Weekend Ag News Summary - March 27

NEBRASKA HOG INVENTORY UP 6 PERCENT

Nebraska inventory of all hogs and pigs on March 1, 2016, was 3.35 million head, according to the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. This was up 6 percent from March 1, 2015, and up 2 percent from December 1, 2015.

Breeding hog inventory, at 420,000 head, was unchanged from March 1, 2015, and unchanged from last quarter. Market hog inventory, at 2.93 million head, was up 7 percent from last year, and up 2 percent from last quarter.

The December 2015 – February 2016 Nebraska pig crop, at 1.92 million head, was up 3 percent from 2015. Sows farrowed during the period totaled 170,000 head, unchanged from last year. The average pigs saved per litter was a record 11.30 for the December – February period, compared to 11.00 last year.

Nebraska hog producers intend to farrow 180,000 sows during the March – May 2016 quarter, up 6 percent from the actual farrowings during the same period a year ago. Intended farrowings for June – August 2016 are 180,000 sows, unchanged from the actual farrowings during the same period the previous year.



IOWA HOG INVENTORY REPORT

On March 1, 2016, there were 20.2 million hogs and pigs on Iowa farms, according to the latest USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service – Hogs and Pigs report. The March 1 inventory was down 3 percent from both the previous quarter and the previous year.

The December 2015-February 2016 quarterly pig crop was 5.24 million head, down 7 percent from the previous quarter and 4 percent below last year. A total of 490,000 sows farrowed during this quarter. The average pigs saved per litter was 10.70 for the December-February quarter, down from 11.00 the previous quarter.

As of March 1, producers planned to farrow 490,000 sows and gilts in the March-May quarter and 490,000 head during the June-August quarter.



United States Hog Inventory Up Slightly

United States inventory of all hogs and pigs on March 1, 2016 was 67.6 million head. This was up slightly from March 1, 2015, but down 1 percent from December 1, 2015. 

Breeding inventory, at 5.98 million head, was down slightly from last year, and down slightly from the previous quarter.

Market hog inventory, at 61.7 million head, was up slightly from last year, but down 1 percent from last quarter.

The December 2015-February 2016 pig crop, at 29.6 million head, was down slightly from 2015. Sows farrowing during this period totaled 2.87 million head, down 1 percent from 2015. The sows farrowed during this quarter represented 48 percent of the breeding herd. The average pigs saved per litter was a record high 10.30 for the December-February period, compared to 10.23 last year. Pigs saved per litter by size of operation ranged from 8.00 for operations with 1-99 hogs and pigs to 10.40 for operations with more than 5,000 hogs and pigs.

United States hog producers intend to have 2.84 million sows farrow during the March-May 2016 quarter, down 1 percent from the actual farrowings during the same period in 2015, but up 1 percent from 2014. Intended farrowings for June-August 2016, at 2.91 million sows, are down 3 percent from 2015, and down 3 percent from 2014.

The total number of hogs under contract owned by operations with over 5,000 head, but raised by contractees, accounted for 46 percent of the total United States hog inventory, unchanged from last year.



Record High Pork Production for February

Commercial red meat production for the United States totaled 3.90 billion pounds in February, up 5 percent from the 3.73 billion pounds produced in February 2015.

Beef production, at 1.89 billion pounds, was 7 percent above the previous year. Cattle slaughter totaled 2.29 million head, up 5 percent from February 2015. The average live weight was up 17 pounds from the previous year, at 1,372 pounds.

Veal production totaled 6.1 million pounds, 3 percent below February a year ago. Calf slaughter totaled 36,500 head, down 1 percent from February 2015. The average live weight was down 6 pounds from last year, at 287 pounds.

Pork production totaled 2.00 billion pounds, up 3 percent from the previous year. Hog slaughter totaled 9.43 million head, up 4 percent from February 2015. The average live weight was down 2 pounds from the previous year, at 283 pounds.

Lamb and mutton production, at 12.5 million pounds, was up 8 percent from February 2015. Sheep slaughter totaled 175,800 head, 7 percent above last year. The average live weight was 142 pounds, up 1 pound from February a year ago.

By State:  (million pounds, % of Feb '15)
Nebraska ...........:         593.7            108      
Iowa ..................:         564.1             99      
Kansas ...............:         410.9            111      

January to February 2016 commercial red meat production was 8.00 billion pounds, up 2 percent from 2015. Accumulated beef production was up 3 percent from last year, veal was down 2 percent, pork was up 1 percent from last year, and lamb and mutton production was up 2 percent.



Farmer/Landowner meeting on utilizing new Fly Ash/Lime Pelletized Mix from Fremont Power Plant
Nathan Mueller, Nebraska Extension Cropping Systems Educator
Dodge & Washington Counties

The City of Fremont and Nebraska Extension are pleased to announce the Lon D. Wright Power Plant has installed a new process for fly ash allowing an ash & lime mixture to be pelletized.  This product will serve as a soil amendment product or an Ag lime substitute.  This is in addition to the existing product which provides an excellent subbase to surface parking.

