Applications open for one-of-a-kind feedyard management internship
The Timmerman Feedyard Management Internship is a nationally renowned feedyard management training program, exclusive to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, which has been producing feedyard management and industry leaders since 1988.
Designed for students interested in pursuing a career in beef feedyard management or other related agribusiness areas, the program trains students through comprehensive feedyard and personnel management classes and with real-world experiences in established Midwest feedyards.
“We’ve had students from 20 states, and we’ve worked with 50 feedyards and numerous interns who have completed the program in the past 30 years,” said Galen Erickson, Nebraska Cattle Industry Professor of Animal Science, and UNL feedyard extension specialist.
“This is the perfect way for students to get into agriculture, get your foot in the door to learn skills so you can continue at the feedyard you intern at or take them somewhere else.”
As the only internship program in the nation designed specifically to develop business and experiential skills necessary for the feedyard, interns who come to Nebraska will have a unique seven-month experience. The tri-segment program begins in late May with six weeks of class discussions and industry field trips.
From July through December, interns are assigned to a Nebraska feedyard, which is tailored to their specific goals and interests. Once placed at a feedyard, interns will have the opportunity to experience each facet of the business - from animal health, economics, waste management, working with rations at the feed mill, personnel management and bookwork.
Finally, students will return to campus in December for two weeks to review their experiences at feedyards and learn from the experiences of other students in the program.
“After the internship I’ve agreed to continue working at Brothers Feedlot in Spalding, Neb., where I am now, and continue working in the industry,” said Melissa Losby, Timmerman Feedyard Management Intern.
“Even if I wouldn’t continue at the feedyard, I think this would have been a super valuable experience. I’ve learned a lot of skills that I think can transfer to a lot of different areas in agriculture.”
The program works to fill the growing need of trained, responsible individuals who can enter into management positions in feedyards. That’s why the program opened its doors to accept students from two-year institutions for the first time, such as from the Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture.
Terry Klopfenstein, Emeritus professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, pioneered the Timmerman Feedyard Management Internship, and has mentored hundreds of graduate students in his 47-year career at Nebraska.
“The need for young people in agriculture is great, Klopfenstein said. “We really need an employee that can work into management. We know the demand is there. Our job at Nebraska is to produce the supply.”
Timmerman Feedyard Management Internship applications close March. 1. For more information, visit https://animalscience.unl.edu/unl-feedyard-management-internship.
DECIPHERING A HAY TEST: TDN
– Brad Schick, NE Extension Educator
Last week we looked at ADF and NDF and how it is used to measure a hay sample’s fiber content which affects digestibility and forage intake which help predict animal performance. Today, we will look at Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN).
Often, the terms TDN and energy are used interchangeably when discussing forages and feeds, but realistically TDN is only one measurement of energy.
TDN is a combination of digestible fiber, lipids, soluble carbohydrates, and proteins. Acid detergent fiber or ADF is usually the least digestible part of the forage and is used to calculate TDN. The assumption is that the lower the ADF, the higher energy the forage. Knowing TDN is useful especially for diets that are primarily forage. TDN is one of the most important values to know from our hay test. In cases involving brood cows, TDN is often overlooked. Without consideration, diets may be lacking energy as much or more than crude protein because protein often receives more focus from producers.
Values for TDN vary with forage type and maturity. For example, alfalfa can range from 60 to 70% TDN with cool-season grasses having 55 to 68% TDN, and warm-season grasses with lower TDN values of 45 to 65%.
Understanding energy is important for the health and nutrition of livestock. Use TDN to calculate forage energy availability and meet animal needs.
Online beekeeping class set for March
Nebraskans interested in learning about the role and importance of bees are invited to a beekeeping workshop hosted by the Center for Rural Affairs. This free event will be offered in English and Spanish.
“Explore Beekeeping” will occur online, on Wednesday, March 10, from 6 to 8 p.m.
“Beekeeping is a rewarding hobby with business opportunities,” said Kirstin Bailey, Center for Rural Affairs senior project associate. “It offers you a chance to connect with a large community and you can engage your family. Beekeeping is a physical and intellectual activity that strengthens your connections to nature, and furthers your understanding of natural systems.”
Attendees will learn about bee biology, how the hive functions as a system, start-up costs, and the process of getting started.
Registration is required by March 10; visit cfra.org/events. For more information, contact Bailey at 402.367.8989 or kirstinb@cfra.org.
ACT NOW! Tell EPA We Need Atrazine!
Call to action from NE Farm Bureau
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking comment on draft Endangered Species Act biological evaluations relative to the potential effects of atrazine on threatened or endangered (listed) species and their designated critical habitats.
Atrazine is an important tool for weed mitigation in several crops, including corn and sorghum. The use of atrazine, especially in corn and sorghum production enables added environmental benefits for farmers seeking to utilize conservation tillage and no-till practices that conserve soil, preserve and increase nutrients, improve water quality, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Without atrazine, many farmers would not be able to utilize these methods, which result in positive environmental outcomes.
