Wednesday January 6 Ag News

School Funding Reform, Property Tax Reduction, Growing Nebraska’s Livestock Sector Top Farm Bureau’s 2016 Legislative Priorities

Reforms to how Nebraska funds schools, reducing property taxes and growing Nebraska’s livestock sector are among the top legislative priorities for the Nebraska Farm Bureau heading into the 2016 legislative session, said Nebraska Farm Bureau President Steve Nelson, Jan. 6.

“Addressing the imbalance in how Nebraska funds schools is vital to moving Nebraskans toward meaningful reductions in property taxes. We’re committed to working with Nebraska lawmakers to find ways to continue quality education opportunities for Nebraska students and doing so in a way that doesn’t rely so heavily on Nebraska property tax payers to shoulder that responsibility,” said Nelson.

To balance how Nebraska funds schools delegates, at Nebraska Farm Bureau’s annual meeting in December adopted policy supporting efforts to limit property tax collections to 40 percent of an individual K-12 school district’s general fund expenditures, leaving the rest of the school’s funding to come from other sources.

“We’ll be focused on finding ways to move toward the 40 percent target. Addressing school funding and property taxes is our top priority for the 2016 legislative session,” said Nelson.

In addition to addressing tax issues, Farm Bureau will also focus on efforts to bolster Nebraska’s economy by supporting work to promote growth and expansion of Nebraska’s livestock industry.

“Livestock production is a cornerstone of our state’s economy. We can do more to improve the climate for farm and ranch families who want to use livestock as a means to diversify and strengthen their operations. We’ll focus on legislation that gives livestock producers the tools to grow and to keep Nebraska competitive with other livestock producing states, including expanding opportunities for custom livestock feeding arrangements between farmers and livestock processors,” said Nelson.

Farm Bureau’s other priorities for the session include ensuring Nebraska continues to work toward water use and water management policies that recognize the importance of water resources to agriculture.

“The continued efforts of Nebraskans to find win-win solutions in managing our water resources is vital to agriculture. While other states have struggled to manage this vital resource, Nebraska continues to lead on water initiatives. Issues related to water management will continue to be a priority for us this session to make sure farmers and ranchers are well represented and have a voice in water legislation discussions,” said Nelson.

Nelson also pointed to agriculture transportation issues as another priority area for Farm Bureau in 2016.

“We need sound state policies that recognize the realities of modern agriculture. Farm machinery and equipment has become larger over the years and it’s vital that Nebraska rules and regulations related to farm equipment and machinery are keeping up with the changes in agriculture and needs of our members. We’ll be working on transportation legislation targeted to keeping Nebraska farmers and ranchers competitive with their counterparts in neighboring states when it comes to agriculture transportation issues,” said Nelson.



IANR ESTABLISHES NEBRASKA STATE CLIMATE OFFICE

    The Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has established the Nebraska State Climate Office within the UNL School of Natural Resources. The office will serve as the primary source of climate information for Nebraska.

    By forming a state climate office, IANR is adding resources to help the state climatologist serve the needs of Nebraskans. Initially, employees in the office will be focused on identifying services, monitoring climate and user engagement, especially in the agriculture sector.

    "People use climate data for many different reasons so we'll be assessing who's regularly using our data and identifying ways we can better serve them," said Martha Shulski, associate professor in the School of Natural Resources and the newly named state climate office director and state climatologist.

    Primary groups the state climate office will support include Nebraska Extension, UNL departments in need of timely weather and climate data for research and extension and a wide range of external stakeholders.

    "This is an exciting time for our climate team and an enormous opportunity for us to be putting a critical mass of climate experts together to address Nebraska-centric issues relating to weather and climate," said John Carroll, director of the School of Natural Resources.

    The data managed by the state climate office will come from a network of weather stations, termed the "Nebraska Mesonet," at locations across the state. The network is made up of 69 stations that are supported by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources and individual station cooperators such as some of the Nebraska Natural Resource Districts.

    Previously the network was managed by the High Plains Regional Climate Center. However, these operations will transition to the state climate office, which will allow HPRCC to focus on needs for a broader region which, in addition to Nebraska, includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and Kansas. 

    "Nebraska is a state with excellent natural resources," said IANR Associate Vice Chancellor Ron Yoder. "The Nebraska State Climate Office will ensure that we continue to manage those resources efficiently."

