Friday October 3 Ag News

NE Ag Associations Correct Endorsement Claim Made During Gubernatorial Debate

In the October 2, 2014, Gubernatorial debate, hosted by NET Nebraska and the Nebraska Broadcasters Association, candidate Chuck Hassebrook made this statement about half way through the debate: 
“As far as my record, the Nebraska Farmers Union and presidents and board chairs of the commodity organizations and boards from every one of the five major commodities, beef, pork, corn, soybeans and wheat have endorsed me in this race.  I surely can’t be anti-agriculture.” 

The Nebraska Corn Growers Association (NeCGA), Nebraska Wheat Growers Association (NWGA), Nebraska Pork Producers Association (NePPA) and Nebraska Soybean Association (NSA) have issued a statement, saying that none of the organizations have endorsed a candidate in the Nebraska gubernatorial race—despite claims made during last night's candidate debate.

In Thursday night's gubernatorial debate on NET Television, Democratic candidate Chuck Hassebrook claimed to have received endorsements from "presidents and board chairs of the commodity organizations and boards from every one of the five major commodities—beef, pork, corn soybeans and wheat..."

NeCGA, NWGA, NePPA, and NSA are membership, dues-based associations and are authorized to lobby and endorse political candidates. However, none of the associations have endorsed any candidate in the Nebraska governor race.

From NE Cattlemen
In an email to KTIC radio, Nebraska Cattlemen Executive Vice President Pete McClymont says the NC PAC Committee SUPPORTED Pete Ricketts at Midyear Meeting. However, by policy, NC cannot endorse. 



Nebraska Commodity Checkoff Organizations Clarify Endorsement Claims Made During Gubernatorial Debate
Five of Nebraska's commodity checkoff programs have issued a joint statement in response to endorsement claims made during the Nebraska gubernatorial debate held Thursday night. 

The Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Pork Producers, Nebraska Soybean Board, Nebraska Wheat Board, and Nebraska Beef Council are all prohibited by law from endorsing or opposing political candidates at any level. Comments made during the debate may have led voters to believe that these checkoff programs had made endorsements in the governor's race.

In Thursday night's gubernatorial debate on NET Television, Democratic candidate Chuck Hassebrook said he had received endorsements from "presidents and board chairs of the commodity organizations and boards from every one of the five major commodities—beef, pork, corn soybeans and wheat..."

Since checkoff funds are collected from all farmers and ranchers, state and federal laws do not allow those funds to be used to support or oppose political candidates at any level. 



Clarification on Commodity Endorsements - From the Hassebrook Campaign 

Chuck Hassebrook has released the following statement to clarify his statement in Thursday night’s debate.

In the debate, Hassebrook said that he had the endorsements of the “Presidents and Board chairs of commodity organizations for every one of the five major Nebraska commodities: beef, pork, corn, soy beans, and wheat.”

Hassebrook meant to say that he had the endorsements of past Presidents and Board Chairs. The mistake was unintentional and he apologizes for accidentally dropping the word “past” from his remark.

Hassebrook has been endorsed by the Nebraska Farmers Union as well as the following past Presidents and Board Chairs from major commodity boards or associations. Each served in the past as either state or national positions with organizations or boards representing the following commodities.
-    Frank Johannsen (Bayard, NE), Wheat
-    Phil Hardenberger (Crete, NE), Pork
-    John Klosterman (David City, NE), Cattle
-    Chuck Myers (Lyons, NE), Soybean
-    Ron Woollen (Wilcox, NE), Corn
-    Lemoine Smith (Minden, NE), Corn
-    Rod Hassebrook (Platte Center, NE),  Corn
-    Matt Connealy (Decatur, NE),  Corn
-    Roy Smith (Plattsmouth, NE),  Soybean
-    Cheryl Burkhard-Kriesel (Gurley, NE), Wheat



Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation PAC Names Bill Kintner ‘Friend of Agriculture’

Bill Kintner of Papillion has been named a “Friend of Agriculture” by NFBF-PAC, Nebraska Farm Bureau’s political action committee. Kintner is seeking re-election to represent the 2nd District in the Nebraska Legislature.

"Bill Kintner has been a friend to Nebraska farm and ranch families during his time in the Legislature. He understands how Nebraska agriculture is affected by state policies and regulations. His commitment to limiting the role of government and lowering taxes are also beliefs shared by our members,” said Mark McHargue of Central City, chairman of NFBF-PAC and first vice president of Nebraska Farm Bureau.

