Thursday February 22 Ag News

Adams Land & Cattle wins national Beef Quality Assurance Award
Maria Tibbetts, UNL Beef communications specialist

The beef industry may be strong on tradition, but Adams Land and Cattle recognizes that success today and in the future depends on progress.

Adams’s commitment to improving their business and the industry, as well as communicating with consumers about that standard, is part of why they were named the 2024 National Beef Quality Assurance Feedyard of the Year, according to Nebraska Beef Quality Assurance Director Jesse Fulton.
"The Nebraska BQA program considers Adams a progressive, outstanding member of Nebraska’s beef industry, and a leading advocate for the beef industry as a whole," Fulton said.

Adams has been in the beef business in Nebraska since the 1950s when Russ and Angenette Adams bought 320 acres near Broken Bow to raise cattle and their family. The business has expanded to a 125,000 finishing capacity feedyard, but it’s still owned and operated by the Adams family.

"At Adams, our mission is feeding the world high-quality, safe and sustainable beef," said Abram Babcock, president of Adams Land and Cattle. "The principles of BQA align perfectly with what we strive for every day within our company, from every single employee being BQA certified on day one of employment, to our continuous improvement and best practices, to the identification and verification of every single animal that leaves our lots. We are honored by this award and are incredibly proud of our employees for their hard work and dedication to consumers."

History of Innovation
Innovation has been a major theme for Adams Land and Cattle, Fulton said. In the 1990s they were early adopters of individual animal management technology, which allows individual animals to be traced through the feedlot, ensuring accurate, complete health records. They also created an IT system, Revoro, which enables them to collect data on individual animals and make data-based management decisions. Adams has used electronic ID readers since 2010, and has patented a sorting technology that uses artificial intelligence to optimize animal endpoints.

Adams has also consistently focused on reducing stress for the animals in their care. That includes a trolley system that automates the sorting process, and a mobile vet hospital which takes health treatments to sick animals, allowing them to stay in a familiar location, with familiar pen-mates, rather than requiring sick animals to be brought to a "sick pen."

Adams’ commitment to animal welfare starts with every employee, from accountants to pen riders, being BQA certified as part of their employment orientation. The company has adopted and enhanced the standard BQA practices and combined it with Tyson’s FarmCheck program to create their own program called Adams Quality Assurance.

Focus on consumer confidence
Adams works to build consumer confidence by participating in value-added programs like non-hormone treated cattle, Global Animal Partnership, Verified Natural, BeefCARE and most recently, Brazen Beef. These programs provide additional value for beef producers by meeting consumer demands for animal care, hormone treatments, and environmental standards, Fulton said. The Adams system for electronically identifying and verifying animals makes it simple to track which animals qualify for which programs when it’s time to market them.

While Adams Land and Cattle has a history in the beef industry, they recognize the work necessary to provide for the future as well. Through social media, partnerships with Nebraska Ag in the Classroom, a scholarship program, and participation in programs like the Timmerman Feedlot Internship program through University of Nebraska—Lincoln, they educate and support kids in Nebraska, working toward positive relationships with future consumers and employees. Adams sponsors field trips to the feedyard, provides compost to local gardeners, and hosts Youth Animal Quality Assurance Training, which is required for 4-H members in animal projects.

By feeding Nebraska corn to Nebraska cattle, Adams supports area farmers, buying 14 million bushel of corn annually, which means about 16,000 semi-loads of corn stay local.

Through their voluntary participation in consumer-driven programs, their own commitment to animal care and handling standards, and the transparency they offer anyone who wants to know how Adams produces cattle, Adams Land and Cattle builds consumer trust in the beef industry, Fulton said.

The National Beef Quality Assurance Awards recognize outstanding members of the beef industry in five categories: Cow-Calf, Feedyard, Dairy, Marketer, and Educator. The National BQA Awards are selected by a committee of BQA-certified representatives from universities, state beef councils, sponsors, and affiliated groups. Nominations are submitted by organizations, groups or individuals on behalf of a U.S. beef producer, dairy beef producer, marketer, or educator.



Nebraska’s Power Genetics wins national Beef Quality Assurance award
Maria Tibbetts, UNL Beef communications specialist

In the 1980s Jason Anderson realized that in the cattle business, his options were to get better or get out.  

