Monday October 19 Ag News

NEBRASKA CROP PROGRESS AND CONDITION

For the week ending October 18, 2020, there were 6.5 days suitable for fieldwork, according to the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service. Topsoil moisture supplies rated 34% very short, 46% short, 20% adequate, and 0% surplus. Subsoil moisture supplies rated 32% very short, 40% short, 27% adequate, and 1% surplus.

Field Crops Report:
Corn condition rated 6% very poor, 13% poor, 22% fair, 42% good, and 17% excellent. Corn harvested was 58%, well ahead of 27% last year and 31% for the five-year average.

Soybeans harvested was 92%, well ahead of 51% last year and 58% average.

Winter wheat condition rated 5% very poor, 16% poor, 38% fair, 37% good, and 4% excellent. Winter wheat planted was 94%, near 97% last year and 95% average. Emerged was 72%, behind 80% last year and 81% average.

Sorghum condition rated 4% very poor, 9% poor, 25% fair, 38% good, and 24% excellent. Sorghum harvested was 60%, well ahead of 19% last year and 35% average.

Dry edible beans harvested was 96%, ahead of 89% last year.

Pasture and Range Report:
Pasture and range conditions rated 30% very poor, 32% poor, 23% fair, 14% good, and 1% excellent.



IOWA CROP PROGRESS REPORT

Harvest is nearing completion for some as Iowa farmers had 6.4 days suitable for fieldwork during the week ending October 18, 2020, according to the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Other field activities again included baling corn stalks, applying fertilizer and manure, and fall tillage. Cover crops are beginning to green up where early planting was possible.

Topsoil moisture condition rated 18% very short, 40% short, 42% adequate and 0% surplus. Subsoil moisture condition rated 22% very short, 39% short, 39% adequate and 0% surplus.

Corn for grain harvested in the State reached 65%, over 3 weeks ahead of last year and just over 2 weeks ahead of average. Moisture content of field corn being harvested for grain fell to 16%. Farmers in south central Iowa still have approximately two-thirds of their corn for grain yet to be harvested while farmers in the remainder of the State have already harvested at least one-half of their crop.

Only 10% of Iowa’s soybean crop remains to be harvested, also over 3 weeks ahead of last year and over 2 weeks ahead of average. Farmers in northwest, north central and west central Iowa have less than 5% of their soybeans remaining to be harvested. In contrast, farmers in the southern one-third of the state have at least 20% of their soybeans remaining to be harvested.

Pasture condition rated 20% good to excellent. Some pastures are already dormant. Cattle producers in some areas continue to supplement hay and water supplies. There were scattered reports of cows turned out on corn stalks.



USDA:  Corn, Soybean Harvest Both 17 Percentage Points Ahead of Normal

Mostly dry weather across much of the nation's midsection last week helped farmers push harvest past the halfway mark for corn and hit the three-quarters mark for soybeans by the end of the week, according to the USDA NASS weekly Crop Progress report released on Monday.

NASS estimated that 75% of soybeans were harvested as of Sunday, Oct. 18, up 14 percentage points from 61% on Oct. 11. That was a slower pace than the previous week but still puts this year's harvest 17 percentage points ahead of the five-year average of 58%.

Nearly all of soybeans -- 97% -- were dropping leaves as of Sunday. NASS has stopped reporting soybean conditions for the year.

While the soybean harvest slowed somewhat last week, the corn harvest picked up speed, moving ahead 19 percentage points to reach 60% complete as of Sunday. That pushed this year's corn harvest progress further ahead of normal -- now 17 percentage points ahead of the five-year average of 43%.

Corn reaching maturity was estimated at 97% as of Sunday, 3 percentage points ahead of the five-year average of 94%. Corn condition was unchanged from the previous week at 61% good to excellent.

Meanwhile, winter wheat planting slowed last week, moving ahead 9 percentage points from 68% the previous week to 77% as of Sunday. That is 5 percentage points ahead of the five-year average of 72%. An estimated 51% of winter wheat had emerged, 3 percentage points ahead of the five-year average of 48%.