“Kintner has been an advocate for growing Nebraska’s economy and he understands the important role agriculture plays in keeping our economy strong, not just in rural communities, but statewide. His focus on creating sound tax policy for the state and being an advocate for reasonable regulations for farmers and ranchers as well as other businesses are key to helping encourage investment in our state that create jobs both in and out of agriculture,” McHargue said.

Farm Bureau’s “Friend of Agriculture” designation is given to selected candidates for public office based on their commitment to and positions on agricultural issues, qualifications, previous experience, communication abilities and their ability to represent the district. 



Sniffing Out the Source of Beef Manure Odor

A recent study conducted by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists indicated that just three compounds in beef manure were responsible for generating over two-thirds of detectable odors.

These findings by ARS agricultural engineers Bryan Woodbury and John Gilley could help with developing techniques for controlling objectionable odors from manure used to amend crop fields. ARS is USDA's chief intramural scientific research agency, and this work supports USDA's priority of responding to climate change.

Woodbury and Gilley conducted a comprehensive study to identify compounds responsible for beef manure odor and to evaluate how land application practices, diet, soil moisture and application procedures affect odor emissions. The team used manure collected from feedlot pens where cattle consumed diets containing 0, 10, or 30 percent wet distillers grain solubles. The scientists also evaluated two application methods--no-till surface manure application or disk tillage that incorporated manure into the soil--and collected air samples before and after water was added to the soil to assess the effect of moisture levels on emissions.

Beef cattle manure was applied at levels that provided 135 pounds of nitrogen per acre, which met the 1-year nitrogen requirement for corn. After collecting and analyzing the air samples, the researchers determined that two volatile fatty acids--isovaleric acid and butyric acid--and the aromatic compound 4-methylphenol were responsible for over two-thirds of detectable beef manure odors. Most of these odors were released within 24 hours after manure was applied to the soil.

Incorporating the manure into the soil and irrigating afterwards reduced most of the odor compounds that were measured. But the manure needed to be incorporated almost immediately after being applied to obtain the most effective odor mitigation.

The importance of tilling manure into soil was highlighted by emission measurements the researchers obtained for 4-methylphenol. The greatest emissions of this compound occurred from dry soils on no-till plots and were sometimes as much as 10 times greater than similar emissions from tilled soils.

Woodbury works for the ARS Nutrition and Environmental Management Research Unit in Clay Center, Neb., and Gilley works for the ARS Agroecosystem Management Research Unit in Lincoln, Neb. They published their research in the Journal of Environmental Quality in 2013.

Read more about the study in the October 2014 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.



Iowa State Reports Record Enrollment in College of Agriculture

For the third consecutive year, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Iowa State University has set a new enrollment record.

The college's fall-semester enrollment is 5,205, which is 222 students more than the previous year. The total includes 4,475 undergraduates, an increase of 184 students from a year ago, and 730 graduate students, which is up 38 from fall of 2013.

The college's undergraduate enrollment has grown 25 percent since the fall of 2011 and 83 percent over the past 10 years.

Overall, Iowa State University's fall enrollment is 34,732, a new record that includes 28,893 undergraduates and 4,950 graduate students. It's the sixth year of record enrollment for Iowa State and the eighth consecutive year of growth.

In the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the percentage of men and women undergraduates is nearly equal. Women make up 49 percent of undergraduate enrollment, an increase of 2 percent from a year ago and 9 percent higher than in 2004. The percentage of women undergraduates has been steadily rising for the past three decades.

The college's enrollment reflects a continuing high demand for graduates in agricultural and life sciences careers. The college's placement rate for recent graduates has been 97 percent or higher for 17 consecutive years. More than 70 percent of graduates begin careers in Iowa. Last year, 76 percent of the college's undergraduate students were Iowans.

The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences will hold its annual career fair on Oct. 14, with another record or near record number of employers expected. Last year, more than 225 employers attended - the largest number ever.

Nearly 780 job interviews were conducted with students the following day - another record. The fall event is the largest agricultural career fair in the nation. The college also holds a spring-semester career fair.

Entry-level salaries for agriculture and life sciences graduates have remained strong, with positive average salary increases in most sectors of the industry, according to a national composite summary from fall 2013 and spring 2014 undergraduates.

