Monday April 8 Crop Progress + Ag News

NEBRASKA CROP PROGRESS AND CONDITION - APRIL 8TH 2013

For  the week  ending  of April  7,  2013,  above  normal  temperatures  across much of the state encouraged green up of winter wheat, but with soil moisture supplies short, pastures showed little  growth  as  producers  considered  how  to  deal  with  declining  forage  supplies,  according  to  USDA’s National  Agricultural  Statistics  Service,  Nebraska  Field  Office.  Fieldwork  was  limited  to  anhydrous applications  and  spring  tillage  operations  as  producers  await  soil  temperatures  to  rise  and  soil  moisture supplies  to  improve.   Topsoil moisture  supplies  rated  37  percent  very  short,  40  short,  23  adequate,  and  0 surplus.  Subsoil moisture supplies rated 62 percent very short, 33 short, 5 adequate, and 0 surplus.  There were 5.6 days suitable for fieldwork.
 
Field Crops Report:
Wheat conditions rated 18 percent very poor, 33 poor, 38 fair, 10 good, and 1 excellent. Wheat jointed was 1 percent, behind last year’s 9 and 2 average.

Oats planted were at 41 percent, behind last year’s 48 but ahead of 30 average.  Oats emerged was 6 percent, behind 13 last year but ahead of 4 average.  
 
Livestock, Pasture and Range Report:
Hay  and  forage  supplies  rated  23  percent  very  short,  41  short,  36 adequate, and 0 surplus.  Cattle and calves condition rated 0 percent very poor, 2 poor, 20 fair, 71 good, and 7 excellent. Spring calving was 74 percent complete.  Stock water supplies rated 13 percent very short, 27 short, 60 adequate, and 0 surplus.  



Iowa Crop Progress and Conditon Report - 4-8-2013

The first week of April saw warmer temperatures begin to make field work possible for some farmers. For the week ending April 7, 2013, there was an average of 2.5 days suitable for fieldwork across the state, mostly later in the week as temperatures warmed.  In northern Iowa, frost was still leaving the ground. Fieldwork was more prevalent in southern Iowa, where farmers tilled, applied fertilizer and seeded oats.  Farmers across the state were also busy preparing machinery for the upcoming planting season. 

With limited precipitation during the week, soil moisture continued to be a concern. Topsoil moisture levels rated 16 percent very short, 40 percent short, 42 percent adequate and 2 percent surplus. Subsoil moisture levels rated 43 percent very short, 42 percent short and 15 percent adequate. 

Oat planting was 11 percent complete, well behind last year’s 73 percent and the five-year average of 31 percent.

Pasture and range condition rated 31 percent very poor, 35 percent poor, 28 percent fair and 6 percent good. It was reported that livestock conditions were good. Due to the dry conditions there has been less mud than is typical for early spring.

IOWA PRELIMINARY WEATHER SUMMARY
Provided by Harry Hillaker, State Climatologist, Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship

Dry and mostly cool weather prevailed across Iowa over the past reporting week. Light snow fell across about the southwest one-third of the state on Sunday night (31st) with some accumulations of an inch or two in west central areas. Otherwise dry weather prevailed until Saturday (6th) when showers and thunderstorms brought scattered light rain to the northeast one-half of Iowa. Much more substantial rain fell, especially across southeast Iowa, on Sunday (7th) night but this will be included in next week’s report. Weekly rain totals varied from none over much of central and south central Iowa to 0.28 inches at the Clinton Airport. The statewide average precipitation was only 0.04 inches while normal for the week is 0.  65 inches. This was Iowa’s driest week since mid-January (12 weeks). Temperatures were well below normal on Monday (1st) and Tuesday (2nd) but slowly climbed above normal by Saturday (6th). Overnight low temperatures were in the teens in some areas on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday morning with Little Sioux the cold spot at 11 degrees on Monday morning. By the weekend afternoon high temperatures were in the mid to upper 50’s north to low to mid 70’s south. Highest temperatures were reported on Sunday (7th) afternoon with 76 degrees at Glenwood, Red Oak and Sidney. Temperatures for the week as a whole averaged just below normal over the far west to about five degrees below normal across the east. The statewide average temperature was 3.7 degrees below normal.  Soil temperatures at the four inch depth averaged in the low 40’s north to low 50’s south as of Sunday (7th). While the topsoil was thawed, a layer of frozen soil still persisted across parts of northern Iowa at the end of the week from about five to twelve inches below the surface.