    The office will hold a membership with the American Association of State Climatologists, which works to support a society in which climate-sensitive decisions are guided by science-based information derived from historical and current observed climate and scenarios of future climate.

    Along with Shulski, others working in the state climate office will be Al Dutcher, associate state climatologist; Stonie Cooper, mesonet technical administrator; Glen Roebke, mesonet manager; and partial appointments for Shellie Hanneman, HPRCC data quality technician; and Eric Hunt, research applications specialist. In addition, several faculty members will have affiliations with the office, including Gui Bagorria, professor in the School of Natural Resources, who models seasonal weather and agricultural crop production as well as extension educators interested in climate.



IOWA CROP PROGRESS & CONDITION REPORT - DEC 2015

 Iowa experienced above normal temperatures throughout December, however operations struggled to catch up on fieldwork activities as the month of December also saw much higher than normal precipitation totals according to the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Scattered reports of unfinished fall anhydrous and manure application were received.

As December came to a close, topsoil moisture levels rated 0 percent very short, 1 percent short, 68 percent adequate, and 31 percent surplus. The east central portion of Iowa reported the highest moisture level with 58 percent rated surplus.

Grain movement rated 35 percent none, 41 percent light, 21 percent moderate, and 3 percent heavy. This December nearly one-quarter of grain movement was rated moderate to heavy, while one-third of the movement in December 2014 was rated moderate to heavy. Eastern Iowa recorded the most grain movement rated heavy for the month of December, averaging 4 percentage points more than western Iowa and 5 percentage points more than central Iowa.

Availability of hay and roughage supplies was 0 percent very short, 4 percent short, 85 percent adequate, and 11 percent surplus. Livestock conditions were reported as difficult at the beginning of December, with cattle producers experiencing muddy pastures and feedlots due to the warmer than normal temperatures and above average precipitation. As December came to a close many livestock producers reported normal conditions as the ground was able to freeze.



Big yields likely from USDA reports

Farmers produced big corn and soybean yields in 2015 that could keep supplies burdensome in the coming year, according to Farm Futures final survey of production. USDA updates its production estimate Jan. 12, when Dec. 1 Grain Stocks and Winter Wheat Seedings reports are also released.

For corn, the magazine estimates the crop at 13.57 billion bushels, less than achieved the past two years but still the third biggest crop ever. USDA previously said the corn crop would come in at 13.654 billion bushels.

Farm Futures survey of more than 1,550 farmers put yields at 169.1 bushels per acre (bpa), down slightly from USDA’s last estimate, with harvested acreage of 80.27 million nearly 400,000 less.

Soybean numbers headed in the other direction, though not dramatically so. The magazine put production at 3.986 billion bushels, a record if achieved, but only 5 million more than USDA’s current estimate. Farm Futures found harvested acreage rising by 280,000 to 82.709 million, though yields of 48.2 bpa were down slightly from USDA’s last guess.

“These numbers wouldn’t do much to change the bearish mood of the markets,” says Farm Futures Senior Grain Market Analyst, Bryce Knorr. “The corn production estimate is a little supportive, but probably not enough to turn the market around on its own. For that to happen, demand must improve.”

Feed and industrial usage could be a little better than expected when grain stocks data is updated Jan. 12. But those gains could be partly offset by weaker exports. Overall Knorr sees 2015 ending stocks at 1.642 billion, down 143 million from USDA’s December report.

In addition to slightly larger supplies, soybean stocks could be swelled by demand that isn’t quite as good as first expected. Modestly weaker crush and exports could result in 2015 ending stocks rising to 492 million, 27 million more than USDA’s December number.

“A huge crop is coming on in South America, and flooding on the U.S. river system could slow late season exports,” Knorr said. “Chinese demand also may not return after the Lunar New Year holidays in February.”

Farm Futures second survey of winter wheat seedings found little overall change, though there were regional shifts. Growers said they planted 39.46 million acres of winter wheat, little changed from levels sown for harvest in 2015. But hard red winter wheat acreage fell to 27.6 million, a 5% drop from 2015. Soft red winter wheat ground rose 20% to 8.54 million, while white wheat slipped around 2% to 3.343 million.