The number of students enrolled in online courses also continues to climb. Last year, the college's online course registrations reached nearly 3,800 - up 16 percent from the previous year and 43 percent higher than two years ago.



USDA Farm Service Agency Announces Key Dates for New 2014 Farm Bill Safety Net Programs

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is announcing key dates for farm owners and producers to keep in mind regarding the new 2014 Farm Bill established programs, Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC). The new programs, designed to help producers better manage risk, usher in one of the most significant reforms to U.S. farm programs in decades.

“The ARC and PLC programs are a significant reform in the farm safety net,” said Farm Service Agency (FSA) Administrator Val Dolcini. “FSA wants to keep producers well informed on all steps in the process. We will continue our outreach efforts and maintain resources online to help them understand the new programs before they come in to make decisions for their operations.”

Dates associated with ARC and PLC that farm owners and producers need to know:
  - Sept. 29, 2014 to Feb. 27, 2015: Land owners may visit their local Farm Service Agency office to update yield history and/or reallocate base acres.
  - Nov. 17, 2014 to March 31, 2015: Producers make a one-time election of either ARC or PLC for the 2014 through 2018 crop years.
  - Mid-April 2015 through summer 2015: Producers sign contracts for 2014 and 2015 crop years.
  - October 2015: Payments for 2014 crop year, if needed.

USDA leaders will visit with producers across the country to share information and answer questions on the ARC and PLC programs.

USDA helped create online tools to assist in the decision process, allowing farm owners and producers to enter information about their operation and see projections that show what ARC and/or PLC will mean for them under possible future scenarios. The new tools are now available at www.fsa.usda.gov/arc-plc. Farm owners and producers can access the online resources from the convenience of their home computer or mobile device at any time. USDA provided $3 million to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri and the Agricultural and Food Policy Center (AFPC) at Texas A&M (co-leads for the National Association of Agricultural and Food Policy), along with the University of Illinois (lead for the National Coalition for Producer Education) to develop these online tools.

Covered commodities include barley, canola, large and small chickpeas, corn, crambe, flaxseed, grain sorghum, lentils, mustard seed, oats, peanuts, dry peas, rapeseed, long grain rice, medium grain rice (which includes short grain rice), safflower seed, sesame, soybeans, sunflower seed and wheat. Upland cotton is no longer a covered commodity.

Today's announcement was made possible through the 2014 Farm Bill, which builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for the taxpayer. Since enactment, USDA has made significant progress to implement each provision of this critical legislation, including providing disaster relief to farmers and ranchers; strengthening risk management tools; expanding access to rural credit; funding critical research; establishing innovative public-private conservation partnerships; developing new markets for rural-made products; and investing in infrastructure, housing and community facilities to help improve quality of life in rural America. For more information, visit www.usda.gov/farmbill.



Informa Pegs Bean Production Above 4BB, Corn Production Steady

Private analytical firm Informa Economics sees U.S. soybean production climbing over 4 billion bushels with an average yield of 48.5 bushels per acre.  Informa's production forecast is 104 million bushels higher than USDA's September estimate and its yield estimate is 1.9 bpa higher. Soybean planted acres will likely be reduced by 1.2 million acres in USDA's October report, but yield increases will "more than offset a potential production loss associated with the acreage reduction."

USDA will incorporate the Farm Services Agency's certified acreage data in its October Crop Production and World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates that will be released on Friday, October 10, at 11 a.m. CDT.

Informa expects USDA to forecast corn production at 14.395 billion bushels. While that's unchanged from USDA's forecast in September, Informa sees USDA increasing the national average yield to 176.4 bpa, up 4.7 bpa from September, while lowering harvested acreage by 2.3 million acres to 81.6 ma.



CME Group Announces Reduced Electronic Trading Hours for CME Livestock Products in Response to Customer Feedback

CME Group, the world's leading and most diverse derivatives marketplace, today announced it will reduce electronic trading hours of CME Livestock futures and options products following comprehensive outreach to producers, commercial customers, traders and other industry participants who manage their risk in its markets. Pending CFTC review, trading in CME Livestock markets will be amended on the CME Globex electronic trading platform beginning with trade date, Monday, October 27, 2014.