Access the National publication for Crop Progress and Condition tables at: http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProg//2010s/2013/CropProg-04-08-2013.txt

Access the High Plains Region Climate Center for Temperature and Precipitation Maps at: http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/current/index.php?action=update_region&state=NE&region=HPRCC

Access the US Drought Monitor at: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_state.htm?NE,HP



Ethanol 2013: Emerging Issues Forum
Ethanol 2013: Emerging Issues Forum will take place in Omaha, Nebraska at Magnolia Hotel on April 18th and 19th.  Registration will open at 11:30am on Thursday with an optional lunch. The first speaker of the day will be at 1:00pm and the day will wrap up with a reception at 5:30. Friday's events will begin at 7:30am with coffee and pastries followed with the first speaker at 8:00am. The day will wrap up at noon.

Keynote Speaker: Doug Durante, Executive Director of Clean Fuels Development Coalition

Other Speakers include...
-  Ron Lamberty, American Coalition for Ethanol “E15 Marketing in Omaha”
-  Mike Chisam, Kansas Ethanol “Distillers Grain: Producing Value-Added DDG Products”
-  Steve Bleyl, Green Plains Renewable Energy
-  A Senior Marketing Representative with The Scoular Company
-  Steffen Mueller, University of Illinois at Chicago
-  Alvaro Cordero, U.S. Grains Council
-  Bill Peters, Argus Media
-  Sandra Dunphy , Weaver,LLP

Registration: $279 per person.  Limited to 125 participants.  Go to www.ne-ethanol.org for more information and to register.  



Reseeding Patchy Pasture Areas
Bruce Anderson, UNL Extension Forage Specialist

If you’re seeing thin or dead patches in your pasture this spring, don’t let them go. Reseed and reclaim these areas within your existing pasture program before weeds overrun them and expand into your good grass.

Reseed these areas following the same basic guidelines as planting a whole new pasture. Prepare a firm, weed-free seedbed. This might be as simple as spraying first to kill existing weeds and then using a no-till drill to seed. Or, it might require vigorous tillage, followed by packing the soil well before planting with appropriate equipment that places seed just slightly below the soil surface on the right date.

Selecting seed may be one of your biggest challenges. When selecting seed, first decide if this reseeded patch will be part of a larger pasture or become a separate pasture. If it’s part of a larger pasture, it is critical that you plant the same kind of plants that will be next to it when you add it back to the existing pasture. Otherwise, if you plant something livestock like better, they’ll overgraze it. And, if they don’t like it as well, they won’t graze it.

Keeping out cattle to allow sufficient time for new seedlings to develop is another major challenge. Be sure to fence animals out until new plants are well established. If you graze it too soon, animals will pull out or trample the new grass and you'll have to reseed it again. Often it may be better to take a cutting for hay before starting to graze it.

Grass-Alfalfa Mixtures May Offer Benefits Over Pure Alfalfa
Hay growers in eastern Nebraska often plant new fields to alfalfa without even thinking about other alternatives. For lots of folks, pure alfalfa is the best choice, but for many of you it might be better to mix in some grass, like orchardgrass, smooth brome, or festulolium, with your alfalfa.

A grass-alfalfa mixture offers several advantages:
-    If you regularly feed more than 5 or 6 pounds of alfalfa per day to stock cows during winter, they probably are getting more protein than they need, but not enough TDN or energy. Mixing grass with alfalfa usually lowers the protein and slightly increases the TDN content, leading to a more balanced diet for your cattle.
-    If you sometimes graze cattle in your hay fields, grass will reduce the risk of bloat. Grass can grow in field areas where alfalfa is not well-adapted or fill in spots as alfalfa dies out. This is better than having weeds invade bare areas.
-    Grass-alfalfa mixtures often dry out more rapidly after cutting than pure alfalfa so you might get more hay made without rain damage. If it does rain, the mixture usually suffers less injury, both in the windrow and in the bale.
-    With the mixture protein yield may be less with the mix, but total tonnage usually is about the same or higher than with pure stands. Most of the grass yield will come at first cut, so regrowth will be mostly alfalfa.

While a grass-alfalfa mixture does offer these advantages, you need to be aware that selling a mixture can be more difficult because dairies prefer pure alfalfa and grass is more difficult to grind.  Before you automatically replant a field to pure alfalfa, consider whether a mixture may offer more of the benefits you need this year.



LEAD Fellowship Applications Available for Group Thirty-three

Fellowship applications for Nebraska LEAD (Leadership Education/Action Development) Group 33 are now available for men and women involved in production agriculture or agribusiness.

