabenow, for her opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, 

and I think we also want to invite our witnesses to come up who 

will be speaking. We are so glad to have witnesses who have been 

willing to take their time this weekend to join us for this important 

hearing, showcasing the breadth and diversity of Michigan in this 

process. So thank you so much. 

I want to thank the Chairman again for once again making the 

trip to our beautiful State. We did this before for the last farm bill. 

We were on Michigan State University campus. Now we are out in 

the middle of farmland, which is only appropriate. I appreciate 
4 

very much, Mr. Chairman, your spending time with some of our 

amazing agriculture, conservation, and local food leaders. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that Kansas farmers have had a rough 

start to the year, with both wildfires and more recently a late-season blizzard that decimated your wheat crop. I am pleased that 

just a few minutes ago we were able to join some of our very generous Michigan farmers who stepped up to donate their time and 

resources. We are so very proud of them. These people understand 

what it is like to care about one another and be part of an extended 

family called farmers. We had members that delivered hay to Kansas as well as other supplies to help after the devastating wildfires 

earlier this spring. 

I know you heard from our Michigan farmers that we support 

Kansas farmers. Whether it is a wildfire or a late frost in Kansas, 

or a warm winter and a hailstorm in Michigan, or what may be 

happening on the western side of the State this weekend with our 

fruit growers farmers more than anyone else know the danger that 

weather changes pose. 

We are glad to be part of your extended farm family. In fact, as 

I already said, agriculture is the riskiest business there is. Nobody 

else has to depend on the weather report for their success. But 

farmers also have grit and determination and passion for what 

they do, and for that we all should be very grateful. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that you and I and our Senate Committee 

will follow the example of these farmers and keep all of agriculture 

working together so that we can continue building our farm bill coalition and pass a 2018 Farm Bill. Everyone who is here today understands how important the farm bill is to Michigan. But many 

people outside of agriculture do not understand how critical it is to 

our economy. 

I have always said we do not have an economy unless we make 

things and grows things, and the farm bill plays an important role 

in doing that. The food and agriculture economy supports 16 million jobs across our country, and here in Michigan, agriculture is 

our State’s second largest industry supporting one out of every four 

jobs. 

We last passed a farm bill in 2014, signed by President Obama 

right here in Michigan. I made sure that Michigan was reflected 

on every page. The bill made responsible, bipartisan reforms to 

streamline more than 100 programs and save taxpayers billions 

more than we expected. 

The bill goes a long way to support Michigan families who have 

been growing food for many generations through expanded crop insurance, but also creates new opportunities for beginning farmers 

to enter the field, including our veterans. It helps our $720 million 

specialty crop industry access stronger risk management tools to 

protect their crops from future disasters. It connects our producers 

to new markets to sell locally to their neighbors or around the 

world. It invigorates the economies of small towns and rural communities through bio-based manufacturing and upgraded infrastructure. It helps to put food on the table for families who have 

fallen on hard times. 

It brings tourism dollars to our State through significant investments in conservation that protects our Great Lakes and water-
5 

ways. It supports cutting-edge research like we have right here to 

advance and safeguard our food and agriculture economy. The 

ground-breaking work that is happening right here at MSU Extension is one important example. 

Congress considers the farm bill only once every 5 years, and the 

2014 Farm Bill that has done so much for our State is set to expire 

next fall. Just as in the last bill, Michigan will continue to have 

a voice in the farm bill process from start to finish. 

Going into the 2018 Farm Bill, we know things have changed 

over the last few years. Low prices have pinched margins and 

made it tough for many producers to make ends meet. Right off the 

bat, we know we need to strengthen our farm safety net, particularly for us in Michigan, our dairy farmers. 

Throughout the process, I will again be focused on the needs of 

Michigan producers and our State’s small towns and small communities, like my hometown of Clare. The Congressional Budget Office 

estimates that the farm bill will save $80 billion more than we had 

expected because of the policies in place and primarily because the 

economy is getting better and fewer people need temporary food assistance. 

We know the farm bill has done more than its fair share to reduce the deficit. Any further cuts would be detrimental to farmers 

and families. That is why over 500 groups, including some of the 

groups represented here today, agree we should not be making new 

cuts to the farm bill. 

Writing a farm bill is no simple task, and we certainly cannot do 

it alone, which is why we are here today. Throughout the hearing, 

we will hear from a wide variety of witnesses who reflect our 

State’s unique food and farm economy. Believe it or not, many people outside of Michigan do not think of us as a farm State, but we 

know better. We in Michigan take great pride in our agricultural 

diversity. If you grew up eating chocolate-covered cherries at the 

Cherry Festival, or picking from the wide variety of fruits and 

vegetables our farmers markets have to offer or driving along the 

highways flanked by sugar beet, corn, dry bean, soybean fields, and 

so much more, you know what our State is capable of growing. 

Michigan is the second most diverse State in the country in 

terms of what we grow, and the strength of our agriculture economy is rooted in that diversity. We were able to make sure Michigan agriculture was strongly represented in the last farm bill 

thanks to the support and input we received, and the broad coalition that came together to support our comprehensive, bipartisan 

bill. In order to ensure Michigan continues to have a strong voice 

in the process, we will need to continue that tradition of working 

together to support our jobs, our farmers, and our families. I am 

confident we can achieve that goal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Stabenow, for an excellent statement. 

Ladies and gentlemen, it is great to be back in Michigan today. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. Go green. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We made her wear purple at K–State. 

Senator STABENOW. I did. 
6 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman ROBERTS. Before we get started, I want to recognize 

and thank several Michigan farmers, ranchers, and other citizens, 

as well as the director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture 

and Rural Development, Jamie Clover Adams. As has been said by 

Senator Stabenow and many of you, you surely have heard that, 

in March, Kansas farmers and ranchers were hit by the largest 

prairie fire on private land in our State’s history, and we think perhaps in our country, with over 750,000 acres, and thousands of cattle euthanized. 

Folks back home lost their homes, their cattle, their facilities, 

their fencing, their livelihoods, but they did not lose their future. 

Many producers in Michigan and elsewhere all throughout the 

country stepped up to help with recovery efforts, raising private 

funds, sending hay and materials to rebuild, and other assistance 

to Kansas. For that, we are extremely, extremely grateful. 

These generous activities illustrate the can-do attitude and the 

bootstrap mentality that makes rural America so special, regardless if you call Kansas or Michigan or any other State home. Just 

as we did during our recent visit to Kansas, it is important for us 

to get out of Washington—it is always pleasant to get out of Washington—to hear directly from folks about the farm bill where it 

matters most: on our farms, ranches, businesses, and communities 

all across the country. 

Our producers, agribusiness, and our rural communities are the 

ones who signed up for the programs. They comply with all the regulations and feel the pain firsthand of overburdensome or undersupportive policies. Year after year, America’s farmers and ranchers overcome drought, disease, floods, fires, freezes, tornadoes, embargoes, and even their own Government to produce the safest, 

most abundant, affordable food and fiber supply the world has ever 

known. 

Your experience, your story, is what we need to hear before we 

start writing a new farm bill. I think you know that passing a new 

bill will not be easy. That is the understatement of the morning. 

That is why your help in crafting a bill that meets the needs of producers across all regions and all crops is absolutely necessary. Note 

that I said ‘‘all regions and all crops.’’ 

All of agriculture today is in a rough patch. We are struggling, 

not just one or two commodities. During the last farm bill debate, 

the agriculture sector enjoyed high prices. Now we face multiple 

years of low prices across the board. 

Senator Stabenow and I are working to make Washington understand the differences between the economic conditions then and 

what we are facing now. You all understand that. Washington 

needs to as well. 

So to those who say passing a farm bill in this environment is 

a daunting task, I say, okay, but together we can get it done. We 

have done it before. We will do it again. We must embrace the atti-
7 

tude of our producers: optimism and ingenuity. A farmer plants a 

seed believing in a good harvest. 

At the same time, our Government is spending money it does not 

have. That is no surprise to anybody in the room. Our national 

debt exceeds $19 trillion. That is a ‘‘T’’—trillion. Put 19 and then 

you put 12 zeroes. My staff and I counted them. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. That is so enormous that it is hard to get 

your hands around it. 

Agriculture, and specifically the farm bill, has consistently answered the call to do more with less. That is what we do. The last 

farm bill voluntarily cut spending. The previous crop insurance 

contract for the Agriculture Department cut—I do not even like remembering this—$6 billion from the program. There was going to 

be another $3 billion in the continuing resolution, but we stopped 

that. I could go on and on where ag has already given at the store. 

Farmers and ranchers and rural families understand fiscal responsibility. That is what we are all about. Therefore, we must be 

judicious with the scarce resources that we have. We must ensure 

programs accomplish their fundamental purposes. We must ask 

tough questions and re-examine programs to determine their effectiveness. Now is the time to examine the core mission of USDA 

programs to ensure they are operating as intended, and if they are 

not, then we must refocus. We need bold thinking and new ideas 

to address today’s challenges during these tough economic times. 

Now, Dr. Hendrick said it very well. Let us not forget that the 

global population is rapidly approaching 9 billion people. Agriculture production will need to double in the near future to meet 

the increased demand over the next couple of decades. Accomplishing this task requires efficiency, not just on the farm and the 

ranch but certainly, most certainly, in our United States Government. 

Feeding an increasing global population is not simply an agriculture challenge. It is a national security challenge. Show me a 

country that cannot feed itself, and I will show you a nation in 

chaos. This means we need to grow more and raise more with 

fewer resources. That is going to take research, new technology, 

lines of credit, and proper risk management. It takes the Government providing an adequate safety net and then getting out of the 

producers’ way. 

So that is why we are here today, to hear from the entire value 

chain of agriculture on what is working, what is not, and how we 

can improve. I want to thank all of our witnesses for taking the 

time out of your valuable schedule to provide your advice and your 

perspective. Thank you to those in the audience for being here as 

well. 

Now, for those of you who want to provide additional thoughts 

on the farm bill, we have set up an email address on the Senate 

Ag Committee’s website to collect your input into the farm bill discussion. You are not going to believe that I am up to this task to 

really get up to speed with technology in that you still claim I use 

carbon paper. 

[Laughter.] 
8 

Chairman ROBERTS. But please go to ag.senate.gov. That is very 

easy to remember, ag.senate.gov. Then you click on the farm bill 

hearing box—my kids are not going to believe this—on the lefthand side of the screen. 

Let me do that again: ag.senate.gov, click on the farm bill hearing box on the left side of the screen. Then you can send us your 

own input—just be nice, watch the adjectives, watch the adverbs— 

for the Committee to consider as we write the next farm bill. That 

link will be open for 5 business days following today’s hearing. 

I now turn to Senator Stabenow to introduce our first panel of 

witnesses. We look forward to your testimony. Unfortunately, we 

are asking you to limit your remarks to 4 minutes. When we get 

to 4 minutes and 30 seconds, you will hear this [tapping]. That is 

a very gentle tap. You get to 5 minutes, we will take you to Dodge 

City, and you will never be—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. You will never be heard of again. Senator 

Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so glad 

to be able to introduce our witnesses. I should also tell you we are 

tweeting, and someday I will explain what that is to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. We actually have a Twitter account that we 

are doing now. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I think I know a man that could help me. 

[Laughter/applause.] 

Senator STABENOW. Okay. He is coming along. 

We have a great group of producers today from all across the 

State representing the diversity that we all know is with us, and 

so welcome to all of you. I will introduce everybody, and then we 

will start with the testimony. 

To kick off the first panel, we have Mrs. Janna Fritz of JDF 

Farms in Bad Axe, not too far from here. Alongside her recently, 

Mrs. Fritz farms—say that three times—1,200 acres of corn, soybeans, and edible dry beans. Off the farm, she is a district sales 

manager for a seed company. Mrs. Fritz serves on the Board of Directors for the Michigan Corn Growers Association, and she received the Michigan Farm Bureau’s Young Agricultural Leader 

Award in 2015. 

Next on our panel is Mr. Chris Alpers. Mr. Alpers is a third-generation apple and cherry grower from Lake Leelanau. He currently 

serves on the U.S. Apple Board of Directors and Executive Committee as well as the Cherry Growers Processing Board of Directors. Mr. Alpers and his father own Red Path Orchard and Alpers 

Farms, consisting of 1,000 acres of tart cherries, sweet cherries, 

and apples. 

Along with us today also is Mr. Rick Gerstenberger, a secondgeneration farmer with his two sons, Gerstenberger Farms in 

Snover, Michigan, where they farm almost 2,900 acres of sugar 

beets, corn, soybeans, wheat, alfalfa, and occasionally dry beans. 

Mr. Gerstenberger serves as chairman of the board of the Michigan 

Sugar Company and is also the vice president of the American 

Sugar Beet Growers Association. 
9 

Next on our panel is a fourth-generation farmer, Mr. Darrin 

Siemen of Harbor Beach. Mr. Siemen owns and operates Prime 

Land Farm along with his wife and three children. Their centennial farm includes 320 dairy cows, 800 beef cattle, as well as corn, 

sugar beets, alfalfa, and wheat. Mr. Siemen is the past president 

of the Huron County Farm Bureau, and in 2016, he and his wife 

were named the Outstanding Young Dairy Cooperatives by the 

Michigan Milk Producers. I want to also note that both Mr. Siemen 

and his wife are Spartans. Go green. 

Up next is Mr. Andy Snider, owner of Snider Farms in Hart, 

where he and his family raise turkeys, hogs, corn, and soybeans. 

Mr. Snider is a co-founder of the Michigan Turkey Producers Cooperative, sits on the Executive Council of Land O’Lakes Cooperative, 

and serves on the Board of Directors for GreenStone Farm Credit 

Services. 

I would like to welcome Mr. David Williams next. Mr. Williams 

is a fifth-generation farmer in Elsie, another Spartan. He is an active member of the Shiawassee Conservation District and the 

Michigan Farm Bureau. Mr. Williams serves as district director 

and president of the Michigan Soybean Association and also represents Michigan on the United Soybean Board. 

Along with us also today is Mr. Adam Ingrao. Mr. Ingrao is a 

fourth-generation U.S. Army soldier—thank you for your service— 

who served honorably following the 9/11 attacks as a Patriot missile fire controller. He is a beekeeper in Lansing and serves as the 

vice president of Michigan Food and Farming Systems, co-director 

of the Michigan Veterans in Agriculture Network, and is the cofounder of the Michigan Farmer Veteran Coalition. Mr. Ingrao is 

also a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Entomology at Michigan State University. 

One of the things I am so proud that we did in the last farm bill 

is add extra support for farmers that are veterans, so thank you 

so much for organizing the Michigan Coalition. 

Concluding our first panel is Mrs. Pam Bouma Miller. Mrs. Miller is the owner and partner of Hopyards of Kent County in Greenville, Michigan. She is a founding board member of Hop Growers 

of Michigan and has quickly become an expert and a leader in this 

growing market. 

Welcome to all of you, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Did I miss someone here? 

Chairman ROBERTS. I do not think so. 

Senator STABENOW. I got everybody, okay. Good. Great. I am 

sorry. Mrs. Fritz. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mrs. Fritz, you are recognized. 

Senator STABENOW. Mrs. Fritz, yes. 

STATEMENT OF JANNA FRITZ, JDF FARMS, LLC, BAD AXE, 

MICHIGAN, AND SECRETARY/TREASURER, MICHIGAN CORN 

GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mrs. FRITZ. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow. On behalf of my family farm and the Michigan Corn Growers Association, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify and share a few thoughts on the farm bill. 
10 

My name is Janna Fritz. I am married to a fifth-generation farmer. My husband, Joel, and I have two sons, Wesley and Zachary, 

and we farm 1,200 acres of corn, soybeans, and edible dry beans. 

I did not grow up on a farm, but I have come to love it because 

it is a great environment to raise a family. American farmers are 

some of the most honest, hardworking, compassionate people I 

have ever had the pleasure to know. Their ability to grow food, 

fuel, and fiber for the world is truly an inspiration to me. In addition to working on the farm, I also am a sales representative for 

a seed company that puts me in touch with farmers throughout the 

Thumb region. 

In addition to the family farm, I serve as the Secretary/Treasurer 

of the Michigan Corn Growers Association. Michigan’s corn growers 

are innovative and efficient at producing corn in a sustainable 

manner. Corn farmers produce more bushels on fewer acres with 

fewer inputs than ever before. Farmers are deeply committed to environmental sustainability and are utilizing conservation programs 

like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program. 

On our own farm, we have implemented a number of sustainability practices. We sample our soils and tailor our nutrient applications and only apply what our crop needs. We also use cover 

crops and no-till or minimum tillage to protect the soils. 

Corn farmers have seen a drastic drop in corn prices over the 

past several years. Corn prices are at or below their cost of production. Low prices mean lower revenues for farmers, lower net incomes for Michigan farm families, and increasing stress for farm 

operations, their employees, and our rural communities. In this environment, a strong farm safety net is critical for Michigan farmers. 

Fundamentally, the safety net in the 2014 Farm Bill under thenChairwoman Stabenow worked well for farmers like myself and my 

neighbors. The combination of crop insurance and the commodity 

safety net have been helpful in offsetting significant revenue losses 

in recent years. The county-level agricultural risk coverage, in particular, remains a high priority for our growers. We believe the program has performed as it was intended and is making sure that 

farmers have assistance when it is needed. 

There are, however, like with any new program, some areas 

where improvements could be made in the new farm bill, and my 

written testimony has some of those suggestions. 

Along with a strong safety net, market development is critical to 

drive increased demand for corn and corn products. Trade and export development are consistently ranked as a top priority by 

MCGA members, and exports account for close to 30 percent of 

U.S. corn farmers’ income. 

I saw the potential opportunities from trade firsthand as part of 

an official trade mission to China last year. To continue on trade, 

USDA’s Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program continue to be extremely valuable in growing new 

overseas markets for agriculture. These private-public partnerships 

deliver a return on investment of $28 in exports for every dollar 

that we invest. MCGA supports increasing the funding for these 

programs to even further boost their effectiveness. 
11 

At the same time we are growing markets abroad, there are important policies that support domestic markets such as renewable 

fuels. Michigan is home to five ethanol plants that produce cleanburning biofuels from Michigan-grown corn. Continued support of 

the Renewable Fuel Standard and other market access programs 

for biofuels will be more important than ever before to ever increase our demand. 

It is hard to understate the importance of the 2014 Farm Bill to 

Michigan’s farm families as we have weathered tremendous economic challenges over the past few years. Thank you for your work 

and for this opportunity, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Fritz can be found on page 56 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 

statement. 

Mrs. FRITZ. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We will be asking you questions about your 

written testimony and how we can improve crop insurance. 

Mr. Alpers, you are recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS ALPERS, REDPATH ORCHARDS, LAKE 

LEELANAU, MICHIGAN 

Mr. ALPERS. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member 

Stabenow. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As mentioned before, my father and I manage/own Redpath Orchards and 

Alpers Farms, consisting of 1,000 acres of tart cherries, sweet cherries, and apples. The business was established in 1959 by my 

grandfather. 

My wife, also a grower, is a sixth-generation tree fruit grower, 

and she and I hope to leave our family farm, poised for success, for 

maybe our 4-month-old son, Raymond, should he choose to carry 

out the family farming legacy. We look forward to planting an 

apple tree this year with our son, grafted from a Red Delicious tree 

my wife’s great-great-great-great-grandfather planted on their family farm in Sparta, Michigan. That is seven generations. 

In addition to farming, my mother and I operate a business selling tree fruit nursery stock. We work with C&O Nursery—owned 

and operated by the Snyder family since 1906—from Wenatchee, 

Washington. This is an example of how tree fruit growers across 

the country work together closely in order to put our industry forward. 

Apples are Michigan’s largest, most valuable fruit crop and have 

a farm gate value of $245 million. Building on the success of the 

2008 legislation, the current farm bill made a number of important 

strides toward each of these goals. I would like to touch on a few 

of them briefly. 

Export Programs: A strong export market is critical to the health 

of the apple industry. Nationally, about 30 percent of the crop is 

sold overseas. This leads me to this important point. I would like 

to take a quick second to mention the importance for protecting the 

provisions for agriculture in NAFTA. Mexico and Canada represent 

the two largest export markets for apples, totaling more than $450 
12 

million in sales last year. Disruption to these important markets 

would have a devastating impact on our entire industry. 

The apple industry also strongly supports the Market Access Program, which has helped level the playing field as it allows us to 

compete with countries that have a much lower cost of production, 

such as China and Chile. 

The MAP program is a public-private partnership, with growers 

contributing $2 for every Federal dollar the industry receives. Recent studies have shown a return on investment of 24:1 for MAP. 

Crop Insurance: The apple industry is one of a handful of specialty crops that participates in the Federal crop insurance program. In fact, according to the USDA’s Risk Management Agency, 

nearly 75 percent of the apple crop is insured. 

A risk management tool such as crop insurance allows producers 

like me to invest back into our own businesses, creating good jobs 

for the local community. Modern apple plantings cost upwards of 

$40,000 an acre before a single apple is harvested, sometimes 3 to 

4 years later. 

This enormous startup cost scares many talented young entrepreneurs—and lending institutions—away from investing their talents—and capital—into the apple industry. I am thankful many 

producers and lenders recognize crop insurance as an important 

risk management tool. 

Without the ability to purchase a solid insurance policy and limit 

my exposure, I would not be able to justify investing my future into 

the apple business. 

I would be remiss to not point out that labor continues to be our 

number one issue on our farm, and I must say there is no insurance for no labor. A solution to this problem must come sooner 

than later. I have personally witnessed crops wasting away on 

trees because the producer was not able to secure a domestic workforce or there had been extreme delays in the H–2A program. 

Due to the lack of a viable domestic workforce, our farm is in the 

process of recruiting foreign guest workers for the upcoming 2017 

cherry and apple harvest. Many producers in my area are being 

forced to do the same thing. My single greatest concern on our 

farm is having a steady workforce come harvest season. 

Again, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be able to 

testify before this Committee, and I look forward to any questions 

you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alpers can be found on page 50 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you, Mr. Alpers. 

Let me get this right. Gestenberger, right? 

Mr. GERSTENBERGER. Gerstenberger. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Gerstenberger. I am on a slant. 

Senator STABENOW. I know. It is hard to see. 

Chairman ROBERTS. That helps. That helps a lot, gentlemen. We 

need the fifth-generation farmer. If you could slant your name, sir. 

Mr. Williams. All right. You are all in trouble now. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Gerstenberger, thank you so much. 
13 

STATEMENT OF RICK GERSTENBERGER, GERSTENBERGER 

FARMS, INC., SNOVER, MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE 

BOARD, MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY 

Mr. GERSTENBERGER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Stabenow. My name is Richard Gerstenberger, 

and I am testifying today on behalf of the Michigan Sugar Company. 

For the last 9 years, I have served as Chairman of the Board of 

Directors of the Michigan Sugar Company, which is a farmerowned cooperative. I know the sugar business from the genetics in 

the seed to when the sugar arrives at the loading docks of our customers. 

When Congress looks at the sugar policy in the 2018 Farm Bill, 

there are seven key elements to consider: Support for U.S. sugar 

policy is support for our Nation’s food security. Sugar is a strategic 

commodity in our Nation’s food system. The Michigan sugar industry is a key supplier to Midwest markets, where 500 food manufacturers and retail businesses depend on reliable supplies of highquality, safe sugar. A sugar policy’s focus must put American beet 

and cane farmers’ interests first. 

Support for U.S. sugar policy is support for responding to foreign 

unfair trade practices. American sugar farmers are among the lowest-cost producers in the world, but we cannot compete against foreign subsidies and predatory dumping practices that terribly distort world sugar markets. 

The recent damage to our industry caused by Mexican subsidies 

and dumping is a sad case in point. Our growers have lost billions 

in revenue. Some of our younger growers have already gone out of 

business, and today only 73 percent of our consumption is supplied 

by domestic production. Twenty years ago, 85 percent was supplied 

by domestic production. Growing dependence on foreign suppliers 

is an alarming trend that must be reversed. 

Support for U.S. sugar policy is support for fiscal responsibility. 

U.S. sugar producers have run at zero cost for the last 14 years. 

The only exception was in 2013 when Mexico dumped massive 

amounts of sugar in our market. USDA predicts we will be at zero 

cost for the next 10 years. 

Support for U.S. sugar policy is support for innovative and highly 

efficient American family farmers. U.S. producers are among the 

most efficient in the world because we have reduced costs by 

vertically integrating. We have formed cooperatives, and the growers now own all of the Nation’s 22 beet factories. 

Adoption of modern biotechnology has raised beet sugar yields by 

30 percent and dramatically reduced energy, chemical, and water 

use. Sugar beets are now one of the most sustainable crops in the 

country, if not the world. We support strong research in the next 

farm bill. 

Support for U.S. sugar policy is support for farming and manufacturing jobs in rural America. I want to thank Senator Stabenow 

for constantly reminding her colleagues and the Nation that agriculture is about jobs. The farm bill is about jobs. Our cooperative 

employs 2,400 workers and provides employment for 1,000 farm 

families and their workers. Nationally, the industry supports 
14 

142,000 jobs in 22 States. Many of these good-paying jobs represent 

the economic lifeblood of small towns throughout the region. 

Support for U.S. sugar policy is support for a stronger national economy. Michigan Sugar Company generates $1.5 billion in economic activity in the State of Michigan, and nationally, the sugar 

industry generates $20 billion in annual economic activity. 

Farmers are the original stewards of the land, and sugar farmers 

in Michigan strongly support voluntary conservation and widely 

adopt best conservation practices. But we also believe regulations 

should not overly burden farmers and would welcome the opportunity to work through concerns we have on wetlands and other 

issues. 

The beet sugar industry has been in Michigan for over 120 years, 

and we plan to be here indefinitely. But our future depends on 

Congress passing strong sugar provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill 

and the administration’s implementation of that policy. We look 

forward to working with you in the months ahead to determine the 

modifications that are needed to ensure sugar growers in Michigan 

and beet and cane growers across the U.S. continue to survive and 

prosper. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenberger can be found on 

page 59 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Siemen. 

STATEMENT OF DARRIN SIEMEN, PRIME LAND FARM, HARBOR 

BEACH, MICHIGAN 

Mr. SIEMEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Stabenow. My name is Darrin Siemen. My wife and I own and operate Prime Land Farm in Harbor Beach, Michigan. 

We are a centennial farm, and I am a proud fourth-generation 

dairy farmer. We milk 320 cows with LELY Robots. We raise about 

800 beef cattle and farm 1,500 acres of sugar beets, alfalfa, corn, 

and wheat. 

I attended Michigan State University, where I met my wife, and 

we returned to the family farm in 2001. We assumed ownership in 

2013. We have three children who are very passionate for our cows 

and farming. 

I am pleased to be delivering testimony on behalf of my cooperative, Michigan Milk Producers Association, and National Milk Producers Federation. 

In 2014, Congress passed legislation establishing a new safety 

net under Title I for dairy farmers known as the Margin Protection 

Program, MPP. During the legislative process, changes were made 

by Congress that fundamentally altered the safety net designed by 

NMPF and other dairy leaders around the country. Unfortunately 

as a result of these changes, MPP has failed to deliver the protection dairy farmers need and expect. 

MPP remains the right model for our future for dairy, but 

changes are needed if Congress wants to prevent farmers like myself from going out of business. 

In 2015, dairy farmers paid more than $70 million into the MPP 

program and received payments totaling only $730,000; in 2016, 
15 

those figures were $20 million and $13 million. I am not asking for 

a program that guarantees a profit, nor do I want a program that 

will incentivize excess production. However, MPP has actually 

made the Government a profit of $130 million in fiscal years 2015 

and 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 

In determining the margin under MPP, USDA is required to calculate two factors: the ‘‘All Milk Price’’ and feed costs. While the 

‘‘All Milk Price’’ remains accurate, the feed price determination remains in question. The feed cost formula was cut by 10 percent in 

order to address broader budget concerns. These concerns regarding the budget costs that resulted in this 10-percent arbitrary reduction were simply inaccurate, and this 10 percent must be restored. 

Other adjustments that should be considered is the feed formula 

calculation as it relates to corn and alfalfa hay prices. 

Due to congressionally mandated restrictions in MPP, a dairy 

producer must decide at the beginning of the farm bill whether to 

cover their milk under the Livestock Gross Margin program or 

MPP, not both. With this restriction in place, dairy farmers are left 

without the benefit of all possible tools that other farmers have at 

their disposal regarding risk management for their operations. 

In addition, dairy farmers also remain concerned about challenges to our export markets, immigration, tax reform, child nutrition, and the environmental sustainability, and we look forward to 

working with the Committee to help address these challenges. 

I do want to publicly thank Senator Stabenow for her recent efforts to work with other Members of Congress and the administration to seek short-term solutions to help improve the safety net for 

dairy farmers. Also, a special thanks to both Senator Roberts and 

Senator Stabenow for their efforts to bring more milk options and 

flexibility to the School Lunch programs. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Stabenow, the dairy industry is committed to working with you to improve Federal policies 

that impact farmers like me as well as consumers. I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak with you today and thank you for your advocacy on behalf of agriculture. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Siemen can be found on page 118 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Siemen. 

Andy Snider, you are up next. 

STATEMENT OF ANDY SNIDER, OWNER, SNIDER FARMS, HART, 

MICHIGAN 

Mr. SNIDER. Good morning, Chairman Roberts and Ranking 

Member Stabenow. Thank you for receiving my testimony as you 

work to develop the new farm bill. Snider Farms is a 

multigenerational family farm, currently run by my wife, Beth, and 

myself, along with our son, Zack, and his wife, Priscilla, and 11 

dedicated employees. 

As you can see in my introduction, farm cooperatives are very 

important to us. Like most farm operations, we have run into challenges over the years. We experienced a catastrophic dairy barn 
16 

fire in 1996 from which we moved forward with just hogs and turkeys as our focus. 

One year after the fire, we and other Michigan turkey contract 

growers for Sara Lee were informed that they were exiting the live 

turkey business immediately. Fifteen turkey producers, including 

myself, banded together to form Michigan Turkey Producers Co-op. 

We received assistance of the USDA Rural Development Loan 

Guarantee Program for the facility as well as a value-added producer grant for an expansion which allowed us to enter the readyto-eat and cooked-product market. Today Michigan Turkey ensures 

economic viability for its member owners as well as economic wellbeing for hundreds of farm and plant employees across west-central 

Michigan. 

In serving on the GreenStone board, I see firsthand the benefits 

that our Farm Credit System provides to rural communities and 

farmers, such as extending credit and supporting rural infrastructure for ag producers to operate for generations. This farmer-owned 

credit cooperative is critical to maintain as well as preserving its 

GSE status. 

Growing up in Michigan, surrounded by the State’s beautiful 

lakes, I understand the importance of being a good steward of our 

natural resources. The conservation ethic runs deep on my farm, 

and we have enrolled in State and Federal conservation programs 

like CSP that will help sustain the land and the water for our children and future grandchildren. Snider Farms has also utilized 

EQIP funding. As you prioritize conservation and with programs 

made available through the farm bill, we have put into practice 

many that have allowed us to expand in both environmental and 

economically sustainable ways. 

Since 2015, the poultry industry has made significant strides in 

recovering from highly pathogenic avian influenza after suffering 

through the worst animal disease outbreak in U.S. history. The 

road ahead remains long, and as an industry we will need renewed 

support from Congress to assist USDA and APHIS to reduce the 

long-term impacts. High-path AI is not going away overnight. It is 

a global problem, and the time is now to start an international discussion on eradication strategies for high-path AI, including the 

use of vaccines. 

As the Committee embarks on the reauthorization of the farm 

bill, the MTF and its turkey farmers will be joining many that rely 

on the animal agriculture in asking for the inclusion of a forwardlooking, mandatory Animal Pest and Disease Disaster Prevention 

and Response Program to the farm bill. 

Additionally, I would like to submit for the record a letter signed 

by 67 agricultural organizations supporting this initiative. 

[The following information can be found on page 180 in the appendix.] 

Mr. SNIDER. One final point I would like to raise related to my 

operation, specifically the organic portion of the recent USDA rule 

on Organic Livestock Production Practices. The organic program 

has long been focused on sound organic production from an ingredients standpoint. This new rule dictating outdoor space requirements moves the goalpost in a significant way. 
17 

The organic sector has been a bright spot for growth in Michigan. 

The new rule could put many committed organic producers out of 

business. Furthermore, this rule is in direct conflict with what producers are currently doing to avoid future high-path AI outbreaks. 

Chairman Roberts, Senator Stabenow, I ask you personally to 

contact Secretary Perdue in the next week and express how imperative it is that he delay the implementation of the rule before May 

19th. 

I trust you see the passion I have as a farmer for the health of 

our land, the ability to produce profitable, safe, and abundant food 

for our country and the world, and for the privilege God has given 

me to raise my family and continue the proud heritage of farming. 

I thank you for the invitation to speak about these important 

issues as you consider reauthorization of the farm bill. I welcome 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Snider can be found on page 128 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Snider, we just had breakfast with 

Sonny Perdue here—was that 2 days ago? 

Senator STABENOW. Thursday. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thursday. This man knows agriculture, and 

we have already announced changes in the School Lunch Program—not changes. We just gave the nutritionist a little flexibility 

there, 1-percent milk—I am still holding out for whole milk—and 

we will be delighted to ask the Secretary to delay that rule. That 

was the question I already had written out for you, but I wanted 

to respond very quickly. 

Mr. SNIDER. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I would just make the observation on behalf 

of both of us that Sonny Perdue not only knows agriculture, he 

knows all of the rules around it, so on and so forth. He had enough 

time to study because of all the time that he had to sit there and 

wait. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Williams, we look forward to your testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WILLIAMS, W FARMS, LLC, ELSIE, 

MICHIGAN, ON BEHALF OF MICHIGAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION AND AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

and Committee members, thank you for holding this hearing. I am 

pleased to provide testimony on behalf of both the Michigan and 

the American Soybean Associations. My nephew and I manage 

3,500 acres on our sesquicentennial farm on which we plant soybeans, corn, and winter wheat. 

My testimony today focuses on ASA’s support for conservation 

and biobased programs. Conservation programs have been critical 

to the great strides American farmers have made in land conservation and sustainability. ASA strongly supports working lands conservation programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program, 

CSP, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP. 

I signed my first CSP contract and adopted the practice of seeding cover crops using a combination of oilseed radishes, oats and 
18 

peas. Recently, I seeded cereal rye. I have seen firsthand that cover 

crops prevent soil erosion and improve water quality by reducing 

drainage rates. 

We chose cornstalk nitrate testing in our second contract period. 

This testing provides a good assessment that the crop is receiving 

the right amount of nitrogen in our corn crop. 

The cost sharing provided under EQIP helped us build a chemical and fertilizer containment facility which assisted in our compliance with Michigan State water quality regulations. This is a good 

example of how leveraging private investment with farm bill dollars leads to improved water quality for everyone. 

I would also like to highlight the importance and benefits of the 

farm bill Energy Title programs in supporting agriculture’s role in 

the emerging bioeconomy. USDA’s 2016 economic impact analysis 

showed that the U.S. biobased products sector supported 4.2 million jobs, $127 billion in direct sales, and $393 billion in total value 

to the U.S. economy. 

The U.S. soybean industry and the Michigan soybean industry 

have made significant investments into research, product development, and promotion of biobased products. Michigan is a leader in 

the world bioeconomy thanks to a long history of innovation by 

companies like Ford and Lear and their collaboration with U.S. 

soybean growers. Every Ford car made in North America now contains soy in its seat cushions. 

The State of Michigan enacted procurement preference legislation last year that extends to 97 categories of biobased products 

identified by USDA, ranging from engine oils to carpet and cleaning supplies. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan has 

set an award-winning example to other State and Federal agencies 

on the performance and environmental benefits of biobased products. 

We appreciate the support of the Senate Agriculture Committee 

and the leadership of Senator Stabenow especially for three key 

farm bill Energy Title programs: 

The Biobased Market Program encompasses the Federal biobased 

procurement program and biobased products labeling program. 

The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels supports domestic 

producers of advanced biofuels and bioenergy derived from dairy 

farms and forest products. 

The Biodiesel Education Program supports technical outreach efforts to engine manufacturers, truckers, and fuel marketers which 

translates into increased use, more jobs, and more economic value 

in rural communities. 

While these programs do not have budget baselines going forward, we believe that their relatively low cost and the benefits they 

provide warrant their continuation in the 2018 Farm Bill with an 

increased level of mandatory funding. 

We look forward to working with you on the development of a 

farm bill that maintains the income safety net for farmers and continues important Conservation and Energy Title programs. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams can be found on page 

142 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, sir. 
19 

Mr. Ingrao, as a U.S. Marine veteran, let me thank you one veteran to another for your service to this country. Army strong. 

Mr. INGRAO. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. As you mention in your testimony—oh, that 

is a question I have got for you down the road, so we are just going 

to recognize you for your statement. It might be a good idea to hear 

your statement first before I ask you questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. INGRAO. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. But get ready. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF ADAM INGRAO, BEE WISE FARMS, LANSING, 

MICHIGAN 

Mr. INGRAO. Thank you. Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member 

Stabenow, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am 

truly honored to be here. 

Within each of the areas that I work in here in Michigan, the 

programs funded by the 2014 Farm Bill have been instrumental in 

the success of the organizations I represent, the farmer veterans I 

work with, and the research I conduct at Michigan State University. 

When I returned home from the Army, I experienced a lot of the 

same challenges that my brothers and sisters face in coming to 

terms with being a disabled veteran, the sudden loss of camaraderie, the guilt of not being there to have the backs of your battle 

buddies, and the depression that comes along with all of this. 

But I found that a lot of what I was experiencing was alleviated 

by spending time working in my parents’ garden. It was digging 

into the soil, caring for the plants, and observing and reconnecting 

the natural cycles of life that allowed me to heal both physically 

and mentally. 

Since this realization, I have dedicated my life to help my fellow 

veterans realize that farming can address not only the financial but 

also the personal wellness challenges that many of us face. These 

careers in agriculture also speak to our veterans who desire to continue to serve their country and community by producing healthy 

food. 

The 2014 Farm Bill has been critical in providing the educational, programmatic, and resource connections necessary for veterans to identify farming as an opportunity and make the transition to this career. For Michigan food and farming systems and the 

Veterans in Agriculture Network, the beginning farmer/rancher development program and the 2501 Program have been crucial in allowing us to develop the programs necessary to educate farmer veterans and develop a strong and resilient farmer veteran community 

here in Michigan. This work has allowed us to identify the challenges facing farmer veterans that limit their utilization of USDA 

resources and services, and we are now working directly with 

NRCS and FSA staff through cooperative agreements to develop 

USDA navigation services that include one-on-one, veteran-to-veteran consulting and advocacy in USDA offices. 

These connections have resulted in many success stories of veterans transitioning to successful careers here in agriculture in 
20 

Michigan, and today I am going to share the story of a Marine, just 

like yourself, Chairman Roberts. 

Sergeant Jeremy Huffman, a U.S. Marine, served in Afghanistan, and he and his wife now run Huffman’s Homestead in Swartz 

Creek. We have been working with them for about the last 2 years 

in a one-on-one relationship to help develop their 10-acre hobby 

farm into a farm that now offers a full Community Supported Agriculture Program and direct sales at two farmers markets, including 

the Flint Farmers Market. After using our USDA navigation services, he was awarded a high tunnel for season extension through 

the NRCS High Tunnel Program through EQIP. This has allowed 

him to increase production and develop new markets to sell his 

products. Additionally, Jeremy is also using the Double Up Food 

Bucks Program to reach the most vulnerable populations affected 

by the Flint water crisis by offering high-quality vegetables, fruit, 

and poultry to the children of Flint. 

The farm bill stands as a foundation of the support for American 

farms and our national prosperity. Through the 2018 Farm Bill, it 

is my home that Congress realizes the importance of the programs 

created in the 2014 Farm Bill and builds upon them to invest in 

the training and success of beginning farmers and those looking to 

produce agricultural products in new and unconventional venues, 

like urban farming, all while recognizing the importance of new 

farmer demographics such as military veterans that have unique 

training that complements the work ethic, leadership, and commitment necessary to be successful in the agricultural industry. 

It is critical for Congress to build upon this progress to include 

new initiatives that continue to foster the growth and success of 

the next generation of American farmers by engaging and supporting these communities to feed the world. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ingrao can be found on page 96 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you for your statement, sir. 

Mrs. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF PAM BOUMA MILLER, OWNER, HOPYARDS OF 

KENT COUNTY, GREENVILLE, MICHIGAN 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Pam 

Bouma Miller, and I am the owner of Hopyards of Kent County 

and a founding board member of Hop Growers of Michigan. 

Hopyards of Kent was established in 2011 and is one of the largest 

family-owned hops farms in Michigan. We are dedicated to consistently producing the highest-quality hops available, through hard 

work, teaching, training, and commitment to the hop industry. We 

also have a harvest center that opened in 2016 for our network of 

over 30 growers to bring in their yields to be picked, dried, baled, 

and passed on to the merchant for further processing and sales. 

Today Michigan is ranked fourth in the Nation with over 1,000 

acres in farm hop production. There are approximately 200 growers 

supplying 400-plus breweries in our State alone. It is critical that 

the next farm bill protect and strengthen the Market Access Program, which is the key for specialty crop growers to access new 
21 

international markets. Michigan accounts for 5 percent of the 

$252.6 million hop export market in the U.S. Last year, the Michigan hop industry used a specialty crop block grant to establish hop 

quality standards, provide education and training to growing and 

developing a two-level voluntary certification program. Value-added 

producer grants have been used to help hop farmers pelletize hops 

for sale and distribution. Specifically, the equipment to process and 

handle hops is highly specialized and extremely costly. Getting the 

equipment into the community of growers requires the use of 

grants. 

Continued funding for research, including the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, is critical to the future of the hop industry to control pests and disease like downy mildew. It is also important to 

recognize the unique opportunity the hop growers of Michigan are 

pursuing through a farm-to-glass bill to provide tax savings for the 

use of Michigan hops and Michigan beer. 

As the Michigan hop industry continues to expand, growers are 

looking at new market opportunities through trade expansion. 

Standardizing regulations for herbicide and pesticide use should be 

set at the national level. Research funds should also be used to develop new public varieties breeding programs at the university 

level. 

Michigan State University Extension are critical for support in 

every aspect of the science, planning, and management of this agriculture specialty commodity. In addition, the labor issues center on 

the lack of a reliable workforce, and this remains a big concern as 

hops are a very labor-intensive crop. The labor pool is dwindling 

fast. 

As part of the success of my farm is a special relationship and 

understanding with my financial partner. This is a capital-intensive business, and its specialization demands dollars. GreenStone 

Farm Credit Services was there for me to the full extent they were 

able at the outset and remains an intricate part of my success as 

one of the first major hop farms in Michigan. 

The hops industry has grown 148 percent in the last 10 years, 

and I look forward to being a part of the continued growth and development of this industry and the thousands of jobs that our industry supports in Michigan. 

Thank you for taking an interest in Michigan hops, and I am 

happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Miller can be found on page 111 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank all the witnesses. There are going 

to be two rounds of questions. Everybody out there just relax. 

The distinguished Senator from Michigan has just informed me 

that the next time I am in Michigan, I am to join her on a microbrewery tour. 

[Laughter/applause.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. She figures we can last 20. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Sampling the products. 

You started in your statement, Mrs. Miller—I am going in reverse order. I do not want my staff to freak out here. But you stated in your testimony that you support how many breweries now? 
22 

Mrs. MILLER. In Michigan alone, 400-plus. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Four hundred. No wonder everybody is 

happy. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. MILLER. We are known as ‘‘Beer City, USA,’’ yes. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We are going to have a hearing on pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, FIFRA, the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and we have some 

problems, and so we are going to try to fix them. 

Senator STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make note that 

that does not include our wine. 

Mrs. MILLER. This is true. 

Senator STABENOW. We will keep you going between beer and 

wine. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. What do you mean by keep me going? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. You can see we get along pretty good here. 

Janna, you and Mr. Alpers and Mr. Williams, all of you really, 

have mentioned crop insurance as a risk management tool that you 

support and personally utilize. For those of you that have crop insurance policies available—and I am specifically mentioning corn, 

soy, and apples; I am not trying to leave anybody out—are they 

largely working for you? In other words, where would we—somebody said in his written testimony—no, I think you said that you 

have 11 different suggestions or something in your written testimony. Could you sort of just highlight for me—I am the self-declared godfather of crop insurance, along with the distinguished 

Senator from Nebraska, Bob Kerrey, back in the day. So if anybody 

would like to go forth, Mrs. Fritz, do you want to take that on? 

Mrs. FRITZ. Absolutely. On our farm, we have access to crop insurance for all of our commodities and have utilized it every year 

that I have been involved with the farm, every year that it has 

been available to us. It was absolutely critical even as recently as 

last year. We had an issue with a failure in our dry bean crop last 

year, so we were able to implement the crop insurance and save 

some overall revenue that we need on our farm, especially in light 

of all prices in the commodity market being low and very close to 

overall margins, the crop insurance was necessary for us to remain 

viable for future years. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Alpers? 

Mr. ALPERS. Yes, we utilize crop insurance in all three of the 

commodities that we produce. It is a necessary tool for a grower in 

the apple industry as well as the cherry industry. I just want to 

give a quick example real quick. The startup cost to put a block of 

apples into production now has gotten so much higher than it was 

5 years ago due to the increased land values in our area. This 

might sound totally crazy, but the farms in our area in the 

Leelanau peninsula sometimes go for $20,000 an acre. So you can 

imagine being a young grower trying to establish a living in the 

apple business, A, finding a lender that is going to lend you money 

to purchase the land, to then invest $16,000 to $18,000 worth of 

trees on that one acre, and then you are going to take care of it 

for 2 or 3 years before you even start to pick an apple off of it. 
23 

Without crop insurance tools, there is no way that a young person 

could venture down that road with a clear mind. The lenders would 

laugh at you and turn you away if it was not available. 

With that said, there are some issues with it that I think really 

could benefit younger growers and more established people. Part of 

that has to do with you have to establish a 150-bushel-per-acre 

yield before you are able to purchase a crop insurance program. 

Now with these high-density systems that we are planting, we go 

from zero bushels per acre in the second year to maybe 400 or 500 

in the third year. Well, I was not able to buy insurance going into 

that third year. Should there have been a disaster or something in 

that third year, I would not be able to buy it for the fourth year 

because I did not have a salable crop. That is exactly what happened to me, and that is why I am here. In my third year, I had 

a hailstorm July 8th in Traverse City. It ruined my first salable 

crop. I did not have insurance on it because I had not met that 

minimum 150-bushel-per-acre, which I think needs to be looked at 

a little bit. 

Now, next year I will not be able to purchase insurance because 

I did not have a salable crop because of the hailstorm, and I hope 

to be producing 700 to 800 bushels per acre next year, but I will 

not have the ability to purchase insurance on that. That is an issue 

for me. 

Chairman ROBERTS. That is an excellent suggestion. Thank you 

so much for that. 

Why don’t we go back and forth on this? Go ahead. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you so much, to each of you, and 

I want to continue on the topic crop insurance. Senator Roberts 

really was the founder of the whole effort on crop insurance, and 

I was pleased to take that to the next step in the last farm bill for 

specialty crops. Thank you, Mr. Alpers. I was making a note here 

on this because we want to make sure it is working as well as intended. 

Most commodities have the ability to tap into the farm safety net 

and crop insurance. One exception is milk, let me ask you, Mr. 

Siemen, as I mentioned before that the concept of the Margin Protection Program as a risk management tool makes sense, however 

the numbers were not quite right, so there is a problem. We have 

seen prices drop dramatically, as with other crops, but certainly 

you and other dairy farmers have seen tight margins. We have 

some real challenges related to the dairy safety net. My staff and 

I support the proposal, brought forth by American Farm Bureau, 

National Farmers Union and National Milk Producers, to offer 

milk the opportunity to do what other commodities can do, which 

is purchase crop insurance. 

We are working with the Secretary of Agriculture on expanding 

crop insurance for milk. There is capacity to do that administratively through the Crop Insurance Board, so we are working to be 

able to do that. 

I wonder if you might speak about that or, again, offer some 

other suggestions. I know we have to look at the issue around feed 

prices, but you have also said that you believe the Margin Protection Program conceptually works. There are two issues; One is, 

what can we be doing to make sure the safety net really works for 
24 

dairy farmers? Secondly, how do we then convince dairy farmers to 

give the MPP program another chance and include more people? It 

works if dairy farmers buy into the program. 

Mr. SIEMEN. So, yes, we believe that the MPP program is a very 

good program if we can just get the feed cost like our portion of 

our inputs, a level playing field. We would also like the opportunity 

as other producers to have several options because, again, everybody is high risk, kind of high overhead. There is just no guarantee 

there that when you input high finances into your operation that 

there is a level there where you cannot drop underneath. If we 

could get the MPP program and the LGM program both fixed and 

working together, I think just with working with the co-ops and 

National Milk—dairy farmers trust who they work with and the 

companies they own—that dairy farmers would step right up and 

participate in the program again. 

Senator STABENOW. All right. Thank you. I do not mean to minimize what has happened with all of our commodity prices, but 

what I am hearing is that the Agriculture Risk Coverage program, 

which we use the most in Michigan, has relatively worked. That 

there may be some concerns around programs as well. But, unfortunately, the MPP did not hit the same level of success as the ARC 

or PLC programs. 

Mr. Ingrao, again, I am so pleased that you have chosen to focus 

on agriculture and farming. I know that the Michigan Farmer Veterans Coalition is one of the most successful organizations in the 

country for getting veterans involved. So I congratulate you for 

that, and I am proud that we were able to incorporate veteran 

farmer priorities with some loan programs and allow veterans and 

liaison position in the last farm bill. 

