NEBRASKA CATTLE ON FEED UP SLIGHTLY FROM LAST YEAR
Nebraska feedlots, with capacities of 1,000 or more head, contained 2.45 million cattle on feed on November 1, according to the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. This inventory was up slightly from last year. Placements during October totaled 645,000 head, down 2 percent from 2014. Fed cattle marketings for the month of October totaled 445,000 head, up 3 percent from last year. Other disappearance during October totaled 20,000 head, unchanged from last year.
IOWA CATTLE ON FEED REPORT UP 5% FROM LAST YEAR
Cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market in Iowa for all feedlots totaled 1,145,000 on November 1, 2015, according to the latest USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service – Cattle on Feed report. The inventory is up 3 percent from October 1, 2015, and up 5 percent from November 1, 2014. Feedlots with a capacity greater than 1,000 head had 640,000 head on feed, up 7 percent from last month and up 8 percent from last year. This marks the highest November inventory since estimates began in 1994. Feedlots with a capacity less than 1,000 head had 505,000 head on feed, down 1 percent from last month but up 1 percent from last year.
Placements during October totaled 238,000 head, an increase of 65 percent from last month and up 5 percent from last year. Feedlots with a capacity greater than 1,000 head placed 156,000 head, up 84 percent from last month and up 18 percent from last year. This is the greatest number of cattle on feed placed in a month since estimates began in 1994. Feedlots with a capacity less than 1,000 head placed 82,000 head. This is up 39 percent from last month but down 14 percent from last year.
Marketings for October were 198,000 head, up 21 percent from last month and up 23 percent from last year. Feedlots with a capacity greater than 1,000 head marketed 113,000 head, up 12 percent from last month and up 13 percent from last year. Feedlots with a capacity less than 1,000 head marketed 85,000 head, up 37 percent from last month and up 39 percent from last year. Other disappearance totaled 5,000 head.
United States Cattle on Feed Up 2 Percent
Cattle and calves on feed for the slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled 10.8 million head on November 1, 2015. The inventory was 2 percent above November 1, 2014.
Number of Cattle on Feed (1,000 hd - % Nov '14)
Colorado .......: 880 100
Iowa .............: 640 108
Kansas ..........: 2,150 103
Nebraska ......: 2,450 100
Texas ............: 2,560 100
Placements in feedlots during October totaled 2.28 million head, 4 percent below 2014. Net placements were 2.21 million head. During October, placements of cattle and calves weighing less than 600 pounds were 645,000 head, 600-699 pounds were 530,000 head, 700-799 pounds were 431,000 head, and 800 pounds and greater were 675,000 head.
Number of Cattle Placed (1,000 hd - % Oct '14)
Colorado .......: 195 93
Iowa .............: 156 118
Kansas ..........: 445 106
Nebraska ......: 645 98
Texas ............: 450 87
Marketings of fed cattle during October totaled 1.63 million head, 3 percent below 2014. Marketings are the lowest for October since the series began in 1996. Other disappearance totaled 75,000 head during October, 23 percent below 2014.
Number of Cattle Marketed (1,000 hd - % Oct '14)
Colorado .......: 140 97
Iowa .............: 113 113
Kansas ..........: 300 94
Nebraska ......: 445 103
Texas ............: 360 86
NE Cattlemen Announces the 2016 YCC Class
The Nebraska Cattlemen is proud to announce the 2016 class of the Young Cattlemen's Conference (YCC). YCC nominees were accepted from throughout the state and selected by committee to participate in the two-year leadership program. Each class is limited to 10 individuals.
The 2016 YCC class includes:
Reiss L. Bruning, Bruning
Jentry Cain, Berywn
Bradley Christensen, Columbus
Tricia Goes, Odell
Adam Guenther, West Point
Gus Petersen, Cambridge
Heidi Pieper, Farnam
Douglas Smith Ph.D., Curtis
Kenneth Stauffer, Harrisburg
Kelly Terrell, Gothenburg
The next two years will be spent growing and learning with this class. NC looks forward to the future of these individuals.
