Monday June 6 Crop Progress & Ag News

NEBRASKA CROP PROGRESS AND CONDITION

For the week ending June 5, 2016, temperatures averaged a few degrees above normal in eastern areas and near normal in the west, according to the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. Rainfall was limited to half an inch or less across most of the State. Field activities picked up as producers were able to get back into fields. Soybean planting was active, although wet spots remained in low lying areas. Alfalfa harvest was widespread as clear skies provided good drying weather. Wheat diseases were again noted in western counties. There were 5.6 days suitable for fieldwork. Topsoil moisture supplies rated 1 percent very short, 6 short, 85 adequate, and 8 surplus. Subsoil moisture supplies rated 0 percent very short, 3 short, 87 adequate, and 10 surplus.

Field Crops Report:
Corn condition rated 0 percent very poor, 2 poor, 20 fair, 67 good, and 11 excellent. Corn emerged was 90 percent, near 87 last year and the five-year average of 91.
Sorghum planted was 85 percent, well ahead of 58 last year, and ahead of 74 average. Emerged was 41 percent, ahead of 29 last year, and near 38 average.

Soybeans condition rated 0 percent very poor, 2 poor, 20 fair, 69 good, and 9 excellent. Soybeans planted was 91 percent, ahead of 80 last year, but equal to average. Emerged was 64 percent, ahead of 54 last year, but behind 70 average.

Winter wheat condition rated 2 percent very poor, 8 poor, 26 fair, 52 good, and 12 excellent. Winter wheat headed was 86 percent, ahead of 80 last year and 70 average. Coloring was 10 percent, near 7 last year, but behind 15 average.

Oats condition rated 0 percent very poor, 1 poor, 21 fair, 71 good, and 7 excellent. Oats jointed was 70 percent, behind 75 last year. Headed was 35 percent, equal to last year, and ahead of 30 average.

Alfalfa condition rated 1 percent very poor, 2 poor, 11 fair, 70 good, and 16 excellent. Alfalfa first cutting was 64 percent, well ahead of 32 last year and 42 average.

Livestock, Pasture and Range Report:
Pasture and range conditions rated 0 percent very poor, 0 poor, 12 fair, 71 good, and 17 excellent. Stock water supplies rated 0 percent very short, 2 short, 90 adequate, and 8 surplus.


Access the National publication for Crop Progress and Condition tables at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProg/2010s/2016/CropProg-06-06-2016.pdf.

Access the High Plains Region Climate Center for Temperature and Precipitation Maps at: http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps.php?map=ACISClimateMaps.

Access the U.S. Drought Monitor at:
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?NE.



IOWA CROP PROGRESS & CONDITION

Fieldwork conditions improved across much of Iowa with only spotty rains during the week ending June 5, 2016, according to the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Statewide there were 4.6 days suitable for fieldwork. Producers in the northern third of the state were still struggling with some wet spots in fields. Activities for the week included spraying, and side-dressing nitrogen.

Topsoil moisture levels rated to 0 percent very short, 4 percent short, 86 percent adequate and 10 percent surplus. Subsoil moisture levels rated 0 percent very short, 3 percent short, 85 percent adequate and 12 percent surplus.

Ninety-seven percent of the corn crop has emerged, 9 days ahead of normal. Eighty percent of the corn crop was rated good to excellent.

Soybean planting reached 94 percent complete, 11 days ahead of both last year and the five-year average. Soybean emergence reached 78 percent, 6 days ahead of last year. The first soybean condition rating of the season came in at 0 percent very poor, 2 percent poor, 18 percent fair, 69 percent good, and 11 percent excellent.

Oats headed reached 39 percent this week, one week ahead of last year and five days ahead of normal. Oat condition improved slightly to 84 percent good to excellent.

Mostly dry weather conditions allowed good progress on the first cutting of alfalfa hay with 60 percent complete, one week ahead of last year’s pace. Hay conditions rated 79 percent good to excellent. Pasture condition rated 80 percent good to excellent. Livestock conditions were mostly reported to be excellent.