----

Nebraska's Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Program Administration - Round 2

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, entities across the government, businesses, and non-profit sectors continue to experience significant and unprecedented challenges to their operating capacity and sustainability. To help mitigate the impact of economic losses stemming from declining revenues, increased expenses, and employee lay offs or furloughs, the State of Nebraska has established a series of programs to help:
    Stabilize impacted businesses and livestock producers; and
    Support community institutions to meet critical needs such as food security, shelter, and mental health care;

This phase of funding will be available for select programs via online application beginning October 21, 2020:

DHHS Administered Programs
    Stabilization Grant for Charitable Organizations and Licensed Providers, Round 2
    Healthy Places Grant for Centers of Worship, Round 2

DED Administered Programs
    Small Business Stabilization Program, Round 2
    Livestock Producers Stabilization Program, Round 2
    Hotels and Convention Centers Stabilization Program
    Event Centers and Sports Arenas Stabilization Program
    Restaurants and Bars Stabilization Program
    Licensed Personal Service Business Stabilization Program
    Movie Theatre Stabilization Program

Contact Center Assistance
Beginning October 21, 2020 from 10 AM to 7 PM CT, Contact Agents will be available to address your questions about this next round of funding. A toll-free number will be released on this website at that time.

From October 22, the Contact Agents will be available Monday to Friday from 7am to 7pm CT.

Get more information here:  https://coronavirus.nebraska.gov/Programs&Grants.  



Hunting Leases as an Added Enterprise
Randy Saner, Nebraska Extension Educator
David Aiken, Extension Water and Agricultural Law Specialist

Landowners seeking additional income options for their operation might consider leasing out their land for wildlife activities. The potential income can be considerable. Leases could be for hunting, fishing or birding.

Written hunting leases are the key to how your enterprise will be ran and how profitable it may be.   A hunting lease is an agreement between the landowner (lessor) and hunters (lessees) that grants the hunter access rights for hunting game animals (and other specified activities) on your property for a specified time period.   Hunters usually pay an agreed-upon dollar amount per acre or per hunter.

Leases can fall into two basic categories: short-term (for a particular season, deer, turkey, pheasant, quail, trapping), or long-term (one year or more for one or more species). The type of lease you offer depends upon the type of wildlife you have on your land, how hunting may affect the daily operation of your farm or ranch, and what services you are offering the renter.

Things you should consider when adding hunting to your farming or ranching enterprise include:
●               Are you willing to let more people on your operation?
●               Are you willing to manage for wildlife as part of your operation?
●               What are your long-term objectives and sustainability goals for your natural resource base?
●               Are you willing to find the resources necessary to get the enterprise up and running?
●               Is the leasing program compatible with your other land management objectives?
  Structuring hunting lease price
●               Breakeven (including labor costs) + 10% - The lease price is based on management and cost associated with the lease operation plus 10% to cover unforeseen costs and the need for the lease to cover operational costs and land taxes.
●               Habitat valuation - The lease price is determined from a subjective rating of the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat available.   For example, if the wildlife and population have been managed to provide high populations of wildlife and better than average-hunting opportunities, the value of the lease may be higher, or if the lessee wants to limit or keep out other hunters that the property could reasonably sustain, they may have to pay a premium price for that.
●               Baseline plus value-added - Charge a base price per acre plus charges on improvements made, amenities or services provided.
●               Competitive pricing - Base the lease price on the going rate of other leases in the area or lease prices charged elsewhere for similar access, services, and amenities provided.
●               Sealed bid - Similar to timber sales in that you develop a description of the hunting lease, what it offers, and a request for sealed bids.   This can be done via advertising or by directly contacting interested individuals or sportsmen groups.  

Preparing a hunting lease is not a do-it-yourself job. A well-drafted hunting lease limits your liability exposure should hunting accidents occur. A poorly drafted lease leaves you open to personal injury liability.   Visit with your insurance professional and attorney before deciding whether to engage in any type of commercial hunting operation. 

Regarding rented land, the tenant should seek the landlord’s permission before leasing the hunting rights to the leased land. Hunting on leased land exposes the landowner to some potential liability, even if the tenant is doing the leasing. So, landlords should consult with their attorney and insurance advisor if the tenant approaches the landlord regarding a hunting lease enterprise. In discussing these issues with the landlord, the tenant should be receptive to the landlord's wishes. Common sense tells us that if the tenant's actions go against the landlord's wishes, the tenant is not likely to have the lease renewed.



FALL WOODY PLANT CONTROL
Megan Taylor, NE Extension Educator, Platte Co

As we transition into fall are you seeing more brush and woody weeds in your pastures?

