Wednesday December 19 Ag News

Free webinars on crop insurance set

Farmers and ranchers are invited to attend three webinars on crop insurance in early January.  The webinars are free to attend, hosted by the Center for Rural Affairs.

“These sessions are for beginning and any other farmers and ranchers who may be unfamiliar with how crop insurance works and whether it is applicable for their operations,” said Anna Johnson, policy manager with the Center for Rural Affairs.

Each webinar is from noon to 1:30 p.m. central. Topics include:
    Jan. 8, Crop insurance for beginners;
    Jan. 10, Flexible crop insurance option: Whole Farm Revenue Protection; and
    Jan. 11, Insurance options for livestock.

“Many farmers and ranchers grow or raise crops and livestock that are not covered by traditional policies,” Johnson said. “This webinar series is designed to provide information on insurance options that are not as well known.”

The webinar on Jan. 10 will address the insurance product Whole Farm Revenue Protection, which covers an operation’s revenue.

“If you grow or raise organic, value-added, specialty crop, or are interested in new markets, Whole Farm Revenue Protection might be right for you,” Johnson said. “Sign up for our webinar on Jan. 10 to learn more.”

Visit cfra.org/events to register.

Material for these webinars is funded in partnership by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency, under award number RM18RMEPP522C015.



AFBF Appoints New Members to National Committees

The American Farm Bureau Federation has appointed farmer and rancher members to the organization’s Promotion & Education and Young Farmers & Ranchers committees.

“Dedicated Farm Bureau leaders, such as those selected to serve on national committees, remain the foundation of our grassroots organization,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall. “We commend them for their willingness to serve and build greater understanding between modern farmers and consumers.”

Duvall announced the appointment of the following members to the P&E Committee for two-year terms starting in 2019: Barbara Rogers-Scharneck, Massachusetts (dairy replacement heifers, hay, silage, corn and u-pick crops with a garden center); Stacey Lauwers, Michigan (alfalfa hay, soybeans, wheat and commercial sheep); Heather Lang, North Dakota (diversified small grain and farrow-to-fork pork production); James Barbour, Pennsylvania (beef cattle and produce); and Andrea Brossard, Wisconsin (dairy cattle, beef cattle, alfalfa hay and small grains). Jennifer Bergin, Montana (crops and beef cattle), was reappointed to a two-year term starting in 2019.

Ten individuals representing qualifying Farm Bureau Promotion & Education states comprise the P&E Committee.

The committee strives to develop and centralize resources that inspire and equip Farm Bureau members to convey the significance of agriculture. Committee members support and encourage state Farm Bureau volunteers to participate in projects and activities by providing resources for programs, communicating with state leaders and contributing collaborative ideas.

Duvall announced the appointment of the following members to the YF&R Committee for the 2019-2021 term beginning in March: Morgan Norris, Florida (ag marketing company); Neil and Melissa Durrant, Idaho (row crops, alfalfa and ag business); Shelby Watson-Hampton, Maryland (wine grapes/winery and agritourism); Seth and Lyndsay Earl, Michigan (dairy cattle and row crops); Marc and Meagan Kaiser, Missouri (row crops and ag business); Kyle and Tiffany Lechtenberg, Nebraska (alfalfa, row crops, beef cattle and ag business); John and Liza Layton, North Carolina (row crops); and Greg and Theresa Corcoran, Ohio (row crops and beef cattle).

Sixteen positions representing all regions of the U.S. comprise the YF&R Committee. An individual or couple may hold each committee appointment. Committee members are responsible for program planning, which includes the coordination of YF&R competitive events during AFBF’s Annual Convention each January and the Harvest for All program.



STATE VETERINARIAN DR. DAVID SCHMITT TO RETIRE JAN. 10

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig today thanked State Veterinarian Dr. David Schmitt for his nearly 20 years of service to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. Schmitt has been with the Department since 1999 and has served as the State Veterinarian since December 2007. Schmitt has announced that he will retire on Jan. 10, 2019.

“Dr. Schmitt has provided strong, consistent leadership for the Department’s Animal Industry Bureau as it serves our state’s livestock farmers. Dave’s passion for the industry and his extensive experience both in private practice and with the State Vet’s office will be missed,” Naig said. “Animal agriculture contributes more than $13 billion in sales to our state’s economy and we will be conducting a nationwide search to make sure we find the right person to serve in this important role.”

Dr. Jeff Kaisand, the current Assistant State Veterinarian for Iowa, will serve as the acting State Veterinarian during the search for a permanent replacement. Kaisand has been with the Department since 2013.