We will be holding an informational meeting on Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:00 AM.  This meeting will be held in the council chambers of the City of Fremont Municipal Building located at 400 East Military in Fremont Nebraska. The event is free to attend and walk-ins are allowed. If you have any questions before the meeting, please contact Garry Ogden at 402-727-2643 or Mueller at 402-727-2775



Nebraska Farm Bureau Board of Directors Appoints New District 3 Board Member

The Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation (NFBF) Board of Directors appointed Martey Stewart, a member of the Dixon County Farm Bureau, to represent District 3 on the state Board of Directors. District 3 represents nine counties in the northeast corner of Nebraska. Former board member Joni Albrecht of Thurston resigned her board position in February to run for the District 17 seat in the Nebraska Legislature. The District 17 legislative seat is now held by State Sen. Dave Bloomfield of Hoskins, who is term limited from running for re-election.

Stewart is currently president of the Dixon County Farm Bureau and serves on Nebraska Farm Bureau’s State Legislative Policy Committee. He has served on Farm Bureau’s state Nominating and Credentials committees and is a 2008 graduate of the NFBF Leadership Academy. Stewart plays an active role in his local 4-H Clubs. Stewart is a graduate of the Nebraska LEAD class XXVIII and was active in the Nebraska Pork Producers Association. Martey and his wife, Linda live on a farm near Dixon and raise cattle.

“There were a number of interested members seeking the District 3 board appointment and we greatly appreciate their interest and time. We welcome Martey Stewart to the NFBF Board of Directors. He will do an excellent job in representing County Farm Bureaus in District 3 and farm and ranch members across the state as we continue to work on strategies to advocate for and protect Nebraska agriculture,” Steve Nelson, president of the Nebraska Farm Bureau said.

According to NFBF bylaws, Stewart will serve on the Board as the District 3 representative until the 2016 Annual Meeting, December 4-6, 2016. At that time, voting delegates will vote on candidates who have been nominated to fill the remaining term of the District 3 position on the Board. Farmers and ranchers who are Farm Bureau members in District 3 are eligible to run as a candidate for the Board position. Stewart plans on running for re-election for that position.



UNL AGRICULTURE COLLEGE, NCTA SIGN 2+2 TRANSFER AGREEMENT

    The College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has signed a 2+2 agreement with the Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture in Curtis.

    This option will allow students to follow a curriculum track that will allow them to complete the first two years of their education at NCTA and then transfer to UNL to complete their final two years and earn a bachelor's degree.

    Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Harlan Vice Chancellor Ronnie Green, IANR Associate Vice Chancellor Ron Yoder, CASNR Dean Steven Waller and NCTA Dean Ron Rosati signed the agreement on March 18.

    "We have had a very long and productive history with NCTA that has evolved over time to one of the most innovative partnerships between a two-year and four-year institution," Waller said. "The result of these partnerships is expanded access and opportunities for students in the state interested in careers in agriculture."

    Evey Choat, a junior agricultural education major from St. Edward, completed her first two years of education at NCTA before transferring to UNL last fall. Everyone at both institutions made the transfer process easy, Choat said.

    "The transfer option provided me a great opportunity to be able to complete my four-year degree in the state of Nebraska," she said.  



EARLY GRAZE TO CONTROL WEEDS IN NATIVE PASTURES
Bruce Anderson, NE Extension Forage Specialist

     Have you noticed any green-up in your pastures?  This usually is a good sign, except when the green is weeds in warm-season grasses.

     Early weeds should be controlled in warm-season grass pastures.  Weeds remove moisture that could be used for grass growth later on and they remove valuable nutrients from the soil.  Early weeds also can develop so much growth that they can shade, smother, and reduce early growth of your summer pasture grasses.

     Herbicides like glyphosate as well as prescribed burning can control many early weeds, but I think another method actually is better — grazing.  Heavy, pre-season grazing costs you nothing.  In fact, you get some feed from these weeds while herbicides or burning would only kill and remove growth.  Plus, this early pasture might be especially valuable if it gets your cattle out of mud or saves you from feeding expensive hay this spring.

     Pre-season grazing will not harm your summer grass — provided you stop grazing before new grass shoots get more than a couple inches tall.  This usually doesn’t occur until late April or early May in southern Nebraska and slightly later as we move farther north.  Early, pre-season grazing of warm-season grass also removes some old growth from last year, which starts the recycling of nutrients trapped in dead plant tissue.  In fact, about the only bad news about early, pre-season grazing is you have to get fences and water ready earlier, you need to move animals to the pasture, and you won't completely kill out these weeds in one year.

     Funny thing, though.  These so-called weeds might actually make pretty timely and valuable pasture.  Give pre-season grazing a try, I think you'll like it.



Crop Insurance Subsidies impact Land Costs

The Center for Rural Affairs along with Mike Duffy, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Iowa State University, released a report that explores the impact subsidized crop insurance places on land values.
 