"Over the past several months, we have been engaging with a broad cross section of customers and industry participants, including a formal survey in August, and based on that feedback we have determined we should reduce electronic trading hours for our livestock products," said Tim Andriesen, Managing Director, Agricultural Commodities and Alternative Investments, CME Group. "It is important that we provide products that meet the changing needs of our customers and the market. We believe this change will result in deeper and more liquid markets to serve their risk management needs."

Beginning Monday, October 27, electronic trading hours for CME Lean Hogs, Live Cattle and Feeder Cattle futures and options will be as follows on CME Globex:
-    Monday – 9:05 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. CT
-    Tuesday to Thursday – 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. CT
-    Friday – 8:00 a.m. to 1:55 p.m. CT

Open-outcry trading hours for CME Livestock futures and options products will not be impacted by this adjustment to CME Globex trading hours.

Currently, electronic trading takes a one hour break from 4pm CT to 5pm CT Monday through Thursday. The market closes at 1:55pm CT on Fridays and opens at 9:05am CT on Mondays.



Environmental Groups Sense Defeat, Drop Case Against Lois Alt

West Virginia farmer Lois Alt’s victory in court stands after the five environmental groups that sided with the Environmental Protection Agency against Alt took their cue from the agency and dropped their appeal on Thursday.

“We are proud of Lois Alt for courageously standing by her convictions and defending her long record of environmental stewardship,” American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said. “Meanwhile, the EPA and its allies have simply slunk back. They know their position can’t survive in court.”

Both American Farm Bureau and West Virginia Farm Bureau joined alongside Ms. Alt in the suit.

In October 2013, the U.S. Court for the Northern District of West Virginia rejected EPA’s contention that the Clean Water Act requires a federal permit for ordinary rain water runoff from the farmyard (non-production areas) at large livestock or poultry farms known as “concentrated animal feeding operations” or “CAFOs”. An appeal in the case would have brought the issue to the appellate level, where another victory for Alt would have provided even broader protection for other poultry and livestock farmers. The EPA dropped its appeal in September. A blog post suggested the agency would continue to enforce the same policy that the district court found unlawful.

“We are thankful to Lois Alt for winning a significant legal victory for the benefit of other farmers,” AFBF General Counsel Ellen Steen said. “Since EPA and its allies are not willing to defend their position, we hope they will abide by the court’s decision and stop pushing for needless regulation of responsible farmers.”



ASA Joins Comments on Proposed Standards for Rail Tank Cars

The American Soybean Association this week signed onto comments, along with 29 other agricultural organizations, expressing views on the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) Proposed Rule on rail tank car standards for high-hazard flammable trains.  While not directly impacting rail cars used to ship soybeans, there is concern among agricultural shippers that the new requirements proposed by PHMSA could add to the already severe rail congestion issues.

The primary points made in the comments are that: 1) expanding the areas where trains carrying hazmat are subject to lower speed limits is unnecessary and would add to rail congestion issues, 2) PHMSA should modify the proposed schedule for retrofitting or replacing the 30,000 ethanol tank cars currently in service, and 3) PHMSA should take a more comprehensive, risk-based approach to rail safety by addressing such factors as substandard track conditions, inadequate track and/or roadbed maintenance, as well as human error.

USDA to Begin U.S. Oilseed Crush Reports in 2015
Starting in 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is taking responsibility for collecting and publishing the oilseeds data. Since the U.S. Census Bureau discontinued the reports in 2011 due to budget cuts, ASA worked to gain congressional support and urge the USDA to take over development and publication of the reports.

The information is important to government agencies, private industry and futures markets and does not exist elsewhere, except in incomplete form. The soybean industry utilized the reports in many ways, including tracking the amount of soybeans processed into meal and oil.

USDA is in the process of establishing the framework for data collection to compile the various reports and plans to begin publication sometime in 2015.



USGC Creatively Develops Markets for U.S. Corn

While price is an important consideration for buyers of corn and other commodities, the United States’ reputation for reliability and honesty is also a significant market asset. The U.S. Grains Council has been promoting these benefits in top markets around the globe and will continue to do so as the United States begins harvest for another record corn crop.

The United States exported more than 11 percent of the U.S. corn supply in the 2013/2014 marketing year, which ended Aug. 31. More than 100 countries purchased the U.S. commodity.