I am wondering, going forward, if are there any barriers for veterans interested in agriculture that we should be looking at? What 

are some specific examples of how we could encourage and support 

our veterans who have served abroad, returned home, many from 

small towns like where I grew up and around Michigan, and started looking for jobs, to look within the agriculture industry? Are 

there other things we should be focused on in this next farm bill 

as they relate to veteran farmers? 

Mr. INGRAO. Well, I think, Senator Stabenow, one of the most important things to consider when we are working with the veteran 

demographic is that they struggle with a lot of the same issues 

that most beginning farmers do. Farmer veterans tend to be individuals that are not coming from a family farm. A lot of them are 

discovering farming for the first time. Being that they are in that 

beginning farmer demographic, I think keeping a lot of the provisions in that assist beginning farmers, like the BFRD Program and 

the 2501 that really focus on educating those individuals to have 

them be prepared to be successful farmers, is absolutely critical. 

I can just say from the organizations that I work with, the setasides that are there for military veterans within those programs 

are very important to us, and without those, I really feel like we 

would be losing a lot of the farmer veteran demographic because 

we just would not have the tools to reach them individually. Because it is a unique demographic—and we deal with a lot of post 

traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, which are 
25 

things that a lot of veterans are dealing with, it creates a sense 

where oftentimes those individuals are not willing to go in and actually access USDA services simply because their disability is prohibiting them. So going into a USDA office can oftentimes exacerbate the symptoms related to those particular injuries. I think that 

recognizing those challenges that face beginning farmers, also 

farmer veterans, is really important. 

I would just like to end on when we deal with the farmer veteran 

demographic and beginning farmers overall, there are usually three 

big things that come up for those individuals, and it is access to 

land, it is access to equipment, and it is access to capital. If there 

are provisions that can be put in to actually incentivize organizations or GreenStone Farm Credit or Farm Credit to actually help 

those individuals access those types of materials, even at that beginning farmer stage, that would be imperative to the success of 

the farmer veteran demographic here in Michigan and abroad. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. Well, we know in general that 

the average age of American farmers is 58 years old for the principal operator, and fewer farmers are seeing the next generation 

coming on to the farm. I know many of you are in 

multigenerational farms, which I love to hear about. But in general 

we have to keep focused on bringing more folks into agriculture. So 

thank you for doing your part. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I have got a question for all the witnesses. 

You do not go on a farmstead in Kansas and say, ‘‘I am from the 

Federal Government, and I am here to help.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We all know about the overly burdensome 

regs. That is usually the number one issue or it used to be the 

number one issue in town hall meetings that I have had in the 105 

counties that we have in Kansas. Sometimes somebody raises a 

piece of paper and says, ‘‘Pat, what in the heck is this all about?’’ 

I do not even know about it. It is very helpful when you give us 

the real cost and problem that any regulatory thing might add up 

to. 

I think, Mr. Snider, you brought up this poultry rule. We will get 

in touch with Sonny Perdue. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

Chairman ROBERTS. He did issue three proclamations about 1 

percent in the milk, including strawberry, and chocolate milk that 

kids will now drink, and he also alleviated the whole grains necessity. I had a nice sweet roll this morning. It was not whole grains. 

Then he left the salt content criteria the same, which was scheduled to go down again. We had fifth graders who were going into 

fast-food franchises and picking up little packets of sugar and salt 

and then coming back and selling them to their fellow students. 

Sort of an elementary mafia here. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. That is crazy. So we will follow up on the 

poultry rule. 

Anybody on the panel want to mention what would be—and 

there are probably too many to mention, but can you mention a 
26 

regulatory challenge that is really causing you a hard time? Mrs. 

Fritz, why don’t we just go down the line? 

Mrs. FRITZ. I believe one of the biggest regulatory challenges that 

we face is freedom to operate relative to bringing new technologies 

into the market in the way of seed. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank you for that. 

Mr. Alpers? 

Mr. ALPERS. I would echo that same statement. I look at what 

has happened a lot in the last few years since I came back to the 

family farm. We have hired a part-time person to manage all the 

different inspections and all the different paperwork that go along 

with farming. I never thought there would be a day—and I know 

my dad definitely did not—where you would have to document all 

the wildlife that crosses your land in a cherry orchard. That is a 

true story. It is part of the GAP Program. I think there are a lot 

of tweaks that could be made to some of these audits, and it is 

much more detail than we can go into in the amount of time, but 

we would be happy to pass that along. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I would be delighted to get that, and I know 

that my distinguished partner here would like the same thing. 

[The following information can be found on page XX in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. You have to identify all the wildlife that go 

across your farmstead? 

Mr. ALPERS. You do. 

Chairman ROBERTS. What happens if you miss one or two? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Do you have somebody out there counting 

with you, or what? 

Mr. ALPERS. Well, as long as the auditor at that time feels that 

you have done an adequate job documenting that, along with many 

other things, typically they will let it go if you miss a deer here 

or there. But there are times when you know somebody that—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. What agency does that auditor come from? 

Mr. ALPERS. USDA. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Okay. All right. That is utterly ridiculous. 

Mr. Gerstenberger, please. 

Mr. GERSTENBERGER. In production agriculture and living in 

Michigan surrounded by the Great Lakes, water is a key for us, so 

wetland determinations, things like that. I sit on the county committee of the FSA, and I know that growers, when they receive notification that something has been certified as a wetland, we have 

30 days to respond. But on that committee, I know that we have 

asked for second determinations when we have appealed them, and 

some of them go back as far as 2011. 

Chairman ROBERTS. My gosh. Okay. 

Mr. GERSTENBERGER. So I would certainly think that the Government should respond—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Timely responses, in other words. Good. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Siemen. 

Mr. SIEMEN. As far as my operation, we went to robotic milkers, 

and inspection for robotic dairies is not the same across—nobody 
27 

really knows what to do. So one inspector will go to one place and 

flag you for something—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. What are you talking about, robotic what? 

Theories? 

Mr. SIEMEN. Robotic dairies. So on our farm people do not actually milk cows. It is just a machine. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Oh, I got it. I got it. All right. 

Mr. SIEMEN. So as it is growing in popularity—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. We have that in Kansas as well. 

Mr. SIEMEN. Yeah, probably. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Big time. Thank you so much. I did not 

mean to be so ignorant. 

Mr. Snider. 

Mr. SNIDER. For sure—it was mentioned before—the amount of 

time spent on documentation and regulation, as a senior partner in 

an operation, I spend a lot of time doing that. One specific thing 

on our farm, our turkeys, we raise 170,000 turkeys a year. A small 

portion of those are organic, about 15 percent. The rest of them we 

raise as antibiotic-free. Recently, to raise antibiotic-free, a GAP 

agency was created. I do not need to get into all the details, but 

it has totally gotten out of hand. It is not about practices of doing 

a good job of raising birds. To make it short, animal rights came 

in. The president of HSUS was on the panel, and it was not intended to start out that way. We know how to raise birds and to 

do it fair and safe and provide a good product. The regulation for 

to be GAP-certified ABF birds is next to impossible. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I, too, would go along with some kind of simplification of regulations for what we are trying to do. We have 

worked with NRCS and FSA on a number of programs, and it just 

seems like everything takes a lot longer to do than it really should. 

Give us some credit for what we are doing, and we know what we 

are doing. With some guidelines we can implement what needs to 

be done. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Ingrao. 

Mr. INGRAO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the two areas that really are— 

well, I would say have not come to fruition as far as struggles for 

regulations with our farmer veterans but there is a lot of anxiety 

around is the new Food Safety and Modernization Act. One of the 

other areas that I think has been touched on here as well is the 

GAP certification as well. Our organization, Michigan Food and 

Farming Systems, has piloted a program here in the State of 

Michigan for group GAP to allow producers, especially small producers, to GAP certify collectively, and we have seen some success 

there. But, again, there is quite a bit of anxiety around the Food 

Safety and Modernization Act. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Yes, I would say one of the regulations that we are 

dealing with is in the lender side of it. Because our industry here 

in Michigan is considered relatively new, we are finding that as 

some of the—especially GreenStone Farm Credit Services, they 

were allowed to help us as agricultural lending to our farmers. But 

when it got to the vertical stance of growing and then processing, 

it stopped at the processing level, and it really tied our hands to 
28 

be able to move forward within the agricultural industry, and we 

had to go outside of them as lenders to find another avenue to help 

with the equipment and the processing facilities. 

So what we are asking is for a more vertical line and understanding that we can grow hops all day long and dry them, but if 

we do not have the processing centers to pelletize and move them 

on, it is a stop-gap for us to get it to the brewer. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Deborah, I am 3 minutes and 50 seconds 

over, so I am sentenced to go to Dodge City, it looks like. 

Just a couple of things. One of the first things that President 

Trump did was to hopefully take action on WOTUS, the Waters of 

the U.S., which seemed to be the number one issue with regards 

to overregulation. Thank you all for your suggestions. They will be 

part of the record. 

Mr. Williams, I do not know what to say. I did not know that 

I was sitting on soybeans in terms of my car seat. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is okay. 

Chairman ROBERTS. That sort of sounds like a country-western 

song. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Anyway, thank you all for that. 

Please, Deborah, get me off the hook. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Senator Roberts. You know, 

I could talk forever about biobased manufacturing, and we have 

spent a lot of time on this. But I will say that, as was mentioned, 

in any Ford product now, you are sitting on soy-based foam rather 

than petroleum-based foam. So you have soybeans in the seats, and 

if you get hungry, you know what you can do. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. There is a lot more being done with corn byproducts, wheat byproducts and so on. These value-added processes 

are creating jobs in biobased manufacturing, which I think is a 

very exciting extension of bringing together what we do in Michigan, which is make things and grow things. It is something I am 

very enthused about and we need to make sure we keep it going 

in the Energy Title. 

Mr. Snider, I wanted to talk about conservation for a moment. 

I am really impressed with the conservation efforts on your farms, 

so I wondered if you could talk about how these practices support 

the long-term health and viability of your farm. Do you think the 

farm bill should continue to prioritize voluntary working lands conservation programs? 

Mr. SNIDER. So I believe they would be CSPs, specifically. We 

were in the first round of contracts for 7 years, and now we are 

in the third year of the second 5-year round. Each year or each 

time, we identified practices that we were either already doing or 

would like to do, and from a cost standpoint, it kind of took us to 

the next level. I consider our farm being kind of out front, probably 

leading in a lot of things. This year, we are doing now less than 

20 different cover crop mixes, that many fertilizer combinations, 

multiple applications of nitrogen and things that we are doing to 

try to conserve fertilizer. Some of those are supported by CSP; 

some of them are things that maybe will be in the next CSP, if 
29 

there is another one. But they have propelled us forward and taken 

us to the next level, I guess is how I like to say that. 

Senator STABENOW. Great. Thanks. 

Mr. Gerstenberger, Rick, let me ask you, your testimony states 

that Michigan sugar draws supplies from over 150,000 acres of 

sugar beets grown by farm families and the economic impact beyond the farm. I wonder if you could talk about the different kinds 

of jobs that sugar production supports in Michigan, How many people in Michigan communities would you estimate are really dependent on our sugar industry for their livelihood? 

Mr. GERSTENBERGER. Well, LMC International estimates that 

just over 5,000 individuals are directly related to farmers and factories in the sugar industry in Michigan in 2011. There are numerous outside contractors that are used all the time through the factories and people—plumbing contractors, builders, steelworkers, 

electrical contractors, and many more. 

Michigan Sugar Company 3 years ago undertook a process of updating some of our over-100-year-old factories and facilities in 

small towns like Croswell, Caro, and Sebewaing. These factories 

are the lifeblood of those communities. They are the number one 

employer in those facilities, and many of these type of contractors 

work there. Even in Bay City, if Michigan Sugar Company was to 

go out of business, the loss would be felt in the large town also, 

large communities. 

So those are some of the things, those are some of the people 

that we rely on to get those jobs done, and it is an industry that 

we need to keep in this State. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. We need to make sure that Mexico is doing the right thing as well, on the trade front, but we certainly focus on that. We talked with the Secretary of Agriculture 

about that, as well as dairy in Canada, when we had breakfast 

with him on Thursday. 

Mr. Alpers, I am so glad we have a Specialty Crop Title in the 

farm bill. We put that in the 2008 Farm Bill, and include the block 

grants to provide flexibility to states based on commodities, local 

needs and so on. I wonder if you might describe how these grants 

have been used from your perspective? 

Mr. ALPERS. I am going to go off the farm a little bit and talk 

about that. It has allowed the Michigan Apple Committee to reach 

markets in places with social media, things that they never would 

have been able to do without those programs in place. To piggyback 

on your question about what that means trickling down, we have 

been lucky enough to have you in our area a lot of times up in Traverse City, and it is the cherry capital of the world, and we do grow 

some apples there, too. But when you drive from Traverse City 

north, you would be hard-pressed going down any one of those 

roads to not find a home that did not have somebody that was 

working in agriculture in the household. So money spent on programs like that comes back down to a grassroots level and keeps 

the economy going in our local area. We are lucky enough to have 

tourism and agriculture in the Traverse City region, but without 

ag, we would—there are not enough jobs working at all the restaurants and the hotels and the breweries that you might be coming to visit next year. 
30 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. Well, it really does all fit together, right? 

That is why when we connect it all in Michigan. We can say one 

out of four jobs are dependent in some way on the food and agriculture industry in Michigan, and that is a big deal. So thank you 

again for your testimony. I know we have one more panel of witnesses that will be joining us as well. Again, we are very grateful 

for all of you being here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Excellent testimony. Thank you so much. 

Thanks to the first panel. 

I ask the second panel to quickly take their seats. 

[Applause.] 

[Pause.] 

Senator STABENOW. I am going to start introducing folks because 

we are running a little behind and we are so interested in all the 

testimony. We promised Senator Roberts he is going to be leaving 

here to catch a plane to get back home, so I am going to move 

through quickly with our second panel. 

Starting off our second panel is Dr. Oran Hesterman. Dr. 

Hesterman currently serves as president and CEO of the Fair Food 

Network, a national nonprofit that pioneers solutions that support 

farmers, strengthens local economies, and increases access to 

healthy food. Before launching Fair Food Network, Dr. Hesterman 

served as a program director in food systems at the W.K. Kellogg 

Foundation and taught at Michigan State University. 

With us today is Ms. Faith Watson. Ms. Watson has lived most 

of her life in Michigan, holds a degree from Cornerstone University, and she is a mother of two young children, ages 4 and 6. Faith 

is very active in her local church and community. We are so glad 

you are here today. 

Next on our panel is Mr. Jim Nugent. Mr. Nugent and his wife 

own Sun Blossom Orchards in Suttons Bay, another beautiful part 

of Michigan. He holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree from Michigan State University and retired in 2007 as the MSU district extension horticultural agent and coordinator of the Northwest Michigan Horticulture Research Station. Mr. Nugent currently chairs 

both the Michigan Tree Fruit Commission and Graceland Fruit’s 

Board of Directors, and is active with the Leelanau Conservancy 

and Michigan Farm Bureau. 

Next I would like to welcome Mr. Kyle Rorah. Mr. Rorah is from 

southeast Michigan, growing up in Algonac. He is a graduate of the 

University of Michigan and holds a master’s degree from Bard College in New York. He joined Ducks Unlimited in January 2016 

where he now works as the Great Lakes and Atlantic Region policy 

specialist. 

Also with us today is Detroit native and urban farmer, Mrs. 

Jerry Ann Hebron. Mrs. Hebron worked for the Third Judicial Circuit Court for almost 30 years and in real estate for 25 years. She 

has served as director for both the Detroit Association of Realtors 

and the State of Michigan Realtor Association. In 2008, Mrs. Hebron became the executive director of the Northend Christian CDC 

in Detroit and started the Oakland Farm Way in the historic 
31 

Northend community. She is the current treasurer of the Detroit 

Food Policy Council. So glad to have you. 

Next on our panel is Mr. Collin Thompson, who serves as the 

farm manager for Michigan State University’s Upper Peninsula Research and Extension Center and USDA Organic Certified North 

Farm in Chatham, Michigan. He has worked on farms around the 

world, and his experience has provided him with a global perspective and a local approach when it comes to sustainable food production. 

We also want to welcome Mrs. Kristen Matson to our panel. Mrs. 

Matson received her bachelor’s in forestry from MSU and an MBA 

from Lake Superior State University. She began her career with 

the U.S. Forest Service in the Panhandle National Forest in Idaho 

before moving to the Huron-Manistee and Hiawatha National Forests in Michigan. Mrs. Matson currently works as the East Upper 

Peninsula inventory and planning specialist for the Forest Resources Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

in Shingleton. You have the award for the longest title of anyone 

here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. We are so glad to have you. 

To round out our last panel, we have Mr. Bob Hance. Mr. Hance 

began his current role as president and CEO at Midwest Energy 

Cooperative in 2002. He is currently the board chairman for 

RESCO and serves on the Board of Directors for the Michigan Electrical Cooperative Association, National World Telecommunications 

Cooperative, and the Spartan Renewable Energy and Utilities 

Telecom Council. He is the founding member and current vice 

chairman of the Rural Broadband Council, an independent operating unit of UTC, and a member of the Rural Broadband Coalition. 

We thank you and welcome all of you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Let us start with Dr. Hesterman. 

Dr. Hesterman, please. 

STATEMENT OF ORAN B. HESTERMAN, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FAIR FOOD NETWORK, ANN 

ARBOR, MICHIGAN 

Mr. HESTERMAN. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking 

Member Stabenow. 

I am the CEO of Fair Food Network. I come to this work as a 

farmer, business owner, philanthropist, agricultural scientist, and 

now as a nonprofit executive. I want to provide an update on the 

Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive program, or FINI, which was 

created in the last farm bill. There are two points I would like to 

make. 

First, produce incentives work. They are improving the diets of 

SNAP participants and increasing farm income, especially when 

tied to local production. 

Secondly, FINI has been a success and warrants reauthorization. 

Fair Food Network developed Double Up Food Bucks, which you 

heard mentioned by Mr. Ingrao in the last panel, in 2009. It is simple. For every SNAP dollar that a shopper spends on fresh produce, 

they get another dollar to spend on Michigan-grown produce. This 
32 

season, Double Up will be in 70 grocery stores and over 150 farm 

stands and markets across the State of Michigan and in northwest 

Ohio. 

We are also working with partners in more than 20 other States, 

including Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Texas, 

not traditionally specialty crop States but all successfully integrating regional production into their programs. This progress 

would not have been possible without Congress’ commitment of 

$100 million to the FINI program in the last farm bill. Fair Food Network received a $5.1 million FINI grant in 2015, 

which we matched with private dollars. It is allowing us to expand, 

evaluate, innovate, and improve the program in Michigan through 

2019. For example, in grocery stores, Double Up can operate with 

coupons, with automatic discount, with store loyalty cards, or 

through a reloadable Double Up card. 

Last year, groups in Kansas and Missouri received a FINI award 

to expand a Double Up pilot which started at Ball’s Price Chopper 

Stores. By 2019, Double Up will be in 117 grocery stores and 68 

farmers markets across those two States, including groceries in 

small rural communities in Kansas like Humboldt and Pittsburgh. 

Incentives have multiple benefits which programs nationwide are 

documenting. For families, incentives simultaneously alleviate hunger and improve diet. SNAP recipients shop more frequently and 

buy more produce when Double Up is in place. In fact, last year, 

our major grocery partner in Michigan found that fresh produce accounted for 17.5 percent of Double Up Food Bucks shoppers’ baskets as compared to only 7 percent for non-Double Up shoppers. 

Grocers like Double Up. In an Arkansas pilot this spring, 

produce sales doubled in the month that the incentive program was 

operating, and grocers appreciate the connection to rural agriculture. As Mike Beal, the COO Ball’s Food Stores, noted, ‘‘We increased our local produce sales in participating stores 12 to 15 percent in the first year.’’ 

Incentives also support farmers and farmers markets. In Iowa 

last year, 74 percent of the farmers said they earned more money 

because Double Up Food Bucks was at the market. In Mount Pleasant, Michigan, a new influx of customers are coming to the market 

because of Double Up. 

The FINI program’s structure is sound. I am suggesting only 

minor adjustments. A center could promote best practices and provide technical assistance. We need better technology options for incentive delivery, and I recommend funds be set aside for this. Additional evaluation approaches should be explored. We should also 

consider adding flexibility to the match requirement. Finally, we 

should maintain the connection to regional production; it works 

and makes every dollar go farther and do more. 

I know you often hear about what is not working in Federal farm 

and food programs, and my message today is the opposite. 

Produce incentives work. Our experience and that of others nationwide demonstrates the positive impact they are having. FINI is 

making a difference and should be reauthorized. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hesterman can be found on page 

89 in the appendix.] 
33 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank you, sir. 

Faith Watson. Ms. Watson, please. 

STATEMENT OF FAITH WATSON, MONTCALM COUNTY SNAP 

RECIPIENT, GREENVILLE, MICHIGAN 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. Chairman Roberts and Senator Stabenow, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I appreciate the opportunity to tell you about my story and how the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has helped my family. 

My name is Faith Watson. I am from Greenville, Michigan, 

which is a rural community of about 9,000 people located in western Michigan. Honestly, I never thought that I would be in a position to testify about my experience as a SNAP participant. I have 

a bachelor’s degree from Cornerstone University. I am an adventurous go-getter. I have always cared about other people and have 

tried to give back to my community through service and through 

my church. I worked hard throughout my twenties—first at a news 

radio program in Grand Rapids and then a variety of jobs as I 

moved around the country with my husband. Even when I took a 

job at a Starbucks in a new town, I quickly worked my way up to 

a shift manager. But life does not always work out as you expect. 

Almost 2 years ago, I found myself separated from my husband, 

and I became the sole caregiver to and wage earner for my two 

young children. I had been a stay-at-home mom for several years 

and was completely unprepared for this unexpected change in our 

lives. All at once, I had to find work and sort out how I would manage to raise two small children on my own. 

I found a part-time sales job at a large retail chain. It was only 

minimum wage, but it was a job that helped me get back on my 

feet. I also applied for help at the local Department of Health and 

Human Services, and I was approved and qualified for about $300 

a month in SNAP benefits. It was a huge weight off my mind to 

get that help. Because of SNAP, I knew I could put food on the 

table and still pay my other bills. It also meant that I could afford 

to give my kids some special treats, like some of their favorite 

squeezable yogurt snacks. Eating healthy foods has always been 

important, and SNAP just made that easier to do. 

Each day moves us forward, and things today look very different 

for us. It is still hard to juggle it all, but we are all much better. 

I have a part-time position as a communications coordinator at a 

local civic organization, which is in the field my degree. So I also 

do temporary work at my church. I volunteer at my son’s school 

and my daughter’s preschool. I am slowly but steadily growing a 

home business as part of a health and wellness direct sales company. Now because I am earning more, my SNAP benefit is about 

$120 a month. It still makes a big difference in our family budget. 

Knowing that I have this help lets me create an environment for 

my kids where they are safe, secure, and thriving. 

SNAP’s benefit to my family has been about more than just groceries. This little bit of security lets me think forward to the future. 

I do not plan to be in this situation forever. But I do not know how 

long it will take me to get out of this, but it is something I think 

about every day. My goal is to be in a place where I am financially 

independent, to provide for my kids without needing help, and to 
34 

be in a place where I can give back to my community both financially and with my time. SNAP has helped me take steps toward 

that goal of a different kind of future. 

I know I am not the only one struggling to make ends meet. My 

county has one of the highest poverty rates in Michigan. I see 

many single moms working several part-time jobs and still barely 

making it. I am always quick to encourage them to apply for SNAP 

to help them get by and care for their kids. 

There is definitely a lot of good the program does, but there is 

stigma about those who depend on SNAP benefits. There seems to 

be a pervasive stereotype about what kind of person uses SNAP: 

they are lazy, they do not care, they do not work. But that is just 

not me, and it is not the people I know who have needed Government assistance. We are hard workers who want a different future. 

Of course, the program is not perfect. The application process 

and eligibility redetermination are tedious and highly involved, 

with all the paperwork taking a lot of time to gather and submit. 

The state needs so much proof of everything that is going on in my 

life to calculate my benefits—from employer statements, to child 

care expenses, pay stubs, bank info, utility bills, and a lot more. 

The State’s website technology also leaves much to be desired, repeatedly crashes in the middle of entering required information, is 

not user friendly, and often fails to deliver uploaded documents. 

Hopefully, this will get better. 

Reducing paperwork would be something participants and case 

workers would likely both agree could improve the process. Another 

improvement could be to avoid reducing SNAP benefits immediately after a participant reports an increase in their income, 

which seems more like a punishment for working more and trying 

hard to get ahead, instead perhaps allowing a short window of time 

of stable benefits, which could potentially help participants get 

back on their feet faster. 

I hope that sharing my experience helps you appreciate the importance of this program to families like mine that really do need 

help, and that my story can help inform your work on writing next 

year’s farm bill. Please know that for many of us, it is a lifeline 

that we did not know we would need, and it provides stepping 

stones that are a key to future success. Thank you for providing 

the benefit. It has made a huge difference to my family. 

I welcome any of your questions. Thanks for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson can be found on page 

138 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Faith, thank you for that most unique and 

helpful statement. I can only say you have got a great first name. 

Senator STABENOW. That is right. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Nugent. 

STATEMENT OF JIM NUGENT, FRUIT GROWER AND CHAIR, 

MICHIGAN TREE FRUIT COMMISSION, SUTTONS BAY, MICHIGAN 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow. 

Michigan is blessed with a wide range of soils and topography 

and surrounded by the Great Lakes, creating the natural conditions that foster the second-most diverse agriculture in the Nation. 
35 

My wife and I farm on the Leelanau Peninsula in northwest 

Michigan, an area that is exceptionally well suited for cherry and 

other fruit production. We are challenged to grow high-quality food 

in a globally competitive and sustainable manner. Hence, we in agriculture rely extensively on land-grant universities for the research and information to keep our industries viable. I strongly 

support increased Federal funding for research and extension. 

Here is an example of why research is so critical. An Asian insect 

called ‘‘spotted winged drosophila,’’ or SWD, was found in California in 2008. Females lay eggs in thin-skinned fruits where the 

larvae develop. SWD was found in Michigan in 2010 by the Michigan State University Extension fruit team. Since then the population has exploded and now seriously threatens the Michigan cherry and blueberry industries. 

As growers, we turn to MSU researchers and extension for answers on how to manage SWD. Federal research funding is critical 

to address this type of serious threat. Specialty Crop Research Initiative funding has really helped address major issues like SWD 

that affect crops across the country. MSU has also applied for SWD 

research funds from the new Rapid Outcomes from Agriculture Research program which is part of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. The Rapid Outcomes program is a great way to 

help agriculture quickly address emerging issues through research. 

MSU has four research centers strategically placed in major 

fruit-growing areas which complement research conducted on campus. The apple and cherry industries have grower-funded programs 

that support research, but falling Federal and State funding was 

straining MSU’s campus and field infrastructure to meet grower 

needs. 

As a result, growers established the Michigan Tree Fruit Commission. It is a grower-funded program created to ensure MSU has 

adequate facilities and personnel to conduct research and extension 

programming. The commission has been successful, but works because it has a strong partnership with MSU. For MSU to remain 

that strong partner requires adequate Federal funding to support 

the scientists and the facilities needed to address grower issues 

and to fund projects beyond the scope of industry dollars. 

I also wish to express my support for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, or ACEP, and the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program, RCPP. Production of tree fruits and wine 

grapes in Michigan is found on the rolling hills close to the shores 

of Lake Michigan. But these scenic areas are also highly desirable 

for development. The Leelanau Conservancy has worked with farmers and USDA’s NRCS to protect nearly 3,300 acres of prime and 

unique farmland with conservation easements so it can remain viable for food production. This work is made possible through ACEP. 

To expand protection efforts, the conservancy was one of the recipients of a recent RCPP award. This has created a partnership 

that includes the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa 

Indians, Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy, and the Conservation Resource Alliance. The program will allow the two conservancies to permanently protect land that is valuable both for agriculture and water resource protection with conservation ease-
36 

ments, while partners implement other practices to protect the 

area’s water resources and improve critical fish habitat. 

I strongly encourage your continued support of these and other 

conservation programs. Sustaining a viable agricultural economy 

that produces healthy food to feed our country and the world requires an investment in resource protection. We know that much 

more conservation is implemented when USDA is a strong partner 

in the effort. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nugent can be found on page 113 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you for your statement. 

Mr. Rorah. 

STATEMENT OF KYLE RORAH, GREAT LAKES AND ATLANTIC 

REGION POLICY SPECIALIST, DUCKS UNLIMITED, ANN 

ARBOR, MICHIGAN 

Mr. RORAH. Good afternoon, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow. It is a tremendous honor and privilege to testify 

here before you today. I thank you both for the opportunity to express the importance of the farm bill to the conservation community here in Michigan and around the country. The farm bill’s conservation programs represent the single largest investment in private landowner conservation that this Nation makes on an annual 

basis, and it is critical to farmers here in Michigan, Kansas, and 

around the country to enhance profitable farming operations, maintain healthy soils, produce abundant wildlife, and protect critical 

wetlands and clean water. 

These programs in turn help support Michigan’s multi-billiondollar hunting and recreational fishing economy, that supports 

72,000 jobs here in the State alone, and we have some members 

in the crowd here that represent part of that wearing orange today. 

DU appreciates the leadership of you both and your staff in securing a robust Conservation Title in 2014. Our top goal heading 

into the 2018 Farm Bill is preserving and advancing many of the 

gains made in conservation. Simply put, there is a lot at stake 

here, and conservation is a critical part of our Nation’s agricultural 

safety net. 

DU supports voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs 

that are streamlined, efficient, and friendly to both producers and 

wildlife. We believe this is the best defense against unnecessary 

regulatory actions. 

One such incentive that is paramount is conservation compliance. During the last farm bill, a broad coalition of commodity, crop 

insurance, and conservation leaders collaborated to support and defend attacks on crop insurance and support conservation compliance. We stand ready to assist in those efforts again today. 

The farm bill provides many important voluntary programs that 

benefit farmers as well as sportsmen and women. They include the 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program. This innovative new 

program is currently supporting eight projects here in Michigan totaling more than $55 million. DU wants to maintain this important 

partnership program in the 2018 Farm Bill while making some 

changes that will improve program delivery, further spur innova-
37 

tion, and ensure partners have the resources and tools they need 

to be successful. 

The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, ACEP, is another farm bill program that DU has found to be mission critical. 

Due to its documented success and high landowner demand, we 

support efforts to restore baseline funding back to at least $500 

million per year, as well as changes to improve management and 

landowner flexibility on ACEP sites. 

The Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, is yet another important component of the farm bill and gives landowners the opportunities to conserve soil, water, and habitat that are critically important to our target game species, like deer, ducks, and pheasants. 

DU supports a robust increase in the national CRP cap from the 

current 24 million acres, more working lands options, and an increased CRP grasslands allocation. 

The final program I will mention is the Volunteer Public AccessHabitat Incentive Program, which helps advance the sportsmen’s 

heritage by providing financial incentives to landowners who practice conservation and allow the public to hunt their land. This program is critical to continue to ensure that current and future generations of sportsmen and women have places to hunt and enjoy 

the outdoors. 

On behalf of Ducks Unlimited’s 1 million supporters across the 

U.S., including more than 29,000 Michigan members and 15,000 

Kansas members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify. A strong Conservation Title is essential to the economic prosperity of our Nation’s producers and serves as a backbone to conserve our Nation’s valuable soils, wetlands, grasslands, and wildlife 

populations. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rorah can be found on page 115 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you for your statement. 

Jerry Ann Hebron. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY ANN HEBRON, FARMER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHEND CHRISTIAN CDC, DETROIT, 

MICHIGAN 

Mrs. HEBRON. Good afternoon, Chairman Roberts and Ranking 

Member Stabenow. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing and share my perspective on urban farming. 

I am a native Detroiter. Detroit was once the capital of the 

United States auto industry, which almost single-handedly helped 

to create the American middle class. But Detroit has been crippled, 

by closing factories, falling home prices, the exodus of tens of thousands of residents, and now we have a multitude of vacant land. 

The Great Recession started early in Detroit and can still be felt 

in some quarters. When the Nation’s unemployment rate was hovering around 9 percent, the jobless rate in the metro Detroit area 

was over 11.5 percent. In the city proper, the unemployment rate 

was probably around 20 percent—although, unofficially, that figure 

was much higher for those of us viewing things on the ground. In 

fact, a 2009 article in the Detroit News suggested the true unemployment figure might be as high as 50 percent. Couple that with 
38 

the estimated 80,000 housing units needing demolition and the 

city’s 20 square miles of vacant land, roughly equal to the size of 

the city of Manhattan. What you get is the need for creative paths 

forward like the Oakland Avenue Farm Way. 

When we started farming in 2009, the neighborhood was not 

safe. It was filled with vacant lots and houses and a liquor store 

on every corner selling greasy food. To respond to this, we started 

growing a variety of vegetables that were culturally appropriate for 

the community that we work in. 

In 2011, we started adding fruit, opened farmers market on the 

farm, and started selling at six Chrysler plants throughout the 

metro tri-county area. In order to meet the demand of these farmers markets, we had to increase our production, so we purchased 

more land. We also started a value-added production, which included a line of AFRO Jams so we can increase our sales. Over the 

last 3 years, we purchased over 30 properties surrounding our 

farms and have created the Oakland Avenue Farm Way, which currently is a 4.8-acre farm. It is an incubator space for food-related 

businesses and educational programs around food and nutrition. In 

addition, we have two greenhouses, one funded through USDA Environment Quality Incentive Program. We have purchased and renovated an abandoned house which is now used as our community 

space for youth programming, meetings, and a shared kitchen. 

What is needed now to grow these businesses is access to more 

USDA funding for crop insurance, low-interest loans for equipment 

and integrated farm business development, and infrastructure for 

water. 

Urban agriculture is a great environment to work and grow 

skilled workers who traditionally have been denied employment because of background checks and drug problems. On our farm we 

work with people where they are, and what we find is our environment is one in which we are able to train people basic employment 

needs. We have been able to hire people in the community as seasonal workers, and we recently started an initiative to train our 

farm workers on how to grow fruit trees and manage large-scale 

farm equipment, giving them specialty skills and machine training. 

The Oakland Avenue Farmers Market is one of 16 members operating farmers markets in communities across Detroit. Thanks to 

the 2014 Farm Bill, all of these markets are able to process transactions for families receiving food assistance and we use Double Up 

Food Bucks. They also offer a variety of educational programming 

regarding nutrition, food preparation, and food safety. The Oakland 

Avenue Farmers Market in partnership with the Detroit Community Markets received funding through the USDA Farmers Market 

Promotion Grant for 2017 and 2018 to support outreach, growth, 

vendor support, and programming in our community. 

Transitioning into urban farming and working in a community 

environment has proved to be the best thing I could have done to 

address basic community needs and to work to increase employment opportunities. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Hebron can be found on page 

81 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you very much for your statement. 
39 

Collin Thompson. 

STATEMENT OF COLLIN THOMPSON, COMMUNITY FOOD SYSTEMS EDUCATOR, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION, AND MANAGER, UPPER PENINSULA RESEARCH AND 

EXTENSION CENTER’S ORGANIC CERTIFIED NORTH FARM, 

CHATHAM, MICHIGAN 

Mr. THOMPSON. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Collin Thompson. I am a community food systems 

educator for Michigan State University Extension housed at the 

Upper Peninsula Research and Extension Center. Part of my job 

entails managing the North Farm, which is a USDA-certified organic produce farm, where I work with members of our community 

to learn the latest techniques for farming in the UP’s challenging 

northern climate. 

I am privileged to work with beginning and seasoned growers 

with the goal of improving their farms through educational programming and on-farm research. 

Each year, we invite thousands of visitors to participate in workshops, trainings, school visits, and other learning opportunities. In 

addition, we host a farm business incubator where we provide resources to farmers as they start their fair enterprises. 

We also conduct on-farm research, hoping to better understand 

the challenges of producing specialty crops and small grains, again, 

in our unique climate. 

My work focuses in two primary areas, that of the local and regional food systems, and organic agriculture. Michigan, and specifically the UP, is fortunate to support incredibly vibrant food systems. However, the central UP economy tends to drain away from 

the region, resulting in an annual net loss of $540 per farm. In 

fact, while the rest of the State boasts about Michigan’s growing 

agriculture economy, growers in my region saw a $3.4 million reduction in commodity sales from 1969 to 2011. 

Despite these challenges, my region is seeing tremendous growth 

in specific areas of the food economy. The number of farms pursuing direct-to-consumer sales has increased 22 percent since 2002, 

boosting those sales figures by 24 percent. Programs funded 

through the farm bill, such as the Farmers Market Promotion Program and the NRCS High-Tunnel Initiative, have kept food dollars 

in the region through the expansion of local farmers markets and 

helped over 100 farmers build more resilient businesses by installing seasoned extension structures on their farms. Simply put, these 

critical programs are strengthening the UP’s economy. 

Organic is the fastest growing sector in the U.S. food economy, 

now representing over $43 billion dollars in sales. Since 2008, the 

industry has grown by nearly $20 billion, with a 300-percent increase in the number of certified organic farms. Still, domestic production does not come close to matching the demand. The 2014 

Farm Bill made critical investments to strengthen the organic sector, but more work needs to be done to support the industry. 

Despite the incredible growth of organics, funding for the two 

primary organic research funds—the OREI and the ORG—has remained steady. Additionally, only two-tenths of a percent of the 
40 

funding through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, the 

USDA’s premier competitive research program, goes to organics. 

Funding we received through AFRI in 2014 is the only reason I can 

do the work I do every day. 

Agricultural research is essential for continued growth in the organic sector as every $1 invested in public agricultural research 

generates $10 to $20 in domestic economic activity. We simply cannot lose this opportunity to help our farmers. 

The programs currently supported by the farm bill, such as the 

OREI, the ORG, and the Organic Cost Share Program, are allowing 

more farms to certify and are enhancing soil, environmental, community, and farmer health. 

I am fortunate to work every day with individuals invested in the 

local, regional, organic food systems in the Upper Peninsula. Utilizing support through programs funded by the farm bill, they are 

continuing to lead the agricultural industry. 

As both a certified organic producer and a professional in the industry, I urge Congress to support local/regional and organic agriculture by significantly increasing funding that supports these industries in the next farm bill. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson can be found on page 

134 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you for your testimony. 

Mrs. Matson. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN MATSON, EUP INVENTORY AND 

PLANNING SPECIALIST, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, FOREST RESOURCES DIVISION, 

SHINGLETON, MICHIGAN 

Mrs. MATSON. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, for the invitation to testify. Today I hope to give the 

Committee a summary of how the 2014 Farm Bill is already helping us create more forestry jobs in Michigan and how the 2018 bill 

can build on that progress. I will also talk about the serious problems caused by a broken Forest Service budget and will conclude 

by outlining a new opportunity for job creation in the forest products sector. 

Michigan has 20 million acres of forest, which is approximately 

56 percent of our land. This land supports a $20 billion industry 

and employs 96,000 people statewide. A recent example of the sector’s impact comes by way of the new Arauco Forest Products Mill 

in Grayling, Michigan, which is a rural community about 115 miles 

northwest of here. This plant is a $400 million investment which 

will create 700 construction jobs and 200 full-time jobs in the region. The economic activity from this company and others is often 

driven in part by smart Federal policy. 

Good Neighbor Authority, created in the last farm bill, is a prime 

example of one of those policies. As you know, the program authorizes State foresters to carry out restoration and logging projects on 

Federal lands. DNR used this new authority to put up 1,300 acres 

of Federal land for timber sales in 2016 and 1,800 acres this year. 
41 

Good Neighbor sale acres are expected to increase in future years 

as we gain experience with this new program. 

I am happy to report that work began just this week on a Good 

Neighbor sale on the Hiawatha National Forest where the logging 

is being done by a small, family-owned, Upper Peninsula company 

based in Rapid River. 

Whether it was assuring Arauco that their mill would have a 

steady supply of logs or this week’s timber sale that gave loggers 

out of Rapid River a new contract, the farm bill Good Neighbor Authority is creating new and good-paying jobs right here in Michigan. 

To help us build on that success, DNR and the National Association of State Foresters recommends that Congress slightly amend 

the program to allow for repair of existing national forest roads in 

the 2018 reauthorization. The current program excludes road maintenance from the projects that Good Neighbor allows, thereby limiting the amount of acres that DNR can treat. The flexibility to 

conduct road maintenance will allow us to restore even more acres 

and to support increased economic development in forested communities. 

Moving on to other policy areas, I would like to draw your attention to a more systemic issue which has the potential to undermine 

many of our other forest management tools. That issue is the broken Forest Service budget, and it is profoundly hurting not only 

the national forests but also State agencies like Michigan DNR and 

private landowners. 

During my 8 years working for the Forest Service and my 23 

years with the Michigan DNR, I helped suppress several large 

wildfires in Western States and in Michigan. My experience has 

taught me that the old Forest Service budget model is not well 

suited to face the actual costs of modern-day wildfire threats. We 

strongly encourage Congress to enact a comprehensive fix for the 

Forest Service budget, either in the context of the 2018 Farm Bill 

or elsewhere. 

Finally, I wanted to conclude my testimony on a positive note by 

drawing the Committee’s attention to a relatively new forestrybased commercial building material referred to as ‘‘mass timber.’’ 

Mass timber panels are different than normal building materials in 

that they arrange traditional dimensional lumber in a new and 

stronger fashion using state-of-the-art engineering, a specialized 

press, and advanced adhesives. We encourage the Committee to 

enact policies that support mass timber products, like Senator 

Stabenow’s Timber Innovation Act, which will create new jobs in 

our rural forested communities. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective with you this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Matson can be found on page 

105 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Mrs. Matson. 

Batting cleanup is Bob Hance. 
42 

STATEMENT OF BOB HANCE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MIDWEST ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS, 

CASSOPOLIS, MICHIGAN 

Mr. HANCE. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member 

Stabenow, for inviting me to testify today. My name is Bob Hance. 

I am the president and CEO of Midwest Energy & Communications, based in Cassopolis, Michigan. 

‘‘Vibrant, relevant, and sustainable rural communities’’—that is 

our vision statement. I suggest it is appropriate for all rural electric cooperatives. While our history is firmly rooted in delivering reliable, affordable electricity to our members, our purpose is much 

greater. We are the engines that drive economic opportunity across 

rural America, creating jobs and improving the quality of life for 

millions. That is why the farm bill is essential. It contains important rural development tools that support our efforts to strengthen 

our communities. 

For over 80 years, loans from the Rural Utilities Service have 

helped build and improve the infrastructure across rural America 

necessary to provide power, deliver clean water, and deploy advanced telecommunications technologies. It has been the most successful public-private infrastructure investment program in the history of the country. 

In 2015, Midwest was one of the first electric cooperatives in the country to access the RUS Smart Grid loan program. With a $60 

million RUS loan, we are constructing more than 2,000 miles of 

fiber infrastructure that will improve grid security, help consumers 

manage their energy consumption, improve system reliability and 

operational performance. Leveraging that investment, Midwest has 

been able to use other non-RUS financing to deliver fiber speed 

voice and data solutions to our largely unserved and underserved 

rural membership. 

Geography should not define your scope of personal and professional opportunity in 2017, but there is a pervasive digital divide 

in the rural space. We are changing that. We now have more than 

4,000 members using our fiber Internet solution, and we receive 

daily affirmations of the importance of this project. 

We are changing the landscape of opportunity for rural Michigan, 

affording the opportunity for members to participate in the digital 

space just like their urban counterparts. This means access to 

health care, education, and jobs. The RUS Smart Grid Initiative is 

providing long-term transformational benefits to your rural Michigan constituents. 

Besides the RUS loan program, the farm bill includes other important rural development tools like the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program, or REDL&G, which is an economic 

tool used by many Michigan electric cooperatives. It has helped create hundreds of new jobs across the State over the last couple of 

decades. 

As an example, Cherryland Electric, our sister co-op in the Grand Traverse region, worked with RUS to secure a $57,000 zero 

interest loan through REDL&G to Great Lakes Potato Chip to provide additional slicers, scales, conveyers, and other associated 

equipment to support the organization’s continued growth. This 

loan supported the company’s move to a second shift with 10 new 
43 

jobs in rural Michigan. I can attest that 10 new jobs in rural Michigan is a meaningful number and that REDL&G was a key component in that growth. There are a dozen other REDL&G stories like 

that. 

Michigan co-ops are actively using Rural Energy for America 

Program, or REAP, to implement efficiency programs and integrate 

new renewable sources. Just last year, Spartan Renewable Energy 

secured a $500,000 REAP grant to help construct Spartan Solar, 

one of Michigan’s largest community solar projects. Several hundred Michigan co-op members have already purchased panels. It is 

an exciting project. 

Senator Stabenow, I know this program was a big priority for 

you, and you played an important role in securing REAP funds for 

the project. Thank you very much. 

Electric co-ops continue to enjoy a productive partnership with 

the Federal Government to promote the health of rural America. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you toward that important goal. Thank you, and I look forward to any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hance can be found on page 77 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Bob, thank you very much. 

Debbie and I were just mentioning here—we were paying very 

close attention to you; do not worry about that—that we could 

probably have 10 questions for every witness, the first panel and 

this panel. You all have had excellent testimony. I want to make 

it very clear that all of this testimony will be part of the written 

record. I am going to share the testimony we got in Manhattan, 

Kansas, of 21 witnesses and the testimony we have here in Michigan, and I am going to share it with all the members on my side 

of the aisle, and I know Deborah will do the same thing with hers. 

I think that every member will want to go over that very, very 

carefully. 

So in the interest of time, I am going to ask you one question. 

Somebody has to be the bad news bearer. I do not like being a bad 

news bearer, but this is for the entire panel, and I am not going 

to ask each of you to respond, but if anybody feels like it, they can. 

You have all given valuable testimony, and you have all supported the various programs across all titles of our farm bill. Some 

of you have shared recommendations for increased funding. That is 

natural. You are doing a good job. You would like to have increased 

funding. I would like for you to have increased funding, and so 

would Deborah. 

This might be a tough question for both you and for us in Congress, but the reality is we are going to have to do more with less. 

That is just the way it is. I mentioned the number 19, it is soon 

going to be 20, and then 12 zeroes. We cannot go on like this. We 

have to do our share. We would like to think that we have done 

our share. But there are others in the Congress that certainly 

think otherwise. 

Even to merely extend the current farm bill as is, we are in a 

constrained budget environment, so there are challenges with regards to any increasing program dollars. What we give to some section, some title of the farm bill, we are going to—there is a pay- 
44 

for we are going to have to find with efficiencies. We do not like 

the word ‘‘cut,’’ but that is the way it is. 

What policy changes should we make that would provide greater 

administrative flexibilities and efficiencies so we can achieve some 

budget savings? Anybody raise their hand here? Yes, Mr. Rorah. 

Mr. RORAH. Just on the CRP, we believe that increasing flexibility within the program to allow landowners, ranchers and farmers to do more wildlife-friendly haying and grazing, can stretch 

available CRP dollars out and cover more acres than are covered 

currently. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that. We can do that with existing authority, and we have done it in times of need, and we are 

going to sure look at it in Kansas. Thank you for that. 

Anybody else? Yes, sir, Mr. Hance. 

Mr. HANCE. To your point on efficiency in the Federal Government and the opportunities that are there that, I would argue, are 

maybe being misused, we have been trying to gain access to the 

Connect America Fund for the last 5 years. It is a $2.5 billion fund 

that would benefit rural America substantially with advanced telecommunications across the country. It seems to be reserved for incumbent providers, and it would be great if somehow it would actually get to rural America. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Anybody else? Yes, sir, Dr. Hesterman. 

Mr. HESTERMAN. Yes, it seems to me that there could be some 

efficiencies gained by us figuring out how to combine some of the 

programs that are focused on local, regional, urban agriculture together, and instead of having many, many different programs, we 

may be able to combine some and create efficiencies there. 

Chairman ROBERTS. That is an excellent suggestion. 

Faith, do you have any suggestions? 

[No response.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I am not picking on you. I am just sort of 

picking on you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. I think Mrs. Hebron had her hand up. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Yes? 

Mrs. HEBRON. Yes, thank you. I would just echo what Dr. 

Hesterman said about the combining of the programming for local 

and urban ag. You know, being new, a lot of the programming opportunities have not been designed for urban agriculture, and we 

are growing, and so just being able to access and recognize that our 

work is a little different in communities, making that combination 

so that it is more reachable for us. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Anyone else? 

Ms. WATSON. I think I might have something. I think it would 

be echoing what has been said, just the collaboration. I think it 

cannot be left to one sector to handle hunger and all the other 

issues that are—speaking from food and nutrition, I think addressing poverty, addressing hunger, there has to be collaboration and 

communication across the board, like churches, nonprofits, Government. Somehow there has got to be that collaboration that everybody does a different part, and if we work together, the funds can 

go further. There is a lot more than just hunger. There are physical 
45 

needs, there are emotional needs, mental needs, spiritual needs, 

and all the different sectors can work together if they try. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Faith, for that. 

My personal favorite is the one that Chris brought up about 

somebody who is really concerned about the number of wildlife that 

is crossing his farm. I will volunteer for one week. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. That is just goofy. But, anyway, thank you 

all for your testimony. Senator? 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are abbreviating questions on this panel only in the interest of time because of a flight commitment. So let me first start with Ms. Watson. Thank you for being here and sharing your story. I do want 

to reiterate the fact that with policies we put in the place in the 

2014 Farm Bill, the Budget Office has indicated major savings because the economy is improving; more jobs are being created, people are going back to work, so the family safety net, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will save $80 billion. 