Schmitt led the Department’s Animal Industry Bureau, which oversees regulation of animal movement, exhibitions, importation and disease eradication/control efforts.  The state veterinarian also plays an important role in preparing for and responding to any foreign animal disease or natural disaster concern. The Bureau also regulates certain commercial companion animal breeders and retailers.

Dr. Schmitt graduated from high school in Hampton, Iowa and earned his degree in veterinary medicine from Iowa State University in 1973. He worked in a private veterinary practice for more than 25 years before joining the Department as an Assistant State Veterinarian.



U.S. Pork Industry Ends 2018 with Major Antibiotic Progress

America’s 60,000 pig farmers and their veterinarians are ending 2018 with recognition of their diligence to use medically important antibiotics in a strictly responsible way. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s newly published Annual Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals cites 2017 data that shows a 33 percent decline in this most critical class of antibiotics intended for use in food animals. When added to the decline found in the 2016 data, it confirms a reduction of 43 percent in this class of antibiotics from the 2015 level.

“This report is another indicator of the hard work that my fellow pig farmers have been doing to reduce the need for antibiotics. We continue to work closely with our veterinarians to ensure that we use antibiotics responsibly and according to FDA-approved labels,” said National Pork Board President Steve Rommereim, a pig farmer from Alcester, South Dakota. “We’re committed to using antibiotics in a strategic way that focuses on animal health and well-being, as well as to protecting overall public health.”

Veterinarian Dave Pyburn, senior vice president of science and technology at the National Pork Board, says that while the new report is not a perfect estimate of antibiotic use at the farm level, it clearly shows a downward trend in antibiotic use intended for food animals. He also notes that this latest data reflects what happened after the pork industry’s successful implementation in January 2017 of the Veterinary Feed Directive, which banned the use of medically important antibiotics for growth-promotion use.

“It was a relatively smooth transition after the Veterinary Feed Directives went into effect,” Pyburn said. “Thanks to well-planned and well-executed education programs implemented by the pork industry long before that date, producers, veterinarians and allied industry personnel were prepared to modify their procedures. This was a clear example of how the pork industry adapts to do their part in protecting antibiotics for human and animal health. It’s simply the right thing to do.”

The FDA report shows that the overall usage of antibiotics in livestock is the lowest since the report began in 2009. According to the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics reports, America’s pig farmers produced over 121 million market hogs in 2017 at an average weight of 282 pounds. This is an increase of 16 pounds per pig since 2009, when production stood at roughly 113 million market hogs. Comparing these figures indicates that today’s pig farmers are using far less antibiotics per pound of pork produced than ever before.

“When viewing this data with a scientific lens, I clearly see that America’s pig farmers are on the right track in their antibiotic stewardship,” said public health veterinarian Heather Fowler, director of producer and public health with the National Pork Board. “The industry is not complacent either. We’re proud of our ongoing collaboration with some of the best researchers in the world develop antibiotic on-farm metrics. We are working with diverse stakeholders to continually improve antibiotic stewardship for the health of people, pigs and the planet.”

As an example of this cooperative approach to antibiotic stewardship, the National Pork Board, along with the National Pork Producers Council, recently announced a partnership with the Farm Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts and many others to introduce a comprehensive framework to strengthen antibiotic stewardship to protect animal and public health. The stakeholders agree that the use of medically important antibiotics in all settings, from human health care to livestock production, must be carefully managed to slow the emergence of resistant bacteria and preserve the effectiveness of vital drugs. The framework defines effective stewardship, outlines its core components and describes essential characteristics of effective stewardship programs, including key performance measures.

In addition to the two pork groups, organizations that agree with the framework include: Elanco Animal Health, Hormel Foods, Jennie-O Turkey Store, McDonald's Corporation, National Milk Producers Federation, National Turkey Federation, Smithfield Foods, Inc., Tyson Foods, Walmart Inc. and Zoetis.

“There is a broad consensus across the food animal industry that we must continue to drive and demonstrate antibiotic stewardship in animal agriculture,” said Joe Swedberg, chairman of the board of Farm Foundation. “This framework is about stakeholders coming together to do the right thing and to communicate their commitment to antibiotic stewardship with a transparent and meaningful approach.”

