Monday May 8 Ag News

Farm Finance Averages Show Some Light, Despite Concerning Ag Debt
Tina Barrett - Executive Director of Nebraska Farm Business Inc.

Nebraska Farm Business, Inc. recently completed its financial averages for 2016. These averages represent the 120 farms across the state participating in this financial analysis program.

Nebraska Farm Business Inc. provides producers with a comprehensive analysis of the financial health of their business, including their

Each year the data collected from these farms’ records is averaged to provide participants with information to benchmark their operations. Taking a closer look at these averages also  indicates shifting trends across these farms and ranches.

The average data shows several surprises including an increase in net farm income from $29,432 in 2015 to $45,703 in 2016. This is the first increase in net farm income since 2011, but it is still lower than any other year (other than 2015) since 2002. In 2015 44% of the operations saw negative net farm income while in 2016 only 30% did with a majority of those being predominately livestock operations. The income for crop operations (more than 70% of their gross income comes from crops) rebounded to the 2014 levels after a drop in 2015, but the operations with a significant beef component saw continued losses.
-    accrual basis net farm income (the true earnings of the business),
-    an earned net worth change,
-    cost of production,
-    21 financial ratios,
-    and more.

Not all the surprises were good surprises. The level of total debt carried by each operation jumped 13% from 2015 to 2016. Gross income also increased, possibly indicating that the size of operations increased. However, this continued increase in risk is something operations need to be concerned with. Since 2004 the average debt per acre has more than doubled (Table 1). It should be noted that there is certainly a factor for livestock operations that would have debt without crop acres that this simple comparison doesn’t capture, but the fact remains that the rising total debt must be serviced by the same number of acres. This dramatically increases the risk of not being able to repay the debt.

Another good surprise was in family living. We have seen costs dropping slightly from the peak of spending in 2012, but this was the first time we approached a drop of more than 10%. The average family living costs in 2016 were $83,210 compared to $91,991 in 2015. The largest drops came from personal care, recreation and miscellaneous expenses. Cash donations and household repairs were the other large drops. The only significant category to increase was food and meals. One other item to note from family living is that 2016 was the first time in over 10 years that more money was pulled out of savings than was put in. This is an indicator of the continued cash flow crunch.

That cash flow crunch is most accurately measured by Working Capital which saw no significant improvement in 2016 even with a large amount of refinanced debt (restructuring debt from the current position to a long term). Without adequate working capital, an operation will struggle to pay their bills and service the mounting debt.

While the increase in net farm income is significant and a positive sign that the farm economy is trending in the right direction, it is still too low to create a return on the significant investment of a farming operation with an addition of payment for the labor and management for the operator. Farm operators will need to continue to be diligent in the management of every aspect of their operation to ensure the survival of the business.
New Service

Beginning farmers interested in developing strong financial information for their operation  may be interested in a new opportunity being offered by Nebraska Farm Business Inc: a Beginning Farmer Analysis Program for those who have been farming for less than five years.  The goal of the service is to provide information and analysis to help the beginning farmer better understand the costs of the operation and make sound financial decisions. The five-year program includes a free analysis the first year.



Recent Cold, Wet Conditions are Favorable for Seedling Diseases in Early Planted Corn
Tamra Jackson-Ziems, NE Extension Plant Pathologist

Recent cold, wet field conditions and fluctuations in soil temperatures have put early planted corn at risk for seedling disease development. Cold soil temperatures and episodes of recent rainfall (and snow) are especially favorable for some of the most common and damaging seedling diseases favored by cold wet conditions. Numerous seedling diseases can take advantage of any of these conditions. Be sure to monitor seedling emergence and stand establishment in the coming weeks so if problems occur they can be detected as early as possible.

Seedling diseases can be caused by any of several common soilborne organisms, such as Pythium, Fusarium, Rhizoctonia or plant parasitic nematodes. Seedling diseases are often difficult to diagnose because their symptoms are very similar. Sometimes, diagnosis may be of limited value because management is often the same for several seedling diseases. Microscopic examination and other laboratory analyses of the diseased seedlings can often identify the cause(s) of the problems. Also, seedling diseases can be confused with insect injury, herbicide damage, planting problems, or environmental stresses that often have similar symptoms.

