The technique is as simple as it is risky. Dry farming relies solely on rainwater to keep crops growing throughout a dry season.

Used for centuries in the Mediterranean region to grow crops like olives and grapes, the technique is not for the faint of heart. A year such as this, with a dry winter, can devastate crop output and put an onerous dent in a farmer’s wallet.

“Dry farming would be a hard life because you’re at the whim of the rains,” said Jay Lund, director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at UC Davis. “It would have to be a fairly small-scale farm, and in some cases, it would be a good road to poverty.”

Yet dry farming has its adherents. Many are small farmers and vintners who either lack irrigated water or believe that dry farming produces better tasting fruits and vegetables.

“I think people are interested in the idea,” said David Runsten, policy director of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers.

Runsten recently promoted dry farming to a consortium of Amador County and Lodi farmers. “We’re promoting it because we think it makes for better wine,” he said.

But sustaining the viability of farms is also an issue. Runsten cited a CAFF study that found that the 250-acre Frog’s Leap vineyard in Napa conserved roughly 64,000 gallons of water per acre through dry farming each year.

“We’re pumping a bunch of groundwater to produce cheap wine in California right now,” Runsten said. “I don’t know if that’s sustainable.”

A recently released study from researchers at the University of Texas warned that the current depletion rate of the Central Valley aquifer, the large storage of underground water farmers use for irrigation, is unsustainable — even when wet years follow dry ones.

Currently, nearly half a million acres of land are devoted to wine grapes in California. Of those, about 2,000 acres are dry-farmed; the rest are drip irrigated, said Runsten.

Because dry-farmed fruits and vegetables need more space between each tree it can prove a costly endeavor.

However, such spacing means roots spread out farther, which results in healthier trees and vines as well as more intense flavor, said Capay Valley farmer Jeff Maine.

He said he saw the superiority of dry-farmed fruit when he dry-farmed a 100-year-old heirloom apricot orchard alongside Putah Creek, just west of Winters, between 2003 and 2010.

“The dry-farmed stuff has a whole different flavor,” said Maine, who co-owns the farm Good Humus Produce, with wife Anne Maine.

“People really respond to the traditional aspects of it.”

The popularity of Maine’s apricots was not lost on Sacramento Food Co-op general manager Paul Cultrera, whose store sold the apricots.

“Annie and Jeff’s apricots are worth any price,” said Cultrera. “They’re that good, and that much better than whatever others we sell.”

The store expects to sell potatoes and tomatoes that come from farms using the dry-farm method, said Kerri Williams, produce manager at the Co-op.

The Co-op sold the tomatoes last year and will offer them again in late summer. “The tomatoes were very popular. Once people tasted them, they didn’t care what they cost,” said Williams.

Typically, dry-farmed fruit grows much smaller than fruit from irrigated farms, and the yield is also smaller.

“There is no way to get around the fact that you’re trading size and plumpness for flavor,” said Maine.

He sees dry farming as a small niche industry given the smaller size of the product.

“You still find that people buy with their eyes,” said Maine, “unless you can get the message to them with marketing, before they get to the point of purchase.”

One farmer who still dry-farms today is Fritz Durst, who owns Tule Farm in Yolo County’s Dunnigan Hills, where he grows garbanzo beans, wheat, safflower and other crops as dry-farmed crops.

“There is no irrigation here, only rainwater in this area,” said Durst, a fifth-generation farmer.

Durst’s farm gets between 8 to 30 inches of rainfall each year.

“What we’ve done is we’ve adapted to the rainfall,” said Durst. “I’ve learned certain crop rotations where it is best to follow one crop with another crop because of moisture limitations.”

To keep the rainwater from evaporating or running off, Durst uses the residue from past crops to trap moisture. That moisture, however small, keeps his crops alive throughout the dry season.

Durst also farms irrigated crops. He said he understands why farmers eschew dry farming, but believes irrigation comes with its own burdens. “Believe me, no one irrigates for fun, because when you irrigate it costs you money.”

Durst irrigates with water from an irrigation district, as well as from wells on his property. Expenses for a well can add up the deeper it has to be drilled to access water.

Maine said he’d love to give dry farming another chance. “I’d have to find the right place for something like a rare fruit, or a sustainable fruit,” he said. “Raising something with all those nice concepts rolled into one orchard? That would be fun.”