The 15 core components of the antibiotic stewardship framework are based on the importance of veterinary guidance and partnership, disease prevention strategies and optimal treatment approaches, as well as effective record keeping and a culture of continuous improvement and commitment to antibiotic stewardship. The components address education, implementation and evaluation steps for phasing in stewardship programs. The framework's guiding principles are intended to help ensure that stewardship programs have a clear scientific basis, are transparent, minimize the risk of unintended consequences, encourage alternatives to antibiotics and focus on long-term sustainability.

Rommereim says the Pork Checkoff is on their right path forward to make additional progress on antibiotic stewardship.

“We will make continuous improvement in antibiotic stewardship through additional Checkoff-funded antibiotic research and collaboration with those who share our objectives to protect animal and public health,” Rommereim said. “We can make the U.S. pork industry even more sustainable into the future.”



Weekly Ethanol Production for 12/14/2018

According to EIA data analyzed by the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol production remained unchanged from the prior week at an average of 1.046 million barrels per day (b/d)—or 43.93 million gallons daily. The four-week average for ethanol production rose to 1.053 million b/d for an annualized rate of 16.14 billion gallons.

Stocks of ethanol rose to 23.9 million barrels, an increase of 1.0 million barrels and the highest level in eight weeks. Approximately 0.8 million barrels of the increase occurred in the Gulf Coast, which potentially was product being positioned for export shipment in advance of the holidays.

There were zero imports recorded for the fifth week in a row. (Weekly export data for ethanol is not reported simultaneously; the latest export data is as of October 2018.)

Average weekly gasoline demand expanded 2.3% to 9.243 million b/d (388.2 million gallons per day) for a seven-week high. This is equivalent to 141.70 billion gallons annualized. Refiner/blender input of ethanol improved 1.5% to 924,000 b/d, equivalent to 14.16 billion gallons annualized.

Expressed as a percentage of daily gasoline demand, daily ethanol production decreased to 11.32%.



On 11th Anniversary, RFS2 'Has Unquestionably Lived Up to its Promise'

Eleven years ago today, President George W. Bush signed into law what has become the single most successful clean fuels policy in the United States--the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2). The RFS2, included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, requires petroleum refiners and importers to blend annually increasing volumes of renewable fuels with gasoline and diesel, culminating with 36 billion gallons in 2022. Since enactment, the United States has experienced cleaner air, greater energy security, revived economic activity in rural areas, and more affordable choices at the pump.

Among the numerous benefits since signed into law, the RFS has:
●       Helped clean the air. The greenhouse gas emissions avoided from using ethanol has increased four-fold from 12.7 million tons CO2e in 2007 to 55 million tons CO2e in 2018. Carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions are down as well, as is the concentration of ground-level ozone.
●       Boosted energy security. U.S. dependence on imported crude oil and petroleum products fell from 58% in 2007 to just 14% in 2018, thanks in large part to growth in the use of ethanol and other biofuels.
●    Lowered fuel prices. Because ethanol is priced below gasoline and far below competing octane sources, the RFS has led to lower gas prices for consumers. One recent study found ethanol reduces spending on gasoline by $142 per American household.
●   Supported jobs and economic activity. Since enacted, the number of jobs supported by the ethanol industry has increased by 53%--from 238,541 jobs in 2007 to 365,491 in 2018. Additionally, the industry generates more than $40 billion in GDP every year.

“The RFS has unquestionably lived up to its promise,” said RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper. “It has lowered consumer fuel prices, decreased reliance on imported petroleum, reduced emissions of harmful tailpipe pollutants and greenhouse gases, supported hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America, and added value to the crops produced by our nation’s farmers. With proper oversight and implementation, the program will continue to drive innovation, support rural economies, and provide cleaner and more affordable fuel choices at the pump,” he added.



Anhydrous, UAN Prices Spike Higher

Prices for three nitrogen fertilizers spiked higher in the second week of December 2018, breaking out of a trend of moderate price increases, according to retail fertilizer prices tracked by DTN.

Seven of the eight major fertilizers DTN tracks are higher than last month. UAN28 is 7% higher compared to a month earlier. It's up $16 per ton with an average price of $261/ton. Anhydrous prices are 6% higher than the second week of November, with an average price of $552/ton. That's an increase of $33/ton. UAN32 prices are $15/ton higher than last month, an increase of 5%, at $302/ton. UAN32 crossed the $300/ton level for the first time since the first week of August 2016, when the price was $307/ton.  Four other fertilizers' prices were slightly higher. DAP had an average price of $505/ton, up $5/ton; MAP $533/ton, up $3/ton; potash $375/ton, up $7/ton; and urea $407/ton, up less than a dollar per ton.