Anderson, president and founder of Power Genetics, chose to get better. As the winner of the 2024 National Beef Quality Assurance Marketer of the Year award, the industry agrees the company, based in Arapahoe, Nebraska, has succeeded.

"I’m honored and humbled to be part of the BQA program," Jason said. "It just keeps helping us manage our cattle better and be an advocate for the beef industry in terms of quality assurance."
Jason and his brother J.D. picked up the reins in the business when cattle prices were low, interest rates were high, and everyone was just trying to survive. J.D. started selling seedstock bulls after graduating college. He branded his business Powerline Genetics.

"We wanted to find an endpoint marketing tool and a value-added grid," Jason said. "The rancher would be our customer buying bulls, and we’d be their customer buying their calves back."

The power of consistency
Power Genetics was created in 1991 and organized independent feedyards into a verified beef supply chain for commercial markets. The majority of the cattle that go through the program are sired by Powerline Genetics, and all 32 member feedyards are managed independently, but to the same criteria of animal handling and welfare. Consumer preference and perception is the ultimate guide for their practices.

This business model provides proven quality genetics to their feedyards, and it gives Powerline Genetics the data they need to continue to improve their seedstock genetics and produce high-quality beef.

The Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program has provided a framework for a consistent training program for proper animal handling and treatment techniques, and a standard of evaluation across all the member feedyards, and all employees of those feedyards must be BQA certified. While BQA certification is becoming expected in the beef industry, Power Genetics has taken it a step further, also requiring an independent audit of all participating feedyards to make sure the principles are being applied, not just learned.

"The BQA certification process is a great tool," Jason said. "The audit tool puts teeth to the program."
Power Genetics also requires that anyone who hauls cattle for them is BQA Transportation certified. That reduces stress at loading and unloading, which makes the processing smoother, with better yields and less bruising.

"The whole system is just better because we are all on the same standard operating procedure," Jason said.

The program has improved the employee training process, which has resulted in more positive, consistent and effective cattle handling, and improved employee safety, Jason says.

"All our employees, especially the younger generation, know only low-stress cattle handling and proper injection sites and how to properly store products and when to change needles. That’s because of BQA. My sons in the business don’t know how we used to do it, which we thought was right, but we didn’t know any better. Everything we do is to create a better eating experience for the consumer."

That standard operating procedure was developed with the help of consulting veterinarians and Jesse Fulton, Director of the Nebraska BQA program.

"I felt Power Genetics was deserving of this award because of their belief to go above and beyond what is required," Fulton said. "When developing their feedyard management program best management practices, they developed protocols and record-keeping templates that either meet or exceed BQA guidelines while fulfilling the needs of the company and member feedyards. They also offer continuing education opportunities for member yards to participate. These opportunities are generally veterinarian-led and cover a variety of animal health and low-stress animal handling topics."  

Focus on consumers
While Powerline Genetics works to help cow-calf producers improve genetics, and Power Genetics works to improve quality and profitability for their member feedyards, the whole system is designed for one purpose—to produce wholesome, quality beef that consumers feel good about eating.

Dr. Shane Terrell, veterinarian and research coordinator for Production Animal Consultation, has worked with Power Genetics and many of their member feedyards as a consulting veterinarian for the last six years. "Jason and Power Genetics are always looking to be the industry leaders, being on the forefront and thinking about the consumer and animal with every decision they make," Terrell said. "That makes them overwhelmingly deserving of this award."

Being able to point to the BQA certification and audit process, and marketing only cattle produced to that standard of animal handling and welfare eases conversations with consumers who may have the wrong idea about cattle production.

"We can stand behind how we manage the cattle," Jason said. "When you’re producing beef to the best of your ability and the right way, it’s fun to talk about what you do."

The National Beef Quality Assurance Awards recognize outstanding members of the beef industry in five categories: Cow-Calf, Feedyard, Dairy, Marketer, and Educator. The National BQA Awards are selected by a committee of BQA certified representatives from universities, state beef councils, sponsors, and affiliated groups. Nominations are submitted by organizations, groups or individuals on behalf of a U.S. beef producer, dairy beef producer, marketer, or educator.