Call The Bee’s Edward Ortiz, (916) 321-1071. Follow him on Twitter @edwardortiz.

Nearly one in five West Virginians now is enrolled in the program, although some could lose their eligibility if cuts proposed by U.S. House members become law.

The U.S. Senate agriculture committee on Tuesday approved its version of the Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, including $4.1 billion in reductions to SNAP.

The House agriculture committee’s version of the farm bill, which was to be considered on Wednesday, included much deeper cuts: $20.5 billion over the next 10 years.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates 1.8 million people nationwide would lose SNAP benefits if the House cuts became law. The nonpartisan group also estimates 280,000 school-age children would no longer be eligible for free school meals through SNAP.

In February, 349,853 West Virginians were signed up for the program, compared with 276,800 in 2008. Around 3,000 residents have joined SNAP since July 2012.

It’s not clear how many West Virginia residents would be affected by the cuts, but U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said the House committee’s suggested cuts are wrong-headed.

“We all believe there are too many people on SNAP, but there’s a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this,” he told the Daily Mail.

Vilsack pointed out President Barack Obama’s budget did not include any proposed cuts to the program.

“He recognizes that 92 percent of people receiving SNAP are either senior citizens, disabled individuals, children or people in the workforce that find themselves in low-paying jobs,” he said.

Rep. Shelley Moore-Capito, R-W.Va., said she believes Congress should reduce funding for the program.

“SNAP has grown by about $46 billion over the past six years. With an almost $17 trillion debt, I believe that reductions could be made. Congress should focus spending on those who are most in need and make sure that all persons receiving benefits are eligible to receive them,” she said.

SNAP will spend about $76 billion on benefits in 2013, up from $30 billion in 2007.

Members of the House agriculture committee want to remove a provision of the current program known as “categorical eligibility,” which allows families to receive food stamps if they qualify for other federal assistance programs like Medicaid or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

“They believe there are people who would not otherwise qualify for SNAP, who only get into the program through this efficiency,” Vilsack said. “The problem with this theory is, there are far more people who qualify for the program who will be discouraged from participating in this program.

“There won’t be as many people getting the program who need the program.”

Cuts to SNAP would hurt more than just needy families, Vilsack said. A reduction in funding would affect everyone along the supply chain, from farms to truckers and grocery store workers.

Vilsack said 97 percent of SNAP benefits are spent within 30 days. About 16 cents of every dollar winds up in a farmer’s pocket, he said, and for every dollar invested in the program, SNAP generates about $1.80 in economic activity.

“You’re really talking about a reduction in several billion dollars in farm income,” he said.

Short of a good-paying job, Vilsack said SNAP is one of the best poverty-reducing programs in the country.

“It reverberates through the economy,” he said. “We will work with whatever Congress ultimately decides to do, but I think it’s important for people to realize there are consequences.”

Vilsack said SNAP cuts proposed by the Senate agriculture committee are less drastic because the focus is on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Currently, anyone who receives LIHEAP benefits, even if it’s a few dollars a month, is automatically eligible for SNAP.

According to a Congressional Budget Office report, some states send small LIHEAP payments, some as little as $1, to people so they can automatically qualify for the SNAP program.

Nearly 500,000 households nationwide would see reductions in SNAP benefits if Senate cuts become law, the report found.

Contact writer Zack Harold at 304-348-7939 or zack.harold@dailymail.com. Follow him at www.twitter.com/ZackHarold.

But the PAC contributions may be aimed at a broader strategy for floor action in each chamber. U.S. sugar companies fear an effort by food companies and confectioners to amend the farm bills on the floor to eliminate the sugar support program. The current program regulates the amount of foreign sugar imported to the U.S. from non-NAFTA countries. It also gives support to sugar prices if they go too low.

The American Crystal Sugar Company PAC has given out $567,500 to federal candidates and committees in 2013, with 55 percent going to Democrats.View the PAC’s 2013 financial profile. In 2011-2012, the PAC gave out $2,351,000 with 54 percent going to Democrats. View the PAC’s 2011-2012 financial profile.

The American Crystal Sugar Company PAC solicits funds from farmers in a major fundraising drive in March and April of each year. They have raised over $1 million March and April of 2013, 2012, and 2011. Almost all their itemized contributions in April came from farmers in Minnesota ($549,839) and North Dakota ($431,120). The PAC now has $1,712,406 cash on hand as of April 30.

