National Cotton Council Disappointed With Omnibus Bill Cottonseed Policy Exclusion

May 03, 2017

National Cotton Council (NCC) Chairman Ronnie Lee said the NCC "is extremely disappointed that the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations bill does not include the cottonseed policy developed by the U.S. cotton industry in consultation with Congress."

Lee said the cottonseed policy is: 1) broadly supported by the entire U.S. cotton industry, as well as many other farm bill stakeholders; 2) budget neutral with the costs offset only by cotton-related provisions; 3) vetted and supported by a broad, bipartisan group in Congress; and 4) designed to help facilitate development of the 2018 farm bill.

The Bronwood, Ga., cotton producer says that, unfortunately, Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Stabenow (D-MI) chose to play politics at the expense of cotton producers and farm families that continue to struggle with negative economic returns and increasing financial pressures. While many in Congress urge the agriculture community to work collectively on policy issues, it is disheartening that some in Congress choose not to take that same approach in their efforts, instead pitting one commodity or industry against another.

"The Senators' desire to help dairy producers somehow became a pre-requisite for whether Congress could provide a policy to cotton producers to help respond to the ongoing financial and trade policy challenges," Lee said. "There was no rationale or justification for linking support between cotton and dairy producers. These actions not only have left cotton producers with no near-term options to help them deal with long-running economic issues, but have harmed the prospects for developing a new farm bill. Without the cottonseed policy in place, the result is that all farm bill stakeholders will be seeking support from an expected smaller overall budget available for the next farm bill."

The NCC would like to thank all those Members of Congress who supported the efforts to include the cottonseed policy, and in particular, Sens. Cochran (R-MS), Cornyn (R-TX), Boozman (R-AR), Perdue (R-GA), Roberts (R-KS), Strange (R-AL), and Reps. Conaway (R-TX), Peterson (D-MN), Aderholt (R-AL), Bishop (D-GA), McCarthy (R-CA), Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), and Lowey (D-NY).

The cottonseed policy was developed by all of the cotton industry's segments and production regions over the course of the past two years. A letter from 58 cotton organizations was recently sent to Appropriations Committee leaders outlining this policy and the immediate need for it. The letter is on the NCC's website at http://www.cotton.org/issues/2017/upload/17cseedapplet.pdf.

Click here to see more...

Video: How to fix a leaking pond.

Does the pond leak? Ummmm....possibly a tiny bit. Well, more than a bit...ok, the darn thing leaks like a sieve!

QUESTIONS ANSWERED: Damit is not plastic. Therefore, there are no microplastics. I wish I had not mentioned plastic, but that is a very common polymer and I mentioned it as an example of a polymer. A polymer is simply a chain of repeating molecules, or "monomers." Cellulose is a polymer of glucose molecules. Starches are also polymers of various molecules such as fructose, maltose, etc. We have many polymers inside our bodies. In other words, just knowing something is a polymer doesn't make it bad, toxic, harmful, etc. However, this also doesn't mean all polymers are safe.

The specific polymer used for Damit is a trade secret, however, it has been closely scrutinized by multiple health and safety authorities. This includes the governmental authorities of Australia, the USA, Europe, and Asia. Not only have they determined that is safe to use in earthen ponds, and not harmful to fish, but it is considered safe to use in human potable water systems in all of these areas. And of course, they know the exact makeup of the polymer when making this determination. I'm told that the same polymer is in use by many municipalities to keep potable water storage tanks leak free. I can't tell you exactly what the polymer is, because I don't know, but given the confidence with which the governmental authorities have authorized its use, I would bet it is made of a monomer that we are exposed to all the time, like fructose or something.

It also breaks down in a matter of years, and does not accumulate in the environment. The end products of breaking down are CO2, water, and base minerals like potassium. The SDS reports no need for concern with ingestion, inhalation, or contact. If in eyes, rinse with water.

End result, can I say for sure that it is 100% safe? No, I don't know exactly what it is. But given people who do know exactly what it is, and have scrutinized it, have approved it for use in human potable water systems, I'm pretty comfortable putting it in an earthen pond.