SNAP works. We have two safety nets. We have a farm safety net 

and a family safety net. Because the economy is getting better 

there are more opportunities and we wish you well as you are 

working hard, but as the dollars you are receiving to feed your family goes down as your income goes up, that indicates how the program is working. This is a good thing. 

We know on the farm safety net side that prices are down. They 

were high when we wrote 2014 the farm bill. Commodity prices are 

down now so we have issues to address on that end. 

I also know, in listening to all of you, that what you are talking 

about is creating jobs, whether it is in rural development—and, by 

the way, if we have more time, Mr. Hance, I would talk about 

broadband, which ought to be connecting everybody everywhere. 

Instead of the farmer at the end of the road being connected to the 

telephone, it is now broadband and Internet. We have work to do 

to make sure we have kids coming back and staying in small 

towns. They are going to need to have access to high-speed Internet. Connectivity is a big concern also for hospitals and all other 

rural businesses. 

If we talk about forestry and the jobs streaming from that industry, or if we talk about the growing area of organics, or about 

urban agriculture, all of these areas are a great opportunity for 

jobs. Mrs. Hebron, thank you for all that you are doing to take the 

extra land in Detroit and the need for fresh food, and turn it into 

a project that creates jobs and grows fresh local food. That is part 

of the grit in agriculture, and I am so grateful that all of you are 

doing that. We could talk forever about conservation and research, 

but I am only going to ask one question. Senator Roberts asked 

one. 

As we conclude, I want to thank everyone here. When the situation in Flint happened with the high lead levels in drinking water 

and over 100,000 directly exposed to this heavy metal it was Michigan agriculture that came forward first. It was Michigan Milk Producers that stepped up and donated milk. It was fruits and vegetable growers that helped by donating excess food to salad bars in 

schools. I have learned more about lead exposure than I ever 
46 

thought I would in my entire life. We know that for children this 

exposure is extremely damaging and continues their whole life. The 

only way you can mitigate and overcome lead exposure is through 

good nutrition. 

I want to thank you, Dr. Hesterman, for coming in and working 

to expand to grocery stores, farmers markets and so on. I wonder 

if you might take a minute to talk about how you are integrating 

SNAP redemption at farmers markets and groceries. This goes to, 

again highlight, the partnerships built around agriculture, local 

foods, and access to food. 

Mr. HESTERMAN. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. What we were 

able to do with the support of the State of Michigan, MDARD, as 

well as USDA and private foundations, is to really expand the Double Up program in Flint. It had been in the farmers markets since 

2011, but we have expanded it to now eight sites, all kinds of retail 

sites around Flint, grocery stores, farmers market, and some mobile markets where you move the produce to where it is needed in 

the city. We got the program going year round. We know those kids 

need access to fresh fruits and vegetables all year round, so we 

made it not a seasonal program but year round. Because Double 

Up has a uniform design, we were able to create a citywide communications program. So outreach in all kinds of ways, through social 

media, through on-the-ground outreach, billboards, bus signs, direct mail, really get the word out. 

But what we think really made the difference was the technology 

that got developed for Flint. That is the first in the Nation and now 

spreading to other places where folks can get this Double Up Food 

Bucks card. This card can be used at the farmers market, the grocery store, the mobile market. We call it ‘‘interoperable,’’ and it 

makes the customer experience really convenient and easy for Double Up Food Bucks. So somebody can earn their Double Up Food 

Bucks by purchasing produce at the farmers market, spend the 

Double Up off those cards at the grocery store, or the other way 

around. 

So the results in just less than a year, over twice as many dollars 

being used to purchase fresh produce in Flint with Double Up than 

the year before, and we are now reaching over 25 percent of the 

SNAP population in Flint with this program. 

So we are really proud of all—it took a lot of partnerships to do 

that. We are proud of that. We are going to keep it going because 

it is needed there. 

Senator STABENOW. Great. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, thank you again to all of our witnesses 

for joining us here in Michigan. We appreciate you sharing your experiences, your thoughts—good thoughts, good suggestions. Thank 

you to those in the audience, everybody present, those who have 

listened from around the country for your interest, especially on a 

Saturday. 

When I took the gavel 2 years ago, I indicated that our Committee is the voice of the producer, and we both declared that we 

were champions on behalf of agriculture. Our Committee will not 

only provide folks a platform to spread the word about the value 

of production agriculture, but also be the forum for our farmers, 
47 

our ranchers, and consumers, and rural communities to participate 

in shaping the next farm bill. This is just another step in doing 

that. 

Today we have continued that important process. We have heard 

about agricultural research, crop insurance, the diversity of American agriculture, and some of the other policies that we are working 

on as well. We have heard about the burdens of Government regulation, from Mr. Alpers, and programs where we need to raise more 

questions and craft solutions, from Faith. 

We will continue to listen to farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders across the country at additional hearings in Washington. 

We have less than 2 years to pass the next farm bill. We have our 

work cut out for us. 

A lot of my producers out west, way out west in Kansas, I had 

one old boy come up to me, and he pulled down on his cowboy hat 

and said, ‘‘Pat, I do not care what you do to me. Just let me know.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. That pretty well simplified it under the banner of predictability and stability. To get the farm bill done in the 

Congress of the United States is a difficult task. It is a tough trail. 

We are going to try to do this in a manner that could hopefully provide some predictability because of the tough times that we are facing. But we have our task, as I said, that lies before us. 

But I know, in working with Senator Stabenow in the past, and 

other members of the Committee, I know, I have no doubt, that we 

can craft a bill for producers across the countryside, and we can do 

it in a timely manner so that you will know and be able to continue 

the good work that you are doing. 

This Committee stands adjourned. I have to get on a plane to get 

into Dodge, not out of Dodge. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. Eastern Time, the Committee was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

MAY 6, 2017 
50 

Testimony of 

Chris Alpers 

Redpath Orchards 

lake leelanau, Ml 

Committee on Agriculture 

U.S. Senate 

Frankenmuth, Michigan 

May 6, 2017 
51 

Good morning Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak today about the impact of the 2014 Farm Bill and priorities for the 

2018 legislation. 

My name is Chris Alpers of Redpath Orchards and I am a and 

grower from Lake Leelanau, I serve on the USApple Board of 

Directors and Executive Committee, as well as Growers Processing's Board of 

Directors. 

My father and I and operate Orchards & Alpers Farms, consisting 

of 1,000 acres of tart cherries, sweet cherries and apples, which was established in 

1959. As one of the largest orchards in the state of Michigan, we take pride in being at 

the forefront of new advances. My childhood was spent welcoming 

Michigan State University researchers into our home as they worked to develop and test 

the newest forms of agricultural on our farm. I have experienced the good 

fortune of helping to further cultivate our farm in order to prepare for future 

generations. 

My wife, a sixth generation tree fruit grower, and hope to leave the farm poised for 

success should our four month old son, Raymond, choose to carry on the family farming 

legacy. This year, we look forward to planting an apple tree with our son; grafted from a 

Red Delicious tree my wife's great-great-great-great grandfather planted on her family 

farm in Sparta, Michigan pth 

In addition to farming, my mother and I operate a business tree fruit nursery 

stock. My grandmother established Alpers Tree Sales in 1954 as a means to streamline 

nursery stock sales in northern Michigan. We work with C&O Nursery (owned and 

operated by the Snyder family since 1906) out of Wenatchee, Washington to deliver 

quality nursery stock to growers in Tree fruit growers across the nation work 

together closely in order to grow and sustain our industry. 

Michigan is home to 825 apple growers, many in their 5th or 6'h generation on their 

orchards. Apples are Michigan's largest and most valuable fruit crop, and have a yearly 

farm gate value of $245.81 million. This value is compounded by the economic impact of 

input costs, processing, packaging, shipping and sales. With 11.3 million apple trees 

covering 35,500 acres, are geographically, fiscally, and culturally an important 

aspect of life in Michigan. 

From Michigan to Washington, New York to California the industry is comprised of 

independent business owners. We support programs that build long-term 

competitiveness, drive innovation and further grow demand of our products. Tree fruit 

growers are not seeking a government farm program to support grower income or 

market prices. That would not be in the best interest of my business nor our 

Building on the success of the 2008 legislation, the current Farm Bill made a number of 
52 

important strides toward each of these goals. I would like to touch on some of them 

briefly. 

Export Programs 

A strong export market is critical to the health of the entire apple industry. Nationally, 

about 30% of the fresh crop is sold overseas. Most of that fruit is grown in 

State but a strong export market strengthens and stabilizes the market nationwide. 

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the immense importance of protecting 

provisions for agriculture in NAFTA. Mexico and Canada represent the two largest 

export markets for apples, totaling more than $450 million in sales last year. Disruption 

to these important markets would have a devastating impact on the entire industry. We 

witnessed a glimpse of the impact of market disruption during the trucking dispute with 

Mexico in 2010 and the more recently the West Coast ports slowdown in 2015. 

The apple industry strongly supports the Market Access Program (MAP), which has 

level the playing field as it allows us to compete with countries that have a much 

lower cost of production, such as China and Chile. 

As a direct result of the MAP program Michigan has shipped to new 

markets such as Brazil, China, and Israel. Representation and market information in 

these new markets has been extremely beneficial in providing the best Michigan Apples 

available. These very critical dollars have provided opportunities that our individual 

states could not achieve alone. 

MAP is a public-private partnership; with growers contributing for every federal 

dollar the industry receives. Recent studies have shown a return on investment of 24:1 

for MAP. This important program has been funded at the same level since the 2002 

Farm Bill. I would urge the Committee to increase for MAP in the 2'018 

legislation. 

The Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) is another important Farm Bill 

program, which provides funds to resolve phytosanitary and technical barriers that 

prohibit or threaten access to a foreign market. Michigan has utilized TASC dollars to 

gain access to markets such as Mexico and Israel. 

Research 

Research and extension activities supported by USDA and Michigan State provide the 

apple industry with a competitive edge the introduction of new cultivars, 

implementation of improved pest management strategies, genomics and plant breeding 

and science-based improvement of food safety. 

One of the most successful programs with the 2008 Farm Bill and renewed in 

2014, is the Specialty Crop Research Initiative The SCRI provides funding for a 
53 

variety of research programs throughout the specialty crop industry. While the success 

stories from SCRI research projects are numerous, for apple growers, this program 

played a critical role in slowing down the damage caused the newest invasive species, 

the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Michigan has seen an increase in BMSB 

activity including damage to apples from the 2016 crop. As numbers continue to 

increase, the SCRI research has been critical in providing tools to apple growers in 

combating this extremely destructive pest. 

In 2011, the SCRI funded a 5-year; $5.7 million research grant involving over 50 

scientists and 10 research institutions nationwide to develop methods to control BMSB. 

The research effort yielded significant benefits in the development of knowledge 

and tools to deal with this especially damaging invasive species. Though apples are a 

major target of the BMSB, it is known to attack more than 300 plant species, many of 

them specialty crops, and the SCRI research also helped other crop 

fight the BMSB. The U.S. Apple Association estimates that the SCRI research resulted in 

savings to agriculture in crop value of more than $SOO million worth of crops that 

otherwise would have been lost. Significant research still needs to be done in order to 

develop a long-term solution to the BMSB problem. Based upon both the success of the 

first program, and the need for research on controlling the pest long term, a new 5-year 

project has been funded under the SCRL 

The BMSB research is one of the impressive return on investment that the 

SCRI has provided. Advances made in SCRI research projects focused on mapping the 

apple genome, mechanizing orchard practices such as pruning and harvesting, and 

prevention of other disease and insect pest threats promises to result in even greater 

savings to agriculture, which translates into a direct benefit to the U.S. economy, 

consumers, and U.S. 

Currently, the cherry industry (and many other fruit industries) is currently facing a 

similar threat from Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD). This pest has the ability to cripple 

our industry if left unchecked. Important research is presently being conducted in order 

to prevent this pest from destroying more fruit across the state. 

I understand there are some who would like to review and potentially restructure many 

of the research programs funded under the Farm Bill. While there is always room for 

improvement, I would argue the SCRI program is relatively new and is working quite 

welL Changes to the fundamental structure of the program could disrupt ongoing 

projects and impede future efforts. 

SCRI projects are reviewed based upon both their scientific merit and relevance of the 

research to the industry. This enhances the likelihood these valuable dollars are spent 

on impactful projects. strongly urge the Committee to maintain and if 

increase funding for the SCRI. 
54 

Another important program is the National Clean Plant Network, which serves as the 

single nationally certified source of plant material free of potentially devastating 

diseases and pests. Enabling the nursery to clean plants is of critical 

importance as a number of serious diseases can enter into the United States through 

the import of foreign nursery stock. As we have painfully learned with the recent 

experience with the BMSB and SWD, once such pests and diseases become established 

in a region it is extremely difficult to eradicate them. 

The 2014 Farm Bill includes a number of important marketing programs which have 

proven beneficial to the apple and cherry industry here in Michigan and nationally. The 

Specialty Crop Block Grant program focuses on regional and local priorities to improve 

the competitiveness of crop producers. For several years, Crop Block 

Grants have allowed the Apple Committee to engage and connect with 

consumers in-store, via social media, through advertising and in numerous other ways. 

Thanks to SCBG funds, intensive programs aimed at specific geographic areas, targeted 

retailers and key consumer audiences have valuable results online and in 

stores. With these grants, MAC has been able to show increases in engagement on 

social media, awareness via trade and consumer advertising, and, most importantly, 

movement of Michigan Apples in targeted regions. These grant funds proved to be 

critical following the 2012 crop loss when re-building market awareness and retail 

presence was a significant goal for the industry's recovery. 

Crop Insurance 

The apple industry is one of a handful of specialty crops that participates in the federal 

crop insurance program. In fact, according to the USDA's Risk Management Agency 

(RMA), nearly 75% of the U.S. crop is insured. Over the years, the industry has 

worked with RMA and as a result, today's have been modernized to 

reflect production changes in the industry. There is more work to be done to fully 

address these changing needs. We continue that dialogue with Risk Management 

Agency. 

No crop insurance program will make a grower devastated by a natural disaster 

financially "whole," but it will allow them to survive a devastating loss and continue to 

support the economic engine of rural America. Let me be dear, crop insurance enables 

me to manage risk, but it should never be designed in a way that distorts the market or 

encourages sub-par production. 

A risk management tool such as crop insurance allows producers like me to invest back 

into our own business, creating jobs our local community. Modern apple plantings 

cost upwards of$ 40,000/ac before a is harvested years later). This 

enormous startup cost scares many talented young entrepreneurs (and 

lending institutions) away from investing their talents (and into apple 

production. I am thankful many producers (and recognize crop insurance as an 
55 

important risk management tool. Without the ability to purchase a solid insurance 

policy and limit my exposure would not be able to justify investing my future into the 

apple business. 

Programs like the Fresh Fruit and Program are a win-win for the apple 

industry and the children that are served. This highly successful national program has 

reached more than 4 million low-income elementary school children, many ofthem 

right here in Michigan. 

The FFVP has been evaluated by outside experts and found to be highly effective at 

increasing students' consumption offresh fruits and vegetables. Anecdotally, we hear 

many of the students who participate take what they learn home with them and ask 

their parents to buy the fresh fruits and vegetables they experienced through the FFVP. 

There is a bipartisan focus on reducing the rate of childhood obesity and diabetes 

through improved nutrition and this program accomplishes those goals. 

I would be remiss if I did not raise the issue of labor and the concerns that 

apple growers have from coast-to-coast as to whether they will have adequate labor to 

harvest and care for our crop. Apple and cherry growers like me spend money 10 to 11 

months a year in order to create all of our revenue in a very short time sensitive 

window. l must point out there is no insurance for no labor. A solution to this problem 

must come sooner than later. I have witnessed crops wasting away on the 

trees because the producer wasn't able to secure a (domestic) work force or there were 

extreme delays in the H2-A program. 

Due to the lack of a viable domestic work force, our farm is in the process of recruiting 

foreign visa guest workers for our 2017 cherry and apple harvest. Many fellow 

producers in my area are also being forced to seek workers via the H2-A program. My 

single greatest concern this upcoming season is this program will experience significant 

delays and workers will not arrive before the crop is ready to be harvested. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before this Committee. These 

discussions and the reauthorization of the Farm Bill offer an exciting opportunity to 

further improve important specialty crop programs and support increased growth and 

competiveness of the apple and cherry industry. 
56 

Senate Agriculture Committee 

Field Hearing 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: 

Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

Frankenmuth, Michigan 

May 6, 2017 

Testimony of: 

Janna Fritz, 

JDF Farms, llC 

and 

Secretary/Treasurer, 

Michigan Corn Growers Association 

Good morning. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and all members of the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry: on behalf of my family farm and the Michigan Corn 

Growers Association, want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share a few thoughts 

on the Farm Bill. 

My name is Janna Fritz and I am married to a fifth-generation farmer. Our family's farm is located near 

Bad Axe, Michigan. My husband, Joel, and I have two sons, Wesley and Zachary, and we farm 1,200 

acres of corn, soybeans, and edible dry beans in collaboration with my father-in-law and my husband's 

cousin. I didn't grow up on a farm, but have come to love it because it's a great environment to be a 

Mom and raise our family. American farmers are some of the most honest, hard-working, 

compassionate people I have ever had the pleasure to know. Their ability to grow food, fuel and fiber for 

the world is truly an inspiration to me. In addition to working an the farm, I also am a sales 

representative for a seed company that puts me in touch with farmers throughout the Thumb region. 

In addition to the family farm, I serve as the Secretary/Treasurer of the Michigan Corn Growers 

Association. The Michigan Corn Growers Association is a grassroots membership organization that 

represents more than 1,400 growers statewide. Our mission is to advocate for policies that grow 

Michigan's agriculture industry and increase the profitability of corn production. I'm a founding member 

of the Thumbs Up 4·H Club and have served on the board of the Tuscola County Farm Bureau. In 2015, 

the Michigan Farm Bureau recognized me with the Young Agriculture Leader Award. I currently 

represent the Michigan Corn Growers Association on the U.S. Grains Council and sit on their 

Sustainability & Innovation Action Team. 

Michigan's corn growers are innovative and efficient at producing corn in a sustainable manner. In 

addition, new technology and best practices have allowed corn farmers to produce more bushels on 

fewer acres and with fewer inputs than ever before. We are deeply committed to conservation, both 

through working lands conservation programs and demand for programs like the Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program shows they are working effectively. Our 

farm is certified by the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP). As part of this 

certification we sample our soils to evaluate the nutrients already available. We then tailor our nutrient 

applications and only apply what our crop needs at that time. We keep detailed records of all our 
57 

nutrient and chemical applications. Additionally, we have utilized cover crops to protect the soils from 

erosion and use no-till or minimal-tillage practices in our fields. 

The efficiency we have today also comes with the-challenge of needing to find new markets and expand 

existing markets for corn. Corn farmers have seen a drastic drop in corn prices over the past several 

years, and many farmers are now experiencing corn prices that are at or below their cost of 

production. Of course, low prices mean lower revenues for farmers, lower net incomes for Michigan's 

farm families and increasing stress for farm operations, their employees and rural communities. It's why 

our organization is focusing attention on the important role that a strong farm safety net plays for 

Michigan's family farmers. 

Fundamentally, the safety net in the 2014 Farm Bill under then-Chairwoman Stabenow worked for 

farmers like me and my neighbors. The combination of crop insurance and the commodity safety net 

through the Agricultural Risk Coverage- County level and Price Loss Coverage programs have been 

helpful in offsetting significant revenue losses in recent years. ARC··CO, in particular, remains a high 

priority for our growers. We believe the program has performed as it was intended, and is making sure 

that farmers have assistance when it is needed. 

There are, however, like any new program, some areas where improvements could be made in the new 

Farm Bill. For instance, the availability of accurate data sources has been an ongoing issue. In some 

areas, there were not enough National Agricultural Statistical Service {NASS) surveys returned leading to 

insufficient data to determine yields. In these areas, Risk Management Agency (RMA) data was used in 

place of NASS data, which can lead to differences in yields in some cases. 

Another issue is that the coverage levels and payment zones under the program were developed under 

very different economic conditions. These calculations could be updated to reflect more accurate pricing 

for corn and other commodities so that farmers continue to have a robust safety net for both price and 

revenue losses. 

Along with a strong safety net, we also want to push for market development that will increase demand 

for corn and corn products. In that vein, trade and export development are consistently ranked as a top 

priority by MCGA members. As this committee knows, agricultural exports account for dose to 30 

percent of incomes for U.S. corn farmers. 

The importance of trade for farmers, became even clearer after my participation in a USDA-organized 

trade mission to China last year. The global population continues to rise, most significantly in Asia. As 

the population rises, so does the desire for high quality, safe food including more protein. American 

agriculture can supply that high quality, safe product. However, we need to be at the table and vocal for 

our industry if we are to be allowed to continue to trade with other countries. The trade mission also 

highlighted the importance of women in agriculture and was led by Deputy Undersecretary Alexis Taylor 

and made up of women from across U.S. agriculture including Michigan's Agriculture Secretary Jamie 

Clover Adams. 

To continue on trade, USDA's Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development Program 

{FMD) continue to be extremely valuable in growing new overseas markets for agriculture. These public· 

private partnerships deliver a return on investment of $28 in exports for every dollar that we invest. 

MCGA supports increasing the funding lor these programs to even further boost their effectiveness. 

At the same time we are growing markets abroad, there are important policies that support domestic 

markets through renewable fuels. Michigan is home to five ethanol plants that produce clean-burning 
58 

biofuels from Michigan-grown corn. Continued support of the Renewable Fuel Standard and other 

market access programs for biofuels will be more important than ever for building demand. 

To wrap my remarks up, it's hard to overstate the importance of the 2014 Farm Bill to Michigan's farm 

families weathering tremendous economic challenges over the past few years. We know that crafting 

farm policy that works for all of U.S. agriculture is no small feat. With that in mind, Michigan's corn 

farmers thank the committee for the hard work that will go into writing the next Farm Bill, especially in 

light of tight budget demands and increasing financial challenges experienced by producers. 

Thank you again for this opportunity I am happy to answer any questions you might have. 
59 

Senate 

and 

Introduction 

My name is Richard Gerstenberger and I am today on behalf of the Sugar 

Company. l am a second-generation fanner on the farm that began with my parents. Along with 

my wife Linda and brother Robert, and our two sons Dan and Mike and their families, we raise 

SUJ,aroee:ls, com, soybeans, wheat, alfalfa, and occasionally beans on 2,900 acres ofland. For 

past 30 years J have also have been a sugarbeet, com, soybean seed dealer. 

For the past nine years l have served as Chairman oflhc Board of Directors of the Michigan 

Sugar Company, which was in bankruptcy in 2002 until 600 banded together to save the 

Michigan industry and convcJi it to a farmer-owned I know the sugar business from 

the genetics in the seed to when the sugar arrives at the docks and shelves of our 

customers. Every step in that process has impact on the of our grower-owners. 

Brief History of the Industry in Michigan. Sugarbcets have been continuous on 

Michigan family farms for over 120 years. Between !898 and 1904, 23 sugarbcet were 

constructed across Michigan. Of these, only the four Michigan Sugar Company (MSC) tactories 

exist today. 

Transformation to a Farmer-Owned Cooperative. In 200 l, Imperial Sugar Company, the 

owner of Michigan Sugar Company at the time, announced that MSC was for sale. Imperial and 

its subsidiaries were in bankruptcy and made very clear that if the company vvere not 
60 

nwcnasc;u soon, the factories would be shuttered and would no longer operate. With sugarbccts 

one of the key rotation crops in the cash-crop region more than l 00 years. the growers 

fonned a cooperative and purchased the Michigan Sugar Company in 2002. 

What is unique to the sugarbcet and sugar cane industries, and unlike most other cash crops, is 

the fact that local growers are tied to a dedicated processing facility. You can't stop and start this 

industry based on global market forces. Once you are out. you arc out. 

Just two years later, in 2004, Monitor Sugar Company, the N"""""'i•tnr 

notth, also went up for sale and the same scenario was in play; 

not pm-chased soon, the factory would be shuttered and would no 

seven miles to the 

Sugar Company was 

operate. 

Facing that reality, in October 2004 the growers from both Monitor and Michigan combined 

efforts, purchased Monitor Sugar Company and merged the two companies into what is today the 

Michigan Company grower-owned cooperative. Purchasing two companies and all of the 

operating was a huge risk. Many g10wers mortgaged their farms to make the 

cooperative a reaflity and keep the sugarbeet industry in Michigan alive. 

This is testimony to the fact that across the U.S. sugarbect industry all ofthe beet-processing 

companies arc grower-owned cooperatives and the last owners ofthe business. ! would note 

that the majority of the cane milling and refining industry is also owned by cane tanners. 

Magnitude ofinvestments in the Factories. Since buying the companies, the growers of onr 

cooperative have iocused on futw·e and oppmtunities for their sons and daughters, 

who are the next generation of operators family fam1. As a result, growers have invested 

heavily to strengthen the foundation ofthe sugarbeet industry and provide an adequate 

return for their hard work and investment. to purchasing two sugarbeet processing 

companies, growers have made significant investments on their farms for advanced sugarbeet 

production and harvesting. The grower-owners of the cooperative have also invested heavily in 

their factories and beet-pile storage systems. with capital investments of $200 million since 

2002. These investments have concentrated on energy savings, enviromnental stewardship, 

extraction efficiencies. retail packaging lines, and beet quality in storage piles. 

U.S. Sugar Industry and Policy 

industry generates 142,000 jobs in 22 states. I want to 

com1s1<mu:y reminding her colleagues and the nation that agriculture 

Our cooperative employs 2,400 workers, full and pan time combined, to our four 

factories, various beet sites. and sugar storage and distribution in Ohio. These are 

good union jobs in mml towns that have no other Our cooperative also 

provides employment for !,000 fam1 families and their employees who grow beets on !51,000 

acres. This industry is the economic lifeblood for many of the small towns throughout our 

region. 
61 

The U.S. sugar industry generates $20 billion in annual economic activity.1 In Michigan, our 

industry's contribution to our state's economy is$ L5 billion. 

American sugar is working well for American consumers, food manufacturers, and 

taxpayers. It can an economic safety net for American sugar producers if it is 

updated to ret1cct today's and as long as there is an eticctivc response to Mexican 

subsidizing and dumping. 

In 2014 and 2015, the U.S. Intemational Trade Commission at,>reed that the 

Mexican government and sugar industry had injured the U.S. sugar industry. US 

Department of Cbmmcrcc calculated subsidy and dumping margins totaling more than 80%. 

Rather than imposing those duties, the U.S. and Mexican negotiated Suspension 

Agreements (SAs) to resume duty-tl·ee trade, with the of eliminating hannful dumping. 

These SAs have proven to be ineffective. The dumping continues, and U.S. refined sugar prices 

are hovering near loan-forfeiture levels. Hawaii has ceased cane sugar production, and a beet 

factory in Wyoming is about to close. Many other American sugar producers are financially 

vulnerable. 

Today, only 73% of U.S. sugar consumption supplied by domestic production, with the 

balance coming from imports. Twenty years ago, R5% vvas supplied by domestic production 

(Figure /). Grofwing dependence on foreign suppliers is an alanning trend that must be reversed. 

Domestic production should not be rcshicted to accommodate more impmts. The sugar policy's 

locus must be to put American beet and cane fmmer interests first 

We are encouraging the U.S. and Mexican ""'''wrm1wn to com:ct the shortcomings of the SAs 

or, failing that, to impose the subsidy and duties. 

An adequate response to foreign subsidies and dumping is essential to our survivaL 

Background 

"'''[""·""'''""l.'J.· Sugar is a strategic an important role in the security of our 

nation's system. We are already heavily suppliers tor about 30% of 

our domestic needs. \Ve cannot become more imports because have 

been proven to be unreliable in times of global sugar industry a key 

supplier to the Midwest markets, where food manufacturers and retail businesses depend on us to 

provide them with high quality, safe, and on-lime supply of sugar. Our core 

market area is Indiana, Michigan and where we supply sugar products to 500 

manufacturers and businesses. 

The U.S. sugar industry is a major player in the world sugar market The United States is the 

world's fifth largest sugar-producing country and among the most efficient. 

1 LJ\1C International, "'The 

Oxford. England, Augus1 20! 