Possible symptoms of seedling diseases include:
-    Rotted seed prior to germination  
-    Rotted or discolored seedlings after germination prior to emergence
-    Post-emergence seedling damping off
-    Root or hypocotyl decay

At least 14 species of Pythium have been identified that can cause seedling blight and root rot. These pathogens require excessive moisture because they produce motile swimming zoospores that infect plant roots. The pathogen overwinters in soil and infected plant debris by producing thick-walled oospores that can survive for several years in the absence of a suitable host and favorable weather conditions. In addition to wet soil conditions, some species of Pythium are favored by cold soil conditions and are most likely to cause seed and seedling diseases lately.

At least six Fusarium species can cause seedling diseases and root rots and several are common in Nebraska fields. Stressed plants due to weather extremes (temperature and moisture), herbicide damage, and physical injury are more prone to infection and disease caused by Fusarium species.

Rhizoctonia species can also cause seedling diseases, but tend to be more common in drier growing conditions. Rhizoctonia tends to cause reddish-brown lesions that can girdle and rot off roots. Root and crown rot may be severe enough to cause seedling death.

Management
Unfortunately, hybrid resistance is not available for seedling diseases in corn. Where practical and in cases where flooding is a frequent concern, improved field drainage can help reduce the incidence and severity of some seedling diseases. Waiting to plant until soil conditions are warmer can promote rapid seed germination and emergence and help plants avoid infection and disease development. The most common method for disease management is the use of seed treatment fungicides.

Crop rotation can provide some reduction in disease, but some of the pathogens may also infect soybean and other crops.

Most seed corn is already treated with more than one seed treatment fungicide, often an insecticide, and, sometimes with a nematicide. These products can provide protection against some of the pathogens that cause seedling diseases; however, they only provide protection during the first few weeks immediately after planting. But, in spite of their activity, diseases may still develop, such as during extended periods of inclement weather or under severe pathogen pressure.

Some fungicides now also are labeled for application in-furrow at planting. Use of fungicides in-furrow at planting may provide some additional protection against these pathogens in fields with severe pathogen pressure and chronic seedling diseases, but more research needs to be conducted to better predict their potential benefits and economic return.

You can minimize the likelihood of developing seedling diseases by planting high quality seed at appropriate planting depths and soil conditions to support rapid plant growth and emergence.



2018 RURAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP CHALLENGE HELPS STRENGTHEN RURAL BUSINESS ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS THROUGH JUNE 30

Farm Bureau’s Rural Entrepreneurship Challenge is now accepting applications from entrepreneurs working on food and agriculture businesses. A total of 10 teams are selected for the 2018 Farm Bureau Rural Entrepreneurship Challenge, four finalists and six semi-finalists. These business owners compete for a share of $145,000 of startup funds.

The Farm Bureau Rural Entrepreneurship Challenge is the first national business competition focused exclusively on helping rural entrepreneurs overcome hurdles they face. Last year two Nebraska start-up businesses were selected as finalists’ in this competition. Levrack in Seward and Windcall Manufacturing, Inc., in Venango. Members of the public participated in a live-streamed of the event finals and voted online to select the People’s Choice Award, which was given to Levrack along with an additional $10,000. “This is a wonderful program that really helps rural entrepreneurs,” Audrey Schipporeit, Nebraska Farm Bureau’s director of generational engagement, said.

“Rural entrepreneurs typically face unique challenges including limited options for startup funding, which Farm Bureau aims to address through the challenge. Farm Bureau is focused on elevating rural entrepreneurs, their ideas, and their skills to make good things happen in rural areas,” Schipporeit said.

Applications for the challenge opened May 1 and will be accepted until June 30. The finalist will compete during the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) Annual Convention in Nashville, Tenn., for a chance to win an additional $15,000 in prize money, courtesy of sponsor Farm Bureau Bank. After a live-stream of the event, members of the public will be invited to vote online for the People’s Choice Award, which gives an additional $10,000 in start-up funds.

