The University of Georgia’s National Center for Peanut Competitiveness is used, Redding says, to “run the numbers” of any farm legislation affecting peanuts “to see how it would work, based on 22 representative peanut farms from New Mexico all the way around to Virginia — a snapshot of farms in the peanut belt, some small, some medium, some large.

“In the last year, they’ve evaluated 25 different legislative proposals, with up to 40 different analyses for each of the 22 representative peanut farms. All but one of the proposals has been for revenue programs.

“Every time a member of Congress comes up with a new proposal, we check it out and see how it would work for peanuts. Every time a trade association comes out with a new program —whether it’s  southern, Midwest, or wherever, whether it’s corn, soybeans, whatever — we have the center analyze it to see how it would work for those 22 farms.”

With the Senate’s proposed Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) program, Redding says, 21 of the 22 representative peanut farms would “have a 100 percent reduction in farm payments for any type of program participation. That’s a bad sign. The one farm that would have received some compensation over a projected five-year farm bill, would’ve had a 50 percent reduction.

“So, when people look at charts and talk about corn growers taking a 30 percent hit with the Senate bill and that being their fair share in reducing program costs, just remember that 21 of 22 peanut farms would have a 100 percent reduction.

“I think that was a pretty good signal that ARC won’t work for us.”

Although ARC ended up in the Senate bill, Redding says four southern members voted against it, including three from the peanut belt: Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and John Boozman of Arkansas.

In a committee vote, they were joined by Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

“This four–man team is who we worked with and strategized with,” Redding says, and “that expanded to 30-odd members before it was over. The overwhelming majority voted with us, based on what the new program would do to peanuts and rice.

“Your Mississippi senators, Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, became part of that large group and voted with us on the floor, as did both Arkansas and Louisiana senators. There were 250 amendments filed with the bill, which was indicative of the problems that existed with the legislation and the lack of regional or geographical equity. That was pared down to 73 amendments.

“Our efforts were focused on making the bill better, not killing it or derailing it. We knew we needed to get to conferencer; we also knew we had ore support in the House Ag Committee leadership than on the Senate Ag Committee.

“Some of the final 73 amendments stuck, and some were not good, among them the amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa that would set a hard cap of  $75,000 on marketing loan gains.”

What happens if no bill passes after July 11, when the House Ag Committee does markup?

“If the House doesn’t get a bill on the floor, or doesn’t get a bill off the floor, there are options,” Redding says. “An extension of the current farm bill, for one or two years, is a possibility.

“Once we have the House Ag Committee bill, we hope it will be a bill in line with what peanut organizations in the South have been proposing — a producer choice-type bill, hopefully with an increased target price that keeps our marketing loan, with a separate payment limit, storage and handling peanut incentive, and a revenue-type program.”

Over the years, the “peanut industry has been resilient, adjusting to new politics and farm policies,” Redding says. “We’ve gone from the era of government quotas, to the loss of import restrictions, to open production, to issues with the Chinese over peanut paste being transshipped through Canada. We cured the Chinese problem in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but we still have issues.”

Among them, he says, is the USDA’s procedure for setting peanut prices.

“The language in the 2002 bill, mirrored in the 2008 farm bill, was that the USDA set their Tuesday posted price to include what peanuts were selling for in the world marketplace.

“Data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service is used for these calculations, and that hasn’t worked well for us. In the early years, particularly in the period of the 2002 farm bill, we didn’t feel a lot of the price information coming out of the USDA was very accurate.

“We tried to change that in the 2008 farm bill, so the USDA would look at the Rotterdam price, which we felt a more accurate reflection of what was going on in the world marketplace. But it didn’t happen.

 “We’ve worked really hard to get it straightened out, but haven’t been successful. The peanut shellers, plus some growers with standing, sued the USDA over this, but they lost in federal court, so we’re kind of stuck with the program.”