During the first quarter of 2013, the American Crystal Sugar Company reported spending $1,004,117 on federal lobbying.

The post Sugar PAC Gives $165,000 in April as Farm Bills Are Considered appeared first on Political MoneyLine Blog.

The provision allows Monsanto and other companies to continue selling genetically engineered seeds, even if a court has blocked them from doing so. Merkley will press for a floor vote on his repeal amendment when the farm bill is taken up next week, a Merkley aide told HuffPost.

Federal courts have recently ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had failed to consider the potential harm some genetically engineered crops may have, and acted too hastily in approving their sale. The industry fought back with the farm bill rider, preventing the enforcement of court rulings.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) spoke out against the rider on the Senate floor, but the chamber is typically empty, and his objection was not enough to block it from passage.

Jon Stewart helped elevate the issue with an extended segment on it, and the measure also found a number of conservative critics.

A Monsanto spokesperson wasn’t immediately available to comment.

Tensions between conventional and organic agriculture boiled over this week during a late-night House Agriculture Committee debate on a sweeping farm bill that has for decades propped up traditional crops and largely ignored organics.

When Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., a former organic farmer, offered an amendment to make it easier for organic companies to organize industrywide promotional campaigns, there was swift backlash from some farm-state Republicans, with one member saying he didn’t want to see the industry get a free ride and another complaining about organics’ "continued assault on agriculture."

"That’s one of the things that has caught me and raises my concerns, is that industry’s lack of respect for traditional agriculture," said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., referring to some organic companies’ efforts to reduce the number of genetically modified crops in the marketplace.

At the same time, Scott acknowledged that he and his wife buy organic foods.

Growing consumer interest in organics has proved tough for some Republicans on the committee to ignore. Eight Republicans, most of them newer members of the committee, joined with all of the panel’s Democrats in supporting the amendment, which was adopted 29-17.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a Missouri Republican who owns a farm equipment business and a corn and soybean farm, said she supported the amendment not only because helping organics is good for agriculture but because many of her constituents eat organic foods.

"Organics are a niche market in agriculture with a growing market share, so it makes sense for me to allow farmers to invest some of their own funds to promote their products," she said.

The amendment would allow the organic industry to organize and pay for a unified industry promotional campaign called a "checkoff" that is facilitated by the Agriculture Department but is no cost to the government. These promotional programs have traditionally been limited to individual commodities or crops, producing familiar campaigns like "Got Milk?" and "Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner."

The amendment would not set up such a program for organics, but it would allow USDA to approve an organic promotional campaign if the industry decided it wanted one. Laura Batcha of the Organic Trade Association says one reason the industry would approve a campaign is that many organic producers are concerned that consumers don’t understand that products labeled "natural" aren’t necessarily organic, which requires certification.

The organic industry has exploded in the last decade, with $35 billion in sales and 10 percent growth just last year. There are more than 17,000 certified organic businesses in the country.

Producers of organic crops and conventional crops have long been at odds, as organic products have grabbed market share – more than 4 percent of food and beverage sales in 2011 – and the industry has advertised organic foods as healthier than other foods. Organic products are required to be certified by the USDA and are grown without pesticides and genetically modified ingredients, mainstays of traditional agriculture.

Government-managed promotional checkoff programs like the one that would be allowed under the amendment are required to be positive and not disparage other products, and some lawmakers seemed wary that such a campaign would be possible.

"How do I present organic pork without disparaging non-organic pork?" asked House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., who opposed the amendment.

Mike Conaway, R-Texas, took issue with part of the amendment that would allow the organic producers to opt out of other commodity campaigns, an option that isn’t given to conventional producers.

"Looks to me like they have a free ride on this thing," Conaway said, in an at times angry exchange with Schrader.

Despite the rancor, the chances that the amendment will become law are good, as the Senate Agriculture Committee added the same amendment to its version of the farm bill.

Schrader told his colleagues that embracing organics is essential to appealing to consumers in a time when big farms are often demonized by popular culture. He said that many young people are coming back to farms because of nontraditional agriculture.

"American agriculture is under siege," he said. "Urban folks do not understand where their food and fiber comes from. … The point here is to hopefully position American agriculture where we’re not always trying to catch up to what the American consumer wants."