"Up to 30 motivated men and women with demonstrated leadership potential will be selected from five geographic districts across our state," said Terry Hejny, Nebraska LEAD Program director.

In addition to monthly three-day seminars throughout Nebraska from mid-September through early April each year, Nebraska LEAD Fellows also participate in a 10-day National Study/Travel Seminar and a two week International Study/Travel Seminar.

Seminar themes include leadership assessment and potential, natural resources and energy, agricultural policy, leadership through communication, our political process, global perspectives, nuclear energy, social issues, understanding and developing leadership skills, agribusiness and marketing, advances in health care and the resources and people of Nebraska's Panhandle, Hejny said.

The Nebraska LEAD Program is designed to prepare the spokespersons, problem-solvers and decision makers for Nebraska and its agricultural industry.

In its 32nd year, the program is operated by the Nebraska Agricultural Leadership Council, a nonprofit organization, in collaboration with the University of Nebraska's Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources and in cooperation with Nebraska colleges and universities, business and industry, and individuals throughout the state.

Applications are due no later than June 15 and are available via e-mail from the Nebraska LEAD Program. Please contact Shana at sgerdes2@unl.edu.  You can also request an application by writing Room 318 Biochemistry Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 68583-0763 or by calling 402-472-6810. You can visit www.lead.unl.edu for information about the selection process.



PUBLIC HEARING Scheduled Regarding a District-Wide Change to the Upper Big Blue NRD’s RULE 5 for Water Quantity

On April 23, 2013, the Upper Big Blue NRD Board of Directors will hold a public hearing to receive testimony on two proposed changes to the NRD’s Groundwater Management Rules and Regulations.  Two unrelated issues are being considered.  The first issue is groundwater irrigation transfers and the second is artesian wells.

A groundwater transfer is the act of pumping water from a well in one section of land and piping it to another section of land to irrigate.  The NRD has had regulations limiting such transfers since 1982; however, the proposed changes to the regulations would prohibit new groundwater irrigation transfers in designated marginal groundwater areas.  The proposed change would not affect groundwater transfers that already exist.  Existing groundwater transfers in the designated areas may continue, but may not increase irrigated acres.  The areas that would be closed to new transfers are shown on the attached map.  In the portion of the NRD that is not designated as a groundwater transfer limitation area on the map, the new transfer must be authorized by the NRD Board of Directors prior to implementing the project.  Existing regulations limit the size and distance that groundwater may be transferred.

The proposed second regulation change addresses artesian wells.  An artesian well is a well from which groundwater flows under natural pressure.  This occurs when a well is constructed in to a groundwater aquifer that is “confined” by a layer of clay material which the water cannot flow through naturally; and the groundwater is under pressure that is great enough to push the water up the well casing to a point above the land surface.  This condition may occur in a few areas of the NRD.  The major area where it is known to occur during the fall and winter months is in the Beaver Creek Valley and the West Fork of the Big Blue River Valley in eastern York and western Seward Counties near the Village of Beaver Crossing.  Three additions to the regulations are proposed regarding artesian wells.  They are: 1). Artesian wells constructed on or after July 1, 2013, must be operated in such a manner as to prevent groundwater from the well to flow out and run to waste in an amount that exceeds what will flow through a pipe one-half inch in diameter;  2). Artesian wells constructed prior to July 1, 2013, may continue to operate as constructed until such time that the allocation provisions of the Groundwater Management Area regulations are implemented.  Upon implementation of allocation, artesian wells must be operated in such a manner as to prevent groundwater from a well to flow out and run to waste in an amount that exceeds what will flow through a pipe one-half inch in diameter; and, 3). An artesian well decommissioned after July 1, 2013, must be decommissioned in such a manner as to stop the flow of groundwater to waste.

A public hearing on these proposed changes to NRD regulations will be held on April 23, 2013, at the Holiday Inn at the intersection of I-80 and US Hwy 81 in York, Nebraska.  An Informational Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m., with the Public Hearing to follow at approximately 7:30 p.m.  A copy of the proposed changes to Rule 5 is available upon request at the NRD office at 105 N. Lincoln Avenue, York, Nebraska, and on the NRD website at: www.upperbigblue.org.  Activities and projects of the Upper Big Blue NRD are reviewed and approved by a locally elected Board of Directors.  The Upper Big Blue NRD is one of 23 Natural Resources Districts across the state.  For more information call (402) 362-6601. 



Ending the Tax on a Lifetime of Success
Senator Mike Johanns

Summer after hot, dusty summer, many of our parents and grandparents worked in the fields, raising their crops. Winter after icy winter, they braved frigid corrals, helping to grow their herds. They often worked the same ground for decades—first as children, learning the trade.  Over time, they may have added new land and new equipment here and there—whenever they found an opportunity to expand their life’s work. It takes a lifetime to grow a farm or ranch.