NePPA Now Accepting 2016 Pork Mentorship Program Applications
The Nebraska Pork Producers Association wants students to be a part of the 2016 Pork Mentorship Program. If students are connected to agriculture and believe in the future of the pork industry, they are encouraged to apply! $500 scholarships are available for college-age students who have an interest in the pork industry – they don’t have to be a pork producer! Applications are due December 5th. Students may apply for this opportunity by requesting an application by emailing kyla@nepork.org, or visiting the youth tab on www.nepork.org.
The Pork Mentorship Program is directed under Kyla Habrock, NPPA Youth Education Director. Habrock stated, “The NPPA Pork Mentorship Program is more than just a scholarship. It’s a way for students to build their capacity as a leader and professional in the swine and agriculture industries in Nebraska. The program provides students with an opportunity to identify future career goals and to evolve into strong agricultural advocates.”
The Pork Mentorship program was established in 1999. To date, over 120 students have completed the program and over $65,000 in scholarships have been awarded. Each year the students participate in activities that encourage personal growth, leadership development, community engagement, and expand their knowledge of the pork industry. A $500 scholarship is awarded upon the completion of the year-long program.
Sheep Production Workshop Cancelled
The Iowa State University Extension Sheep Production Skill Development Workshop scheduled to be held on Saturday, Nov. 21, has been cancelled due to an expected snow storm. The program location was the Deb and Jeff Hanson Agriculture Learning Center located at 2508 Mortensen Road in Ames, IA.
The free workshop will be rescheduled for an undetermined day in January 2016. Topics covered will be reproductive management of ewe stock, basic sheep nutrition and feeding, a hands-on session at the Iowa State University Sheep Teaching Farm, condition scoring, mouthing and aging, using CIDRS and ram breeding tests, and hay sampling.
More information will be available at a later date.
AG GROUPS RAISE CONCERN OVER USDA ‘EQUIVALENCY’ ANNOUNCEMENTS
(from National Pork Producers Council newsletter)
In a joint letter sent Tuesday to U.S. Department of Agriculture Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety Alfred Almanza, the National Pork Producers Council, the American Sheep Industry Association, the National Milk Producers Federation and the National Turkey Federation raised a concern about USDA public announcements on other countries’ food safety systems.
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducts inspections of those systems to determine their equivalence with the U.S. system. When a foreign country’s system is deemed to be equivalent, an announcement is published in the Federal Register for public comment. But the groups pointed out in their letter that such announcements give the impression that meat and meat products then can be immediately exported to the United States. Before that happens, though, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) must review the disease status of a country and complete an assessment of the disease risk of importing meat and meat products from it.
The organizations suggested that USDA not publish the results of the FSIS equivalency inspections until APHIS conducts its risk assessments. If the results must be published, the organizations said, at the very least, the announcements should contain a statement indicating that “no exports to the U.S. can occur until approved by APHIS.”
FDA ISSUES FINAL RULE FOR IMPORTERS OF HUMAN FOOD, ANIMAL FEED
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last Friday released the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Final Rule on Foreign Supplier Verification for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals. The rule requires that importers of human food and animal feed – finished products and ingredients – from other countries verify that the products were produced in accordance with the good manufacturing procedures, hazard analysis and preventative controls required by the recently released FSMA human food and animal feed rules for domestic manufacturers. It creates a much stronger system for ensuring the safety of imported animal feeds and ingredients.
Given that imported feed ingredients have been identified as a potential source of Porcine Endemic Diarrhea and other viruses, NPPC supports a strong rule for foreign suppliers. Though NPPC continues to have concerns about the scope of the FSMA animal feed rule domestically, the foreign supplier rule will benefit the U.S. pork industry, and NPPC will encourage FDA to provide robust enforcement of it.
NPPC: DON’T ALLOW MEAT FROM NAMIBIA INTO U.S. UNTIL DISEASE STATUS DETERMINED
NPPC this week asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) to take no further action on a proposed rule that would allow the importation of beef and beef products from Namibia until USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) completes a review of that country’s disease status.
