Monday January 6 Ag News

UNL Extension talks Agriculture through social media outlets

In a world where technology is changing so quickly, and endless information is available everywhere, it can be hard to know what is fact, what is fiction, and what is based upon a reliable source. Couple this with the fact that most people are about three generations removed from farming and you are likely to find many consumers with questions or concerns surrounding the livestock and agricultural industry.

Two members of UNL Extension have recently launched social media campaigns to provide information to the general public and members of the agricultural community about a number of ag-related topics.

Lindsay Chichester, UNL Extension Educator working out of Saunders County, recently created a blog (http://agriculturalwithdrlindsay.com), Twitter (@AgWithDrLindsay), and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/agwithdrlindsay) that will discuss the agricultural industry from many angles. Topics will range from meat, labeling claims, and livestock, to production practices, hot topics, and people who work in the industry. Each blog post will be entertaining and educational, while providing science and research.

Amy Millmier Schmidt, UNL Assistant Professor and Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer, has created Twitter (@DrAmyTalksAg) and Facebook
(http://www.facebook.com/DrAmyTalksAg) accounts designed for sharing current and factual information related to environmental, social, and economic sustainability of agricultural production systems. Among other things, Schmidt shares research results, discusses the value of critically examining sources of “data” in the press, and invites input from followers about how they make food-purchasing decisions or define sustainability.

The long-term goal is to improve the public’s understanding of food production practices, provide a way for farmers to share their story with the people for whom they are producing food, and gain a better understanding of how to improve consumer confidence in our food production system.



How Much Can I Afford to Pay for a Bred Female to Restock After the Drought?
Aaron Berger, UNL Extension Educator

This is not an easy question to answer as it depends on several different factors. In evaluating how much an operation can afford to pay for a bred female several things need to be considered.
• Anticipated annual cow costs (anticipated inflation needs to be included)
• Expected number of calves the bred heifer or cow will produce before being culled
• Projected weaning weight and market price for steer and heifer calves
• Estimated cow salvage value
• Probable death loss
• Debt service requirements if money is borrowed for purchasing
• Discount rate - expected rate of return if money invested in the bred females was put in some other investment with similar risk

All of these factors together allow for the calculation of what economists call a Net Present Value. This value is what a person would be able to pay for a bred female today and meet a desired rate of return on the money invested based on projected production, costs, and prices. Assigning a number to these factors requires estimating future values.

There are two Excel®-based spreadsheet tools available that allow producers to put in these values and calculate an estimated Net Present Value. These are the KSU Beef Replacement (http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/budgets/production/) spreadsheet and the OSU Cow Bid Price Estimate Calculator (http://go.unl.edu/r8se) spreadsheet. Using either of these spreadsheet tools allows the producer to make sure that all costs are included and allows the producer to see how changing values impacts the Net Present Value.



Manage Farm Finances during Changing Financial Climate

U.S. corn and soybean producers have enjoyed their best run of returns in history over the last seven years. But like most things that go up, crop prices and returns are likely to decline in the near future. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach farm management specialists remind producers that agricultural returns tend to be cyclical in nature, and a few years of good returns are followed by a few years of negative returns.

The ISU Extension and Outreach farm management team of Kelvin Leibold, Tim Eggers, Kristen Schulte and Ann Johanns has developed two programs to help producers manage changes in financial climate and learn how to protect their financial bottom line during years of negative returns. One program is a day-long look at the impact of changes to farm finances; the other program is a multi-session financial literacy training. Program educators are Leibold, Eggers and Schulte.

“The USDA marketing year average for corn in 2012 was $6.89; predictions going forward are showing a price closer to $4.50,” said Kelvin Leibold. “Soybeans show a similar story, going from $14.40 in 2012 to $12.15. Producers need to consider where they will be when high prices leave.”

Tim Eggers recommends producers attend the programs to assess their financial health, and agri-businesses send their clientele so they can see how a financial analysis applies to their farm operation.
Deep Water or High Tide

This financial program will be offered at three locations in February. Program participants will learn how changes to interest rates and other input costs affect their net farm income, and how to manage these changes.

The program consists of a day engaged in the game of farm finances. Participants will gain a greater knowledge of a true-to-life financial picture by taking part in a case study simulation. Extension team leaders will guide participants as they work together through the basics of having a solid financial foundation.

All sites begin at 9:30 a.m. and wrap-up at 3:30 p.m. Registration is $25 at all locations. To register, contact the county extension office for the preferred location listed below.

