Skip to main content
Michigan Farm Bureau Family of Companies

Search Results

Search

Search Results

Now displaying1901–1910 of 3134 results

Maple Sugar Production #24

24
Disabled

Maple sugar production is among the oldest forms of agriculture in Michigan, where our vast maple resources are underutilized and have much potential for expansion. Michigan Farm Bureau supports growing Michigan’s maple sugar industry and the promotion and marketing of pure, Michigan-made maple syrup, maple sugar and associated products.

We support:

  • Michigan State University continuing research of maple sugar production and utilization.
  • Changes to Environmental Protection Agency regulations to allow the use of isopropyl alcohol in cleaning sap lines. 
Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

Labeling #23

23
Disabled

We support consumer friendly, science-based labeling of agricultural products which provides consumers with useful information concerning the ingredients and nutritional value of food sold in the United States. We oppose false, misleading or deceptive marketing, promotion and/or labeling claims. Agricultural products that are made using government approved technologies should not be required to display individual inputs or specific technologies on the product label.

Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development #27

27
Enabled

We recognize the evolving role of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) in the state’s agriculture and food system and supporting rural development.

We support the continued individual existence of MDARD within state government. We challenge MDARD to continue to be proactive, focus on core programs and eliminate redundancies where possible. Program areas of a stronger, more encompassing MDARD might include, but would not be limited to consumer protection, environmental protection, resource-based economic development programs, aquaculture, privately-owned Cervidae, commercial fishing and forestry programs.

We have concerns with the lack of expertise and understanding of farming in other state departments. Therefore, we request MDARD be the primary representative of government on our farms. We oppose multiple inspections by a variety of jurisdictions.

We encourage MDARD to follow these recommendations when prioritizing their budget. Regulatory or enforcement program funding should be taken from the general fund with a limited portion from industry fees. We support strategic investments in MDARD with the following funding priorities:

  • Food safety
  • Regulatory program oversight
  • Animal and plant disease protection and agriculture security
  • Producer protection
  • Agricultural product integrity
  • Market access inspections
  • Statistics and information
  • Industry and trade advocacy

We support:

  • Changes to the Bodies of Dead Animals (BODA) Act that make the MDARD director or their designee the lead authority in mass carcass disposal and BODA. 
  • Modification of the BODA Act, with input from farmers and dead stock haulers, to allow legal commercial or cooperative mortality management.
  • Modifying the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to clarify that animal mortality disposal is not considered in the definition of production site waste. 
  • Making considerations for inclement weather impacts on animal mortality management and disposal timeframes.
  • The creation of a study group initiated by MDARD, led by Michigan State University (MSU), and which includes representation from agriculture and livestock commodity groups to determine and recommend necessary updates to the BODA Act.
  • Protecting animal health through testing, quarantine and depopulation, if necessary.
  • State funding of all required testing.
  • Controlling disease through plant inspection, testing and quarantine.
  • State on-farm inspectors protecting farmers from excessive regulations being advanced by federal inspectors.
  • The abandoned and neglected orchards program and amendments to include other perennial crops. With the involvement of stakeholders and other departments, we support developing rules to strengthen program enforcement provisions, including appropriate funding.
  • Reviews and specific expirations for quarantines or movement restrictions.
  • Indemnification for farm income loss when agricultural commodities or products are impounded, farms are quarantined, or movement or sales are restricted in the public interest. MDARD should consider at least one local appraisal of fair market value in determining indemnification.
  • In the case of widespread animal disease outbreaks, indemnification should reflect prices that were current prior to the outbreak.
  • Investigating the feasibility of a livestock insurance fund to complement existing state or federal indemnification programs. The feasibility study should consider loss of livestock and production due to disease outbreak, depredation, funding options, species participation and producer control of the fund.
  • A mechanism for loans or direct compensation for income loss due to depopulation, quarantine or condemnation of agricultural products.
  • Enforcement of food safety laws, animal identification requirements, and inspection programs, focused on working with producers to resolve problems in a timely fashion before issuing fines and penalties.
  • An increased use of technology and sampling and a decreased use of inspections to ensure a safe food supply.
  • Photographic evidence taken as part of the inspection process being exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
  • Certifying the accuracy of weights and measures, including moisture testing equipment.
  • Reviewing the point system for Pesticide Applicators Certification to increase efficiency.
  • MDARD’s utilization of state certified third-party privatized contracting and technology for inspections, review and oversight for some programs, including virtual online courses.
  • MDARD working with the MSU Pesticide Safety Education program to ensure that training materials for pesticide applicators include appropriate information on proper use, risk, volatility, and application of pesticides and chemicals, especially when near sensitive crops.
  • Online and in-person testing for pesticide applicator licensing. 
  • Additional pesticide applicator training for Dicamba based products, only when use or formulation has changed.
  • MDARD meeting with industry representatives prior to regulatory enforcement rule changes.
  • Forming an industry committee to advise the MDARD director regarding the inclusion of injurious plants on the nuisance plant list. Consideration should be given for a phase-in for any commercial plant species added to the nuisance plant list.
  • Aggressive promotion and labeling of Michigan-grown products and commend the efforts of MDARD for its leadership in highlighting the importance of the agricultural industry to the state.
  • Any block grant funds received under the Federal Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act be distributed to Michigan specialty crop commodity sectors on a pro-rated basis with input from a stakeholder group comprised of representatives from the specialty crop industries. All specialty crop sectors, including the nursery and greenhouse sector, should have the opportunity to receive an equitable portion of block grant funds.
  • An economic development and agricultural innovation fund that is overseen by industry officials designed to support innovations, economic growth and direct research for all segments of Michigan agriculture.
  • Further development of meat processing and marketing opportunities through cooperation between the industry, MDARD, MSU and the Michigan Meat Association.
  • Returning to a USDA-equivalent state meat inspection for local custom processors as soon as possible to support value-added opportunities. We will support adequate funding for this program.
  • Michigan Farm Bureau working with MDARD to investigate having state inspectors service small scale or portable slaughter facilities in sparsely populated rural areas.
  • MDARD having sole authority to license and regulate all terrestrial and aquatic plants for sale or commercial use.
  • MDARD working more closely with the aquaculture industry to clarify and streamline the process for aquaculture operations to harvest and sell directly to the consumer.
  • MDARD reevaluating current emergency preparedness procedures to enable more timely responses and communication towards the Michigan agricultural industry. Consideration could be given to the creation of a directory of individuals including veterinarians familiar with industry practices to assist with emergency situations (disease outbreaks, data breaches, etc.).
Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

TB – Mycobacterium Bovis Tuberculosis #35

35
Disabled

We urge the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to be more assertive in their efforts to eradicate Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) and move Michigan to TB-free status. We also urge the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to receive and provide feedback and implement recommendations in a timelier manner. We strongly encourage producer and hunter cooperation in all segments of our eradication efforts and support the departments and industry utilizing the latest technological advancements.

MDARD should draft an aggressive action plan with benchmarks and dates to achieve the goal of statewide TB-free status. This plan should involve industry stakeholders and request adequate funding for implementation. The legislature must provide oversight for accountability.

We oppose MDARD creating, implementing, or enforcing rules or regulations on cattle producers that would be more stringent than USDA’s published rules regarding bovine TB. 

To expedite TB eradication, we support:

  • A bounty and/or income tax credit for deer taken in any Michigan county that is not TB-free and contiguous counties.
  • Funding the entire TB program from MDNR’s budget, and tying that budget to deer-herd reduction and TB prevalence.
  • A late hunt in February or March, not January.
  • MDARD, USDA, MDNR and other state and federal agencies involving producers from all affected areas of the state in decision-making processes regarding bovine TB eradication.
  • Producer implementation of a Wildlife Risk Mitigation Plan (WRMP).
  • State and federal funding for hiring a third-party designated agriculturalist to assist with WRMP development, implementation, and inspection. 
  • A complete and approved WRMP on file should empower producers with the authority to manage nuisance/destructive species on their land, including access to disease-control permits to reduce deer and elk interaction with cattle or livestock feed to minimize disease transmission. Additionally, farmers should be able to shoot any deer 24/7 within a designated farmyard circle.
  • In counties deemed high-risk or positive for TB, and all contiguous counties, white-tailed deer harvest should be allowed year-round by any legal hunter without requiring a permit.
  • Establishing and implementing a science-based zoning approach and testing process to address disease risk (e.g., a 10-mile radius zone around new TB-positive livestock herds).
  • Eradication of white-tailed deer within a 10-mile radius high-risk zone established after TB-positive deer or cattle are found.
  • Changes to the national TB-testing requirements that eliminate the need for an individual test for animals moving from a lower disease prevalence zone to a higher disease prevalence zone.
  • Tying indemnity payments to the development and implementation of a WRMP on each farm in the modified accredited TB zone.
  • State and/or federal funding for all required identification and testing.
  • Producer compensation for all livestock injured or ordered removed during mandatory testing.
  • The free use of state-owned equipment for producers required to perform state-mandated TB testing.
  • Continued cooperation between MDARD and USDA to return Michigan to TB-free status by advancing the status in areas where TB has not been found, or those proven to be disease-free through science-based testing.
  • State and federal funding for comprehensive and concerted research to further understand the transmission, persistence, detection, eradication, and vaccinations necessary to prevent disease transmission.
  • Science-based and species-specific testing protocols.
  • Developing an exit strategy for the entire state to upgrade the Modified Accredited Zone (MAZ) to TB-free status.
  • Research into a buyout program for cattle producers in Deer Management Unit 487.
  • MDARD pursuing aggressive action with surrounding states to open their borders to Michigan cattle.
  • Dramatic reduction of the deer herd in any TB-infected Michigan county and contiguous counties. Action should include agency culling, spring hunt, unlimited fall hunting, and no-cost licenses.
  • State support for deer-exclusion fencing around entire contiguous cattle farms and deeming such barriers acceptable options for farmers requesting a WRMP.

When herds are quarantined for disease control, we strongly urge MDARD/USDA to remove and test suspect animals as quickly as possible. Upon confirmation of infection, we support:

  • Depopulation, or test-and-remove, within 60 days of when the disease was confirmed, and indemnity payments issued within 60 days after an indemnification agreement has been accepted by all parties.
  • If a farm is depopulated because of bovine TB, and was operating under a WRMP with no intention of repopulation, indemnity should not be contingent on modifications to the plan.
  • Requiring state and federal agencies to harvest and test potential carrier animals on and around TB-positive farms, including on state-owned land.
  • Transparency from USDA Wildlife Services, including accounting and reporting of its monthly deer harvest.

In zones where TB is found, we support aggressive use of all wildlife management tools to control all animal disease transmission. Limits and bans on baiting and feeding may sometimes be justified and practical, but we do not support a statewide ban. 

Continued state and federal funding is critical to complete eradication of the disease in free-ranging wildlife and livestock populations.

To ensure Michigan TB eradication efforts are not compromised, we encourage the MDARD director to require reciprocal requirements for the importation of breeding, show, and sport cattle.

We request state and/or federal funds be made available to producers for implementing WRMPs involving large expenditures. In the MAZ, we support the test-and-remove option for herd owners who have implemented a WRMP. We support whole-herd depopulation as the most effective method of disease eradication. We request USDA count herds positive only for the months in which they contain positive animals.

The current memorandum of understanding (MOU) between USDA, MDARD, and MDNR establishes ambitious quotas for collecting deer heads in the M counties, and in surrounding TB surveillance counties. To achieve these goals, we support:

  • A more aggressive approach by MDNR to meeting deer-head collection requirements.
  • Identification, transportation and testing in the MOU.
  • A plan for coordinated effort between MDNR, processors, Michigan State University Veterinary Diagnostic Lab, Farm Bureau, and the hunting community in deer head collection by September 1 of each year.
  • Weekly updates and reporting of completed deer-head testing beginning September 1 of each year.
  • Payment for each deer head turned in until the requirements of the MOU are met, paid by the MDNR.
  • Accountability from state and federal agencies for not meeting MOU requirements.
  • Reduction and possible elimination of cattle testing in buffer counties at the end of the current MOU.
  • Compensation from the MDNR budget to offset farm and MDARD testing expenses rooted in failed agency MOU compliance. 
  • Requiring heads from all deer taken on private and public lands in that region to be submitted for testing.