“Farmers have told us the program was helping mega-farmers outbid beginning, and small and mid-sized farmers on farmland, putting upward pressure on land values,” explained Traci Bruckner, Senior Policy Associate with the Center for Rural Affairs explained. “We decided to investigate. And to explore the impact subsidized crop insurance places on land values, we worked with Mike Duffy, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Iowa State University.”

Duffy’s research shows that subsidized crop insurance indeed has an impact on land values. He identifies a couple of ways the program impacts land values.

The first is subsidization of the insurance premium. Duffy points out that the premium farmers pay is not the actuarially sound premium. Rather, it is the premium minus a subsidy from the government. That premium subsidy is a benefit the farmer receives.

Second, crop insurance reduces the income risk associated with crop production, either through loss of revenue or crop failure. This risk reduction adds value because future returns are not as uncertain as they would be without crop insurance.

Duffy used data available from the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) to examine if federal crop insurance programs influence land values by the amount of the subsidy and the reduction in risk. The RMA provides detailed summaries of their business for the nation, by crop, by state, and by year going back to 1989. For this study, he used Iowa as the example.

A full copy of the embargoed report can be viewed and downloaded at:
http://www.cfra.org/impact-of-crop-insurance-on-land-values. 

“These findings demonstrate that subsidies have value to producers, and some of those subsidies get bid into land costs. When those subsidies also serve to reduce risk, they have an even greater value than the subsidy alone,” explained Bruckner.

“While we agree that federal crop insurance is an important tool in the risk management toolbox, we can recognize it drives up production costs by increasing the cost of land,” added Bruckner. “The net effect is to prop up the nation’s largest and wealthiest farms, often at the expense of smaller farms.”

The full report also examines the impact crop insurance subsidies have on cash rental rates.

“We intend to use this analysis to further our efforts to come up with policy reforms that will ensure federal crop insurance programs work in the best interest of small and mid-sized family farms,” concluded Bruckner. “These are the people that those who oppose reform often suggest the program is designed to benefit. We beg to differ. And we know that the nation needs reform that targets the root of the problems created by unlimited crop insurance premium subsidies.”



New Iowa Beef Center Publication Helps Producers 'Make the Switch to Baleage'

Baling wet or rained-on hay or using outdoor hay storage can contribute significantly to reduced forage and feeding quality of that hay to cattle. And with forage expenditures accounting for the greatest proportion of feed costs, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach cow-calf specialist Patrick Gunn said cattle producers might benefit from using different forage harvest practices such as baleage.

“Changing one’s established practices can cause uncertainty, and we developed this publication to offer insight, suggestions and cautions to people considering such a change,” he said. “‘Making the Switch to Baleage’ is a new resource that looks at the advantages and disadvantages of baleage and how it differs from traditional haylage.”

Moving from dry large, round bales to baleage may reduce the amount of dry matter loss during storage, limit waste at feeding and partially alleviate other disadvantages of first-cutting dry hay such as reduced nutritional quality.

“Because the desirable moisture content for baleage production is 40 to 50 percent dry matter, baleage often can be made within 24 hours of cutting,” Gunn said. “When there’s less need for dry weather for making hay, the use of baleage lends itself to earlier and more frequent cuttings of vegetative growth, increasing the overall quality of stored forages for the year.”

Although baleage production offers earlier and more frequent cuttings, the higher moisture content means bales are heavier and a producer’s existing machinery might not be able to handle that extra weight. In addition, higher moisture means more bales than dry hay, and that means a larger storage area will be needed.

“Producers also need to consider which type of bale wrapping is better for their operation, the capacity of their animals to consume the amount of baleage produced, and the availability of labor and proper equipment,” Gunn said.

The four-page publication has been peer-reviewed, and is available in pdf format as both a free download and in print version for $4 through the ISU Extension and Outreach store website.



What Is a Bull Worth?

Deciding how much to pay for a bull is no easy task, but knowing which factors to consider can help producers feel more confident in the decision-making process, says Patrick Gunn, a cow-calf specialist with Iowa State University Extension and Outreach.

“While no calculator exists to determine the exact price a producer should spend on a bull, there are multiple factors that can be considered to establish a base price,” he said. “Typical thumb rules I’ve heard for estimating the value of an average registered bull include two times the value of a fed steer, five times the value of a feeder calf at weaning, or 25 times the cwt price of feeder calves. Using these thumb rules in the current market gives us a range of $4,000 to $5,200, which is very representative of early sale reports from 2016.”

With the recent recession in cattle prices, it is natural to start looking for ways to reduce input costs for the enterprise. However, poorly justified or haphazard budget cuts often begin with the bull battery, Gunn said.

“I can’t stress enough the value in optimizing your marketing goals through improved male genetics, regardless of cost," he said. "With bulls representing 50 percent of the genetics of the program, you cannot afford to give up genetic progress in your herd at the expense of 'cheap' bulls that don’t match or advance your production goals."

Regardless of money spent on a service sire, the bull battery typically represents less than 10 percent of annual cow costs for the herd. But the difference in returns between good and below average sires for traits of interest could be 15 percent or more. This reemphasizes the value in “paying up” for a bull that truly meets a producer's marketing goals.