It can be tempting to spray herbicides in fall to manage woody plants and brush. I have been receiving several calls over the past two weeks about spraying woody plants in conjunction with thistles. However, counter to what is recommended for thistles, fall spraying may not pay for woody weeds. Spraying can still be completed on deciduous woody plants if the leaves are still green and actively growing, for many in Nebraska this has already passed and we don’t want to make applications on dormant plants. Mowing for brush or smaller woody plants can be completed in fall, but will need to be chemically controlled in the following summer to reduce populations. So, fall may serve as a time for collecting information, making a plan for late spring to early summer, and questioning why woody plants have encroached.

Right now make a plan for June!
    Know your weeds you are controlling and pick products
    Make a plan for grazing restrictions after treatment
    Adjust management practices to increase competition in favor of desirable grasses

Typically, early June is the best time to control woody plants and spraying early rather than later is recommended. So, if we have a warm spring and break dormancy early, spray accordingly. Also, overgrazing and fertility play a big role in encroaching woody plants, so looking at past records and soil sampling may be a better use of time this fall, than actively spraying.

Bottom line: spraying now won’t pay for woody weeds, wait until early summer and use this time to plan ahead/adjust grazing schedule.



Conservation Stewardship Program applications due by Nov. 20

The sign-up period for farmers interested in enrolling in the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) has begun.

“For farmers and ranchers who are already doing conservation on their operation, CSP is a great opportunity to incorporate new practices,” said Andrea Hartman, policy assistant for the Center for Rural Affairs “It’s about rewarding producers for the conservation they’ve done, as well as helping them reach the next level of conservation, especially if they haven’t been able to expand their conservation due to the cost of some practices.”

Administered by the US. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), CSP is one of the leading programs offering cost-share and technical assistance for conservation on working lands, providing financial and technical assistance for producers to maintain agricultural production on their land, and simultaneously address resource concerns with conservation practices.

“CSP, is a valuable program designed to aid farmers and ranchers in reaching the next level in conservation across their whole farm or ranch” Hartman said.  

In 2018, Nebraska ranked first among states for renewed acres in CSP and third for percentage of eligible contracts renewed. Nebraska also ranked second for new enrolled acres. Top practices in CSP contracts for Nebraska include: cover crops, herbaceous weed treatment, tree and shrub establishment, conservation cover, and structures for wildlife, like certain types of fencing.

When applying for a CSP contract, producers develop a conservation plan with their local NRCS technicians. These plans include an assortment of practices and enhancements then implemented on their operations. These practices and enhancements benefit a wide array of natural resources, including water quality and soil health.

Farmers interested in applying should call their local NRCS office to set up an appointment. In Nebraska, the deadline to submit initial paperwork is Nov. 20.



Beef Up Iowa continues with major gift from Tyson Foods

A gift from Tyson Foods will provide 80,000 meals to food insecure Iowans through Beef Up Iowa.

The Beef Up Iowa program is a partnership among Iowa State University, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa Food Bank Association and Iowa’s beef industry organizations, and is an initiative of Gov. Reynolds’ Feeding Iowans Task Force led by Lt. Gov. Adam Gregg.

The Iowa Cattlemen’s Foundation accepted a $50,000 donation from Tyson Foods on October 13. Tyson’s gift will help purchase cattle and cover the cost of harvesting and processing.   

“We are committed to addressing the issue of food insecurity in our communities,” said Steve Stouffer, group president, Tyson Fresh Meats. “Beef Up Iowa is a great opportunity for us to support an innovative partnership that not only provides high quality, wholesome protein to individuals and families in need, but also recognizes and helps independent producers from the state of Iowa who are committed to sustainably raising high-quality livestock. We value and rely on our independent cattle producer partners every day to help us show the world how much good food can do as we strive to feed the world.”

Since Beef Up Iowa launched this summer, over 40 head of cattle have been processed generating 30,000 pounds of beef. The cattle were purchased from Iowa youth who raised the animals as 4H or FFA projects.

The gift from Tyson foods enables Beef Up Iowa to handle an additional 40 head of cattle, 20,000 pounds of ground beef, or 80,000 meals.