One fertilizer was slightly lower in price than last month. 10-34-0 had an average price of $455/ton, down $2/ton.

On a price per pound of nitrogen basis, the average urea price was at $0.44/lb.N, anhydrous $0.34/lb.N, UAN28 $0.47/lb.N and UAN32 $0.47/lb.N.

All eight of the major fertilizers are now higher compared to last year with prices shifting higher in recent months. Potash is 9% more expensive, MAP is 11% higher, 10-34-0 is 13% more expensive, DAP is 15% higher, UAN32 is 18% more expensive, both UAN28 and urea are 20% higher, and anhydrous is now 27% higher compared to last year.



November Milk Production in the United States up 0.6 Percent

Milk production in the United States during November totaled 17.4 billion pounds, up 0.6 percent from November 2017.  Production per cow in the United States averaged 1,856 pounds for November, 19 pounds above November 2017.  The number of milk cows on farms in the United States was 9.36 million head, 38,000 head less than November 2017, and 8,000 head less than October 2018.

Milk production in Iowa during November 2018 totaled 425 million pounds, up less than 1 percent from the previous November according to the latest USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service – Milk Production report. The average number of milk cows during November, at 220,000 head, was unchanged from last month but 1,000 more than last year. Monthly production per cow averaged 1,930 pounds, down 5 pounds from last November.



NFU Backs USDA-FDA Joint Oversight of Cell Culture Technology

The nation’s second largest general farm organization today backed efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish a joint regulatory framework overseeing production and sale of animal cell culture technology.

National Farmers Union (NFU) President Roger Johnson submitted comments to the two agencies to that effect, urging them to provide clarity to consumers as to whether or not they are purchasing meat products raised in the traditional manner or products that were grown in a lab.

“Animal cell culture technology needs to be regulated and should include roles for both the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the FDA,” said Johnson. “It is important that this joint regulatory framework promotes fair competition for producers and the health and safety of consumers.”

Johnson noted that NFU’s member-driven policy opposes labeling alternative protein sources as “meat,” and that common names given to meat and animal products are widely understood by consumers to be the tissue and flesh of animals that have been slaughtered for food.

“Foods produced using animal cell culture technology are not slaughtered, but rather are derived from animal cells grown in a petri dish and other growing media,” he explained. “Thus, NFU opposes labeling of foods produced using cell culture applications as ‘meat’ and as related products such as ‘beef,’ ‘poultry’ and ‘seafood.’”

Johnson urged USDA and FDA to establish and clarify the standard of identity for the term “meat” in order to prevent mislabeling of food in the marketplace. FDA has the responsibility under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to deem a food “misbranded” if its labeling is false or misleading, if it is offered for sale under the name of another food or if it is an imitation of another food. “Labeling foods produced using animal cell culture technology as ‘meat’ and other related products would be false and misleading,” he noted.

NFU delivered more extensive comments on cell culture technology to the FDA in September, adding that consolidation in the beef, pork and poultry industries has diminished family farmers’ and ranchers’ market share.

“Lab grown products are likely to be produced by large companies, including the major global meatpackers, exacerbating the anti-competitive practices facing family farmers and ranchers and the rural communities in which they live,” said Johnson. “Fairly and accurately labeling animal cell culture products would provide some protection for family farmers’ and ranchers’ market share.”



Study: Ethanol Production Has Minimal Effect on Cropland Use

Ethanol production has increased sharply in the United States in the past 10 years, leading to concerns about the expansion of demand for corn resulting in conversion of non-cropland to crop production and the environmental effects of this. However, a new study co-authored by a University of Illinois researcher shows that the overall effects of ethanol production on land-use have been minimal.

The research, published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, looks at the effects of ethanol production capacity and crop prices on land use in the U. S. from 2007 to 2014.

The increase in corn ethanol production has led to concerns that it would raise the price of corn and the demand for cropland; thus making it worthwhile to bring land that was not previously cultivated (such as grasslands) into production, says Madhu Khanna, a professor of agricultural and consumer economics at U of I.

"Studies have simulated the crop price effects of producing 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol and shown that they could lead to large expansion in crop acres," Khanna says. "We now have actual data on land-use change that has occurred since the ethanol expansion began in 2007 and can test whether the predictions of these models have held up. Interestingly, the raw data shows that although corn ethanol production more than doubled between 2007 and 2014, total cropland acres in 2014 were very similar to those in 2007 and the crop price index was lower in 2014 than in 2007."