“Don’t forget the two primary factors that determine profit in the cow-calf sector are feed cost and pounds of calf weaned per cow exposed,” Gunn said. “That’s why there is no substitute for stepping up to the table to invest a few extra dollars in high-quality, registered bulls with proven pedigrees as well as performance and genetic testing.”

"In today’s marketplace, enhancing your factory with a bull that excels in economically relevant traits such as calving ease, maternal calving ease, stayability, growth and/or carcass traits will definitely maximize profitability in a volatile market," he said. As such it can be one of the best returns on investment for any enterprise.

It should be noted that purchasing a less costly bull does not necessarily imply a producer bought an inferior breeding piece. However, be sure the strengths of the new herd sire still improve and complement the existing cow herd without sacrificing marketing goals, Gunn said.

“As always, for more information on bull selection, consult with the team of experts you have assembled including your beef extension specialist and genetics provider,” Gunn said. “Good luck, and happy bidding.”



NPPC To USDA: Defend ‘Other White Meat’ Sale
In a meeting last week with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of General Counsel, representatives of the National Pork Producers Council demanded that the agency defend the purchase by the National Pork Board from NPPC of the Pork. The Other White Meat® trademarked assets.

NPPC sold to the Pork Board in 2006 The Other White Meat® slogan and pork chop logo for about $35 million. NPPC financed the purchase over 20 years, making the Pork Board’s annual payment $3 million. The sale was an arms-length transaction with a lengthy negotiation in which both parties were represented by legal counsel, and USDA, which oversees the federal Pork Checkoff program administered by the Pork Board, approved the purchase. (Checkoff programs require farmers to pay a portion of the sale of their commodity into a fund used to, among other things, promote their product. Taxpayer dollars are not used by Checkoff programs.)

The Humane Society of the United States, a lone Iowa farmer and the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement in 2012 filed a lawsuit against USDA, seeking to have the sale rescinded. Initially, USDA defended the lawsuit, and a U.S. District Court dismissed it for lack of standing, but a federal appeals court in August 2015 reinstated the suit. But before any court proceedings on the merits of the suit, USDA inexplicably changed course and entered into settlement talks with HSUS.

According to NPPC President John Weber, a pork producer from Dysart, Iowa, and CEO Neil Dierks, who met with USDA’s general counsel and reiterated the pork industry’s objection to any settlement, there was no indication where the agency stands on the case.

“We’re concerned that even though USDA has a very strong legal position, it isn’t defending a contract it approved,” said Weber. “We’re concerned that it already has thrown in the towel.”

Dierks said capitulation by USDA would be met with universal anger from pork producers around the country, pointing to the unanimous approval by NPPC elected delegates at their recent annual meeting of a resolution calling on USDA to rely on the judgment of the Pork Board for the management and execution of Checkoff activities. (A related “advisement” was unanimously approved by Pork Board delegates.)

In their meeting, Weber and Dierks pointed out that: the Pork. The Other White Meat® trademarks, particularly the pork chop logo, still are being used by the National Pork Board; regardless of how each of the trademarks is being used, the phenomenal recognition and awareness of them continue to make the trademarks some of the most valuable intellectual property in existence today; and the purchase agreement was for fair market value and continues to make sense for the Pork Board to perform under the contract, which provides a valuable service to the entire pork industry.

They also raised the issue of allowing a disgruntled, purported hog farmer to bring down an entire agreement, which would be a bad precedent for all Checkoff programs and federally approved contracts.

USDA admitted it doesn’t know – and never asked – whether the farmer raises hogs or whether he has been paying into the Pork Checkoff program.

[It should be noted that HSUS previously was involved in a lawsuit that included false standing claims in a case against Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. The animal-rights group settled bribery claims in that case by paying nearly $11 million to the circus’s owner, Feld Entertainment.]

NPPC also urged USDA to follow the 1985 Pork Act, which created the Pork Checkoff program and gave authority to the Pork Board, through its board of directors, delegates and committees – collectively representing all pork producers – to make decisions about Checkoff funds and programs.



ANNUAL MEETING FOCUSES ON REIMAGINING DAIRY

Last week, more than 1,500 members and guests gathered in Kansas City for Dairy Farmers of America Cooperative’s 18th Annual Meeting.

This year’s meeting theme – Dairy Reimagined – looks at how, from the farm to the dairy case, the possibilities are limitless for the industry. Guests were encouraged to join the Cooperative in challenging the status quo.

“By reimagining dairy, we can create opportunities for the next generation of our dairy farmer-owners, and for consumers,” said Randy Mooney, chairman of DFA’s Board of Directors. “As a Cooperative, we must continue to focus on providing high-quality nutritious milk for consumers, while also thinking differently about how we do things in order to develop, produce and market products that are relevant to today’s ever-changing lifestyles.” 

The meeting kicked off with the chairman’s report, delivered by Mooney, who operates a dairy farm in Rogersville, Mo. Mooney, who also serves as chairman of National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), talked about how the Cooperative can rethink the possibilities for dairy in various ways that will benefit DFA’s farmer-owners.