    Cresco, Northeast Iowa Community College
    Monday, Feb. 24
    Contact: Howard County Extension Office, 563-547-3001

    Iowa Falls, ECC Agriculture & Renewable Energy Center
    Tuesday, Feb. 25
    Contact: Hardin County Extension Office, 641-648-4850

    Shenandoah, Iowa Western Community College
    Thursday, Feb. 27
    Contact: Page County Extension Office, 712-542-5171

Moving Beyond the Basics
This multi-session program focuses on financial literacy and takes learning to a deeper level. Moving Beyond the Basics is modeled after the nationwide Annie’s Project for Farm and Ranch Women. “This program will give women the opportunity to evaluate record keeping systems and test-drive accounting software in a classroom setting,” said Kristin Schulte. “Knowing the resources available for analyzing your financial position will make you better able to ride periods of low prices and farm income.”

    Cass County Extension Office, Atlantic
    Monday Evenings; Jan. 27– Feb. 17; 6 - 9 p.m.
    Contact: Kate Olsen at 712-243-1132 or Tim Eggers at 712-303-7781

    Chickasaw County Extension Office, New Hampton
    Tuesday Evenings; Jan. 28 – Feb. 18; 6 - 9 p.m.
    Contact: Danielle Day at 641-394-2174 or Kristen Schulte at 563-547-3001

    Hardin County Extension Office, Iowa Falls
    Wednesday Evenings; March 5 – March 26; 6 - 9 p.m.
    Contact: Kelvin Leibold at 641-648-4850

Deep Water or High Tide and Moving Beyond the Basics are being offered at various locations in Ohio and Iowa and have been developed through a grant from the North Central Risk Management Education Center and USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Visit the Ag Decision Maker website for further details, www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/.



A Soybean’s Journey: See for Yourself

When a farmer unloads soybeans at the elevator after harvest, it may seem like the end of a long journey that was full of hard work and patience. But the elevator is actually just the first stop on a voyage that takes U.S. soybeans to various markets domestically and abroad. For soybean farmers wanting to know more about their customers beyond the elevator, and the soy checkoff’s role in marketing U.S. soy to those customers, the United Soybean Board (USB) invites them to participate in the checkoff’s See for Yourself program.

All U.S. soybean farmers over the age of 18 can apply now for the seventh annual See for Yourself program. To apply, visit the USB website, www.UnitedSoybean.org/SeeforYourself, through April 4.

“The See for Yourself program is a once-in-a-lifetime experience,” said David Hartke, chair of USB’s Audit & Evaluation committee, which sponsors See for Yourself. “Participants get the opportunity to see the checkoff up close and the work it does to improve the bottom lines for U.S. soybean farmers across the country.”

The program offers 10 U.S. soybean farmers the chance to learn about and evaluate specific investment areas of the soy checkoff, such as international marketing, animal agriculture, industrial uses and soybean farmers’ freedom to operate.

Participants first travel to St. Louis, to witness firsthand, the operations of the checkoff and visit local sites related to domestic uses for soybeans.

Then, since about half of the soy produced in the United States is exported, participants will travel internationally to experience how international customers use soy.

“USB believes this program is important because participants not only see the checkoff first-hand, they also have the chance to evaluate its programs, as well,” Hartke said. “As a USB farmer-leader, I appreciate the perspectives these farmers bring and hearing their opinions on checkoff investments.”

The program is scheduled to take place Aug. 15-22 and USB will cover all related rooming, meal and travel expenses.



Clean Management Review for Beef Board

A management review of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) by the Livestock, Poultry and Seed Program of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) verified that the Beef Board is operating within the provisions of the Beef Promotion and Research Act and Order and in line with all applicable Federal laws, regulations and policies.

“In our management review of CBB, we noted no reportable findings,” declares the report from the AMS Compliance and Analysis Program staff, released last week. “Our review showed that CBB adhered to the AMS Guidelines for Oversight of Research and Promotion Programs, as well as its own policies.”

The review was completed per USDA requirements that AMS conduct management reviews of all commodity boards every three years. For this review, USDA compliance and analysis staff were in CBB offices from July 15-19, 2013, during which time they met with senior management and examined support documents for various CBB activities.

“As secretary-treasurer of the Beef Board, I review finances of the Board on a monthly basis,” said Jimmy Maxey, a cattle feeder in Fresno, Calif. “Having seen all of the policies and procedures at work in protecting our checkoff investments, I have confidence in the systems we have in place, so I can’t say that I am surprised by the results. But I think these comprehensive reviews are critical to the transparency of checkoff operations to all producers and importers who pay the beef checkoff assessment.”

As part of the financial audit, AMS selected a sample of 60 total disbursements – totaling $9.84 million – for fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013 for review, as well as supporting documentation, account coding, proper approvals, amounts of disbursements and appropriateness per the disbursements policy. In addition, the team also performed a walkthrough of a monthly cost allocation for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which is the Beef Board’s largest contractor.