The methodology used in EPA’s draft biological evaluation led to inaccuracies such as determining atrazine was likely to adversely affect already extinct species. EPA should ensure the process used to make these determinations is transparent and based on the best available science. How the EPA responds to these findings based on this biological evaluation methodology will have a broad impact on the future availability of atrazine and other active ingredients equally important to the agriculture industry.
Submit your comments to the EPA now advocating for the continued use of atrazine in crop production here... https://p2a.co/WF4GM6K... Comments due Feb. 19 by midnight.
DAP, Urea Prices Surge 21% Over Last Month as Fertilizer Prices Spike
Retail fertilizer prices continued to climb sharply higher the second week of February 2021, according to retailers surveyed by DTN. For the second week in a row, all eight of the major fertilizers' prices were higher by a significant amount, which DTN designates as 5% or more.
DAP and urea led the way higher. Both fertilizers were a staggering 21% more expensive compared to last month. DAP had an average price of $588 per ton, up $102, while urea was at $453/ton, up $80.
MAP was 17% more expensive, looking back to the prior month. The phosphorus fertilizer had an average price of $642/ton, up $91. Behind MAP, was UAN28 and UAN32, which were both 16% more expensive, looking back to last month. UAN28 had an average price of $243/ton, up $33, and UAN32 $285/ton, up $38.
Anhydrous was up 10% compared to last month. The nitrogen fertilizer has an average price of $524/ton, up $50. Starter fertilizer, 10-34-0, was up 9% looking back to last month. The average price for 10-34-0 was $512/ton, up $43. And, finally, potash was up 7% compared to the prior month. Potash had an average price of $398/ton, up $25.
On a price per pound of nitrogen basis, the average urea price was at $0.49/lb.N, up 2 cents from last month; anhydrous $0.32/lb.N, up 1 cent; UAN28 $0.43/lb.N, unchanged; and UAN32 $0.45/lb.N, up 3 cents.
Both UAN28 and UAN32 are now 3% more expensive, both potash and anhydrous are 7% higher, 10-34-0 is 11% more expensive, urea is 25% more expensive, DAP is 42% higher and MAP is 48% more expensive compared to last year.
Soy Farmers Seek to Protect Phosphate Choices
The American Soybean Association (ASA) has filed joint comments to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) regarding a petition by the Mosaic Company to enforce countervailing duties on Russian and Moroccan imports of phosphate fertilizer.
Kevin Scott, ASA president and soybean farmer from Valley Springs, South Dakota, said, “We believe countervailing duties on these imports will have a negative impact on the availability of phosphate fertilizer in the United States and, in turn, adversely affect crop production and farmer livelihoods.”
Phosphorus is one of several main macronutrients necessary for plant growth and is vital to crop production. Adequate levels of phosphorus in the soil benefit early season root development and help provide the energy crops need to maximize growth and production. Phosphate fertilizers are widely used by soybean, corn, cotton and other crop producers throughout the United States.
Mosaic’s petition in support of countervailing duties is not in the best interest of a healthy U.S. agriculture marketplace, jeopardizing domestic availability of phosphate fertilizer and reducing the competition and choices available to farmers.
ASA joined National Corn Growers Association and National Cotton Council of America in filing the comments to USITC Feb. 17.
United Soybean Board Leaders Meet Virtually to Set 2022 Investment Directions
The 78 farmer-directors serving on the United Soybean Board met virtually today to define strategies and goals to strengthen soy’s position in the U.S. and global marketplaces for the checkoff’s next year of investments related to soybean meal, oil and sustainability.
“We all look forward to meeting in person hopefully in the coming months once conditions merit doing it safely,” said Dan Farney, USB Chair and soybean farmer from Morton, Illinois. “Until then, the Executive Committee and directors will continue our roles as stewards of the soybean checkoff program, meeting virtually to make decisions committed to research, promotion and education that serve to benefit the more than 515,000 U.S. soybean farmers.”
USB’s financial stewardship and program development responsibilities include investing in projects to promote the sustainability of U.S. soy as a market differentiator domestically and to build new markets abroad. In addition, the soy checkoff funds education to enhance end-user awareness of soy products as well as research to strengthen the resilience of soybean production, improve meal quality and develop new uses for soybean oil.
Early highlights for fiscal year 2021 investments to date for meal, oil and sustainability included:
Meal: Market promotion efforts conducted by the soybean industry’s international market-building organizations have all successfully transitioned to a virtual format with record audiences in attendance. Nutrition research continues to create opportunities for soy, including product differentiation in the marketplace around factors such as meal quality (amino acids and energy) with key partners.
Oil: Opportunities continue to expand for soybean oil. High oleic variety planting contract opportunities continue to increase to meet demand for refined high oleic oils by end users in the food sector. Innovations for industrial uses include motor oil and asphalt.