—

Follow Mary Clare Jalonick on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mcjalonick

©2012 The Associated Press

The measure (HR 1947), advanced 36-10, would trim spending by about $20 billion more than a Senate version of the bill advanced Tuesday, but the Congressional Budget Office said savings could near $40 billion if Congress acted to end the budget sequester. The current farm policy law (PL 112-24) expires Sept. 30.

While the House bill mirrored Senate legislation (S 954) by proposing to eliminate direct and countercyclical subsidies, its program to replace the revenue would use higher target prices than its Senate counterpart, which could mean subsidies would apply more often under the House legislation.

The bill, which is estimated to cost $940 billion over 10 years, would also guard against revenue loss with a program that would offer assistance to farmers when county revenue levels fall 15 to 25 percent below a five-year benchmark.

While these commodity changes were largely backed by committee members and mostly matched savings in the Senate bill, another $20 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program sparked a heated defense from Democrats.

The bill would restrict SNAP eligibility by limiting the types of low-income benefits that would automatically qualify recipients for the nutrition program. It also would prohibit the provision of food aid to lottery winners, undocumented immigrants and college students from wealthy families, and would require a higher Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program payment to qualify for SNAP benefits.

Democrats rallied around a Jim McGovern, D-Mass., amendment that would fully restore the cuts, insisting that despite efforts to reduce the deficit, a slow economic recovery is the wrong time to reduce nutrition benefits.

"There’s a cost to hunger," McGovern said.

But Republicans responded that the measure was important to ensure that only those who truly need the benefits receive them.

"We can make the argument based on the numbers here that we’ve been extraordinarily generous," said Wisconsin Republican Reid Ribble.

The committee rejected the SNAP funding amendment mostly along party lines but adopted another amendment from Ohio Democrat Marcia L. Fudge that would authorize a program that uses public money through loans and grants to attract private investment for farmers markets, cooperatives and other healthy food retailers.

The bill would expand crop insurance by $9 billion and create a supplemental option to allow farmers to purchase additional coverage. Cotton producers would have their own "Stacked Income Protection Plan" under the bill, which would allow growers to purchase coverage for income losses of 10 to 30 percent.

The vote was 36 to 10, with mostly Democrats voting against the bill after nine hours of debate.

Efforts to pass a farm bill last year failed when House leaders refused to bring their version of the bill to the floor for a vote. The Senate did pass its version. The most recent farm bill, which passed in 2008, was extended until Sept. 30.

The committee’s chairman, Representative Frank D. Lucas, Republican of Oklahoma, praised the efforts of the committee in passing the bill, but warned that there was still a lot of work ahead as the measure headed to the full House. “I’m pleased the committee was able to work together, find some common ground, and advance a five-year farm bill today,” Mr. Lucas said.

The House bill cuts projected spending in farm and nutrition programs by nearly $40 billion over the next 10 years. Just over half, $20.5 million, would come from cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. The Senate voted to cut spending by $23 billion, with $4.1 billion of the cuts coming from the food stamp program.

The House bill, like the Senate’s version, would eliminate direct payments to farmers, which are made annually whether they grow crops or not. Currently, farmers who grow corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton and other crops receive about $5 billion in direct payments. Billions of dollars saved by eliminating direct payments would be directed into other subsidy programs, including crop insurance and new subsidies for peanut, cotton and rice farmers.

The House, like the Senate, basically left the sugar program alone, keeping price supports and restrictions on imports intact. The bill adds money to support fruit and vegetable growers. It also restores insurance programs for livestock producers, which expired in 2001, leaving thousands of operations without disaster coverage last year during the worst drought in 50 years.

The House farm bill passed the committee with strong bipartisan support but exposed a division among committee members over the size of cuts to the food stamp program, which has long been a target of conservatives.

Hoping to get more Republicans to support the bill, Mr. Lucas and Collin C. Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota and ranking member on the committee, increased the amount of the cuts by $4 billion from $16 billion in last year’s bill.

Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, and a number of other Democrats on the committee offered an amendment that would have restored proposed cuts to the food stamp program. That amendment was defeated 27 to 17. The vote was largely along party lines, although Mr. Peterson, along with two other Democrats, voted against the amendment.

Cuts to the food stamp program was hotly debated, with members quoting Bible verses to support keeping the food stamp programs at current levels or cutting it.

Representative Juan C. Vargas, Democrat of California, who opposes cuts to the food stamp program, began the thread by quoting a biblical passage from the 25th chapter of the Book of Matthew.

