The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) were among nearly 100 industry trade groups who recently submitted a letter to the Senate urging support of a resolution that would revoke the U.S. EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act.

The Senate is slated in the near term to take up consideration of S.J. Res. 26, a resolution introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would nullify EPA’s finding in December 2009 that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health and therefore could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Reps. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn,) have introduced their own disapproval resolution (H.J. Res. 66) in the House.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson late last year announced a timetable for EPA to start regulating industrial GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, saying EPA will target large facilities beginning in 2011, but will wait until 2016 to require smaller plants to comply. She also predicted the agency will likely raise its proposed threshold of 25,000 tons per year in GHG emissions to determine which facilities must obtain EPA permits.

In their letter to Congress, the industry groups said S.J. Res. 26 addresses “several fundamental problems” with allowing EPA to pursue its regulatory course, including charges that EPA is ignoring “explicit statutory language defining what is a major source” of GHG emissions. They also said that even though smaller business would be exempt from permitting for GHG emissions until 2016, “we are greatly concerned that small businesses, small farms, hospitals, and small manufacturers will be brought under a regulatory regime that will be expensive, onerous, and crippling to our economy – while providing little to no environmental benefit.” The industry groups further charged that allowing EPA to move forward with the rule would establish a “breathtaking legal precedent” for expanding EPA’s regulatory authority.

“TFI believes that allowing EPA to regulate GHGs would set a negative precedent for policy making, directly allowing the Agency to redefine statutory language in order to expand its regulatory authority,” said TFI President Ford B. West. “The nation will continue to debate policy decisions regarding climate change and we believe that these discussions should take place in the U.S. Congress. We are pleased to see that S.J. Res. 26 is already receiving so much bipartisan support and strongly urge all Senators to vote in favor of the resolution.”

The Senate and House disapproval resolutions have been greeted with scorn by environmental groups. “These ‘Dirty Air Acts’ are little more than political attempts to gut the most important tool we currently have to reduce these harmful air emissions and protect public health,” said the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “For decades, the Clean Air Act has kept millions of tons of pollutants out of our air and water, and this attack would give the nation’s largest polluters like coal and oil companies a free pass to continue releasing global warming emissions that endanger public health and our rapidly warming environment.”

Industry officials are dismissing as “fatally flawed” the conclusion of University of Illinois (UI) researchers that synthetic nitrogen fertilizer can destroy the soil. These conclusions were reached some time ago and recently updated from soil analysis from the Morrow Plots, an experimental corn field established on the UI campus in 1876 for agricultural research.

One of the researchers, Saeed Khan, professor of natural resources and environmental sciences, stated that better soil quality was found in the plots that were not fertilized. Khan said that microorganisms under the soil are using the fertilizer, not the crops themselves. “The microbes take in the ammonia and get bigger and then use up the organic matter that makes soil fertile,” Khan reported. “When you destroy the soil, no fertilizer can help.”

But that’s not the way The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), along with others in the industry, view it. Bill Herz, vice president of scientific programs for TFI, responded, “They’re misinterpreting their data and reaching the wrong conclusions. They can’t know what they’re claiming to know in this study. I’ve talked to other professors in this field and they say the study is fatally flawed.”

Dr. Terry Roberts, president of IPNI, agreed. “Such conclusions are not supported by numerous other studies from around the world, and many scientists do not feel the data from the Morrow Plots support that conclusion, either.” Both Herz and Roberts did support the Illinois researchers’ contention that inputs and management of nitrogen fertilizers must match crop requirements. “That is why the fertilizer industry is advocating 4R nutrient stewardship – applying the right source of nutrient at the right rate, time, and place – as a means to ensure we are not over-fertilizing and contributing to pollution,” Roberts asserted.

“The industry is committed to a science-based approach for efficient and effective fertilizer management, which when done properly will improve the quality of our soils and increase crop yields.” Herz added, “When you use a system of best management practices and pair it with the appropriate conservation measures, you get the total benefit of fertilizer without the negative impact.” Jean Payne, president of the Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Assn., offered, “A look at our productivity with Illinois grains indicates that we are managing ag inputs, including nitrogen, responsibly and with great attention paid to maintaining soil fertility.”

Kahn, along with Richard Mulvaney, also professor of natural resources and environmental sciences, said the short-term solution is to improve fertilizing practices, urging farmers to start using fertilizer according to specific crops’ needs. “Don’t put it on where you don’t need it,” Mulvaney advised.

Viterra reported that fertilizer volumes were up 15 percent during the first quarter ending Jan. 31, 2010, reflecting solid demand in North America in November, when farmers were able to undertake some post-harvest activity. Actual volumes moved were 310,000 mt, up from the year-ago 269,000 mt. The recent figure includes data from Viterra’s newly-acquired Australian assets.

“For our North American operations, our Agri-products business has seen solid demand for fertilizer products and a 12 percent increase in producer pre-payments in the first quarter, a positive signal that spring demand for crop inputs is recovering,” said Mayo Schmidt, Viterra president and CEO. “The North American businesses are operating as expected, and we believe that 2010 will be a year of recovery for the Australian business. Viterra’s focus is on maximizing our integration efforts and solidifying our enhanced position in the international agricultural marketplace.”

Due to lower prices, actual fertilizer sales during the first quarter were down, at C$120.6 million from the year-ago $169.7 million. Overall, sales from Viterra’s Agri-products segment were $215.3 million, up $25.4 million from last year’s $189.9 million. Gross profit from the unit was $32.6 million, up from a year-ago loss of $4.9 million. Gross margins, excluding Viterra’s financial products contribution, were $21.6 million, up from a year-ago loss of $8.6 million. This is the first quarter Viterra financial products were officially included in the Agri-product results. Most of the credit to farmers is for agri-product purchases.

Agri-product EBITDA was a loss of $11.9 million, which was an improvement over the year-ago loss of $41.1 million.

Customers’ retail pre-payments in North America totaled $272 million at the end of January 2010, compared to the year-ago $242 million. Pre-payments were primarily for fertilizer products, while last year’s pre-pay was for a variety of crop input products.

First-quarter crop protection sales were up, at $4.1 million from last year’s $3 million. Seed sales were off, at $578,000 from $1.93 million. According to Viterra, year-ago seed results were higher due to forage seed shortages in the U.S. Equipment and other sales were up, at $16.5 million from $11.5 million. Growers increased their purchases of grain storage bins, whereas last year’s sales were primarily for smooth-walled fertilizer bins.

Company-wide, Viterra reported net earnings of $10.7 million ($.03 per share) on sales of $1.78 billion, compared to a year-ago loss of $33 million ($.14 per share) and $1.38 billion, respectively.