An overview of DFA’s business was delivered by President and Chief Executive Officer Rick Smith. His presentation highlighted DFA’s financials for 2015 and provided insight on how DFA will continue to strengthen the Cooperative’s core milk marketing business while also growing its commercial business, in an effort to better serve and provide value to members.

“As a member-focused cooperative owned by dairy farmers, we are always working to strengthen and evolve our business so that we can continue to provide value to members,” said Smith. “We do this by seeking out new opportunities, focusing on innovation, and making decisions today for the cooperative we want to be in the future.”

Special guests and additional highlights of the meeting program included:
·       An outlook on the U.S. and global economy from Bob Engel, chief executive officer of CoBank
·       Christine Cashen, motivational speaker, author and America’s “top humorist,” shared thoughts on sparking innovative ideas, handling conflict, reducing stress and getting energized
·       An update on NMPF’s work for the dairy industry by Jim Mulhern, president and chief executive officer
·       An overview of dairy promotion activities by Tom Gallagher, chief executive officer of Dairy Management Inc.

The Cooperative’s Annual Banquet brought a host of recognitions, including the 2016 Members of Distinction. Every year, family members at one farm from each of DFA’s seven regional Areas are recognized for service to their dairy, their families, communities and the industry.

In addition, outgoing Board Directors Ralph McNall, of Fairfax, Vt., and Joyce Bupp, of Seven Valleys, Pa., were recognized for their contributions to DFA.

Winners of the 2016 DFA Cares Foundation Scholarship were announced at the banquet. DFA Cares Scholarships are awarded to outstanding students pursuing a career in the dairy industry. This year, 40 recipients will receive a combined total of $49,500 toward their undergraduate and graduate level studies.

Annual Meeting concluded on Wednesday with the resolutions process, which brought together more than 250 elected delegates from across the nation to vote on a slate of issues that guide the policy position and business activities of DFA for the coming year.



DFA REPORTS 2015 FINANCIAL RESULTS

At the Cooperative’s Annual Meeting, Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) officials reported net income of $94.1 million, compared to $43.1 million for 2014. The increase was attributable to strong performances from DFA’s commercial operations and affiliates, as unit sales were up and margins improved.

DFA’s net sales totaled $13.8 billion for 2015, compared to $17.9 billion in 2014. This decrease is primarily a result of lower milk prices. The all U.S. milk price averaged $17.08 per hundredweight in 2015 compared with $23.97 in 2014.

“Providing value to our dairy-farmer members is the focus for everything that we do at DFA,” said Rick Smith, president and chief executive officer. “In 2015, we had a successful year and took strong action to support key strategic initiatives — most notably in the areas of assuring supply chain integrity, growing our commercial businesses and driving performance through innovation.”

In 2015, DFA directed the marketing of 62 billion pounds of milk for both members and others. This represented approximately 30 percent of the total milk production in the United States. The average 2015 price paid to members per hundredweight of milk was $17.18 compared with $24.17 in 2014.

Cash distributed to members in 2015 totaled $35 million compared to $28 million in 2014. In 2015, members received $20 million in equity retirements and $15 million of allocated patronage dividends.

In 2015, DFA expanded its commercial investments by acquiring the remaining ownership interest in DairiConcepts, an innovative cheese and dairy manufacturer, which it previously was invested in as a joint venture partner. DairiConcepts plays a key role in DFA’s strategy to further grow its ingredients division and extend its global marketing outreach. Additionally, DFA broke ground on a new dairy ingredients plant in Garden City, Kan. The state-of-the-art plant will produce whole, skim and nonfat dry milk powders, as well as cream, and is a partnership between DFA and a group of member farms in Southwest Kansas.

Finally, for the first time in the Cooperative’s history, DFA launched a new brand and product from scratch. Live Real Farms Energy Drink incorporates the nutrition of dairy into an innovative product geared toward millennial families.



NCGA Commends Senators Calling For Increased 2017 RVO Levels

On Wednesday, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) along with 17 other senators sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging them to follow the congressional intent of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by increasing blending targets under the RFS for 2017.

The biofuels community commended the senators for their unwavering support for a strong and robust RFS and for sending a clear message to the EPA.

“We want to thank all 19 senators for highlighting the biofuel industry’s concerns with EPA incorrectly citing distribution infrastructure as a factor in setting the 2014–2016 blending targets, and urging the agency to reverse course for the 2017 rule by simply following congressional intent. That is the very heart of why we and other biofuel groups filed a lawsuit in January against EPA.

“Getting the RFS back to the statutory levels Congress intended is critical in moving our nation forward to energy independence by using cleaner burning, homegrown biofuels, like ethanol, which reduce harmful emissions and our reliance on foreign oil imports. As important, returning to the statutory levels intended by Congress will provide the necessary certainty producers need to move forward with critical business decisions.