Sustainability: Supply partnerships and education initiatives advance in collaboration with regional soybean research boards and extension education efforts. USB’s partnerships are well-positioned to increase understanding and adoption of sustainable soil practices, ultimately leading to carbon neutrality and consumer benefits.
Prior to the meeting, as part of the soy checkoff’s Value Creation Framework process, USB farmer-leaders convened with their assigned Target Area Work Groups. The groups discussed insights and context to inform the strategic approach to accomplish the checkoff’s objectives in FY22. Direction from the work groups defines the areas of greatest importance to guide future investments.
“Farmer-leaders determine investments to positively impact key audiences related to supply, marketplace and demand,” said USB Strategic Management Committee Chair Jim Carroll III and soybean farmer from Brinkley, Arkansas. “In the months ahead, we look forward to reviewing a variety of project proposals that increase the preference for U.S. soy but also bring value to our farmers’ bottom line.”
Nearly 500 proposals were submitted across the three target areas to achieve checkoff objectives in research, education and promotion. The shared goal of all selected proposals is to strengthen U.S. soy’s reputation and competitive advantage when it comes to nutrition, quality and sustainability.
Between now and USB’s next meeting in July, checkoff farmer-leaders will review proposals in detail to determine strategic fit ahead of making their final FY22 project portfolio recommendations.
AMS Announces New Dealer Statutory Trust to Protect Livestock Sellers
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) today announced a new Dealer Statutory Trust to Protect Livestock Sellers. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed on December 27, 2020, amended the Packers and Stockyards (P&S) Act by adding Section 318 to establish a “Dealer Statutory Trust” for the benefit of unpaid cash sellers of livestock.
“USDA supports transparency in pricing throughout the supply chain to ensure farmers and livestock producers are getting a fair price, and we look forward to working with Congress and the federal family to improve price discovery and protect against unfair treatment,” said Robert Bonnie, USDA Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy.
Much like the existing packer and poultry trusts, the amendment requires livestock dealers to hold all livestock purchased, and if livestock has been resold, the receivables or proceeds from such sale, in trust for the benefit of all unpaid cash sellers of livestock until full payment has been received by those sellers. Dealers whose average annual livestock purchases do not exceed $100,000 are exempt.
Livestock sellers who do not receive timely payment from a dealer may file claims on the dealer statutory trust. To be valid, trust claims must be filed within 30 days of the final date for making payment, or within 15 business days after the seller receives notice of a dishonored payment. Dealers who receive a trust claim notice are required to give notice within 15 days to anyone holding a lien on the livestock held in the trust.
Costa Applauds Announcement of New Dealer Statutory Trust to Protect Livestock Sellers
Today, following a release from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee Chairman Jim Costa of California applauded the agency’s move to protect unpaid livestock sellers through a Dealer Statutory Trust:
“I am pleased that USDA has taken the necessary steps to put these protections in place for the benefit of livestock sellers throughout our country. I co-led bipartisan bills to establish this trust in the 115th and 116th Congresses, and I look forward to working with the experts at USDA to ensure farmers and ranchers are not left bearing the costs of dealer defaults.”
Modeled after the existing Packer Statutory Trust, the new Dealer Statutory Trust was authorized through the Consolidated Appropriations Act that was signed into law last December.
RFA Honors Former Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson
Citing his decades of service to farmers and ethanol producers, the Renewable Fuels Association today honored former Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), longtime chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, with the RFA Industry Award. The award was presented in conjunction with RFA’s 26th annual National Ethanol Conference, held digitally this year due to the pandemic.
“This year, I am proud to recognize someone whose contribution to the U.S. ethanol industry cannot be measured in a single development or discovery, but for a career dedicated to value-added agriculture and policies laying the foundation for the U.S. ethanol industry,” said RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper. “Congressman Collin Peterson, or ‘The Chairman,’ as anyone involved in agriculture knows him, has been the ethanol industry’s most effective and passionate advocate in the House of Representatives for decades.”
Among his achievements, Peterson helped form the Congressional Biofuels Caucus and fended off attacks on the tax incentive available to gasoline marketers for ethanol-blended fuels. He also was instrumental in defeating efforts to eliminate the reformulated gasoline oxygen standard that helped build ethanol demand nationally. In the early 2000s, he worked tirelessly to promote a more robust and progressive ethanol policy, which would become known as the Renewable Fuel Standard. And, Cooper added, “…the dramatic expansion and extension of the RFS in 2007 would not have happened without Chairman Peterson’s masterful negotiating efforts and dedicated advocacy.” Most recently, Peterson led efforts in Congress to bring more transparency and integrity to the RFS small refinery exemption program; and, as COVID ravaged ethanol markets in 2020, he ensured that assistance for ethanol producers was included in the House-passed HEROES Act.