“The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted our entire food system and our economy. But when times get tough, the Iowa agriculture community rallies together to help those in need,” said Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig. “The Beef Up Iowa food security initiative is a great example of Iowans stepping up to help others. I’m grateful to all our partners who helped make this program successful, including Gov. Reynolds for allocating CARES Act funds to cover program costs, Iowa Cattlemen's Foundation for connecting us with 4-H and FFA members, and Iowa State University for reopening its processing facility to help meet demands at local food banks.”

The animals are harvested at the Iowa State University Meat Lab and the beef is distributed to Iowa food banks.

“We at Iowa State University are humbled to be a part of the Beef Up Program. These activities help bring communities together around food production and the humanity of agriculture. It provides our faculty, staff and students life changing servant leadership opportunities,” said Dr. Dan Thomson, professor and chair of the Department of Animal Science at Iowa State University.

The Iowa Beef Industry Council, Iowa Cattlemen’s Association and the Iowa Cattlemen’s Foundation help administer the program.

“The Iowa Cattlemen’s Foundation is extremely thankful for the gift from Tyson Foods,” said Maynard Hogberg, board member of the Iowa Cattlemen’s Foundation. “The generous donation allows us to help youth in the cattle industry while sharing the benefits of beef with other Iowans, two vital pieces of our mission.”

Tyson Foods Inc. is one of the world’s largest food companies and a recognized leader in protein. Founded in 1935 by John W. Tyson and grown under three generations of family leadership, the company has a broad portfolio of products and brands like Tyson®, Jimmy Dean®, Hillshire Farm®, Ball Park®, Wright®, Aidells®, ibp® and State Fair®.



National FFA Announces Finalists for National FFA Agriscience Fair

The National FFA Organization has announced the 2020 National FFA Agriscience Fair finalists. The winners will be recognized during the 93rd National FFA Convention & Expo, which will be held virtually this year.

The National FFA Agriscience Fair recognizes students who gain real-world, hands-on experiences in agricultural enterprises. Students use scientific principles and emerging technologies to solve complex problems related to agriculture, food and natural resources. The agriscience fair is for middle and high school students. Students will compete in one of six categories in the agriscience fair and under one of the six divisions – either individually or in a team.

The recipients that finished in the top three, listed alphabetically by state, are:

Animal Systems: Division 1
Kylie Hurd of the Red Bud Middle FFA of Georgia
Adalyn Schoelerman of the Spencer FFA of Iowa
Elle Yates of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Animal Systems: Division 2
Gokul Selvaraj and Roshan Selvaraj of the Malcom Bridge Middle of Georgia
Mason Fry and Carter Hitz of the Southeastern FFA of Illinois
Conner Little and Memphis Ridge of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Animal Systems: Division 3
Lizzie Schafer of the Taylorville FFA of Illinois
Jasmyn Hoeger of the Beckman Catholic FFA of Iowa
John Buyrl of the Woodbury FFA of Tennessee
Animal Systems: Division 4
Aspen Thomas and Jessi Stem of the Mountain Home FFA of Arkansas
Colton Converse and Caden Mrazek of the Staples-Motley FFA of Minnesota
Teylor Meyer and Lillian Hughes of the Covington-UVCC FFA of Ohio
Animal Systems: Division 5
Emma Sells of the Meridian FFA of Idaho
Garren Thomas Hamby of the Eagleville FFA of Tennessee
Nicole Sagner of the Chugwater FFA of Wyoming
Animal Systems: Division 6
Danae Westra and Ryan Bleeker of the Visalia-Central Valley Christian FFA of California
Shannon Rossman and Alice Hughes of the Jonesville FFA of Michigan
Samara Huezo and Jean Lamboy Medina of the James Madison-San Antonio FFA of Texas