FSIS investigates and approves the food safety systems of countries that want to import food into the United States and recently found Namibia’s system equivalent to the U.S. system. But in comments on the FSIS rule on Namibia submitted to the agency, NPPC expressed opposition to allowing the country to begin exporting meat to the United States because the African nation has had nearly 30 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle since June.
Until APHIS evaluates Namibia’s safeguards to control and manage foreign animal diseases, meat from that country should not be allowed into the United States, said NPPC.
Bipartisan Group of Former Agriculture Secretaries Urges Congress to Pass Trade Pacific Partnership
A bipartisan group of former U.S. Agriculture Secretaries, today issued an open letter urging Congress to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The former secretaries note that opening new markets for exports is critical for farmers and rural communities. Agricultural exports provide 20 percent of farm income and support more than 1 million jobs, many of them in rural communities. TPP is a new trade deal that will create new opportunities for American-grown and American–made products in the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. By opening new markets in Japan, Vietnam, and other countries, we are giving our producers access to new customers and expanding their sales. These sales will generate more farm production, and related activities, that will grow the U.S. economy.
The letter from the former secretaries follows:
As former Secretaries of Agriculture, we have been personally invested in the negotiation of every major U.S. trade agreement of the past 40 years. We know from experience how important such agreements are to the economic well-being of our farmers and ranchers. In every negotiation where agriculture has been on the agenda these negotiations have expanded our markets, boosted farm incomes, and in the process created new jobs, both on-farm and off-farm, in rural America.
The recently concluded Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations are in that same mold. TPP, a high-standard, 12-country agreement, represents this nation's "rebalance toward Asia," which fits American agriculture perfectly. That's where populations are increasing, as is purchasing power, and that's what dramatically enhances the demand for our food. We will in the future benefit significantly from increased access to those markets.
We have long had aspirations to sell more of our products to Japan, and we'll now have that enhanced opportunity. But TPP also opens up new markets in the growing economies of Vietnam and Malaysia. And it even provides additional access to Canada's poultry, egg and dairy markets.
TPP is a 21st-century agreement that sets enforceable "rules of the road" for trade throughout the region, and with countries currently representing over 40 percent of the global economy. But it is also meant to be an open platform for other countries to potentially join, over time, if they are willing to meet the high standards set forth in the agreement, and if we and the other TPP members—and our own Congress—confirm they can meet that bar. That means potential future agricultural export opportunities could open up within the region.
In addition, we should recognize that it is far better to be "on the inside" of agreements like TPP, than "on the outside" looking in. Being an insider gives all TPP participants an inherent competitive advantage over those countries which were not involved.
TPP obviously has non-economic benefits too. It will solidify our working relationship with the participating Asian (and South American) countries, and that has both foreign policy and national security implications. And "beyond the border" provisions such as enforceable labor and environmental provisions in developing countries—beyond mere tariff reductions—also help level the playing field for U.S. businesses and American exports, including agricultural products.
No trade agreement ever negotiated—TPP included—is perfect. But we should never let perfection be the enemy of the good, and this is a very good trade agreement. In addition to its market access benefits, it will establish the rules of the game for international trade – and help drive up standards for the entire world – for years to come. That is especially invaluable to a country like the United States, which tries to follow the rules of the global marketplace, whereas others often do not. TPP represents solid, committed leadership by the U.S. in international trade, and in one of the most dynamic, fastest-growing regions of the world.
For American agriculture there is no downside to TPP, and there is substantial upside. Hence, we strongly support a vote of approval by the U.S. Congress.