“I've been working on ethanol for a long time. I believe in it, and it's been a passion of mine and it's just been a pleasure for me to be able to lend a hand to make sure this industry is successful and moves ahead,” Peterson said in accepting the award. “I'm not going to walk away from ethanol, and now that I'm not in office I don't know exactly what I'm going to do yet, but I will stay engaged in advocating for agriculture in some way, shape or form. You're going to have my help— whether you want it or not.”
National Use of Livestock Insurance Products Offered by USDA-RMA
Elliott Dennis, Livestock Extension Economist, Dept of Ag Econ, University of Nebraska – Lincoln
The changes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Risk Management Agency (RMA) Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) insurance plan took effect on January 20, 2021, for the crop year 2021 and succeeding crop years. These changes included: (a) increasing livestock head limits for feeder and fed cattle to 6,000 head per endorsement/12,000 head annually and swine to 40,000 head per endorsement/150,000 head annually; (b) modifying the requirement to own insured livestock until the last 60 days of the endorsement; (c) increasing the endorsement lengths for swine up to 52 weeks; and, (d) creating new feeder cattle and swine types to allow for unborn livestock to be insured. These changes, in addition to the dramatic changes in subsidy levels and allowing premiums to be paid at the end of the coverage endorsement period, should significantly improve the use of LRP. How much so likely depends on several factors including an understanding of risk protection, personal attitudes towards risk, previous experience with risk management tools, and competing risk management options, among others.
How frequently is LRP used compared to other USDA-RMA offered insurance products?
Cattle can be insured through various existing USDA-RMA products. Options include Livestock Gross Margin (only fed cattle), Livestock Risk Protection (fed and feeder cattle), and Whole Farm insurance (fed and feeder cattle). Federally subsidized insurance was first offered in 2003. Between 2003-2010, the total liability of LRP fed and feeder cattle represented $722 million dollars, and 25,000 policies covering 0.94 million head. Between 2011-2019, the total liability of fed and feeder cattle under LRP represented $1,950 million dollars, and 51,000 policies sold covering 1.65 million head. LGM is used much less frequently compared to LRP. Between 2003-2010, the total liability of LGM fed cattle represented $32 million dollars, and 616 policies covering 50,000 head. Between 2011-2019, the total liability of fed and feeder cattle under LRP represented $27 million dollars, and 301 policies sold covering 20,000 head.
While there was a large increase in LRP use over the last decade, LGM cattle products have decreased. Further, the levels of liability, policies sold, and head covered are small compared to other programs and commodities such as the Dairy Margin Coverage for milk, LRP Lamb, and LGM for swine. Comparing the total number of fed and feeder cattle insured using USDA-RMA products to the total number of cattle in the United States show that coverage still represents a small fraction of total production. Approximately 0.50% of fed and feeder cattle are insured using either LRP or LGM. These shares are comparable to swine and dairy. Lamb producers have historically been heavy significant users of USDA-RMA products. In some years, upwards of 60% of total lamb production was insured using LRP. The high use is likely because lamb producers have very few other available market options to manage output price or feeding margin risk.
LRP and LGM Use and Performance Varies Geographically and Through Time
A small number of states make up the majority of LRP fed and feeder cattle sales. Since 2003, Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas, North Dakota, and Missouri have made up 80-85% of all policies sold and the total number of head insured. The relative share of use by these states have remained constant over time. LRP fed cattle sales show similar patterns. The geographic distribution of policies sold is even more pronounced for LGM fed cattle. Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin account for nearly 95% of all policies sold and the total number of head insured. This is slightly misleading given that only 16 policies were sold in 2019 and 155 at its peak in 2007.
Possible Explanations for LRP and LGM Use (or lack thereof)
Policy premiums and performance are two reasons explaining the use of LRP and LGM, or lack thereof. For LRP, premiums are comparable to an “at-the-money” or “out-of-the-money” put. As such, all premiums costs are entirely attributed to the “time value” of the option (i.e. the farther we are away from contract expiration = the higher the premium). Figure 1 shows how these premiums curves look at different coverage rates and endorsement lengths for a representative day. It shows that the longer the endorsement length, the more expensive the premium ($/cwt.). In other words, the curves shift vertically up the farther one is away from contract expiration. Producers choosing to manage price risk using options must choose between using USDA-RMA’s LRP or CME put options. How similar these premiums are, both with and without subsidies, is currently being studied.
How reliable a market instrument is as managing price risk is another important consideration. If LRP is unreliable as a market instrument over time, then this may reduce the trust and ultimately use of the product. Loss ratios are one method used to determine how well an insurance product is functioning. One way to interpret loss ratios are for every dollar paid into the product, how much is paid out. Loss ratios below one “hurt” producers since they are paying more than what they get back in coverage while loss ratios > 1 “hurt” the insurer since the product is paying too much out compared to premiums received. Ideally, long-term loss ratios should be equal to one. The loss ratio for feeder and fed cattle under LRP does vary considerably across locations and through time. Some states have either historically high or low loss ratios. For LRP feeder cattle, 4 out of the 37 states have long-term loss ratios between 0.90-1.10, 28 states have loss ratios < 0.90, and 5 states have loss ratios > 1.10. LRP and LGM fed cattle are less promising. All states that have used LGM or LRP fed cattle have loss ratios below 0.80. Few states having long-term loss ratios at or near 1.0 is one reason why the use of LRP or LGM has been low. Three animations are available from LMIC or available upon request from me that showing loss ratios by state between 2003-2019. These animations show that LGM and LRP (fed and feeder cattle) have both expanded in use but loss ratios have tended to vary significantly over time.