“I’m a Christian, and this chapter talks about how you treat the least among us,” said Mr. Vargas, adding that he would not support a bill that made such deep cuts to the antihunger program.

But K. Michael Conaway, a Texas Republican, countered that argument. “I take umbrage to that,” he said. “I take Matthew 25 to mean me as an individual, not the U.S. government.“

Representative Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, then quoted a Bible verse from the 26th chapter of Matthew, saying the “poor will always be with us” in his defense of cuts to the food stamps program. Mr. Fincher said obligations to take care of the poor should be left to churches, not the government.

“Christians, Jews Muslims, whatever — we are failing our sisters and brothers,” Mr. McGovern shot back.

A report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan Washington research group, said the cuts in the food stamp program would eliminate two million people from the program, most of them children and older people. The report said the cuts would come in addition to a reduction that food stamp recipients would experience starting Nov. 1., when benefits that were increased under the 2008 economic stimulus expire.

“Placing the SNAP cuts in this farm bill on top of the benefit cuts that will take effect in November is likely to put substantial numbers of poor families at risk of food insecurity,” the report said.

Senate leaders announced Wednesday that they would begin work on their $955 billion farm bill next Monday. House leaders have not set a timetable.

The Senate version of the farm bill emerged from the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture on Tuesday.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, who chairs the committee, said the legislation would offer crop insurance to cherry growers and also up to $100,000 in disaster assistance for cherry farmers who were harmed by last year’s March heat and subsequent frosts that ravaged 90 percent of the region’s cherry crop.

“(It has) some increased disaster assistance for them,” Stabenow said. “That’s really important. We are directing the USDA to expand crop insurance. They are already beginning to do that. They will be expanding crop insurance for cherry growers.”

The U.S. House of Representatives also is working on its own version of the farm bill. Republican Rep. Dan Benishek, whose district includes the Traverse City area, said he succeeded in getting crop insurance for cherry farmers inserted into the bill and that his fellow legislators support the proposal.

“The tart cherry business, it’s pretty important stuff,” Benishek said. “We’ve already got (crop insurance) in the base language of the bill.”

Cherry farmers said 2012 was a year of historic losses. Problems were compounded by the inability of many growers to obtain crop insurance. Sweet cherry growers in only a handful of counties could access crop insurance through a pilot program, while tart cherry farmers have no crop insurance coverage options at all.

Both versions of the proposed legislation received praise Wednesday from Cedar-area cherry farmer Ben LaCross. LaCross, who represents the Michigan Farm Bureau in the region, said “it’s nice to see an increased opportunity for specialty crops like cherries to have access to crop insurance.”

LaCross said he’s also encouraged by commitments in the Senate bill to research funding grants for fruit growers.

“The research provisions in the farm bill really play a major role in specialty crop production,” LaCross said. “(Fruit growers) are a minor blip on whole agricultural radar, so we rely on places like Michigan State University to do research and trials to find the best ways to grow.”

The five-year Farm Bill has endured a tortured path: the Senate approved its version last year, but the House of Representatives never voted on its own version. The version that emerged from the Senate Agriculture Committee still needs to be passed by the full Senate. Benishek said he’s optimistic the House version will emerge from that body’s Agriculture Committee, of which he’s a member.

Benishek said he’s also advocating for reform to the food stamp program and better federal management of timber resources in Michigan in his work on the farm bill.

“I think we’ve done a good job for Michigan farmers,” Benishek said. “I’m happy to be on the committee. I’m the only guy from Michigan who’s on it.”

The Senate version of the bill was voted out of committee Tuesday, and is poised for a vote.

But the bill faces hurdles in the Republican-controlled House, which is seeking larger cuts in spending than the $23 billion offered in the Senate version, said Casey, a Scranton Democrat.

Most of those trims will likely come in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, which accounts for nearly 80 percent of the bill’s costs.

The Senate bill offers protections from erratic dips in milk prices and feed cost spikes to the state’s dairy farmers, Casey said Wednesday.

“That combination cost dairy farmers some $20 billion in net worth from 2007 to 2009,” he said.

The Senate bill also expands crop insurance for fruit and vegetable growers, he said.

The bill drew qualified praise from Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The bill, which was approved in committee by a 15-5 vote, isn’t perfect, he said, but it contains provisions that will help farm and ranch families.