January Milk Production down 0.9 percent
                        
Milk production in the 24 major States during January totaled 18.3 billion pounds, down 0.9 percent from January 2023. December revised production, at 18.1 billion pounds, was down 0.1 percent from December 2022.  The December revision represented a decrease of 8 million pounds or less than 0.1 percent from last month's preliminary production estimate. Production per cow in the 24 major States averaged 2,062 pounds for January, 9 pounds below January 2023. The number of milk cows on farms in the 24 major States was 8.87 million head, 49,000 head less than January 2023, and 21,000 head less than December 2023.

IOWA: Milk production in Iowa during January 2024 totaled 498 million pounds, down 1 percent from the previous January according to the latest USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service – Milk Production report. The average number of milk cows during January, at 239,000 head, was unchanged from last month but down 1,000 from January 2023. Monthly production per cow averaged 2,085 pounds, down 10 pounds from last January.



2023 Annual Milk Production down slightly from 2022

The annual production of milk for the United States during 2023 was 226 billion pounds, down slightly from 2022. Revisions to 2022 production decreased the annual total 46 million pounds. Revised 2023 production was down 187 million pounds from last month's publication. Annual total milk production has increased 9.9 percent from 2014.

Production per cow in the United States averaged 24,117 pounds for 2023, 30 pounds above 2022. The average annual rate of milk production per cow has increased 8.4 percent from 2014.

The average number of milk cows on farms in the United States during 2023 was revised down 9,000 head to 9.39 million head, down 0.1 percent from 2022. The average annual number of milk cows has increased 1.3 percent from 2014.

2023 Milk Production by State
Nebraska .....:      54,000 cows - 24,815 lbs/cow - 1,340,000,000 lbs. - -5.4% from '22    
Iowa ............:     240,000 cows - 24,679 lbs/cow - 5,923,000,000 lbs. - +2.7% from '22     



USDA to survey farmers’ planting intentions for 2024

As the 2024 crop production season begins, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) will contact producers nationwide to determine their plans for the upcoming growing season.

“Each year, the agriculture industry anticipates USDA’s Prospective Plantings report, which provides initial survey-based estimates of U.S. farmers’ planting intentions for the year,” said Greg Thessen, Director of the NASS Upper Midwest Regional Field Office. “The March Agricultural Survey provides the data that underpin projections, making it one of the most important surveys we conduct each year.”

NASS will mail the survey to approximately 2,300 Iowa producers on Feb. 19 asking producers to provide information about the types of crops they intend to plant in 2024, how many acres they intend to plant, and the amounts of grain and oilseed they store on their farms. Producers can respond online at agcounts.usda.gov or by mail. Those who do not respond by Feb. 27 may be emailed a reminder or contacted for an interview.

In accordance with federal law, NASS keeps responses confidential and publishes data in aggregate form only, ensuring that no individual operation or producer can be identified.

The data will be published in the Prospective Plantings and quarterly Grain Stocks reports on Mar. 28, 2024. These and all NASS reports are available online at www.nass.usda.gov/Publications. For more information, call the NASS Upper Midwest Regional Office at 800-772-0825.



Fertilizer Trends - Most Fertilizer Prices Now Higher

For the first time in several months, more retail fertilizer prices were higher than lower than the previous month, according to sellers surveyed by DTN.

During the third week of February 2024, prices for five of the eight major fertilizers were higher than last month, while prices for the remaining three fertilizers were lower. For the fourth straight week, however, no fertilizer saw a significant price move, which DTN designates as anything 5% or more.

The fertilizers that were higher in price included DAP, with an average price of $739 per ton, 10-34-0 $610/ton, anhydrous $771/ton, UAN28 $336/ton and UAN32 $392/ton.

The three fertilizers that were just slightly lower in price from last month were MAP with an average price of $809/ton, potash $504/ton and urea $529/ton.

On a price per pound of nitrogen basis, the average urea price was at $0.57/lb.N, anhydrous $0.47/lb.N, UAN28 $0.60/lb.N and UAN32 $0.61/lb.N.

All fertilizers except one are now lower by double digits compared to one year ago. MAP is 6% lower, DAP is 12% less expensive, 10-34-0 is 19% lower, urea is 23% less expensive, potash is 27% lower, UAN28 is 31% less expensive, UAN32 are 32% lower and anhydrous is 37% lower compared to a year prior.



Arians Joins NCGA as VP, Sustainable Production

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) announced today that Sean Arians has joined the organization as vice president of Sustainable Production.  