Industry Implications
The industry has lobbied the USDA-RMA to increase the subsidy levels of LRP as a solution to market volatility experienced during COVID-19. Industry representatives have cited the subsidy differential between crop insurance and livestock insurance as the primary justification for increasing subsidy levels and suggesting that subsidy levels were the primary barrier to risk management adoption for smaller producers. Newly established subsidy levels should increase the use of LRP fed and feeder cattle. Whether the future use of LRP is by large operations switching from CME options to LRP or if small producers using LRP for the first time remains to be seen. The ability to insure unborn cattle and having premiums due at the end of the endorsement period are likely to be larger contributors to increasing the use of LRP than changes in the subsidy levels since they significantly reduce logistical barriers for producers. As with all risk instruments, LRP is still meant to be used to minimize downside price due to market shocks and not as a tool to improve market prices after market shocks have occurred. Thus, LRP, either fed or feeder cattle, will only work to mitigate future market shocks similar to COVID-19 if producers have risk management in place prior to the market shock.
Top Agribusiness Executives Featured in Live Roundtable Discussions During 2021 Special Edition of Commodity Classic
What do the next 20 years look like in American agriculture? Attendees at the 2021 Special Edition of Commodity Classic will have the opportunity to hear some of the top executives in agribusiness answer that question.
Three Executive Roundtables will be held during the 2021 Special Edition of Commodity Classic that will be delivered digitally March 2-5, 2021. Each roundtable will be presented live and then archived for future viewing through the end of April. More information is available at CommodityClassic.com.
The first Executive Roundtable takes place from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Central on Wednesday, March 3, and features top executives from the ag equipment industry, including John Deere, AGCO, Case IH and Kubota, discussing how changing farm demographics, consumer demands, and technology may impact the ag equipment industry and agriculture in general. The panel will be moderated by Charlene Finck of Farm Journal.
The crop production industry will take the digital stage on Thursday, March 4 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Central. Executives from Bayer Crop Science, Corteva Agriscience, Syngenta and BASF will be on the panel to discuss how climate, environmental regulations and innovative technologies may impact crop production and influence the future of agriculture. Greg Horstmeier of DTN will moderate.
The final Executive Roundtable will take place Friday, March 5 from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Willie Vogt of Farm Progress will moderate a panel of top executives from Valent, New Holland and the United Soybean Board who will discuss what to expect in the coming years as the ag industry wrestles with recent turmoil.
The Executive Panels are among more than 50 educational sessions scheduled during the 2021 Special Edition of Commodity Classic, which kicks off at noon Central on Tuesday, March 2.
Thanks to the generous support of sponsors, the first 5,000 farmers who register can do so at no charge. All other attendees can register for $20. The registration fee includes access to the entire week’s program as well as access to archived sessions through April 30, 2021.
Cattle Feeders Hall of Fame Announces 2021 Inductees
The Cattle Feeders Hall of Fame has announced its 2021 inductees and award winners who will be recognized at its 12th annual banquet to be held Aug. 9, 2021, in Nashville, Tennessee.
Johnny Trotter, president and CEO of Bar-G Feedyard in Hereford, Texas, and Steve Gabel, founder of Magnum Feedyard in Wiggins, Colorado, are the newest inductees into the Hall of Fame, which annually honors two leaders who have made lasting contributions to the cattle feeding industry.
Gary Smith, visiting professor in the Department of Animal Science at Texas A&M University, is the recipient of the Leadership Award. George Eckert of Green Plains Cattle Company in Leoti, Kansas, and Gaspar Martinez of Harris Feeding Company in Coalinga, California, were named Service Award winners.
These inductees and award winners will be recognized at the Cattle Feeders Hall of Fame banquet in conjunction with the Cattle Industry Convention and NCBA Trade Show to be held Aug. 10-12 in Nashville.
"Through their dedication and leadership, these honorees have made lasting contributions to our industry," said Cliff Becker, vice president of publishing for Farm Journal Media and Cattle Feeders Hall of Fame board member. "It is an honor to recognize their achievements which have helped advance the cattle feeding industry."
Tickets for the 2021 Cattle Feeders Hall of Fame banquet can be purchased as part of the Cattle Industry Convention registration and will be available in June. Event sponsorship and table sponsorships are also available. Founding sponsors of the Cattle Feeders Hall of Fame include Merck Animal Health, Drovers magazine and Osborn Barr Paramore (OBP).