Importance •?lthe to l. .. lS EcoHomy ~Jobs and Revenues," 
62 

~~~~~~~~\~~~~~~~~~~Tn!:~:~:~~~~ 1\fost of these are developing countries with far lower costs consumer, and 

environmental protections. U.S. beet sugar producers, mostly in nmthern-tier slates, are the 

lowest-cost beet producers in the world.2 

U.S. beet and cane producers arc among the most efficient in the world because we have reduced 

costs by vertically integrating. We haw fonned cooperatives and growers now own all of the 

nation's 22 beet factories. and cane growers haYc purchased most of their refineries. 

guaranteed and access to 41 countries. 

makes the U.S. one world's most open markets to foreign sugar. The amount of duty-free 

access is detennincd under the World Trade Organization and other trade agreements to which 

the United States is a party. 

of modem biotechnology 

has raised beet sugar 30% and provides 26 benefits that include 

dramatically reduced energy, crop protection products, and water use. The sugar from genetically 

engineered beets is the same as sugar from conventional beets or cane. Our sugarbeets are now 

one of the most sustainable sugar crops in the world. 

a sugar 

subsidies and dumping threaten the economic viability of American 

sugar producers. 

Justification for U.S. Sugar Policy 

Since U.S. sugar producers are among the lowest cost in the world, one might ask why the 

industry requires a sugar policy at all. Tbe answer is found in the distorted, dump nature of the 

world sugar market. 

Foreign govemments snbsidize their producers so egregiously that many of these countries 

produce far more sugar than their markets demand. Rather than store these surpluses, or close 

mills and lose jobs, as the United States has done, these countries their subsidized sugar 

onto the world market for whatever price it will bring. This threatens fwther 

harm to American tlnmers. 

As a result of these dumped surpluses, the so-called "world price" f(lr sugar has been rendered 

essentially meaningless. The world price has rarely reflected the actual cost of producing sugara minimal criterion for a meaningful market price. 

Oxford. England. August 201 
63 

The world price is so dt'prcsscd 

average cost of producing sugar 

subsidies and dumping that, over the past 28 years, the world 

averaged nearly 50% more than the world price (Figure 2). J 

One European market 

never be used as a 

sugar.'~4 

noted: "The world market price is 'dump' 

to measure what benefits or costs may accrue 

.(it) should 

free tmdc in 

Researchers at Texas A&M University's and Food Policy Center wrote: 

"Policymakers in the United States have long that the world sugar market is heavily 

distorted by foreign subsidies and market and have provided U.S. sugar fanners 

with some form of safety net for more than 200 years. Major exporters of sugar do not respond to 

the signals of the world market but rather to the policies of their governments that enable them to 

export sugar below their costs of production and their own domestic ptices."s 

How can a world sugar industry exist if the price received for the product is just fi·action of the 

cost of producing it? The answer is twofold: 

l. Only about 20-25% of the sugar produced each year is actually traded at the so-called 

"world price." 

2. The other 75-80% of sugar is consumed in the countries where it is produced, at prices 

considerably higher than the world price and higher than production costs. 

1T1e International Sugar Organization (ISO) surveyed 78 countries to leam actual wholesale 

the price producers in those countries receive for their sugar. The ISO documents that, 

actual wholesale refined prices have 46% higher than the world price 

over the past decade. Prices in countries have nearly double the world dump 

market price averaging 94% higher (Figure 3)," 

This, then, explains how we can have a vast world industry: Governments shield their 

producers from the world dump market sugar and prices high enough- above the dump 

market and above production costs- to sustain their subsidized domestic industry and generate 

and defend jobs. 

Further, this explains why we require a U.S. sugar policy- even with American sugar producers 

among the lowest cost, and most responsible, in the world. Generous domestic pricing 

encourages over-production in many countries, and govemments then seek to their 

surplus. Absent U.S. sugar policy, those subsidized and dumped surpluses 

market and displace efficient American sugar farmers. 

J LMC InternationaL "World Sugar Prices vs Costs 

4 Patrick Chatcnay, Support and the Canterbury, England, April2013. 

5 Dr. Joe Outlaw and Dr. James Richardson, Sugar Reform to U.S, Sugar 

Potential ~ffect an Policy and Jndusi!J'," Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University. 

o International Sugar Organization, nDomestic MECAS ( 15)06, May 2015. 
64 

ofthe U.S. sugar market to Mexican subsidies and a 

And Mexico is by no means unique. Its typical of foreign 

sugar exporters who their exports and shift the burden of their SUllJluscs from their 

domestic markets onto the world market. 

Damage from Mexican Subsidized Dumping 

When the NAFT A went into effect in !994, the Mexican sugar industry was struggling 

financially and was an occasional exporter of small volumes of sugar. In 2001, the Mexican 

half of all its country's sugar mills, rather than them to go out 

Mexican sugarcane plantings exploded up 600!,, since 

sugar demand was flat or declining (Figure 4). 

Mexico became one of the world's largest sugar exporters, with the group of Mexican 

government mills far the country's leadiug sugar producer and exporteL Virtually all those 

exports have been at the U.S. market, which opened fully to Mexican sugar in 2008 under 

NAFT/\ rules. 

Though the Mexican recently "officially" divested itself of its mills, !he government 

remains closely in the Mexican sugar industry. In addition to government ownership, 

Mexican growers and have benefitted !rom federal and state cash infusions, debt 

restmctming and government grant to finance inventory, cxp01ts, and 

inputs, and a cane-grower payment system that subsidizes exports.? 

ln20l3, Mexican sugar production soared to an all-time high a stnnning 38% higher than the 

previous year's production. Yet the huge domestic market smplus, Mexico was able to 

sustain sugar pticcs higher in their market than in the United States. How did they 

manage to balance their market? By dttmping their subsidized sUJplus on the U.S. market. 

Mexico doubled its exports to the United States, shipping about million more tons than our 

market could bear (Figure 5). Mexican to the U.S. in 20!3 and 2014, at 2 million tons 

each year, were abont 250 times greater their prc-NAFTA levels, 

The subsidized and 

first unv.,1mrn.,1nl 

<n,cni·•N''" collapsed the U.S. sugar market and caused the 

in a dozen years, as American farmers struggled to 

principal plus interest 

The U.S, sngar industry filed antidumping and countervailing duty cases against Mexico in 2014, 

and won. The ITC ruled unanimously that Mexico had injured the U.S, sugar industry, and the 

Department of Commerce calculated subsidy margins of 6-44% and dumping margins of 4 l -42% 

(Figure 6).8 

U.S. producer prices plummeted by more than halft!·om 2010 to early 2014, recovered 

somewhat in late 2014. and have fallen by a fourth since then. Subsidized Mexican imports 

continue to hrun1 the U.S. sugar industry, despite Suspension At,•rcements the U.S. and Mcxicnn 
65 

govemments implemented in late 2014 with the intention ntnn>vc•nt•m 

American sugar production cannot survive under cmTcnl market y"'"'"'"'''"'· 

Unfortunately, the SAs are not working as intended. Mexico, basically. has sent too little raw 

sugar and too much rct!ned sugar to the U.S., relative to market needs. U.S. cane refiners have 

been starved for raw sugar to process, and refined beet sugar prices arc so low that loan 

forfeitures arc a serious threat. 

The U.S. and Mexican govcmments are working on modil!cations to the SAs, and the U.S. 

government will need to impose duties on Mexican sugar if the two sides cannot reach a 

resolution. American sugar producers arc committed to working with our govemmenl to find a 

negotiated solution, but it will take a wiUing Mexican government and industry to com;ct the 

flaws in the SAs. 

How U.S. Sugar Policy is Working 

U.S. sugar policy has had the same structure since the 2002 Fann Bill and certain provisions 

need to be updated to reflect today's costs and realities. With these and elimination of 

Mexican dumping, it can continue to he a successful policy. 

• American consumers and food manufacturers continue to have access to high-quality, 

safe. affordable, and responsibly-produced sugar supplies. 

• American taxpayers benefit from a policy than has run at zero cost in but one ofthe 

past 15 years and projected to remain zero cost for years to come if the Mexican 

dumping problem is resolved. 

• American sugar fanners have retained an economic safety net that has helped many, 

though not all, to survive an extended period of low and the catastrophic effects of 

Mexican dumping. Au enhanced safety net needed. 

American Consumer Benefits. With U.S. wholesale pliccs at or below world average levels, 

one would expect American consumer prices, too, to be low. They are. World average retail 

sugar prices are 20% higher than U.S. prices; de,·eloped-country prices are 29% higher (Figure 

7). With a stable U.S. sugar policy and industry, American consumers get a great deal on highquality, safe, and responsibly-produced sugar. 

American Taxpayer Benefits. Fam1 Bills have long instructed the USDA to operate sugar 

policy at no cost to taxpayers by avoiding sugar Joan forfeitures. policy requires USDA to 

administer U.S. sugar policy to ensure sugar processors can repay operating loans at 

principle plus interest 

USDA has met this no-cost requirement, except in 2013, when Mexico dumped 

subsidized sugar into U.S. market USDA took action. as directed by law. to minimize Joan 

forfeitures, taxpayer costs. and long-term hann to American sugar producers. 
66 

With Suspension Agreements in cftect, the Con~o'rcssional Office projects zero cost as 

long as the agreements arc in place, with modest costs in the event the SAs, and/or 

duties, are tenninated in five years and Mexican dumping resumes. USDA and FAPR! project 

zero cost over the next l 0 years {Figure 8). 

Sugar policy opponents, led by major product manufacturers, have urged 

opening the U.S. market to greater of subsidized foreign sngar. AdditionaL unneeded 

sugar, howeYer, would threaten USDA's ability to administer a zero-cost policy. The Texas 

A&M researchers wrote: 

Our analysis leads us to conclude that food manufacturers' refotms would 

undenninc the no cost requirement of the law, resulting in taxpayer costs, 

jeopardizing the viability of U.S. sugar farmers and processors, and leading to 

higher sugar costs for consumers as domestic suppliers are lost and the volatile 

world sugar market is increasingly relied upon to meet domestic demand. 

Meanwhile, food manufacturers may benefit in the short tern1 from depressed 

domestic sugar prices but, in the long-run, they would su!Ier ti·om the loss of 

what they say they need: a viable, healthy, and geographically diverse supply of 

domestic sugar. 9 

Sugar Producer Safety Net; I, ow Sugar Market Prices, With the exception of the year of 

excessive Mexican dumping, when prices fell bdow loan lorfciturc levels, U.S. sugar policy has 

provided an economic safety net for American sugar producers. But not for all producers, and 

there have been numerous casualties. 

Since the loan support price was established in 1985 at l 8 cents per pound of raw cane sugar, the 

loan rate has risen only4%, to 18.75 cents. General intlation since 1985 has been !23%. 

Real producer prices, corrected for inflation, 43'% since the 1980s. 

Producers who could not reduce production costs to keep pace with falling real prices t\Jr 

their product have gone out of business. We have lost beet and cane operations more than 

half of all those operating in 1985. Hawaii has ceased growing sugarcane after nearly two 

centuries that was at the core of Hawaii's economic and social 

in Wyoming, is expected to close permanently this year 

More closures would certainly have occmred over time if not for vertical 

cane growers and investment biotechnology and other breeding and 

With cmTent low sugar market prices, payments to growers have dropped significantly, 

essentially putting some of our young growers out of business and jeopardizing the ability of 

established farms to acquire operating loans lor the coming crop year. 

CmTent low market prices are also reducing cooperative's financial resources f(Jr 

maintenance and efficiency updates in our factories. Signitlcant sugar yield improvement-

'Outlaw and Richardson, op. cit. 
67 

through advanced sugar content, improved 

storage techniques and factory way we are surviving. When 

we are already right on the economic "edge," problems in any of these areas would make it hard 

for the industry to survive. 

The price safety net in the cun·cnt statute is inadequate to cover growers' costs. We can survive 

under the current policy if market supply and demand are in balance, but we cannot survive if 

prices drop to the safety net levels. Our cunent satety net not really safety net. 

Biotechnology Advances 

Currently one of the key elements in our ability to survive low market prices is biotechnology. 

Advances in seed varieties have allowed growers to benefit trom significant yield increases. "01e 

technology has eliminated the need for hand labor, reduced the amount of chemicals used to 

address crop protection issues, and raised environmental stewardship to unprecedented levels. 

The introduction of biotechnology traits has made our beet sugar producers the most efficient 

and, more importantly, the most sustainable beet sugar industry in the world. 

Tied to the benefits of biotechnology traits is the responsibility to educate legislators and 

consumers about the safety and commonality of natural sugars. Beet and cane sugar are identicaL 

Any attempt to differentiate between beet and cane only creates misunderstanding, inefficiencies 

and higher costs for consumers. 

Crop Insurance 

insurance is essential risk management tool for beet growers and is usually a 

by their bankers. With a higher investment in growing than most other 

commodities, agricultnrallenders are evaluating their lending risk their loan 

approvals on the availability of an adequate safety nd, which most crop insurance coverage 

provides. 

Historically, crop insurance has served beet growers with minimal but adequate coverage. This 

past year, however, many beet were plagued by low contents in thdr beets that 

insurance needed to cover, but not. Beet growers are the problem and will \vork 

with the Risk /\gency (RMA) to find a solution. RMA has always worked well 

with our growers, we appreciate their attention to our concerns. Beet growers will briefthe 

Committee in the weeks and months ahead to achieve an efi,~ctive solution. 

Research 

The Michigan sugar industry and the entire L'.S. sugarbeet industry is dependent on ARS 

research funding for slatTing of USDA research scientists at the Lansing ARS Facility and others 

across the country. The advances in yields and disease control that we have seen in recent years 

are the direct result of ARS research shared with industry seed development specialists. Even 

with these advances, we continue to be challenged with disease, insect and parasite issues which, 
68 

if left unaddressed, would seriously threaten the fi;turc of our industry. Continued adequate 

funding of ARS research is, therefore. critically impottant 

Regulations 

Our fanners need relief from over-regulation and burdensome costs that few benefits to 

society. Waters of the U.S. and other wetland regulations top the list the CREP program, 

we are required to block otT or dig up our subteJTancan tile !incs on acreage signed up in the 

"long tenn" pro1,;ram even though it may only last I 0 years. 

U.S. Sugar Policy in the Next Farm Bill 

As long as there is an adequate response to Mexican subsidies and dumping, and the U.S. sugar 

policy is updated to reflect cun-ent grower and production costs and realities, it can 

continue to be effective for American consumers, manufacturers, taxpayers, and sugar 

producers. 

The response to Mexican dumping is most likely to take either of two fonns: 

1. Arm-oumtJmg and countervailing duties, as calculated by the Department of Commerce, 

severely limit sugar imports fi·om Mexico; or, 

2. Effective Agreements that would permit continued duty-fi·ee sugar impmts 

from Mexico, limit those imports to the amount, and type, of sugar the U.S. market 

needs, and at minimum reference prices designed to prevent further dumping. 

The U.S. and Mexican govenuncnts are attempting to negotiate modifications to the Suspension 

Agreements that have been in place since late 20 !4 but that have proven ineffective. We support 

these govemment efforts. 

Zero-for-Zero 

U.S. sugar producers recognize that subsidies and other market-distorting polices must be 

addressed in order for the world dump market to recover and better ret1ect fi·ee market principles. 

Therefore, American have pledged to give np U.S. sugar policy when foreign 

producers agree to 

The American Sugar Alliance has endorsed a resolution (H.Con.Res. 40) 10 that 

was introduced by a member of the House Committee, Representative Ted Yoho of 

Florida. This "zero-for-zero" resolution explicitly calls for the U.S. to suJTender its sugar policy 

when other major producers have done the same. 

To weaken or surrender sugar policy without any foreign concessions, as some critics of U.S. 

sugar policy have called for, would amount to foolish unilateral disannamcnt. We would 

saclificc good American jobs in a dy11mnic, efficient industry in favor of foreign jobs in the 

counllies that continue to subsidize. 
69 

Conclusion 

U.S. sugar policy has worked well for iunclican consumers, food manufacturers, and taxpayers. 

US sugar policy can continue to operate at zero cost to and provide a genuine 

economic safety ne! lor American sugar fanners if it to reflect today's realities and as 

long Mexican dumping on the U.S. market does not continue. 

producers in Michigan and across the country will work hard for an effective 2018 Farm 

for all American tanners. We strongly support U.S. government efforts to put an end to 

Mexican dumping of subsidized sugar on th.: U.S. market 

The beet sugar industry has been in for over 120 years, and we plan to be here 

indefinitely. Bul our future depends on the Congress passing strong sugar provisions in the 2018 

Farm Bill that allows our to make an adequate return and on the Administration's 

implementation of that including trade policy that complements our domestic sugar 

provisions. We look forward to working with you in the months ahead to determine what 

modifications are needed. 

Thank you. 
70 
71 

Figure 2 

Scurc.-es 

Figure 3 

World Raw Market Price: 

Does Not Reflect Actual Cost of 

World Average Wholesale Refined Sugar Price Nearly 50% Higher than 

World Dump Market Price; Developed-Country Average Nearly Double - 2005-2014, cents!lb --

20 
72 

182 185 

in sweeteners began 

January 1, 2008 

1,309 
73 
74 

Figure 8 

$275 

SJ50 

S100 

S75 

$50 

!525 

U.S. Sugar Policy Cost: 

Zero Net Cost Before Mexican Subsidizing and Dumping; 

Zero with tile Cases/Suspension Agreements (SAs) 

-- CBO Projections, MH/ion Do!llfrs 

So!Jr(;es· USOA, 2001/02- 2014/15 (2Gi2rt3 ts net cost for 20i2/13-13l14): CBO. 201S1·i{l-202Bf27, Jnnuaqo 2D17 

FAPRl"' Food and Agncultwml Po!1cy Research !n:;;iJtuto 
75 

Figure 9 

1 

Figure 10 
76 

Figure 

Wholesale Refined Sugar Prices and Sugar Company Closures: 

Flat prices for three decades 57 closures from 1985 to 2016 

-Cents per pound-- 60 

50 

8 Cane 

40 

Figure 12 

Prices Since 1985: 

uc•u<;n•u Operations Have Shut Down 
77 

Testimony of Bob Hance, Presiqent and CEO of Midwest Energy Cooperative 

Michigan Field Hearing 

US Senate Agriculture Committee 

May 6, 2017 

Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, for inviting me to testify today. My name 

is Bob Hance. I am the President and CEO of Midwest Energy & Communications {"Midwest") 

headquartered in Cassopolis, Michigan. 

Midwest is a member-owned electric cooperative serving more than 35,000 residential, agricultural, 

commercial and industrial customers in southwestern and southeastern Michigan, northern Indiana and 

Ohio. Our service territory covers 12 counties. Though our core service is, and always will be, the 

distribution of electricity, today's organization also provides service to 6,200 propane, and 4,000 

telecommunications customers. 

I am proud to say that Midwest is a trusted partner in rural Michigan. For Michigan to be strong, rural 

areas must thrive. For America to prosper, all must participate equally. To help ensure that happens, 

we rely on agencies like the Rural Utilities Service {RUS), which is a part of the United States Department 

of Agriculture. RUS is a critical factor in our ability to reliably and competitively serve our memberconsumers in rural Michigan. 

While our first business priority is to deliver reliable, affordable electricity to our members, our mission 

and vision demands more of Midwest. We exist to benefit the communities we serve. Stated another 

way, our mission is "To bring first-in-class innovations and solutions where others won't". If we're 

successful in doing that, we help realize our vision of "Vibrant, relevant and sustainable rural 

communities". Midwest is more than just a poles, wires, and electrons company. Our broader purpose 

is to provide the services and support that empower our communities to thrive. Rural electric 

cooperatives are much more than just electric utilities- we are the engines that drive economic 

opportunity across the heartland and to rural areas everywhere. 

Rural areas still grow most of the food, generate most of the power, and manufacture most of the goods 

that this country consumes. When rural areas suffer, electric cooperatives suffer and, more importantly, 

the country as a whole suffers. That's why the Farm Bill is essential for co-ops, for Michigan, and for the 

country. The Farm Bill contains important rural development tools that support our efforts to 

strengthen our communities. I want to talk about just a few. 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 

In the early 1900's, as urban areas began to electrify, rural areas lagged behind. Eventually, farmers and 

ranchers in remote areas took the initiative to form electric cooperatives and did it themselves. In the 

past 80 years, a lot has changed, but the same fundamental challenge still exists- how to affordably 

connect those few customers in high cost rural areas. What was then called the Rural Electrification 
78 

Administration is now the Rural Utilities Service and is as relevant today as it was back then. REA and 

RUS loans have helped build, expand, and improve the infrastructure across rural America necessary to 

provide power, deliver clean water, and deploy advanced telecommunications technologies to rural 

areas. 

Today, RUS loans help electric co-ops reduce costs and improve reliability for our members by financing 

basic maintenance like replacing poles and wires. But it also helps us fund projects to make our systems 

more modern, efficient, and secure. 

Midwest is one of the larger electric cooperatives in Michigan. By year-end, we will hold roughly $110 

million in loan funds from RUS for both traditional electric and telecommunications infrastructure, 

including smart grid applications and high-speed broadband service to homes and businesses 

throughout our rural footprint. In the aggregate, Michigan's electric cooperatives currently have more 

than $500 million in RUS loans for the specific purpose of building utility infrastructure in some of the 

most remote areas of our Great Lakes State. 

RUS depends on a yearly appropriation from the Agriculture Appropriations bill. We have historically 

enjoyed strong support for robust RUS funding in large part because we're such a good investment for 

the federal government. We ask that you help us maintain that support. 

We also ask that you support policies that allow us to use RUS loans to address a broad set of co-op 

needs- whether for advanced utility communications, renewable generation, baseload generation, or 

for making environmental upgrades to existing generation. Just as the times have changed and the 

needs of rural America have changed, so too has the RUS loan program. We have appreciated working 

with the Committee over the years to help make the program more streamlined and efficient, and we 

look forward to exploring new ways to continue to improve the program. Modernizing the RUS loan 

program is good for both electric cooperative borrowers and taxpayers. The RUS annually reviews and 

approves billions of dollars of loans, and finding ways to more efficiently process those loans reduces 

burdens on taxpayers while meeting borrowers' needs more efficiently as well. 

Guaranteed Underwriter Program 

Another important financing option available to electric cooperatives is loans from cooperative banks. 

Co-op banks add healthy competition to the marketplace. The Farm Bill contains a provision that allows 

those loans to be guaranteed by RUS for cooperative business purposes. We encourage you to continue 

that policy. 

In addition to investing in the electric cooperative network, the fees paid on Guaranteed Underwriter 

loans can be used to lund Rural Economic Development loans and Grants- known as the REDL&G 

program. 

2 
79 

Rural Economic Development loans and Grants (REDl&G) 

Under the REDl&G program, USDA provides zero-interest loans to utilities {including electric co-ops), 

which, in turn, pass the funds through to local businesses and other groups that create jobs in rural 

areas, This positive cycle of business development can strengthen both the co-op and the local 

community by helping stabilize populations and the co-op's customer base. 

REDL&G programs have been the catalyst for hundreds of new jobs being developed across the Great 

Lakes State over the past decade and has been consistently used by both Midwest and our fellow 

Michigan electric cooperatives as a key economic development tool in rural Michigan. Kilwin's, Boyne 

USA, Great Lakes Potato Chip, Crystal Mountain Resort, and Right Brain Brewery are just a few examples 

of Michigan organizations that have benefitted from this program in conjunction with their local electric 

cooperative, 

Let's look at Great lakes Potato Chip in Traverse City for a great example of how this program supports 

economic development in rural Michigan. Cherryland Electric Cooperative, our sister cooperative in the 

Grand Traverse region, worked with RUS to provide a $57,000 zero interest loan through REDL&G to 

Great lakes Potato Chip to provide additional slicers, scales, conveyers and other associated equipment 

to support the organization's continued growth. This loan supported the company's move to a second 

shift with up to 10 new jobs in rural Michigan. I can attest that 10 new jobs in rural Michigan is a 

meaningful number and REDL&G was a key component in that growth. 

Innovation and Energy Efficiency 

For years, electric co-ops across the country have provided information and advice to consumers to help 

them use electricity more efficiently and cost-effectively, The wide range of assistance includes rebates 

for energy-efficient appliances, switching to more energy efficient light bulbs, and time of day rates to 

encourage off-peak usage. We encourage you to maintain the Rural Energy Savings Program, the Energy 

Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program, and the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), We 

believe these are all important tools that can help replicate Michigan's successes around the country, 

I serve on the Board of Directors of Spartan Renewable Energy here in Michigan who just last year was 

successful in securing a $500,000 REAP grant award from USDA rural development which helped in the 

construction of Spartan Solar, one of Michigan's largest community solar projects located near Cadillac 

Michigan, The Spartan Solar project is offering consumers from five Michigan electric cooperatives 

throughout the lower Peninsula the ability to competitively participate in a large community solar 

project I am happy to report that several hundred rural Michigan consumers have already purchased 

"solar shares" in this exciting project 

3 
80 

Broadband 

Just as with other types of infrastructure, rural America can't be competitive without access to high 

speed broadband service. Many comparisons are drawn between the lack of access to robust broadband 

service today and the need for electrification in rural areas 80 years ago- with the urban areas of the 

country well-served, and rural areas being left behind. Some electric co-ops around the country are 

leading the way in connecting rural customers to high speed broadband. As Congress contemplates 

telecommunication and infrastructure policies in the farm bill and in other legislative packages, we 

believe that all potential providers including electric cooperatives should be eligible for programs 

designed to bridge the digital divide. 

Midwest's partnership with RUS through the Smart Grid loan program is the latest success story of how 

the partnership between electric cooperatives and RUS is benefitting consumers in rural Michigan. In 

2015, Midwest became the first electric cooperative in the country to access the RUS Smart Grid loan 

program with the successful approval of an approximately $60 million facility, Midwest is currently 

building out more than 2,000 miles of fiber over five years to improve grid security, help consumers 

manage their energy consumption, while also improving network reliability and operational 

performance, 

Perhaps of greatest importance, Midwest's efforts are narrowing the rural/urban "digital divide" that 

exists in this country today by offering voice, data and, ultimately, a video option that affords access to 

meaningful health care, education and job opportunities. To date, Midwest has completed installations 

to more than 4,000 homes and businesses in our rural Michigan footprint. We continue to add 50 new 

customers every week to plans that scale up to a gigabit symmetrical in speed. The response from our 

rural consumers has been overwhelmingly positive as demonstrated by the notes, cards and "thank you" 

emails we continue to receive on a daily basisJ. This RUS Smart Grid initiative has been transformative 

both for Midwest and those rural consumers we serve. 

Conclusion 

We are a healthy nation because we have vibrant, bustling urban cities AND because we have verdant, 

productive rural areas. Unfortunately, whether it's infrastructure or jobs or access to health care, it 

seems that too often rural America gets the short end of the stick. The Farm Bill is important legislation 

that helps to address some of those disparities. 

Electric cooperatives enjoy a productive partnership with the federal government and with the 

communities we serve to promote the health of rural America. We look forward to continuing to work 

with you toward that important goaL Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today, I'm 

happy to answer any of your questions. 

1 Attached is a small sampling of testimonials received by Midwest Energy & Communications. 

4 
81 

Jerry Ann Hebron 

The Oakland Farm Way 

9227 Goodwin Street 

Detroit, Michigan 48211 

Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's 

2018 Farm Bill field hearing and share my perspective on urban farming. 

I am a native Detro iter, product of the Detroit Public School System and have two years at Wayne State 

University. Detroit was once the capitol of the U.S. auto industry, which almost single handedly helped 

to create the American middle-class but Detroit has been crippled, by closing factories, falling home 

prices, the exodus of tens of thousands of residents, and lots of vacant land. 

The great recession started early in Detroit and can still be felt in some quarters. When the nation's 

unemployment rate was hovering around 9.0 percent in '09, '10, or '11, the jobless rate in the metro 

Detroit metropolitan area was over 11.5 percent. In the city proper the unemployment rate was 20 

percent- although, unofficially, that figure was much higher for those of us viewing things on the 

ground floor. In fact a December 2009, article in the Detroit News suggested the true unemployment 

figure in the city might be as high as an astounding 50 percent. Couple that with the estimated 80,000 

residential housing units needing demolition, and the city's 20 square miles of total vacant land {roughly 

equal to the size of Manhattan). What you get is the need for creative paths forward like Oakland Farm 

Way. 

This is how I started our farm, the Oakland Avenue Urban Farm which is located in the Historical North 

End Community and a commitment to growing food, educating our community, and creating 

opportunities for economic development. At one point in history we had businesses owned by African 

Americans, a dense population with quality housing and great schools. 

After the housing market crash in 2008, I left my job in real estate because it became financially difficult 

to keep my office open. Rev. Bertha Carter, Senior, Pastor of the St. John Evangelist Temple of Truth 

and School of Wisdom asked me to be the Executive Director for the North end Christian CDC. My initial 

instructions were to figure out how the CDC can engage people in the community and find out the needs 

of the community. was familiar with the neighborhood since I lived there as a child so my approach 

was to go where the people are. I talked to people in stores, on the street, door to door, food pantry, 

etc. I heard the same thing over and over again, we need jobs, quality homes and good food. 

made it a point to attend as many community meetings on various subjects as possible and it was 

through these meetings that I learned about the Greening of Detroit's work in the east side of Oakland. 

The Greening of Detroit was helping groups/people with gardens, landscaping and technical assistance. 

I reached out to them immediately to help us address the need for quality food in the Oakland 

community. Together, we planted a new garden on one of the 10 vacant lots adjacent to the church. 

We worked with a designed landscape artist, forestry specialist, soil specialist and residents to plan what 
82 

the garden would look like, what we would grow and who would do the work breaking ground the next 

year in 2009. 

When we started farming in 2009 the neighborhood was not safe. It was filled with vacant lots and 

houses, poor quality grocery stores, a liquor store on every corner selling greasy food and pizza slices. 

These bridge card SNAP eligible stores offered poor quality and limited amounts of fruit, bread, milk, 

and some canned goods, which were often on the shelf with expired date labels. People in our 

community were shopping at the liquor stores for the unhealthy food choices because there was no 

other options. To respond to this, we started growing a variety of vegetables that were culturally 

appropriate for our community (green beans, collards, tomatoes, peas, spinach, squash, cabbage, 

cucumbers, mustard greens, turnip greens, sweet potatoes, okra, onions, garlic and a variety of herbs. 

In 2011, we started adding fruit: strawberries, raspberries and pears. In the same year, we opened our 

farmers market on the farm and started selling at six Chrysler Plants. In order to meet the demand of 

these farmers market, we had to increase our production so we purchased more land for production. 

We are now planting more fruit trees to increase our fruit production. We have included apple, peach, 

more pears and cherry. This fruit production will add to our food consumption and increase the 

opportunities for value-added production, including our line of AFRO Jams, so we can increase sales. We 

can use USDA Value-Added Producer grants but need additional access to other financing tools to help 

us get these products to the shelf. 

In 2013, Detroit passed the Urban Agriculture Ordinance, making it legal to purchase vacant land for 

food production. The passing of the ordinance created an opportunity for urban farmers to sustain their 

work in food production through land ownership. Over the last three years, we purchased over 30 

properties surrounding our farm and have created the Oakland Farm Way which includes a working 

farm, incubator space for food related businesses, educational programming around food and nutrition 

and green spaces that improve the environment. 

Six years after starting as a community garden, we are growing food at the Oakland Avenue Urban Farm 

on over 4.8 acres of land. In addition, we have two green houses, one funded through USDA's 

Environmental Quality Incentive Program, have purchased and renovated an abandoned house which is 

now used as our community house for meetings, food preparation, youth meeting space and a shared 

kitchen. 

What is needed now to grow these businesses is access to more USDA funding for crop insurance, low 

interest loans for equipment and integrated farm business development, and infrastructure 

improvements for water. 

Urban Agriculture is a great environment to work and grow skilled workers who traditionally have been 

denied employment because of a background check or drug problem. On our farm we work with people 

where they are and what we find is our environment is one in which we are able to train people basic 

employment skills. We have been able use our production sales to hire people in the community as 

seasonal workers at minimum wage and we recently started a tree fruit growing initiative to train our 

farm workers on how to grow fruit trees and manage largescale farm equipment, giving them specialty 
83 

skills and machine training. The farm work is transformative spiritually, environmentally and skillfully. 

People are learning how to plan, how to grow food which results in them eating better, how to deal with 

plant pests using organic practices and professional development opportunities. 

On our farm, we have also partnered with the "Grow Detroit Talent" program in Detroit which is 

targeted to hire 8000 kids across the city. We are employing 25 youth this summer, teaching them how 

to grow food, business and marketing skills at the farmers market, and getting them in the kitchen to 

learn how to cook and safely prepare food. For the past three years, I have been working on the Ml 

State Fair Steering Committee as the Urban Agriculture Scholarship coordinator to help award 

continuing education scholarships for urban kids who are interested in pursuing career opportunities in 

farming and agriculture. 

Urban agriculture creates new opportunities to get kids and communities interested in food and farming 

and helps strengthen relationships between urban and rural communities. 

Urban Agriculture in Detroit involves approximately 1,500 urban gardens, farms, community gardens, 

school gardens, church gardens and family gardens. Of these there are about 100 growers who are 

selling fruits and vegetables at farmers markets, restaurants and chefs earning minimally over 

$1,000,000 In Detroit. This money is sustaining families, communities and employment opportunities. 

The growers in this network are growing food where the soil is tested and is free of chemicals. Only one 

or two are certified organic, however, all are growing according to organic standards and methods. 

The 2018 Farm Bill is important to Urban Agriculture because it could create opportunities for urban 

growers that we currently do not have. For example, 2016 we experienced a drought which resulted in 

crop loss, but urban growers do not currently have crop insurance to cover that loss. When we lose 

crop, it results not only in loss of food but income and jobs. 

The 2018 Farm Bill is also important to USDA Programs like the Farmers Market Promotion, 

Environmental Quality Incentive Program, SNAP, WIC, the Senior's Farmers Market Nutrition Program 

and the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive program- in Michigan we call it "Double Up Food Bucks" 

I am a member of the Detroit Community Markets which operates under the Detroit Eastern Market. 

The Oakland Avenue Farmers Market is one of 16 members operating farmers markets in communities 

across Detroit. All of these markets are able to process transactions for families receiving food 

assistance and use "Double Up Food Bucks". They also offer a variety of educational programming 

regarding nutrition, food preparation and food safety. The Oakland Avenue Farmers Market in 

partnership with the Detroit Community Markets received funding through the USDA Farmers Market 

Promotion Grant for two years 2017-2018 to support outreach, growth, vendor support and 

programming in community. The community markets are located in neighborhoods which are 

experiencing high unemployment, transportation issues, health issues and are food deserts. The 

farmers market promotion grant funding will make it possible to continue increasing food access, 

education, opportunities for farmers and employment opportunities. 
84 

Transitioning into urban farming and working in a community environment has proved to be the best 

thing I could have done in that I look at basic needs in community differently. When I started my work 

in the North End Community in Detroit I came in direct contact with people living in poverty without 

basis needs like quality food, water, heat, etc. I much happier and healthier working in an environment 

that choose me to do something to help others. I have been able to do that by our food production 

working to increase employment opportunities through our farm through Urban Agriculture. 
85 

Statement of Ronald L Hendrick, PhD, Professor & Dean 

Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources 

Before the 

United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

May6,2017 

Chaimmn Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and other members ofthe committee, on behalf of 

Michigan State (MSU) thank you for the oppmtunity to host today's hearing to highlight 

growing jobs and opportunity. 

I serve as Dean in the College of Agriculture and Natt1ral Resources, I consider 

the university, having arrived last sommer.! am an alumnus ofMSU and the 

Natural Resources and so my return is a bit of a homecoming. 

As dean, l oversee the college, MSU Extension and MSU AgBioResearch. Michigan State University was 

founded in 1855 on the land-grant mission of teaching, outreach and research. 

MSU was the first agricultuml college of its kind in the nation. lt also served as a 

institutions under the Morrill Act enacted President Abraham Lincoln. In 

ofthc first U.S. institutions under the 1887 Act to create a network of agricultural ex]periment 

stations where research trials and field studies conducted on behalf of farmers. In ! 914, 

.oc,nerm<ve Extemion System and directed the nation's 

grant universities to oversee the outreach 

And while aU of that may seem like ancient history, l assure 

and outreach never wanes. lt is our charge to pivot, adapt 

energy and environment and we take that charge 

lives have heen by or impact the work we There are more voices, thoogh, 

hear. And, when! about who we serve l count all ofthose people wbo woke up moming 

with access to a healthy breakfast and a clean and all of those who didn't- as people whose 

voices matter in this conversation too. 

There is perhaps no greater time to be in involved in research pertaining to sustainable and nutritious food 

production. Today, the world is by about 80 million each and is 

to contimre this upward 

supplies and our resource base. In our 

(USDA) estimates that ! 3.1 million children are in homes with food, at same time, 

children here are being diagnosed with Type diabetes at a clip faster than we have ever seen in history. 
86 

We need solutions that will keep our food 

resources. Since our need is constant, the 

growth and increased employment 

healthy, safe and secure, while protecting our natural 

and agriculture industry provides great opportunity for 

MSU remains committed to discovering adoptable solutions that address these serious issues. 

And it is through research and outreach answers will continue to be unearthed, shared and put 

into practice at home and around the globe. Our research in the areas of food, energy and environment 

happens broadly across campus, the state and the world because we do not approach solutions to 

problems in a vacuum. 

Solutions to crisis issues like clean water and nutritious food mean not only providing and growing food 

and water but understanding human behavior and the challenges that face across the country and 

around the world. We cannot just more nultitious food and provide water, we need to tind 

ways to distribute and of both. W c also need to better communicate the 

economics of food and agriculture, so more people understand the vitality of the food and agriculture 

industry. 

The MSU College of Agricultw·e and Natural Resources, MSU and MSU Extension work 

hand-in-hand with commodity organizations to address the issues &'Towers and producers 

throughout the state solutions on everything from disease management to tood processing. 

Recent Highlights 

With !rom USDA, Nffi, USAID and other sources, Felicia Wu heads up a new center 

the overall agricultural have on human health. The 

A!:!riculi,ure (CHIA) on three pathways by which 

agriculture aftects human health: nutrition, which includes the macro- and micronutrient 

content, and diversity of food; economics also a pivotal in underdeveloped 

areas where resources are at a premium; and the of agriculture 

on human health and the t'nvironment. Wu, a John A. Hannah Professor in the 

departments of Food Science and Human Nutrition and Agticultural, Food and Resource 

Economics, came to MSU in 20 l 3 because of its robust agricultural research coupled with sb·ong 

medical programs a rare combination for a land grant university. 

The MSU Lake Research Center is the first accredited Savory Institute hub to be affiliated 

Institute, which has 30 global hubs and plans to expand to l 00 by 

in 2003. Savory founded the non-governmental 

rnlmnrPtlPn<h.'" in agriculture to manage resources, 

degradation. The approach has known as holistic management 

Savory's takes into consideration several !actors impacting health and is said 

to mimic nature's of regenerating overgrazed land, its improving 

water retention and health, and carbon. The 

management training and impltJmcnllation 

specit!c charge ofthc new Savory bub in 

sequestration in paslurelands. 

• Rufus Isaacs is another of an MSU researcher who is leading work that 

transcends -this time of the ge•ogJcap•lm~al He leading multi-state, multiinstitutional project that cucumbers. As honey bee 

populations decline, Isaacs looking at to maintain the 

U.S. that arc pollinated every at more than billion annually. 

funding Isaacs program comes MSU Project GREEEN and industl)' 

organizations. 
87 

o Isaacs and several colleagues are also to control the Spotted Wing 

c"""''f"'"'u (SWD), an invasive threatens fruit crops such as 

Unlike most so it is able to bmTow 

way into unripe fiuit, ineparable damage to the fruit unavoidable economic 

loss to the grower. The Asian insect is believed to have come to the U.S. via tood crates 

and has become one of our region's greatest fruit production threats. 

• The potato inlrinsically linked to the history of America. Today, Michigan boasts a vibrant 

potato industry. Michigan is the No. of potatoes for the chipping industry and eighth 

overall in production. The generates approximately 

S 1.24 accounts for more than and nearly 50,000 acres. 

keeping this work to ourselves. Professor D:we Douches, who mapped the 

potato genome. working \\1th the United States for International Development 

(USAID) in Bangladesh and Indonesia to grow potatoes 

The fungal pathogen Puccinia striiformisf sp. tritici, more commonly known as wheat yellow or 

rust, is often a passenger wind gusts. This the disease reached 

proportions, exceeding historic to become most yield-reducer on 

500,000 acres of wheat. Wheat, the third largest cereal in contributes 

more than $388 million to the state economy according to the Michigan 

This makes the threat of stripe rust a MSUr esearchers are 

ue·ve•op•mg new tools and tactics that can be 

rust keep the wheat supply healthy and secure. 

Antibiotic resistance, declared a public health threat by both the Food and Drug 

Administration and the World is a high topic within Clf!A research 

as wdl as other laboratories MSU. Increasing and prescription of 

antibiotics has led to significant bacterial resistance humans. fn the use of antibiotics 

to promote addition to bacterial intections, decreases the dmg's ability to 

et1lciently illness when used in excess, antibiotics end up in the 

environment-- in the air, water and soil and humans can become exposed not just to the 

antibiotics but to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. A is to illuminate these pathways of exposure 

by studying the transportation and fate and antibiotic-resistance genes in the 

environment 

Fisheries and Wildlife Professor Joan Rose is the 2016 recipient of the Stockholm Water Prize, 

the world's water award. She is a global walt•r science and the MSU 

Homer Nowlin She was by !he International 

Water Institute (S!WI) for her research on microbial to human health in water, her 

makers, and for her leadership in developing the 

and life to the science. The Stockholm 

acl1ievet:nents and encourage interest in 

water and sustainability issues. 

A $1.65 million National Institutes of Health and USDA that looks to bring a better 

understanding about treatments in women by the cff cct of hormones on 

ovulation and reproduction cows. 

In 2015, Michigan State University (MSU) unveiled The Globallmpact Initiative, a 

plan to tackle some ofthe world's most pressing challenges. The calls for the addition 

new faculty members in education, energy, the environment, and health, and encourages 

current faculty to submit to enhance research builds upon MSU's strengths. 

o Michael a Professor in the of Plant, 

Soil and Microbial Sciences, saw as an He 

fellow MSU plant science expetis Gregg Howe, Brad and Sheng Yang He to 

develop a project that addresses the growing world population's need for more food 
88 

produced with fewer resources under increasingly dinlcu!t conditions. 

they drafted a plan for the Plant Resilience Institute (PRt), where scientists 

use basic research to pinpoint the biological mechanisms that stimulate plant 

resilience 

Maintaining the Momentum 

Michigan's food and agriculture industry in the state. Successful 

partnerships bet\vccn the federal govemment, Michigan of Agriculture and 

Rural Development and Michigan State University can grow the sector. 

We know that in order to meet the 

with a combined economic impact 

with state government and 

percent of the agriculture jobs in 

those partners, and college 

highly qualified teaching 

state. This will complement our 

both on campus and at partner co11mmrtity 

who call Michigan home. 

aglnCllltlue system-a system 

to do more. We are working 

certificate program. A full4 7 

pn1cesstng. HC!Ul'll"'""'ry, we are 

food processing labs - with 

e.,n,er"'"we to stndents throughout the 

AgnctJltttra! Technology and prepare students, 

any ofthe hundreds offood processors 

\Vhilc Michigan's agriculture production has expanded facilities, workforce development and nimble 

research dollars have not investments in workforce development, facilities, and 

research can enhance success and retain talent. 

Like other land grant universities, we look forward to continuing to 

knowledge and educate to work the food and 

population is expected to 

ever. 

more important than 

\voile we have been incredibly successful decades, the system faces major challenges. The 

declining buying power of appropriations makes it to maintain the programs essential 

to addressing many agriculnrral and natnralresourcc issues. The cost rising and funding 

limitations not only slows of scientists in !Taditional areas research, but it also 

our to bring a problems. The current 

of funding competitive low funding rates, leaving 

mcritorions projects undone scientists fi·om the field. In short, it is 

creating a system that is and brightest young scientists. If this continues, it will 

erode our ability to respond to the of feeding the world while protecting our environment. 

We look forward to university- future 

sharing advancements will benefit our 

state, the nation and lhc world. is America's career, and it is arguably one of the 

most complex, technology-driven, knowledge-based industries in the world. come long way, but 

there continues to be so much more to do. 

Thank you t<.1r this opportunity and your support. 
89 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON 

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND 

FORESTRY OF THE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

President 

2017 

Saginaw 

c 734.213.3999 

1:: info@fairfuodnetwork.org 

fb.com/falrfoodnetwork 

\ @fuirfuodnetwork 
90 

I. Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow. Welcome to Michigan, 

Senator Roberts. 

My name is Oran Hesterman. I am the President and CEO of Fair Food Network, a national 

nonprofit headquartered in Michigan and founded on the belief that vibrant local food systems 

can create health and economic opportunity. I come to this work as farmer, small business 

owner, philanthropist, and agricultural scientist having spent more than 12 years doing 

research and teaching at Michigan State University. 

I have been asked to provide an update on the progress of the Food Insecurity Nutrition 

Incentive grant program created by the last Farm Bill and better known as FIN I. There are two 

main points I would like to leave you with today: 

Produce incentives work. They are succeeding at improving the diets of SNAP participants and 

in the many projects where incentives are tied to regional production we are seeing significant 

boosts in demand and increased farm income. 

FIN! has been a success and warrants reauthorization in the next farm sm. We are ready to 

move beyond the preliminary phase of the nationwide program and build on the solid 

framework FIN! has established across the country. 

II. Fair Food Network Bucks 

Fair Food Network's experience with SNAP incentive programs goes back to 2009 when we 

piloted a Double Up Food Bucks program in five Detroit farmers markets. We were in the depth 

of the Great Recession and decided to test the simple idea that by doubling SNAP purchases of 

Michigan produce we could simultaneously reduce hunger, improve nutrition, and stimulate 

economic activity. 

Senator Stabenow kept a close eye on the program as it expanded from Detroit to urban, 

suburban, and rural communities throughout the state. It also evolved from being offered only 

in farmers markets to diverse retail settings, including conventional grocery stores of all sizes. 

By the time work began on the last Farm Bill there were enough programs like Double Up 

nationwide, and enough data indicating their positive impact, that Congress decided to invest 

$100 million to test the concept more broadly. 

Program Impact 

Briefly, FIN I is a competitive grants program managed by the National institute for Food and 

Agriculture (NIFA) in coordination with the Food and Nutrition Service {FNS). USDA has done a 

May 6, 2016 
91 

stellar job of implementing the program. NIFA has already rolled out two rounds of grants and 

we expect Secretary Perdue to announce the third round any day. There will be one final cyde 

and then the $90 million allocated for grants will have been committed. The remaining $10 

million of FINI's $100 million budget is being used for evaluation. 

Fair Food Network received a $5.1 million grant in 2015, which we matched with privately 

raised funds for a total of nearly $10.4 million. This funding is allowing us to expand Double Up 

to approximately 70 grocery stores and 1S8 farm stands and community farmers markets in 58 

counties throughout Michigan and Northwest Ohio this coming season. Today, 92 percent of 

Michiganders live in a county with the Double Up program. 

Just as importantly, FIN I has permitted us to evaluate, innovate, and adapt and improve the 

program to best serve SNAP recipients and the markets that serve them. 

For example, Double Up incentives in grocery stores can operate as a coupon-based program, 

an automatic price discount, stored on the grocer's loyalty cards, or, in the newest innovation, 

live on a reloadable Double Up card that shoppers use alongside their EBT card. We piloted this 

approach last year in Flint in response to the acute health needs there. The card works in all 

participating sites in the community, allowing SNAP shoppers to earn and spend their Double 

Up bucks at the centrally located farmers market, two mobile markets, or any of the five 

participating grocery stores across the city. 

In addition to our work in Michigan, Fair Food Network is now supporting local partners in 

bringing Double Up to their communities. This season, Double Up programs will be active in 

more than 20 states including Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, Arkansas, and Texas-which are 

not traditional specialty crop states, but are still successfully making the connection to regional 

production of fruits and vegetables. 

For example, in 2015 we started working with Kansas City-based Ball's Food Stores who did a 

spectacular job launching Double Up in five Price Chopper stores that year. You may have met 

with Mike Beal, Ball's COO, when he testified about the program before the House Agriculture 

Committee last fall. USDA awarded the Mid-America Regional Council almost $3 million in FIN I 

funding last year to expand Double Up across Kansas and Missouri in one of the first multi-state 

programs. local partners aim to have Double Up in 117 grocery stores and 68 farmers markets 

by 2019, reaching more than 316,000 SNAP recipients across the two states. 

This year, public-private funding is enabling Double Up to expand to grocers in more rural 

communities such as Moon's Hometown Market in Humboldt and Ron's Supermarket in 

Pittsburg, Kansas. As word has spread, interest is also coming from grocers in Ulysses in 

Southeast Kansas. These are small towns where family-owned groceries are working hard to 

survive against the spread of big box and dollar stores. And in many cases, they may be one of 

the few convenient options for families to use their SNAP benefits to buy a full set of groceries, 

including produce. 

May6, 2016 
92 

IV. Lessons 

FIN I funding has allowed us, and organizations like Fair Food Network across the country, to 

demonstrate that produce incentives work: Low income shoppers use the incentives and eat 

more produce, grocers sell more fruits and vegetables, farmers markets expand, and when 

linked to local production, area farmers make more money. 

families: For low-income families, produce incentives simultaneously alleviate hunger and 

improve diet. In thousands of surveys done by FIN I grantees across the country, SNAP 

participants overwhelmingly report that they like incentives and that they are using the 

additional dollars to eat more nutritious fruits and vegetables. 

Our experience bears this out: SNAP recipients shop more frequently and buy more produce 

when Double Up is in place, evidence that this program is changing shopping and purchasing 

patterns of low-income consumers. 

We also know that Double Up is reaching those most in need with 63 percent of shoppers 

reporting low or very low food security. Further, redemption rates are high: 85 percent of 

Double Up dollars earned are redeemed for nutritious fruits and vegetables; this number rises 

to 92 percent at farmers markets. 

What's more, shoppers consistently share an appreciation that their food dollars are supporting 

area growers and the local economy. As one shopper from Michigan said, "You mean I get that 

much food and the farmer gets all that money? I like this. It feels like we're helping each other." 

Grocers: FIN I and Double Up also have important corollary benefits. Many communities and 

small businesses are still struggling economically and we know that SNAP and incentive dollars 

are helping. 

Grocery is a famously tough industry with profit margins of one percent or less. Grocers like 

Double Up and are willing to go the extra mile to make it work in their stores because they see 

its benefits for their customers and their bottom line. 

In a grocery pilot in Fort Smith, Arkansas, produce sales doubled in the month that Double Up 

was initiated. 

Grocers also appreciate the connection to regional agriculture. As Mike Beal of Ball's Foods 

noted, "There's a movement in the country for local foods. Produce that's grown in the area is 

fresher. Double Up is great from a business perspective. We increased our local produce sales 

in participating stores 12 to 15 percent in the first year." 

Farmers Markets: Produce incentives also support farmers markets-anchors of healthy food 

access in many communities-and area farmers. 

May 6, 2016 
93 

Farmers market managers report that having Double Up at their markets has had a positive 

impact on their market-increasing sales, bringing in more new and repeat customers, and 

strengthening their market and the overall community. 

As Carol Moody, the Mt. Pleasant, Michigan farmers market manager shared, "We're seeing a 

new influx of people coming to shop at the market because of Double Up." And the benefits 

endure. "When people are no longer on Double Up," Carol notes, "they still continue to shop at 

the farmers market." 

We have been working with economists from Michigan State University's Center for Regional 

Food Systems to better understand the economic impact of incentives at Michigan farmers 

markets. As distinct from the well-documented multiplier effect of SNAP spending, early 

findings from this study show that every $1 in Double Up spent in farmers markets generates an 

additional $5.76 in subsequent spending at the market, in cash and other nutrition assistance 

programs. 

Farmers: Farmers also appreciate Double Up, with SNAP shoppers representing a new customer 

sector that positively impacts their business. In Iowa last year, 74 percent of participating 

producers said they earned more money because of Double Up. 

Our Michigan program benefits around 1,000 farmers annually. Each year, participating farmers 

report making more money and selling more produce. They also report other significant 

impacts including diversifying what they grow, purchasing new equipment, putting more land 

into production, and hiring more staff. The benefits are felt most deeply by beginning farmers 

for whom farmers markets provide an important gateway for sales. 

Robert Bylstra, a farmer from West Michigan's farm belt noted: "It's a win-win situation 

because the customer is getting $20 worth of free food ... and we're getting paid for our fruits 

and vegetables .... It's one ofthe best programs I've ever seen." 

Partnerships: A final point on the Michigan Double Up experience, our success would not be 

possible without the tremendous support of our partners. SNAP plus SNAP Education plus 

Double Up's incentive dollars provide a powerful combination that we see changing people's 

knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Double Up is genuinely a public-private effort-the State 

Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture and Rural Development alongside 

Michigan State University, the network of food banks, farm groups, our farmers market 

association, and AFPD, our grocery association, all play critical roles in making this program the 

statewide success story it is today. 

Future 

As you consider policies for the next Farm Bill, strongly encourage you to reauthorize the Food 

Insecurity Nutrition Incentive program. We know that it is doing what you hoped it would and 

May 6, 2016 
94 

are ready to move beyond this preliminary phase, building on the solid framework FIN I 

established around the country. 

Overall FINI's structure is sound and I would suggest only the following minor adjustments, 

which represent feedback from our national Double Up network as well as from other FIN I 

grantees (see FIN I 2015 Program Results report in Appendix): 

1) We now know what the best practices are for incentive programs and there is no reason for 

the same mistakes to be made over and over again. A Center of Excellence could provide 

training, technical assistance, and problem solving for projects around the country. This could 

include planning, capacity assessment, retail preparation, evaluation, templates for record 

keeping, and support for small retailers serving high need communities. 

2) There is a need for better technology options for incentive programs, especially technology 

that works for the variety of primarily small retailers that serve high-need urban and rural 

communities. It would be most efficient and cost-effective if there were funds set aside for the 

development, testing, adapting, and sharing of appropriate, low-cost technologies for 

transactions and incentives. 

3) Evaluation is important, but the current process is burdensome-especially for smaller 

recipients. We ask that other methods of evaluation be explored, including using existing NIFA 

evaluation models rather than an external evaluation firm. 

4) Consider adding some flexibility to the match requirement. 

5) Finally, maintain the FIN I program's strong connection to regional production-it works and 

makes every federal dollar go farther and do more. 

I know that you often hear about what's not working, my message is the opposite. 

Produce incentives work. Our experience with Double Up and that of our colleagues 