IOWA PRELIMINARY WEATHER SUMMARY
Provided by Harry J. Hillaker, State Climatologist
Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship

It was a warm week across Iowa with seasonal precipitation. Temperatures were above normal for most of the week although a few areas of northern Iowa slipped slightly cooler than normal on Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday. Temperature extremes varied from Thursday (2nd) morning lows of 45 degrees at Britt and Forest City to a Friday (3rd) afternoon high of 90 degrees at Little Sioux. Temperatures for the week as a whole averaged 3.1 degrees above normal. Thunderstorms were widespread on Monday (30th), Tuesday (31st) and Friday (3rd). Heaviest rains mostly fell over north central and northeast Iowa while scattered areas of west central, central and south central Iowa saw less than one-quarter inch of rain for the week. Rain totals varied from 0.11 inches at Jamaica (Guthrie County) to 3.95 inches at New Hartford (Butler County). The statewide average precipitation was 0.99 inches, just slightly under the weekly normal of 1.13 inches.



USDA Weekly Crop Progress

Corn planting was nearly completed in the week ended June 5, according to USDA's weekly Crop Progress report released Monday.  Corn is 98% planted and 90% emerged, compared to 94% and 78% last week, 99% and 89% last year and a five-year average of 97% and 86%. Corn condition improved to 75% good to excellent, compared to 72% last week.

Soybeans were 83% planted, compared to 73% last week, 77% last year and a 77% average. Soybean emergence is estimated at 65%, compared to 45% last week, 60% last year and a 57% five-year average. USDA reported soybean conditions for the first time this growing season at 72% good to excellent.

Winter wheat is 91% headed and 2% harvested, compared to 84% headed last week, 89% and 3% last year and 83% and 10% on average. Winter wheat condition decreased slightly to 62% good to excellent, compared to 63% last week.

Spring wheat is 96% emerged, compared with 88% last week, 95% last year, and a 78% average. Spring wheat condition is reported at 79% good to excellent, equal with last week.

Cotton is 75% planted, compared to 59% last week, 75% last year and an 84% average. Cotton squaring is at 7%, compared to 5% last week, 6% last year and an 8% average. Cotton condition was reported for the first time this growing season at 47% good to excellent. Rice is 94% emerged, compared to 87% last week, 94% last year and a 91% average. Rice condition held about steady.

Sorghum is 58% planted compared to 44% last week, 52% last year and a 62% average. Oats are 38% headed, compared to 30% last week, 36% last year and a 37% average. Oats condition held decreased slightly to 71% good to excellent, compared to 73% last week.

Barley is 93% emerged, compared to 88% last week, 99% last year, and 80% on average. Barley condition improved slightly to 78% good to excellent, compared to 77% last week.

--------------------------------

NDA ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF LIVESTOCK SITING ASSESSMENT MATRIX FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

The Nebraska Department of Agriculture (NDA) is informing the public that the draft of the livestock siting assessment matrix is now available for review and comments.

Legislative Bill 106, which was signed by Gov. Pete Ricketts on May 27, 2015, charges NDA, in consultation with the assessment matrix committee, with development of an assessment matrix. The matrix can be used by producers and county government officials for siting livestock operations.

The creation and make-up of the committee was also part of LB106. The committee, comprised of representatives from several entities involved in zoning and livestock development, has completed its work on the initial draft of the matrix which is now available at www.nda.nebraska.gov. Comments on the matrix must be submitted by July 31, 2016 by email to agr.webmaster@nebraska.gov, or by mail: Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Attn. Steve Roth, 301 Centennial Mall South, 4th Floor, Lincoln, NE 68509.

The committee will review and consider submitted comments prior to final publication of the assessment matrix which must be completed by Aug. 30, 2016.