All proceeds from ticket sales and corporate sponsorships will benefit future initiatives for the Cattle Feeders Hall of Fame. All funds from tickets purchased by cattle feeders will be donated in full to the Hall of Fame.
Syngenta, university researcher advocate holistic approach to maximize yield potential and minimize future obstacles
For every grower, maximizing yield to increase potential return on investment is the ultimate goal. As farmers know, there are many factors affecting their yields that require constant monitoring and action throughout the year. Syngenta sat down with Stevan Knezevic, Ph.D., weed management specialist at the University of Nebraska, to discuss his “10 Commandments” of weed management that growers can reference to make sure all their bases are covered this coming season.
According to Knezevic, his “10 Commandments” are as follows:
· Commandment 1: Know your weeds and understand their lifecycles and biologies. This is the foundation for all of the commandments. “A full understanding of the weeds in your region and how they may interact with your crops is an important step in managing an efficient and successful operation,” said Knezevic.
· Commandment 2: Rotate your crops. “Crop rotation is a key component in an effective weed resistance management strategy,” said Mark Kitt, corn herbicide technical product lead for Syngenta. “It will extend the range of available herbicides and agronomic practices.”
· Commandment 3: Rotate your herbicide sites of action. “By having extra sites of action, you are widening the spectrum of weed control,” said Knezevic.
· Commandment 4: Use premixes with multiple effective sites of action. “Within the Syngenta portfolio, Acuron® corn herbicide is a great example,” said Kitt. “It provides protection through its four active ingredients, including the Syngenta-exclusive bicyclopyrone, and three effective sites of action.” This formulation provides powerful weed management that leads to higher yield potential — 5 to 15 more bushels an acre than any other corn herbicide.*
· Commandment 5: Use full labeled rates of herbicides. “Full label rates will provide a full length of residual activity that should cover the critical period of weed control,” said Knezevic. “By reducing the label rate, you’re in danger of not killing the weed, but only crippling it. A surviving weed that is growing after a herbicide application has a chance to potentially produce herbicide-resistant offspring.”
· Commandment 6: Scout your fields. “Go out and scout those fields,” says Knezevic. “Look for survivors, and look for regrowth because that regrowth can most likely carry a resistance gene, so you will have problems next year.”
· Commandment 7: Apply post-emergent applications, ideally before new weed growth is discovered. Overlapping residuals can help prevent these weed escapes.
“Halex® GT herbicide is the perfect product to use post-emergence to provide that overlapping residual and post-emergence management when applied in a system where a foundation rate of a preemergence herbicide is used,” Kitt said.
· Commandment 8: Use cultural practices to manage weeds, and don’t overlook your field borders. “This is where employing sound agronomic practices will prove to be especially beneficial, including tillage and crop rotation,” said Knezevic. “Any uncontrolled weeds will produce seeds. If you don’t control them well and let them drop seeds, you’re going to fight them for at least three to five more years into the future.”
· Commandment 9: Use clean equipment, especially during harvest, to manage weed seed. “Over the last 10 years or so, we have seen a rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp and Palmer amaranth, which were not spread by weeds, animals or wind. They were spread by combines during harvest,” cautioned Knezevic.
· Commandment 10: Know the cost of poor weed management. “The culmination of the commandments is that in managing cost versus yield, understand that it is much more expensive if you spend less money and do not kill the weeds,” concluded Knezevic. “A general rule of thumb is that for every stage of delayed weed control, there is a 2% loss of potential yield.”
Collaborating with leading university researchers and sharing information are ways Syngenta works to help local agronomists and their growers combat the unique weed pressure they face each season. “It all starts with solid agronomics,” Kitt said. “We want to provide our retailer partners and growers with the knowledge and tools they need to effectively manage their top weed pressures so they can maximize their yield potential next season and for many seasons to come.”
When you start with agronomics and your end profitability goal in mind, you can better assess what practices and products will get you there. Before you commit to a season-long “deal” that may limit your choices, do some math and see how everything pencils out — because better yield is the better deal.
New ruminant meta-analysis from Alltech addresses protein challenges, carbon footprint and profitability
The tightening of global protein supplies is creating uncertainty for producers and the feed industry alike as to where this year’s protein supply will come from. Add to that the ever-increasing pressure on producers to meet the growing global demand for milk and meat while also reducing their environmental impact and remaining financially viable. While striking a balance between these seemingly conflicting goals may seem impossible, Alltech has released data from a new meta-analysis for ruminants that proves otherwise.
The results showed that Optigen®, a non-protein nitrogen ingredient, can replace vegetable protein sources and enable dairy and beef producers to simultaneously improve animal performance, reduce their carbon footprint and increase profitability. The new data from the meta-analysis examining the effects of Optigen supplementation in dairy cows is based on the results of 17 studies carried out in six different countries, while the beef study was based on the results of 17 studies carried out in nine different countries.