Farm Futures surveyed growers Dec. 11, 2015 to Jan. 4, 2016, respondents received an email link to an online survey.



EPA: Pesticide Harms Bees Sometimes

(AP) -- A major pesticide harms honeybees when used on cotton and citrus but not on other big crops like corn, berries and tobacco, the Environmental Protection Agency found.

In its first scientific risk assessment of the much-debated class of pesticides called neonicotinoids and how they affect bees on a chronic long-term basis, the EPA found in some cases the chemical didn't harm bees or their hives but in other cases it posed a significant risk. It mostly depended on the crop, a nuanced answer that neither clears the way for an outright ban nor is a blanket go-ahead for continued use.

Honeybees don't just make honey; about one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and the honeybee is responsible for 80 percent of that pollination. Bees and other pollinators worldwide have been in trouble with declining numbers.

Some advocacy groups solely blame neonicotinoids — they works on insects' central nervous systems — and call for bans on the chemicals. Recent scientific studies have pointed to problems and pesticide makers dispute those studies. Europe banned the pesticide class, and then lifted the ban. Top bee scientists have said that class of pesticide is only one of a number of factors hurting bees, not the sole cause of their decline.

Before acting, EPA said it needed more specific and targeted research and this is the first of four planned assessments of risk of specific neonicotinoids. It will be announced Wednesday, but The Associated Press obtained the summary earlier and the chief pesticide official explained the results in an interview. The study was done by the EPA and California's environmental agency, with a similar one done by Canada being released Wednesday at the same time.

EPA analysis of detailed tests found a clear level of concentration of the pesticide imidacloprid, the most common neonicotinoid, in which things start to go awry. If nectar brought back to the hive from worker bees had more than 25 parts per billion of the chemical, "there's a significant effect," namely fewer bees, less honey and "a less robust hive," said Jim Jones, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention.

But if the nectar chemical level was below 25 parts per billion, it was as if there were no imidacloprid at all, with no ill effects, Jones said.

There was a clear threshold at 25 parts per billion of harm or no harm, not really much of a grey area, he added.

The study also found that it was the crop more than anything that determined if it was above or below that harmful level, Jones said. While nectar of cotton and citrus fruits were above the harmful level, the levels were not harmful when it came to corn, most vegetables, berries and tobacco. Other crops weren't conclusive and need more testing, including legumes, melons, tree nuts and herbs.

Also, the controversial practice of treating seeds with the chemical seemed not to harm bees, Jones said.

The nation's top crop -- in terms of production value in billions of dollars -- is corn. And imidacloprid treatment of this crop is not a problem, Jones said. Same goes for hay and wheat, which are the nation's third and fourth most valuable crops. Soybeans, the No. 2 crop, and No. 5 crop almonds are in the still-to-be-determined category. The problem crops of cotton and citrus are No. 7 and 9 in U.S. production value in 2014, according to Agriculture Department statistics.

The study looked just at honeybees, not bumblebees. A 2015 study in the field in the journal Nature found neonicotinoids in general harmed bumblebees, but not honeybees. Jones said EPA used honeybees because they are a good surrogate for all pollinators.

This is a draft of a scientific report, not a regulation, Jones said. After public comments and the report is finalized, then EPA may act.

"The literature is all over the place, which is why we wanted to draft a protocol that we knew would be scientifically robust enough," Jones said.

EPA required imidacloprid-maker Bayer Crop Sciences to run specific tests and then the federal agency analyzed the results for the report, Jones said. Imidacloprid is used under several different names because it is off patent, Jones said.

Bayer has long maintained its pesticides are safe and has found what it considers problems in previous studies. But the EPA only shared the risk assessment summary and provided Jones for the interview on the condition that the EPA study was not shared with anyone before the Wednesday announcement.

University of Illinois entomologist May Berenbaum, who in 2014 was awarded the National Medal of Science, said last year that two 2015 studies in the journal Nature "are more nails in the systemic neonicotinoid coffin." One of those studies showed that bees may even seek out the chemical. Berenbaum, who wasn't part of those studies, said research has long shown that honeybees "display a paradoxical preference for certain neurotoxic phytochemicals, including nicotine and caffeine."

Last year the EPA proposed banning use of pesticides that harm bees — including but not limited to neonicotinoids — when crops are in bloom and bees are being used as commercial pollinators.