For more information about the AFBF Rural Entrepreneurship Challenge contact Audrey Schipporeit at audreys@nefb.org.



Don’t Mix Young and Old bulls in the Breeding Pasture
Gary Stauffer, Extension Educator, Holt and Boyd Counties

With spring bull sales in full swing, cow-calf operators are assessing their bull batteries and making needed purchases; however, in most cases, producers should not place young bulls in the same breeding pasture as older, larger bulls.

Young bulls generally cannot compete with older bulls when it comes to deciding the dominant individual in the breeding pasture.

In some cases, ranchers have reported cases where young bulls have been severely whipped and are less aggressive breeders after the incident, thereby negatively affecting the producer’s investment in the young bull as breeding stock.

Australian data on multi-sire pastures have shown that some young bulls gain a dominant role as they mature and breed a large percentage of the cows. Other young bulls never recover, gain that dominant status and only breed a very small percentage of the cows in a multi-sire pasture for the remainder of their stay at the ranch.

The best solution is to always place young bulls with young bulls and mature bulls with mature bulls in the breeding pasture. In some situations, the rancher may choose to use the mature bulls in the first two-thirds of the breeding season and then rotate in the young bulls.

This allows the young bulls to gain one or two months of additional age and sexual maturity. In addition, the young bulls should have considerably fewer cows in heat at the end of the breeding season as the mature bulls will have bred the bulk of the cows or heifers. The young bulls therefore will be in the breeding season only a few weeks and should not be as run down or in poor body condition at the conclusion of the breeding season.

As for determining how many cows should be mated to young bulls, the old rule of thumb is to place the young bull with about as many cows as his age in months.

Hopefully a breeding soundness exam and close observation during the first part of the breeding season will identify those potential failures.



Soy Growers Support CREAATE Act to Double MAP, FMD Funding

The American Soybean Association (ASA) strongly supports new legislation from Reps. Dan Newhouse and Chellie Pingree to double funding for the MAP and FMD programs though the Cultivating Revitalization by Expanding American Agricultural Trade and Exports (CREAATE) Act.

“The MAP and FMD programs are two of the most impactful USDA export promotion programs for soybean producers across the country,” said ASA President and Illinois farmer Ron Moore. “The proposed increase to these market development programs through the CREAATE Act will provide an enormous return on investment for America’s agricultural community and the U.S. economy as a whole, and will ensure our continued ability to compete in the global marketplace.”

The $150 billion in U.S. agricultural exports that occurred in 2014 produced an additional $190 billion in economic activity for a total of $340 billion of economic output. This supported 1.1 million full time U.S. civilian jobs, including 800,000 in the non-farm sector required to assemble, process and distribute agricultural products for exports.

The CREAATE Act calls for phasing in additional annual funding for MAP to $400 million in FY 2023, and additional annual funding for FMD to $69 million in FY 2023. Doubling public funding for MAP and FMD, coupled with increasing private contributions from 10 to 50 percent, would result in average annual gains in GDP of $4.5 to $6.0 billion.

“Agricultural exports are one of the brightest lights in the U.S. economy, and these proposed increases to MAP and FMD will have a strong multiplier effect by creating jobs, expanding the farm and larger U.S. economy and increasing revenues to the Treasury,” Moore said.



Farmers Encouraged to Tell Personal Stories to Reintroduce Consumers to Dairy

Over the next few weeks, the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy – in partnership with dairy farmers through their checkoff – will launch a multi-year, multi-stakeholder proactive campaign that boldly and proudly tells dairy’s stories through people in the industry.

The campaign kicks off on World Milk Day on June 1, and celebrates June Dairy Month through a creative and engaging communications effort. During this time, farmers, cooperatives, brands and other dairy community members will come together to spark connections with consumers by sharing stories that build dairy trust and relevance.

Farmers have some of most credible voices in telling dairy’s story about how milk is produced and the commitment to animal care and environmental stewardship. Visit www.dairyinfo.org for more information about the campaign and content farmers can share to reignite the passion people have for nature’s perfect food. Further details about the campaign and how to share its content will come next month.