Control Potato Leafhoppers In Alfalfa
Larry Howard, NE Extension Educator, Cuming County

Potato leafhoppers are starting to injure alfalfa in many areas.   Scouting for these insects and protecting your alfalfa from injury may be needed in your fields. Potato leafhoppers are tiny, yellowish-green, wedge-shaped insects that are about 1/8 inch long.   They blow into our region from the southeast during late spring through mid-summer.   Leafhoppers turn alfalfa yellow and stunt growth, and they especially hurt new seedlings.

First year spring planted alfalfa fields and fields planted last year are particularly attractive to and vulnerable to potato leafhoppers. Older fields can also be affected. Some of the newer developed alfalfa varieties have resistance to potato leafhoppers, which protects them fairly well.  Seedling alfalfa still may be damaged and all fields should be scouted as large numbers of leafhoppers may cause problems.

An early symptom of leafhopper damage is a triangular or V-shaped yellow or purple area at the tip of alfalfa leaves.   This discoloration is caused by a toxin the leafhopper injects into the alfalfa plant as it sucks out plant juices.   As feeding continues, the entire plant can turn yellow and growth may stop.

In scouting a field, population numbers are best determined by using a 15”diameter sweep net and making a series of sweeps at different locations per field. To get a representative estimate of potato leafhopper numbers, at least 25 sweeps should be taken from each of four locations in each field. The University of Nebraska has economic thresholds based on the height of alfalfa, the number of potato leafhoppers per sweep of a 15” diameter net, the value of alfalfa hay and the cost of insecticide application.  If leafhopper numbers have reached or exceeded threshold levels and an alfalfa field is more than 12” tall, immediate harvest is recommended rather than treatment with an insecticide.  Harvesting will cause the adults to move out of the field and most nymphs will die due to starvation and exposure. Fields can become reinfested from other nearby fields after being treated with an insecticide or harvested, so weekly scouting through the season is recommended. Severely damaged alfalfa will need to be cut to allow recovery and regrowth to occur. If you are interested in more information on potato leafhoppers from the University of Nebraska, articles in CropWatch that discuss potato leafhopper can be found at:  http://cropwatch.unl.edu/potato/potato_leafhoppers or for a table of treatment thresholds at: http://cropwatch.unl.edu/controling-potato-leafhoppers-alfalfa. 



Workshop Focuses on Windbreaks

A well designed and maintained windbreak can provide many benefits to a home, acreage or farm.  Now is the time to make plans and start preparing for windbreak establishment, maintenance, and rejuvenation.  Common questions about windbreaks include:
 ·    What is the best design for a windbreak?
 ·    What type of trees should be planted in a windbreak?
 ·    How do you revitalize an existing windbreak?

These and other questions will be answered at a Windbreak Workshop on Thursday, June 23, at the First National Bank Northeast meeting room in Tekamah.  Registration begins at 8:30 a.m. and the workshop at 9:00 a.m.  The morning program will address the topics below. After a complimentary lunch, we will travel to a windbreak five miles south of Tekamah to discuss windbreak renovation options.

Nebraska Extension is partnering with the Nebraska Forest Service and the Lower Elkhorn and Papio-Missouri River North Natural Resource Districts to provide helpful information on how to put the right plan for your windbreak in place.

Many windbreaks in Eastern Nebraska have outlived their usefulness and are in desperate need of renovation and, in some cases, replacement.  This workshop will provide participants with information on how to start the process.

Topics to be covered and the presenters include:
 ·  Renovating Old & Deteriorating Windbreaks - Steve Karloff, NE Forest Service District Forester
 ·  Planting a New Windbreak -   Pam Bergstrom, Lower Elkhorn NRD Forester
 ·  Tree Planting Programs & Cost-Share Availability - Pam Bergstrom, Lower Elkhorn NRD Forester Justin Novak, Papio-Missouri River NRD
 ·  Insect & Disease Issues Jennifer Morris, Nebraska Forest Service, Forest Health Specialist
 ·  “RootMaker System” (Bag) Trees - Alan Weiss, President & Sales Manager, Papio Valley Nursery 