These stories are bountiful in Nebraska. But not all of them have a happy ending. Farmers and ranchers are often vulnerable to one of the federal government’s most egregious policies that can reverse a lifetime of work in an instant, and at the hardest time for a family. The estate tax, or death tax, is a staggering 40 percent tax levied on inherited property following the death of a family member. This tax disproportionately affects rural America because of the cost of owning and operating farms and ranches. The average price for an acre of farmland has ballooned more than 140 percent, from $746 to $2,425 in the last decade, with little sign of slowing down, according to the University of Nebraska Department of Agricultural Economics.

Land is not the only part of the equation. Equipment and structures from center pivots to combines to grain bins can be valued well into the millions of dollars. Indeed the cost to own and operate a farm or ranch requires a substantial investment in land, buildings and equipment, but significant cash to pay the estate tax can be difficult or even impossible to produce. Although the tax exempts the first $5 million of each estate, the remaining tax burden leaves many rural farm families deep in debt. As costs continue to climb, the number of agriculture operations impacted will also increase.

I have met with families over the years who fear the estate tax will take away their family farm—their livelihood and the product of generations of hard work—to pay Uncle Sam after the death of a loved one.

I believe that repealing this tax is in the best interest of our nation’s farmers, ranchers and business owners.  That’s why I am cosponsoring legislation being introduced this Tax Day that would repeal this arduous fee for families in the midst of mourning. The legislation would not only end the government’s twisted idea of a sympathy card, but would do much to give our economy a much-needed boost. Studies indicate that repealing the estate tax would create 1.5 million additional small business jobs, add $119 billion to our economy and boost workers’ income by $79 billion. Similar legislation received bipartisan support during the Senate’s budget resolution debate.

A lifetime of work should not become a tax liability. It’s time we return to the fundamental principle that hard work and achievement is worthy of reward, not penalty.  It’s time we repeal this tax on success.



General Drought Conditions Improve in Iowa

General drought conditions in Iowa have improved over the past month and a small area of southeast Iowa is now viewed as normal -- free of drought conditions. For the fourth consecutive month, average rainfall has been slightly over normal. In March it was 0.04 above the historical normal of 2.15 inches for the month.

Shallow groundwater levels across north-central, southeast, and northeast Iowa have improved substantially over the last month. Warmer temperatures have resulted in snow melt in north-central and northeast Iowa, and groundwater levels have risen across much of the state -- from 2.5 feet in Hancock County to over 9 feet in Fayette County. However, very little improvement has occurred in much of the western third of Iowa. Sioux, O'Brien, Osceola, Shelby and Crawford counties are especially hard hit.

This was the coldest March since 1975 with temperatures averaging 7.4 degrees colder than normal. The cold weather, plus frequent snow cover, kept soils frozen across the state for most of the month, thus preventing much moisture from soaking into dry Iowa soils. At month's end, soils were mostly thawed across southern Iowa but considerable frost remains across the north.

For a more thorough review of Iowa's water resource trends March 8 through April 3 go to http://www.iowadnr.gov/watersummaryupdate.

The report is prepared by the technical staff from the Iowa DNR, the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and the USGS, in collaboration with the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division.



Trade Barriers, Slow Demand in Selected Markets Challenge February Meat Exports

February continued the trend set at the end of 2012 for U.S. beef and pork exports with higher values on lower volumes for beef and a continued slight decline for pork, according to statistics released by USDA and compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF).

Beef exports managed a 5 percent increase in value ($430 million) over February 2012 despite a slight decline in volume (86,367 mt). February pork exports slipped 5 percent in volume (178,510 mt) and 6 percent in value ($494.6 million) compared to a year ago.

“The good news is that the long-awaited change in beef access to Japan came through in February,” said USMEF President and CEO Philip Seng. “Conversely, trade barriers and other obstacles seem to be emerging at a rather alarming rate in 2013. Sluggish economic conditions in certain markets also create a challenge, but this is why we have made such a strong effort to diversify our destinations for red meat exports over the years. As some of our key markets struggle, growth in other regions has helped provide balance.”