“Back in the fall of 2015, Administrator McCarthy addressed biofuels stakeholders, saying, ‘EPA is working hard to make sure that the Renewable Fuel Standard program is actually moving towards the levels that Congress intended.’ We are hopeful that the EPA will follow through on their commitment, releasing a rule that reflects this and eliminates the possibility of any distribution waivers.”

“We appreciate the steadfast commitment of these senators to ensure the RFS is enacted as originally envisioned and encourage the EPA to heed the recommendations of these senators, to indeed get the RFS ‘back on track’ as the agency has promised.”



Biofuel Trade Groups, Companies Commend Senators’ Action in Calling for Increased RFS RVO Levels in 2017

On Wednesday, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) along with 17 other senators sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging them to follow the congressional intent of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by increasing blending targets under the RFS for 2017.

The biofuels community commended the senators for their unwavering support for a strong and robust RFS and for sending a clear message to the EPA.

“We want to thank all 19 senators for highlighting the biofuel industry’s concerns with EPA incorrectly citing distribution infrastructure as a factor in setting the 2014–2016 blending targets, and urging the agency to reverse course for the 2017 rule by simply following congressional intent. That is the very heart of why we and other biofuel groups filed a lawsuit in January against EPA.

“Getting the RFS back to the statutory levels congress intended is critical in moving our nation forward to energy independence by using cleaner burning, homegrown biofuels, like ethanol, which reduce harmful emissions and our reliance on foreign oil imports. As important, returning to the statutory levels intended by congress will provide the necessary certainty producers need to move forward with critical business decisions.

“Back in the fall of 2015, Administrator McCarthy addressed biofuels stakeholders, saying, ‘EPA is working hard to make sure that the Renewable Fuel Standard program is actually moving towards the levels that Congress intended.’ We are hopeful that the EPA will follow through on their commitment, releasing a rule that reflects this and eliminates the possibility of any distribution waivers.”

“We appreciate the steadfast commitment of these senators to ensure the RFS is enacted as originally envisioned and encourage the EPA to heed the recommendations of these senators, to indeed get the RFS ‘back on track’ as the agency has promised.”



Biodiesel Ranks First Among Fleets for Alt Fuel Use

North America’s top fleets have spoken, and their number one choice for greening their fleet operations is biodiesel.  According to a new 2016 Fleet Purchasing Outlook study conducted by the NTEA – The Association for the Work Truck Industry – biodiesel is now the most commonly used alternative fuel option on the market.  Survey data shows 18 percent of fleets use biodiesel now – up from 15 percent in 2015.  And in terms of future alternative fuel interest, biodiesel also takes top honors, with more fleets planning to acquire or continue using biodiesel than any other alternative fuel option.

Each December, NTEA conducts a comprehensive Fleet Purchasing Outlook Survey to better understand the commercial vehicle landscape, including interest levels for advanced truck technologies and alternative fuels.  The new survey results for 2016 were published in March and reflect positive trends for the use of biodiesel blends in the diesel vehicle technology of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Spanning the United States and Canada, the 2016 Fleet Purchasing Outlook Survey respondents included a diverse pool of fleet professionals representing a broad range of fleet sizes, vehicle weight classes and vocational truck applications.  From government and municipal fleets, to construction, delivery and utility sectors, to agriculture and private industry sectors – fleets from coast to coast are relying on the power and performance of biodiesel, America’s Advanced Biofuel, to get the job done.

Doyle Sumrall, Managing Director of NTEA, commented, “The evolution of alternative fuel technologies is still triggering change for vocational truck specifications. However, general interest has dropped in recent years due to persistently low oil costs and will likely remain muted until prices rebound. Despite current challenges facing the alternative fuels movement, fleet interest in biodiesel has remained strong, actually increasing in 2016 as compared to the previous year.” 

Fleets are realizing that biodiesel continues to be an easy and cost-effective way for them to cut carbon and improve the performance and sustainability profile of their fleet operations.  That has certainly been the case for the City of Moline in Illinois, which has operated its full fleet of over 102 diesel vehicles and equipment on B20, a 20 percent blend of biodiesel with ultra-low sulfur diesel, since 2006. In everything from fire trucks and ambulances, to trash trucks and tractors, the B20 biodiesel blend has helped Moline enhance the performance and minimize the maintenance of its vehicles’ fuel systems - all at a lower cost than diesel fuel and without a single fuel-related maintenance incident in the ten years of its use in their fleet.

J.D. Schulte, Fleet Manager for the City of Moline, stated, “Here in Moline, air quality is paramount to our quality of life.  We made the switch to clean, domestically produced plant-based biodiesel ten years ago, not only because it was a good choice for our fleet, but also because it was a good choice for our community.  My advice to other fleet managers is, if you are conscious of and serious about air quality and looking for an easy and cost-effective solution to make a positive difference in your community, biodiesel is a natural choice.”



Interest in Ag Careers Booming

A recent survey suggested that students' interest in careers in the agricultural industry was low, and only 3% of college graduates had considered a career in agriculture. However, AgCareers.com is seeing different trends, with a 33% growth in the number of visits to www.AgCareers.com in the past year.