nationwide demonstrates the real and serious positive impacts incentives are having for low· 

income families, grocers, farmers markets and American farmers, and local communities 

nationwide. 

FIN! is making a difference and should be reauthorized. I appreciate your willingness to take a 

chance on the idea of incentives in the last Farm Bill and I am here to report that it is paying off 

and ready to be scaled. 

Thank you for this opportunity. would be glad to answer any questions. 

May 6, 2016 
95 

Voices of Double Up in America Stories 

FIN I Grant Program: 2015 Program Rew!ts 

Oran B. Hesterman, PhD Bio 

https://fairfoodnetwork.egnyte.com/dl/hJ:<gvGwT8zz 

May 6, 2016 
96 

Statement of Adam lngnm 

Before the 

US Senate Agriculture Committee 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from 

Michigan 

May 6, 2017 

Chainnan Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow and members of the Senate Agriculture 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of beginning fmmers, fanner 

veterans and urban fmmers from the great state of Michigan. As an urban beginning f:nmer, 

Army veteran, fanner veteran advocate, and agricultural researcher, I have had the great 

privilege to serve my community through healthy food, my country through military service, my 

tanner veteran community through and resource connections, and the global 

asparagus industry through my research Michigan State University, It is through this 

multifaceted lens of aglicultura! experience that ! approach the challenges and opportunities 

facing America's farmers and veterans. My testimony outlines areas of success I have seen 

through the actions of Congress in the 2014 Fann Bill and challenges that still exist within the 

communities l work that can be addressed in the 2018 Farm BilL I highlight my personal 

experiences and those of successful fanner veterans I have worked with and the USDA programs 

they have taken advantage of to illustrate the impact the 20!4 Farm Bill has had on beginning 

and farmer veteran commnnities in Michigan. l hope that my testimony can serve as a point of 

reference and a source of novel ideas for you and your colleagues to consider as you drat! the 

2018 Fann BilL 

Background 

American agricultme faces looming erisis. Production and long-term industry growth is 

challenged by an aging farmer demographic and a lack of qualified young fam1ers. As demand 

for food increases with a growing global population, the United States is one of the few countries 

capable of meeting this demand, capturing market share that will increase domestic 

GDP and offer a good paying jobs that cannot be outsourccd. In order to ensure the United States 

is prepared to meet the global rise in the demand offood and other agricultural products, we 

must invest into the training and success of beginning fam1ers and those looking to produce food 

and agricultural products in new and unconventional venues (urban fam1ers), while recognizing 

the importance of new fanner demographics, such as military veterans, that have unique training 

that compliments the work ethic, leadership and commitment necessary to he successful in the 

agricultural industry. 

2014 Farm Bill Programs Impacting Beginning, Veteran and Socially Disadvantaged 

Farmers 
97 

Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill have been critical to the work I conduct in Michigan connecting 

veterans, beginning and historically underscrvcd fanners to education, resource and 

programmatic oppommities to increase the success of individual t~U111ers and develop a strong 

and resilient Michigan fam1er community. Within this section I outline the importance of 

programs implemented by the 2014 Fann Bill and demonstrate their use by organizations and 

individuals I am affiliated with to improve the personal and financial wellness of Michigan's 

fanners and our communities. 

• Beginning Farmer Rancher Development Program (BFRDP): Michigan Food and 

Farming Systems, Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems and 

Michigan State University Student Organic Fanner Training Program (awarded 20 14). 

o Goal: To create a vibrant network of beginning farmer training across Michigan that can 

cater to different perspectives and needs while moving everyone desiring to farm along 

the path of business viability. 

o Objectives: 

Creaic training and development programs that span the necessary 

strategies meeting various lifestyle restrictions and demographic needs for 

people to enter and sustain fam1ing. 

Create a vibrant network of beginning, new-entry fam1ers and trainees to 

provide peer support and guidance as a statewide community of practice 

that also engages the knowledge of fam1crs operating more than 10 years. 

Create a suite of services required to optimize the chance that new-entry 

fanners will still be in business and be expanding over five years. 

Create strategies for a pathway to scaling up production and marketing so 

that new and beginning farmers can reach the apparent $100,000 viability 

plateau in sales annually. 

o This program has been focused on the short and long tenn viability of beginning fanners 

which has included educational programs, access to resources and supp01t services 

well as tackling bigger issues like access to land. capital and equipment Without funding 

to support these services through BFRDP, programs like this would not have funding that 

allows for the large collaborative efforts necessary to take on these issues. Additionally, 

BFRDP set asides for socially disadvantaged and vet<:ran producers are critical to 

ensuring new fanner demographics are reached and that the unique needs of these 

producers are met 

• 2501 Program: Michigan Food and Fanning Systems (MIFFS) and the Veterans in 

Agriculture Network (VIAN) (awarded 2016): 

o Goal: MIFFS and VIAN experience has shown that small-scale socially disadvantaged 

<md veteran farmers develop and enhance their fanning enterprises when they are part of 

a rooted network that supports each other to get past the barriers, snch as: 
98 

Lack of relationships with USDA staff. 

Discomfort with the language and n"'"'r·wrrrk expected of producers. 

Physical or mental challenges that make entering unfamiliar buildings or 

being presented with paperwork overwhelming and challenging (this is 

very common among our farmer veterans clie.nts). 

The laek of the "luxury of time and experience" that most 

populations have to plan for long-tenn results. 

o Our goal is to intentionally build consistent working groups that aid 

individuals in crossing these barriers and help them see progress. 

o Objectives: 

o Provide group transportation to the network members in order for them to connect 

with each other through community engagement and to expand involvement into 

other regions. 

o Develop USDA Program Application Guides in language appropriate for 

beginning, socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers that explain how to fill out 

USDA paperwork and forms at USDA Farm Services Agency. Many county FSA 

otiices lack experience working with socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers 

that are producing nontraditional goods or specialty crops which can lead to 

confusion about how to offer these producers assistance. Having an unfavorable 

or frustrating experiences at FSA oft!ces often prevent these from 

attempting to work with other USDA agencies. 

Many of our fanner veterans sufter from service related post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injuries (TBT). For them, walking into 

unfamiliar or being presented with paperwork and multiple pieces of 

inf{mnation can be extremely challenging and symptoms. 

Worrying about exacerhating PTSD or TB! symptoms can otlen prevent veterans 

from walking in the door of USDA Service Centers. 

Four MIFFS Field Specialists (two Multicultural/SD and two Fmmcr 

Veteran) have been trained to work one-on-one with socially 

disadYantaged and veteran producers to be available to accompany 

producers to individuals to USDA Service Centers. Field Specialists help 

monitor application progress and provide additional support necessary to 

successfully submit paperwork. Many of our socially disadvantaged and 

veteran producer fam1s fall outside of the nonnal clientele USDA agencies 

typically work with which can cause confusion about program eligibility. 

MIFFS Field Specialists (some with past careers associated with USDA) 

also ti.mction as liaisons between customers and USDA staff to help 

minimize confusion assisting these in applying for programs 

with operations that are unfamiliar to local USDA staff 
99 

o Support stronger relationships with USDA by having local staff participate in MIFFS 

network meetings, collaborating with MIFFS Field Specialists, MIFFS events and all 

the other MIFFS activities/workshops (both through this grant and other grants). 

o Expand MIFFS website to create USDA Resources page. This page will be linked 

to through our Multicultural and Veteran in Agriculture Network pages and will host 

USDA Program Guides and the new USDA Application Guides (created during this 

project). We will also provide information about various USDA Agencies and their 

programs that may be of interest to our producers. 

o The 250 l Program has been critical to MIFFS and VIAN in addressing challenges for 

USDA to engage socially disadvantaged and veteran producers at USDA Service Centers. 

Without the funding provided by this program many of our producers would likely never 

engage with USDA because ofthe inherent challenges they face. Through 2501 funding 

we are facilitating interactions and connections with USDA statT and providing services 

needed to engage producers in positive experiences that lead to results that aid both 

producers amlthc USDA. 

Federal Programs Used by Farmer Veterans (Stories and Perspectives) 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 

Seasonal High Tunnel initiative: 

o VIAN has worked closely with several fam1er Yeterans to navigate USDA programs 

including FSA registration for a Farm Number and NRCS programs. The most 

extensively used program by veterans in Michigan has been the Seasonal High Tunnel 

Initiative which allows for season extension that increases productivity and offers new 

seasonal markets for products. An example of utilization of this program by one of our 

veteran families is outlined below: 

o Chief Warrant Officer Rick Stone and Specialist Katy Stone (US Anny): Owners of 

Laetus Pull us farm in Perry, Michigan, Rick and Katy run a diversified livestock and 

vegetable tarm on 30 acres that provides tl1eir family and community with healthy 

food. Hmvever, their production was limited due to the short growing season in 

northern latitudes and MIFFS and the VI AN provided assistance to extend their 

production through applying for a NRCS high tunneL Since being awarded a tunnel in 

2016, the Stones have been able to grow vegetables throughout the winter which has 

increased their productivity and available markets. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Double Up ~Food Bucks 

o VTAN has worked with fanner veterans that seek to protect vulnerable populations in 

Michigan through production of healthy and nutritious foods. An excellent example of 

this is outlined below: 

o Sergeant Jeremy (US Marines) and Valmie Huftinan: Owners and operators of 

Huffman's Homestead in Swm1z Creek, Michigan, Jeremy and Valarie run a 
100 

diversified livestock and vegetable farm on I 0 acres. The Huftlnan's have taken 

advantage ofVIAN's USDA navigation services and have received a high tunnel 

through NRCS to increase production, which has allowed them to create a 

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program for their community, and has also 

allowed them to reach capacity to support direct at two of their local 

fanner's markets. One of these markets is the Flint Fmmcrs Market where the 

Hut1man's in the Double Up Food Bucks program. This program has 

allowed them to focus on delivering hea!ihy food to those afJected by the flint water 

crisis. The Hut1inan's mission through the Donble Up Food Bucks program is to 

participate directly in the healing process of Flint by healthy food at a price 

that allows all residents equal access to quality nutrition. 

Cooperative Agreements 

Organizations T work with have taken advantage of cooperative agreements with federal agencies 

to increase utilization of Natural Resource Conservation Service programs. I highlight our 

current agreement below and recommend actions that could be taken by Congress in the 2018 

Fann Bill to increase public-private relation~hips to increase farmer enrollment USDA 

programs. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Cooperative agreement between NRCS and 

Michigan Food and Fanning Systems/Veterans Agriculture Network provides funding to 

promote whole Hum Conservation Plans to socially disadvantaged and/or nnderserved producers. 

The objectives of this agreement are outlined below: 

o Objectives: 

o Identify and promote optimal times/seasons for farmers to request whole farm 

Conservation Plans from NRCS Field office staff 

o Aidin 

Field Staff 

technical assistance services that are available throngh NRCS 

o Promote Conservation Plans as a precnrsor to exploring NRCS program 

participation. 

o Targeted promotion of Forest Management Plan cost share opportunities and 

benetlts of participation in NRCS habitat pro!,rrams. 

o Targeted promotion of pollinator habitat installation and expected return on 

investment. 

o Promotion of pollinator crops as an option for crop diversification tbr specialty 

crop producers with demonstration sites at two of MIFFS Farrn Development 

Centers. 

o Offer technical expertise or training to NRCS field staff and technical service 

providers tailored to working with unfamiliar farm systems or with novel 

producers. 
101 

o Identify common resource concerns related to specific fam1 systems (small scale 

diYcrsified, specialty crops, aquaculture, high tunnels, urban etc.). 

o Identify NRCS Conservation Practices to address unique resource 

concems. 

o Promote NRCS services through MIFFS Multicultural Fanner, Beginning Farmer, 

Multicultural Women and Veteran Networks. 

o Identify Cllrrent bmTiers to NRCS technical sen·ice access and program 

pmticipation for socially disadvantaged fam1ers. 

o Provide one on one NRCS program navigation and enrollment services for fanner 

yeterans sutiering from stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. 

o Results: This agreement has allowed for MIFFS personnel to train with USDA staff on 

the specifics around farmer enrollment with USDA programs. This has resulted in the 

creation of simplified guides to USDA program navigation written from a farmer 

perspective (translated into Spanish for immi1,;rant producers), in addition to webinar and 

on ground events focused on walking individuals through the required to take 

advantage of USDA programs. Early on we identified that farmer veterm1s suffering from 

post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic hrain injuries were unlikely to visit USDA 

tleld oftlces and pursue USDA programs alone because of the challenges of entering 

unfamiliar spaces and the llustmtion associated with USDA terminology, fonns and stati 

that is untrained to tmderstand the needs of a veteran dealing with these injuries. In 

response to this, the Veterans in Agriculture Network provides one-on-one services to all 

veterans that include assistance in filling out USDA fon11S and accompanying veterans 

during visits to USDA offlces to aid the veteran and the service provider, ensuring the 

needs of both are met. 

o 21118 I< arm Bill Action: To support work outlined above, USDA needs to expm1d its 

efforts to meet the needs of beginning and veteran producers. in the 2014 Farm Bill, 

Congress created the Military and Veterans Agriculture Liaison (MVAL) position to 

focus on initiatives and create support for tanner veterans. Through my work with fanner 

veterans across Michigan and their utilization of USDA services and programs. MIFFS 

and V!AN urg.: Congress to support the expansion of the M VAL's offlce to increase staff 

and capacity to allow them to work directly with on-ground organizations to better ensure 

USDA programs meet the needs of veteran producers and encourage the growth ofthe 

farmer veteran demographic. Additionally, MIFFS urges Congress to expand efforts such 

as MV AL to include offlces focused solely on beginning fanner initiatives. An offlce of 

Beginning Fam1er Agricultural Liaison with a dedicated staff focused on developing and 

implementing coordinated ell'orts to recruit and suppmt the next generation offmmers, 

would aid in ensuring the long-tcm1 stability of the US agricultural industry. 

Urban Farmer Issues 
102 

As a beekeeper and urban fanner in Lansing, personally experience the challenges and 

!imitations of farming within an urban setting. My farm occupies nearly two acres of land leased 

from the Ingham County Land Bank that was once a track of eight blighted houses on the east 

side of Lansing. This part of the city wa~ the early 1900's a~ a residential zoned 

area but has subsequently been classified as t1ood plain which makes purchasing and rebuilding 

homes in this area dif1icult. The combination of the foreclosures from the 2008 financial 

meltdown, aging homes and the Hood location have resulted in the conversion of this area 

to urban farms. The result has been that this area of Lansing has become a desirable location for 

urban larmers and has developed a community supply chain for fresh produce within an urban 

food desert. Below I outline the challenges lacing urban fam1crs and present potential avenues of 

improvement that could be addressed by the 2018 Farm Bill. 

• Access to Water: Water is shut off at the street to all properties in Lansing that have homes 

that are demolished by the Ingham County Land Bank. This results in urban tanners 

accessing water through water storage tanks that must be purchased and arc filled 

periodically by Land Bank staft~ On several occasions, ! have run ohvater on our farm 

despite having two 250-gallon storage tanks. In 2016, this resulted in a total vegetable crop 

failure because of an unusually long dry spell during crop establishment which cost me 

thousands of dollars in lost product. Over the last year, we have worked with Land Bank staff 

to get reconnected to city water. Despite having Land Bank staff support, this process has 

taken months and cU!Tently is projected to cost over $2,000, a cost that is prohibitive to most 

beginning farmers on Land Bank property. 

o Solution: New policies that work to ensure water to urban land slated for 

agricultural use would increase productivity and reduce economic losses of urban 

fanners. 

• Consistent Policy: Perhaps the most part of being an m·ban tinmcr is the lack of 

consistent policy between municipalities to !,'1lide our business planning and allow us to 

coordinate regional efforts to produce fresh produce within urban settings. Lack of clear 

guidance on areas of infrastmcture, like high tunnels, has created uncertainty within urban 

producers which puts constraints on production and limits our ability to produce food for our 

communities. 

Solution: A federal of1icc to coordinate urban agriculture activities and advise 

counties and municipalities on urban agriculture policies to provide consistency to the 

urban agriculture industry and allow fanners to better plan, implement and coordinate 

their business models. 

Avenue to Ownership: Urban fam1ers in Lansing primarily lease land through the Ingham 

County Land Bank. This county-owned land is leased at a very reasonable rate but there is no 

long-tem1 stmtegy by the county regarding the ownership of the land. F am1ers spend large 
103 

amounts of capital improving urban lands which includes removal of constmction debris, 

rehabilitating highly disturbed or soils, planting cover crops or adding compost to 

increase soil organic matter content, maintaining lands and infrastmcture to farm the 

land. Currently, these fanners care for, rehabilitate and invest in these lands without any 

possibility for ownership. 

o Solution: Innovative land tenure contracts and improved land ownership 

oppo1tunities for urban farmers that would provide stable access to land, 

them to invest into infrastmcture and increase production capacity without the fear of 

losing this investment over time due to changes in policy by land holders, This 

uncertainty puts direct constraints of food production, development and 

of urban farm businesses. 

Additional Comments 

• Vocational Rehabilitation Services (Veterans Administration) 

o I have worked closely with serval veterans interested accessing vocational 

rehabilitation benefits to become fanm;,rs. Short programs that appeal to veterans and are 

appropriate for fanner training arc not acceptable t(w V oc Rcha:b benefits because they do 

not meet the stringent requirements currently in place ior the utilization ofthcse beneiits. 

Recognition ofthe educational circumstances smTOunding farmer training and the · 

legitimacy of tanning as a career for disabled veterans by the VA could provide a new 

source of trained fanners to enter the agriculture sector with the support of the VA 

" BFRDP and VA Educational Benefits: 

o BFRDP awardee programs focused on the education of fanner veterans to enter careers in 

agricultural should be eligible for VA benefit utilization by veterans following successful 

demonstration of educational models during the grant funding cycle. By allowing these 

programs to receive these education benefits, it not only provides funding for the 

individual veteran to allow them to participate in the program but also offers a consistent 

and reliable fw1ding to ensw-e the long-term snstainability of the BFRDP fm1ded 

program . 

., Farm S11ccession Incentives: 

Many t:1rms are being lost across America. As producers retire, often their children are 

not interested in taking over the fmm operation. This results in fmms being sold off and 

often developed into non-fann operations. Tax incentives to create succession plans for 

Jarmers that allow producers to work with flmncr veterans would create a possible 

scenario in which producers can be appropriately compensated for their property while 

offering a pathway to land for farmer veterans. This program could be 

supported by changes to the VA Home Loan Program to allow for purchase of fanns, or 
104 

the FSA Loan Program to give priority funding to veterans working'~-'''~"'"''"' 

owners through a succession proc,~ss. 

" YA Medical Center Farmers Market Initiative: 

with land 

o To promote healthy eating and ~ccess to nutritious food, an initiative to fund VA Medical 

Center Fanners Markets should be included in the 201 H Fam1 RilL Funding could provide 

subsidies to VA patients to purchase food from vendors at the market and incentives 

could be offered to fanner veterans sell products at the market Building relati•Jm:hijJS 

between veterans and healthy food would offer a pathway to improYed health outcomes 

for patients at VA Health Centers and 

high visibility, that is desperately needed 

Health System. 

Conclusion: 

a sense of community and support, with 

rebuild trust between veterans and the VA 

The Farm Bit! stand~ as a fuundation of support for American fan11ers, our agricultural 

livelihood and national prosperity. As the cornerstone of every civilization, agriculture is a single 

tactor that can lead to the 1ise and fall of nations. Therefore, we must recognize the 1m1nmtarlce 

of this sector and prioritize its grO\vth and health. Through the 2018 Farm Bill, it is my hope, and 

the hope of the organizations and programs l represent, that Congress realizes the importance of 

the programs created in the 20!4 Farm BilL It critical to continue funding programs focused 

on supporting fanm:rs, those entering fam1ing liom new and those 

farming in both rural and urban communities, and bui!d upon this progress to include new 

initiatives that continue to loster the growth and success of the next generation of American 

fam1ers. It is only by engaging and supporting these communities of fan11ers that we will be able 

to feed the world and ensure the and core values of the United States continue to be 

the guiding light for freedom and equality. 
105 

RICK SNYDER 

GOVERNOR 

OF M!Cl-lKiAI\ 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

LA;'\lSl:\0 

KEITH CREAGH 

DIRECTOR 

Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

"Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from 

Michigan" 

May 6, 2017 

Kristen Matson 

EUP Inventory and Planning Specialist 

Michigan DNR, Forest Resources Division 

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: 

Thank you Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for this 

opportunity to speak on behalf of forestry in Michigan and the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources (DNR), Forest Resource Division. My name is Kristen Matson and I 

am the East Upper Peninsula (EUP) Inventory and Planning Specialist for the Forest 

Resources Division. In that capacity, am responsible for training other DNR staff in 

forest inventory procedures, ensuring the accuracy of the state's forest inventory, and 

for writing forest planning documents in the EUP. Additionally, I serve as the Good 

Neighbor Authority (GNA) liaison to the Hiawatha National Forest. 

In my testimony today, I hope to give the committee a brief summary of the 

economic growth and jobs derived from Michigan's forests and the slate's forest 

products industry. I will also outline some successes, as well as some challenges, that 

the Forest Resources Division has recently seen in its relationship with the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS). Finally, I'd like to conclude by discussing a unique win-win opportunity 

that Michigan DNR and others have identified related to innovation and market creation 

in the forest products industry. 

CONSTITUTION HALL .. 525 WEST ALLEGAN STREET" P.O. BOX 30028 ~LANSING, MICHIGAN 43909-7528 

www.mlchigan.gov/dnr"' (517) 284-MDNR(6367) 
106 

I am very excited to discuss Michigan forestry. We are a highly forested state, 

with 20 million acres of forest, approximately 56% of our land, making Michigan one of 

the top 10 forested states in the nation. In fact, in the Upper Peninsula (UP) where I 

live, it is about 88% forested. Michigan has a $20 billion forest economy, with some 

96,000 people employed in the sector. Our forests also help drive a $22 billion tourism 

industry and are an integral part of our $4.5 billion hunting and fishing economy. 

To give just one recent example of the local impact of the industry, the Arauco 

Corporation is in the process of building the largest pressed board forest products mill in 

North America in Grayling, Michigan, a very rural community about 115 miles NW of 

here. This plant is a $400 million investment, will create 200 full-time jobs and over 700 

construction jobs in the region, and is scheduled to process about 700,000 cords of 

pulpwood per year. The ground breaking for the facility happened just last month, and is 

just one illustration of the economic significance of the forest products industry in our 

state. 

The Arauco project is also a great case study to highlight one of the recent 

successes we've seen in our relationship with the USFS because the company's 

investment was driven, in part, by smart public policy created by Congress and carried 

out by the agency. 

The Good Neighbor Authority, created by your committee in the Forestry Title of 

the 2014 Farm Bill, has been working well in Michigan. As you know, the new program 

authorizes state forestry professionals to carry out restoration and logging projects on 

federal lands - work that would otherwise go undone because of budget constraints. 

Michigan was the second state in the nation, right behind our neighbors in Wisconsin, to 

sign a so-called "Good Neighbor Master Agreement" with the USFS to get the program 

up and running. This new authority has already helped the USFS be more successful 

and efficient in providing timber to the forest products industry in Michigan and 

accomplishing restoration goals on federal lands. The wood harvested on the GNA 

timber sales that are in progress in Michigan is of a volume that the USFS would not 
107 

have been able to do themselves, and is in addition to the amount that the DNR 

provides annually to industry. The DNR would like to thank this Committee for providing 

this authority in the last Farm Bill and would like to thank the Forest Supervisors of the 

three National Forests in Michigan for partnering with us to make this program a 

success. 

The creation of the new GNA authority in the Farm Bill was part of Michigan's 

discussions with Arauco about investing in our state. Thanks to the new program, the 

DNR was able to confidently tell the company that there would be a steady supply of 

fiber from the federal, state, and private lands in the area to feed their mill. Simply putthe Arauco story is just one example of how the new GNA program in the Forestry Title 

of the 2014 Farm Bill is having a real impact on jobs and economic development right 

here in Michigan. 

In 2016, our first year of the GNA agreement, the DNR was able to put 1,362 

acres of USFS timber land on the market statewide. This accounts for over 20,000 

cords of wood, which is valued at over $1 million. Just over half of this, 775 acres at 

$559,000, was in the Upper Peninsula (UP), where the timber industry is an important 

part of our economy. In fact, one third of all manufacturing jobs in the UP are forest 

products related. The 11 GNA timber sale contracts for 2016 were awarded to 6 

different private timber companies. 

For 2017, we plan to set up 1,811 acres of GNA timber statewide (845 in the 

UP). More is being planned for 2018. I am happy to report that work began this week 

on a GNA sale on the Hiawatha National Forest. The work is being done by a small 

family-owned UP logging company based in Rapid River. This is a perfect example of 

how GNA sales are helping support jobs in local businesses. By putting this extra fiber 

on the market, we are relieving market pressure in Michigan. 

And while GNA has been a great success, we feel we can do even more. The 

Farm Bill provision that allows GNA work by the state on USFS land does not currently 
108 

allow for the reconstruction of existing roads already included in the national forest road 

inventory. This limits the timber harvest and restoration project opportunities that the 

USFS can partner with DNR on. Many of Michigan's federal forest stands that are wellsuited for timber harvest or restoration, all of which have already gone through the 

required environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and other applicable statutes, are currently inaccessible to DNR because of the 

stipulations on road repair in the current program. Repair of existing roads is needed to 

conduct restoration projects and timber harvests in a safe and environmentally friendly 

way and such repairs would make these NEPA-approved acres accessible to the DNR 

and our partners in the private sector. 

To address this issue, Michigan DNR and the National Association of State 

Foresters recommend that the Senate Agriculture Committee, working through a 

bipartisan and consensus-based process, slightly amend the GNA program to allow for 

modest repair of existing roads on the national forests, thus increasing the number of 

projects available through GNA. 

In addition to outlining the success of GNA with the Forest Service, the DNR also 

wants to draw this Committee's attention a challenge with the agency that we hope you 

can help us address. The issues of fire borrowing and the steady erosion of the USFS' 

non-fire resources, stemming from a broken and antiquated agency budget, is 

profoundly hurting not only the national forests, but also slate agencies like Michigan 

DNR and private landowners. As this committee knows, a dramatically increasing 

portion of the overall USFS budget has been spent to suppress wildfires in recent years, 

largely in the western US. Part of my duties in the eight years worked for the USFS 

involved working on wildfires, including several large project fires in various states out 

West and in Michigan. I know how challenging and expensive fighting wildfire can be. 

And I believe 100% that we ought to invest in fighting these blazes when they threaten 

lives, property, and critical infrastructure; but my experience has also taught me that a 

Forest Service budget model developed in !he beginning of the last century is not well 

suited to face the wildfire threats of 2017. 
109 

Science tells us that these mega-blazes, sometimes called "uncharacteristic 

wildfire" are just going to get larger and more unpredictable. These fires are truly 

natural disasters, and the federal budget should treat them as such, but right now they 

are just treated as another day-to-day function of the Forest Service -just like marking 

a timber sale. That situation is unsustainable. Because the Forest Service now spends 

over half their annual budget fighting fires- up from 16% in 1996 -there are far fewer 

resources for other agency functions like the ones that are important to Michiganders. 

For example, normally there is a portion of the USFS budget that is awarded to 

states to do forest restoration work. Recently, a grant funded by the State and Private 

Forestry mission area of the USFS was awarded to the Michigan DNR for rapid 

response detection of an invasive pest species called the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid 

(HWA). The grant, which was vitally important to our early response efforts to stem the 

bug's spread was unfortunately pulled back by the agency so the money could be sent 

West to fight wildfires. When the Michigan DNR finally received the grant, we had 

largely missed our prime window for rapid response to the infestation. Rapid response 

to this species is very important, as HWA can kill trees within a few years of becoming 

infested, and Michigan lost valuable trees and our early foothold in the battle against 

HWA because of the delay in the USFS grant. 

I would strongly encourage this Committee to work with your colleagues in 

Congress to enact a comprehensive fix lor the USFS budget, either in the context of the 

2018 Farm Bill or elsewhere. The National Association of State Foresters supports the 

bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to address this issue, and Michigan DNR is 

asking for your help enacting that bill, or any other measure, that addresses the full 

scope of the problem, as soon as possible. New USFS programs like GNA, along with 

other management tools, will only go so far in an agency that is hamstrung by a broken 

budget; a problem that is only going to get worse as climate change and increased 

development in the wildland urban interface (WUI) drives larger and more expensive 

wildfires. 
110 

Finally, I wanted to conclude with a brief discussion of an exciting technological 

innovation in the forest products sector that has already garnered a lot of attention in 

Michigan, including your attention, Senator Stabenow, as evidenced by your 

introduction of the bipartisan Timber Innovation Act 

Mass timber, the type of wood product that your legislation with Senator Crapo 

from Idaho supports, is technology that arranges traditional lumber in a new and 

stronger fashion using state-of-the-art engineering, a specialized press, and advanced 

adhesives. The resulting mass timber panels can serve as a commercial building 

material that many characterize as a more sustainable alternative to the traditional steel 

and cement, which are very energy-intensive to produce and result in significant 

quantities of harmful pollution like mercury during the manufacturing process. In 

contrast, wood is a renewable resource that actually pulls carbon and other pollutants 

out of the air as trees grow. Once the panels are manufactured, that carbon stays 

trapped in the wood for the life of the building. This new mass timber technology is 

already providing new markets for wood products in certain regions of the world and has 

the potential to do much more. While Europe and American cities like Portland and 

Minneapolis have been pioneers in this space, Michigan State University- my alma 

mater and yours, Senator Stabenow- is considering a project to build a new STEM 

education building on campus using mass timber technology. 

We would encourage the Committee to swiftly pass the Timber Innovation Act 

and look for opportunities to advance mass timber research and development so we 

can see more of these buildings- doing so will help the environment and create new 

jobs in rural communities. 

Once again, thank you Chairman Roberts and Senator Stabenow for the 

opportunity to share my perspective with you this morning. With that I will conclude my 

testimony and look forward to your questions. 
111 

Testimony (written) of Pam Bouma Miller, Owner, Hopyards of Kent County before the United States 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry May 6, 2017 

Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for the opportunity to testify today, My 

name is Pam Bouma Miller and am owner of Hopyards of Kent County and a founding board member 

of Hop Growers of Mkhigan. Hopyards of Kent Co. was established in 2011, and is one ofthe largest 

family- owned farms of hops in Michigan. We are dedicated to consistently producing the highest quality 

hops available, through hard work, teaching, training, and commitment to the hop industry. We also 

have a harvest center that opened in 2016 for our network of over 30 growers to bring in their yields to 

be picked, dried, baled, and passed on to the merchant for final sale. 

Our family interest in growing hops and getting involved in the industry sprung from my personal 

passion of growing roses, lots of roses. In addition, my husband John's technical gifts, and my son-in-law 

I an, who is from the state of Washington and carries a solid knowledge of the industry served to inspire 

this new farming experience for our family. I started in floriculture as a hobby and learned how to grow 

plants well. We had some family strengths, and the demand for local hops was apparent and growing. 

The Michigan craft brewing movement has fast become nationally recognized as a leader in the industry. 

The economic impact of Michigan's craft beer industry is significant contributing to over 7,000 jobs with 

wages over $232,000,000 and economic output of over $600,000,000 as early as 2014 published by the 

Michigan Brewers Guild. It has only grown since, and the demand for local hops in a region with ideal 

attributes for hop growth exists due to climate exploded. The Michigan Brewers Guild exists to promote 

and protect the craft beer industry in Michigan and actively tracks the economic impact, public policy, 

legislation and regulations. Overall, the craft beer market grew 6.2% in 2016, and is the primary source 

of the increasing demand for Michigan hops throughout the country. The craft beer market is 12.3% of 

the overall market. The relationship between the hops growers, processors and brewers is important to 

the overall success of each other's interests, and each take a specialized set of skills, but in many ways 

they are all integrated. 

Today Michigan is ranked 4th in the nation with over 1,000 acres in hop production. We have 200 

growers supplying 200+ breweries in Michigan alone, and some additional purchasers which are 

international countries, including Thailand and Denmark for example. Michigan hops account for S% of 

the $252.6 million hop export market. It is also important to recognize the unique opportunity the Hop 

Growers of Michigan are pursuing through a Farm to Glass Bill to provide tax savings for the use of 

Michigan hops in Michigan beer. 

In order for the Michigan hops industry to thrive and grow, the next Farm Bill will need to continue 

support for specialty crop programs. Last year, the Michigan hop industry used a Specialty Crop Block 

Grant to establish hop quality standards, provide education and training to growers and develop a twolevel voluntary verification program. In considering the issues of specialty crops, the hops industry will 

need support in order to grow and these block grants have served the economic interests of the growing 

industry very well. 

Value Added Producer Grants have been used to help hop farmers pelletize fresh hops for sale and 

distribution. Specifically, the equipment to process and handle hops is highly specialized and extremely 

costly. Getting the equipment into the community of growers required the use of these grants as no 
112 

one grower could otherwise support this cost. These grants also let farmers minimally process their 

products to supply Pure Michigan locally grown foods to cities and communities across the state, which 

allows farmers to seize the opportunity to provide a locally grown specialty crops, and translates into a 

diversity of jobs and other opportunities. 

Continued funding for research, including the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, is critical to the future 

of the hops industry to control for pests and disease like powdery mildew. Research funds should also 

be used to focus on the development of a new public varieties breeding program at the university level. 

The hops industry is not without its challenges, regulations for herbicide and pesticide US€ should be 

standardized at the national level. Additionally, the labor issues the lack of a reliable work force remains 

a big concern as hops are a very labor intense crop and the labor pool is dwindling fast. 

As the Michigan hop industry continues to expand, growers are looking at new market opportunities 

through trade expansion. It is critical that the next Farm Bill protect and strengthen the Market Access 

Program, which is key for specialty crop growers to access new international markets. 

Supporting Michigan's new hop industry the emerging new and specialty agriculture industry has taken 

a team of specialized and focused professionals who constantly strive to understand the challenges of 

an inclusive vertical supply chain from field, to processing and storage. This has included growers from 

other states, equipment manufacturers from Germany, Michigan State University, and many local 

individuals throughout the state of Michigan. 

Michigan State University Extension services are critical for support in every aspect of the science, 

planning, maintenance and management of this agriculture specialty commodity. Presently they are 

assisting me in understanding why some of my most valuable hops plants appear to be struggling in 

their growth from one year to the next. MSU scientists may be able to keep another grower from 

suffering a similar loss, and they have taken a keen interest in our industries future prosperity. 

Also, as part of this team, it takes a special relationship and understanding with a financial partner. This 

is a capital intensive business and its specialization demands dollars. GreenStone Farm Credit Services 

was there for me to the full extent they were able at the outset, and remains an intricate part of my 

success as one of the first major hop farms. I did learn that my principal financial partner was only able 

to provide some of financing needs for my operation due to limitations of their lending charter. 

GreenStone helps many other hop farms large and small, and it would be helpful if they could be 

inclusive of the vertical chain from field, processing, storage and glass as this created real complications 

for me and my business. 

The hops industry has grown 148% in the last ten years, and I look forward to being a part ofthe 

continued growth and development of the hops industry and the thousands of jobs that our industry 

supports in Michigan. 

I have attached some related documents to this report for your consideration, along with some pictures 

ofthe product and the operation to help make the agriculture industry surrounding hops come to life. 

Thank you for taking an interest in Michigan hops and I will be happy to answer any questions you might 

have regarding this report. 
113 

Statement of Jim Nugent 

fruit grower and Chair, Michigan Tree Fruit Commission 

Suttons Bay, Michigan 

Before the 

U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee 

May6, 2017 

Michigan agriculture has the distinction of being the second most diverse in the nation. Our 

state is blessed with a wide range of soils and topography and surrounded by the Great lakes. 

This creates the natural diversity that allows for the production of many different crops, 

including a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. 

My wife and I farm on the leelanau Peninsula in northwest lower Michigan, an area that is 

exceptionally well-suited for the production of cherries and other fruit crops. Growing food has 

its challenges to remain globally competitive and sustainable. Hence, agriculture relies 

extensively on land grant universities for the research and information to keep our industries 

viable. I strongly support increased federal funding for research and Extension. 

Let me give you an example of why research is so critical to Michigan agriculture. In 2008, an 

insect called the spotted winged drosophila, or SWO, made its way from Asia to California. It 

lays its eggs in thin skinned fruits resulting in larvae developing in the fruit. In 2010, a Michigan 

State University (MSU) Extension educator found evidence of this pest in Michigan. Since then 

the population has exploded and now it seriously threatens both the cherry and blueberry 

industries. 

As growers, we turn to MSU researchers and Extension for answers on how to manage SWD. 

Federal research funding is critical to address this type of serious threat. The Specialty Crop 

Research Initiative (SCRI) funding is essential to address major issues like SWD that affect crops 

throughout the country. I am also very pleased that MSU has applied for SWD matching 

research funds from the new Rapid Outcomes from Agriculture Research program which is part 

of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. The Foundation was created in the 2014 

Farm Bill to increase the investment in agricultural research through innovative public-private 

partnerships. The newly created Rapid Outcomes program, modeled after Project GREEEN at 

MSU, has the potential to greatly help industries address new and emerging issues in 

agriculture by obligating funding for research in an expedited time frame. 

In Michigan, MSU has four research centers strategically placed in major fruit-growing areas. 

This field research is imperative to complement the research conducted in labs, greenhouses 

and growth chambers on campus. Both apple and cherry growers have established programs 

that for many years have provided grower funding for research, but falling federal and state 
114 

funding was straining the ability of the infrastructure at MSU to meet the needs. As a result, 

the tree fruit industries worked together to establish the Michigan Tree Fruit Commission. 

The Michigan Tree Fruit Commission is a grower funded state research program that was 

created to make sure that MSU has adequate facilities and the people necessary in research 

and Extension to help growers solve the critical problems that challenge our ability to produce 

food. The program has already proven to be successful, but will only work if we maintain a 

partnership with MSU. For MSU to be that strong partner requires adequate federal funding 

that helps support the scientists and facilities needed to address the issues and to fund 

research beyond the scope of our industry's ability to fund. 

I also wish to express my support for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) 

and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program {RCPP) within the conservation title of the 

Farm Bill. Production of tree fruits and wine grapes in Michigan is found on the rolling hills 

dose to the shores of Lake Michigan. It has the right combination of soils and micro-climate to 

produce the healthy and tasty fruit that consumers crave. This area's beautiful views also make 

it desirable for residential development. The Farm Bill's conservation title has been crucial to 

protecting the farmland in leelanau County so it can remain viable for food production. 

As a member of the Board of the leelanau Conservancy, I have seen firsthand how the 

Conservancy has worked with farmers and with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation 

Service to protect nearly 3,300 acres of prime and unique farmland with conservation 

easements since 2001. This work is made possible through ACEP. In order to expand farmland 

protection efforts, in 2016, the Leelanau Conservancy was one of the recipients of a RCPP 

award titled "Tribal Streams and Michigan Fruit Belt Collaborative. This award has created an 

excellent new partnership that also includes the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa 

Indians, Grand Traverse Regional land Conservancy and Conservation Resource Alliance. The 

program will allow the leelanau and Grand Traverse conservancies to permanently protect land 

with conservation easements that are valuable both for agriculture and water resource 

protection, while partners implement other practices to protect the area's water resources, 

improving critical fish habitat. 

I strongly encourage your continued support of these and other conservation programs within 

the Farm Bill. Sustaining a viable agricultural economy that can produce healthy food to feed 

our country and the world requires an investment in resource protection. As a grower, I am 

willing and committed to doing what can to protect and conserve the land and water 

resources for future generations while producing healthy food. However, we know that much 

more conservation is implemented when USDA is a strong partner in the effort. This assistance 

is particularly critical for the small to medium size family farms that dominate our industry and 

are so important to the fabric and economy of our rural communities. 
115 

Testimony of Kyle Rorah 

Great Lakes and Atlantic Region Policy Specialist, Ducks Unlimited 

before the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Field Hearing in Frankenmuth, Michigan 

May6, 2017 

Chainnan Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, it is an honor to testify before you today. l thank 

you both for the opp01tunity to express the importance of the Fam1 Bill to the conservation 

comm<mity here in Michigan and across the country. Ducks Unlimited (DU) has been a proud 

member of that community for 80 years and our commitment to conserving, restoring, and 

managing wetlands and associated habitats fbr North America's watedbwl has led to the 

conservation of 13.9 million acres across the continent 80,000 acres have been consenred right 

here in Michigan. This work not only supports the environment - benellling more than 900 

wildlife species, improving water quality, and conserving soils that are vital to farming it also 

supports both jobs and the economy. In fact, in Michigan hunting and fishing support over 

74,000 jobs and contribute over $6 billion to the state's economy. 1 

Conservation delivery at this scale does not happen without strong partnerships with other 

conservation organizations like Pheasants Forever and National Wild Turkey Federation, state 

fish and wildlife agencies, federal agency partners like the U.S, Department of Agriculture, and 

most importantly private landowners. 

North America's nearly 50 million waterfowl rely on the food, shelter, and nesting habitat on 

private lands across this country. The Fann Bill's conservation programs represent the single 

investment in private land conservation that this nation makes on an ammal basis. More 

than 60 percent of the U.S. and 70 percent of Michigan's land base is privately-o\vned. The 

conservation title a critical tool for landowners in Michigan, Kansas, and across the country to 

enhance profitable farming operations. while benefiting healthy soil, clean water, and abundant 

wildlife. 

DU appreciates Senator Stabenow's leadership in securing a robust conservation title in the 2014 

Fann BilL Our top goal heading into the 2018 Fann Bill is preserving many of the gains made in 

conservation from the new Regional Conservation Partnership Program to working lands 

programs to conservation compliance. There is a lot at stake. 

An innovative new program created during the last Fann Bill and one that is proving to be an 

extremely valuable tool here in Michigan, and across the country, is the Regional Conservation 
116 

Pmtnership Program (RCPP). RCPP leverages federal funds with private partner investments to 

promote the sustainable use of soil, water, and wildlife in critical conservation areas, like the 

Great Lakes. Here in Michigan, eight RCPP projects totaling more than $55 million are 

addressing issues like algae blooms in Lake Erie, water improvements in Bay, 

restoration of the Grand River, and enhancing the Huron River watershed. DU is cum;ntly 

involved in two different RCPP projects here in the state and 9 different RCPP projects 

nationwide. An example ofthe type of partnerships facilitated by RCPP is that between USA 

Rice and Ducks Unlimited. Through this partnership we have worked with many producers and 

other partners to harness this tremendously powerful and innovative program. The 

implementation of our 20!5 RCPP rice projects across the country and the success of two RCPP 

proposals in 2016 demonstrate the importance of the program to rice growers. DU wants to 

maintain this important pminership program in the 2018 Fam1 Bill, while making some changes 

that will improve program delivery, further spur innovation. and ensure partners have the 

resources and tools they need to be successful. 

Another Farm Bill program that DU has found mission critical the Agricultural Conservation 

Easement Program (ACEP). ACEP provides financial and technical assistance to help conserve 

agricultural lands and wetlands and their related benefits. Many of Michigan's breeding 

waterfowl migrate up and down the Mississippi River every year, and so they rely heavily on 

habitat work done in the states to our south. Cuncntly there are over 151,000 acres in Missomi 

alone that are enrolled in Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) that is part of ACEP. Most of these 

acres are located within DU wetland emphasis areas across the state and nicely compliment all 

the wetland work we have been doing across Missouri. CutTently the enrollment demand for this 

program nationwide far outpaces what cunent baseline funding levels will allow. Due to its 

documented success and high landowner demand, we support efforts to restore baseline funding 

back to at least $500 million per year, as well as changes to improve management and landowner 

Hexibility on ACEP sites. 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), is yet another important component ofthe Fann Bill 

and gives landowners the opportunity to conserve lands and habitat that are critical to 

economically important game species like pheasants and ducks. Hunters spend $4.8 billion a 

year in Michigan to pursue many of the species that rely on the type of habitat conserved by the 

CRP. , Lands enrolled in CRP help absorb farm field run-oti before it hits the ditch or stream, 

help recharge groundwater resources, and help keeps the soil on the landscape. For these reasons 

DU is advocating for an increase to the cuncnt national CRP cap of 24 million acres, an 

increased allocation to CRP grasslands, and finally a robust voluntary incentive based working 

lands program, one that works hand-in-hand with private landowners. 

As previously mentioned, hunting and fishing are extremely important to Michigan's economy. 

Nearly 2 million Michiganders hit the woods and waters every year to hunt and fish, and these 

individuals spend big money that supports our State's communities. My hometown of Algonac, 

MI is one such community whose economy is lm·gc!y recreation based. During the fall, the 

parking lots of all the small family-owned diners the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair are 

packed at 5 A.M. with waterfowl hunters and the gas stations arc full of people fueling up there 
117 

fishing boats in the summer. This scene plays om every season in comnnmitics across the state. 

As noted earlier, these activities support over 72.000 jobs statewide. Protecting and enhancing 

these outdoor is therefore both culturally and economically imp01tant to the state. A 

Farm Bill program called the Volunteer Public Access- Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP) 

aims to protect and enhance private lands for recreation by financial incentives to 

lando~\11ers who allow the public to hunt their land. Michigan has received $1,973,000 in grants 

through this program, helping grow the number of acres enrolled from 7,000 in 2011 to 22,000 in 

2016. It is estimated that over $2.4 million will be spent by Htmter Access Pro1,>ram (HAP) 

hllllters using the expanded program, and these dollars will help support rural local economies. It 

is important to continue this program so that current and future generations of sportsmen and 

women have places to hunt and enjoy the outdoors. 

A key factor in the success of the programs mentioned thus far is properly aligning conservation 

incentives for fanners with federal fann program supports. One such incentive that paramount 

to this is conservation compliance. A strong and reliable safety net for our nation's fam1ers and 

ranchers, as well as our soil and wetlands, is a critical component of the Fanu Bill and the future 

of agticultural sustainability. For more than 30 years, conservation compliance has been a 

central part of federal farm programs and this has been renewed by both Congress and bipartisan 

Administrations over the past five farm biBs. In exchange for federal farm program supports, 

American taxpayers deserve common-sense assurances that farming and risk management 

practices are done in a way that minimizes impacts to our nation's highly erodible lands and 

wetlands. This balance is key as we move fi.mvard together the development of tl1e 2018 Fann 

Bill. A broad coalition of commodity, crop insurance and conservation leaders formed in2014 to 

support and defend attacks on crop insurance and support conservation compliance the 

last Fam1 Bill and we stand ready to assist in these efforts again today. 

In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify. DU stands ready to continue 

working with you to achieve a strong conservation title in the 2018 Fmm Bill, which is essential 

to the economic prosperity and vitality of our nation's landowners, producers, and rural 

communities and serves as a backbone to conserve our nation's valuable soils, wetlands, 

grasslands and wildlife populations. 
118 

Testimony of Mr. Darrin Sicmen 

Saginaw Valley Research & Extension Center- Michigan State University 

Field hearing in Frankenmuth, Michigan 

On behalf of the 

National Milk Producers Federation and Michigan Milk Producers Association 

May6, 2017 

Mr. Chainnan, Ranking Member Stabenow, members of the Committee, my name is Darrin 

Siemen. My wife, Barbara, and I own and operate Prime Land Farm, located in Harbor Beach, 

Michigan. 

Prime Land Fann is a centennial farm and I'm a proud fourth-generation dairy farmer. We milk 

320 cows, with 5 LEL Y Robots. We also raise about 800 beef cattle and fam1 l ,500 acres of 

sugar beets, alfalfa, com and wheat 

I attended Michigan State University and majored in food industry management and 

agribusiness. r met my wife at MSU, we returned to the family farm after graduation in 2001 and 

assumed ownership in January 2013. We have 3 children who have a passion lor the cows and 

fam1ing. In December 2014, we retrofitted our existing frccstall ba111, transitioned fi·om our old 

parlor, and installed 4 LEL Y robots. One year later a fifth robot was added to meet our milking 

needs. Within the next couple of weeks our 6'11 robot will be installed, adding to the 

enhancements on our fann this year. We are proud of the advancements and use of technology 

on our f1nm and look forward to future improvements. 

Page 11 
119 

I am also proud to be a spokesperson for the dairy industry and modem agriculture. Throughout 

my career, l served as Huron County Farm Bm·e;m president for nine years. Barbara and I are 

cmTcntly serving as the Michigan Milk Producers Association 2016 Outstanding Young Dairy 

Cooperators. 

W c are proud of the dairy industry in At nearly l billion pounds, Michigan cuncntly 

ranks 5111 nationally in terms of annual milk production and ranks 2nd in production per cow the 

only slate East ofthe Mississippi in the top len, 

I am pleased to be delivering testimony on behalf of myself; my cooperative, Michigan Milk 

Producers Association, and National Milk Producers Federation. 

Introduction and Margin Protectio11 Program 

In recent years, dairy fanners like me have ridden a rollercoastcr. We have seen the lowest of the 

lows and the highest ofthe highs. In20!4, Congress passed legislation establishing a new safety 

net under Title I for dairy farmers known as the Margin Protection Program (MPP). This 

program was envisioned as a way to ensure that dairy farmers had stable safety net to protect 

them during extended downturns in the ever-volatile dairy market During the legislative process, 

changes were made to the original dairy program by Congress that thndamentally altered the 

safety net designed by NMPF and other dairy leaders around the country. Unfortunately as a 

direct result of these changes, the MPP safety net has failed to deliver the protection farmers 

need and expect 

Like many farmers, I was supportive of the MPP and thought it would finally give our farm a 

risk management tool to cope with the volatility dairy fam1ers experience on a daily basis, In the 

first year I signed up for the program and enrolled in the minimal $4 margin level and did not 

Page 2 
120 

purchase supplemental coverage. Following that initial year, many other dairy fanners only 

enrolled at the minimal $4 margin level, which to be perfectly honest, has provided no benefit to 

my fann. While MPP remains the right model for the future of our industly, changes are needed 

if Congress wants to prevent dairy fanners like me from going out of business. 

Understandably, many producers have lost faith in MPP after only two years. In calendar year 

2015, dairy fmmers paid more than $70 million into the MPP program and received payments 

totaling only $730,000; in 2016, those figures were $20 million and $13 million. This was 

particularly hard in a period in which program support was needed. Let me be clear, I am not 

asking for a program that guarantees a profit, nor do I want a program that will incentivize 

excess production. Hmvever, when Congress made changes to the program rendering it 

ineffective, dairy farmers like me lost faith in the idea that MPP could serve as a viable risk 

management tool under its current formulation. We know that if Congress makes changes to 

ensure that MPP more accurately reflects the actual costs of production for businesses like mine, 

participation in the program increase. 

I do want to be clear that ! am not for a handout from the government In fact, MPP has 

actually made the government a profit, equal to $66 million in fiscal year 2015 and $37 million 

in fiscal year 20!6, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Mr. Chainnan, I have enough 

challenges making ends meet with the costs associated with running my business and the 

regulations that we have to comply with. All we are seeking is a program that provides a 

meaningful safety net for dairy fatmers when we need it most If we are to provide dairy fanners 

with a real safety net, it will require this committee to make significant and necessary 

improvements to the program. 

Page 3 
121 

Producers Federation (NMPF) began an exhaustive review ofthe program in early 2016. This 

review was conducted by a committee that included dairy fanners, dairy cooperative leadership, 

as well as experts, academia and others to ensure proposed changes to MPP. 

As you consider ways to improve MPP, one issue in particular continues to rise to the sutfacc. In 

detetmining the margin under MPP, USDA is required to calculate two factors, the "AH milk 

Price" and feed costs. While the "All Milk Price" remains an accurate input tool for this formula, 

the feed price determination remains in question. During the lead-up to the 2014 Farm Bill, 

NMPF worked closely with economists, veterinarians, nutritionists and tanners to develop a 

model for the average feed costs tor dairy cows. This exhaustive process was meant to ensure 

that producers participating in the process had confidence in the validity of the calculation that 

would detennine their risks. However, when NMPF presented our proposal, the feed cost 

fommla, while respected as being accurate, was cut by !0 percent in order to address broader 

budget concerns. I think it is important to note this given that the government has made money 

off of dairy fam1ers under MPP. Concems regarding the budget costs that resulted in this 10% 

reduction were 

the program tlmctions as intended and that producers participate in the program. A safety net is 

not a safety net if no one participates. 

There are also other adjustments that should be considered regarding MPP. These include, but 

are not limited to, the feed fonnu!a caleu!ations as it relates to com and alfalfa prices. 

Additionally, farmers also want to have access to as many risk management tools as 

possible. Unlike other sectors in agriculture, Congress limited the ability of dairy producers to 

use Risk Management Agency (RMA) products as well as Title I programs. Although almost 

Page 14 
122 

every other commodity can utilize both RMA and Title I programs without restrictions, dairy 

fam1ers cannot participate in the Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy Cattle (LGM) program as 