Canada, Hong Kong lead beef export value growth
Through the first two months of the year, beef exports totaled 172,975 mt valued at $873.8 million – 2 percent lower in volume but 7 percent higher in value than last year’s pace. Beef export value in February averaged $239 per head of fed slaughter – up nearly $31 from a year ago. This drove the January-February export value to $220.39 per head, compared to $202.89 in 2012. The percentage of U.S. beef production exported in February was 10 percent for muscle cuts and 13.4 percent for combined muscle cuts and variety meat. This compares to 9 percent and 12.6 percent, respectively, from a year ago.

Beef exports to Canada are off to an outstanding start in 2013, totaling 31,464 mt (+31 percent) valued at $200.2 million (+46 percent) through February. Other markets performing well above year-ago levels include:
-    Hong Kong, 15,821 mt (+144 percent) valued at $85.5 million (+126 percent).
-    Taiwan, 5,708 mt (+16 percent) valued at $42.6 million (+39 percent).
-    Philippines, 2,463 mt (+19 percent) valued at $11.3 million (+45 percent).
-    Dominican Republic, 617 mt (+41 percent) valued at $5.6 million (+70 percent).

Because access for U.S. beef exports to Japan was expanded on Feb. 1 to include beef from cattle less than 30 months of age (up from 21 months), expectations for the month were very high. Exports to Japan did record small gains in February and moved 3 percent higher in volume (19,918 mt) and 12 percent higher in value ($137.9 million) for the year. Based on weekly export data the improvement in market access didn’t trigger an increase in export activity late February, so the impact will be more pronounced in March.

The ractopamine impasse with Russia has had a dramatic impact on this year’s export results. Coming off a record year in 2012, beef exports to Russia through February totaled only 1,693 mt (-82 percent) valued at $2.1 million (-94 percent). The downturn in beef exports to Russia alone more than accounted for the overall volume decline in February.

Exports to former No. 1 market Mexico were also sharply lower at 29,933 mt (-21 percent) valued at $130.6 million (-23 percent).

Lower results in Mexico, Japan slow pork exports
Pork exports through February totaled 365,191 mt valued at just under $1.02 billion – down 8 percent in volume and 7 percent in value from a year ago. Pork export value in February averaged $57.56 per head, down slightly from last year’s $58.17. (January-February export value averaged $54.89, down 6 percent from a year ago.) Pork exports in February equated to 22 percent of muscle cut production and 27.9 percent when adding variety meats. This compares to 24 percent and 27.7 percent, respectively, in February 2012.

Pork exports to leading volume market Mexico slowed from the record pace established in 2012, declining 13 percent in volume (98,237 mt) and 12 percent in value ($183.5 million) through February. Value leader Japan also saw lower results, falling 11 percent in volume (71,248 mt) and 6 percent in value ($320.1 million). Exports to the China/Hong Kong region were relatively steady, falling 2 percent in volume (76,402 mt) but increasing 1 percent in value ($160.4 million). Exports to Canada were slightly ahead of last year’s pace in both volume (37,339 mt, +2 percent) and value ($130.6 million, +1 percent).

Markets performing well above year-ago levels through February included:
-    Philippines, 7,851 mt (+42 percent) valued at $18.3 million (32 percent).
-    Colombia, 3,598 mt (+62 percent) valued at $9.2 million (+51 percent).
-    Honduras, 3,559 mt (+17 percent) valued at $8.7 million (+24 percent).
-    Dominican Republic, 2,448 mt (+28 percent) valued at $5.7 million (+44 percent).
-    New Zealand, 1,780 mt (+76 percent) valued at $5.1 million (+57 percent).

The impact of Russia’s ractopamine restrictions was not as dramatic for pork, though exports through February were down 15 percent in volume (7,037 mt) and 16 percent in value ($21.1 million). Demand in South Korea continues to be hampered by sluggish consumer spending and a surge in domestic meat production, as exports through February fell 30 percent in volume (25,540 mt) and 32 percent in value ($70.7 million) compared to a year ago.

Lamb export value up, despite lower volume
U.S. lamb exports continued to trend lower in volume through February (1,885 mt, -20 percent) but were 15 percent higher in value ($4.4 million) compared to last year. Exports to leading market Mexico gained 37 percent in value ($2.6 million) despite a 3 percent decline in volume (1,558 mt).



Grange Supports the Protection of Country of Origin Labels on Food

On Thursday the National Grange sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture along with 228 partner groups in an effort to protect the integrity of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat products. The Grange was one of many farm, rural, faith, consumer and environmental organizations from 45 states that contributed in the delivery of this important message. 

According to the 2008 Farm Bill there are mandatory COOL provisions for beef, pork, poultry, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables and some nuts. However, before COOL even went into effect, Canada and Mexico approached the World Trade Organization and successfully argued that the implemented rules for meat products are a barrier to international trade. The USDA has issued proposed new rules that simplify and clarify COOL to comply with the WTO decision. 