U.S. corn exports to Japan enjoyed a powerful rebound, with USDA reports showing 2013/2014 exports and outstanding sales of 11.8 million metric tons (465 million bushels). The Council has been able to provide Japanese end-users with timely, reliable information to reinforce their traditional preference for U.S. corn. This included presentation of the Council’s 2013/2014 Corn Harvest Quality Report at the Japanese Outlook Conference last January.  Now in their third year, the Council’s Corn Harvest Quality and Corn Export Cargo Quality reports have become recognized benchmarks for Japanese buyers who monitor the U.S. crop with great care. 

Colombia also saw a dramatic rebound in U.S. sales.  U.S. corn had become uncompetitive in recent years due to more favorable tariff treatment for South American producers. Implementation of the long-delayed U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement (fta), recent policy changes and the Council’s promotion in that market resulted in dominant market share in the past year. In April 2013, the Colombian Price Ban System increased the duty on South American origin imports to 5.75 percent. Thanks to the U.S.-Colombia fta, however, the first 2.1 million tons (82.7 million bushels) of U.S. corn imports have a zero percent duty. Overall, the U.S. provided more than 95 percent of the 3.4 million ton (134 million bushels) Colombian corn market, with expectations favorable for the coming year also.

The good news extends to North Africa.  For the 2013/2014 marketing year, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia took a combined 3.0 million tons (118.1 million bushels) of U.S. corn (accumulated exports plus outstanding sales), compared to nothing over the same period last marketing year.

“A year ago, North Africa dropped off the charts in terms of U.S. corn sales,” said USGC Council President and CEO Tom Sleight. “But this year, Egypt took nearly as much corn (whole grain) as China, and Morocco and Tunisia are again buying U.S. corn.”

Black Sea producers will continue to provide strong regional competition, but the rebound in U.S. sales this year demonstrates the importance of maintaining a strong and creative presence in rapidly evolving regional markets.

Heading into the 2014/2015 marketing year, the Council has more plans to develop new markets for U.S. corn.  Examples of this include the Council exploring markets for U.S. ethanol demand overseas, building demand for coarse grains and co-products across the globe, including Latin America, Tanzania, China and Japan, in livestock sectors through tours of U.S. facilities, and Export Exchange 2014, the premier international trade conference focused on the export of U.S. coarse grains and co-products.



Think Safety First When Pumping Pits

Although it’s not a common occurrence, even a few reports of flash fires and explosions in hog barns should serve as a good reminder that safety is paramount any time that liquid manure is being agitated and pumped from a holding pit.

As liquid manure undergoes slow decomposition in pits, it creates several gases including methane and hydrogen sulfide, both of which are flammable. The rate of gas release from the manure can be drastically increased when the manure is stirred during pumping. This increase is especially true for hydrogen sulfide, which can have a lethal paralyzing effect in addition to being flammable, notes Shawn Shouse, an Iowa State University (ISU) Extension area agricultural engineer.

Strict safety protocols, along with proper ventilation and agitation practices, can minimize the risk of flash fires and explosions during manure pumping as outlined in the Pork Checkoff’s Safe Manure Removal Policies fact sheet. If you experience any foaming in a manure pit, be sure to contact your local Extension Service as well for additional information and management tips.

Following these tips, offered by Pork Checkoff and ISU, can provide a good basis to improve manure-handling safety.

- Review your emergency action plan with all workers, and have emergency contact numbers available at the site. The Pork Checkoff’s Pork Production System, available here offers tips on developing and implementing an emergency action plan. It also includes sections on hazardous gasses and fires.

- Prior to agitation or pumping, turn off electrical power to any non-ventilation equipment, and extinguish any pilot lights or other ignition sources in the building.

- Fully open all ventilation curtains or ventilation pivot-doors, but leave walk-in doors locked to prevent human entry.

- Run ventilation fans at maximum speed.

- Ensure that all people are out of the building and clearly tag all doors, noting that the building is unsafe for entry during agitation and pumping.

- Agitate the manure keeping the jet of pressurized manure below the liquid surface. Don’t let the jet of manure strike walls or columns in the pit.

- Stop agitation when the manure level does not allow agitation below the liquid surface.

- Continue maximum ventilation for thirty minutes after pumping has ended before re-entering the building.

- Never enter a building or manure storage structure when liquid manure is being agitated or pumped.

In case of fire…
If a fire breaks out at your facility, remember the acronym RACE:
  - Rescue those in immediate danger (ONLY IF YOU CAN DO SO SAFELY).
  - Announce to others the need to evacuate.
  - Contain the fire by closing doors and windows as you exit.
  - Evacuate immediately. Go straight to the designated meeting spot upon evacuating the building so that your head-count leader will know that you have safely made it out of the building.