Khanna and her co-authors, including Yijia Li, a graduate student at U of I and Ruiqing Miao from Auburn University, analyzed cropland data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service to explain the extent to which changes in cropland acres could be causally attributed to changes in crop prices and proximity to ethanol plants.

"Establishment of an ethanol plant in a county can increase corn acres and total cropland acres by reducing grain transportation costs and increasing the net revenue from corn production, creating an incentive to plant more corn," Khanna says. "Additionally, higher crop prices that accompany the expansion in ethanol production can also create incentives for increasing crop acres even in locations that do not have an ethanol plant in their vicinity."

Khanna adds that in examining the causes of changes in cropland acres that have taken place it is important to consider both of these effects. Previous studies have looked at one of the other, but not simultaneously at both. "Corn ethanol capacity went up from about 6 to 14 billion gallons between 2007 and 2014 and the number of plants doubled, from about 100 to about 200, so it's a pretty dramatic increase," Khanna says. There was also a sharp upturn in corn prices between 2008 and 2012, but by 2014 the prices were almost down to 2007 levels again.

Khanna and her co-authors found that while crop prices had a greater effect than plant proximity, overall changes in land use were minimal over the seven years included in the study.

And while the higher corn prices did lead to an 8.5 percent increase in corn production, most of that increase came from conversion of other crops rather than non-cropland.

Total cropland increased by 2 percent between 2008 and 2012, so in the aggregate it was relatively small, Khanna says. "In fact, by 2014 a lot of the land which did convert into crops actually went back into non-crop, so the change in cropland, if you look at 2008 to 2014, was only by half a percent. We find that land use does respond to prices, but not by a lot."

Studies using satellite images of cropland to compare acres in 2008 and 2012 have suggested that there was a significant and irreversible increase in those acres, all attributed to corn ethanol. But a careful analysis of the data all the way to 2014 shows that the overall impact of corn ethanol production on increasing total crop acreage was very negligible.

Moreover, the impact of crop price varied over time; it was a bit higher up to 2012 but then reverted almost back to previous levels in 2007-2008 by 2014 as crop prices dropped, Khanna concludes. "Our study shows that changes in land use should not be considered irreversible; as prices dropped after 2012, land reverted back to non-crop uses close to levels in 2007 and 2008."

The paper, "Effects of Ethanol Plant Proximity and Crop Prices on Land-Use Change in the United States," was published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics and is available online. Authors include Yijia Li and Madhu Khanna, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences and the Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation, University of Illinois, and Ruiqing Miao, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University.



NMPF Releases Fake Milk “Naughty or Nice List” for Holidays

With the holidays fast approaching, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) today released its own version of Santa’s “Naughty or Nice” list focused on good and bad actors in the labeling of fake dairy products.

On the “naughty” side: beverage brands that use the word “milk” to sell nutritionally inferior non-dairy products. These include Almond Breeze, Oatly, Great Value (Walmart), Simply Balanced (Target), Muscle Milk, and So Delicious.

And on the “nice” side: brands that lead with truthful food labeling by avoiding the term “milk” and offering an accurate description of what their products are – non-dairy beverages. Trader Joe’s, Quaker, Pacific Foods, and Kirkland (Costco) are on this list.

NMPF’s “Naughty or Nice” list comes as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to solicit public comment through Jan. 28 on the proper names for plant-based beverages.

The Agriculture Department already has a clear definition of what constitutes milk: “Food products made exclusively or principally from the lacteal secretion obtained from one or more healthy milk-producing animals.” Plant-based beverages don’t meet that standard. NMPF is calling on the FDA to enforce its own rules and end deceptive labeling of fake dairy products.

“Certain brands already use truthful and transparent labels and don’t improperly borrow dairy terms to describe their products. Unfortunately, far too many brands market their nutritionally inferior products under the health halo of real dairy milk,” said Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of NMPF. “It’s time for the FDA to enforce milk-labeling laws already on the books.”

Consumer data illustrate just how many consumers are being misled by imitation dairy products. A survey by IPSOS, commissioned by Dairy Management Inc., found that:
-    73 percent of consumers believed that almond-based drinks had as much or more protein per serving than milk. Milk has eight times as much protein;
-    53 percent said they believed that plant-based food manufacturers labeled their products as milk because their nutritional value is similar. That’s not the case; and
-    Misinformation was more prevalent among those who only bought plant-based drinks. Of those buyers, 68 percent strongly or somewhat argued those drinks have the same nutritional content as dairy milk. In reality, those beverages do not.