National Grange Legislative Director, Grace Boatright, said, "The National Grange has supported country of origin labeling for quite some time. We're neck deep in the information age and people want more information about their food, including how it's grown and where it's grown, and they have a right to know those details." 

Boatright continues, "I also think that COOL will be great for American agriculture. We have the safest and most abundant food supply in the world and I think that every farmer and rancher in this country would be proud to stamp "Grown in the USA" across our goods."

The letter was submitted to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack as part of the regulatory comment period. The federal comment period closes on April 11, 2013, and the WTO ruling directed USDA to offer new COOL rules by May 23, 2013. 



Herbicide Carryover Potential in 2013 Crops
Jerry Harrington, Pioneer

Due to the widespread drought conditions experienced over the past year, many growers are concerned about the potential for herbicide carryover injury to this year's crops. The potential for herbicide carryover injury is driven by two main factors:
-    Concentration of available herbicide remaining in the soil at the time of rotational crop planting. This depends on herbicide chemical properties, soil characteristics, and weather.
-    Susceptibility of the rotational crop to the herbicide. Some crops are not injured by relatively high concentrations and other crops are highly injured by low concentrations. The stresses that the newly planted crop faces during establishment can also affect response. Emerging plants are more likely to show injury to residual levels of herbicide if other stresses such as compaction or cold, wet soils are also present.

There is little that growers can do at this point to affect the amount of residual herbicide present in their fields. However, there are a few things that can be done to reduce the risk of crop injury.
-    Review spray records for each field and product labels to see what restrictions are indicated. Many labels specify the time required between herbicide application and planting of a rotational crop. Planting sooner than the specified time increases the risk of injury.
-    Ensure seedling stresses are minimized. This gives the young plants their best chance of surviving herbicide residues with little damage. This can include making sure soil pH and fertility levels are optimum for the crop, reducing compaction, and avoiding planting into cold, wet soils.
-    Change planned crop. In some cases it may be best to plant the same crop as the previous year, or at least a crop for which last year's herbicides are also labeled. This significant step has the most potential to reduce the risk of crop injury.
-    Delay planting. Growers could plant suspect fields last to give more time for the degradation to occur.
-    Consider tillage. Tillage may dilute the herbicide in the soil profile and provide aeration and faster soil warming to stimulate microbes, but results are mixed on whether this will provide a significant benefit.
-    Conduct a bioassay or chemical analysis. It is important to note that carryover injury is impacted by many factors besides just how much herbicide is present.



DSM NUTRITIONAL AND MONSANTO PARTNER TO DELIVER FIRST SDA OMEGA-3 SOYBEAN OIL FOR USE IN FOODS IN NORTH AMERICA

DSM Nutritional Products and Monsanto Company announced today a strategic partnership to deliver the first SDA (stearidonate soybean oil) omega-3 soybean oil for use in foods in North America.

DSM Nutritional Products, the leading global provider of trusted nutritional lipids solutions with the most complete product portfolio (plant, algal and fish) addressing the full spectrum of consumer health benefits will license the SDA soybean from Monsanto, the global expert in plant technology. Monsanto will develop SDA soybean varieties and sell the seeds to its farmer customers. DSM Nutritional Products will have the exclusive global rights to brand, market, package and sell the SDA soybean oil to the food industry. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

“The addition of SDA soybean oil to our growing nutritional lipids portfolio underscores our commitment to delivering high-quality nutritional products that help to support human health,” said Will Black, DSM vice president of marketing human nutrition and health. “We look forward to bringing SDA soybean oil to the industry and working with food manufacturers to deliver innovative products that support heart health to their consumers.”

SDA omega-3 soybean oil is a plant-based source of SDA, which naturally converts in the body to EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) omega-3 – one of two main omega-3s that has been clinically shown to promote heart health. This pipeline product would be the first vegetarian SDA derived from soybeans for use in food and beverage products in North America. SDA soybean oil has a clean flavor, maintains shelf life, is stable and can be incorporated into a variety of foods, including dressings, sauces, margarines, spreads, bakery products, soups, snack bars and dairy-based products, among several other food applications. SDA soybean oil could not only provide food and beverage manufacturers and consumers an additional choice to access heart healthy omega-3, but would also represent an additional, sustainable supply of omega-3.