Additional areas of review included: risk assessment; accounting and financial management; cash receipts and receivables; disbursement and payables; insurance and fidelity bonds; contract compliance; promotional materials; recordkeeping and information collection; and travel and expense reimbursements, to name a few.

As part of its management review, the USDA team also examined a total of 12 contracts for fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013, and found them all “consistent with the Act, Order and AMS Guidelines that were in place when the contracts were signed.” A review of 15 promotional materials covering a variety of topics and types were all found to be “properly communicated to and previously approved by AMS, (and) all of the materials were tied to an approved (Authorization Request).”

In addition to the management review, the compliance and analysis team from USDA gathered information while at the CBB offices to address the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) recommendation for development of supplemental audit procedures for future CBB reviews. The information gathered will be used to develop those procedures.

“We are pleased to share the results of this management review with beef producers and importers nationwide,” Maxey said, “so that they can feel confident that their hard-earned checkoff dollars are being invested with the utmost care and integrity.”

A copy of the report is available at AMS Management Review of CBB... http://www.beefboard.org/news/files/FY2014/AMS%20Management%20Review%20findings%200114.pdf.  



USDA Surveys On-Farm Irrigation Practices

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is conducting the national Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey.  Farmers, ranchers and horticulture producers across the United States will begin receiving the survey today in the mail asking them to provide information about their water use and irrigation practices, with responses due by February 10.

“Water is arguably the most important resource for agriculture and horticulture industries,” said NASS’ Census Planning Branch Chief Chris Messer. “The Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey will gauge farmers’ and ranchers’ stewardship of this precious resource and identify opportunities for new technologies.”

NASS traditionally conducts the irrigation survey following each Census of Agriculture. Only those producers who indicated in the 2012 Census of Agriculture that they irrigate are eligible for sampling. The results of the survey help in the development of improved technology, better equipment and more efficient water use practices.

The survey is conducted as part of the Census of Agriculture program, and just as with the 2012 Census, the responses are mandatory under U.S. law. The same law also ensures that NASS will maintain all individual responses completely confidential.

“We take confidentiality extremely seriously at NASS and only publish data in aggregate form,” added Messer. “This approach helps us guarantee that no individual operation or producer can be identified in the report.”

For more information about the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, call (888) 424-7828 or visit www.agcensus.usda.gov.



USDA Seeks Public Review and Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 2-4D Herbicide-Resistant Corn and Soybeans

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Friday released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as part of its review to determine whether to deregulate genetically engineered (GE) corn and soybean plants that are resistant to several herbicides, including one known as 2,4-D. APHIS is performing an assessment of these GE plants, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a concurrent review of the related herbicides.  APHIS’ DEIS will be available for public review and comment for 45 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

Once APHIS receives a petition for regulatory review of certain GE plants, as it has from Dow AgroSciences, it conducts two required analyses before it makes its regulatory determination on whether or not the newly developed GE plants should be deregulated.  First, under the Plant Protection Act (PPA), APHIS determines if the GE plants pose a “plant pest risk” to agricultural crops or other plants or plant products.  The PPA defines a “plant pest” as organisms such as insects, bacteria, or fungi that can injure or damage plants or plant products.  If the proposed GE plants do not pose a “plant pest risk,” APHIS must then move forward with the deregulation of those GE plant varieties.  APHIS’s preliminary plant pest assessment of these three new GE plants finds that they do not pose such a plant pest risk.  However, before making its final regulatory decision, APHIS, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), must also evaluate the potential impacts to the environment that may result from its regulatory decision.  The NEPA review can take the form of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or, in this case, a more rigorous Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

In 2011 and 2012 APHIS made available for public review and comment Dow’s request for deregulation of these GE plants, as well as the preliminary plant pest risk and EAs it prepared in response to that request.  Earlier this year, following its review of public comments received, APHIS announced it was electing to continue its environmental analysis and prepare an EIS to better inform the decision-making process.

The DEIS considers four alternatives: keep all the GE corn and soybean plants under PPA regulation; deregulate the GE corn plant only; deregulate the two GE soybean plants only; or deregulate both the GE corn and soybean plants.  Under NEPA, APHIS is required to designate in the DEIS which of these options is its preferred course of action.  Based on APHIS’s PPA regulatory authority and its preliminary finding that the GE corn and soybean plants do not pose a plant pest risk to agricultural crops or other plants in the United States, the option to deregulate all three GE plants is APHIS’s preferred alternative.  While ensuring an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of its regulatory decision, NEPA does not provide APHIS with any additional regulatory authority to address potential environmental impacts beyond that provided by the PPA.