Rabobank Beef Quarterly Q3: Russian bans won’t slow runaway markets

The Rabobank Q3 Beef Quarterly reports that global beef supply is in a tightening phase, with most key producing and export regions already experiencing record tight supplies. Further tightening is expected throughout the remainder of 2014 and into 2015. Russian import bans are unlikely to have a large impact on world beef markets with Brazil’s industry likely to be the ban’s largest beneficiary. The impact on major exporters, such as Australia and the US, will be minimal given increased impediments to trade with Russia prior to the current ban.

“There is largely positive news for the global beef industry as strong demand and tight supply are showing no signs of slowing, pushing prices, in some cases record prices, even higher”, explains Rabobank analyst Angus Gidley-Baird.

Regional Outlook

•             US: Volatility continues to characterize the U.S. market as cattle prices continue to trade at record levels, and consumer appetite remains firm.

•             Brazil: Brazil exports have benefitted from increased demand from Russia this quarter and will start going to China during the next six months. Strong demand and tight supplies have underpinned record cattle prices.

•             Australia: Cattle prices responded on the back of some decent rainfall during August, although the dry seasonal conditions remain a concern. Record slaughter continues to drive record exports, with strong international demand helping to support prices.

•             China: Although total Chinese imports in 2014 are expected to be lower than the record levels witnessed on 2013, demand for the remainder of 2014 is forecast to strengthen.

•             New Zealand: New Zealand beef returns have remained at record levels, and with a forecast of tight supplies and very strong US demand, industry outlook for the remainder of 2014 and into 2015 is optimistic.

•             Canada: The Canadian cattle market has been enjoying the same surge in cattle prices for the year as has been seen in the US and has aggressively been using all available cattle supplies.

•             Argentina: Production is expected to increase seasonally with improved weather, but exports continue to remain at historically low levels, despite the encouraging trade developments with the US and Russia.

•             Mexico: Production continues to be restrained as cattle availability remains scarce. At the end of the year, Rabobank expects beef production to increase by 0.9%.

•             Indonesia: Better supply has resulted in softening prices, impacting finishers’ profitability. This may cause lot feeders to import fewer cattle in 2H 2014, despite issuing record permit numbers.

•             EU: The market is expected to remain under pressure and at best stabilise, with the seasonal increase in demand unlikely to result in higher prices given the increasing competition with lower pork and poultry prices.



AFBF Survey: Bacon Cheeseburgers Costing Just a Bit More

Shoppers are paying slightly more for food at the grocery store compared to the first half of 2014. Higher retail prices for beef and pork products such as ground chuck and bacon, among other foods, resulted in a slight increase in the American Farm Bureau Federation’s latest Semi-Annual Marketbasket Survey.

The informal survey shows the total cost of 16 food items that can be used to prepare one or more meals was $54.26, up $1.06 or about 2 percent compared to a survey conducted about a year ago. Of the 16 items surveyed, seven increased and nine decreased in average price.

“Several beef, pork and dairy products rose in price during the second half of the year, accounting for much of the increase in the marketbasket,” said John Anderson, AFBF’s deputy chief economist. “As anticipated, food prices have increased moderately – by about 2 percent – during 2014, which is essentially in line with the average rate of inflation over the past 10 years.”

Items showing retail price increases from a year ago include:
-    sirloin tip roast, up 27 percent to $5.52 per pound
-    ground chuck, up 17 percent to $4.31 per pound
-    sliced deli ham, up 16 percent to $5.44 per pound
-    bacon, up 9 percent to $5.11 per pound
-    shredded cheddar, up 6 percent to $4.78 per pound
-    eggs, up 7 percent to $1.95 per dozen
-    whole milk, up 2 percent to $3.78 per gallon

Items showing retail price decreases from a year ago include:
-    Russet potatoes, down 15 percent to $2.72 for a five-pound bag
-    vegetable oil, down 14 percent to $2.69 for a 32-ounce bottle
-    chicken breast, down 12 percent to $3.46 per pound
-    bagged salad, down 10 percent to $2.55 per pound
-    orange juice, down 8 percent to $3.21 per half-gallon
-    flour, down 7 percent to $2.47 for a five-pound bag
-    white bread, down 6 percent to $1.72 for a 20-ounce loaf
-    toasted oat cereal, down 3 percent to $2.99 for a 9-ounce box
-    apples, down 2 percent to $1.56 per pound

Price checks of alternative milk and egg choices not included in the overall marketbasket survey average revealed the following: 1/2 gallon regular milk, $2.51; 1/2 gallon rBST-free milk, $3.31; 1/2 gallon organic milk, $4.05; and 1 dozen “cage-free” eggs, $3.65.