AgCareers.com has seen strong interest even from candidates with no ag background or degree. In 2015, 35% of AgCareers.com applicants had a non-ag degree and 38% were currently or most recently employed outside of agriculture.

"While we (AgCareers.com) are a niche career site serving the agriculture industry, our vision is to feed the world with talent," said Eric Spell, AgCareers.com President. The AgCareers.com online community is a central place where the Ag industry can showcase the broad range of careers available.

Spell says there is a perception that all agricultural jobs are traditional on-farm positions when in reality there are numerous other opportunities. Looking at the career types of positions posted on AgCareers.com, sales, technicians, business development, accounting and specialists are all in the top ten.

Sharing the agriculture story with students in all majors is key to building the pipeline of talent to the industry.



NPPC NAMES DAVIS HEAD OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

The National Pork Producers Council has named Bill Davis senior director of governmental relations; he will begin his duties March 28. Davis will be located in Washington, D.C., and will report to Nick Giordano, NPPC vice president and counsel, global government affairs. Davis previously worked from October 2010 to October 2014 as NPPC’s deputy director of government relations, lobbying on issues related to trade, energy, the environment and taxes. He is returning to the agricultural organization from OmniEarth, a geospatial analytics and information firm, where he focused on expanding the company’s outreach internationally, on Capitol Hill, with trade associations and with other strategic stakeholders. Prior to that, he worked for Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, as the point person on agriculture, trade, foreign affairs and environmental issues. Davis spent his early career as the manager for political field operations for the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, and he also gained experience with national, state and local political campaigns. Davis earned a master’s degree in international commerce and policy from George Mason University and completed his undergraduate degree at Sacred Heart University.

NPPC BOLSTERS DES MOINES STAFF
Chelsey Ebel, Sheila Warrick and Janine Van Vark began their employment with NPPC this week in the organization’s Des Moines, Iowa, office. Ebel is the director of producer services and will focus on retaining and recruiting members for NPPC’s Strategic Investment Program and building relationships with them. A graduate of Iowa State University with a bachelor’s degree in agricultural business, she previously was a sales territory manager for Cargill AgHorizons. Warrick is director of projects and events and general manager of the World Pork Expo. Most recently the Buena Vista University graduate was with DuPont Pioneer as a stakeholder outreach coordinator. Van Vark is manager of outreach marketing, a new position, focusing on the coordination and delivery of pork industry messages and successes of NPPC activities to a variety of audiences. Previously, she was marketing director for a major John Deere distributor responsible for brand development, media relations and customer relationship programs. She is a graduate of Iowa State University.



NCGA-Nigerian Relationship Fosters Corn and Ethanol Markets, Biotech Acceptance Abroad

The National Corn Growers Association welcomed Edwin Uche, director of the Nigerian Corn Growers Association, yesterday for a series of meetings designed to further understand NCGA's structure and benefit to U.S. corn farmers. Uche, who reached out for a meeting during the Maize Genetics Conference in Jacksonville, Florida, expressed his excitement for NCGA's work and enthusiasm for doing similar for farmers in Nigeria.

Dr. Richard Vierling, who Uche initially contacted, arranged the meeting at the St. Louis headquarters. Vice President of Production and Stewardship Paul Bertels, Director of Communications Ken Colombini and Director of Development Joe Hodes also participated.

Through a series of in-depth discussions, Uche explored ways in which he could increase corn demand in Nigeria while fostering acceptance of biotechnology and growing the country's ethanol industry. A proponent of biotechnology in agriculture, Uche also hopes to move more farmers toward this productive technology and away from an ongoing reliance upon open pollinated varieties currently hampering yield in Nigeria.

Discussions yielded insights for NCGA as well. Uche shared his confusion as to how the idea of food versus fuel took hold in the United States, expressing that he sees how corn clearly provides an excellent way to meet both demands simultaneously. Additionally, his pro-biotechnology and pro-ethanol stances fostered hope for potential market growth in Nigeria which could lead to growth in American corn exports to the region.

Uche reached out to Vierling due to his great respect for NCGA's reputation for success internationally. The relationships built will serve as a basis for a partnership fostering the growing Nigerian Corn Growers Association moving forward.



China’s Excessive Wheat Subsidies and Other Policies Increase U.S. Farm Losses

Over the past few years, U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) and the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) have demonstrated how the policies of a few advanced developing countries are distorting world wheat trade and hurting farmers in the United States and other wheat exporting countries. In 2015, an Iowa State University study sponsored by USW showed that China’s excessive wheat subsidies alone were costing U.S. farmers almost $550 million per year. Now, just one year later, a January 2016 update of the study demonstrated that the decline in world prices has increased the projected annual loss in U.S. wheat farm revenue from China’s policies by 16 percent to $653 million.

A 2014 study by DTB Associates showed that China effectively pays its farmers a minimum procurement price of more than $10 per bushel for wheat and subsidizes input costs. In wheat alone, China provides an aggregate measure of support (AMS) of at least $15.4 billion or 36 percent of the value of production, which far exceed the 8.5 percent de minimis limit set when it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). China also agreed to allow wheat imports at a 1 percent tariff rate, up to a quota of 9.64 million metric tons1. The out-of-quota tariff rate is 65 percent. China rarely administers this tariff rate quota (TRQ) as agreed and imports invariably fall far below the quota, even when its domestic prices are far above world market prices.