In order to meet testing requirements from USDA, MDARD, and MDNR, all deer heads taken from the seven counties around the MAZ for crop damage permits, as well as those taken on private and state lands, should be picked up by MDNR and submitted for TB testing. MDNR should also be required to pick up all vehicle-killed deer in that area and submit those heads for TB testing.

To maintain market access for cattle producers in a known TB positive region, we support the movement of cattle out of that region through normal channels as long as testing and movement requirements are met.

Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

Right to Farm #32

32
Disabled

We believe Michigan's Right to Farm Act is a model for the country, allowing all sectors of commercial agriculture to utilize existing and new technologies through generally accepted management practices on a voluntary basis while enhancing the environment.

The integrity of Michigan’s Right to Farm Act and science-based Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) should not be weakened or jeopardized by including practices not integral or directly related to farming.

We recognize the fundamental differences between farming operations in terms of size, soil types, and location. We urge all producers to be aware of applicable GAAMPs and encourage them to employ the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) and provisions of the farm bill as management tools in the production of agricultural products and possible expansion of their operations.

We support:

  • Developing realistic land-use plans that allow agriculture to evolve, incorporate technology and produce commodities based on market demands.
  • Research on improving manure storage and processing, building design, vegetative barriers and types of livestock feed that could mitigate nuisance odors.
  • Developing an odor estimation model tailored to Michigan's climatic conditions.
  • Changing the Agricultural Disclosure Statement (ADS) to include:
  • Seller notification to the potential buyer.
  • A separate document at the time of closing.
  • Updating the ADS to include additional agricultural practices.
  • The Michigan Right to Farm Act protecting users of existing and new technology, including energy production for on-farm use.

We oppose:

  • Agricultural operations being restricted to operating only under their historical use.
  • Expanding livestock farms being deemed nuisances as a result of new non-farm home construction within the approved setback distance after Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) site approval but prior to expansion’s completion.
  • Right to Farm protection extending to cannabis growing facilities until growing the plant becomes legal at the federal level.
  • Ballot initiatives seeking to control generally accepted livestock production and management practices.
  • The inclusion of commercial wind turbine or solar facilities in the definition of a farm.

Cooperation

We will work with MDARD and Michigan State University to inform farmers, local units of government, and other interested individuals of the positive benefits of the Right to Farm Act and GAAMPs. We encourage all farmers to follow the recommendations to demonstrate positive concerns for our neighbors and the environment. We encourage greater farmer participation on township boards and planning commissions to review existing ordinances, help educate about Right to Farm and GAAMPs, and assist in creating ordinances consistent with the Right to Farm Act. We encourage the State of Michigan and local units of government to structure programs, ordinances, and community development plans in a manner consistent with the Right to Farm Act.

We urge Michigan Farm Bureau to study and recommend amendments to the Right to Farm Act to provide additional protection for agricultural producers enrolled in PA 116 or a permanent farmland preservation program.

GAAMPs

GAAMPs should be viewed as guidelines rather than statutory law, as they are reviewed and updated annually to reflect current agricultural practices. Consideration should first be given to amending existing GAAMPs to address areas of concern, followed by investigation into creating new GAAMPs as necessary.

The GAAMP for Site Selection and Odor Control for New and Expanding Livestock Facilities has specific setbacks and scientific parameters.

We support:

  • Action by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development to remove language specific to local zoning from the siting and farm market GAAMPs.
  • Creating a GAAMP for ag labor housing.
  • Creating a greenhouse GAAMP that provides nuisance protection for permanent and temporary greenhouse structures used for commercial or production agricultural purposes (except cannabis), regardless of population, zoning, or tax classification. 
  • Continued use of GAAMPs to define acceptable farm management practices in Michigan.
  • A cooperative effort between MDARD, MFB, and other stakeholders to define “commercial production of farm products” within the GAAMPs.

We oppose:

  • Using non-farm residences to define setbacks for manure structures and stacking.
  • We are concerned about the exemption of GAAMP applicability to municipalities with a population of 100,000 or more.
  • We urge greater producer participation on all GAAMP committees.

Complaint Process

The electronic complaint process should include a complete description of the law, including the process and implications for verified and unverified complaints. Following the official Right to Farm visit, follow-up correspondence and appropriate action shall be communicated promptly to the farm owner and the complainant, including MDARD’s ability to enforce action against the farm and/or the complainant.