“The responsible sourcing of protein for animal feeds is a crucial global issue in the livestock supply chain, and the use of plant protein sources in animal diets can be restricted based on availability, price volatility and associated environmental impact,” said Dr. Saheed Salami, research fellow at Alltech. “These meta-analysis studies have confirmed that Optigen is a viable substitute for plant protein sources in ruminant rations, resulting in improved feed efficiency, profitability and environmental sustainability for dairy and beef production.”
Dairy research key findings:
The use of Optigen in dairy diets resulted in a carbon savings of around 54 g of CO2-eq/kg milk.
When extrapolated to the annual milk output of the Dutch dairy sector, for example, this would be equivalent to a carbon emission reduction of 574,004 tonnes of CO2-eq. Such a carbon saving represents 10% of the entire reduction target for agriculture and land use sectors required by the Dutch government by 2030.
Optigen partially replaced approximately 21% of soybean meal across all diets.
Dry matter intake (DMI), protein intake and nitrogen intake decreased through space “saving” in the diet
Milk yield increased, and feed efficiency was improved by 3% in Optigen diets.
Nitrogen utilization efficiency in dairy cows increased by 4%, thanks to improved nitrogen capture in the rumen. This translates to a reduction of the manure nitrogen excretion by 12 to 13 g of nitrogen/cow/day.
This data suggests, for example, that the use of Optigen could reduce the annual manure nitrogen excretion from Germany’s dairy sector by an average of 17,028 tonnes of nitrogen based on the annual milk output.
The environmental benefits Optigen brings are through the substitution of soybean and other high protein concentrates in combination with improved production efficiency.
Beef research key findings:
The meta-analysis highlighted how the partial replacement of vegetable protein with Optigen exhibited a consistent improvement in the liveweight gains and feed efficiency of beef cattle.
There was an 8% average increase in liveweight gain and an 8% improvement in feed efficiency with the inclusion of corn silage, enhancing the effects of Optigen.
A simulation analysis based on these benefits indicated that feeding Optigen to 1,000 head of cattle with the goal of each animal gaining 440 pounds would:
Reduce time to slaughter by nine days.
Lower feed costs by $18,000.
Decrease the carbon footprint of the beef unit by 111.5 tonnes of CO2-eq, contributing to a nearly 2.2% reduction in the carbon footprint of beef production.
“Vegetable protein sources are volatile; they fluctuate in price and their nutritional composition is incredibly variable, while Optigen is the opposite and provides consistency in the rumen-degradable protein supply that is critical for rumen function,” said Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research group director at Alltech. “These new meta-analyses on both beef and dairy animals show the depth of our research in both areas, as well as the versatility of the product across dietary raw materials and global geographies.”
As a concentrated nitrogen source, Optigen takes up less space in the diet compared to other nitrogen sources, such as soybean meal and rapeseed meal, leaving room for more rumen-friendly materials, such as homegrown forages. This additional space can also aid in allowing more energy into the diet. In some cases, dietary crude protein levels can also be decreased, thereby increasing efficiency and reducing the risk of nutrient wastage. These studies reaffirm that feeding Optigen offers unique economic and environmental benefits to dairy and beef production and positively impacts our food supply chain.
Altosid® IGR, the Industry Standard for Horn Fly Control, Announces Lower Price To Protect Cattle And Bottom Lines
Altosid® IGR, the industry-leading feed-through insect growth regulator for horn fly control, is now available at a price of 2 to 3 cents per animal, per day. This lower price point improves the cost efficiency of Altosid® IGR, a solution proven to dramatically lower horn fly populations on pasture and improve weight gains in treated cattle by as much as 15.8%.
“Altosid IGR has truly represented the gold standard for horn fly control for nearly 50 years, and we’re excited to make the best value in the industry even better,” said Mark Upton, director of sales for the Feed Additive Group at Central Life Sciences. “Horn flies are the number one economic pest threat to cattle on pasture, so it was important to us to make Altosid IGR accessible to more operations of all sizes.”
Horn flies infest cattle on pasture with populations that can reach as high as 4,000 flies per animal in untreated herds. Even populations of 200 horn flies per animal can inflict up to 28,000 bites per day, which equates to a loss of two gallons of blood over the entire season. These losses from horn flies cost the industry an estimated $1 billion each year due to the stress they inflict and cattle disease they spread, inciting weight loss as high as 50 pounds per yearling.
“Producers using Altosid IGR for horn fly control are not just protecting their cattle, they’re protecting their bottom line,” said Upton. “We’ve conducted studies that have shown that at this new price, increased weight gains from treated cattle could potentially produce a return on investment of as much as 13:1 with Altosid IGR.”
Altosid® IGR is a feed-through fly control solution that passes through the digestive system and into manure where horn flies lay their eggs. It was designed specifically to break the horn fly life cycle by preventing pupae from developing into biting adults. Able to exert its effect at very small concentrations, Altosid® IGR is an ideal fly control choice for today’s environmentally responsible producer. For greatest effectiveness, Altosid® IGR should be used as the foundation of an integrated pest management (IPM) program including proper sanitation, maintaining physical structures, incorporating naturally occurring fly enemies and using chemical controls.