 Dairy Farmers May Lose Air Emissions Reporting Exemption

An appeals court ruling last month could significantly expand the air emissions reporting requirements imposed on animal agriculture operations across the nation, if the court’s decision is not challenged. The National Milk Producers Federation is working with federal regulators to assess and mitigate the problems that may arise from the April 11 ruling, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia removed a long-standing exemption for dairy and other livestock operations from two federal laws requiring reporting any air emissions associated with animal manure.

Back in 2008,  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that exempted most farms from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) reporting requirements for air releases from animal waste. Both rules were originally created to address accidental hazardous air emission emergencies. Initially, EPA did not hold that these measures warranted the inclusion of animal agriculture operations, but the recent appeals court ruling said EPA cannot simply ignore a statute because the reporting requirements “aren’t worth the trouble.” The final rule required CAFOs to continue reporting air emissions under EPCRA, but not under CERCLA; smaller farms were exempted from both rules.

The exemption from CERCLA notifications applied to the general release into the air of hazardous substances from animal waste (on dairy farms, this includes ammonia and hydrogen sulfide). The exemption from EPCRA notifications applied only to air releases of hazardous substances (on dairy farms, this includes ammonia and hydrogen sulfide) from animal waste on farms below the thresholds specified in the U.S. regulatory code 40 CFR 355.31, and for farms that are not confined. With respect to dairy, the reporting size threshold was 700 mature dairy cows, milked or dry.

EPA has not clarified the requirements for reporting in response to the court decision, nor has it revealed its intention to file an appeal. NMPF and other agriculture groups have conveyed to EPA the gravity of the situation and the short timeline to act. If the decision stands, CAFOs and smaller farms that exceed the daily reportable quantity (RQ) of 100 pounds per day of air emissions of either ammonia or hydrogen sulfide could have to file the required notifications. NMPF estimates that farms with as few as 250 cows could be required to report. The court will not release its mandate to vacate the exemption until the time to appeal has run out around May 26 (45 days from the decision).

NMPF and other animal agriculture associations are discussing all short-term options, which include appealing the decision or securing a regulatory fix from EPA, as substantive discussions with EPA begin.  Discussions with Congress about a legislative intervention as a long-term solution also are underway. For now, dairy producers should not take any action until the best course of action has been determined.



DFA Urges Activist Groups to Report Not Record

Recently we learned that activist group Compassion Over Killing (COK) reported allegations of animal mistreatment at a Dairy Farmers of America member farm in Pennsylvania. DFA, the dairy industry and our individual farm owners do not tolerate abuse of any kind.

Immediately upon learning about this allegation, we initiated a third-party audit to investigate the claim. No evidence of abuse or mistreatment was found in this audit. Unfortunately, the actions captured on video by a member of COK who was undercover on this dairy, were concerning. An employee was terminated by the farm owner, and we worked with authorities in filing charges against him.

This individual’s actions were not representative of the farm’s practices or practices on dairies in general. Despite that, today, long after the undercover activist left the farm and weeks after the initial allegation, COK began sharing a highly edited version of this video. In addition, Dairy Farmers of America executives received a letter from COK requesting an open dialogue.

As an organization and industry that has invested considerable resources in animal welfare, we welcome the opportunity for dialogue with any organization that has the best interests of our animals at heart.

Unfortunately, we question the agenda of organizations like Compassion Over Killing. Rather than work with us, they continue to use deceptive practices to go undercover recording footage over a period of months that is then used to create highly edited videos that distort what truly happens on America’s dairy farms.

Anyone who truly cares about animals would not go undercover and observe, incite or fail to immediately report incidents of abuse. We encourage anyone who suspects animal abuse on our dairies to report, not record that abuse.



CWT Assists with 1.5 million Pounds of Cheese and Butter Export Sales

Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) has accepted seven requests for export assistance from Foremost Farms USA, Northwest Dairy Association (Darigold) and United Dairymen of Arizona. Together they have contracts to sell 1 million pounds (461 metric tons) of Cheddar and Monterey Jack cheeses, and 440,525 pounds of butter (200 metric tons) to customers in Asia and the Middle East. The product has been contracted for delivery in the period from May through August 2017.