Arians brings to the role 20 years of experience working in the agriculture industry in a variety of production- and sustainability-focused roles.  

“Sean has deep agricultural roots and has earned the reputation of being a strategic thinker and innovative problem solver,” said NCGA CEO Neil Caskey. “We’re thrilled to welcome him to the NCGA team to lead and elevate our efforts to support the long trajectory of sustainability gains made by U.S. corn farmers.”

Prior to joining NCGA, Arians worked for some of the biggest brands in agriculture, including roles at Advanced Agrilytics, Bayer, The Climate Corporation and Precision Planting. His past experience spans on-the-ground work with farmers to implement sustainable solutions for their farms to roles in strategy to drive big-picture solutions across companies.

“I’m excited to get to work on behalf of the nation’s corn farmers,” said Arians. “We have a great opportunity to tell the story of the hard work farmers have done to date and keep building on that progress in the years to come.”

An Illinois native, Arians is the fourth generation of his family to manage and operate a row crop farm in northwest Illinois, where he frequently trials new practices and solutions, including the use of cover crops. He holds a degree in agriculture business management from Illinois State University.



ASA Survey Paints Harsh Reality of ESA Herbicide Strategy on Soy Farmers

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed pesticide registration plans to meet its Endangered Species Act obligations that could significantly affect farmers’ livelihoods. With U.S. soybean farmers concerned over the impacts of these proposals, which include the Vulnerable Species Pilot Program (more details below) and a draft Herbicide Strategy, the American Soybean Association sought a clearer picture of the potential costs the Herbicide Strategy could have—both financially and otherwise—if left unchanged. In Dec., ASA conducted a survey of its farmer board members and a sample of soy growers from affiliate state soy organizations, analysis of which can be found in this Economist’s Angle by ASA Chief Economist Dr. Scott Gerlt and Director of Government Affairs Kyle Kunkler, and summarized below.

EPA’s proposed Herbicide Strategy is meant to bring herbicide registrations into compliance with the Endangered Species Act. While the agency’s proposal provides a framework for this goal, it does not estimate the ability of producers to comply with potential regulations. Similar to the VSPP, the picture painted by the ASA grower survey clearly indicates the Herbicide Strategy’s requirements for pesticide application most likely would vastly and negatively alter agricultural production.

Approximately 99% of the producers who responded to ASA’s survey would have compliance obligations under the Herbicide Strategy: The news was not good. When soybean producers were asked about their ability to meet the proposed Herbicide Strategy obligations, a striking number were not meeting the compliance requirements of the proposal. Data indicates approximately 80% of producers would be incompliant with the proposal and would face moderate to extreme costs to become compliant. Given herbicide resistance issues and a lack of comparable options reported by survey respondents, farmers would be forced to adopt pricy mitigations, accept lower yields due to weed pressure, or need to stop growing crops requiring herbicides with high efficacy point requirements. The survey indicates significant, harmful impact on U.S. agriculture if the proposal is adopted in its current form.

Looking at herbicide usage among survey respondents for active ingredients EPA identified in a case study within its proposal, the herbicides listed were used by nearly all producers participating in the survey. Those respondents indicated they would face significant challenges in altering the mix they are currently using. Herbicide-resistant weeds are becoming a big challenge for growers, with 41% rating it as a major issue. Only 11% do not have at least moderate problems with herbicide resistance. Largely as a result of herbicide resistance, growers have limited flexibility to change their herbicide mix. Nearly all respondents (93%) stated they could not easily remove these products from their lineup. In other words, swapping or removing herbicides to lower the efficacy point requirements under the Herbicide Strategy is difficult.

Looking at eligible mitigations currently used on respondents’ farms, over half the participating farmers used no-till or reduced tillage on all or most of their acres. Less than 10% did not use either conservation tillage. Beyond tillage, most of the mitigations are either scarcely utilized or unavailable, as no other option exceeded 50% adoption for respondents. For 11 of the 18 mitigations listed in the survey, over half the respondents did not utilize the mitigation on their fields.

While understanding mitigation adoption is useful, it only tells part of the story. More important to Herbicide Strategy implementation is whether the mitigations will be adequate to meet the efficacy point requirements for herbicide usage. ASA utilized location data, herbicide usage reported, and crops grown to determine potential efficacy points needed for each respondent. This was compared against the efficacy points generated based upon current practices (see Economist's Angle for list of assumptions made during this analysis).