Signed,
Secretary Ed Schafer (2008–2009)
Secretary Mike Johanns (2005–2007)
Secretary Ann Veneman (2001–2005)
Secretary Dan Glickman (1995–2001)
Secretary Mike Espy (1993–1994)
Secretary Clayton K. Yeutter (1989–1991)
Secretary John R. Block (1981–1986)
Cattlemen's Webinar Series - Transportation, Trade & Taxes
December 10, 2015
7:00pm Central Time
From trade to transportation, 2015 has been a turbulent year for a number of policy issues important to cattlemen and women both on Capitol Hill and within the federal agencies. Join the National Cattlemen's Beef Association policy experts, Colin Woodall and Kent Bacus, as they discuss the latest congressional activity in Washington D.C., and explain what these issues mean to you. Also, back by popular demand, CPA Larry Kopsa will share end of year tax tips for cattle producers. All panelists will be available for Q&A at the end of the presentation. Register here... https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/7627463165368184577.
Broad Coalition Urges Congress to Uphold Promise to Not Cut Crop Insurance or Other Farm Programs
National Farmers Union (NFU) joined a broad coalition of 49 groups representing farm interests, equipment manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, credit lenders, and other entities in urging Congressional leadership to keep their promise to American farmers to not cut crop insurance or other farm programs through the omnibus appropriations act.
“Cuts to crop insurance translate into further consolidation within the crop insurance sector, providing less choice for family farmers who depend on this cost-effective safety net program,” said NFU President Roger Johnson. “We appreciate the deal struck during the budget negotiations between majority leadership and House and Senate Agriculture Committee leadership. As Congress negotiates an omnibus spending bill, we are urging them to keep their promise to leave the farm bill intact and not make cuts to the federal crop insurance program.”
An agreement was struck between U.S. Senate and House of Representatives Republican leadership and the committees of jurisdiction during the recent budget debate to unwind both the policy and the cut to crop insurance made within the budget deal.
“The crop insurance provision contained in the budget would gut the private sector delivery of the crop insurance program by cutting the target rate of return by 38%,” notes the coalition’s letter to all members of Congress. “Under the current target rate of return, crop insurance companies have realized negative net returns since 2011. Further reducing the target rate would only drive the industry further into the red.”
As previously reported by Agri-Pulse, “the $3 billion in savings that the cut was supposed to produce will be found in some other, non-agricultural area of the federal budget.”
“This commitment is very important to our members and to everyone involved in agriculture,” said Johnson. “Just like we opposed this unwarranted cut to crop insurance, our members will also strongly oppose cuts to other important titles of the farm bill, such as additional cuts to conservation, energy and nutrition.”
The letter also notes that the agriculture community is strongly committed to the belief that balancing the federal budget is important, which is why the industry supported the passage of a farm bill just last year that saved $16.6 billion.
“The farm bill is a careful balance of priorities and should not be reopened before its expiration in 2018,” notes the letter. “Additionally, the crop insurance program has contributed more than $12 billion towards reducing government spending since the 2008 Farm Bill, which well-surpasses the funding added to the program in 2014.”
“The crop insurance program is the lynchpin of the farm safety net and is crucial to the economic security of rural America,” says the letter. “As an omnibus spending bill is negotiated, we urge you to uphold the promise to make the crop insurance program whole again without re-opening the farm bill.”
Highway Bill May Get Another Short Term Extension
Conferees from the House and Senate have begun formal negotiations of a long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill. Both chambers have passed their own versions, and a conference committee has been established to work out the differences between the two. The current short-term extension expires on Friday.
In addition to policy differences, the two overarching questions facing negotiators are funding mechanisms and authorization length.
Both chambers' bills would authorize the program for six years; some Members of the conference committee have called for shortening the timeframe in order to help address funding challenges.
With these and other questions still unresolved, the House of Representatives passed another short-term extension of the current authorization extending to December 4 in order to provide additional time for negotiations.
Tyson Foods Closing Plants in Wisconsin and Chicago
Tyson Foods Inc. on Thursday announced plans to close two aging prepared-food plants, in the face of prohibitive renovation costs and changing demand.
About 880 workers would be affected by the closures of the plants in Jefferson, Wis., and Chicago. The meat-processing company said the workers—about 480 in Chicago and about 400 in Jefferson—are being encouraged to apply for other openings within the company.