well as MPP. Due to Congressionally mandated restrictions in MPP, a producer must decide at 

the beginning of each Farm Bill whether to cover their milk rmder LGM or MPP. With this 

restriction in place, dairy fanners are left without the benefit of all possible tools that other 

farmers have at their disposal regarding risk management lor their operations. 

Jn addition to the challenges dairy fanners are facing MPP, we also remain concemed about 

challenges to our export markets and other aspects of our industry. In particular, challenges with 

Canada's dairy trade policies have heightened concerns among dairy farmers in the U. S. 

Combined with tmcertainty about a disruption in our relationship with Mexico, 

the cunent trade situation is only adding additional stress to producers and our industry as a 

whole. Other issues including immigration, tax refonn, child nutrition and environmental 

sustainability continue to remain a focus for our industry and we look forward to \'vorking with 

the committee to help us address these challenges. 

Dairy fanners are facing a variety challenges today and many will take long tcnn solutions to 

address properly so that our industry will remain viable. I do want to publicly thank Senator 

Stabenow tor her recent efforts to work with other members of Congress and the Administration 

to seck a short-term solution to help improve the safety net for dairy farmers. Her tmdcrstanding 

and leadership on this issue is greatly appreciated. And a special thanks to both Senator Roberts 

and Senator Stabenow for their recent efforts to bring more milk options and flexibility to the 

School Lunch and School Breakfast programs. W c appreciate your strong support of enhancing 

the milk options available to school kids. 

Page I 5 
123 

Dairy Market Situation 

For the past decade, times have been generally tough for America's dairy !arms. In 2009, 

following several years of expanding U.S. dairy exports, world dairy markets collapsed in the 

worldwide recession, taking domestic milk prices with them. Farm income over feed costs, as 

measured by the MPP margin formula, fell to $2.25 per hundredweight of milk in June ofthat 

year, well below the $4.00 minimum margin coverage level, which is commonly refetTed to as 

"catastrophic" under the current program. The MPP margin formula averaged $3.87 per 

hundredweight during the first ten months of the year. Three years later, widespread drought 

drove teed prices to historic highs in 2012 and sc111 the MPP margin back into cataStrophic 

territory. 

The margin bottomed out at $2.67 per hundredweight that year and averaged $3.63 during the six 

months of March through August. Many farms did not survive this one-two knockout 

punch, and the many that did are still to recover. Although 2014 was a record year for 

milk prices and margins, world markets again collapsed in 20 I 5 and most of 20 !6, which had a 

large et1ect on U.S. milk prices and gross dairy fann income. Revenue from milk sales dropped 

from $49.4 billion dollars in 2014 to $35.7 billion in 2015. U.S. Dcpattmenl of Agriculture 

(USDA) data indicates that it was down again in2016 to $34.4 billion dollars. 

The value of the liesh milk America's dairy farmers produced in20!6 was worth 19 percent less 

than it averaged over the Jlve previous years. The difticult economic conditions and tighter 

operating margins over the last J 0 years have resulted in the loss of more than 18,500 dairy 

farms in the United States. The present environment of depressed market prices could result in 

even more fann closures. While USDA is projecting that milk prices and margins will be better 

Page I 6 
124 

in 2017 than last year, milk production showing signs of expansion following an extended 

period of almost static production, U.S, milk production t,>rcw by L3 percent from 2014 to 2015. 

This annual growth rate expanded to l. 6 percent from 2015 to 20 16, but averaged 2.4 percent 

during the fourth quarter. USDA is currently projecting that milk production will grow again this 

year at an annual rate of 2.3 percent. During 2015 and 2016, total commercial usc of milk, in 

both the domestic and export markets, increased at an annual rate of 1.8 percent. The recent and 

projected expansion of milk production has a real possibility of outpacing demand, which will 

weigh heavily on milk prices again. 

W c need Congress to act swiftly this year and make the necessary changes in order for our 

industry to be able to protect ourselves from the bad year that could arrive at any time, even in 

years where expetis are predicting higher margins. We daily fam1ers are doing our job. We are 

producing safe, nutritious milk tor the market. If that market goes sour or our costs soar because 

of drought or another type ohveather event, we must have the ability to protect our equity and 

our investment. 

Farm Labor 

I am lucky that the majority of my farm's labor needs are met with robotic milkers. While a 

significant investment, these milkers have helped me and my family address issues related to 

fatm labor. The issue of farm labor is important to all daily fanners, regm·dless of farm size. 

Dairy fanners try in vain to find interest by American workers, but there has been decreasing 

interest in careers on a farm. Dairy farmers, like others in agriculture, have had to look to 

qualified foreign-born workers to meet our labor needs. 

Page I 7 
125 

According to a University of Texas A&M fl'port, released in August 2015 (and conducted in 

coordination with NMPF), 51 percent of all dairy fann workers arc foreign bom, and the fanns 

that employ them account for 79 percent of the milk produced in the United States. Having a 

stable, reliable workforce is critical to the continued viability of the dairy industry. In dairy, we 

cannot tum the cows off when there are not enough employees to do the job, we have to milk 

them. This is the reason that NMPF and my cooperative, Michigan Milk Producers Association, 

have continually urged Con!,>TCSS to act immediately to refonn our immigration system in a 

manner that addresses agriculttne's needs for a legal and stable workforce. 

In Michigan, milk production has grown by 90% over since 2000 and contributes nearly $16 

billion to our state's economy. Since 2008, MMPA members have invested over $100 million to 

expand processing capacity within Michigan to accommodate the additional production. 

MMPA, along with other milk marketing organizations in our region, arc in discussions to 

further expand processing capacity in our slate. As future investments are made in processing 

facilities, we will need to maintain the grovvth in milk production. Addressing the labor issue will 

be a key component in this process. 

Trade 

The dairy industry has come a long way on trade in the past seyeral years. Our nation has gone 

from cxpm1ing dairy products valued at less than $1 billion in 2000 to exporting a record $7 .l 

billion in 20 !4, an increase of 625 percent. Although low prices brought that number closer to 5 

billion last year, we remain tl1c largest expmtcr of skim milk powder, whey products and, 

depending of the month, the number one exporter of cheese in the world. That re11ects a 

tremendous jump on a value basis, but also a dramatic increase in the proportion of U.S. milk 

production that's finding a home overseas. 

Page I 8 
126 

Fifteen years ago we were exporting roughly five percent of our milk production, now we are at 

three limes that level, even as overall U.S. milk production has continued to grow. TI1at means the 

equivalent of one day's milk production each week fiom the entire U.S. dairy industry ultimately 

ends up overseas, making exports integral to the health of my fann and our dairy industry at large. 

It is critical that Congress protects the progress we have made as the Administration updates trade 

agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Mexico is our largest 

buyer of dairy products, representing a quarter of our total exports and represented approximately 

30,000 American jobs. We urge that NAFT A modcmization discussion preserve v1·hat is working 

well and already agreed in the Free Trade Agreement such as trade with Mexico, while focusing 

energies on the unfinished work that remains such as with Canada where there is a need to secure 

Canada's compliance with its trade commitments and to reassert the importance of dependable 

two-way trade. 

1 also urge a strong rejection by Congress ofthe European Union's (EU) aggressive stance on 

confiscating common food names. Names like Pannesan and F eta belong to everyone, not just a 

handful of producers inltaly and Greece. Our industry has built markets here and overseas. We 

need to protect those markets. We can be competitive and increase sales in markets as diverse as 

Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. \Vhat we need arc well-negotiated agreements and the 

necessary tools to achieve and implement them. 

The Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) program are some 

of those tools. I urge the Committee to maintain those programs, but allow for USDA to review 

the distribution of monies so those like dairy, that have expanded expm1s significantly in the last 

Page I 9 
127 

10 years and arc matching with funds and efforts, are awarded by providing enough funds to 

continue the work. 

Environmental Sustainability 

Farmers arc the original environmentalists. As a dairy farmer, l care deeply about the land, air 

and water that I raise my herd and my family on. In recent years, however, federal and state 

regulators have applied significant pressure on the dairy sector to reduce nutrient output to 

improve water quality in dairy-producing regions across the country. We, as an industry, have 

invested significant resources to proactively respond to this challenge, and we continue to work 

to embrace the best possible environmental practices. Dairy producers in Michigan have great 

awareness and responsibility to the environment in the practices that we follow. Common sense 

environmental regulations make sense. 

Mr. Chainnan, Ranking Member Stabenow, the dairy industry is committed to working with you 

to improve federal policies that impact lam1ers like me as well as consumers. I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak with you today and thank you for your advocacy on behalf of agriculture. 

Page 110 
128 

Testimony of 

Andy Snider, Owner, Snider Farms 

before !he United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

May 6, 2017 

Frankenmuth, Michigan 

Good afternoon, Chainnan Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow. Thank you for receiving my 

testimony today as you work to develop the new Farm Bill. My name is Andy Snider I am 

the senior part:ner/ovvncr of Snider Fmms. Snider Fa1ms is a multi generational family fann, we 

raise turkeys, hogs, com and soybeans in the center of beautiful Oceana County in Western 

Michigan. My wife Beth and l run the day to day operations at the fann along with my son Zack 

and his wife, Priscilla and a dedicated team of eleven employees comprise Snider Fam1s. 

We tlmn 2,700 acres, 85% of the acreage is com with the remaining balance in soybeans and 

some wheat/ rye. We expanded out turkey operation in 2012 with an entirely new fann !.5 miles 

from the home fann and we are currently doubling that facility. Snider Fanns produces about 

! 70,000 turkeys Raised Without Antibiotics (RWA) and a portion ofthose we raise as cct1ified 

Organic as a member/owner of Michigan Turkey Producers Cooperative, located in Grand 

Rapids, Michigan. We have a hog operation that hosts 560 breeder sows and we sell roughly 

325 weaned pigs weekly to Michiana Agm, another cooperative business in southern Michigan. 

Finally, l serve in several leadership roles for local farm cooperatives. Tam one of fourteen 

fmmers that serves on the board of Greenstone Farm Credit Services which is a fanner owned 

cooperative. I also serve on the Land O'Lakes, Inc. Cooperative Region IV Executive Council 

and am a founding member of the Michigan Turkey Producers Cooperative. 

Furner Owned Cooperatives 

My wife and l farmed in partnership with my parents from !982 through !994. My involvement 

in fanner owned cooperatives began early in my career. We were dairy and hog farmers and in 

1994 we added turkey hams, raising turkeys as contract growers for Bil-Mar Foods, a division of 

Sara Lee. In 1996, my wife and I woke np to a lire blazing through our dairy bams. Only one 

cow survived the blaze and we were left with difficult decisions. We decided to get ont of the 

dairy business and focus on the turkey and pork enterprises, expanding our hog facilities to grow 

more weaner pigs. One year a Her the catastrophic tire, we and the other Michigan growers for 

Sara Lee were infonned that they were exiting the live turkey business immediately. Mich.ig:m 

turkey producers only option was to transport live birds to Indiana and Iowa which eroded 

margins and would have eventually drove all the production out ofthe state. fifteen turkey 

producers including myself banded together to f()nn what is cunently the Michigan Turkey 

Producers Co-op. We raised $30 million in capital from co-op members and other industry 

investors. We acquired a shuttered potato processing facility in Wyoming, Michigan, and the 

facility was ready for slaughter operations in 2000. A small group of producers took our fates 
129 

into our owns hands and sawd the turkey industry in the state which is now an industry that 

produces 6 million birds annually with an economic impact of $250 million to the Michigan 

economy. Additionally, we have created good paying jobs in that facility which had taken a hit 

after the potato process facility had left. W c received assistance through the USDA rural 

development loan guarantee program for the facility as well as a Value Added Producer Grant 

(VAPG) for a later expansion which allowed us to expand into ready to eat products such as deli 

meats. This cooperative ensured economic viability f(lr its member ovmers as well as economic 

well-being tor the entire community. 

l serve on Greenstone Fann Credit Service's board and see firsthand the benefits that our farm 

Credit system provides to mral communities and Hmners. I would like to call to attention a 

couple of the extraordinary benefits fi·om the Fam1 Credit System. · 

first, Farm Credit made 64,000 loans to young producers (under the age of 36). Having already 

heard my story, you can appreciate that with both my son going into fanning and my need for 

credit to expand the business, this is a critical service. 

Second, Farm Credit finances more than $27 billion in rural infrastructure including mral electric 

coops, mra! water systems, mral telecommunications and broadband. 

Third, given the increasing volatility of farm income, we would encourage Congress to ensure 

adequate funding for ail risk management programs and tools. Programs like crop insurance, 

livestock gross margin insurance, and FSA guarantees, are essential to maintain a stable and 

secure !ood system. Overall, net farm income was down nem·Jy 50% trom 2lH3 to 2016, and if 

net fam1 income continues to fall, the risk management progmms may be the only remaining 

safeguard. 

In particular, FSA loan guarantees are a critical risk management tool are used extensively 

by the Farm Credit System as well as other agriculture lenders. This assists borrowers to gain 

credit during tough times. The FSA progmm frequently runs out of funding even in the good 

times of agriculture and has encountered a shortfall in funding over the last two years that ham1s 

fanners that need access to operating capital. Fmiher, the loan limit is merely $1.4 million 

which is woefully inadequate today's fann economy which is extremely capital intensive. For 

example, one new four wheel tractor can easily cost in excess of$500,000. The limit of$1.4 

million puts large farms, as well as mid-sized fanns at a disadvantage from receiving any benefit 

in mitigating enterprise risk, but this limit should not be increased without a proportional 

increase in annual appropriations. 

When you consider our aging fimner population, the farm economy and crumbling infrastmcture, 

it's easy to sec why it's critical that the Farm Credit system maintains its Government Supported 

Entity ( GS E) status. 

In conclusion, farmer owned cooperatives promote the kind term .:conomic sustainability 

that will allow future generations to stay/return to these fanns and communities. 

Conservation 
130 

Growing up in Michigan, su!Tounded by the state's beautiful lakes, I understand the importance 

of being a good steward of our natural resources. The conservation ethic runs deep on my farm, 

with a firm understanding that our !and is our capital and legacy. We arc committed to do right 

by it. Through my involvement on Land O'Lakes Inc. Executive Council, my view ofon-fann 

conservation and sustainability has been deepened as Land O'Lakes has developed their Sustain 

Program. I now view sustainabi!ity and profitability on our farm as symbiotic you can't have 

one without the other. I commend Land O'Lakes Sustain for their efforts to combine good 

stewardship, and precision ag tech tools, grounded with data and science, with a view towards on 

tann productivity and viability. Because legacy and lifestyle matter to all lann families, our 

farm has enrolled in several state and federal conservation programs that we hope will sustain the 

land and water for my children and future grandchildren. 

The working lands programs within the conservation title of the Farm Bill help support these 

effm1s. Snider Fam1s has participated in the signature working lands program, the Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),to help make our farming operation more environmentally 

sound .. Our first EQIP project in 2007 was for an Ag/Chem Building. This allows us to 

store and mix all of our crop protection materials inside a containment area that eliminates risk of 

ground contamination. Our next EQTP project was a Litter Storage Facility since raising turkeys 

produces a large amounts of waste. This EQTP cost share allowed us to constmct a litter storage 

facility on our original timr1 without impacting our bottom line. Now, with the help ofEQIP 

funding we have been able to utilize all of our turkey litter as a natural fertilizer for our fields as 

well as selling natural fertilizer to non-livestock fanning neighbors and prevent leaching and nmoff from outdoor stacking on the ground of manure. On our new fatm, we received another 

EQIP cost share two years ago that allowed us to create another litter storage facility without 

hurting our ability to be profitable. 

We also take part in the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the largest lands 

program at USDA, to help us ensure our operation suppm1s important water quality effm1s. Our 

fam1 is close to numerous lakes, streams and rivers in Westem Michigan that all end up in 

beautiful Lake Michigan. We take our nutrient management as well as our extensive use of 

cover crops ve1y seriously. These practices, along with using the latest technologies, allow us to 

excel in this area of conservation and arc supported by CSP. 

At the state level both locations of Snider Fam1s are verified in all three systems of the Michigan 

Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP). MAEAP is an innovative, proactive 

program that helps fam1s of all sizes and all commodities voluntarily prevent or minimize 

agricultural pollution risks. Each system or phase ofMAEAP works to reduce our fann's 

environmental risk by utilizing a three system process of education, a farm-specific risk 

assessment and practice implementation, and an on-farm verification of onr environmentally 

sound practices. For example, MAEAP verified farms in the Livestock and Cropping systems m·e 
131 

required to have a CNMP (Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan) that tracks all nutticnt 

applications, whether commercial fertilizer or manure. Non-MAEAP verified fanns arc not 

required to practice this most imp01iant, long tenn, environmentally sound practice that is ofthe 

utmost imp01iance towm·d sustainability. At Snider Fmms, we have CNMP plans for both of our 

fanns and have recently received our county's Conservationist of theY ear Award. 

Overall, Snider Fanns has been able to prioritize conservation because of our convictions and 

programs made available through the Farm BilL These programs have allowed our fanning 

operation to continue with each new generation and allowed us to expand in a way that is both 

environmentally and cconomica!ly sustainable. 

Animal Pest and Disease Disaster Prevention and Response Program 

Since 2015, the turkey industry has made significant strides in recovering from highly 

pathogenic avian int1uenza (HPAI), after suffering through the worst animal disease outbreak in 

U.S. history. The losses from HPAI were and weighed heavily upon fanners, mral 

communities, and companies from the West coast to the Midwest As an industry, we learned 

many lessons from the outbreak, and the way we quickly contained a similar case ofHPAI in 

Indiana last year indicates the industry, with assistance from USDA, the states, m1d other key 

stakeholders are applying those lessons to reduce the chances and severity of a future outbreak. 

However, the road ahead remains long and as an industry we will need renewed support from 

Congress to assist USDA/Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to reduce the longterm impacts. HP AI is not going away overnight; it is a global problem and the time is now to 

start an international discussion on eradication strategies for HP AI including the use of vaccines. 

The global spread ofHPAT illustrates that no country immune and the U.S. must be a leader to 

begin this discussion. Additionally, we arc reminded by the recent HPAI outbreak in Tennessee 

that this disease is still very much a danger and can sttike at any time. 

As the Committee embarks on the reanthorization ofthe Fann Bill, the National Turkey 

Federation and its turkey farmers will be joining many that rely on the animal agriculture 

community in asking for the inclusion of a forward-looking, mandatory Animal Pest and Disease 

Prevention Program to the Fam1 BilL This program will be designed to limit the impacts of 

foreign diseases on U.S. livestock and poultry producers both before and during an outbreak. 

We have all heard that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and this program will 

use that mantra to focus federal dollars on targeted efforts that reduces foreign diseases ability to 

gain a foothold here in the first place. 

Animal agriculture is a major economic driver for our nation and this program will have a huge 

impact on protecting the industry from future foreign disease exposures. According to ihe Farm 

Income Atlas administered by USDA's Economic Research Service, total cash receipts for 

animals and animal products was over $212.2 billion in 2014. This represents over fifty percent 
132 

of all fann cash receipts. In addition, a recent study commissioned by the tJ nitcd Soybean Board 

found that the total economic impact of the livestock and poultry industry in the United States 

was $440.7 billion in 2014. In order to protect our investment in the vital sector of the economy, 

we will be asking Congress to support our request for this new program. 

In recent years, disease outbreaks have cost billions in losses and response costs. 

/\ccording to APHIS, the 2015 avian influenza outbreak cost taxpayers $1 billion in response, 

clean up, and indemnity costs. That doesn't include lost export markets, temporary shortages, or 

price increases for certain poultry products. 

There are t\vo key pillars of our proposal: 

First, the Animal Pest and Disease Disaster Prevention and Response Program, administered by 

APHIS, would build upon the 2014 Fann Bill's authorization oftbe National Animal Health 

Laboratory Network (NAHLN) that provides crucial resources to prepare and prevent a crisis 

and brings together the federal govemmcnt, states, industry and universities to: 

• Provide rapid detection and response capabilities 

• Develop mitigation and stamp-out technologies including vaccines 

• Identify and supp01t critical research needs. 

Second, it would provide for the development of a block grant system that allows states and 

other key players to strategically target areas of concern where we arc more vulnerable. Finally, 

it is envisioned that this program would be structured to take full advantage, through support and 

collaboration, ofthe science generated by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 

program. As an industry, we look forward to working with the committee to establishing this 

critical program needed to supp01t our nation's livestock and poultry industry. 

One final point I'd like raise related to my turkey operation, specifically the organic portion is the 

recent USDA rule on Organic Livestock Production Practices. I and many of the other organic 

poultry producers in the state are concerned about the impacts of some of the new requirements 

in the National Organic Program. The organic program has long been focused on sound organic 

production from an ingredients standpoint. TI1is new mlc dictating outdoor space requirements 

moves the goalpost in a significant way. Producers including myself have made significant 

investments into our operations to comply with the mles including securing feed sources and 

marketing our product. 

The organic sector bas been a bright spot for growth in Michigan. I have concerns about the 

potential impacts ofthe organic livestock rule and unintended consequences that could 

negatively impact our producers. The new rule could put many committed organic producers out 

of business 

Furthern10re, !his n1le is in dired conflict with what producers are cunently doing to avoid future 

HP AI outbreaks. 
133 

So today, I call on Secretary Perdue to delay the implementation of the rule before May 19th and 

take a hard look at the impact these rules will have on fl:uncrs, local supply chains and 

consmners. Chainnan Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, thank you tor the invitation 

today to speak about these impmtant issues as you consider reauthorization of the Fann BilL 
134 

My name is Collin Thompson and I am a 

Michigan State (MSU) Extension. I 

Peninsula Research 

managing UPREC's USDA 

of our community learn the latest '"'"""'ll'"'" 

Peninsula's challenging climate. 

I am privileged to work with '-''-l~"'""'o 

improving their farms 

Each year, we invite "">""'"'"·'-'" 

school visits and other ,.,,,..,,.ncr 

incubator that gives nmrtlf''1n"•hni<Y """·''-'" 

o-rn.w"'"" with the goal of 

'"'mL'"IS and on-farm research. 

"""''"'''""r'n" trainings, 

to establish their own farm <>rl.rhtmn 

hoping to better understand the """'""""'·''' 

small grains in our climatic "v'·"-"·""""· 

support to growers without the critical A._. .. ..,, ... 5 

the USDA's Agriculture aud Food Research a;.,.H,,.. 

Through the years, my work has become focused in two areas -local and 

regional food systems, and 

Local and Food t:::u•"t"'m"' 

Michigan, specifically the "'"'·""''.ua, is fortunate to support incredibly 

vibrant food systems. The '""'""''""'is defined its rural realities-we 

are home to 29 percent of '"'"''''~'>"u land mass, but 3.2 percent of its 

population. of the region's economy. Farmers 

in the central Upper Alger, Delta, '-'"""''""'""• 
135 

Marquette, Menominee, and Schoolcraft farm 281,000 acres ofland 

and sell million of food However, due to limited support 

in terms of agricultural infrastructure the Central Upper 

Peninsula food economy tends to drain from region, resulting in an 

annual net loss of $540 farm. 1 In the rest of the state boasts about 

Michigan's growing economy, growers in my region saw a 

million reduction in sales from 1969 to 2011.1 

Despite these challenges, the region is tremendous growth in specific areas 

ofthe food economy. Direct-to-consumer have increased 24 percent since 

increase in the of farms pursuing 

direct sales channels, the benefits of directly with customers 

and earning the highest dollar per unit for their 

The work being done to promote local and regional food cm,ho·onc 

region to support such an local food economy. efforts by 

organizations like MSU Extension, the U.P. Food Exchange food hub, the 

Michigan Farmers Market and local farmers markets have worked to 

develop a culture local growers, the local 

economy. 

Funds granted to the Downtown Farmers Market (DMFM) through 

the USDA Farmers Market Promotion Program have greatly increased 

the circulation of dollars the local home to 

residents 7 UP's in many ways defined its 

food culture. the season, the DMFM supports an average 

vendors and 1,643 visitors each week. 2 Visitors spent an average of 

at the market, in a total of in sales.2 Furthermore, the 

presence of the market the downtown district had on the 

downtown economy as a whole. at the DMFM spending an 

average of $59.30 each week at other businesses.2 The growth of the 

market would not have been as drastic or sustained >'tithont from the 

USDA to support promotional carn!)aig,ns. 

Before harvesting a product, arr>W•>r<: 

conditions in the Upper 

weather, and extreme cold can make the nn."n'""" nH"'rn'in" 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

uuuau ''"• through the Environmental has 

1 1\'leter, Ken. Central !J.P. Farm & Food Economy. Crossroads Resource Center, Minneapolis: 

U.P. Food Exchange, 2013. 

Michigan Farmers Market Association. Marquette Downtown Farmers Market Impact 

Summmy. East Lansing, MI, Aprils, 2017. 
136 

helped numerous ""''''""'Pr-o 

businesses. These 

financial resources their 

bottom line 

tremendous participation this program, as 104 tunnel projects have been 

funded across the The support offered to these growers varies with the 

scope of the project, producers can access cost-share funding of about $3.50-

$4.75 per square foot, up to 2,178 feet.3Without the funding provided 

through the EQIP High Tunnel many ofthese growers would struggle 

to reach profitability. 

Conservation and local/regional food programs the Upper Peninsula with 

essential funding that promotes, and enhances the food system. A 

continuation and ofthese programs would positively the Upper 

Peninsula and its 

Organic Agriculture 

Organic is the fastest growing sector of the U.S. food economy, now """n""'con+iina 

billion dollars in sales. This presents incredible economic opportunities 

farmers. 3 However, rapid growth and a unending consumer 

demand, farmers in the United States are unable to up, which means we are 

potential profits to from beyond our The 2014 Farm Bill 

critical investments to the sector, 1ut:1wuu.t~ 

modernization and technology and organic data collections to support 

new risk management tools for fanners. 

According to the r>:<:.u'"'uuc~1 Service's National Program, the 

American organic mri11<,TMT $20 billion since 2008. The 

number of certified nr<><hworc attemr:~tintgto up Vl~th rampant 

demand has increased 300 2002.4 this incredible 

growth, funding for the USDA's the Organic 

Agriculture Research and has steady around $20 

million annually since 2008. In the Transitions Program 

(ORG) has remained at $4 million since 2008.5 

The critical initial funding we received at UPREC <-h~~ ... n,h the 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative is essential to work I do 

4 U.S. Department of Agriculture. "USDA 

Release No. 0084.16. Washington D.C., 

Record Growth In U.S. Organic Producers." 

4, 2016. 

s Schonbeck, Mark, Diana ,Jerkins, and Joanna Orv. 

Or·ganic Research Investments, 2002-2014. Orga;1ic 
137 

every day. Simply 

However, less than 

research program, goes 

is essential for continued growth and success in the 

invested in public agricultural research generates in domestic economic 

activity.6 We cannot lose this to help our farmers. 

uAiumu::'Y $180 million in 

of total agricultural 

and big impact. 

vw~._,,v., practices related to soil 

ma,na,gerneJ1t practictoS used both organic 

In addition to research <nrnn.nrt 

possible for growers in 

their farms. The Organic Cost 

this research could 

practices around the country, yielding 

financial burden of certification and 1m;pecuon 

growers have environmental, 

financial commitment can often be ovtoniThelmmg 

scale. The cost share dollars have 

growers to pursue certification. 

with individuals invested in the local, 

Upper Peninsula. These growers and 

u"''-'"''accu to and sustaining a vibrant local 

the and consumption of sustainably produced 

un-'"'''"'"'u and sustained suppmt in the next Farm Bill, the 

local/regional and food sectors can continue the 

industry and ensure a prosperous future. 

As both a certified orll!'aJuc vrodluc~er 

industry, I 

significantly ,..,,,. .. ,,,.,,,., 

Bill, and through encouraging 

Initiative to address the needs ofthe .-. ... ",,.,:;..,. 

Again, thank you for the 

questions. 

to and I look forward to your 
138 

Chairman Roberts and Senator Stabenow, thank you for me to 

testify. I appreciate the to tell you about my story and how the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP has helped my 

My name is Faith Watson. I'm from a rural 

community of about 9,000 located in western Honestly, I never 

thought that I would be in a about my experience as a 

SNAP participant. I have a bachelor's degree from Cornerstone University. I'm an 

adventurous go-getter. I have cared about other people and have tried to 

give back to my through service and through my church. I worked 

hard throughout my twenties first at a news radio program in Grand Rapids and 

then a variety of jobs as I moved around the country with my husband. Even 

when I took a job at a Starbucks in a new town, I worked my way up to a 

Almost two years ago, I found separated from my husband and I 

became the sole caregiver to and wage earner for my two young children. I had 

been a stay at home mom for several years and was unprepared for 

this unexpected in our lives. All at once, l had to find work and sort out 

how I would manage to raise two small children on my own. 
139 

I found a sales 

minimum wage, but it was a job that 

applied for help at the local 

approved and 

weight off my mind to get that 

at a retail chain. It was 

me get back on my feet. also 

of Health and Human Services. I was 

a month in SNAP benefits. It was a huge 

Because of SNAP, I knew I could put food on 

the table and still pay my other bills. It also meant that I could afford to give my 

kids some special treats, like their favorite 

healthy foods has been and SNAP 

yogurt snack. Eating 

made that easier to do. 

Each day moves us forward. things look very different for us. It's still 

hard to juggle it 

communications coordinator at a local civic which is the field my 

degree is in! I also do some temporary work for my church. I volunteer at my 

lam but growing 

a home business as part of a health and well ness direct sales company. Because 

I'm earning more, my SNAP benefit is now about $120 a month. It still makes a 

big difference in our budget. Knowing that I have this lets me create 

an environment for my kids where they are secure, and thriving. 

SNAP's benefit to my has been about more than groceries. This 
140 

little bit of security lets me think forward to the future. I don't plan to be in this 

situation forever. And, don't know how 

but it's something I think about every 

it will take me to get out of this, 

goal is to be in a place where I'm 

financially independent, to for my kids without needing help, and to be in 

a place where I can give back to my 

SNAP has helped me take steps toward that 

I know that I'm not the one who is 

county has one of the highest poverty rates in 

working several jobs and 

both and with my time. 

of a different kind of future. 

it. I'm 

to make ends meet. My 

I see many single moms 

to 

encourage them to apply for SNAP to them get by and care for their kids. 

There is definitely a lot of the program but there is stigma about 

those who depend on SNAP benefits. There seems to be a pervasive stereotype 

about what kind of person uses SNAP- don't care, don't work. But 

that's not me and it's not the that I know who have needed 

government assistance. We are hard workers who want a different future. 

Of course, the program is not 

redetermination are tedious and 

The ,n,nm·;m,nn process and 

with all the paperwork 

a lot of time to gather and submit. The state needs so much of 
141 

everything that's going on in my life to calculate my benefits--from 

statements, to child care expenses, bank and more! 

The state's website technology also leaves much to be repeatedly crashes 

in the middle of entering 

to deliver uploaded documents. 

is not user friendly, and often fails 

this will get better over time. 

would be something and case workers 

would both agree could the process. Another improvement could 

be to avoid reducing SNAP benefits 

increase in their income, which seems more like a 

reports an 

ml<ohr~n•o+ for working more 

and trying hard to get ahead. 

benefits, which could 

I hope that sharing my experience 

this program to families like mine that 

a short window of time of stable 

get back on their feet faster. 

nnr·or>'>~O the importance of 

and that my story can 

you 

do need 

help inform your work on next year's Farm Bill. Please know that for 

many of us, it's a lifeline that we didn't know we would and it provides 

stepping stones that are a to future success. Thank you for providing the 

benefit. It's made a huge difference to my 

I welcome any that you might have. Thank you for your time. 
142 

Statement of the American Association to the Senate Agriculture 

Committee Farm Bill Field 

"f~: ..... ,~·irm Jobs and Economic nrn><•rtlnniitv• .... ,,.U10PI"1t•v·~" on the 2018 Farm 

Bill from 

May 6, 2017 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for holding lhi~ hearing and for the opportunity tor me and others in the "'"'"""~au 

agricultural industry to provide our inpuL My name is David Williams and on behalf of the 

Michigan Soybean Association and the American Soybean Association, I am pleased to 

provide this with our perspectives on Fann Bill programs and their role in the 

economy of Michigan, rural communities, and the nation as a whole. 

[serve as the President of the Michigan Soybean Association. Our farm of 160 

acres is over 150 years old, founded by my great-great grandf..>ther who emigrated fi·om 

Devonshire, England. I'm the fifth in my family to t1mn the land. My nephew, who 

also is my business partner, and I operate and manage W Fanns LLC which is over 3500 acres 

where we grow soybeans, com and soft red winter wheat 

Much of the focus ofthe farm bill discussion has been and will be ou the importance of 

the income safety net provided by Title I programs and the risk management tools made 

available through crop insurance. This is and soybean producers stated their 

positions on these issues clearly at your Committee's previous hearing in March in Manhattan, 

Kansas. Rather than repeat these positions today, I will discuss our interest in and support tor 

other Farm Bill priorities, including conservation and biobased programs. 

Before I do, however, I would like to compliment your in and 

nre,set'V1rt<> perhaps the most important in tam! policy: the separation oftann 

program payments from crops planted in the same year, known as "decoupling." Chairman 

Roberts, you established this principle in the 1996 Farm Bill, or "Freedom to FamJ, and it 

remains the reason why make their decisions based on market demand 

rather than on prospects for government payments. This has fl!eled the,.]';""'"'"'" 

rise in U.S. farm income and exports over the last 20 years. Ranking Member Stabenow, you 

played an indispensable role in in the 2014 Fam1 BilL We hope your 

bipmtisan support for this important fann continues as the Committee 

continues its work on the next version of farm Jeg!slaJJo.n. 
143 

Turning to Title II, the Committee knows well that conservation programs have been 

critical to the great strides American fanners have made in land conservation and 

sustainability, even in my lifetime. 

The 2016 Field to Market national indicators report into how much 

change has occuued.: Their analysis of sustainability metrics tor soybeans between 1980 and 

2015 shows that during the 35-year time period: 

L Soil conservation""'"'"''"'"'" 

2. Irrigation water usc even as acreage increased tl·om 4 

percent to 9 percent 

3. Energy use decreased 35 percent, and 

4. Greenhouse gas emissions also over the 

emission increases associated with crop chemicals and ~~"'"''""tm,n 

reduced energy use and associated emissions !i"om fewer 

Yet there is more work to be done, which we k'Jmw because demand for conservation 

program emollment outstrips the supply of dollars tllr every program, every year. 

ASA strongly supports working lands conservation programs like the Conservation 

Stewardship Program (CSP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Progmm (EQJP). l 

have personal with both and can attest that these programs t:·mm;:rs the chance 

to try out new practices and ultimately adopt those that work for our fhrms on a 

basis. 

Through CSP, let me how that program has helped me to begin adoption of 

cover crops. When I renewed my CSP contract, I agreed to seed cover crops. I tried oilseed 

radishes and oats as one combination, and also tried peas. Last winter I seeded cereal rye. I 

have seen tirst-hand that cover crops prevent soil erosion, improve water quality by reducing 

rates, and increase soil fertility by providing habitat for soil microbial action. 

CSP also led me to begin stalk nitrate testing. Nitrogen use is one ofthe most difficult 

decisions on our com acres. We know that the to management over 

time is having reliable feedback on how well nitrogen management is working. Stalk nitrate 

testing provides a good assessment of whether the crop had the amount of nitrogen, too 

much or too little. Through testing, [have been able to determine that our variable rate 

nitrogen program has been providing the most eftlcient usage of nitrogen to our com crop. 

Under EQIP, the cost-sharing us build a chemical and fertilizer containment 

facility in order to comply with Michigan state water This is a good example of 

how leveraging private investment with farm bill dollars leads to water quality for 

everyone, 

Much ofthe discussion in fim11 circles now centers on whether 

Consenation Reserve (CRP) acres should be increased and, if so, by how much? 

And should the parameters of the CRP program be changed by Congress? ASA voting 

1 Environmental and Socioeconomic Indicators lor Measuring Outcomes of On-Farm Agricultural Production 

in the United States, Third Edition. (Dccemher 2016). Retrieved from 
144 

delegates supported a new resolution at this year's Commodity Classic to increase CRP 

acreage, though we did not take a position on how much, what kind, or how to pay for it. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the importance and benefits of 

the Farm Bill Energy Title programs in the bioeconomy and agriculture's 

role and opportunities in these markets. 

The USDA economic updated in 2016 showed that the U.S. biobased 

products sector supported 4.2 $127 billion in direct sales, and $393 

billion in total value to the lJ.S. economy. Market research reports also indicate tremendous 

future growth for biobased chemicals and products. 

have made significant 

investments into research, development, and ofbiobased products. The 

soybean industry continues to partner with companies and invest resources into biobased 

development. Many of the biobased economic benefits and growth opportunities are 

evident here in Mich~rgan. 

Mtctrtga11 is a leader in tbe world bioeconomy thanks to long history of innovation by 

companies like Ford and Lear and their collaboration with U.S. soybean growers through their 

investments in research and promotion to build soybean demand through new industrial uses. 

Every Ford car made in North America now contains soy in its seat cushions. also 

benellts from the sales of our soy, including high-oleic soybean oil, purchased bybiobased 

manufacturers in other states. Additional product uses are under development to 

expand future uses soy in our state and around the world. 

I would add that the state enacted procurement preference last 

year that is modeled on the Biobascd Market Program established under the Farm Bill and 

administered by USDA USDA has identi11ed 97 categories ofbiobased ranging 

fi·om engine oils to carpet and and these products are referenced to receive 

state procurement preference under Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore in Michigan was an and has set an awardwinning example to other state and federal 

benefits ofbiobased products. 

The various Farm Bill Energy Title programs support different aspects of the 

bioeconomy chain, including advanced biofuels, bioencrgy from farms and forests, and 

biobased chemicals and products. We appreciate the support of the Senate Agriculture 

Committee, and particularly Sen. Stabenow li.1r your leadership, fiJr the Energy Title in 

previous farm bills. There are three Energy Title programs in particular in which soybean 

producers have a strong interest: Biobased Market Program, the Bioenergy Program tbr 

Advanced Biofuels, and the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program. 

The Biobased Market established and expanded in previous farm bills, 

encompasses the federal biobased procurement program and biobased products 

program. This is an efiectivc and important program that uses the federal government's 

purchasing power to pull products into the market and encourages investment and 

development ofbiobased f'""'"~'3· 

2 An Economic Impact Analysis of the U.S. Biobased Products Industry. (2016). Retrieved Ji·om 

ll!l:J:lSi:w'Y\:~"l:!imm;ferred,gov/BPRcsour<;,~jjl~J:!jobascdProductsEconomicAnalvsis20]_fu)s!f 
145 

ASA supports increased in the next farm bill to 

of the Biobased Market Program and fi.lrtber promote biobased markets. 

The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels a beneficial role supporting 

domestic producers of advanced biofi1els and derived from dairy furms and forest 

The direct support this program is a to market 

nrcuh''""''"<preserve investments and when market fluctuations and other 

challenges. 

Many of the biodicsel facilities in the U.S. are located in rural areas. 

Approximately half of the annual biodiesel oil and all of the 

feedstocks used to produce biodiesel arc and waste 

products that are grown or originate in rural areas. 

The Biodiesel Education plays a vital role in expand marke:tplace 

acceptance and use ofbiodiesel. It supports technical outreach effmts to engine 

manufacturers, truckers, and fuel marketers. This translates into increased usc, 

production, more jobs, and more economic value, in rural connnunities. 

Specifically, the biodiesel education program had a part to play in automakers 

tmst in, and suppmt for, biodiesel blends and the number oftenninals, distributors, 

and retail outlets carrying biodiesel. ASA urges the continuation of this modest program that 

has achieved great success in biodiesel acceptance and 

ASA recognizes that these Energy Title programs do not have budget baselines going 

forward, which increases the to extend these programs and build on the benefits 

they have provided. However, these programs remain priorities for ASA and we believe that 

their relatively low cost and the benefits warrant their continuation with an 

increased level of mandatory 

We appreciate the Committee holding this in and providing the 

opportunity for soybean tam1ers to have input. We look tbnvard to working with you on the 

development of a frum bill that maintains the income net for furmcrs and continues 

Conservation and Energy Title programs. 

(147) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MAY 6, 2017 
148 

USDA 

~ 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Agricultural 

Marketing 

Service 

Fruit and 

Vegetable 

Programs 

Fresh 

Products 

Branch 

April 2011 

Good Agricultural Practices 

and 

Good Handling Practices 

Audit Verification Program 

User's Guide 

USDA 

GAP&GHP 

AUDIT PROGRAM 

FRUIT & VEGETABLE PROGRAMS 
149 

Audit User's Guide for 

GAP & GHP 

This User's Guide is specifically developed and designed by the United States 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fresh Products Branch to 

provide information about the USDA Good Agricultural Practices & Good Handling 

Practices (GAP&GHP) Audit Verification Program. 

This User's Guide does not establish any substantial rule not legally authorized by 

official Branch Policy. 

Questions about this User's Guide can be directed to the Fresh Products Branch's Audit 

Management Section in Washington DC. 

April 2011 

****This publication may be duplicated without authorization from USDA. •••• 
150 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 1 

BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 1 

AUDITORS .................................................................................................................. 2 

DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD SAFETY PROGRAM ..................................................... 2 

PREPARING FOR AN AUDIT ........................................................................................ 3 

INTERNAL AUDIT ....................................................................................................... 4 

DOCUMENTATION ..................................................................................................... 4 

D=DOCUMENT ........................................................................................................... 4 

P=POLICY .................................................................................................................. 5 

R=RECORDS .............................................................................................................. 5 

SCHEDULING AN AUDIT .............................................................................................. 5 

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT .................................................................................. 5 

THE AUDIT ..................................................................................................................... S 

INITIALAUDIT ............................................................................................................. 6 

FOLLOW-UP AUDIT .................................................................................................... 6 

UNANNOUNCED VERIFICATION VISIT ..................................................................... 6 

PART 1- FARM REVIEW ............................................................................................... 7 

PARTS 2 THROUGH 6 OF THE GAP&GHP AUDIT ............................................................ 7 

PEFORMING AN AUDIT FOR A DIVERSIFIED FARMING OPERATION .................... 7 

NON-CONFORMITY AND CORRECTIVE ACTION POLICY ......................................... 8 

AUDIT SCOPES ............................................................................................................. 9 

GENERAL QUESTIONS ................................................................................................. 9 

FOOD SAFETY PLAN ............................................................................................... 10 

TRACEABILITY ......................................................................................................... 10 

RECALL PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 10 

WORKER HEALTH AND HYGIENE .......................................................................... 11 

PESTICIDE/CHEMICAL USE .................................................................................... 12 

FARM REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 12 

WATER USE ............................................................................................................. 12 

SOIL AMENDMENTS ................................................................................................ 13 

ANIMALS/WILDLIFE/LIVESTOCK ............................................................................ 14 

LAND USE & LAND USE HISTORY ........................................................................... 14 

FIELD HARVEST & FIELD PACKING ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 15 

PRE-HARVEST ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 15 

FIELD SANITATION UNITS ....................................................................................... 16 

HARVESTING CONTAINERS & EOUIPMENT .......................................................... 16 

WATER USE ............................................................................................................. 17 
151 

TRANSPORTATION OF PRODUCE ......................................................................... 17 

EMERGENCY CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES ............................................................... 17 

HOUSE PACKING FACILITY ....................................................................................... 17 

WATER USE IN PACKING FACILITY ........................................................................ 18 

TREATMENT OF PROCESSING WATER ................................................................. 18 

SANITATION PROGRAM/GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING .......................................... 19 

WORKER HEALTH AND HYGEINE .......................................................................... 19 

CONTAINERS ........................................................................................................... 20 

PEST CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 20 

STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................... 20 

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 21 

ICE AND REFRIGERATION ...................................................................................... 21 

TRANSPORTATION AND LOADING ........................................................................ 21 

WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION CENTER/ TERMINAL WAREHOUSE ........................ 21 

RECEIVING ............................................................................................................... 22 

SANITATION PROGRAM/GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING .......................................... 22 

WATER USE IN PACKING FACILITY ........................................................................ 23 

TREATMENT OF PROCESSING WATER ................................................................. 23 

STORAGE FACILITY/TEMPERATURE CONTROL .................................................. 23 

CONTAINERS ........................................................................................................... 24 

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 24 

PREVENTIVE FOOD DEFENSE PROCEDURES ........................................................ 24 

FOOD DEFENSE PLAN ............................................................................................ 24 

PERSONNEL ............................................................................................................ 24 

FACILITY PROCEDURES ......................................................................................... 25 

KEY/ENTRANCE ACCOUNTABILITY ....................................................................... 26 

DELIVERIES ............................................................................................................. 26 

SEPARATION OF PRODUCTS ................................................................................. 26 

ALLERGENS ............................................................................................................. 27 

USDA GAP&GHP PROGRAM AUDIT SCORING ........................................................ 27 

AUTOMATIC UNSATISFACTORY CONDTION ........................................................ 27 

POST AUDIT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 28 

APPEALS, COMPLAINTS & DISPUTES ..................................................................... 28 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 29 

APPENDIX 1- FV-237A AUDIT REQUEST ................................................................. 30 

APPENDIX II- FV-651 PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT ................................................ 31 

APPENDIX Ill- CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT ...................................................... 33 
152 

GENERAL INFORMATION 

This User's Guide is intended to provide guidance to the fresh fruit and vegetable 

industry on the requirements of the USDA Good Agricultural Practices and Good 

Handling Practices Audit Verification Program (GAP&GHP) and prepare for a 

successful audit. This Guide does not address every specific question on the USDA 

GAP&GHP audit checklist, but covers all the major topic areas of the audit. 

USDA AMS and state departments of agriculture who work with USDA AMS 

through cooperative agreements also conduct commodity specific audits for the leafy 

greens, tomato and mushroom industries. These audits fall under the general 

guidelines of the USDA GAP&GHP program. Each commodity specific audit has its 

own set of specific requirements and audit checklists. Please refer to the USDA 

GAP&GHP website at www.ams.usda.gov\qapghp for links to these commodity specific 

audit programs. 

BACKGROUND 

In October 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a 

guidance document for the fresh fruit and vegetable industry which provided general 

guidelines for reducing the risk of contamination of fresh produce by microbial 

organisms. The document, "Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh 

Fruits and Vegetables," (The FDA Guide) provides information about high risk areas for 

contamination and how to avoid or minimize such contamination. Shortly after the 

release of The FDA Guide, many wholesale and foodservice buyers of fresh fruits and 

vegetables began requiring their suppliers to undergo 3'd party audits which provided 

assurances they were following good agricultural practices (GAP) and good handling 

practices (GHP). 

In response to numerous requests from the fruit and vegetable industry, the 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in cooperation with the Association of Fruit 

and Vegetable Inspection and Standardization Agencies (AFVISA) developed an audit 

based program to verify conformance to The FDA Guide. In August 2001, USDA AMS 

approved and conducted a pilot project for the GAP&GHP audit, and in January 2002, 

USDA AMS formally implemented the USDA Good Agricultural Practices & Good 

Handling Practices (GAP&GHP) audit verification program. It is offered to the fruit and 

vegetable industry and assesses an operation's efforts to minimize the risk of 

contamination of fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts by microbial pathogens. The program 

does not guarantee the product is free from microbial contamination, but verifies the 

participant has taken proactive measures to reduce the risk of contamination by 

adhering to generally recognized best practices. The responsibility for product safety 

and the continued observance of best practices rests with the operation producing and 

handling the fresh product. 

Additional information and a copy of the current checklist can be found at 

www.ams.usda.gov/gapghp. 
153 

The USDA GAP&GHP audit verification program is a voluntary, user fee funded 

program. The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service operates under the Agricultural 

Marketing Act of 1946 [7 U.S.C. 1621], and offers voluntary, user fee funded programs 

which assists in the strategic marketing of agricultural commodities. The U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration is the federal agency with regulatory authority for fresh fruits and 

vegetables. 

AUDITORS 

All auditors used to pertorm the USDA GAP&GHP audit are either federal 

employees of USDA AMS, or state department of agriculture employees who are 

specifically trained and licensed to pertorm audits on behalf of USDA AMS. Most 

auditors are fruit and vegetable inspectors who inspect and grade produce on a daily 

basis as well as pertorm audits. 

USDA AMS sets the minimum criteria for all AMS personnel used to conduct 

audits. The following bullets highlight the auditor requirements for the GAP&GHP 

program: 

• Auditors must have a minimum of three years work experience in the area of fruit 

and vegetable production, handling or marketing; or a Bachelors Degree in an 

agricultural related field; or a combination of work experience and education. 

• Auditors must demonstrate knowledge of the production, handling, distribution 

and marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables. 

• Auditors must undergo formal classroom training as well as on the job training. 

• Auditors are evaluated by program management before being licensed as an 

auditor. 

• Auditors must take yearly refresher training specific to the audit program they are 

licensed. 

• Auditors must take yearly ethics training. 

• Auditors must complete 80 hours of continual professional development every 

three years. 

• Auditors are evaluated on a yearly basis. 

USDA licensed auditors provide impartial, prompt third party services to the fruit 

and vegetable industry and have no financial interest in the products and services they 

are auditing. In order to remain impartial, auditors are prohibited from providing specific 

recommendations to operations on the development of their food safety plan or actions 

which need to be taken by the operation in order to be compliant with the USDA 

GAP&GHP program requirements. Auditors may answer general inquiries and refer 

inquiries to food safety experts such as cooperative extension specialists. 

DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD SAFETY PROGRAM 

The development of a food safety program is recommended for any operation 

which produces or handles fresh fruits and vegetables, not just for operations who wish 

to participate in the USDA GAP&GHP audit verification program. 
154 

A food safety plan is a written document that covers all aspects of the growing 

and handling processes, and evaluates the potential sources of risk. The plan indicates 

what steps and procedures the operation will take to reduce the risks of contamination 

by chemical, physical, or microbial hazards. 

To assist operations in the development of a food safety plan the FDA and the 

fruit and vegetable industry have developed commodity specific guidance documents 

which outline the best practices of the specific commodity. The FDA has released four 

commodity specific guidance documents for leafy greens, melons, tomatoes and fresh 

cut fruits and vegetables. Trade and commodity associations have developed their own 

set of guidance documents including watermelons, strawberries, mushrooms, leafy 

greens, tomatoes, and green onions. Other guidance documents are currently in 

development. 

Many university Cooperative Extension programs across the country have 

developed templates or examples of produce specific food safety plans to assist their 

constituents develop food safety plans. Operations should contact their state Extension 

Service program or visit the National GAPs Program website for further information at 

http://www.gaps.cornell.edu. 

For operations wishing to participate in the USDA GAP&GHP program, the first 

step in preparing for an audit should be the development and implementation of a food 

safety program. The produce food safety program should be written by the operation 

and shall define specific, measurable steps taken by the operation to reduce the risk of 

microbial, physical and chemical hazards from contaminating the product. A wellwritten plan will detail all aspects of the growing and handing processes and shall also 

outline the corrective actions the operation will take if it is suspected or known product 

has become contaminated. Typically the food safety program takes the form of a 

manual to facilitate the easy dissemination and recording of the operations food safety 

plan. The food safety plan needs to incorporate the USDA GAP&GHP audit verification 

program requirements and applicable policies. The following points are key items to 

consider: 

o The operation must create a food safety program that accurately reflects their 

operation. 

• The operation shall develop Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) which 

outline the policies and procedures for the operation. 

o The operation must designate a person that oversees the food safety program. 

o The produce food safety program must be implemented and followed. 

• The operation must determine what to document and keep records for. The 

operation must also keep all documents and records current. 

• The operation shall document corrective actions taken which verifies adherence 

to their food safety plan. 

PREPARING FOR AN AUDIT 

For farming operations/packinghouses wishing to participate in the USDA 

GAP&GHP program, the operation should implement their produce food safety program 
155 

as close to the beginning of the growing season as possible. Starting early in the 

season allows the operation to make any necessary changes to their policies and 

procedures, as well as accumulate documents and records verifying their food safety 

program. Additionally, once the growing season starts, operations may not have the 

time and/or resources available to develop and implement a viable food safety program. 

Wholesale distribution centers/terminal warehouses/commercial storage facilities 

may implement their food safety program at any point during the year. These 

operations should take into consideration the time it will take to accumulate documents 

and records verifying their food safety program before scheduling an audit. 

INTERNAL AUDIT 