So far this year, CWT has assisted member cooperatives that have contracts to sell 30.7 million pounds of American-type cheeses and 1.9 million pounds of butter (82% milkfat) to 15 countries on four continents. The sales are the equivalent of 325.2 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 affects all U.S. dairy farmers by strengthening and maintaining the value of dairy products that directly impact their milk price.



CWT Member Co-ops Capture 6.2 Million Pounds of Export Sales in April

Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) assisted member cooperatives in securing 40 contracts to sell 6.2 million pounds of cheese to customers in Asia, Central America, the Middle East and Oceania in April 2017. The product will be shipped from April through July 2017.

Adding these transactions to the other sales made so far this year raises the total CWT-assisted product sales to 29.7 million pounds of cheese and 1.4 million pounds of butter. These sales are destined for customers in 14 countries in five regions, and will move overseas the equivalent of 306 million pounds of milk, on a milkfat basis, in the first seven months of 2017.

Helping CWT member cooperatives gain and maintain world market share through the Export Assistance program in the long-term expands 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.



Williams Highlights Strengths of Conservation, Biobased Programs in Michigan Farm Bill Hearing

David Williams, a fifth-generation soybean farmer from Elsie, Mich., told Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow and fellow committee members Saturday that conservation and biobased programs are essential to advancing farmer sustainability goals and establishing new markets and should be reauthorized and funded as the committee moves ahead in its work on the coming farm bill.

Testifying on behalf of the American Soybean Association and the Michigan Soybean Association on which he serves as president, Williams emphasized the importance of farm bill conservation programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), noting that both CSP and EQIP incentivize farmers to adopt better conservation practices within their operations.

“I signed my first CSP contract, and adopted a new practice of seeding cover crops using a combination of oilseed radishes, oats, and peas. Recently I seeded cereal rye, and I have seen first-hand that cover crops prevent soil erosion and improve water quality by reducing drainage rates,” Williams said. “… The cost-sharing provided under EQIP helped us build a chemical and fertilizer containment facility which assisted in our compliance with Michigan state water quality regulations. This is a good example of how leveraging private investment with farm bill dollars leads to improved water quality for everyone.”

Williams also testified to the importance of the biobased programs authorized by the farm bill’s energy title—including the Biobased Market Program, the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, and the Biodiesel Education Program—making special note of the 4.2 billion jobs supported by the biobased economy in 2016.

“Michigan is a leader in the world bioeconomy thanks to a long history of innovation by companies like Ford and Lear and their collaboration with U.S. soybean growers. Every Ford car made in North America now contains soy in its seat cushions,” said Williams. “… (W)e believe that (these programs’) relatively low cost and the benefits they provide warrant their continuation with an increased level of mandatory funding.”



NAWG Secretary Testifies on the Importance of the Farm Bill to Michigan Agriculture Before Senate Panel

On Saturday, May 06, 2017, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a field hearing, entitled “Growing Jobs and Economic Opportunity: Perspectives on the 2018 Farm Bill from Michigan.”  NAWG Secretary Dave Milligan, a wheat farmer from Cass City, MI, submitted testimony for the hearing record about how the Farm Bill is critical to the growth of Michigan agriculture.  The hearing also featured testimony from a wide variety of agricultural producers and Farm Bill stakeholders, examining agriculture, as well as conservation, rural economic development, research, forestry, energy, and nutrition policies that affect Michigan.

“Wheat is a significant component of Michigan agriculture, with 2016 sales exceeding $210 million from over 50.7 million bushels of wheat,” testified Milligan, a wheat farmer from Cass City, MI.

“This could have not been possible without the strong safety net, risk management tools, conservation, and other important titles in the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill brings far-reaching benefits to rural communities and growers across the country including the creation of well-paying jobs.”

“The economic conditions in wheat country have declined rapidly as a result of low prices the past few years,” continued Milligan. “Timely completion of the Farm Bill reauthorization process is even more important now than ever before.”

“I appreciate the Committee holding this hearing, and I look forward to working collaboratively with the Committee members to write a bill that meets the needs of wheat farmers not only in Michigan but across the country.”