“On the retail side, we’re seeing higher beef prices which can be attributed to lower production,” Anderson said. “Consumers can expect to pay a little more for their bacon cheeseburgers as we look toward the end of the year.”

The year-to-year direction of the marketbasket survey tracks closely with the federal government’s Consumer Price Index (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/) report for food at home. As retail grocery prices have increased gradually over time, the share of the average food dollar that America’s farm and ranch families receive has dropped.

“Through the mid-1970s, farmers received about one-third of consumer retail food expenditures for food eaten at home and away from home, on average. Since then, that figure has decreased steadily and is now about 16 percent, according to the Agriculture Department’s revised Food Dollar Series,” Anderson said.

Using the “food at home and away from home” percentage across-the-board, the farmers’ share of the $54.26 marketbasket is $8.68.

AFBF, the nation’s largest general farm organization, conducted an informal quarterly marketbasket survey of retail food price trends from 1989 to 2012. In 2013, the marketbasket series was updated to include two semi-annual surveys of “everyday” food items, a summer cookout survey and the annual Thanksgiving survey.

According to USDA, Americans spend just under 10 percent of their disposable annual income on food, the lowest average of any country in the world. A total of 87 shoppers in 27 states participated in the latest survey, conducted in September.



We Were Played: USDA Moves To Take Over The Checkoff
by Troy Marshall, posted on beefmagazine.com

It wasn’t all that long ago that all of the industry organizations were supposedly collaborating to develop a consensus plan to make improvements to the national beef checkoff. The upshot of that endeavor, however, made it obvious how much of a political game the checkoff has become, as members committed to destroying the checkoff sabotaged the effort by abandoning the process and asking USDA to step in and take control of the program.

It’s a little disconcerting that the other organizations negotiating in good faith seem to have been so successfully manipulated and were unaware of the maneuverings taking place to circumnavigate their good intentions. Nevertheless, USDA let it be known this week that it  plans to disregard the working group’s suggestions and take control of the program via the 1996 Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act.

I’m assuming that USDA’s grab of the program will be separate from the existing act and order, as I’m sure there would be significant hurdles to overcome to circumvent it. It’s certainly not unusual, however, for regulatory agencies to usurp control without being given authority to do so by the legislature, or by using existing law. That was never the intention in the case of the 1996 law. However, Congress may show some signs of resistance when the agency essentially decides to circumvent existing legislation.

The USDA Secretary’s planned takeover of the checkoff calls for a new checkoff to be implemented in 2016. A referendum would be held on the new checkoff within three years, and the details would be released by the end of this year or early 2015. That means the new rules will have to be published and comment periods held. The timeline obviously means that the intent is to implement a new program before a new administration takes over in 2016.

It seems to be a new model for doing things, where a lame-duck administration that is stymied by a partisan and deeply divided legislature acts on its own to circumvent the legislative process, write its own laws, and enact its agenda.

From the beef industry’s perspective, there is some concern about a government-run, top-down checkoff structure eliminating the producer grassroots involvement that’s been the hallmark of the current program. Ironically, however, I’d argue that one of the largest problems with the current checkoff has been excessive and counterproductive government intervention, which is likely to only increase.

This latest announcement almost ensures that any proposal to raise the checkoff assessment is dead, and that all industry efforts will be focused on raising funds on the state level. In the end, none of the major players seem neither surprised by the USDA Secretary’s announcement, nor overly concerned about the results.

The great irony is that the checkoff, by anyone’s measure, has been very successful. Every dollar invested provides a return to producers of at least 6-10 times on their money. In fact, a recent study placed the return at $11 or more, though that may be overstated as it’s difficult to determine the value of all the factors that are helping to grow and strengthen demand. Regardless of the exact figure, if we could make other investments with those kinds of returns, we’d all be very wealthy.