Although not a requirement of the program, it is recommended that the operation 

conduct a self or internal audit prior to scheduling an official USDA audit. A self or 

internal audit allows the operation to find areas of improvement and take corrective 

actions before the actual audit. Some Cooperative Extension programs will work with 

their growers and assist in performing an internal audit of the operation. 

Operations can utilize the USDA GAP&GHP audit checklist to perform the 

internal audit which is available on the USDA GAP&GHP website or by contacting the 

local inspection office. 

DOCUMENTATION 

An important component of any audit based program is the review of documents 

and records. Since the auditor is not at the operation on a daily basis, documents and 

records are necessary to verify policies and procedures are in place, and certain tasks 

have been completed throughout the year. 

The operation shall keep records as necessary to document adherence to their 

food safety program, USDA GAP&GHP program requirements, and local, state and 

federal regulations. The operation's food safety plan shall address what documents and 

records shall be maintained and the policies and procedures for managing the 

documents. 

For the purposes of the USDA GAP&GHP program, the audit checklist defines 

when documents are required and what type of documentation is necessary. These are 

defined in the last column of the audit checklist as aD, P, or an R. Operations may 

decide to keep additional documentation than is required by the USDA GAP&GHP 

program, but at a minirnurn, those questions on the audit checklist which are identified 

with a D, P or R require documentation. 

D:Document 

Any question designated with a D requires a combination of written standard 

operating procedures outlining company policies and procedures, records of actions 

taken, and/or other documents which rnay be necessary to support the food safety plan. 
156 

P:Policy 

Any question designated with a P requires a written policy or procedure to 

appear in the operation's food safety plan. 

R:Records 

Any question designated with a R requires a record which shows a process has 

been completed or record an action taken. 

SCHEDULING AN AUDIT 

An operation shall initiate the scheduling of the audit at least two weeks in 

advance of their anticipated audit date by contacting the local USDA inspection office. 

The USDA does not automatically contact operations who have participated in previous 

years to schedule its yearly announced audit. It is the operation's responsibility to 

schedule the audit. 

A list of USDA inspection offices is available on the USDA GAP&GHP website or 

by calling the Fresh Products Branch at 800-560-7956, Extension 5. In addition, audits 

may be requested using the FV-237 A form, located in the appendix of this User's Guide, 

and faxing to the local USDA inspection office. When contacting the local inspection 

office, be prepared with a list of anticipated dates the operation is available for an audit. 

All services are offered on a first come, first served basis. Once an auditor is assigned, 

he/she will contact you to make arrangements for the audit. Be prepared to provide the 

auditor with a point of contact, the contact's information, physical location/address of the 

audit site and other information necessary for the audit. If the operation has a large 

non-English speaking workforce, the auditor may ask the operation to provide a 

translator in order to communicate with the workers during the audit if he/she does not 

speak the language of the workforce. 

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT 

The auditor will provide the operation with USDA form FV-651, the Participation 

Agreement. An example of the FV-651 form is in the appendix of this guide. The 

Participation Agreement outlines the expectations of the operation and the USDA in 

performing the GAP&GHP audit. Form FV-651 must be signed by a management 

representative of the operation and submitted to the auditor prior to the start of any 

audit. Without the form, no audit services can be provided. 

THE AUDIT 

The actual audit is broken down into four main areas: 
157 

• Opening Meeting- The lead auditor introduces the audit team, communicates the 

agenda of the audit, answers questions from the auditee, and explains the audit 

process so everyone knows what to expect during the audit. 

• Conducting the audit -The audit team will review documents and records, 

interview employees, witness processes and observe the operation to determine 

compliance to the operations food safety plan and the USDA GAP&GHP 

program requirements. 

• Team Caucus- After the audit team has finished evaluating the operation, the 

team will meet and discuss any findings, address any concerns among the team 

members, and finalize the audit. 

• Closing Meeting -The lead auditor will meet with the operation's representatives 

and review the findings of the audit. The audit team will also answer any 

questions from the auditee and explain any observations. 

There are distinct types of audits which may be applicable to the operation during 

the year; the initial audit, the follow-up audit and the unannounced verification visit. 

INITIAL AUDIT 

The initial audit is the annual announced audit that verifies the farm/facilities 

compliance with the requirements of the USDA GAP&GHP audit verification program. 

A USDA GAP&GHP audit is valid for one year from the date of the initial audit. 

FOLLOW-UP AUDIT 

A follow-up audit is performed when either the farm/facility's initial audit or 

unannounced verification visit does not meet the program requirements. If an operation 

does not meet program requirements, the auditor will create a corrective action report 

and the operation must address the non-conformities prior to the scheduling of a followup audit. For specific instructions, refer to the non-conformity and corrective policy 

section. 

• If the operation fails to meet program requirements due to an "automatic 

unsatisfactory" condition, the follow-up audit must consist of all scopes originally 

requested on the initial audit. 

• If the operation fails to meet program requirements because of a low score for 

one or more scopes, only those scopes which failed and the General Section 

must be completed on the follow-up audit. 

UNANNOUNCED VERIFICATION VISIT 

An important component of the USDA GAP&GHP audit is the use of 

unannounced verification visits. Unannounced verification visits are conducted at some 

point during the season after the operation has successfully passed an initial or followup audit. It is used to verify that a farm/facility is in consistent conformance with the 

requirements of its food safety plan and the USDA GAP&GHP program requirements. 
158 

The unannounced verification visit differs from the initial audit in that the auditee does 

not know specifically when the auditor will be on site to periorm the audit. The 

unannounced review will generally verify conformance through observation but may 

also require a further review of documentation. 

USDA policy sets the following conditions tor when and how many unannounced 

verification visits shall be conducted: 

Part 1- Farm Review 

For operation which only grow one commodity in a production area during a 

growing season such perennial crops, potatoes, onions, etc., no unannounced 

verification visits for the production area are required.* For those operations that grow 

multiple commodities during the growing season using the same crop production area, 

unannounced verification visits of the farm are required. 

Parts 2 through 6 of the GAP&GHP audit 

For an operation which is in operation for 30 days or less, no unannounced 

verification visits are required.* 

For an operation which is in operation for 31-90 days, a minimum of one 

unannounced verification visit shall be conducted.* 

• For an operation which is in operation for 90 days or more, a minimum of two 

unannounced verification visits shall be conducted.* 

*Note In all cases, the USDA reserves the right to conduct additional unannounced 

verification visits if there is specific reason to suspect the operation is not in 

compliance with the GAP&GHP program requirements or their own food safety 

program. 

PEFORMING AN AUDIT FOR A DIVERSIFIED FARMING OPERATION 

It is not a requirement to periorm a separate audit for every separate commodity 

grown on the farm, however operations may choose to do so if they so desire. USDA 

AMS policy allows diversified farming operations to cover all the commodities grown on 

the farm under the same audit subject to the following conditions: 

• All commodities covered by the audit must be declared during the initial audit and 

cannot be added later in the season. The food safety plan must address the 

various risks associated with all the commodities being audited. For instance if a 

berry grower hand picks strawberries but mechanically harvests blueberries, the 

food safety plan shall address the potential risks and corrective actions 

associated with each of these activities. 

• The auditor must have the opportunity to observe the crop(s) being grown and 

harvested during the initial audit or subsequent unannounced verification visits. 

As an example, if the operation schedules an audit for August 1 •t, any crops 

which have been completely harvested prior to August 1st cannot be listed on the 
159 

audit. The auditor may not actually witness every commodity listed being 

harvested, but needs to have to opportunity to observe. 

• Operation would be subject to the appropriate number of unannounced 

verification visits determined by the length of the growing season for all the 

commodities produced. 

The following is an example of how performing a GAP&GHP audit for a 

diversified operation would work. ABC Fruit and Vegetable Growers Inc. produces a 

wide variety of fruits and vegetable including asparagus, strawberries, sweet peas, 

tomatoes, peppers, peaches, nectarines, apples, pears, potatoes, broccoli and 

cauliflower and wants a USDA GAP&GHP audit. The operation is in production from 

the start of the growing season on April 1st to approximately October 31 51 • 

• ABC Fruit and Vegetable Growers Inc would call and schedule their initial audit 

when the spring crops (asparagus, strawberries and sweet peas) are being 

harvested. However, they would declare all twelve of the commodities grown 

when scheduling the audit. 

• The auditor would perform the initial audit and cover the General Section and 

Part 1 Farm Review of the entire farming operation. The auditor would also 

perform Part 2 Field Harvesting and Field Packing Activities on the asparagus, 

strawberries and sweet peas. In addition because the operation is in production 

for more than 90 days, the auditor would inform the operation there will be two 

unannounced verification visits sometime during the rest of the growing season. 

The auditor would then schedule the first unannounced visit to coincide with the 

harvest of the tomatoes, peppers, and stone fruit, and the second unannounced 

visit to coincide with the harvest of the remaining commodities. 

NON-CONFORMITY AND CORRECTIVE ACTION POLICY 

A Corrective Action Report (CAR) is required for any GAP&GHP audit which fails 

due to non-conformities from a specific "automatic unsatisfactory" or because a 

particular scope fails to meet the minimum program requirements. 

The auditor will document the non-conformity(s) observed during the audit on the 

CAR form and submit it with the audit report at the closing meeting. If the operation 

wishes to continue in the GAP&GHP program, it must review the non-conformity(s) 

listed on the Corrective Action Report form and develop a plan to fix or address them. 

Corrective actions are typically taken in two steps, a short term corrective action and a 

long term corrective action (sometimes referred to as a root cause analysis). Short term 

corrective actions are taken to immediately address a deficiency. For example, if an 

auditor observes a restroom without any soap, toilet paper and paper towels, the 

operation's short term corrective action is to stock the restroom with the appropriate 

supplies. A root cause analysis reviews the deficiency if it occurs frequently or requires 

long term investment. In the example above, if the auditor investigated why the 

restrooms were always out of supplies and found their food safety program didn't 

designate someone to check the bathrooms on a regular basis and restock as needed. 
160 

Designating someone to handle the bathroom supplies would be a long term or root 

cause corrective action. 

Once the operation has reviewed and developed a corrective action for the nonconformities listed on the audit, it will submit the corrective actions to the auditor for 

review. The auditor will review the corrective actions and sign off on the Corrective 

Action Report if he/she feels the corrective actions listed will reasonably address the 

non-conformity. Ultimately the corrective actions will be verified during a follow-up audit 

or unannounced verification visit. 

AUDIT SCOPES 

The USDA GAP&GHP audit is divided into seven sections or scopes, each which 

covers a specific portion of the supply chain. The scopes of the audit are: 

• General Questions 

• Part 1 - Farm Review 

• Part 2 Field Harvesting & Field Packing Activities 

• Part 3- House Packing Facility 

• Part 4 Storage & Transportation 

• Part 5- (No Longer Used) 

• Part 6- Wholesale Distribution Center/Terminal Warehouse 

• Part 7- Preventative Food Defense Procedures 

USDA considers a good agricultural practices audit to consist of Part 1 Farm 

Review and Part 2 Field Harvest & Field Packing Activities and a good handling 

practices audit to consist of Part 3 House Packing Facility and Part 4 Storage & 

Transportation for pre farm gate operations or Part 6 Wholesale Distribution 

Center/Terminal Warehouse for post farm-gate operations. Part 7 Preventative Food 

Defense Procedures is an optional scope for those operations which need verification of 

food defense. 

The operation shall designate which scopes of the audit the auditor will perform 

when requesting the audit. 

GENERAL QUESTIONS 

The General Questions are a mandatory scope of every audit (except for a Part 7 

Food Security only audit) and cover overarching food safety issues which are applicable 

to any audit. In order to successfully pass the USDA GAP&GHP audit, the operation 

must meet the requirements of the General Questions portion of the audit. The 

following sections outline the major topics covered by the General Questions. 
161 

FOOD SAFETY PLAN 

USDA policy requires that an operation develop and implement a documented 

food safety program. The program must include a food safety manual which includes 

standard operating procedures (SOP's), and/or documentation which outline the 

operation's policies and work instructions for adhering to the food safety program. It 

may also contain information or references pertaining to self audits of the program or 

management reviews of the program. Other similar documentation may also be 

applicable and acceptable if it indicates that an established food safety program is in 

place. 

In addition, it is required that the operation has identified a specific person(s) to 

implement and oversee the food safety program. The person(s) need to be formally 

identified in the food safety plan, organizational chart, or similar documentation. 

TRACEABILITY 

The food safety program shall include a documented traceability program. A 

traceability program in its simplest form is the ability to know where product was 

received from (one step back) and where product was sent to (one step forward). The 

operation needs to develop and implement policies and procedures for a traceability 

program. There are commercially available traceability programs for the produce 

industry which can assist operations in implementing a traceability program. For further 

guidance operations can contact their trade/commodity associations, state horticultural 

associations or county extension agent. 

The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 requires certain handlers of foods to keep records 

which allow the handler to keep track of produce "one step forward" and "one step back" 

within the food chain. For producers, keeping records and uniquely identifying product 

moving out of the field to its next destination (packing house, storage cellars, end user, 

etc.) is an important component of a traceability program. For product moving in bulk 

from the field to a packing house or storage facility, records such as load tickets, field 

harvest records that move with the load or other similar records that identify where the 

product originated are examples of identification. For products that are field packed, the 

individual cartons or master containers should be clearly identified with the company 

information including company name and address and other identifying marks as 

outlined in the company's traceability program. 

RECALL PROGRAM 

A recall program is defined as the ability to pull product from the marketplace 

once it has left the operation's control. The operation needs to develop policies and 

procedures which allow it to recall product by working with their suppliers and 

customers to track the path the product takes from the farm to the consumer. A recall is 

a means to return marketed product to its origin or to remove it from the market place 

and have verifiable evidence that all product being recalled is accounted for. A "mock 

recall" is a practice exercise that is used to determine where product is shipped and 

whether or not it can be returned to the origin or removed from the marketing chain. 
162 

Operations must have some documented evidence of completing at least one mock 

recall prior to the audit. Documents must indicate the customers contacted, the amount 

of product remaining from the original shipment, and the disposition of product which 

could not be effectively recalled. 

The following is an example of a mock recall: 

o A packinghouse generated 5,000 cases of apples on January 151

h from grower X 

lot 1234. The packinghouse labeled the apples with their name, address and a 

lot code of 11511. 

o The 5,000 cases of apples were shipped to five different retailers, each receiving 

1 ,000 cases. 

o The packinghouse initiates a recall of lot 11511. The individual(s) responsible for 

performing the mock recall contacts the five retailers who received apples from 

lot 11511 and informs them they are performing a mock recall. The 

packinghouse forwards a form to each retailer asking to supply an accounting of 

the number of cartons from lot 11511 still in their possession and the number of 

cartons sold. The form will contain instructions on where to send the form when 

completed and the timeframe when it must be sent back. The recall plan should 

outline the timeframe required to complete the mock audit. 

o The packinghouse summarizes the forms from the five retailers and determines 

the number of cartons still in the retailers control and the number that are not. 

In the event of an actual recall, the operation shall develop a procedure on how 

they want the product being recalled to be handled. Does the operation want it 

returned? Will the operation allow the buyer to dispose of it and submit proof the 

product has been dumped?, etc. This needs to be communicated to the buyer so they 

can effectively manage their inventory as well. 

WORKER HEALTH AND HYGIENE 

One of the primary risks associated with fruits and vegetables is the potential 

introduction of pathogens through poor worker health and hygienic practices. The 

General Questions section of the USDA audit covers, in great detail, areas which need 

to be addressed regarding worker health and hygiene. In addition, other scopes of the 

audit address worker health and hygiene issues related to those scopes such as an 

operation's glove and jewelry policies, or location of portable sanitation units in the field. 

The operation's food safety plan shall address worker health and hygiene issues 

and develop SOPs which address them. This should include a training program to 

educate workers on the operation's SOPs. A solid training program is an essential 

component of a food safety program. Examples of SOPs include: 

o Ensuring potable water is available to all workers; 

o Ensuring all workers and visitors to the location are required to follow proper 

sanitation and hygiene practices; 

o Providing training on proper sanitation and hygiene practices to all staff; 

o Verifying employees and visitors are following good hygiene/sanitation practices; 
163 

• Confirming employees are washing their hands before beginning or returning to 

work; 

• Posting readily understandable signs that instruct employees to wash their 

hands before beginning or returning to work; 

• Servicing and cleaning all toilet/restroom/field sanitation facilities; and 

• Confining smoking and eating to designated areas separate from where product 

is handled. 

The General Questions section also requires the operation to develop a blood 

and bodily fluid policy, and a policy which addresses workers who report to work with 

symptoms of forborne illness. 

The USDA GAP&GHP audit requires that all sanitation facilities must be properly 

supplied with single use towels, toilet paper, and hand soap or anti-bacterial soap and 

potable water for hand washing. Hand sanitizers are not an acceptable substitute for 

hand washing and are not to be used as the sole method for hand cleaning. The 

number and placement of sanitation facilities must comply with all applicable local, state 

and federal regulations. At a minimum the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) requires one bathroom per 20 employees. 

PESTICIDE/CHEMICAL USE 

The operation shall use all pesticides and other pre or post harvest materials in a 

manner consistent with prevailing regulations and the labeled instructions. This 

includes following state licensing requirements for pesticide applicators. 

FARM REVIEW 

The Farm Review scope of the USDA audit mainly addresses the crop 

production areas and adjacent lands, domestic and wild animals, as well as the inputs 

used to produce the crop such as water and soil amendments. 

WATER USE 

For the purposes of the USDA GAP&GHP program, water use is defined as 

either agricultural water used for irrigation, frost protection, fertigation, chemical 

application or other pre-harvest purposes, and post harvest water used on the product 

after it has been harvested. An example of post harvest water use is water used to 

wash the product, transport the product through the grading and packing line (dump 

tanks, flumes, etc.) or apply post harvest chemicals. Operations must have knowledge 

of the water quality used in order to determine whether or not the product is reasonably 

likely to become contaminated through the application of or submersion into water. 

For agricultural water, the USDA GAP&GHP program requires the operation 

perform a water quality risk assessment to determine if the water quality is appropriate 

for the crop(s) it's being used on. The risk assessment should include the water quality, 

the type of irrigation method, and the crop being irrigated. The results of the risk 
164 

assessment shall be used to determine an action level where the operation determines 

water quality is not suitable for use without taking a corrective action. Water tests are 

required to be conducted on a scheduled frequency to verify water quality is meeting the 

operation's action threshold as outlined in their SOPs. 

The USDA GAP&GHP program sets the following testing frequency: 

• Municipal water: Test results are acquired from the local water authority 

annually or tested by the operation at least annually. 

• Well water: Water is tested one time during the growing season. If fecal 

coliforms are present, the well is treated with a sanitizer to reduce pathogen 

levels and is retested. Wells are monitored to make sure casings are secure and 

well-maintained and that livestock and manure storage areas are excluded from 

the well recharge and pumping area. 

• Surface water: Water is tested three (3) times during the growing season -first 

at planting, second at peak use, third at or near harvest. 

There is not a national irrigation water standard which sets the minimum 

microbial levels allowable for irrigation water. However, there are many commodity 

specific guidelines available which give recommendations for water quality. These can 

serve as a reference source for an operation when determining specific thresholds for 

their irrigation water. For instance the CA & AZ Leafy Greens Marketing Agreements 

and the Food Safety Standard for the Tomato Supply Chain identify the microbial 

requirements of the EPA Recreational Water Standard as the threshold for irrigation 

water. 

For post harvest water applications, the USDA GAP&GHP program requires that 

the water used meet the microbial requirements of the US EPA Drinking Water 

Standard. Any post harvest water use which does not meet this standard will result in 

an "automatic unsatisfactory" assessment on the audit. 

SOIL AMENDMENTS 

Animal manure and biosolids represent a significant source of potential 

contamination. However, properly treated manure or biosolids can be an effective and 

safe fertilizer. Raw animal manure or raw biosolids used as a fertilizer or enters water 

sources through runoff may contain pathogens of public health significance that can 

contaminate produce. 

The operation shall conduct a risk assessment to determine if and when raw 

manure or biosolids are appropriate to use. The type of crop and growing conditions 

are all factors in the risk assessment. For example, raw manure applied to a newly 

planted orchard is less of a risk than raw manure applied to a vegetable crop grown on 

the ground. The USDA GAP&GHP Program requirements state that if raw manure is 

used, it must be applied at least 2 weeks prior to planting and a minimum of 120 days 

prior to harvest. There are also several commodity specific guidance documents which 

are more restrictive than the USDA GAP&GHP program and either do not allow the use 

of raw manure or have a one year restriction on the application of raw manure. 

Operations shall check to see what the commodity specific recommendations and 
165 

prevailing regulations are for their commodities regarding the use of manure and 

biosolids. 

Animal manure or biosolids which are composted require a documented 

com posting process be developed and available for review. If purchasing composed 

manure, has documentation from the composter listing the process used and test 

results showing the process effectively controlled the pathogens of concern should be 

maintained. If an operation has questions regarding proper com posting procedures, 

contact the Cooperative Extension Service in your state. Most all Extension Services 

have developed proper composting procedures and have this type of information readily 

available. 

ANIMALS/WILDLIFE/LIVESTOCK 

Animals pose a potential source of contamination for fruit and vegetable crops. 

Domestic animals which can be controlled such as livestock or pets need to be 

excluded from entering crop production areas in order to reduce the potential for 

contamination. However, when farm service animals (horses, oxen, and mules) are 

used, an operation shall address potential sources of contamination through a risk 

assessment and documented SOP's to control hazards caused by these animals and 

remediation steps which will be taken if they cause contamination. 

The USDA GAP&GHP program requires operations to monitor for the presence 

or signs of animals. Based on the results of the monitoring, if necessary take measures 

to reduce the opportunity for animals from entering the crop production areas. This 

does not mean total exclusion; farming operations are never going to be able to 

completely exclude wild animals from entering crop production areas. However, every 

effort should be made to limit the access to the production areas. When needed, 

measures should be taken to reduce the entry into crop production areas by wild 

animals. This can be accomplished many ways, including such items as noise cannons 

or scare balloons to scare away birds and migratory water fowl, or fencing /other 

barriers or deterrents which limit wildlife access. 

Operations shall also consider any local, state or federal regulations when 

developing mitigation strategies for wild animals. Regulations may limit the options for 

controlling wild animals. Co-management strategies which balance food safety 

concerns with wildlife control and not just remove riparian areas, grass buffer strips and 

other conservation practices should also be considered. Operations can contact the 

local Natural Resources & Conservation Service or their local county extension agent 

for more information on co-management. 

LAND USE & LAND USE HISTORY 

The operation must consider the crop production areas and adjacent land use 

through a documented land use risk assessment. Any risks reasonably likely to cause 

chemical, physical or microbiological contamination of the produce which are identified 

by the risk assessment must be addressed and the crop production area tested to 

validate the hazard has been addressed. While adjacent lands may not be the property 
166 

of the operation, the effects they have on the crop production areas needs to be 

evaluated and mitigation strategies put in place to minimize the impact of the hazard on 

the ground. For example, if the adjacent ground is uphill houses a concentrated animal 

feeding operation, proactive steps to minimize the opportunity for runoff to flow through 

the crop production area must be taken. 

Flooding which is caused by the overflow of a body of water shall be documented 

and if it occurs in season, an assessment is performed to determine if the flooding 

contaminated the product. The operation should consider testing the product and/or 

soils before harvesting if sources of contamination are located in the general vicinity of 

the crop production areas. 

The land use risk assessment shall also consider the location of the operation's 

sewage treatment/septic system or nearby municipal/commercial sewage treatment 

facilities. The operation shall also verify their sewage treatment/septic system is 

functioning properly and does not lead to a contamination risk. 

FIELD HARVEST & FIELD PACKING ACTIVITIES 

The Field Harvest and Field Packing Activities section of the audit covers the 

harvesting of commodities in either the field or greenhouse operations. It also covers 

the packing of such commodities for shipment when it occurs directly in the field or 

greenhouse and is not sent to a packinghouse for further sorting or grading. The 

emphasis on this scope is the harvesting activities, and the containers and equipment 

which are used to pack the product. Employee health and hygiene are also an 

important component of field harvest and field packing and are covered in the General 

Questions section of the audit. 

USDA policy only allows an auditor to perform this scope of the audit when 

commodities are actively being harvested and there is activity in the crop production 

area. It is not a requirement that the auditor observe every commodity listed on the 

audit being harvested, however the food safety plan shall address all the commodities 

being harvested, and the different risks associated with different harvesting methods. 

(i.e. mechanically harvested vs. hand harvested). Records for all commodities 

harvested are maintained for traceability. 

PRE-HARVEST ASSESSMENT 

The farm operation must have completed a pre-harvest assessment on each 

production area prior to harvesting any crop being certified by the audit. The 

assessment may include statements which address known risk that are applicable to 

the operation such as: 

• Are toilet and wash facilities properly located? 

• Is potable water available for workers? 

• Are harvest containers available, clean, well located and protected? 

• Is harvest equipment available and in good condition? 
167 

• Is there evidence of unauthorized entry in the crop area and if so, has it been 

investigated? 

• Is there evidence of domestic or wild animal crop damage? 

• Is there evidence of physical contamination in the crop area? 

• Are fuel and chemicals which might contaminate crop areas isolated? 

• If areas are contaminated are they isolated for "no-harvest"? 

• Are there any other notable sources of biological or physical contamination such 

as dump sites, manure, burning debris, water that may affect food safety? 

• Is transportation equipment clean and available? 

The assessment may include other information as determined by the operation. 

FIELD SANITATION UNITS 

The number and placement of sanitation facilities must comply with all applicable 

local, state and federal regulations. Operations shall also have a documented 

emergency clean-up procedure in case contamination occurs. The procedure should 

include what will be done to contain the spill and to prevent additional contamination, 

what will be done to clean up the spill and what will be done with contaminated product. 

HARVESTING CONTAINERS & EQUIPMENT 

The farming operation shall keep harvest containers (picking buckets, baskets, 

bulk bins, etc.) as clean as practicable to prevent cross-contamination of fresh produce. 

These are some key areas to consider which are covered in the GAP&GHP audit: 

• Harvest containers used repeatedly during a harvest should be cleaned on a 

scheduled basis as outlined in the food safety plan. 

• If the farming operation stores harvest containers outside, proactive steps shall 

be taken to minimize harboring rodents and other pests in the harvesting 

containers. 

• Harvesting containers stored outside should be cleaned and sanitized before 

being used to haul fresh produce. 

• Operations shall also instruct workers to only use harvesting containers for their 

intended purpose, and not to use them for collecting trash or transporting 

personal items unless they are designated for that use. 

• Final packing containers used in field pack operations shall be protected from 

sources of contamination. 

• Only new or sanitized containers are used for packing the product. 

• Operation shall repair or discard damaged harvesting containers. 

• Harvesting equipment and machinery which comes in contact with the product is 

in good repair. 
168 

• Light bulbs and glass on harvesting equipment are protected and the operation 

has an SOP in place to address glass or plastic breakage on the equipment 

during harvest. 

WATER USE 

See the water use discussion in the Farm Review section. 

TRANSPORTATION OF PRODUCE 

Products that are transported in bulk from the field or from storage for further 

packing may be contaminated during this time. Steps should be taken to reduce the 

possible contamination by other vehicles on the roads, overhead contamination from 

overpasses, from birds or other means. Using tarps, enclosed trailers or other means to 

cover loads are examples of good practices. Products being moved in enclosed 

containers (boxes, cartons, etc.) would be considered covered if they are completely 

enclosed. 

EMERGENCY CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES 

The operation shall have a documented emergency clean-up procedure in the 

event accidental contamination occurs from glass/plastic breakage, chemicals, 

petroleum, or pesticides contaminating the crop. The procedure should include what 

will be done to contain the spill and to prevent additional contamination. As well as 

what will be done to clean it up and what will be done with contaminated product. 

HOUSE PACKING FACILITY 

This scope covers packinghouses located on or near crop production areas. 

This scope is not intended for repack operations or distribution operations which may 

custom pack product for retail or foodservice customers. These types of operations 

should use the Part 6 Wholesale Distribution Center/Terminal Warehouse section of the 

USDA GAP&GHP audit. 

The main focuses of the House Packing Facility section of the audit are, water, 

the packing equipment, general housekeeping, worker health and personal hygiene, 

containers used for packing, and pest control. This scope of the audit can only be 

performed when the packinghouse is actively handling product. If the audit covers more 

than one commodity, it is not necessary to see every commodity being packed unless 

there are major differences in the packing process such as dry run product vs. product 

which uses a water flume, etc. 
169 

WATER USE IN PACKING FACILITY 

Source water used in the packing of fresh fruits and vegetables must meet the 

requirements of the EPA Drinking Water Standard. Also water used to make ice used in 

the packinghouse must meet these requirements. 

Municipal water supplies are regulated by law and are required to meet these 

requirements. However well water and suriace water is subject to various 

uncontrollable influences and may or may not meet these requirements. The operation 

must provide documentation verifying the source water meets the EPA Drinking Water 

Standard requirements. 

For commodities which are susceptible to water infiltration such as product with a 

stem scar; special attention needs to be given to the water temperature in the dump 

tank and flumes vs. the temperature of the product. Research has shown that a 

susceptible commodity which is placed in water colder than the pulp temperature of the 

commodity have a greater chance of internalizing the water and thus carrying any 

contamination into the product. Operations should refer to commodity specific 

recommendations or their state extension food safety specialist for more information 

regarding water infiltration. 

TREATMENT OF PROCESSING WATER 

Water used during the post-harvest handling of fruits and vegetables often 

involves a high degree of water-to-produce contact, and if untreated, may serve as a 

source of contamination or cross-contamination. Re-use of processing water may result 

in the build-up of microbial loads, including undesirable pathogens. Operations shall 

consider practices which will ensure and maintain water quality. Such practices may 

include: 

• Monitoring of sanitation chemicals used to prevent cross contamination (i.e. 

chlorine and pH). 

• Perform periodic water sampling and microbial testing. 

• Change water as necessary to maintain sanitary conditions. 

• Consider developing SOPs (standard operating procedures or sanitary operating 

plans), including water change schedules. 

• For all processes that use water: clean and sanitize water contact surfaces, such 

as dump tanks, flumes, wash tanks, and hydro coolers, as often as necessary to 

ensure appropriate water quality. 

• Install backflow devices and legal air gaps, as needed, to prevent contamination 

of clean water with potentially contaminated water (such as between potable 

water fill lines and dump tank drain lines). 

• Routinely inspect and maintain equipment designed to assist in maintaining 

water quality, such as chlorine injectors, filtration systems, and backflow devices, 

to ensure efficient operation. 
170 

SANITATION PROGRAM/GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING 

Operations with poor sanitation in the packing environment may significantly 

increase the risk of contaminating fresh produce and water used on produce. 

Pathogenic microorganisms may be found on the floors and in the drains in the packing 

facility and on the surfaces of sorting, grading, and packing equipment. Any of these 

surfaces could be a potential source of microbial contamination. 

Operations shall employ good sanitation practices as a standard operating 

procedure to maintain control throughout the packing operation. Packing areas should 

be cleaned minimally at the end of each day. As necessary, clean and sanitize the 

washing, grading, sorting, and the packing lines to reduce the potential for microbial 

contamination of fresh produce. The operation shall develop and implement a general 

sanitation schedule which addresses the cleaning and sanitizing of the packinghouse 

operation including: 

• Food contact surfaces 

• Pipes, ducts, fans, and ceilings which are over product flow zones 

• Catwalks over food contact surfaces 

Ice making facilities may be located on the site of the operation or may be 

contracted out and supplied by another operation. In either case, the facility must 

provide records that indicate there is a regular schedule to sanitize the ice production 

and storage facility and any means of transportation to reduce the microbial population. 

This would include augers, conveyors and shovels used to transport the ice from one 

part of the facility to another. 

The operation shall use food grade approved lubricants in areas where 

lubricating agents may come into contact with produce. 

The operation shall have a procedure which identifies how product that spilled or 

comes in contact with the floor is handled. Spilled product that comes in contact with 

the floor can become contaminated and should not be used without considering a 

corrective action such as washing /sanitizing or disposing of the product. Commodity 

specific guidelines offer recommendations regarding the handling of spilled product and 

should be incorporated into the operation's food safety program. 

WORKER HEALTH AND HYGEINE 

The questions in the General Section portion of the audit related to health and 

hygiene are applicable to the House Packing Facility section of the audit as well. In 

addition, the House Packing Facility has several questions related to worker health and 

hygiene which are specific to these types of operations. 

The operation shall evaluate and develop a hair/beard net policy which is 

appropriate for the facility. Hair nets and beard nets are worn in order to keep stray hair 

from entering the food and food containers being packed. In addition, wearing of 

hairnets when the hair is very long reduces the risk of catching hair in machinery. 
171 

The operation shall evaluate and develop a jewelry policy. Jewelry can be both a 

physical safety and a food safety hazard. Jewelry may fall into the food item or the 

container or may get caught on machinery and injure the worker. 

The operation shall state the hairnet and jewelry policy in the food safety plan 

even if the policy states that no hairnets or restrictions on jewelry are required. 

CONTAINERS 

Operations should develop policies and procedures outlining only the use of new 

or sanitized containers which are clean and in good condition when packing the product. 

Policies and procedures shall require pallets and packing containers are properly stored 

to reduce the risk of contamination from pests, rodents, dirt, water, etc. Operation shall 

outline a sanitation schedule for reusable plastic containers used to pack product. 

PEST CONTROL 

All packing and storage facilities shall establish a pest control program to reduce 

the risk of contamination by rodents and other animals, including pets. This program 

shall include regular and frequent monitoring to accurately assess the program's 

effectiveness. The pest control program can be either performed by an employee 

trained to perform pest control or a contracted pest control company. 

The operation must maintain a pest control log which records inspection dates, 

inspection reports, and procedures implemented to eliminate pest infestations. If using 

a contracted company, they generally supply the records of activity. All traps and bait 

stations will be marked and flagged by numbers or some type of coding system and 

recorded on a map which shows the location of such bait stations and traps. 

All bait stations containing poison attractants must be located outside the facility. 

Traps or other non-poison methods should be the only control program located within a 

structure. 

STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION 

This scope covers storage and transportation facilities located on or near crop 

production areas. This would include storage and transportation areas co-located with 

a packinghouse or stand alone storage facilities used on or near farms such as potato 

storage sheds or controlled atmosphere facilities. This scope is not intended for repack 

operations or distribution operations which may custom pack product for retail or 

foodservice customers. These types of operations should use the Part 6 Wholesale 

Distribution CenterfTerminal Warehouse section of the USDA GAP&GHP audit. 

The topics of worker health and hygiene, water quality, general sanitation & 

housekeeping and pest control are addressed in the House Packing section of this 

User's Guide (pages 17-20) and are applicable to this section of the audit as well. 
172 

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 

Any equipment used in the storage facility shall be clean and properly maintained 

to prevent leaking fluids that could potentially contaminate the product. Loose or broken 

parts must be repaired to prevent foreign objects from contaminating the product. Any 

equipment or portions of equipment that directly touches raw product must be 

maintained so as to not contaminate the product. 

ICE AND REFRIGERATION 

The operation shall use water which meets the EPA Drinking Water Standards 

when making ice used for cooling or which comes in contact with the product. Ice or 

cold water (hydro-cooling) is often used by some commodity packers to reduce product 

temperature. The operation shall provide records which verify the source water used to 

make ice meets these requirements, including any ice which is purchased from an 

outside vendor. 

The operation shall develop and implement a procedure for monitoring climate 

controlled rooms for temperature and keeping a record of temperatures. Climate control 

systems must be working and thermometers used in cold storage areas and for 

determining product temperatures should be regularly checked for accuracy and 

operators must maintain records to validate this procedure. 

TRANSPORTATION AND LOADING 

The operation shall develop an SOP which outlines the procedures for inspecting 

transportation conveyances for cleanliness, odors, and debris before the loading with 

product. The SOP should also include policies for not loading produce with potentially 

contaminating products such as raw meat or chemicals and policies to ensure adequate 

transport temperatures and should develop a written policy for transporters and 

conveyances to maintain specified transit temperatures. Records documenting 

adherence to the SOPs shall be maintained. 

WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION CENTER/ TERMINAL 

WAREHOUSE 

Even though the "Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetables" is typically applied to farming operations, it is applicable 

throughout the marketing chain. Organizations and personnel within the wholesale 

distribution chain are just as responsible for food safety as organizations and personnel 

at the farm level. Part 6 of the USDA GAP&GHP audit focuses specifically on the 

wholesale end of the food distribution chain, and utilizes many of the same principles 

applied to packinghouses and storage & transportation facilities. 
173 

RECEIVING 

Operations shall develop a formally approved supplier program for all incoming 

products which includes verification the supplier has undergone a 3rd party GAP&GHP 

audit. 

The operation shall develop an SOP which outlines the procedures to verify 

incoming conveyances are checked for cleanliness, objectionable odors, and other 

potentially contaminating factors prior to accepting a load. The SOP shall also address 

procedures for monitoring the temperature of incoming loads and verify they meet any 

temperature requirements specified on the bill of lading or other requirements. The 

operation shall also have a policy on how to handle loads which do not meet the 

temperature requirements. 

SANITATION PROGRAM/GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING 

Operations with poor sanitation in the packing environment may significantly 

increase the risk of contaminating fresh produce and water used on produce. 

Pathogenic microorganisms may be found on the floors and in the drains in the packing 

facility and on the surfaces of sorting, grading, and packing equipment. Without good 

sanitation practices, any of these surfaces could be a potential source of microbial 

contamination. 

Operations shall employ good sanitation practices as a standard operating 

procedure to maintain control throughout the packing operation. Packing areas should 

be cleaned at the end of each day. As necessary, clean and sanitize the washing, 

grading, sorting, and the packing lines to reduce the potential for microbial 

contamination of fresh produce. The operation shall develop and implement a general 

sanitation schedule which addresses the cleaning and sanitizing of the packinghouse 

operation including: 

• Food contact surfaces 

• Pipes, ducts, fans, and ceilings which are over product flow zones 

• Catwalks over food contact surfaces 

Ice making facilities may be located on the site of the operation or may be 

contracted out and supplied by another operation. In either case, the facility must 

provide records that indicate there is a regular schedule to sanitize the ice production 

and storage facility as well as any means of transportation to reduce the microbial 

population. This would include augers, conveyors and shovels used to transport the ice 

from one part of the facility to another. 

The operation shall use food grade approved lubricants in areas where 

lubricating agents may come into contact with produce. 

The operation shall have a procedure which identifies how product that spilled or 

comes in contact with the floor is handled. Spilled product that comes in contact with 

the floor can become contaminated and should not be used without considering a 

corrective action such as washing/sanitizing or disposing of the product. 
174 

WATER USE IN PACKING FACILITY 

Source water used in the packing of fresh fruits and vegetables must meet the 

requirements of the EPA Drinking Water Standard. Water used to make ice used in the 

packinghouse must also meet these requirements. 

Municipal water supplies are regulated by law and are required to meet these 

requirements. However, well water and surface water is subject to various 

uncontrollable influences and may or may not meet these requirements. The operation 

must provide documentation verifying the source water meets the EPA Drinking Water 

Standard requirements. 

For commodities which are susceptible to water infiltration such as produce with 

a stem scar, special attention needs to be given to the water temperature in the dump 

tank and flumes vs. the temperature of the product. Research has shown that a 

susceptible commodity which is placed in water colder than the pulp temperature of the 

commodity have a greater chance of internalizing the water and thus carrying any 

contamination into the product. Operations should refer to commodity specific 

recommendations or their state extension food safety specialist for more information 

regarding water infiltration. 

TREATMENT OF PROCESSING WATER 

If applicable to the facility the operation shall verify that water used for processing 

is treated and monitored including: 

• Monitoring of sanitation chemicals used to prevent cross contamination (i.e. 

chlorine and pH). 

• Perform periodic water sampling and microbial testing. 

• Change water as necessary to maintain sanitary conditions. 

• Consider developing SOPs (standard operating procedures or sanitary operating 

plans), including water change schedules. 

• For all processes that use water: clean and sanitize water contact surfaces, such 

as dump tanks, flumes, wash tanks, and hydro coolers, as often as necessary to 

ensure the safety of produce. 

• Install backflow devices and legal air gaps, as needed, to prevent contamination 

of clean water with potentially contaminated water (such as between potable 

water fill lines and dump tank drain lines). 

• Routinely inspect and maintain equipment designed to assist in maintaining 

water quality, such as chlorine injectors, filtration systems, and backflow devices, 

to ensure efficient operation. 

STORAGE FACILITY/TEMPERATURE CONTROL 

The operation shall have procedures in place to verify the refrigeration systems 

are working properly and are monitoring the temperatures of climate controlled rooms. 

The operation must have temperature recording logs available for review. 

Thermometers used in cold storage areas and for determining product temperatures 
175 

should be regularly checked for accuracy and operators must maintain records to 

validate this procedure. 

CONTAINERS 

Operations should develop policies and procedures outlining only the use of new 

or sanitized containers which are clean and in good condition when packing the product. 

Policies and procedures shall require pallets and packing containers are properly stored 

to reduce the risk of contamination from pests, rodents, dirt, water, etc. Operation shall 

outline a sanitation schedule for reusable plastic containers used to pack product. 

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 

Any equipment used in the storage facility shall be clean and properly maintained 

to prevent leaking fluids that could potentially contaminate the product. Also loose or 

broken parts must be repaired to prevent foreign objects from contaminating the 

product. Any equipment or portions of equipment that directly touches raw product 

must be maintained so as to not contaminate the product. 

PREVENTIVE FOOD DEFENSE PROCEDURES 

This section of the USDA GAP&GHP audit covers an operations food defense 

program. Food Defense is the protection of the food supply by intentional 

contamination by biological, chemical, or physical means by an aggressor. In contrast, 

the previous sections of the USDA GAP&GHP audit dealt with food safety which is the 

protection of food products from unintentional contamination from biological, chemical, 

or physical means. 

FOOD DEFENSE PLAN 

The operation shall develop and implement a documented food defense plan. 

Similar to a food safety plan, a food defense plan includes a company Food Defense 

Manual, containing the company's published SOP's and/or documentation. It will also 

contain information or references pertaining to internal or self audits of the program. 

Other similar documentation may also be applicable and acceptable if it indicates that a 

formally established program is in place. 

The Food Defense plan shall indicate that there is a person in the operation that 

has implemented and will oversee the food defense program. 

PERSONNEL 

Each company should designate a contact person who is responsible for 

overseeing the plan. This person should be the point of contact for employees to point 

out potential security problems or issues. This person can also designate another 

person (for example, a shift supervisor) who can be the contact person for employees. 
176 

Food defense training shall be provided for all employees and should cover 

potential threats and vulnerabilities of the food supply and how they apply to the 

produce industry. Training should include who employees should contact if they 

observe a potential food defense issue. Records showing training instructions and 

training documents that each employee has signed should be available. 

The food security plan should address access procedures to identify who has 

admittance to sensitive areas of the facility. This includes verifying the identity of 

visitors to the facility and the purpose for the visit. Check in procedures can vary from a 

formal sign in/sign out procedure in enclosed facilities to visitors checking in with the 

owner/manager (or designated person) of a small operation. 

The operation should determine if any staff should have limited access to certain 

areas of the operation. The food security plan should address those jobs and the 

details of how staff will be limited to areas of the operation that are related to their job 

function, and to general access areas (break rooms, locker rooms, etc.). This type of 

scenario usually applies to larger packing house facilities or wholesale warehouses. In 

the case of small operations that only have a limited number of employees who perform 

all functions, this may not apply. Limiting access to packing/storage areas by 

unauthorized personnel is one of the most important procedures that can be 

implemented to reduce the risk of intentional contamination. 

Visitors should be accompanied by an employee. A facility may designate 

exceptions to this for frequent visitors to the facility such as USDA inspectors, health 

department inspectors, the pest control contractor, etc., provided a documented list of 

exempted people is maintained. 

All vehicles should be subject to inspection to look for any obvious sources of 

contamination. Documentation that vehicles entering the facility are being searched or 

that vehicles are subject to search should be available for review. 

A policy should be in place that prohibits workers from bringing personal items 

into the production, handling, or storage areas. This reduces the possibility of an insider 

from contaminating product. Many packing facilities will allow workers to bring water to 

the packing line. This is an acceptable practice as long as the water is supplied by the 

facility and is not brought from outside sources. 

Employees should not be allowed to loiter around the grounds and facility after 

their work hours, especially in sensitive areas of the operation. A work schedule 

outlining employee's hours and area the employee is assigned to work should be 

available to all management. 

FACILITY PROCEDURES 

The Operation shall develop procedures for the following areas: 

• Procedure for controlling all items which identify a person as an employee of the 

company and requiring those items to be returned to the company upon 

completion of employment. If an employee does not turn over these items, there 
177 

is a procedure in place for management/security to be notified that the employee 

is not allowed access to the facility. 

• Policy or Procedure to limit access to the company's computer network so that 

sensitive information is only accessed by authorized personnel. 

• Policy or procedure for verifying the employment eligibility of all new hires in 

accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act. In addition, the operation 

should outline what level of background checks will be performed. This can be a 

procedure as simple as a reference check, or more detailed such as a credit 

check for financial personnel. Operations that employ farm workers through an 

outside contractor should stipulate in their contract that the contractor perform a 

minimum level of background checks as well. 

• Procedure for scheduled checks of the operation. On a farm, critical areas such 

as the storage barns, pesticide storage areas, and any product storage areas 

should be checked routinely. For packing sheds and wholesale warehouses that 

have a more permanent structure, the entire facility should be routinely checked. 

Including development of a checklist to verify the points of entry into buildings, 

either on the farm or packing house/wholesale warehouse. 

KEY/ENTRANCE ACCOUNTABILITY 

There shall be an accountability log showing who is in possession of any keys to 

enter the facility. Lost keys are documented on the accountability log, and steps are 

taken if keys to sensitive areas such as chemical storage areas are reported lost or 

stolen. These steps may include changing the lock or adding additional security 

measures. 

DELIVERIES 

The operation shall develop a policy which outlines delivery schedules and the 

policy for rejecting loads. The policy should include a list of criteria for why the product 

doesn't meet specified requirements as well as food safety requirements such as 

evidence of container tampering, evidence of suspicious foreign objects, etc. The 

receiving department/facility shall never accept incoming product that is from an 

unknown source. All deliveries should be listed on the delivery schedule, and only 

deliveries from that schedule should be accepted. The policy should address returned 

product and outline the returned product should be inspected for obvious signs of 

tampering or intentional contamination. 

SEPARATION OF PRODUCTS 

USDA Commodity Procurement purchases require that all domestic products be 

segregated from any foreign product. Additionally, because foreign product has the 

potential to be targeted for intentional contamination and shipped to the United States, it 

should be kept segregated from domestic product. 
178 

ALLERGENS 

Products that are known allergens, such as peanuts should be segregated for 

several reasons. First to avoid inadvertent cross contamination with other products, and 

secondly to minimize the potential for an insider to simply "reach across the aisle" and 

purposely contaminate other product stored in the same area. 

USDA GAP&GHP PROGRAM AUDIT SCORING 

The USDA GAP&GHP audit utilizes a scoring system. Each question is given a 

score of 5, 1 0 or 1 5 points and is weighted depending on the relative risk associated 

with the question. There are no partial points given for any question, each question is 

either given the total points assigned to the question or zero points. 

The USDA GAP&GHP Program requirements state that a minimum of 80% must 

be scored on each scope of the audit conducted in order to "pass" the audit. In addition 

no "automatic unsatisfactory" conditions can be present. 

AUTOMATIC UNSATISFACTORY CONDTION 

In addition to the scoring guideline shown above, there are a set of overarching 

conditions, which if observed, will result in the issuance of an "automatic unsatisfactory" 

score on the audit. These conditions are: 

• An immediate food safety risk is present when produce is grown, processed, 

packed or held under conditions that promote or cause the produce to become 

contaminated. 

• The presence or evidence of rodents, an excessive amount of insects or other 

pests in the production area during packing, processing or storage. 

• Observation of employee practices (personal or hygienic) that jeopardize or may 

jeopardize the safety of the produce. 

• Falsification of records. 

• Answering of Questions P1 or P2 as "NO". 

Commodity specific audits performed by USDA auditors follow the same general 

guidelines as outlined above for automatic unsatisfactory conditions; however, they may 

refer to them in different terms such as "major deficiency" or "flagrant violation". Refer 

to the commodity specific audit programs for the policies regarding these conditions. 

In addition, if an immediate food safety risk which results in product 

contamination, the auditor may be required to report the operation to the applicable 

state Public Health Agency or the Food and Drug Administration. 
179 

POST AUDIT ACTIVITIES 

Once an operation has successfully met the requirements of the USDA 

GAP&GHP program, it will receive a USDA certificate and have their information listed 

on the USDA website. The certificate is good for one year from the date of the initial 

audit, and the operations information will remain on the USDA website for one year 

unless the operation fails an unannounced verification audit. 

APPEALS, COMPLAINTS & DISPUTES 

Operations have the ability to appeal, dispute or lodge a complaint if they so 

desire. Operations with issues regarding an audit or auditor(s), should refer to the 

following list for assistance with the process. 

• APPEAL: A formal complaint contesting the results or findings of the audit 

brought before the Branch by applicants or other parties. 

• COMPLAINT: Discontent or unhappiness about a situation, interpretation, or 

periormance of an audit, auditor(s), and/or policy brought before the Branch by 

applicants or other parties. 

• DISPUTE: Disagreement or argument about a situation, interpretation or 

periormance of an audit, auditor(s), and/or policy brought before the Branch by 

applicants or other parties. 

If an operation decides to appeal or dispute an audit, there are certain steps 

that must be followed. The formal request for an appeal must be in writing on 

company letterhead from the company or person requesting the appeal. Information 

included in the request should be the date of the audit, location (if different from 

corporate office), sections on the original audit being appealed, and the specific 

item(s) being under dispute. Appeals, complaints and Disputes must be submitted 

to the Fresh Products Branch within three calendar days from the date the audit was 

periormed. 

All GAP/GHP audit appeals are periormed by the Audit Review Board (ARB), 

who meet as needed to review all GAP&GHP audit appeals. The ARB has the 

authority to sustain or reverse the appeal. The results of the appeal will be provided 

by the ARB to all parties in the appeal process within 14 calendar days. Copies of 

the appeal results become part of the audit record. 

Complaints regarding auditors shall be directed to the auditor's supervisor. 

Complaints regarding Branch policies and procedures shall be directed to the Audit 

Management Section. 
180 

Additional Resources 

Establishing, implementing, and maintaining an effective food safety plan 

involves the evaluation of many processes. The USDA GAP&GHP website 

www.ams.usda.gov\gapghp provides links to many resources. State and Federal 

Agencies, University and Cooperative Extension Programs, Trade and Commodity 

Associations offer additional guidance for food safety planning. 
181 

APPENDIX 1- FV-237A AUDIT REQUEST 

FORM APPROVED BYOIVE No. 0581.0125 

USDA 

~7 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUlTURE 

Agricurtural Marl<:eting Service REQUEST FOR AUDIT SERVICES Fruit and Vegetable Programs 

Fresh Products Branch 

(This is the only accept:abletonn for fax or electronic submission to USDA for audit requests) 

NOTE Fill in an appmpnate blocks Requested services may be delayed because of incomplete 1nformat1on Type of serv1ce 