“SDA omega-3 soybean oil would provide a sustainable way for consumers to increase their intake of omega-3 fatty acids that help maintain heart health,” said Federico Tripodi, Monsanto SDA program director.  “Food companies are looking for solutions to deliver the benefits of longer chain omega-3s while maintaining flavor over the shelf life of the product. We are excited about the progress we have made with the product and look forward to working with DSM to bring this sustainable plant-based alternative to market.”

FDA issued a positive response letter to Monsanto's Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notification for the oil from these soybeans. The completion of the FDA consultation process supports the use of oil from SDA soybeans under the intended conditions of use, which enable food companies to develop and evaluate foods that contain this nutritionally improved oil. Monsanto has completed the key regulatory processes in the United States, Canada and Mexico and has also made submissions for import approval in key export markets.



RFA Comments to EPA on Proposed 2013 RFS2 Volume Requirements

The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) has submitted comments in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) notice of proposed rulemaking regarding 2013 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) required volumes.

RFA’s comments can be read in full here. The four key points of the comments are:
1. EPA should revise its proposed 2013 cellulosic biofuel standard to better correspond with current expectations of actual 2013 cellulosic biofuel production volumes.
2. EPA should partially reduce the 2013 advanced biofuel standard, as sugarcane ethanol imports are unlikely to be available in sufficient volumes to meet the requirement.
3. Because there are legal and economical options available for surmounting the “blend wall”, the E10 saturation point should not be a factor in EPA’s decision-making process for 2013 RVO levels.
4. EPA should propose 2014 RFS standards as expeditiously as possible and ensure the 2014 RVOs are established no later than Nov. 30, 2013.

Summarizing RFA’s comments, Bob Dinneen, President and CEO of the RFA said, “The RFS is a flexible program that is a proven success. It is lowering this country’s dependence on foreign oil, creating American jobs, and stimulating investment in the next generation of biofuels. To ensure the RFS continues to be implemented in the most effective way, we are calling on EPA to exercise its discretion to adjust the 2013 advanced biofuel standard. We do not believe the levels of sugarcane ethanol imports assumed by EPA are reasonable given current market conditions. Further, our comments request that EPA publish the 2014 proposed RFS standards as soon as possible so stakeholders can engage with the Agency to ensure the program is implemented as efficiently as possible next year.”



CHS Harvest for Hunger Raises 3.2 Million Meals

More than 3.2 million meals, an increase in contributions of 30 percent over 2012, are headed for hungry families thanks to the annual CHS Harvest for Hunger food and funds drive by the Country Operations division of CHS Inc., the nation's leading farmer-owned cooperative.

Since the program's launch in 2011, the equivalent of more than 7.5 million meals has been raised. In 2012 the effort provided the equivalent of more than 2.45 million meals.

"The response to CHS Harvest for Hunger has been incredible. Thousands of CHS employees, customers and partners rallied to collectively raise the equivalent of 3.2 million meals for hungry families, including more than 742,000 pounds of canned and fresh foods, and more than $490,000 in cash and grain," says John McEnroe, executive vice president, CHS Country Operations. On average, every $1 contributed to CHS Harvest for Hunger provides five meals. The number of meals provided for every one dollar varies by region, ranging from 3.7 to seven meals.

CHS Country Operations bolstered donations to CHS Harvest for Hunger by more than $312,000 in additional contributions to local communities to help friends and neighbors.

"It's powerful to see how each dollar, canned food item and donation of grain or produce, along with the CHS contribution, combined to make such a tremendous impact for those who need it most," says McEnroe. "The participation and generosity from our employees, customers and overall communities was truly overwhelming. It's yet another example of being responsible stewards in the community, a CHS tradition for more than 80 years."

CHS Harvest for Hunger took place March 1-20, 2013, at nearly 60 of CHS Country Operations retail locations. Donations collected went to regional food banks. Fundraising activities varied at each location and included such events as pig-kissing, goat-kissing and pie-throwing contests, a roller-skating event and a snowmobile fun run, golf tournaments -- in the snow and indoors, pancake breakfasts, luncheons and food collections.



Antibiotics and the Meat We Eat
David A. Kessler, FDA Commissioner, 1990 to 1997
(published in the New York Times on March 27, 2013)

SCIENTISTS at the Food and Drug Administration systematically monitor the meat and poultry sold in supermarkets around the country for the presence of disease-causing bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. These food products are bellwethers that tell us how bad the crisis of antibiotic resistance is getting. And they’re telling us it’s getting worse.

But this is only part of the story. While the F.D.A. can see what kinds of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are coming out of livestock facilities, the agency doesn’t know enough about the antibiotics that are being fed to these animals. This is a major public health problem, because giving healthy livestock these drugs breeds superbugs that can infect people. We need to know more about the use of antibiotics in the production of our meat and poultry. The results could be a matter of life and death.