Environmental Services and Natural Resource Systems: Division 1
Laina Canary of the Hardee Middle FFA of Florida
Hanna Schmidt of the Mulhall-Orlando FFA of Oklahoma
Garrett Woolstenhulme of the Mount Nebo FFA of Utah
Environmental Services and Natural Resource Systems: Division 2
Henry Throne and Taylor Spurlin of the Oglethorpe County Middle of Georgia
Jarrett VanBeck and Owen Rigg of the Southeastern FFA of Illinois
Sterling Tomac and Luke Peters of the Chesaning FFA of Michigan
Environmental Services and Natural Resource Systems: Division 3
Abby Holcomb of the Okeechobee Brahman FFA of Florida
Emily Brown of the Franklin County FFA of Georgia
Ethan Stone of the Chandler FFA of Oklahoma
Environmental Services and Natural Resource Systems: Division 4
Isabella Albiani and Isabelle Alves of the Elk Grove FFA of California
Cooper Lee and Eli Leasman of the Southeastern FFA of Illinois
Hannah Zientek and Abrianna Kitten of the Lubbock Cooper FFA of Texas
Environmental Services and Natural Resource Systems: Division 5
Mackenzie Camacho of the O’Neals-Minarets FFA of California
Thomas King of the Bergen County Academies FFA of New Jersey
Adeline Rang of the Sumner FFA of Washington
Environmental Services and Natural Resource Systems: Division 6
James Jones and Madison Webb of the Lowndes FFA of Georgia
Pauline Liu and Abigail Saks of the Bergen County Academies FFA of Michigan
Ember Reyes and Shepherd Smith of the James Madison-San Antonio FFA of Texas
 
Food Products and Processing Systems: Division 1
Connor Anderson of the Franklin County Middle FFA of Georgia
Cheydon Agos of the Waipahu Intermediate Middle FFA of Hawaii
Clark Spencer of the Red Oak Middle FFA of Iowa
Food Products and Processing Systems: Division 2
Heaven Smith and Caileigh Goldstein of the Youth Middle of Georgia
Faith Jennings and Ayla Rutherford of the Felicity-Franklin FFA of Ohio
Vivian Koepsell and Grace Stoffel of the McCook Central FFA of South Dakota
Food Products and Processing Systems: Division 3
Mia Gillum of the Hanford FFA of California
Reagan Koester of the North Posey FFA of Indiana
Alexandria Whitman of the Green County FFA of Kentucky
Food Products and Processing Systems: Division 4
Abigale Jacobsen and Olivia Renzullo of the Elk Grove FFA of California
Chloe Pulliam and Carah Pulliam of the Franklin County FFA of Georgia
Anthony Haiduk and Ashlynn Howell of the White Deer FFA of Texas
Food Products and Processing Systems: Division 5
Liesl Wolf of the St. Helena FFA of California
Zachary Daw of the Lowndes FFA of Georgia
Olivia Leinhauser of the Stephenville FFA of Texas
Food Products and Processing Systems: Division 6
Kathleen Rothwell-Adcock and Allie Royston of the Franklin County FFA of Georgia
Chase Ahlers and Alexus Messer of the Junction City FFA of Kansas
Bryant Kye and Emma Brown of the Bergen County Academies FFA of New Jersey
 
Plant Systems: Division 1
Joscelyn Layman of the Millcreek-West Unity FFA of Ohio
Garrison Pieniazek of the Krum FFA of Texas
Andrew Dorrier of the Buckingham Middle FFA of Virginia
Plant Systems: Division 2
Elizabeth Bagby and Madalyn Smith of the Bell Middle of Florida
Jackson Rutledge and Lily Carson of the Youth Middle FFA of Georgia
Emma Yates and Rylee Gaches of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Plant Systems: Division 3
Summer Ramsey of the Southeastern FFA of Illinois
Audrey Bishop of the Van Alstyne FFA of Texas
Brinley Rhodes of the Bear River FFA of Utah
Plant Systems: Division 4
James Taylor and Trey Tyre of the Fort White FFA of Florida
Jasmine Bruce and Juliauna Throckmorton of the Junction City FFA of Kansas
Abigail Burton and Adrian Hall of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Plant Systems: Division 5
Katrina Kuo of the Kalani FFA of Hawaii
Sarah Bae of the Bergen County Academies FFA of New Jersey
Riley Luginbill of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Plant Systems: Division 6
Cullen Covlin and Matthew Grab of the Freeburg FFA of Illinois
Matthew Sitton and Wren Cavins of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Dallas Kreisa and Anna Seifert of the Plymouth FFA of Wisconsin