For more information, please contact:
  - Steve Karloff, Nebraska Forest Service (402.472.3645 – skarloff1@unl.edu)
  - John Wilson, Nebraska Extension Educator (402.374.2929-jwilson3@unl.edu)
    
 

New Publication Helps Beef Producers Develop Growth Implant Strategy

When used as part of a proper strategy, growth implants for beef cattle can reduce the cost of production in beef cattle herds while improving daily gain up to 20 percent and efficiency up to 15 percent. With more than 30 brands of implants available for feedlot cattle as of this spring, Iowa State University extension program specialist Erika Lundy said beef producers can tailor their strategies to meet their operation’s specific needs.

“There are at least 1,100 possible implant combinations in a reimplant program, and more than 39,000 possible combinations if cattle are fed long enough to receive three implants,” she said. “Our newly revised publication, ‘Growth Promotant Implants for Cattle’ offers suggestions on developing a system based on available implants and individual requirements of an operation.”

Iowa Beef Center director and feedlot specialist Dan Loy said it’s vital to develop a strategy and find the right implants for that strategy.

“In terms of improving performance and decreasing cost, the most important implant is the last one used prior to marketing,” Loy said. “The new publication explains definitions and timing of terminal and early implants, provides directions on proper implanting technique, and includes some common questions and answers for those considering implants.”

The publication also contains a table of implants available as of spring 2016 categorized by potency and active ingredient. In addition, the table illustrates which animal class (suckling, stocker or feedlot) is approved for each individual brand of implant.

The three-page publication, IBC 113, is available in pdf format as a free download from the Extension Store at http://store.extension.iastate.edu/ .



EPA Mandates Are Harming Nebraskans
U.S. Senator Deb Fischer

Take a drive across Nebraska and you will see farm equipment almost everywhere: tractors, combines, center pivots, and more. You name it; chances are Nebraska producers use it. Year round, our farmers and ranchers rely on a wide variety of agricultural machinery to do their job of feeding the world.

Many of these producers store fuel in aboveground tanks on their property. Often, this is because they live miles from the towns where they can refuel.

While most fuel storage tanks are located miles from major waterways, Washington wants to regulate them anyway.

Despite the EPA’s limited understanding of production agriculture, the agency believes these fuel tanks threaten water quality. Under a regulation intended for major oil refineries, known as the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule, the EPA wants to restrict the amount of fuel our ag producers can store on their land. This rule would force families to make costly upgrades to fuel storage tanks. It would also impose heavy fines if these tanks go over the on-farm fuel limit exemption mandated by the federal government.

As a cattle rancher, I understand the negative impact this mandate would have on our agriculture community. As your U.S. senator, I am doing something about it.

Last Congress, I successfully brokered a bipartisan provision in the 2014 Water Resources Reform Development Act, which was signed into law. My provision protected Nebraska’s ag community from the SPCC rule by implementing a 6,000-gallon exemption for on-farm fuel storage. It also required the EPA to conduct a study to examine and determine the exemption threshold for on-farm fuel storage. The study was released last year and it quickly became clear that the results were based on flawed data.

EPA regulators claim we need this rule to protect water quality, but the facts tell a different story. In its study, the EPA failed to show that on-farm fuel storage poses a significant risk to water quality. The report cited seven examples of significant fuel spills, yet none of them occurred on a farm or ranch. Even more misleading, they pointed to one spill in particular that leaked 3,000 gallons of fuel. The only problem is, the liquid was jet fuel, something I have yet to find on farms in Nebraska.

Nebraska’s ag community remains under threat by this burdensome rule and for no reason. That’s why, last month, I introduced a bill that will address this issue head on.

My legislation, known as the Farmers Undertake Environmental Land Stewardship or “FUELS” Act, would provide relief for Nebraska families with on-farm fuel storage tanks. This bill completely exempts farms and ranches with 10,000 gallons or less of on-farm fuel storage. This exemption would also apply to farms with larger storage capacities of up to 42,000 gallons and no history of fuel spills. Finally, regardless of capacity, the exemption applies to livestock operations with animal feed ingredient storage tanks.