Honeybees pollinate more than 90 flowering crops, including citrus, peaches, berries, melons, apples, nuts, avocados, soybeans, asparagus and cucumbers.



2015 DDG Exports Up 9.7% - Ethanol and Biodiesel Exports Rise

Ethanol exports in November totaled 59 million gallons, 34% lower than the same month in 2014, USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service said.

Canada was the top customer in November, taking 23.2 million gallons. The data is based on U.S. Census Bureau inspection data.

Year-to-date ethanol exports are down 0.3% from a year ago.

U.S. exports of dried distillers grains totaled 939,917 metric tons in November, up 49% from the previous year. 2015 year-to-date exports are up 9.7%.

China remained the largest DDG customer for the U.S. in November, purchasing 132,385 mt. Through November 2015, exports to China are up 44% from the previous year.

U.S. biodiesel exports totaled 10,671.8 mt in November, up 16% from a year ago. 2015 year-to-date exports were up 1% from the previous year. Mexico was the largest buyer, importing 5,558.1 mt.



Pork Industry Faces Tight Margin Year
Chris Hurt, Purdue University

Pork producers in 2016 are expected to experience another year of tight margins similar to the year just completed. Pork production is expected to rise by about one percent, but beef production will rise by four percent and poultry by about three percent.

There will be plenty of meat and poultry for consumers and retail prices will likely fall to encourage them to buy more. The global marketplace is also casting shadows on the U.S. pork industry with weak income growth in some countries that buy our pork and a strong U.S. dollar that encourages more pork imports and stimulates pork production in competitive countries.

First, a review of last year. The industry recovered from the PED virus that reduced baby pig numbers from October of 2013 to August of 2014. The impacts of those baby pig losses created gaps in slaughter hog numbers from April of 2014 to February of 2015. This slaughter gap helped create a period of record high hog and pork prices. However, since March of 2015, there has be little impact on slaughter numbers due to PED.

Pigs per litter also bounced back quickly once the disease was controlled. In 2015, pigs per litter set new quarterly records in each quarter. Annual pigs per litter set a new record high in 2015 at 10.38 pigs. This compares to just 9.0 pigs per litter in 2005, a 15 percent increase in ten years.

Hog prices were depressed in 2015 due to a seven percent production increase on a combination of eight percent higher numbers and one percent lower weights. Pork trade was also a negative for hog prices in 2015 as the strong U.S. dollar encouraged more pork imports, especially from Canada. Data currently available on trade suggest that higher pork imports increased pork supplies by an additional two percent.

With seven percent higher production and two percent greater imports, total available supplies in the U.S. were up nearly nine percent. The large supply surge became a concern in the last two months as prices fell to six-year lows that were well below costs of production.

What about 2016? The recent USDA Hogs and Pigs market hog inventory suggest some let up in the large market supplies in late 2015. The USDA inventory suggest that the market supplies for December 2015 were up five percent, but should begin to taper off with the New Year.

First quarter supplies suggested by the USDA inventory would be up about one percent, but weights are expected to be down, so total first quarter pork production may be unchanged to up one percent if USDA inventory numbers are accurate. Using the USDA inventory numbers, second quarter pork production would be down one percent.

What about summer and fall pork production? Pork producers indicated to USDA that they would reduce farrowings this winter by two percent with farrowings unchanged in the summer.



R-CALF Requests Investigation into 2015 Cattle Price Collapse

In a formal request sent Tuesday to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Committee), R-CALF USA seeks an investigation into potential antitrust and anticompetitive conduct in the U.S. cattle and beef markets. The group is asking the Committee to investigate 13 specific issues including the cause for the dramatic, unprecedented collapse of U.S. cattle prices in 2015; whether there are structural problems in the U.S. cattle market that contributed to the price collapse in 2015; and whether dominant meatpackers or other major market participants engaged in unlawful conduct that adversely influenced the cattle futures market and cash cattle market in 2015.

In its highly detailed and well-documented request, the group provides evidence indicating that antitrust and anticompetitive conduct by dominant meatpackers and certain traders in the cattle futures market in 2015 caused a severe anomaly in U.S. cattle markets. That anomaly, according to the group, caused an "unprecedented extraction of equity from the U.S. live cattle industry" and harmed consumers as well.