“While many products tout an “all-in-one” approach that will control all fly species, we like to remind customers that there is no silver bullet when it comes to fly control,” said Upton. “For horn fly infestations on pasture cattle, the best results are going to come from a product designed specifically to control horn flies— Altosid IGR.”
Altosid® IGR is available in mineral blocks, tubs, liquid feed supplements, and as a premix that can be top dressed or mixed into feed.
Zoetis Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2020 Results
Zoetis Inc. (NYSE: ZTS) today reported its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2020 and provided full year guidance for 2021.
The company reported revenue of $1.8 billion for the fourth quarter of 2020, which was an increase of 8% compared with the fourth quarter of 2019. Net income for the fourth quarter of 2020 was $359 million, or $0.75 per diluted share, compared with $384 million, or $0.80 per diluted share, in the fourth quarter of 2019.
Adjusted net income for the fourth quarter of 2020 was $438 million, relatively flat compared with the fourth quarter of 2019, or $0.91 per diluted share, a decrease of 1%. Adjusted net income for the fourth quarter of 2020 excludes the net impact of $79 million for purchase accounting adjustments, acquisition-related costs and certain significant items.
On an operational basis, revenue for the fourth quarter of 2020, excluding the impact of foreign exchange, increased 9% compared with the fourth quarter of 2019. Adjusted net income for the fourth quarter of 2020 increased 3% operationally, excluding the impact of foreign exchange.
For full year 2020, the company reported revenue of $6.7 billion, an increase of 7% compared with full year 2019. Net income for full year 2020 was $1.6 billion, or $3.42 per diluted share, an increase of 9% and 10%, respectively.
Adjusted net incomefor full year 2020 was $1.8 billion, or $3.85 per diluted share, an increase of 5% and 6%, respectively. Adjusted net income for full year 2020 excludes the net impact of $206 million for purchase accounting adjustments, acquisition-related costs and certain significant items.
On an operational basis, revenue for full year 2020 increased 9%, excluding the impact of foreign exchange. Adjusted net income for full year 2020 increased 10% operationally, excluding the impact of foreign exchange.
Opening Brief Filed in Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration’s Expansion of Bee-killing Insecticide Sulfoxaflor
Yesterday, Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity filed the opening brief in their lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of the pollinator-killing insecticide sulfoxaflor.
The two groups sued the Trump administration in 2019 over its decision to approve the use of sulfoxaflor on pollinator-attractive crops across more than 200 million acres. Today’s brief argues that the EPA failed to consider sulfoxaflor’s harms to the nation’s endangered and threatened species, bumblebees, and all other native pollinators, which play critical roles in maintaining biodiversity.
“Our bees and pollinators are dying, and yet EPA went ahead and allowed another toxic insecticide to be sprayed across America without any care for their well-being. We are in court so to ensure that our bees can have a chance to survive,” said Sylvia Wu, senior attorney at Center for Food Safety and counsel on the case.
The EPA originally approved sulfoxaflor use back in 2013, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently vacated the approval for failing to comply with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA. The EPA issued the 2019 approval of sulfoxaflor even though its own scientists still found the insecticide could threaten honeybee colonies and injure non-honeybees.
Prior to issuing the 2019 registration, the EPA also refused to consider sulfoxaflor’s effects on federally protected endangered species. The 2019 decision expanded sulfoxaflor’s use to a wide range of crops that attract bees, including strawberries, squash, and citrus.
“In the midst of an insect apocalypse, it’s just astounding that the EPA is continuing to fight to expand the use of this poison and can’t even be bothered to consider its impacts on the nation’s most vulnerable bees and butterflies,” said Stephanie Parent, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and counsel on this case. “Amazing and once common creatures like monarch butterflies and the American bumblebee are now heading towards extinction, and we can’t let the agency get away with this.”
The organizations’ lawsuit, filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, contends that before approving the sweeping new uses of sulfoxaflor, the EPA violated its duty to ensure that its approval of sulfoxaflor doesn’t jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species by consulting on the effects of its actions with wildlife experts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. The EPA also failed in its legal duty to show that the approval would not result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, as required under FIFRA.
In October of last year, more than a year after the two organizations sued the EPA, the agency admitted that it had failed to conduct any assessment of sulfoxaflor’s harm to the nation’s federally protected species, in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
But instead of removing the unlawful pesticide from the market, the EPA asked the court to permit the continued sale and use of sulfoxaflor while the agency took at least seven years to complete the required assessment. The 9th Circuit refused the EPA’s request last month, allowing the case to proceed.
The EPA will file its answering brief to the 9th Circuit on March 30, 2021. The 9th Circuit has expedited oral argument for the litigation upon completion of briefing.
No comments:
Post a Comment