Both the Nebraska Farm Bureau and the Nebraska Cattlemen strongly support this legislation. I was glad to work with them to help ensure producers are not harmed by this unnecessary federal red tape.

We all want clean water. We all want to maintain a healthy environment. But the citizens of Nebraska know how to protect our state’s resources better than bureaucrats in Washington.

Through common-sense legislation like the FUELS Act, we can work together to provide regulatory relief. I will continue this work to lower costs and cut red tape so that our ag producers can support their families.



April Red Meat Exports below Last Year; Year-to-Date Volumes Steady

April exports of U.S. pork and beef were below the volumes recorded a year ago, according to statistics released by USDA and compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF). Through the first four months of 2016, both pork and beef exports were steady with last year’s pace in volume, but fell 9 percent and 13 percent, respectively, in value.

Pork exports totaled 188,324 metric tons (mt) in April, down 6 percent from the large volume reported in April 2015. Export value fell 9 percent to $466.7 million. For January through April, pork exports were 722,645 mt valued at $1.77 billion.

April exports accounted for 26 percent of total pork production and 22 percent for muscle cuts only, down from 27 percent and 24 percent, respectively, last year. For January-April, these ratios were roughly steady with last year at 24 percent and 20.5 percent. Pork export value averaged $49.83 per head slaughtered in April – down 6 percent from a year ago but the highest in 11 months. January-April export value averaged $45.73 per head, down 9 percent.

Beef exports totaled 88,190 mt in April, down 4 percent from a year ago, while export value fell 13 percent to $481 million. Through the first four months of the year, beef exports were 343,176 mt valued at $1.84 billion.

April exports accounted for 13 percent of total beef production and 10 percent for muscle cuts only, each down about 1 percentage point from last year. For January-April, these ratios were down slightly from a year ago at 12.5 percent and 9.5 percent. Export value averaged $252.42 per head of fed slaughter in April – down 15 percent from a year ago but the highest of 2016. January-April export value averaged $245.56 per head, down 16 percent.

“Although volumes were lower year-over-year, we did see encouraging signs in the April export results,” said USMEF President and CEO Philip Seng. “While the European Union continues to be the dominant pork supplier to China, U.S. pork is achieving growth in the China/Hong Kong market despite significant market access barriers. For U.S. beef, improvement in Mexico and other Western Hemisphere markets was a very positive development. USMEF has worked closely with the retail and foodservice sectors to promote underutilized cuts and overcome our price challenges in these markets, and those efforts are definitely paying dividends.”

China/Hong Kong bolsters pork exports; Canada, Central America also higher
Pork exports to China/Hong Kong continued to build momentum in April, reaching 52,288 mt – up 66 percent from a year ago and the largest in more than four years. Export value was up 56 percent to $96.8 million. This pushed January-April exports to 176,519 mt (+78 percent) valued at $330.1 million (+54 percent). All suppliers continue to ship larger volumes to China to help meet its current supply deficit, and combined China/Hong Kong imports set another new record in April at 267,450 mt, up 53 percent from last year.

Exports to Canada increased 7 percent in volume (15,685 mt) in April and jumped 6 percent in value ($64.9 million). Through April, pork exports to Canada pulled nearly even with last year in volume (63,195 mt) but remained 6 percent lower in value ($239.1 million).

Driven by strong performances in Honduras and Guatemala, Central America is a bright spot for U.S. pork again in 2016. April exports were up 17 percent in volume (5,457 mt) and 25 percent in value ($13.3 million), while January-April exports increased 22 percent (20,948 mt) and 13 percent ($48.9 million), respectively.

For Mexico, the leading volume market for U.S. pork, April exports remained below last year in volume (53,413 mt, -9 percent) but increased 1 percent in value to $93.1 million – a 2016 high. Through April, pork exports to Mexico were 10 percent below last year’s record pace in volume (213,360 mt) and 14 percent lower in value ($355.9 million).