Concurrent with the APHIS regulatory process, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting risk assessments to decide upon the approval of the proposed new uses of 2,4-D herbicide.  This analysis includes a thorough review of any potential human health and environmental risks associated with the application of 2,4-D to the GE corn and soybean plants, such as additional use of the herbicide and potential off-site movement of 2,4-D to other crops or areas.  EPA will make available its proposed regulatory decision in the coming months for public review and comment.  After consideration of public comments, EPA will then make its final regulatory decision in coordination with APHIS’s final regulatory decision regarding these plants.  

APHIS encourages public input on its DEIS and will host a virtual public meeting to receive comments.  APHIS will consider all public comments submitted during the comment period before finalizing the DEIS and plant pest risk assessment and then, based on these, making its final regulatory decision on Dow AgroSciences’ deregulation request.

Dow AgroSciences’ GE corn and soybean plants are the first developed to be resistant to 2,4-D and are intended to provide farmers with new plants to help address the problem of weeds that have developed resistance to other herbicides.  

APHIS anticipates that EPA will publish a notice that APHIS’s DEIS is available for public review in the Federal Register on January 10, 2014.  A copy of the DEIS provided to EPA can be reviewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0042.




Dow AgroSciences Statement About USDA Announcement Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Enlist Technology

We are pleased the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has completed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Enlist™ corn, Enlist soybean and Enlist E3™ soybean traits, and to see the review process moving forward. USDA’s “Preferred Alternative” as stated in the DEIS is to “deregulate all three” Enlist corn and soybean traits.

New data from November of 2013 indicate an astonishing 86 percent of corn, soybean and cotton growers in the South have herbicide-resistant or hard-to-control weeds on their farms. The number of farmers impacted by tough weeds in the Midwest has climbed as well, and now tops 61 percent. Growers need new tools now to address this challenge.

We look forward to USDA finalizing its review and deregulation of the technology so that American farmers can access Enlist corn and soybeans in 2015. Dow AgroSciences and university data show that Enlist will be a tool to help address the significant weed control problems that farmers are facing today.

The data package that supports the Enlist technology contains the latest state of the science on the trait and chemistry. The products have been reviewed and approved by other regulatory agencies around the world. We will continue to cooperate with the USDA and support Enlist as it advances toward regulatory approvals.



ACE reminds ethanol advocates to submit comments to EPA on proposed RFS

Brian Jennings, Executive Vice President for the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), is urging ethanol supporters to voice their concerns over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed cuts to the 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
 
“We have just 23 days to submit comments to EPA by the January 28 deadline. It’s vitally important that EPA hears your personal story on how limiting ethanol use in 2014 would affect your family, your community, and your business,” said Jennings.  “ACE hosted a webinar for our members on December 17 providing tips for how to make a convincing case to EPA during the comment period; if ethanol supporters need assistance they should contact ACE and we will provide this webinar to them.”

Already more than 10,000 comments have been submitted to EPA.  ACE will be submitting formal comments to EPA by January 28 and has set up a digital RFS Action Center at http://capwiz.com/ethanol so supporters can share their personal stories with EPA about the importance of the RFS.



AEC Criticizes “60 Minutes” Piece for Missing the Big Picture

Brooke Coleman, executive director of the Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC), released the following statement today in response to last night’s “60 Minutes” piece criticizing the Department of Energy’s investments in clean energy.

“By engaging in a petty game of ‘gotcha’ with Silicon Valley, ‘60 Minutes’ missed the point when it comes to government support for innovation in the energy industry. The U.S. government helps companies get over the hump with new technologies not because they expect to succeed in all cases, but because a small number of successes can fundamentally change the American economy for decades. The Department of Commerce recently found that ‘technological innovation’ is linked to three-quarters of the country’s post World War II economic growth rate. And while implying that clean energy investments are just too costly for the American taxpayer, ‘60 Minutes’ forgets to mention that 75 percent of Department of Energy (DOE) Research and Development dollars have been spent on nuclear and fossil fuel development over the last 60 years. The picture has not changed all that much recently with 50 percent of those funds dedicated to fossil fuels and nuclear over the last decade. Renewable energy received less than 17 percent of DOE R&D expenditures from 2001-2010.

“Leslie Stahl and ‘60 Minutes’ also fail to point out why these programs are so critical to the clean energy sector. These programs don’t exist in a vacuum. The federal government has helped the fossil fuel industry develop new technologies, build out infrastructure and make tax free investments for nearly 100 years. The energy space, particularly motor fuels, is not competitive and therefore will not get measurably more efficient and innovative on its own. If there is a story about questionable taxpayer engagement in the energy sector, it should be about why the U.S. taxpayer continues to fund innovation research at multi-national oil companies when we have supported them for a century with grants, loan guarantees, tax loopholes and direct expenditures. At this point the clean energy industry is used to myopic reports on government support for energy innovation. It’s just too bad that ‘60 Minutes’ has joined the club.”