“We are especially pleased that this bill places a high priority on crop insurance as a risk management tool and that it also offers a measure of flexibility through safety net options beyond crop insurance.”

The 2008 Farm Bill expired Sept. 30, when Congress failed to agree on the $280 billion measure that guides most federal farm and food policies.

In January, lawmakers extended the bill until Sept. 30.

The bill is critical to Pennsylvania’s economy, which nets about $46 billion from agriculture and agriculture-related businesses.

“We know that the challenges that our farmers and farm families face with risks and high costs and, unfortunately, unpredictable weather,” Casey said. “We need to ensure that these farmer have tools to manage those risks.”

The Senate bill calls for roughly $2.4 billion a year in cuts, while a House version to be considered today would save $4 billion of almost $100 billion annually.

Most of the savings in the House and Senate bills comes from eliminating the direct payments to farmers, which are frequently criticized because they aren’t tied to production or crop prices.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Tree farmers secured the industry-funded promotion program through one of many amendments to the farm bill that the House Agriculture Committee approved late Wednesday night. Many of these farmers had been stunned when the administration quickly withdrew a similar effort in late 2011 after Fox News and conservative commentators lampooned it as a “Christmas tree tax.”

“I still find the whole thing hard to believe,” said Betty Malone, an Oregon tree farmer who is a former president of Christmas Tree Promotion Now.

The promotion program would raise about $2 million annually for advertising, similar to the much larger industry-funded programs for beef and milk, among others. After three years, the Christmas tree industry would conduct a referendum on whether to continue the fee of 15 cents per tree.

“As demographics and buying habits have changed, we have watched the market for real trees shrink drastically, requiring us to spend much more time and money on promotion,” Don Cameron, a past president of the California Christmas Tree Association, said previously.

In the farm bill, the revived Christmas tree-promotion measure, inserted by Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., plays only a very modest part.

Approved by the House of Representatives panel shortly before midnight Wednesday, after more than nine hours of debate, the farm bill would change crop subsidies, food stamps, dairy policy and more. Over 10 years, the bill has an estimated price tag of $940 billion.

The measure, notably, eliminates the direct payments that currently provide about $5 billion a year to growers of commodities, including cotton, rice, wheat and corn. The bill replaces direct payments, in part, with a new, partially subsidized crop insurance program.

The direct payments are particularly abundant in states such as Kansas, where growers received $300 million in 2011, and Texas, where they received $371 million, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonpartisan health research and advocacy organization. The payments are less dominant, but still add up, in agriculturally diverse states such as California, where growers received $123 million. Other states, such as Florida, receive hardly any direct payments at all.

Continuing a policy initiated in the 2008 farm bill, the House measure offers funding for fruit and vegetable growers, including $375 million over five years for a continued Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. Last year, for instance, the program funded efforts that ranged from almond and pistachio research in California to the development of new blueberry products in Florida and a public relations campaign for Idaho wine.

The bill includes $275 million over five years for a continued Specialty Crop Research Initiative, which last year funded efforts such as citrus research at the University of Florida and Christmas tree research at North Carolina State University.

“There is too much good in this bill to let it die before it is heard on the House floor,” said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif.

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

Nutrition programs such as food stamps, formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, account for an even bigger part of the bill. They would take a hit, with an estimated $20.5 billion in savings from measures such as tightening eligibility requirements. The bill includes a measure authored by freshman Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., that would require the use of electronic databases to determine whether someone is eligible for the nutrition benefits.

“The success of the food stamp program should be measured by how many Americans become self-sufficient, not how many are added to the rolls,” LaMalfa declared.

Over the opposition of groups such as the International Dairy Foods Association and companies such as California’s big Hilmar Cheese Co., the committee kept a controversial new dairy supply management plan. This fight almost certainly will return later, on the House floor.

As often happens, the bill reflects some regional tensions. Committee members added an amendment authored by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that blocks the states from passing their own laws governing the production of agricultural products. This could, for instance, block the stricter cage standards California voters adopted to protect egg-laying hens. A late-night effort by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., to turn back the King amendment failed by a wide margin.

The full Senate is expected to start debating its version of the farm bill next week. House members hope they can get their bill to the floor in June, though leadership conflicts and a divided Republican caucus interfered the last time they tried.

___

(c)2013 McClatchy Washington Bureau

Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau at www.mcclatchydc.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services