We urge MDARD to notify all complainants of the law allowing MDARD to levy a penalty for unverified complaints. We strongly urge MDARD to recoup the costs of investigating unverified complaints, as provided for in the Right to Farm Act. We do not support anonymous Right to Farm complaints.          

Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

Plant Pests and Diseases #31

31
Disabled

Plant pests and diseases create quarantine situations that restrict intra and interstate marketing opportunities.

We support research to do the following:

  • Determine the impacts of the Spotted Lanternfly.
  • Determine the impacts of Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD) by supporting and coordinating with the SWD initiative through Michigan State University and the Michigan Cherry Committee.
  • Develop new chemical and biological controls for disease detection, control, and eradication.
  • Enhance the use of natural plant pest predator species or bio-controls after reviewing potential environmental consequences.
  • Address viable control methods for Spotted lanternfly, Phytophthora capsici, downy mildew, overall spruce decline, Armillaria root fungus, and other plant pests or diseases.
  • Address replant issues in the asparagus industry.

Additionally, we support:

  • Industry-led efforts to control and prevent crop losses due to plant pests and diseases.
  • Aggressively advocating for pesticide manufacturers to develop new chemistries for existing and emerging pest threats.
  • Development of regulatory protocol, inspection procedures and pest control methods to allow shipment of quarantined commodities.
  • Indemnification for losses of farm income when agricultural commodities or products are impounded, farms are quarantined, or sales are restricted in the public interest.
  • Holding suppliers responsible for compensation of all losses due to imported plants with diseases.
  • Zero interest/fixed loan or direct and/or indirect compensation to producers for sudden market loss due to invasive species, including SWD, hemlock woolly adelgid and others.
  • Vomitoxin testing in corn field trials. We encourage ethanol plant operators to spot-check for vomitoxin in corn entering the plant and dried distillers grains leaving the plant.
  • Development of more consistent Vomitoxin testing equipment.
  • The creation of a grain inspectors license program administered by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD).
  • Requiring a grain inspectors license for any person administering a grain quality test, on behalf of a licensed grain dealer, with the intent of applying a discount/rejection based on the test result. 
  • An industry-driven, comprehensive rewrite of Michigan’s Plant Pest Protection Act.
  • Educational efforts to help producers and consumers understand their importance in preventing the spread of plant pests and diseases.
  • A review and update of the invasive species quarantine rules in Michigan. We urge MDARD to develop a permitting system allowing agricultural products to be shipped directly for in-state processing throughout the year during a quarantine period.
  • Quicker review and approval of species by the councils maintaining the lists for noxious terrestrial weeds and invasive species as defined by PA 451 of 1994.
  • Encouraging conservation districts to take measures to keep noxious weeds controlled.

We oppose banning neonicotinoid-based pest control products when there is a lack of research or conclusive scientific evidence linking them to declining bee and other pollinator populations.  

Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

Nursery, Floriculture, Sod and Greenhouse Industry #29

29
Disabled

Ornamental horticulture, nursery, landscape, floriculture, sod, Christmas trees, and greenhouse productions are unique forms of agriculture and must be recognized as such by local, state and national regulatory bodies.

The nursery, greenhouse, sod, and Christmas tree industries have experienced several inequitable trade practices with Canada, including phytosanitary inspection standards and procedures. 

We request Michigan Farm Bureau work with allied industry organizations and the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) to identify areas of concern and formulate appropriate solutions.

We urge MFB to continue cooperating with plant industry groups regarding revisions to both PA 189 of 1931 and PA 72 of 1945 including, but not limited to, elimination of intrastate inspections of nursery stock, and to no longer recognize mums as a hardy perennial. This change will allow the reallocation of resources to provide improved inspections of interstate and international shipments, and voluntary in-state inspections as requested by the industry.

Due to the extensive updates to the Worker Protection Standards’ policies and procedures, we encourage MFB and other industry groups, including Michigan State University Extension, MDARD, Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association, and Michigan Greenhouse Growers Council to collaborate and formulate ideas to create new digital training materials.