requested must be selected below 

DATE OF REQUEST: I 

AUDITEE INFORM'ITION 

Company Name 

Street Address 

City, State &Zip 

Phone Number 

Contact Person 

APPLICANT INFORMATION 

Company Name 

Phone Number 

Fax Number 

E-mail 

Contact Person 

I ANTICIPATED DATE OF AUDIT: I 

FARM I FACILITY INFORM'ITION 

LDcatmn 

Total Acres I 

Total Sq Feet 

to be aud!ted 

COMMODITIES TO BE COVERED BY AUDIT (Please List) 

TYPE OF AUDIT SERVICES REQUESTED 

Type of Audit(s) Requested (Please choose at least one) Scope of GAP&GHP Aud~ (Please choose alllllat apply) 

o Good ,A.gncultural Pract1ces & Good Handlmg Pr:act1ces o Part 1 -Farm Review 

(GAP&GHP) (Select Audit Scopes) o Part 2 Field Harvest & Field Pacl<ing Activities 

D Mushroom Specific GAP Audit (M~GAP) 

o Part 3 House Packing Facility 

o Tomato AUdtt Protocol (T-GI\P) o PartLl Storage & Transportation 

I!-D_L_e_oty.;_G_re_en_s _A_ud_lt..c(_LG_I>_lA_) __________ -!1. nu l'"a"n P "b -Wholesale Distribution Center I 

o Identity Presef\l'atiOn Audit (IP) Terminal Warehouse 

o Other, Spect'FJ.' ! o Part 7- Preventattve Food Defense Procedures 

ADDITIONAL I REMARKS 

To download a copy of the USD.A. Good Aancultural Pract~ees & Good Handling Practices audit check1ist. please visit the USDA 

website at h~n /lo"ww am' it•.rla noTiln:<mhn 

Once a request has been recetved, a USDA representative will make contact Within LIB hours of receipt to schedule the audit 

Aocord1ngtothe F'oipa"\"<<rk R•och.IC!ion JO.d of 1395, an <go;;,ncy meynot ronduct or sponsor,and apa"sOI"IISr.ol rflql..!tredto respond to a collection of information unlesJ:: 

i1 di::playsawl1d OMB oontrol numbe" The ....aid OMS control numberforthismform<tlon oolloaclionis-0081-012:5 Tl'>ehmereqwredto oompiEtethi!E:Informal:tor. I ~~=~~~ =~~~;:~~~~:~~~o~~~s~ ;~rio~~::.~:~<~ ti fTlit for f01¥~ng m8ruct1ons, soa-ch1ng <~tisbrv d<l.01 sourcES, g"iltha-ing a~d rn<~ntan1ngthe data 

TheUS Dep<rtment of ~ricU!t\J!'E'{USOA.)prct1ibitsdl3'a-iMnationin llil rtsprogram.sind <di>Jt!es- onth<ibdSisotr~,cQior,n;tional origln,age,dsi'II:H!ity, .rod v.ha-e 

dpphcoble, sex, rrar~al st31:us, faml:al status, pa.;,ntal st<tus,rel•gion,sexual orien!;iion, gE!"'Ietio!nlorrTa!Jon,politJ~ beliefs, repns:;oi or be::<~u!:i€ ;31 or p;r! oJ an 

•ndn.,du>'l':;;:wo:;orne 1sderive:J fro many publrc: ~:;~stanc.;; program [Not all prohlbil<idba5e.s<!Pplylo all programs.) ~rsons wlh d!sit:lllrt!es v-.MoreqUJre allemat•w. 

rnea"'s:for oommunlcit1on oJ program mtorrral!on (Er<flle,large pnnl, il..ldlctape, o;tc }should oontad USDA':<> TARGET Ce.nte- ;t [202J?al-2SOO{ ..o;ce .rod TOO] T(d~e.a 

co~laint of discrir.inalion, '<'lite to liSDA, l:hredor, Off1ceol CiVIl R1ghts, 1400 hdepE:ndemoc. AVB1ue, SW , WaS'Imglon, DC 202'00·94-10,or c::=ll {OC0)795-3Zi'2 (voice] 

or {202]720.8:)32 (TDO) USDA1s an equei opportun1ty pro\lldar and emplo.VE!" 

FV-237A (10-1 OJ 
182 

APPENDIX II- FV-651 PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT 

fORM APPROVED 8'1' OlVe JJ(p,_ 115fJ1411M 

~ UlfiTED STATES DEPAATfiE NT Of AGRia.JLTURE Go<xl Agrieo.fto.nl Pr.au;tiw & Good tfancJing Pr.llo:tices Au cit Pmgram(GAP.&GHP) 

Agriculh.r..tlllbrta!tingScnie" lde"iiiy P.............tion Pmgoun I,IP) 

f.wt ""d VO!QO!bbloo Pro!lJil~ Part......r..inQUiillityAuditProgr.rnf>IQ) 

Fr'l!'lf!Pro.t..mBraneh & Olher Aud'l PtOIJ'I'ms 

AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN AUDIT VERIFICATION PROGRAMS 

Company Information 

I a duly authorized representative of 

(losert Name) 

(Name of Company) (Street Address, Cffy, State, and Zip Code) 

hereinafter referred to as the applicant, do hereby agree to be audHed under the a voluntary USDA, AMS, Fresh Products 

Branch audit program. The audit shall include verification of the company's farm(s), packing facilities, storage Facilities, 

'Aiholesale distribution centers or other locations as applicable to lhe audit scope(s). 

1. The applicant agrees that with respect to: 

.. Laws, Regulation, Statutes- To conform with all applicable Federal, State, and local government laws, regulations, 

or statutes, including, but not limited to: Regulations Governing Inspection and Cer1ification of Fruits and Vegetables 

and Related Products (7 CFR, Part 52), any other per1inent regulations, and arry such instructions covering inspection 

and certification of the products and verification of the processes as may be issued by AMS. 

b. Audit Request- To contac1 and schedule the aud~ with the appropriate federal or federal-state inspection offiCe 

(using the FV-23 7 A form). The request For the initial audit will be made no later than two (2) weeks prior to the end of 

the growingAlarvesting/packing season. 

c, Records -To maintain all records roquired by the specific audit program including, but not limited to, quality manual, 

food safety manual. water test results, employee training records, manure use records, laboratory testing results and 

other records as required by the quality manual, food safety manual or specific audit program requirements. The 

applicant shall make these records available to USDA federal and/or federal-state auditors. 

d. Access to Facilities- To grant permission for AMS authorized personnel to enter any and all Farms and/or facRiUes 

covered by tile specific audit program for the purposes of conduding the audit. This includes the initial audit and any 

unannounced audits as may be required by the program. 

e. Payment- To pay by credit card. cl1eck, draft, or money order dr8\Yn to the order of the appropriate federal or federalstate agency for the services covered herein on or before the due date specified on the billing statement. Charges for 

GAP&GHP audits include, bul are not limited to. the audit fee as listed in the fee schedule or Federal Register and 

travel expenses for the inHial audit and any unannounced audits as may be required by the program. 

2. AMS agrees that with respect to: 

.. Perform Audit- To provide objective third-party verification of the applicant's specific audit program using 

internationally recognized audit principles. 

b. Opening & Exit Interviews - To discuss the audit prior to and report the results and observations with the appUcant 

after each audit and provide a copy of the completed audit report or checklist. 

c. Reports- To issue to the applicant reports of all audits and evaluations of the applicant's specific audit program and 

provide written notification of any deficiencies found. if arry. 

d. ConFidentiality- To consider and treat any trade s-ec:rets or confidential information as proprietary and confidential. 

To consider any records and related information provided to AMS as information that is voluntarily submitted to AMS 

because oflheir participation in the specific audit program. 

e. Issuance of Certificate, Posting and Sharing Audit Results- To issue a cer1ificate to the applicant and to post 

audit results to the USDA website. (with the exception of the Preventative Food Defense Procedures scope), only 

when the applicant receives at least the minimum passing score for each scope being audHed. To provide the 

specific appicant checklist and results of individual questions to other par1ies only at the IMitten request of the 

applicant. NOTE: Reports containing a compilation of generic audit information may be shared IMth the Food and 

Drug Administration. Arry personal information linking the audit results Ia the auditee shall be redacted prior to 

issuance. 

"V-b::n 110-1C') 
183 

FORM APPROVED 8Y OMS No. 0581J312& 

3. It is mutually agreed that with respect to: 

a. Length of Service- That the audit results for GAP&GHP audits are valid for one year from the date of the initial audit 

provided that at !east the mimmum score is achieved on both the mitia! audit and any unannounced audits that may be 

required by the program For all other audit programs. the length of serv>ce 1s outlined in the specific audit program 

policy guide. This agreement shall remain in effect for the length of time the auditee rema1ns a participant in the 

specific audit program 

b. Maintaining Certification- That a company's information will only remain on the USDA website if any and all 

unannounced audtts show satisfactory adherence to the program. If tile minimum passing score is not achieved, the 

company's information will be removed from the website until a follow-up audit is conducted by AMS verifying that 

effecttve corrective actions have been taken and the company attains tile minimum score on al! appropriate scopes of 

the audit 

Approved By: 

Should AMS personnel be at a facil>ty for other purposes and notice issues that would Jeopardize the company's stand1ng 

on the specific audit program, AMS has the obligation to bring this to the attention of the company representative and. 

depending on the seventy, withdraw certification. 

Name of Applicant (Print):. ____________ _ Title: _____________ _ 

Signature:. _________________ _ Date:. _____________ _ 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit & Vegetable Programs/ Federal or Federal-Stale Inspection Program 

Supervisor 

Name of Representative (Print):. __________ _ Title: _____________ _ 

Signature: Date: 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person Is not required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection !s 0581·0125. The time required to compete this 

lrtormation ttl!lection is estimated average 11.5 hotrs per response, including the Ume for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the c:oHectlon of Information. 

The U,S. Department of Agricutt.ure (USDA) prohibits dlsc:rlmlnatlon In all Its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national o-rigin, age, disability, 

and where appticable, sex, marital status, familial status, plll'ental status, religion, sexual ortentat:lon, genetic Information, political beliefs, reprt!>a.l or because all 

o-r part: of an lntlvldual's Income Is derived from any pltlllc assistance program. (Not all prohibfted bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative mei!lns for communication rl progrnm information (BraH!e, large print, audiotape, etc.) Sflould contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202)720·2600 

(Yolce «1d lt>D). To nle a complaint of discrimination, wrtte to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1.WO Independence Avenue, S.W., W21shlngton, D.C. 20250· 

9410, or call (800)795·3272 (voice) or (202)720...fi382 (TOO). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

FV-651 (10-10) 
184 

APPENDIX Ill- CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT 

USDA Fruit and Vegetable Programs Report# 

Good Agricultural Practice & Good Handling Practices 

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT 

Company Name/Farm Date 

Lead Auditor 

Crop 

Description of Non-Conformity: 

Notified company staff at time of frnding non-conformity: YES or NO 

Checklist question number and/or section of auditee food safety plan non-confarmrty is associated w1th 

Company Representative Signature: 

SIGNATURE AFFIRMS FACTS CONCERNING NON-CONFORMITY ARE CORRECT 

Corrective Action Proposed and Time Frame for Implementation: (Attach separate sheet If necessary) 

Auditor Signature for Acceptance of Proposed Corrective Action and Timetable for Implementation: 

Top pomon for AUDITOR USE ONLY, bottom portron for Company and Audrtor use 

FPB 08-02 Exhibit # 1 

November 28, 2007 
185 

The Need for Better Broadband in Rural America 

Midwest Energy (Midwest) is a pioneer in the utilization of smart grid technologies. To improve our 

suite of programs and services designed to help members manage their energy use better, Midwest 

embarked on an effort to deploy fiber for utility communications in 2012. Through a loan graciously 

provided by the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilfties Service, Midwest is 

constructing nearly 250 miles of fiber through substations and facilities as well as another 1,800 miles to 

member homes and businesses. This positions us nicely to provide a high-speed broadband solution for 

rural America- a solution, as you see below, that is of great interest to our members. Notetestimonials have not been edited and thus are grammatically inaccurate at times. Note -this 

represents only two pages of well-over 100 pages on file. 

We are so pleased (w/ Midwest), as we thought this service would never come down our dirt lane off of 

a dirt road! Susan- Edwardsburg 

Just got hooked up with broad band service (Midwest). Thank you Midwest Energy!!! It is amazingly 

fast. Thank you for bringing internet to rural communities. Wish more companies would follow your 

lead. Michelle J, 
186 

Using Midwest for our internet needs has allowed us to catch up with Internet speeds that are normally 

only available in larger cities. Having this option in a rural market is very exciting and opens up many 

opportunities for our family. Chad- Cassopolis 

Great news today we were moved into a one of the new zones (w/ Midwest) and will get real high speed 

internet this year thank you Midwest energy for looking out for us country folks. Tony F. 

Connections 

We are so grateful that Midwest decided to forward action on this project! SW Michigan has been 

sorely overlooked for so many years; and I truly believe access to high-speed internet will have a 

positive economic impact! It makes it easier for us to do business ... and I have no doubt, it will help 

others as well! Thank You! Bernie- Cassopolis 

"For small town, they are big city tech. The internet is stupid cheap and crazy fast. If you live in Cass, 

Team Fiber is a must have." Paul W. 

"Love the service!!! My adult children can take college classes online now instead of making the 30 min 

drive every day!! This service was such a blessing .... You never realize how much easier life when your 

not so limited!! Have a great day~"- Hubert & Brenda M. 

This service has changed our lives, no joke. We went from paralyzed to functional in the flip of a switch. 

We are thrilled to be connected. Thank you so much. Susan- Vicksburg 

I live in a rural area where it is extremely difficult to get any type of internet unless you pay high prices 

for internet and have data usage which if you home school like we do then you run out of data 

and have to purchase tokens at high prices also. We've run out of data all the time and can not afford 

the tokens so we must wait until our due date is here and we get the data we need. I am so grateful to 

Midwest Energy for bringing broadband to the rural areas now we can horne school and surf the web for 

the information we need to help our kids succeed in school and life. Cheryl S. 
187 

and Suslainability for Michigan Specialty Crop Hops 

The purpose of the 

production 

and to an 

promote the growth of 

Through a variety of information 

identify !he key elements 

Information collected also 

disseminate information to 

Based on the research conducted, a 

guide the further development of hops 

michiganhops.org (Appendix C) was 

collaboration with field experts it was built to 

hops.msu.edu. The authors of the two sites 

another to deliver the most lnf'""'"t'"'' 

in growing, processing and/or 

economy 

pian to 

There were two major goals of this ~'"""'n'''" and promote 

production of specialty crop hops to '"''"'''M··~ economy and to 

conduct an analysis of experts' project values and a strategic plan to promote 

the growth of Michigan specially crop hops. 

The principle project goals were met with the of the plan and 

website. Additional project outcomes included educational and 

promotional activities. The plan can be found in the Appendices and the 

website can be found 

Anecdotal information gathered indicates that acreage dedicated to hops 

production increased from approximately 40 acres 2011 to an 70 acres in 

2012. The grant activities have laid the foundation for further of the hops 

industry in Michigan, input and creating awareness opportunities that 

exist. There has been a increase in interest in hops in Michigan and significant 

activity to promote and build the industry. 

Seven activities were proposed to achieve three expected outcomes in the 

project The responsibilities of activities 1 ,2,3, 7 were allocated to the Venter ~~•-~"·•~~ 

while responsibilities for activities 5 and 6 were shared with the Barkman laboratory. 

The actions completed for each activity are summarized below. A more 

detailed discussion for Activities and 7 are also provided in subsequent pages. 
188 

ionization mass spectrometry has been developed and is currently 

noveL high throughput method for the of !he a- and IJ-acid 

paper spray ionization mass spectrometry currently in development 

validated. A 

in hops by 

The following is a breakdown of !he actions for each activity that occurred during the 

initial phase of the grant 

Activity 1: Set-up and validate experimental procedures for standard chemical 

testing of hops 

a. Official methods for the analysis of the o· and P-acid content in hops for 

high pressure liquid c.hromatography (HPLC), ultravioletlvisible 

spectrophotometry (UVNIS), steam distillation of hop essential oils, and 

!he analysis of the essential oil by gas chromatography coupled 

with a mass spectrometer have been used to develop standard 

operating procedures for ohemical testing of hops samples, 

ll. Activity 2: Create website 

a. A website was developed to provide a means of hops sample submission 

for local farmers, coops, and brewers which includes a of all 

testing methods, instructions regarding hops sample as 

well as sample and payment option 

II!. Activity 4: Provide quality of Hops based on society of Brewing 

Chemists specified methods 

a. A standard operating procedure was developed to analyze the a- and f:l-acid 

content in hops using HPLC by modifying the procedure for !he ASBC 

official method of analysis Hops-14 entitled "a-Acids and f:l-Acids in Hops 

and Hop Extracts by HPLC". 

b. A standard operating procedure was developed to analyze the a- and Pacid content in hops using UVNIS but instead the procedure for 

the ASBC official method of analysis Hops-6a entitled and P-Acids by 

Spectrophotometry". 

c. A standard operating procedure for the of the essential oil profile 

utilizing GC/MS was developed following procedures of Hops-·13 and 

Hops-17 entitled 'Total Essential Oils in Hops and Hop Pellets by Staam 

Distillation" and "Hop Essential Oils by Capillary Gas ChromatographyFlame Ionization Detection•, resoel:!iv•elv. 

ll!L Activity 6: Development of methods to powdery mildew 

a. Methods to detect powdery mildew and downy mildew were developed 

utilizing polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers. These methods have 

not yet been validated by infected hops samples. 

V. Activity 7: Development of new improve sample throughput 

and quality 

a. A novel, high throughput method for the 

content in hops utilizing paper spray 

currently in development as staled above. 

of the a- and 13-acid 

mass spectrometry is 

There were a few lessons learned as a result of this project When running 

an analysis for a farmer, a control sample, such as the prior ASBC Check 

Sample, should be analyzed on the same day to ensure chemical quality and to validate 

the func!ionalily of all equipment and instruments. If the ASBC Check Sample analysis 

does not correlate with the national average for that ASBC method of analysis, then we 

could take immediate action and the farmer's sample. It has been determined 

that the results for the UV-Vis of hops Is too variable and can have a large fluctuation 

between instruments. The hop acid extraction method for Hops-6a (UV-Vis) does not 

seem to be nearly as reliable as !he Hops-14 (HPLC) extraction method. 

For !he ITS molecular screening of pathogens, a significant delay arose from !he 

application process required in order !o possess the pathogens and work with !ham. 

Although we were eventually granted in June 2013, we were never 

approved to work with live pathogens inoculations, Suoh permission 

will really need !o be attained to carry out procass on living plants infected with 

living pathogens. 
189 

Project Goals: 

Design a novel n"'rv""m"' container that reduces harvest cycle lime and 

complexity, while or Improving The container will: 

a. Connect to small-scale narve~>!irlo "''"u'""''"" 

b. Serve as a modular oast 

house/building 

c. Promote drying without the addition of heat, which ne1Jativelv impacts hops quality 

d. Provide/include the controls and measures necessary proper drying 

and desired quality of the hops 

c. Serve as the shipping container once dried 

2. Cost analysis of the proposed and system 

3. Prototype evaluation at Worham LLC in Chassell MI. 

It is anticipated that this will identify practical solutions that promote !he growth 

of Michigan's economy rural areas where hops, a high-value product with strong 

demand, can be harvested. 

Summary of Activities Performed 

The goal was to develop a multi-function container and drying system design, 

The goal was achieved. MTU provided a report with documentation 1 0 

concept designs and several that will be followed on in the next phase 

project. A hops harvesting machine was which will allow the R&D team to 

test final designs in conjunction with harvesting process. 

Accomplishments by the R&D team have met the established goaL· 

The project is on track. 

It is too early to determine if there will be any new outcomes. 

Farm and Pr<,_r..~n'""'"'"' 

recoar1ized the need for bringing deep expertise on 

"m·onorn>v through its nine of programming for 

Planned and topics and speakers 

e Hops School (hops production preconference intensive), featuring: Lau 

Ackerman', Farm Manager, Sierra Nevada Brewing Company; J Robert Sirrine, 

Ph.D., Community Food Systems Educator, Greening Institute, Affiliate, 

MSU Center for Regional Food Systems; Brian Tennis, New Organics, 

Michigan Hop Alliance; Scott Graham*, Brewers Guild; additional 

speaker{s) to be determined. Planned topics 

o Financials and Marketing 

o Pest Management 

o Michigan Markets for Hops 

0 Soil Fertility for Hops Production 

e Agroforestry School (agroforestry preconference intensive), featuring: Peter 

Bane*, Patterns for Abundance; Jim McDonald*, Herb Craft; Michael 

Holistic Orchard Network; additional speaker(s) to be determined. 

include: 

o Orchard Design, Management and Restoration 

o Growing Specialty Mushrooms in an Agroforestry Practice 

o Medicinal and Culinary Herbs for High Value Markets 

0 lntercropping Specialty Crops for Greater Yield 

o Beyond Companion Planting: Guild Building for Fruit and Nut Tree Health and 

Production 

o Organic Orcharding 

10 Soil Fertility for Fruit and Vegetable Crops Preconference Intensive, featuring: 
190 

Brad Morgan', Morgan ~n•mnn~linn· 

additional speaker(s) to be deiterrnin.ed. 

0 Compos! for Diversified Crops 

0 Using Manure in Compliance with Organic Standards and Food Safe!yiFSMA 

Standard!! 

o Creating a Soil Quality Management Program for Diverse Vegetable Farms 

e Northern Michigan Small Farm Conference sessions for specialty crop growers. 

Funds from this grant will only benefit specialty crop producers through these 

planned topics: 

0 Introduction to Agroforestry Systems 

o Soil Fertility for Fruit and Vegetable Growers 

0 Preparing Soil !or Long-Term Plantings of Vineyards, Fruit and Nul Trees 

o Getting Started with Organic Hops 

Objectives: ISLAND has recognized the need for bringing deep expertise on 

specific, technical agronomy subjects through its nine of for 

!he growing small farm audience. Planned and r.mnrrli!tf>d 

include: 

• Hops School (hops production preconference intensive), featuring: Lau 

Ackerman', Farm Manager, Sierra Nevada Company; J Robert Sirrine, 

Ph.D., Community Food Systems Educator, Michigan Institute, AffiliatE 

MSU Center for Regional Food Systems; Brian Tennis, New Mission Organics, 

Michigan Hop Alliance: Scoll Graham', Brewers Guild; additional 

speaker(s) to be determined. Planned topics 

o Financials and Marketing 

0 Pest Management 

o Michigan Markets for Hops 

o Soil Fertility for Hops Production 

e Agro!orestry School (agroforestry preconference intensive), featuring: Peter 

Bane', Patterns for Abundance; Jim McDonald*, Herb Craft; Michael 

Holistic Orchard Network; additional speaker(s) to be determined. 

include: 

o Orchard Design, Management and Restoration 

0 Growing Specially Mushrooms in an Agroforeslry Practice 

0 Medicinal and Culinary Herbs for High Value Markets 

o !ntercropping Specially Crops for Greater Yield 

0 Beyond Companion Planting: Guild Building for Fruit and Nut Tree Health and 

Production 

o Organic Orcharding 

e Soil Fertility for Fruit and Vegetable Crops Preconference Intensive, featuring: 

Brad Morgan', Morgan Composling; , Midwestern Bio Ag; 

additional speaker(s) to be determined. topics include; 

o Compost for Diversified Crops 

0 Using Manure in Compliance with Organic Standards and Food SafetyiFSMA 

Standards 

0 Creating a Soil Quality Management Program for Diverse Vegetable Farms 

CD Northern Michigan Small Farm Conference sessions for specialty crop growers. 

Funds from this grant will only benefit specialty crop producers through these 

planned topics: 

o Introduction to Agroforestry Systems 

0 Soil Fertill!y for Fruit and Vegetable Growers 

0 Preparing Soil !or Long-Term Plantings of Vineyards, Fruit and Nul Trees 

o Gelling Started with Organic Hops 
191 

Developing Analysis Infrastructure to Support Local Malting Barley Production and Use 

in Michigan Craft 

The primary outcome of this proposal will be the establishment of a 

at the MSU UPREC -operational in time for the 2015 

these testing within the state will lessen the on farmers 

maltsters when quality and price, It is a risk to both parties to not fully 

understand the of grain, and can potentially be a roadblock to further growth 

as that may be demanded by the end user in !he future. Craft brewers seek 

a consistent product into their breweries, and being able to understand the 

of the being will allow them to better control that. Having these 

carlabilitiEls the slate will set Michigan apart and further solidify the investment in 

the industry that has had such a tremendous impact to !he economy. 

The desired achieved impact will be improved access to quality analysis by !hose in the 

malting barley for small to mid-scale operations (farms, malthouses, 

and breweries) that have access to analysis facilities. barriers for 

entry into this market, it is desired that more farmers would for 

brewing, and that malthouses and breweries would consider using available 

ingredients. 

This project has not been submitted to another federal or state but it was 

awarded $26,000 from the Brewers Association in 2015, and contingent 

on securing the additional funds needed for the lab (requested in this proposal. 

Goal 1: Establish a malting barley quality analysis lab at the MSU Upper Peninsula 

Research and Extension Center 

Target 1: Process 100 mailing barley grain samples in !he initial year, servicing MSU 

research, Michigan farmers and maltsters 

Benchmark 1: N/A, no lab currently exists in the state; our clientele 

predominantly sends their samples to North Dakota State 

Goal 2: Develop a "state of the malting barley industry" report to better guide industry 

support and growth 

2: Publish report to be shared online, distributed at the Great lakes Hop and 

Conference, at the Michigan Brewers Guild Winter Meeting, and other invited 

venues; reach at least 300 individuals with the data 

Benchmark 2: N/A, no such report currently exists 

F~nn ValltY: Vine11ard!!- 2015 Value AddedlRegional Food Sv.stems lf175,000 

Fermentation Capacity Enhancement- The request is for funds to enhance the red 

wine fermentation and !o add apple cider processing at Fenn Vineyards, 

Michigan is now state, and become 

known for the red wines, In the cider has 

blossomed in the last five years, and is now the fastest growing 

beverage business nationally. Because we are operating at 40% design 

capacity, we are now turning fruit farmers who want to add wine grapes to their 

repertoire and apple processors want to sell excess production. There is a 

of raw materials available in the state, and there is a for the finished 

"' u""'""'· both of which are restricted by limited processing capacity, 

The goal is to install 23,800 gallons of fermentation capacity by September or 2015, all 

of which will have capabilities - both red wine and cider production, The 

proposed expansion local grape and farmers, retailers, distributors, 

client wineries, and related tourist operations the slate resulting in a potential 

addition of 39.8 FTE positions. 
192 

Expand our existing facility to add the capability to dry and malt specially grains 

such as barley, spel!, emmer, einkom and soft wheal !he purpose of supplying the 

beverage, brewing, and baking industries. Once built our goal is to partner and contract 

with Michigan farmers, clean the grain and store the Then the grain using 

sprouting and malting techniques, and supply the to Michigan craft 

brewers and bakers as well as produce some consumer packaged goods products. 

Craft 

Project objectives include: 

l.lc,;~;'i;':~~~~'"""' of the Michigan craft beer industry emphasizing utilization of 

z. l;g2llQ]llll£J!!lll,ili;J!Jl!J£lYJm 

Michigan's economy 

purchased in-stale. 

craft beer raw ingredients were 

3. PuQiis.be.d report findings through "nr,mr~rl,.,t .. channels including MSU 

publications, conference and national industry events, 

local food networks, and to regional hop and barley networks throughout 

the eastern US. Report wm also be communicated through professionally 

developed infographics. 

!illi@!LI)(J;f!!I!!nilJtslli composed of diverse partners representing each industry 

!hat can project work. Their involvement will ensure 

comprehensive and sustained data collection, interpretation and dissemination. 

$76,415 Hop 

a quality system specific to 

Objective 1 Increase 

establishing a Hop Quality 

Michigan associallon. 

and Food Safety of Michigan 

to be overseen by the 

hops by 

Growers of 

Objective 2 Increase Michigan hop sales and market share by increasing 

customer confidence in hop quality and 

Obiiecltive 3 Provide a Recommended 

to hops. This starts with 

already existing documents (hop stAnrl•~rrl" 

safety standards from like 

Quality Program specific to 

Procedures document specific 

an outline/framework using several 

other of the world, food 

r.w,torni?ino them for !his Hop 
193 

Utlrlec:tl11'e 4 Train the farmer. Train !he processor. These will be conducted on 

to face, them for a self-audit 

both self-audit and third 

This is to be a 

and will include a 

to breweries and add value to the Mir•hir•<'~n 

QI:J,iec:tiv·e 7 Measure the results. Both at the start and at the conclusion we will 

assess the customer's of and food We will also 

measure the increase of the from grown 

sources with a target of a 10% increase in market share. 
A custom 

for the State of 

March 2016 

This document includes source materia! that is exclusive 

and provided \\.ithout any warranties or representations abm 

1e material contained this document (or any data or other 

wlth Eummonitor. 

Euromonitor International 

and Rural 

on such material is made at users' own risk. Publication or 

may requite Euromonitor's prior written consent Please refer to the 
CAGR 
au or tne grown around the world 

are used to brew a very small amount goes 

of herbal teas anc! soft drinks 

of craft beer many 

markets will increase demand for hoos. as the 

2 

3 

4 

29.4 

1 1 14.1 

in beer. tea, and othe
a; ..... 

":!" 

,.. 

0 

a: 

0 

Ill 

E 

:I 

;g 

;;; 

<ll 

0 

1.1. 

Historic vs. Forecast Volume Consumption of Hops by 

Top-Consuming Countries 

Germany is one of 

the leading hop 

producers in the 

world and does not 

Russia 

Poland 

Historic Volume CAGR (2009-2014) 

Colombia's reliance on 

domestic beer production and strong projected hop 

consumption growth 

present export opportunities 

with domestic brewers 

Australia 

Co

Vietnam 

hop 

consumption growth, even 

while growth of overall beer 

consumption slows 
300.0 15.0% 

269.3 

250.0 10.0% 

"' 200.0 5.0% i "' 0 2 

"' iii lll' 150.0 0.0% "' ?' 2 " 0 " '- 3 ., 

> "'100.0 ·5.0% > '" 

50.0 -10.0% 

-15.0% 

• The of U.S. hop exports through 2013 due to domestic demand from 

romwinn domestic craft beer market and the of 

U.S. 

• According to 2014 International Hop Growers Convention, U.S. hop export value increased in 2014 

over 2013 as demand remained strong and many U.S. growers harvested varieties that 

acre 
40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

"' g 25.0 

gf 20.0 

2 

Ql 

.12 15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

United 

Kingdom 

Mexico Brazil 

. 1 

Belgium Canada Germany China Colombia Australia Vietnam 

(9) (12) (20) 

these two 
Rank Country 

United Kingdom 

2 Mexico 

3 Brazil 

4 Belgium 

5 Canada 

6 Germany 

7 China 

9 Colombia 

12 Australia 

20 Vietnam 

u 

Value of 

u.s. 

exports* 

34.1 

29.4 

16.9 16.4 14.1 

13.4 

12.6 

9.1 

4.5 

1,5 

4% 

0% 

19% 

0% 0.4% 0% 

41% 

0% 

16% 12% 

Export opportunity 

FmPmlng export opportunity: Increasing dem

beer drives growth of hop consumption 

Emerging export opportunity: The continuing 

premiumization of the beer market and large 

domestic production both drive demand for hops 

Emerging export opportunity: The growing cr

beer trend fuels hop consumption growth 

Growth in dome

beer need for hop imports both 

drive demand for hops 

Emerging export opportunity, focus country 
As Brazilians become increasingly urban and 

have higher disposable incomes than in years 

The craft beer segment continues lo grow 

despite increasing costs of raw materials and 

rising costs at points of sale, which presents 

a strong export opportunity. 

Despite Australians' declining overall beer 

consumers are increasingly 

opting premium, domestically 

produced craft beers. 

Ales dominate the Australian craft beer 

market, and consumers are increasingly 

to try new varieties and flavors, 

presents a strong hop export 

opportunity. 

The growing of Vietnamese w

higher incomes than in 

are consuming more beer, especicl!ly 

_________ ...) domestically produced 

Additionally, as Western cultural influence

becomino more pervasive, especially am

the demand for beerbeer-is growing, 

to new hop exporters. 

Domestic producers dominate the Colo

beer market, with imported beer accounti

very small share of consumption. 

As the demand for premium and craft bee

grows in the market, new hop 

an opportunity to establish 

market with new and existing Colombi

craft breweries. 
~--·-----·~C_:_,o __ NSUMPTION STATISTICS Total volume consumption (2014, 1 thousands oftonnes): 

Value Share oi Total U.S. Hop Exports to Brazil by 

Slate 

., 

<:: 

0 

25.0 

20JJ 

15.0 

l7f 

;::::, 

;- 10.0 

" ~ 5.0 

2010 

Total Hop Exports to Brazil from the U.S. 

2011 2012 2013 2014 

20.0% 

15.0% 

10.0% 

5.CYlo 

0.0% 

-5.0% 

-10.0

-15,0

~20.0

'The lop national branded beer companies in Brazil (by volume) in 

2014-Cia Brasi!eira de Bebidas (AmBev), Brasil Kirin, and 

Cervejaria Petropo!is--enjoy 89% of total beer volume. These pla

represent the greatest export partners for foreign hop producers 

" Popular craft beer brands include Dado Bier and Karaveile, and t

growth presents export opportunities for hop growers 
CONSUMPTION STATISTICS 

Total volume 

consumption {2014, 

thousands oltonnes): 

Value Share of Total U.S. Hop Exports to Vietnam 

by State 

6.0 ·5.7 

5.0 

"' 4.0 

.E ~ 3.0 

2. 

"' " 2.0 

2010 

Total Hop Exports to Vietnam from the U.S. 

1,5 1.5 

2011 2012 2013 2014 

60_0% 

4D.O% 

20.0% 

0.0% 

~20.0°

AO_Oc

-60.0

-80.0

, The leading beer producers in Vietnam are Saigon Alcohol Bee

Beverages Corp (Sabeco), Vietnam Brewery ltd., and Hanoi 

Alcohol Beer & Beverages Corp {Habeco); consequently, these 

the leading consumers of hops 

v As incomes Vietnam continue to rise and exposure to Western 

cultural trends increases, consumers increasingly demand We

style products, including premium and craft beers, which 

presents a strong hop export opportunity 
Total volume 

consumption (2014, 

thousands of tonnes): 

Value Share o! Total U.S. 

by 

Exports to Australia 

5.0 

,. 'f.:.> 

4.0 

3.5 

0 

§§ 

E 

i:f 2.5 

:::> 

:; 2.0 

"' 1.5 

0 

0.5 

Total Hop Exports lo Australia from !he U.S. 

4.4 4.5 

30.0% 

25.0%

20.0% 

15.0% 

10.0% 

5.0°/Q 

0,0% 

-15.0% 

·20.0

• lion Pty Ud. and Fosters Group Pty Ltd. are the dominant beer 

producers in Australia, and, thus, are large hop consumers, but 

smaller players such as Coopers Brewery are the recent 

popularity of craft brews and are gaining market share 

In general, high production costs make Australian agricultural 

products less competitive with imports, and the agriculture sect

often has to contend with unfavorable weather conditions that li

production; these factors leave the door open to new hop 

exporters 
CONSUMPTION STATISTICS 

Total volume 

corJsu:mp1tlon (2014, 

oftonnes): 

Volume consumption 

Value Share ol Total U.S. 

by 

1 

1 

Exports to Colombia 

Total Hop Exports to Colombia from the U.S. 

14.0 5.0% 

12.0 0.0% 

-., 10.0 -5.0

.2 "' 

8D 

"" <J) 

e. 

"' "' 

6,0 ·15.

iii 

> 4.0 -20.

2.0 

-30,0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Bavaria SA, a domestic producer, dominates the Colombian bo

market, with a 93% share in 2014, and is therefore a major hop 

consumer 

n Central Cervecera de Colombia, a new joint venture between 

Colombian and Chilean companies, is projected to be a major play

the beer market and another big potential consumer of importe

hops 

• Notable craft beer brands include Bogota Beer Co., Apostol, an

Tres Cordilleras, all of which present growing hop export 

opportunities 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 

May4, 2017 

The Honorable Pat Roberts 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

The Honorable Mike Conaway 

Chainnan 

House Committee on Agriculture 

The Honorable Collin Peterson 

Ranking Member 

House Committee on Agriculture 

Dear Chairman Roberts, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Stabenow, and Ranking Member 

Peterson: 

As you begin your work to pass a new bipartisan five-year Farm Bill, members of the Animal Agriculture 

Coalition (AAC), which is comprised of most major animal and animal related commodity organizations 

as well as allied organizations representing veterinary medicine, animal science, state regulatory agencies 

and various livestock species sectors or animal agriculture interests in the United States look forward to 

working with you to ensure that farm policy benefits all ag~iculture interests. An outbreak of a foreign 

animal disease has the ability to cripple the entire agricultural sector and have long-lasting ramifications 

for the economic viability of U.S. livestock production. It is critical that the new Farm Bill address these 

risks to animal health while likewise bolstering the long-term ability of U.S. animal agriculture to be 

competitive in the global marketplace and provide consumers around the world safe, wholesome, 

affordable food produced in a sustainable manner. 

We call on Congress, in the 2018 Farm Bill, to establish a two-tiered program to deliver the sufficient 

development and timely deployment of all measures necessary to prevent, identify and mitigate the 

potential catastrophic impacts that an animal disease outbreak would have on our country's food security, 

export markets, and overall economic stability. 

It is essential that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) and state animal health officials have: (I) forward looking disease prevention and rapid response 

activities; and (2) robust laboratory capacity for surveillance. We cannot wait, we have seen the 

implications of these diseases, both financially and from an animal welfare standpoint and it is 

devastating. The two-tiered program is outlined in greater detail below. 

PREVENTION: ANIMAL PEST AND DISEASE DISASTER PREVENTION 

AND RESPONSE PROGRAM 

(Requests CCC funding of $70M per year) 

Modelled after the highly successful plant pest and disease management and disaster prevention 

programs, a new Animal Pest and Disease Disaster Prevention and Response Program, administered 

by APHIS, would be established to provide a proactive and concerted preventative "boots on the ground" 

effort focusing on early detection and rapid response to protect the nation's animal agriculture industry. It 

is envisioned that this program would be structured to take full advantage, through support and 

collaboration, of the science genemted by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) program 

established under section 1433 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy Act 

of 1977, the Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research Program. 

SURVEILLANCE: NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORY NETWORK 

(Requests CCC funding of ($30M per year) 

Building upon the 2014 Farm Bill's authorization of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network 

(NAHLN), the Animal Disease and Disaster Prevention Program will help support NAHLN and bring 

together the federal government with states, industry, universities, and other interested groups to reduce 

the impact of high-consequence animal diseases, provide mpid detection and response capabilities to 
218 

respond to animal diseases, develop disease prevention and mitigation technologies including vaccines, 

prevent the entrance and spread of foreign animal diseases into the United States, and identify and support 

critical research needs. 

The coalition is eager to work with you to pass a 2018 Farm Bill as expeditiously as possible. Thank you 

for your consideration of our priorities. If you would like to discuss the this proposal further please 

contact Damon Wells, AAC Vice Chairman, (dwe!Is@turkeyfed.org and 202-730-9636) or Ashley 

Morgan, AAC Vice Chairman (AMorgan@avma.org and (202) 289-3210). 

Sincerely, 

American Association of Avian Pathologists 

American Association of Bovine Practitioners 

American Association of Mycobacterial Diseases 

American Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners 

American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians 

American Dairy Goat Association 

American Dairy Science Association 

American Feed Industry Association 

American Goat Federation 

American Horse Council 

American Sheep Industry 

American Society of Animal Science 

American Veterinary Medical Association 

Animal Ag Alliance 

Animal Health Institute 

Arizona Cattlemen's Association 

Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association 

Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges 

Association of Veterinary Biologics Companies 

Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) 

California Pork Producers Association 

California Poultry Federation 

California Wool Growers Association 

Chicken and Egg Association of Minnesota 

Colorado Cattlemen's Association 

Colorado Livestock Association 

FASS 

Fats and Proteins Research Foundation 

Flmida Cattlemen's Association 

Georgia Cattlemen's Association 

Georgia Poultry Federation 

Indiana State Poultry Association 

Iowa Turkey Federation 

Kentucky Poultry Federation 

Michigan Agri-Business Association 

Michigan Allied Poultry Industries 

Michigan Cattlemen's Association 

Michigan Pork Producers Association 

Minnesota Turkey Growers Association 

Mississippi Poultry Association 

Mycobacterial Diseases of Animals Multistate Initiative 

National Grain and Feed Association 

National Milk Producers Federation 
219 

National Turkey Federation 

National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials 

National Association for the Advancement of Animal Science 

National Association of Federal Veterinarians 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

National Aquaculture Association 

National Renderers Association 

North Carolina Poultry Federation 

North Dakota Turkey Federation 

Ohio Poultry Association 

Oklahoma State University Department of Animal Science 

Poultry Science Association 

South Carolina Poultry Federation 

South Dakota Pork Producers Council 

South Dakota Poultry Industry Association 

Texas Poultry Federation 

Texas Turkey Federation 

The Poultry Federation- Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma 

United Egg Producers 

University of Florida, College of Veterinary Medicine 

University of Florida, Department of Animal Sciences 

U.S. Animal Health Association 

U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center Research and Industry Committee 

U.S. Poultry & Egg Association 

Virginia Poultry Federation 

Wisconsin Poultry and Egg Industry Association 

(221) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

MAY 6, 2017 
222 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, &. Forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May 6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Chris Alpers 

Chairman Pat Roberts IR-KS! 

1. The 2014 Farm Bill created a new crop insurance program, Whole Farm Revenue 

Protection, to help insure diverse farms with specialty or organic commodities. Have you 

purchased Whole Farm insurance? If so, can you share your experiences with it? 

I have not so I can't 

2. I'm glad to hear that apple growers support crop insurance and have worked with the Risk 

Management Agency to provide products that reflect the needs of producers. I know that 

Senator Stabenow was focused on Michigan cherries and the Non insured Crop Disaster 

Assistance Program after a freeze in 2012. What are your experiences with NAP and do 

Michigan cherry growers have better insurance options today than in 2012? 

3. During our discussion of over-regulation, you mentioned having to track all wildlife that 

comes through your orchards. I understand this is related to Good Agriculture Practices, a 

voluntary auditing program run through USDA's Agriculture Marketing Service. Can you 

describe your motivation for joining the program, and whether or not the benefits 

outweigh the regulatory burden? Are there other required regulatory activities that are 

standing in the way of your business or causing undue burden? 
223 

the moved to 
224 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mrs. Janna Fritz 

Chairman Pat Roberts IR-KS) 

1. The 2014 Farm Bill created a new crop insurance program, Whole Farm Revenue 

Protection, to help insure diverse farms with specialty or organic commodities. Have you 

purchased Whole Farm insurance? If so, can you share your experiences with it? 

We have not purchased the Whole Fam1 Revenue Protection program. 

2. With the low commodity prices many of growers have been struggling with the past three 

and a half years, access to affordable credit is as important as ever. Are you or anyone that 

you know experiencing difficulties in accessing loans, either commercially or through FSA, 

and is there anything USDA should be doing, or that we can do in the next Farm Bill from a 

credit perspective to help growers weather the current economic storm? 

There are a few farmers in the area experiencing difficulties in accessing credit. Thankfully, our 

farm is not experiencing those issues at this time. Low commodity prices do make this issue 

concerning for the future. If there is an for FSA to offer credit in situations where 

another financial institution may not of USDA and FSA to ensure the 

retention of our American fanners during these 
225 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Rick Gerstenberger 

Chairman Pat Roberts !R-KSl 

1. The 2014 Farm Bill created a new crop insurance program, Whole Farm Revenue 

Protection, to help insure diverse farms with specialty or organic commodities. Have you 

purchased Whole Farm insurance? If so, can you share your experiences with it? 

Our farm did not use the whole farm policy as some of the revenue caps are too low and the 

cost is prohibitive. 
226 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Bob Hance 

Chairman Pat Roberts IR-KS! 

1. In your written testimony, you mention an award Midwest Energy received through the 

Smart Grid loan program. Recently, RUS announced a loan for Twin Valley Electric 

Cooperative in Kansas for a similar project. Can you explain more about these types of 

projects that upgrade transmission systems using broadband, and how they are good for 

both cooperatives and their customers? 

The electric grid is one of the engineering marvels of the world. Cooperatives generate 

electricity from many different types of power sources, transmit those electrons over long 

distances into rural communities, and then distribute that power into millions of homes- each 

with unique demands. Despite that incredibly complicated web of connections, we take for 

granted that when we "flip the switch" the lights always come on. 

While the grid has changed a lot during the last century, it is evolving right now at an 

unprecedented rate. Our customers are using more interactive appliances and devices. Many 

people are demanding electricity from renewable sources, which can be intermittent. And we 

face new, sophisticated cyber threats. Despite those challenges we must continue to provide 

electricity as reliably, safely, and inexpensively as possible. One essential tool for meeting this 

challenge is broadband. Fiber-speed connectivity helps us better manage generation to meet 

demand. It helps us defend against real time cyber threats. And it helps us respond quicker 

when there is an outage. Just as the RUS electric loan program financed many decades of basic 

electric infrastructure build-out, today's RUS Smart Grid electric loans are financing the 

transition to a broadband-connected modern grid which will keep rural America competitive 

and comfortable. 

At Midwest, we've gone an extra step. Our RUS Smart Grid loan financed fiber to our 

consumers' meters. That gives us the most advanced, real-time monitoring capabilities. But, we 

have also have secured additional financing from private sources to run the fiber that last few 

feet into our members' homes for their personal use. So, in addition to better management of 

our electric systems, these upgrades bring a better quality of life to our member-consumers. 
227 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Adam Ingrao 

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KSI 

1. As you mention in your testimony, the transition for veterans to civilian jobs and 

businesses can be difficult, and farmer veterans are no exception. I want veterans to 

succeed in whatever path they so choose after their time of service. Do the programs you 

reference provide for support, such as technical assistance, for business planning that 

includes critical information like financial projections that help guide decision-making in a 

business and that indicates up-front whether there is the possibility of long term financial 

sustainability for that owner? 

Chairman Roberts, thank you for your interest in ensuring business planning is a component of 

veteran programs funded through the Farm Bill. The organizations I represent do consider this a 

priority when delivering programming to farmer veterans. We typically hold at least one 

workshop focused on financial health and farm sustainability per year. The content focus has 

varied year to year but consistent themes we have covered include; development of business 

plans, financial planning, risk management and assessments, and capital acquisition. We have 

not worked specifically in providing financial projections that help guide decision making for 

several reasons. The most challenging aspect of developing financial projections for our farmers 

is that most of the farmer veterans we work with are small farm owners (under 50 acres) 

producing diversified livestock and specialty crops (sometimes up to 200 varieties of crops). The 

diversity of our producers creates unique challenges for developing financial projections 

because there is not reliable market value data available on most specialty crops, and variety of 

the crop often has a large impact on market price (e.g. a red delicious apple market price may 

be $0.79/lb while honey crisp apples may be $1.50/lb). This lack of specialty crop data that 

recognizes the variability in market price for specific varieties of crops creates a situation in 

which accurate market projections are difficult to establish. We have seen this challenge with 

our producers trying to use the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). The lack of 

data that USDA has on specialty crops (and specific varieties of specialty crops) has made 

utilization of NAP difficult for our producers because without accurate data USDA cannot 

appropriately value the crop of a specialty crop producer. In order to address this lack of good 

data, it would be highly beneficial if USDA developed a large data set focused on specialty crop 

market values (and their varieties). If such a data set were available it would allow organizations 

like the Vets in Ag Network the ability to add relevant financial projections to our business 

planning workshops, which I firmly believe would add value to our work and aid our farmer 

veterans in ensuring that the business models they are developing are financially sustainable in 

the long-term. I would encourage your committee to consider the importance of good and 

thorough data collected on specialty crop market value by USDA and recognize that without 
228 

this data it makes it more difficult for organizations to serve specialty crop growers 

appropriately from a federal, state and local perspective. Funding to support such a data 

collection effort within the USDA should be included in the 2018 Farm Bill. I welcome any 

additional questions and appreciate the opportunity to share this information. 
229 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May 6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mrs. Kristen Matson 

Chairman Pat Roberts IR·KS) 

1. I'm pleased to about the use of the Farm Bill's Good Neighbor Authority in Michigan. Can 

you elaborate on the policy changes you are recommending with regard to repair of existing 

roads? 

2. How would a policy change like this benefit the Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

and other stakeholders in the state? 
230 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May 6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mrs. Pam Bouma Miller 

1. The 2014 Farm Bill created a new crop insurance program, Whole Farm Revenue 

Protection, to help insure diverse farms with specialty or organic commodities. Have you 

purchased Whole Farm insurance? If so, can you share your experiences with it? 

Thank you, Chainnan Roberts for the opportunity to respond to your question. 

To date Hopyanls of Kent has not purchased Whole Fann insurance. Due to starting our fannin 

20! 1 our yields were not mature enough in 2014, when the bill took effect, to wanant the 

program. Therefore, Whole Fam1 Insurance has not been to our timn. We are in 

support of the program for the hop industry, as a whole, and forward to the benefits it will 

bring to us as well as our industry partners. 
231 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May 6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Kyle Rorah 

1. The Committee hears a rather constant and reoccurring message from commodity and 

conservation groups about the importance of working lands programs, like the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program. How do those within the agriculture and 

conservation suggest balancing the Federal investment in working lands 

conservation programs and land retirement programs? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Committee. 

Ducks Unlimited (DU) and many of our partners' approach to voluntary conservation 

programs in the Farm Bill is quite simple. We support and promote a variety of options 

(e.g., both short- and long-term, working land and retirement programs, etc.) and let 

landowners decide what works best for them and their operations. 

This philosophy has worked well for many decades and is supported by the high demand 

and oversubscribed backlog among landowners for these programs. We'd respectfully 

encourage members of the Committee to adopt a similar approach in the next Farm Bill. 

By striking a healthy balance between working land and retirement programs, we can 

provide a strong safety net for our nation's agricultural producers, natural resources, 

wildlife populations and economy. This balance is also good fiscal and land use policy. For 

example, a one-time easement payment, like the Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program (ACEP), can protect valuable wildlife habitat, while saving limited budget 

resources and reducing future taxpayer liabilities. Alternatively, programs, like EQIP, for 

rice and grass-based livestock production can benefit both wildlife and working farms and 

ranches. 

We know based on many years of experience helping promote and deliver these popular 

programs that landowners prefer options. We shouldn't limit or take away any 

conservation options. We also believe there's great opportunity in the next Farm Bill to 

develop new and innovative working land options for traditional programs, like the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetland Reserve Easements (WRE). For 

example, OU strongly supports new working land CRP options that allow Increased use and 

flexibility for moderate livestock grazing and haying outside of the primary waterfowl 

nesting season. We also support more true Reserved Grazing Rights on WREs that 

maintain livestock production and wildlife habitat values. Obviously, a "one-size fits all" 
232 

approach won't work in all states or all situations. However, more working land options, 

like these two examples, can be tailored for specific regions/states by local stakeholders, 

while saving taxpayer resources through reduced rental or easement payments. We 

support making programs more cost-efficient and targeting limited funding to maximize 

resource benefits. 

Lastly, we'd strongly encourage members to support robust funding for working land 

initiatives, like the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Our RCPP efforts 

with rice growers across the U.S. is a testament to how working lands programs can benefit 

both agriculture and wildlife. In dosing, we look forward to working with the Committee 

and your staff to promote a healthy balance of new and innovative approaches, while 

providing well-funded traditional conservation options for our nation's farmers and 

ranchers. 
233 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Oarrin Siemen 

1. The 2014 Farm Bill created a new crop insurance program, Whole Farm Revenue 

Protection, to help insure diverse farms with specialty or organic commodities. Have you 

purchased Whole Farm insurance? If so, can you share your experiences with it? 

2. What factors do you consider when looking at your businesses' financial statement? Do 

you look at the feed costs, any costs from environmental regulation, and crop values? How 

does the Margin Protection Program affect these calculations? 

1. With the low commodity prices many of growers have been struggling with the past three 

and a half years, access to affordable credit is as important as ever. Are you or anyone that 

you know experiencing difficulties in accessing loans, either commercially or through FSA, 

and is there anything USDA should be doing, or that we can do in the next Farm Bill from a 

credit perspective to help growers weather the current economic storm? 
234 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May 6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Andy Snider 

1. Mr. Snider, your testimony mentions a new Animal Disease Prevention Program that 

could be created in the Farm Bill. How do you envision individual states being involved 

in this program? Can you describe some of the activities this program would allow states 

to pursue that would fit their unique needs, given the diversity of the livestock and 

poultry sector across the country? 

Answer: Legislation to create an Animal Pest and Disease Disaster Prevention and 

Response Program within the Animal Health Protection Act would be modelled after the 

highly successful Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program 

which was added to the Plant Protection Act in the 2008 farm bill. 

In December of last year, USDA released a FY 2017 Spending Plan for the Plant Pest and 

Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program which serves to illustrate the 

types of programs that the companion program for animal health protection would 

support, as well as how the program would support national, tribal and state animal 

health objectives. Much like the program for plant protection, APHIS will develop future 

spending plans for animal health in consultation with State Departments of Agriculture, 

state animal health officials, colleges and universities including veterinary colleges, as 

well as veterinary and livestock producer associations. 

If enacted, the Animal Pest and Disease Disaster Prevention and Response Program will 

support activities designed to enhance animal pest and disease analysis and 

surveillance; target domestic inspection activities at vulnerable points in the 

safeguarding continuum; enhance and strengthen threat identification and technology; 

improve biosecurity; enhance emergency response time and mitigation capacity by 

hiring and training additional emergency response personnel; conduct technology 

development, enhancing electronic sharing of animal health data for risk analysis 

between State'and federal anima! health officials, outreach and education about these 

issues; and enhance the availability and effectiveness of animal vaccines and minor use 

drugs. 

Example 1: Prevention starts with continued education of the growers. A project that 

uses funds for grower education is critical providing seminars, video, or an interactive 

website are just a few options as well as potentially having a bio-security officer that 

continues to assist and reaffirm the critical nature of remaining active in process of 
235 

preventing these issues. Having a government official helping assess risks and identify 

gaps in bio-security plans through audits would also be a benefit to producers. 

Example 2: One other idea that would be critical is expanding upon the great work done 

at many of the labs around the country such as the NVSllab in Ames, lA, or the 

Southeast Poultry lab in Athens, GA. They are under staffed and ultimately cannot get 

to all the areas need or be as proactive as they might want to be due to funding 

restraints. When it comes to prevention techniques, interventions, or control measures 

there is still a lot of anecdotal information about how the disease spreads, what 

methods worked and lowering the severity of an outbreak. All legitimate questions that 

need research and the smart minds to help limit economic impacts to the poultry sector 

of our economy which many people depend for their livelihoods. 

2. The 2014 Farm Bill created a new crop insurance program, Whole Farm Revenue 

Protection, to help insure diverse farms with specialty or organic commodities. Have you 

purchased Whole Farm insurance? If so, can you share your experiences with it? 

Answer: I have not purchased Whole Farm insurance. 
236 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & forestry 

Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan 

May6, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. David Williams 

Chairman Pat Roberts IR-KS! 

1. The 2014 Farm Bill created a new crop insurance program, Whole Farm Revenue 

Protection, to help insure diverse farms with specialty or organic commodities. Have you 

purchased Whole Farm insurance? If so, can you share your experiences with it? 

I do not have experience with whole t1mn insurance. We purchase crop-specific policies for our 

soybeans, com, and wheat. 

2. Mr. Williams, you mention in your testimony that the American Soybean Association 

supports increasing the acreage enrollment cap for the Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP), though do not take a position on how much to increase the acreage cap or suggest 

·how to pay for the costs associated with such an increase. The Committee hears a rather 

constant and reoccurring message from commodity and conservation groups about the 

importance of working lands programs. How do those within the agriculture and 

conservation community suggest balancing the Federal investment in working lands 

conservation programs and land retirement programs in light of the budgetary 

environment? 

ASA supports the value of the Conservation Reserve Program (C:RP) in protecting soil, air and 

water quality. We recognize that millions of acres came out of CRP during recent years when 

prices were higher, and that some of that land should be re-enrolled in CRP. Unfortunately, 

additional acres are not currently being enrolled through general sign-up or even through the 

continuous enrollment for high-priority tracts. ASA continues to suppmt conservation 

programs for working lands, including CSP. EQIP and RCPP. We forward to engaging with 

the Committee as decisions about funding and program specifics an: developed in the next farm 

bill. 

3. With the low commodity prices many of growers have been struggling with the past three 

and a half years, access to affordable credit is as important as ever. Are you or anyone that 

you know experiencing difficulties in accessing loans, either commercially or through FSA, 

and is there anything USDA should be doing, or that we can do in the next Farm Bill from a 

credit perspective to help growers weather the current economic storm? 

I am not personally experiencing difficulty accessing credit However, anecdotal reports of 

struggling fanners abound. The "Federal Reserve Bank Fourth Qumter Report", 
237 

which covers Michigan, revealed that "since their 2013 peaks, Illinois, Indiana, 

and farmland values have experienced real declines of ll percent, 7 percent, 

and 12 percent, respectively." ASA looks forward to working with the Committee to expand 

credit programs, if necessary. 

0