This isn’t the first time that government solicited input from affected parties as a cover to move forward with whatever plan it was hiding under the covers. But it does finally prove that this controversy has never been about the checkoff itself, but a difference in political viewpoints between organizations. The checkoff was viewed by those who did not agree with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s (NCBA) policy side as a way to harm NCBA.

No one can seriously argue that the firewall between policy and promotion was ever crossed. Nor can anyone seriously argue that the dollars will flow in any other direction, because the expertise and ability to operate these programs has been concentrated. It is likely, however, that the government will assume these roles, but these are roles that government cannot, or at least has never been able to, do effectively.

In the end, it’s mostly semantics and political gamesmanship. I think the results affirm that the creation of an NCBA umbrella by the industry did improve efficiencies and marketing effectiveness. However, it also fell victim to the political divide that now characterizes a good part of agriculture. Those entities opposed to NCBA were successful in trying to link the two sides of NCBA. Separate or not, however, NCBA’s policy side will continue to represent its members.  

A commodity industry desperately needs a checkoff in order to remain competitive, and the beef checkoff has been a very successful program. However, NCBA will always represent the grassroots principles of its members, no matter how much certain elements disagree with those views. I also believe that producers have not only sufficiently seen the economic benefits of the checkoff and understand the value of building demand, but that those who wish to destroy our industry by destroying the checkoff will be sadly disappointed.

The industry may be losing the checkoff as it was originally constituted, but we will find a way to make the investment in our product. We’ll also increase the effectiveness tenfold if we can eliminate the government oversight and control of the program.

The saddest part of all this isn’t the political games and maneuverings, but the realization that we have truly met the enemy and it is ourselves. At one point, we were afraid that outside groups would succeed in destroying the checkoff because they didn’t want the industry to succeed. They largely failed. However, those who have harmed it are those we thought were fighting for the industry – our own industry groups bent on vying for political power, as well as a politically motivated and power-hungry USDA.



Six False Claims the Environmental Protection Agency is Making to Hide Its Attempt to Control America's Water

Landowners, homeowners, home builders, construction companies, farmers, ranchers, fruit growers, the forestry and mining industries, and just about everyone else engaged in productive activities in the United States are in the crosshairs of the most far-reaching power grab ever undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to a new analysis by Bonner Cohen, Ph. D., senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

In the name of "clarifying" the federal government's regulatory authority over certain bodies of water under the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in March unleashed a torrent of proposed regulations that would give Washington final authority over land-use decisions from coast-to-coast.

The regulations cover "waters of the United States" and are commonly referred to as "WOTUS."

In the analysis, "WOTUS: The Facts About EPA's Wet Fiction," Dr. Cohen points out that the EPA contends that its regulatory onslaught is necessary to clear up "uncertainties" arising from U.S. Supreme Court decisions from 2001 and 2006. Those rulings restricted the EPA's authority and cast doubt over the legitimacy of its schemes to regulate wetlands and intermittent bodies of water.

"Despite losing both cases," Dr. Cohen says, "EPA now claims that ambiguities in the rulings give it greater authority than ever before to regulate isolated and intermittent bodies of water on private land."

Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is authorized to regulate "navigable waters of the United States," such as rivers, bays, channels, etc. But under the guise of "clarifying" its power, EPA is seeking to effectively delete the word "navigable" from the statute, allowing the agency to expand its writ far beyond congressional intent.

Dr. Cohen's analysis notes that staffers on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee have rated the following six claims about WOTUS by Obama's EPA as "NOT TRUE":
    • The EPA says WOTUS does not apply to ditches. (Not true.)
    • The EPA says WOTUS will not regulate activities on land. (Not true.)
    • The EPA says WOTUS will not apply to groundwater. (Not true.)
    • The EPA says WOTUS will not affect stock ponds. (Not true.)
    • The EPA says WOTUS does not require permits for normal farming activities, like moving cattle. (Not true.)
    • The EPA says WOTUS does not regulate puddles. (Not true.)

In fact, Dr. Cohen says, Obama's EPA is granting itself the power, under certain circumstances, to regulate:
    • Ditches;
    • Activities on land including homebuilding, agriculture, ranching, and mining;
    • Groundwater;
    • Stock ponds on farms and ranches;
    • Traditional agricultural activities, such as moving cattle; and
    • Puddles.

"If the proposed regulations are allowed to go into effect," Dr. Cohen says, "the Obama EPA and the Corps will become lord and master over millions of acres of private land in the United States."