We support:

  • Funding for researchers, research infrastructure, and grant funding through USDA’s Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Specialty Crop Block Grants to support the nursery and greenhouse industry. 
  • Research on mechanization, development of new pesticides, pesticide resistance, and advanced technologies to propagate and grow plants.
  • Greenhouse and nursery crop insurance programs and the indemnification of plants after a disease or pest outbreak. We further support action to develop and complete these programs.

We oppose:

  • Legislation regulating the use of neonicotinoids, organophosphates, pyrethroids, methocarbamates, or organochlorines by state agencies, unless research or conclusive scientific evidence prove that these compounds pose adverse effects on the environment when used according to label.
  • Legislating science from the bench of a court/jury without sound scientific proof, well-documented scientific studies from respected scientists, scholars, government bodies, and universities regarding the safe use of necessary tools such as chlorpyrifos and glyphosate without extensive research and study. 
Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

Michigan Meat Processing Industry #28

28
Disabled

The livestock industry and meat processing are integral to Michigan’s agricultural economy. Local meat processing facilities provide food availability and economic opportunity. Excessive regulation and limitations on retail packaging/sales greatly reduce public access to locally produced meat. 

To help address supply chain challenges, burdensome regulations and limited market access, we support:

  • Systematic evaluation of Michigan's meat packing industry, retail sales, custom exempt facilities, market access, regulation and opportunities for expansion.
  • Michigan State University (MSU), community colleges, career technical schools and the livestock industry coordinating to develop and establish an ag tech-type livestock harvest and meat processing certification program.
  • More federally inspected meat processing facilities in Michigan.
  • Investment in and promotion of mobile agricultural processing labs in Michigan.
  • Creating a Michigan-based meat inspection and licensing system for in-state processing and retail sale of meat.
  • A partnership between the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) and USDA to train and authorize state level employees to conduct USDA inspection services of small, independent processing facilities.
  • Increased utilization of the meats laboratory and professional expertise at MSU to support the meat industry, educate students and train meat industry professionals.
  • Limiting regulations on small and medium-sized meat processors while protecting and enhancing food safety.
  • State and federal funding to increase the number of new — and enhance current — small and medium sized meat processing facilities and on farm/exempt operations. 
  • State and federal funding and low interest loans to help small and medium-sized meat processing facilities meet or comply with regulatory requirements. 
  • Government funding to offset the regulatory burdens placed upon small and medium- sized meat processors.
  • The further establishment of MDARD approved meat processing facilities that allow for the donation to food banks and pantries.
Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

Urban Farming #36

36
Disabled

Developing management practices unique to new and expanding urban agriculture, including livestock care standards, crops and cropping standards, and environmental standards, is important to increasing understanding of and support for agriculture in Michigan. For food safety reasons, all rules, regulations, and licenses applicable to commercial agriculture should be applicable to urban agriculture.

We support:

  • Urban farming as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
  • Economic development practices to accept agricultural businesses as part of urban centers. 
  • Developing agreements that allow urban agricultural production, but also protect the rights of farm businesses with production sites within Michigan municipalities. 
  • Recommendations of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) Urban Livestock Workgroup. 
  • Michigan Farm Bureau’s continued collaboration with MDARD, Michigan State University Extension and other stakeholders to write a model local ordinance to promote protection of and guidelines for urban agriculture. 
  • Urban agriculture training and education programs and curricula. 
  • Assisting and educating farmers in urban areas in acquiring grants and financial assistance available through local, state and federal agencies. 

We oppose:

  • Compromising Right to Farm protections for commercial agricultural practices.
Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

Payment Protection and Security for Growers #30

30
Disabled

Michigan Farm Bureau supports the Farm Produce Insurance Authority (FPIA) which protects producers’ interests when selling their products. 

Farmers need maximum payment assurance for commodities delivered. Many parties suffer when a receiver — whether a closed-cooperative, regular cooperative, or commercial company — becomes insolvent or declares bankruptcy. The impact on farmers is significant because of the perishability and seasonality of many commodities.

We support:

  • PA 198 of 2013, updates to the Grain Dealers Act that provided assurance that growers receive a priority lien position and full payment for commodities delivered.
  • Farm Bureau working proactively with the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to expand the FPIA to include fruit and vegetable crops, and creating an appropriate funding mechanism.
  • Exploring all possible options, including amending the Uniform Commercial Code, to ensure a fully secured position payment for commodities delivered.
Idea

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.