Power, Structural and Technical Systems: Division 1
Owen Doherty of the Branson Middle FFA of Colorado
Alora Siegel of the Millcreek-West Unity FFA of Ohio
Kaylee McAlister of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Power, Structural and Technical Systems: Division 2
Katie Spivey and Fraser Faith Knapek of the Perry Middle of Georgia
Zoey Griswold and Kendra Lilly of the Southeastern FFA of Illinois
Kaylee Jennings and Joanna Hamilton of the Felicity-Franklin FFA of Ohio
Power, Structural and Technical Systems: Division 3
Colin Manfredo of the Sanger FFA of California
Tessa Tauke of the Litchfield FFA of Illinois
Elaan Bader of the Beckman Catholic FFA of Iowa
Power, Structural and Technical Systems: Division 4
Sophia Albiani and Eden Hamming of the Elk Grove FFA of California
Taylor DuMay and Brooke DuMay of the North Oconee FFA of Georgia
Matthew Ruff and Joseph Elder of the Westfall FFA of Ohio
Power, Structural and Technical Systems: Division 5
Madison McDonald of the Lowndes FFA of Georgia
Tyler Salrin of the Beckman Catholic FFA of Iowa
Nirjal Upadhayay of the Stephenville FFA of Texas
Power, Structural and Technical Systems: Division 6
Katherine Grebner and Lauren Goldsmith of the Beckman Catholic FFA of Iowa
McKenzie Milligan and Karen Volquardsen of the Norfolk FFA of Nebraska
Sophia Brentlinger and Elizabeth Nichols of the Edmond FFA of Oklahoma

Social Science: Division 1
Gianna Shiveley of the Branson Middle FFA of Colorado
Calen Bridges of the Franklin County Middle FFA of Georgia
Trinity Blosch of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Social Science: Division 2
Anna Cornwell and Ansley Cary of the Franklin County Middle of Georgia
Saree Hillstead and Danica Knapp of the Hagerman FFA of Idaho
Colbi Wooldridge and Caeli Schaefer of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Social Science: Division 3
Gracie Sutton of the Lowndes FFA of Georgia
Blaine Wagner of the North Decatur FFA of Indiana
Kirsten Cline of the Stephenville FFA of Texas
Social Science: Division 4
Alexander Turner and Canyon Randall of the Franklin County FFA of Georgia
Mia Gaches and Madison Wick of the Stillwater FFA of Oklahoma
Dylan Sweatt and Kate Bettencourt of the Aledo FFA of Texas
Social Science: Division 5
Madisen Jolliff of the Ridgemont FFA of Ohio
Kayle Lauck of the McCook Central FFA of South Dakota
Ryan Hess of the Stephenville FFA of Texas

Social Science: Division 6
Emma Ahrendsen and Dalayna Brugman of the Sioux Central FFA of Iowa
Danika Gordon and Matea Gordon of the Sturgis FFA of South Dakota
Cade Davis and Kyle Styron of the Stephenville FFA of Texas
 
The National FFA Agriscience Fair is sponsored by Cargill, John Deere and Syngenta; Bayer, Corteva, General Mills, Wrangler and Zoetis are sponsors of the agriscience fair pathways.



Federal Court Upholds California's Prop 12

Ninth Circuit panel ruled in favor of upholding California's Proposition 12 which bans intensive confinement of farm animals.

The three-judge panel reaffirmed a district court's ruling that said California's farm animal cruelty law does apply to businesses outside California that want to sell their products in the state.

In 2018, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) led the campaign for Prop 12 in California which passed with 63 percent of the vote.

Under Prop 12, the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act, farmers cannot confine hens, mother pigs, or veal calves in crates and cages so small that the animals cannot even turn around or lay down. Eggs and meat cannot be sold in California unless they are produced under the state's standards.

The restrictive confinement is not only cruel but also increases public health risks, including a potential outbreak of zoonotic diseases.

The legal team at the HSUS continued to defend the law as fighting off the North American Meat Institute's request for preliminary injunction against the law in November 2019 as well as attacks from the National Pork Producers Council in December 2019.



Letter From NCBA President Marty Smith On Regional Triggers Report
Marty Smith, President, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
 
Price discovery has long been a top priority for the cattle industry and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). The availability of current and accurate market information has a substantial impact on our ability to make informed marketing decisions as cattle producers. It is no secret that in recent years adequate price information has been in decline in the fed cattle marketplace. This is largely due to the decrease in negotiated trade across the cattle feeding regions. While Alternative Marketing Arrangements (AMAs), such as formulas, grids, and forward contracts, have been very beneficial to cattle producers, studies have shown that sufficient levels of negotiated trade must occur in each cattle feeding region to achieve robust price discovery.
 