April pork exports to Japan and South Korea were well below last year, although April 2015 was a big month for exports to both markets as shipments began to normalize following the first-quarter backlog in the West Coast ports. Japan’s April volume fell 29 percent to 32,826 mt, with value down 24 percent to $126.7 million. Through April, exports to Japan were 127,808 mt (-15 percent) valued at $489.9 million (-11 percent). April exports to Korea fell 45 percent in volume (12,097 mt) and 49 percent in value ($31.1 million). January-April exports to Korea were down 35 percent (to 51,251 mt) and 46 percent (to $129.4 million), respectively, from the large totals recorded last year. Domestic production is rebounding in both countries, but U.S. pork is gaining back market share in Korea (36 percent, up from 30 percent), and Japan’s chilled imports of U.S. pork have been increasing following the disruptions last year (69,952 mt, +32 percent year-over-year and up 3 percent from the same period in 2014).

Beef exports rebound to Mexico, Central/South America
After a difficult first quarter, Mexico was the leading volume destination for U.S. beef in April at 20,534 mt – up 19 percent from a year ago – while value increased 11 percent to $89.5 million. For January through April, exports to Mexico were still down 6 percent in volume (69,450 mt) and 16 percent in value ($308.9 million).

Led by larger volumes to Chile, Colombia, Panama and Honduras, April beef exports to Central/South America increased 19 percent in volume (3,035 mt) and 33 percent in value ($14.4 million). This pushed January-April exports to the region ahead of last year’s pace in both volume (11,437 mt, +3 percent) and value ($54.6 million, +5 percent).

April beef exports slowed year-over-year to most Asian markets, although this was due in part to the large April 2015 shipments that followed the West Coast port labor impasse. Overall, U.S. beef continues to gain competitiveness against Australian product in Asia.

In Japan, April export volume fell below last year’s level for the first time this year, but exports were the largest in eight months at 20,481 (-9 percent). Export value was also down 9 percent to $122.2 million, but this was also the largest total in eight months. Through April, beef exports to Japan were up 3 percent from a year ago in volume (73,322 mt) but down 8 percent in value ($422.7 million). U.S. exports of chilled beef to Japan have rebounded strongly this year to 30,604 mt, up 37 percent from a year ago and 4 percent above the same period in 2014.

Beef exports to Korea were 2 percent lower than a year ago in volume (10,953 mt) and fell 8 percent in value ($67.2 million). Driven by a 42 percent increase in chilled beef (6,537 mt), January-April exports to Korea remained 17 percent higher in volume (45,591 mt), though value fell 2 percent below last year’s pace at $272.2 million.

Exports to Taiwan increased 27 percent in volume (3,276 mt) and 6 percent in value ($25.3 million) in April, pushing January-April totals up 22 percent (to 10,910 mt) and 4 percent (to $91.7 million), respectively.

Hong Kong was the one key Asian market in which April beef exports fell sharply in both volume (6,487 mt, -39 percent) and value ($39.9 million, -48 percent). These results pushed January-April exports lower by 5 percent (to 36,543 mt) and 26 percent ($213.6 million), respectively.

Lamb exports up from last April’s low totals
April exports of U.S. lamb were the smallest of 2016 at 639 mt, though this was still up 26 percent from the low volume reported last year. Export value was $1.6 million, up 30 percent. For January through April, lamb exports were 19 percent ahead of last year’s pace in volume (3,315 mt) but still down 8 percent in value ($6.1 million).

Exports to leading market Mexico were up 25 percent in volume (2,691 mt) through April, while value increased 5 percent to just under $3 million. Bermuda continues to reemerge as a strong destination for U.S. lamb, while other promising markets include Panama and Chile. Near the end of April, U.S. lamb also regained access to Taiwan for the first time since 2003.



 House Committee Advances Milk-Friendly Nutrition Legislation Backed by NMPF

The House Education Committee, which has jurisdiction over the federal school lunch program, approved legislation last month that would take steps to reverse the decline in school milk consumption.

The Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016, which sets the standards for key government feeding programs, such as the school lunch and WIC programs, was approved by the Education Committee on May 19. The bill included an amendment, which was strongly supported by NMPF, that requires adjustments in feeding programs to promote better consumption of milk by the nation’s students, and permits schools to offer all varieties of milk consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The amendment, offered by Congressmen G.T. Thompson (R-PA) and Joe Courtney (D-CT), also provides for innovative approaches to meet the needs of lactose-intolerant children. Their legislation was included in the larger child nutrition package, which now moves to the full House of Representatives for consideration.

The most recent version of the Dietary Guidelines for America, released in early January, reinforced the need for three servings of dairy foods per day – a level of consumption that most Americans don’t achieve. The guidelines provide the basis for USDA programs governed by the child nutrition act.

“By better aligning the school lunch program with the federal dietary guidelines, options including 1% flavored milk will be back on the lunch tray in school cafeterias as a result of this legislation,” said Jim Mulhern, National Milk Producers Federation president and CEO.

Earlier this year, the Senate Agriculture Committee approved a similar child nutrition reauthorization measure that also contains NMPF-supported provisions calling on USDA to review milk’s role in nutrition, and to take steps to rectify the decline of milk consumption in schools.  NMPF will continue to urge the House and Senate to finalize the child nutrition legislation before the end of 2016.



CWT Assists with 896,000 Pounds of Cheese, Butter, and Whole Milk Powder Export Sales

Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) has accepted 5 requests for export assistance from Northwest Dairy Association (Darigold) and Michigan Milk Producers Association who have contracts to sell 659,182 pounds (299 metric tons) of Cheddar cheese, 104,720 pounds (48 metric tons) of butter and 132,277 pounds (60 metric tons) to customers in Asia and South America. The product has been contracted for delivery in the period from June through November 2016.

So far this year, CWT has assisted member cooperatives who have contracts to sell 23.889 million pounds of American-type cheeses, 8.635 million pounds of butter (82% milkfat) and 18.596 million pounds of whole milk powder to twenty countries on five continents. The sales are the equivalent of 550.548 million pounds of milk on a milkfat basis.

Assisting CWT members through the Export Assistance program, in the long-term, helps member cooperatives gain and maintain market share, thus expanding the demand for U.S. dairy products and the U.S. farm milk that produces them. This, in turn, positively impacts all U.S. dairy farmers by strengthening and maintaining the value of dairy products that directly impact their milk price.



CWT-assisted member export sales contracts top 6 million pounds in May

Cooperatives Working Together members secured 27 contracts to sell 4.890 million pounds of American-type cheese, 813,506 pounds of butter and 396,832 pounds of whole milk powder in May. These products will go to customers in Asia, Central America, the Middle East, North Africa, Oceania and South America. The products will be shipped from May through November 2016.

For the first five months of 2016, CWT assisted members in winning export sales contracts totaling 23.230 million pounds of American-type cheese, 8.530 million pounds of butter (82% milkfat) and 18.464 million pounds of whole milk powder destined for customers in 20 countries on five continents. The sales are the equivalent of 541.117 million pounds of milk on a milkfat basis.



Keep pig profits from melting this summer

Stress is not only bad for the animal and the producer’s profits, but it also short-changes the consumer. Stress right before slaughter can result in pale, soft pork with greater drip loss, while long-term stress can cause dark, firm and dry pork.

Stress also has major implications on the animal’s overall health, and with the summer heat approaching comes a perfect storm for stress. Pork producers not only have to worry about the normal sorting, loading and hauling stress on their herd, but they also have to address the additional challenges from heat stress.

“Respiratory rates begin to increase around 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and with high humidity, it becomes difficult for pigs to find relief from the heat on their own,” said Russell Gilliam, United States swine business manager for Alltech.