In 2011, drugmakers sold nearly 30 million pounds of antibiotics for livestock — the largest amount yet recorded and about 80 percent of all reported antibiotic sales that year. The rest was for human health care. We don’t know much more except that, rather than healing sick animals, these drugs are often fed to animals at low levels to make them grow faster and to suppress diseases that arise because they live in dangerously close quarters on top of one another’s waste.

It may sound counterintuitive, but feeding antibiotics to livestock at low levels may do the most harm. When he accepted the Nobel Prize in 1945 for his discovery of penicillin, Alexander Fleming warned that “there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to nonlethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.” He probably could not have imagined that, one day, we would be doing this to billions of animals in factorylike facilities.

The F.D.A. started testing retail meat and poultry for antibiotic-resistant bacteria in 1996, shortly before my term as commissioner ended. The agency’s most recent report on superbugs in our meat, released in February and covering retail purchases in 2011, was 82 pages long and broke down its results by four different kinds of meat and poultry products and dozens of species and strains of bacteria.

It was not until 2008, however, that Congress required companies to tell the F.D.A. the quantity of antibiotics they sold for use in agriculture. The agency’s latest report, on 2011 sales and also released in February, was just four pages long — including the cover and two pages of boilerplate. There was no information on how these drugs were administered or to which animals and why.

We have more than enough scientific evidence to justify curbing the rampant use of antibiotics for livestock, yet the food and drug industries are not only fighting proposed legislation to reduce these practices, they also oppose collecting the data. Unfortunately, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, as well as the F.D.A., is aiding and abetting them.

The Senate committee recently approved the Animal Drug User Fee Act, a bill that would authorize the F.D.A. to collect fees from veterinary-drug makers to finance the agency’s review of their products. Public health experts had urged the committee to require drug companies to provide more detailed antibiotic sales data to the agency. Yet the F.D.A. stood by silently as the committee declined to act, rejecting a modest proposal from Senators Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, both Democrats, that required the agency to report data it already collects but does not disclose.

In the House, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Louise M. Slaughter of New York, also Democrats, have introduced a more comprehensive measure. It would not only authorize the F.D.A. to collect more detailed data from drug companies, but would also require food producers to disclose how often they fed antibiotics to animals at low levels to make them grow faster and to offset poor conditions.

This information would be particularly valuable to the F.D.A., which asked drugmakers last April to voluntarily stop selling antibiotics for these purposes. The agency has said it would mandate such action if those practices persisted, but it has no data to determine whether the voluntary policy is working. The House bill would remedy this situation, though there are no Republican sponsors.

Combating resistance requires monitoring both the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in our food, as well as the use of antibiotics on livestock. In human medicine, hospitals increasingly track resistance rates and antibiotic prescription rates to understand how the use of these drugs affects resistance. We need to cover both sides of this equation in agriculture, too.

I appreciate that not every lawmaker is as convinced as I am that feeding low-dose antibiotics to animals is a recipe for disaster. But most, if not all of them, recognize that we are facing an antibiotic resistance crisis, as evidenced by last year’s bipartisan passage of a measure aimed at fighting superbugs by stimulating the development of new antibiotics that treat serious infections. Why are lawmakers so reluctant to find out how 80 percent of our antibiotics are used?

We cannot avoid tough questions because we’re afraid of the answers. Lawmakers must let the public know how the drugs they need to stay well are being used to produce cheaper meat.



Antibiotics, Farm Animals and You
Reaction by Dr. Charles Hofacre, professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Georgia, member of the Center for Food Safety, and an adviser to the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance

Farmers and ranchers share consumer concerns about antibiotic-resistant bacteria and are continuously improving herd health practices to minimize risk.

About a third of livestock antibiotics used today are not used at all in human medicine. And in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration’s Guidance 209 and 213, antibiotics important to human medicine used for growth purposes will be eliminated from farm use within three years.

There is no proven link to antibiotic treatment failure in humans because of antibiotic use in animals for consumption — a critical point that is often missed. Antibiotics are used judiciously under veterinary guidance and F.D.A. guidelines, and are primarily used to treat sick animals or prevent illness.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, antibiotic-resistant diseases with the greatest effect on human health, like the contagious staph bacteria MRSA, are spread by human-to-human contact. No clinical case of MRSA in a human related to livestock has been identified in the United States.

Let’s keep this dialogue focused on the facts, and lose the hyperbole and fear-mongering.