As background for the Committee, the group explained that extremely tight cattle supplies and growing beef demand were among market fundamentals cited by analysts to support projections for strong cattle prices throughout 2015 and for up to three years beyond. During the first half of 2015, those projections were spot-on, the group stated.

"But then something went awry," The group wrote adding that in the latter part of 2015, "cattle prices collapsed farther and faster than during any time in history and the unprecedented volatility in the cattle futures market rendered it useless for price discovery purposes."

The group provided documentation showing that independent cattle feeders lost more than $500 per head of cattle sold during the collapse and, consequently, "the very foundation of the U.S. cattle industry's feeding sector - its independent cattle feeders - was irreparably damaged."

But as cash cattle prices plummeted and cattle futures prices fluctuated with extreme volatility, dominant meatpackers were benefiting from what one industry commentator referred to as 'gangbuster profits.' Meanwhile, consumers continued paying at or near record high prices for beef.

In further support of its request, R-CALF USA states that analysts are characterizing the 2015 price collapse with nondescript phrases such as 'market meltdown' and 'psychological upheaval,' indicating that they either do not know or they will not say what actually caused the catastrophic price collapse.



Winter is a Great Time for Photo Contest Pics

Submissions are still being accepted for the American Farm Bureau Federation and American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture's 2015 Farm Bureau Photo Contest (http://www.fb.org/programs/photocontest/) . The contest is open to all state and county Farm Bureau members and staff above 18 years of age at the time of entry, including professional photographers.

"The winter months offer many opportunities to get great pictures of farmers and ranchers working safely on the farm," said Kim Baker, AFBF's assistant director, creative services. "We want to showcase what life on the farm is really like, and these authentic photos will help tell agriculture's story."

Photo submissions will be used to accurately portray today's agriculture and the safe practices of farmers and ranchers. Additionally, submissions will also be used for future publications, promotions and social media by AFBF and related companies. All photos submitted must exemplify safe practices on the farm or ranch.

The contest is open for submissions until March 31, 2016. Photos may be entered in four categories: Farm Families, Farm Labor, Technology and Consumer Outreach. Monetary prizes will be awarded to the top three placing photos from each category. First place winners will be awarded $150, second place, $100 and third place, $75.

Contest winners will be announced April 15, 2016, on Farm Bureau's social media platforms and website.

For more information on how to register and to view the contest rules and regulations, visit the 2015 Farm Bureau Photo Contest webpage at http://www.fb.org/programs/photocontest/. Questions about the contest may be sent via email to photocontest@fb.org.



Vilsack Proclaims Today Bob Stallman Appreciation Day

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released the following statement proclaiming today, Jan. 6, 2016, Bob Stallman Appreciation Day. Stallman is retiring as President of the American Farm Bureau Federation after 16 years of service.

"Bob Stallman is well-deserving of recognition for his outstanding contributions to all corners of agriculture and his commitment to strengthen rural America for the hard-working families who call it home. For 16 years, Bob has led the American Farm Bureau Federation with a steady hand and champion's heart. Under his leadership, the Farm Bureau's advocacy efforts to connect the work being done in rural America to its impact on the lives of every American have evolved and grown. Stallman and the Farm Bureau have played an instrumental role in shaping, passing and implementing the 2014 Farm Bill, supported producers in the wake of historic drought conditions and other natural disasters, and expanded new market opportunities for farmers and ranchers through their support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements.

"Bob is the kind of leader who makes people in the business proud of what they do. He has inspired countless agricultural leaders, past and present, including myself. I am honored to call him a strong partner and a good friend.

"Bob leaves behind big shoes to fill, and USDA looks forward to working with the Farm Bureau as they select their next leader."



 CHS Foundation now accepting scholarship applications

The CHS Foundation, the major giving entity of CHS Inc. (NASDAQ: CHSCP), North America's leading farmer owned cooperative, invites new and existing college students with agriculture or energy-related interests to apply for scholarships.

The CHS Foundation will award more than 300 scholarships in 2016. One hundred $1,000 scholarships will be made to high school students who choose to pursue agricultural-related degrees or STEM-related (science, technology, engineering, math) fields of study with an interest in agriculture or energy industry careers.