When pigs become agitated from stress, one of the first things affected is their eating habits. When pigs eat less, they convert less feed into muscle, thus reducing average daily gain and potentially increasing their days to market. This also opens the door to an increased risk of health challenges and ultimately additional costs for producers.

Though stress cannot be fully avoided, it should be a goal to minimize it as much as possible. Gilliam suggests some quick tips to reduce stress and its effects:
-    Reduce instances of large swings in temperature in the barn.
-    Ensure each pig has enough space and ventilation.
-    Provide pigs with unlimited access to fresh and cool drinking water.
-    Move, transport and work pigs early in the day.
-    Tailor diets to include technologies that support pigs during stress.

Data has shown that offering pigs a combination of organic acids, electrolytes, enzymes and probiotics can support young animals during times of stress. Organic acids support probiotic growth in the gut, and enzymes can help enhance intake and digestibility. Electrolytes keep the animal hydrated, especially in times of heat stress.

“A combination of technologies in the pig’s feed can work quickly to lower the pH of the water, as water is the major component in reducing stress and increasing feed intake,” said Gilliam. “Depending on the type of water and the target level for pH, these technologies can work on their own or with a combination of other ingredients to help optimize the gut environment.”



Why Chemigation, and Why Now?

When discussing the topic of chemigation, it isn’t accurate to say that this is a practice whose time has come. After all, chemigation has been used in many farming operations, across the country and internationally, with great success since the 1980s.

What can be said, according to one industry expert, is that chemigation is poised to make a major leap forward—both in terms of practicality and, consequently, more widespread adoption.

“I’m comfortable making that claim, because there are several trends currently coming together to impact agriculture,” says Erik Tribelhorn, CEO of Agri-Inject, a Colorado-based manufacturer of chemical injection and control equipment for irrigation systems.

Powerful trends
The first, states Tribelhorn, is a growing worldwide concern about diminishing reserves of fresh water for agriculture and corresponding efforts to use water resources wisely. “Ask producers in Texas and the southern Plains about their greatest concerns and the depletion of groundwater for irrigation will be near the top of every list,” he notes.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that this situation has driven the development of more water-efficient irrigation practices and production methods. In recent years, that process has been accelerated by another trend—the rise of technology and precision agriculture.

For example, soil moisture sensors help inform the farmer when, where and how much irrigation is needed. Advanced, variable-rate pivot control systems and sprinklers allow irrigation water application to be adjusted on the fly based on an array of variables.

What does all of this mean for chemigation? That technology hasn’t stood still, either. “We have systems now that can inject fertilizers and crop protection chemicals into the pivot systems with the same variable-rate precision that controls water flow,” Tribelhorn explains. “That means optimum application timing, less waste and improved nutrient usage and crop protection efficiency.”


All of that figures into the most compelling reason for chemigation’s bright future—simple economics.

Efficiency wins
“By taking advantage of the advancements in irrigation equipment and technology, chemigation and fertigation have achieved new levels of efficiency,” Tribelhorn says. “In today’s low-price, tight-margin environment, cost-effective productivity wins the day.”

According to Tribelhorn, the economic advantages of today’s chemigation systems include:
-    Make use of existing equipment to apply fertilizer and crop protection products
-    Can save $4-10 per acre on application costs
-    Lend themselves to precision application, which increases input utilization efficiency, reduces waste and boosts yields
-    Provide uniform coverage, with no skipped rows or hot spots

How economically viable are chemigation and fertigation? “We worked with a farmer who installed five center pivots, a pond, a pumping station and all the requisite precision control equipment with the sole intent of applying late-season nitrogen in his corn,” Tribelhorn relates. “The numbers work.”

Future proofing
There is one final trend that strongly favors fertigation/chemigation systems. Environmental stewardship practices that are strongly recommended now will be mandated in the near future. Applying fertilizers and crop protection products in ways that maximize crop uptake and minimize drift, leaching and volatilization put producers ahead of the regulatory curve.

So, if you’ve considered chemigation and/or fertigation before and decided not to pull the trigger, a lot has changed. It’s time to take another look.