The results were disheartening: Only 21% of respondents would meet the efficacy point requirements for their farm with practices currently in place. Nearly half (48%) of those surveyed lack five or more points. In short, if the Herbicide Strategy were implemented today, most producers would be unable to use herbicides they deem necessary for crop production. This analysis did not consider producers’ ability to obtain points through application rate reductions, but even if that were an option for these producers and permitted by the pesticide label, they would need a 50% or higher reduction from what they might be using currently. This could risk the effectiveness of their weed management or worsen herbicide resistance pressures.

While the potential point deficit here is based upon implementation with current practices, the survey followed up by asking how costly the producer would expect adoption of new practices to be. Nearly half (46%) expected their adoption to be moderately costly, with another 38% saying it would be extremely costly. Only 13% expected adoption to be slightly costly, with 3% expecting it not to be costly at all.

Survey Background: The survey asked for respondent location, crops grown, herbicides used, current mitigation practices, among other information, and covered much of the soybean growing region. Given the non-random selection of participants and sample size, survey results should not be treated as statistically significant, definitive evidence. However, given the geographic dispersion of producers (24 states), range of farm size (320 to 9,000 acres) and number of commodities grown (15), coupled with a lack of alternative attempts to quantify the Herbicide Strategy compliance ability of growers, results from these 75 persons provide the best snapshot to date of potential impacts.

Herbicide Strategy Background: While the VSPP is focused on protecting a small list of endangered species, the Herbicide Strategy paints with a much wider brush by applying to herbicides more broadly and including over 900 listed species. Two types of areas are defined in the Herbicide Strategy: one “generalist species” area including endangered species that do not have a dependent (obligated) relationship with a specific plant and a second area including endangered species that do have a dependent relationship with a specific plant. These latter species fall under Pesticide Use Limitation Areas (PULAs), which have more stringent herbicide requirements. PULAs are smaller than “general” areas—but can still be, say, the size of the state of Iowa. And, almost all cropland acres fall into one of these two areas and thus are affected.

EPA gives some flexibility in the runoff/erosion mitigations that can be used to meet compliance requirements. Herbicide users have a total number of points they must meet for a given herbicide, crop and area. They can choose from potential options that generate points toward that total. Producers have different ways of obtaining points, such field characteristics, reduced herbicide application, in-field measures, field-adjacent measures, water retention systems and combining multiple categories. If a producer is already using a measure, it will apply toward the necessary points. Several potential exemptions to the point requirements are in the proposal, including implementing a mitigation plan from a conservation expert, subsurface drainage into a retention pond or saturation buffer zone and including at least 1,000 feet between the field and habitat for listed species.

ASA Responses to Draft Herbicide Strategy: During the public comment period for the Herbicide Strategy proposal, ASA and 225 other groups submitted a letter to EPA raising significant concerns with the proposal. Among those concerns, the draft Herbicide Strategy would require growers to implement costly runoff conservation practices on their operations and adopt large downwind spray buffers to reduce runoff and spray drift risks to endangered species. The proposal would likely require billions of dollars for farmers across the country to implement and could prevent some farmers from using certain herbicides entirely. ASA also circulated a petition to growers, applicators, and other agricultural stakeholders around the country that drew nearly 1,500 signatures calling for withdrawal of the proposal.

Soy growers were pleased that EPA announced mid-March the deadline to finalize the Herbicide Strategy has been extended three months to August 30. EPA requested the extension “so the Agency will have more time to consider public comments on the draft Herbicide Strategy and the input the Agency continues to receive about implementing ESA mitigation measures, particularly on ensuring that measures are practical and effective.” ASA looks forward to continuing to work with EPA, other regulators, and stakeholder groups to address the challenges in the proposal and encourage changes that address the concerns raised in ASA’s survey.

ASA plans to attend a meeting of the Interagency Working Group authorized to develop solutions for bringing EPA’s pesticide program into ESA compliance to offer feedback and raise concerns with the draft Herbicide Strategy, VSPP, and other ESA-proposals that stand to greatly affect U.S. soybean growers. Further background on the Vulnerable Species Pilot Program can be found in a previous Economist’s Angle. That analysis found that, similar to the draft Herbicide Strategy, the VSPP could be prohibitively expensive for soybean growers in affected areas.