In addition to the issue of price discovery, two major “black swan” events have rocked the cattle markets in a short period of time. The fire at Tyson Foods, Inc. Finney County plant in Holcomb, Kansas applied historic downward pressure on cattle prices and accentuated an already volatile market. These events led NCBA leadership to appoint a Live Cattle Marketing Working Group of NCBA members to evaluate the effects of the Tyson fire and make policy recommendations based upon their discoveries. At the same time, NCBA also requested that the Packers and Stockyards Division at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) conduct an investigation to ensure that all market participants acted fairly and equitably in the aftermath of the fire.
 
We certainly could not have known then that the volatility we witnessed in the aftermath of the fire would pale in comparison to the market impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, I directed the Working Group to expand their scope to include the unprecedented marketing environment forced upon us by the coronavirus, and NCBA made the same request to USDA’s Packers and Stockyards Division. At the same time, we made a direct request to President Trump to look into potential anti-competitive behavior in the marketplace. Within hours of making this request, he directed the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division to open such an investigation, which remains ongoing.
 
The Working Group reported its findings to the Live Cattle Marketing Committee at the 2020 NCBA Summer Business Meeting, which included recommendations for policy on the subject of price discovery. During that meeting, which lasted over six hours, delegates from every one of NCBA’s state and breed affiliates debated the path NCBA should take in addressing price discovery moving forward. Impassioned arguments were made on all sides of the issue, but following the discussion the industry came together to unanimously adopt a Fed Cattle Price Discovery policy. This policy directed NCBA to appoint a subgroup to construct a voluntary framework, which includes triggers based on regional levels of negotiated trade, to increase frequent, transparent, and measured negotiated trade to regionally sufficient levels to achieve robust price discovery determined by NCBA funded and directed research in all major cattle feeding regions, and established a deadline of October 1, 2020 to complete this work. In the event that the voluntary framework does not result in robust price discovery, NCBA is directed to pursue a legislative or regulatory solution determined by the membership to achieve robust price discovery in all cattle regions.
 
Shortly after Summer Business Meeting, I appointed seven producer leaders with diverse viewpoints to the Regional Triggers Subgroup. I am pleased to report that, after months of bi-weekly meetings, the Subgroup has delivered its framework to the Live Cattle Marketing Working Group and the NCBA officer team. I am proud of the work these individuals have put into this document, and commend them for working together to find common ground among disparate views.
 
Called “A Voluntary Framework to Achieve Price Discovery in the Fed Cattle Market,” this approach lays out a plan to increase negotiated trade and incentivize each of the major packers’ participation in such negotiated trade. The framework explains in detail what we are calling the “75% Plan,” which is designed to provide negotiated trade and packer participation benchmarks for the industry to strive toward. In essence, the Subgroup will evaluate the weekly negotiated trade information for each of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service’s cattle feeding reporting regions on a quarterly basis in arrears. Eventually, the Subgroup will include in its evaluation an analysis of packer participation data, but this information is not yet published under Livestock Mandatory Reporting. To avoid tripping triggers, in any given quarter, each region will have to:
 -    Achieve no less than 75% of the weekly negotiated trade volume that current academic literature indicates is necessary for “robust” price discovery in that specific region,
-    Achieve this negotiated trade threshold no less than 75% of the reporting weeks in a quarter,
-    Achieve no less than 75% of the weekly packer participation requirements, to be determined in short order, and assigned to each specific region,
-    Achieve this packer participation threshold no less than 75% of the reporting weeks in a quarter.

In the event that triggers are tripped in any two out of four rolling quarters, the Subgroup will recommend that NCBA pursue a legislative or regulatory solution to compel robust price discovery. The Subgroup will take into account black swans on a case-by-case basis, which are outlined in the force majeure section of the document, and may allow for flexibility within the 75% Plan if events disrupt the normal flow of cattle in a quarter. Periodic adjustments may need to be made to the framework in the event that academic literature is updated, technological advances are made, or other conditions of supply and demand have changed. The Subgroup will make these adjustments on an as-needed basis.
 
While certainly not a silver-bullet solution, I truly believe that this approach provides the industry a goal to strive towards and, perhaps more importantly, a path forward if progress is not demonstrated toward that goal. If you have additional questions or concerns about the framework, your state affiliate executive has additional resources. You can also always reach out to our NCBA staff in Washington, DC by calling 202-347-0228.
 
I am confident that the cattle industry will meet this challenge as it always does: head-on and at full steam. Together we can ensure price transparency and robust price discovery in our markets.