"We examined many options before we turned down this road," Donnie King, Tyson's president of North American operations, said in a statement. "This affects the lives of our team members and their families, making it a very difficult decision."
The Chicago plant, which had been acquired by Tyson in 1994 and originally made meals for airlines, now produces meatballs, crepes, omelets and soups, among other products.
The Wisconsin facility was founded in 1875 as a processing facility for beef, pork and lamb. It currently produces sliced ham and pepperoni for pizza toppings and sliced pepperoni and salami for delicatessens.
The closures come as Tyson continues to remake itself after its 2014 acquisition of Hillshire Brands Co. Shortly after the announcement of the acquisition, Tyson announced in July 2014 that it was closing three prepared-food plants. In recent quarters, revenue growth in the prepared-food division has led the company's top-line growth, primarily as a result of the Hillshire acquisition.
In August, the company announced it was closing a 400-person beef-processing plant in Iowa, citing declining U.S. cattle herds.
In October, Tyson announced it was raising hourly wages for 34,000 employees at its U.S. chicken plants to better attract and retain workers.
Syngenta Sues Grain-Trading Firms
Syngenta AG sued several grain-trading firms over losses some U.S. farmers say they sustained after China rejected shipments of genetically modified corn, escalating a legal battle over the way biotech seeds are introduced to farm fields.
The lawsuit, filed late Thursday in U.S. District Court in Kansas, stems from a legal dispute that arose last year when grain companies and farmers sued Syngenta, arguing the company should compensate them for lost sales and depressed corn prices that they claim arose from the rejected shipments.
The Swiss seed and pesticide giant, which is contesting those allegations, argued in the new lawsuit that big grain merchants, including Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co., should be on the hook for losses that crop producers say they are due in the matter.
"We don't think there is any liability here, but to the extent there is, at a minimum, the lion's share of the duty falls on the grain trade," said Michael Jones, a lawyer for Kirkland & Ellis LLP representing Syngenta in the matter.
Representatives for ADM and Cargill had no immediate comment.
Syngenta in 2011 began selling a new variety of biotech corn seeds -- called Viptera and engineered to resist pests -- to farmers in the U.S., Argentina and Brazil after those governments granted approval for its cultivation. In late 2013, Chinese officials began turning away shipments of U.S. corn bound for Chinese ports after detecting the Syngenta strain, which the country had yet to approve for import.
Last year, Cargill sued Syngenta over the corn, alleging that Syngenta's decision to market the seeds without first securing Chinese import approval cost the Minnesota-based agribusiness $90 million when Beijing began rejecting corn shipments.
Other grain shippers, including Archer Daniels Midland Co., also sued Syngenta. The grain firms' cases touched off a wave of separate lawsuits filed by farmers across the country, who argued that they too lost money because China's rejections of U.S. corn shipments depressed the overall price of corn by closing off a key market.
Syngenta has defended its move to sell the seeds, saying it followed the law, was fully transparent and provided to farmers a valuable new tool for defending their crops against insect pests.
The judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, who is handling the farmers' lawsuits, in September ruled that the farmers can bring legal claims against a seed company over its duty to ensure that any biotech seeds don't damage other players in the "interconnected" U.S. corn supply chain.
That ruling allowed the farmers' case against Syngenta to move forward. But Syngenta's new lawsuit argues that it also places responsibility on the grain traders, as participants in the grain market, to shield farmers and other players against the same potential economic damage that could arise if shipments are rejected for containing unapproved biotech traits.
If the judge determines the farmers are due damages, Syngenta's lawsuit argues that Cargill, ADM and two smaller grain companies should bear some or all of the liability. Syngenta could add additional grain companies to the lawsuit, Mr. Jones said.
Welcome to the KTIC Agriculture Information blog!!! Check back here for the latest in ag news and information, from local events to international happenings and government reports that affect your operation. Please email with suggestions! -Chad Moyer, Farm Director, KTIC Radio
No comments:
Post a Comment