The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that China’s noncompliant domestic subsidies and TRQ administration create artificial incentives for its farmers to grow even more wheat at a time when China already controls almost 40 percent of world wheat stocks. In turn, the policies suppress wheat import demand in China and put additional downward pressure on world wheat prices. 

“Considering all the trade distorting policies U.S. farmers face in the world, the wheat subsidies in China and in other developing countries have the most serious effect on farm gate prices and trade flows,” said USW President Alan Tracy. “The studies we have sponsored clearly show the problem is growing more serious at the worst time for farmers who are already facing unprofitable prices.”

“We have seen prices collapse to unsustainable levels in just a few seasons, partially as a result of some of our trading partners not playing by the rules” said NAWG President Gordon Stoner, a wheat grower from Outlook, MT. “The decline in income of every wheat farmer in the United States will accelerate if China’s policies are not brought back into compliance with the commitments China’s government made to its trading partners.”

Noted Iowa State University agricultural economist Dr. Dermot Hayes conducted the 2015 study and the latest update. He said the results confirm that removing China’s domestic wheat support would have significant benefits for farmers in wheat exporting countries. The study used a proven econometric method2 to determine a world wheat “base case” including China’s current wheat input subsidies and price support. Researchers then removed the factors represented by China’s policies, ran the model again and compared the resulting scenario to the base case. Dr. Hayes said the results showed Chinese farmers over time would grow less wheat because domestic prices would fall and input costs would increase.

“In our comparison, China would need to increase its imports to more than 9.6 million metric tons per year, a volume that is about equal to the Chinese wheat tariff rate quota” said Dr. Hayes. “That would increase wheat exports and farm revenue in the United States, as well as in Europe, Canada and Australia. In the United States specifically, farm income from wheat would increase by $0.19 per bushel compared to the base scenario.”

“NAWG supports free trade and supports Congressional ratification of TPP,” said Stoner. “But trade agreements cannot meet their promise if other countries ignore the rules. It is time for the Administration to seek enforcement through the WTO.”

“Since these harmful policies are the acts of sovereign governments, our farmer organizations cannot battle them alone,” said Tracy. “At the direction of the USW and NAWG boards, we are working with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and USDA to develop a possible WTO challenge.”

USW and NAWG have posted the current update of the 2015 Iowa State study and the original study online at http://bit.ly/1XPLrLo and http://www.wheatworld.org/issues/trade/. For results of two DTB Associates studies measuring domestic support in advanced developing countries, visit www.dtbassociates.com/docs/DomesticSupportStudy11-2014.pdf and www.dtbassociates.com/docs/domesticsupportstudy.pdf. For a third party analysis of individual policy measures by country, visit http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.htm#country. 



NFU and NSAC Join Letter Urging FSIS to Adopt Meaningful Grassfed Label Standard

A coalition of nine agricultural and consumer organizations, including National Farmers Union (NFU) and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), today sent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a letter urging the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to reinstate a meaningful grassfed label for meat.

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) had overseen a voluntary label program for grassfed livestock products since 2007, but withdrew the standard in January. AMS’s revocation of that label claim standard provides an opportunity for FSIS “to provide clear direction to protect the integrity of the market,” reads the letter.

FSIS is in the process of updating their guidance for the approval of animal production claims on food labels, and the coalition hopes that will include clear guidance on promoting animal production practices, such as how an animal is fed. FSIS staff has indicated that it plans to include language to provide standards for a grassfed label, which signers of the letter believe should be, at least, as high as those in place when AMS was managing the standard.

“We strongly oppose any guidance that allows any label claim with the words ‘grassfed’ for any product that does not at a minimum meet the definition within the now revoked AMS label claim standard. To allow a lower labeling standard would mislead consumers, to the detriment of grassfed producers,” the group wrote.

“Protecting truth and accuracy in the information that we provide to consumers is important for the integrity of our family farmers and ranchers and for our industry as a whole,” commented NFU president Roger Johnson. “When AMS decided to withdraw their grassfed labeling claim, it left a gap in the marketplace to define this standard. I am hopeful that FSIS will adopt the former AMS standard as their new guidance for the labeling of grassfed meat products.”

“We spent three years working with AMS to coordinate the robust stakeholder effort that led to the creation of the AMS grassfed label claim standard,” said NSAC Policy Director Ferd Hoefner. “The revocation of the standard by AMS creates a great opportunity for FSIS label guidance, based on the AMS standard, to protect the integrity of the claim and thereby aid both farmers and consumers in this important and growing market.”

Signatories on the letter are the American Grassfed Association, Center for Rural Affairs, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, CROPP Cooperative | Organic Valley | Organic Prairie, Food Animal Concerns Trust, National Farmers Union, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and Western Organization of Resource Councils.