"CHS and the CHS Foundation are dedicated to developing future leaders," says William Nelson, president, CHS Foundation and vice president, CHS Corporate Citizenship. "We are proud to invest in educating young people to ensure they gain experience and build the skills necessary for long-lasting careers in the agriculture and energy industries."

High school scholarship applications must be submitted by April 1, 2016. An independent, external committee will select scholarship recipients based on essays, transcripts and reference letters. For additional eligibility information and to apply, visit http://www.chsinc.com/stewardship/scholarships.

More than 200 additional scholarships will help fund expenses for existing agriculture college students currently pursuing agriculture-related degrees at two- and four-year colleges. These scholarships are directly administered by more than 30 partnering universities throughout the U.S. and application deadlines vary by by school. For more information and a list of partnering universities, visit http://www.chsinc.com/stewardship/scholarships.

The CHS Foundation is the major giving entity of CHS Inc., the nation's leading farmer-owned cooperative and a global energy, grains and foods company. As a part of the CHS stewardship focus, the CHS Foundation supports education and leadership programs that invest in the future of agriculture, cooperative business and rural America.



MetaFarms launches Assurance assessment tracking Web-based software module

MetaFarms, Inc., announces the launch of Assurance — a new component of its popular Web-based platform designed specifically for livestock production audit and assessment tracking.

MetaFarms sees an increasing need and demand for a simpler way to enter and track various assessments, such as the Common Swine Industry Audit and PQA Plus, created by the National Pork Board. The Assurance tool will help the livestock industry meet goals and standards for safe food, animal well-being, environment, worker safety and increasing consumer awareness of food issues.

“As the emphasis on compliance and animal welfare continues to increase in the livestock industry, it’s important that our customers are prepared,” said Chad Becker, MetaFarms CEO. “Assurance provides innovative and easy-to-use assessment capabilities that will help bring visibility to highlight practices and improve deficiencies to build and protect your company and brand.”

According to Brian Parker, vice president of market development, “Assurance offers users a streamlined approach that increases efficiencies by eliminating redundant double entries, improving accuracy and giving users easy access to actionable information. As a part of the existing MetaFarms integrated platform, data and reporting through Assurance can be rolled up at an organizational level or narrowed down to an individual site, adding visibility and increased accountability to livestock operations.”

Assurance also allows users to enter assessment results on their mobile device and later sync that data. A high degree of customization gives flexibility to create, schedule and review assessments to fit a particular producer’s needs.

For more information, visit www.metafarms.com/assurance and come see us at the following January shows: SD Pork Congress, MN Pork Congress, IA Pork Congress.



The BioAg Alliance readies new microbial solution to improve corn harvests

The BioAg Alliance, Novozymes’ and Monsanto’s collaboration to improve crop harvests through naturally-occurring microbes, today announced results from its 2015 field trial program. Those results included a corn inoculant product, which increased yields by an average of 4 bushels per acre in U.S. field tests. The product is based on a fungus found in soil and researchers from the two companies have found a way to coat the microbes on corn seeds without harming the microbes’ performance or longevity. The Alliance plans to launch the new solution in the United States in 2017.

“The BioAg Alliance is focused on identifying ways that soil microbial solutions can deliver improved harvests from existing land,” said Brad Griffith, Vice President of Global Microbials for Monsanto. “This work is critically important to farmers as they work to meet demands and preserve their soil system. This breakthrough collaboration is unlocking new insights into soil microbial candidates to benefit farmers and our work with this corn seed inoculant is a great example of the results of our combined research.”
 
World’s largest microbe research program
Microbial-based solutions are derived from various microbes such as bacteria and fungi. The BioAg Alliance markets two types of microbial products: Inoculant products, which help plants with nutrient uptake, and biocontrol products, which help protect plants against pests and diseases. The products can be applied to seeds before planting, applied to growing crops or applied to soil in-furrow. The companies said that they can be used by farmers that grow broad acre crops such as corn and soy, and on fruits and vegetables. Microbial products can increase crop yields and can complement or replace agricultural chemicals and fertilizers.

The BioAg Alliance is currently running the world’s largest microbial research program to develop the next generation of these products. In 2015, the Alliance tested more than 2,000 microbial strains across 500,000 field trial plots in more than 50 locations in the United States. The companies said results from its U.S. field trial program showed its top new microbes increased corn yields by an average of 4-5 bushels per acre and soy yields by an average of 1.5 bushels per acre.