Michigan Dairy Farmer Outlines Changes Needed in Farm Bill Safety Net at Senate Hearing

Dairy farmers in Michigan and across the nation need federal lawmakers to revise the safety net created in the 2014 Farm Bill to provide them adequate risk management protection, according to a dairy farmer from eastern Michigan who testified in Frankenmuth on Saturday at a Senate hearing.

Darrin Siemen of Harbor Beach, Mich., told a Senate Agriculture Committee field hearing held at the Saginaw Valley Research Center that the Margin Protection Program (MPP), created in the 2014 Farm Bill, “has failed to deliver the protection farmers need and expect. While MPP remains the right model for the future of our industry, changes are needed if Congress wants to prevent dairy farmers like me from going out of business,” he said.

Siemen is a fourth‐generation family farmer and owner of Prime Land Farm in Harbor Beach, in Michigan’s Thumb region. He testified on behalf of his cooperative, Michigan Milk Producers Association, as well as the National Milk Producers Federation, of which MMPA is a member. His full testimony can be found here.

Siemen said that the MPP is designed to help farmers insure against either low milk prices or high feed costs, but the way the program calculates the relative value of feeds such as corn, soybean meal and hay was “significantly changed” as it was written into law. This change “fundamentally altered the safety net designed by NMPF and other dairy leaders around the country. Unfortunately, as a direct result of these changes, the MPP safety net has failed to deliver the protection farmers need and expect,” he said.

He explained that in the first two years of the program, 2015 and 2016, farmers have paid $90 million in fees and premiums to USDA while receiving only $14 million in insurance payouts, even though margins have been tight during much of that period.  This has led to a drastic reduction in the number of farmers paying premiums to selecting higher levels of margin protection. Most are now only paying the minimum annual $100 administrative fee, for which they receive only a low level of insurance coverage.

“I am not asking for a program that guarantees a profit, nor do I want a program that will incentivize excess production,” Siemen said. “However, when Congress made changes to the program, rendering it ineffective, dairy farmers like me lost faith in the idea that MPP could serve as a viable risk management tool under its current formulation. If Congress makes changes to ensure that MPP more accurately reflects the actual costs of production for businesses like mine, participation in the program will increase.”

Siemen said that in addition to adjusting the feed cost formula and the data sources for the prices of feed and milk, Congress should reassess the MPP’s premium rate structure, and consider expanding access to the Livestock Gross Margin program, a separate risk management tool offered by USDA.

The combination of suggested changes to the MPP “will require this committee to make significant and necessary improvements to the program,” Siemen said, so that “it functions as intended and that producers participate in the program. A safety net is not a safety net if no one participates.”

Siemen pointed out that dairy farmers are also facing other policy challenges, including immigration and labor shortages, tax reform, child nutrition and environmental sustainability. He thanked Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow for arranging the hearing in Michigan, and for her engagement on behalf of the U.S. dairy sector in its recent struggle against Canada’s new pricing policy, which will have long-term negative consequences for Michigan farmers’ export opportunities.

He also recognized the efforts of Stabenow and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts for their recent efforts to bring more milk options and flexibility to the School Lunch and School Breakfast programs.



Zoetis' Sales, Net Income Rose During Past Year

Zoetis Inc. reported its financial results for the first quarter of 2017 and reaffirmed its guidance for full year 2017.

The company reported revenue of $1.2 billion for the first quarter of 2017, an increase of 6% compared with the first quarter of 2016. Net income for the first quarter of 2017 was $238 million, or $0.48 per diluted share, an increase of 17% on a reported basis.

Adjusted net income1 for the first quarter of 2017 was $261 million, or $0.53 per diluted share, an increase of 9% and 10%, respectively, on a reported basis. Adjusted net income for the first quarter of 2017 excludes the net impact of $23 million for purchase accounting adjustments, acquisition-related costs and certain significant items.

On an operational2 basis, revenue for the first quarter of 2017 increased 6%, excluding the impact of foreign currency. Adjusted net income for the first quarter of 2017 increased 10% operationally, excluding the impact of foreign currency.