The BioAg Alliance expects to continue testing thousands of strains across a broad range of environments in extensive U.S. field trials in 2016.

“I believe we will witness a microbial revolution in agriculture”, said Thomas Schäfer, Vice President of BioAg research at Novozymes. “The world needs to produce more crops from our arable land while using fewer resources. The more we learn about microbes and their symbiotic relationships with plants, the more we realize how key they are to this challenge.”

Today, The BioAg Alliance’s products are used on around 65 million acres, but Monsanto and Novozymes envision that their products will be used on 250-500 million acres globally by 2025.

The agricultural market for microbials is estimated at $1.8 billion, while the market for traditional fertilizers and pesticides totals $240 billion.

The 2015 field trial results were announced as part of Monsanto’s annual pipeline update. For more information, go to www.monsanto.com/pipeline.



BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP® Products Earn Additional Label Claim for Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD) Fetal Protection

Providing the highest level of protection against infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) and bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) viruses is critical, especially for pregnant cattle. Unprotected cows exposed to BVD Types 1 and 2 viruses may experience pregnancy loss or the delivery of weak or BVD persistently infected (PI) calves.1 To help producers further protect the cow herd, BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP® 5 and BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP 5 HB products, recently earned an additional label claim from the U.S. Department of Agriculture against fetal infection caused by (BVD) Types 1 and 2 viruses.

“With the value of calves in today’s market, helping protect every pregnancy has become even more important for cattle producers. The additional label claim against BVD fetal infection assures producers that our BOVI-SHIELD product can help protect the pregnancy through the critical stages of gestation, which is a benefit for cattle producers,” said Nathan Voris, DVM, MBA, Senior Marketing Manager, Cattle Vaccines with Zoetis. “Continued innovations in Zoetis reproductive vaccines help keep the cow herd healthier. Healthy pregnancies lead to healthy calves and ultimately, an improved bottom line for producers.”

Combined with the current label claims to prevent PI calves caused by BVD Types 1 and 2 viruses, and to aid in the prevention of abortion caused by IBR virus, the BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP® 5 and BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP 5 HB product lines have the highest level of fetal protection of any reproductive vaccine available to cow/calf producers.

“This level of fetal protection helps maximize the reproductive potential of your cows, helping to ensure a healthy productive calf every year,” Dr. Voris added. “I recommend producers work with their veterinarian to identify the right vaccine for the challenges on their operation. Selecting vaccines with the strongest label claims can help protect the herd from diseases that can harm the bottom line.”

Zoetis also offers a Fetal Protection Guarantee when BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP 5, BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP 5 HB, CATTLEMASTER GOLD FP® and PREGGUARD GOLD FP® 10 vaccines are used in herds according to label directions. It guarantees 100% of calves are born free from BVD persistent infection and the herd is protected against IBR abortion.

To learn more about the BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP 5 and BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP 5 HB product lines,* please contact your veterinarian, Zoetis representative, or simply visit www.CattleReproVaccines.com.  

The Zoetis 100% BVD PI-Free Guarantee and the IBR Abortion Guarantee will be administered through Zoetis Veterinary Medical Information and Product Support (VMIPS) at 800-366-5288. Proof of purchase is required. Calves born to BVD PI-positive cows or heifers do not qualify for the guarantee. This guarantee does not apply to, and Zoetis shall not be liable for, any (x) damages caused as a result of the improper handling, misuse or abuse of the vaccines that are the subject of this guarantee, or the willful misconduct or negligence of any third party, or (y) any indirect, punitive, special, incidental or consequential damages. Zoetis reserves the right to modify or cancel the terms and conditions of this guarantee.

*Do not use in pregnant cattle (abortions can result) unless they were vaccinated, according to label directions, with any BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP or PREGGUARD GOLD FP vaccine prebreeding initially and within 12 months thereafter. Do not use in calves nursing pregnant cows unless their dams were vaccinated within the past 12 months as described above. To help ensure safety in pregnant cattle, heifers must receive at least 2 doses of any BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP or PREGGUARD GOLD FP vaccine with the second dose administered approximately 30 days prebreeding.