Irrigation Well Water in Nebraska: Nutrient Concentrations and Other Properties
Charles Wortmann - Extension Soil and Nutrient Management Specialist
The EC 3052 titled “Irrigation Well Water in Nebraska: Nutrient Concentrations and Other Properties” has been published by UNL Extension and is available for free download. This EC reports the results of a survey conducted in 2020 with the cooperation of all 23 Natural Resources Districts and the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy. It involved analysis of samples from 642 irrigation wells. The results are reported in 21 maps and additional figures and tables.
Nutrients and liming effect applied are reported as concentrations and as pounds applied in 10 acre-inches which is then compared to the nutrients removed in the harvest of corn grain. The liming effect from irrigation is compared to amount of lime needed to neutralize the acidity produced by the application of 200 lb of fertilizer-nitrogen.
Statewide highlights include the percent of irrigation wells with a supply in 10 ac-in in excess of removal in 200 bu/ac of corn grain is:
100% for calcium and chloride
93% for magnesium
73% for sulfur
20% for potassium
16% for manganese or molybdenum
7% for boron
<2% for zinc, copper, and iron
0% for phosphorus; and
the liming effect exceeds acidification due to 200 lb fertilizer-N for 70% of wells.
Most of the remaining wells supply sufficient nutrients and liming effect to help maintain soil fertility and reduce the amount of fertilizer and lime application that is ultimately needed. None of the sampled wells had a high sodium problem and <0.5% had a salinity concentration. Water hardness was high enough with some wells that it might reduce the effectiveness of chemigation and cause formation of concretions on nozzles and pipes.
There is much variation between wells, so the testing of irrigation water for the supply of essential nutrients and liming effect is advised for each well or group of similar wells. This may only need to be done just once every 15 years, but is advised to help optimize nutrient and soil management.
Carbon Markets & Carbon Banks: What do they mean for Nebraska agriculture?
Nebraska farmers and ranchers are becoming more curious about carbon markets, carbon offsets and carbon banking – and some producers are receiving offers for payment now for increasing carbon storage on their farm or ranch. During a webinar on April 15th at noon, Dave Aiken, UNL Agricultural Economics professor and water and agricultural law specialist, will be introducing us to carbon markets and carbon banks and how they may affect Nebraska producers.
Register here: https://unl.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_C3zxiV3VQNKN3mCzgWxn_g.
Extension record-keeping course for farmers and ranchers set for June
The next session of “Know Your Numbers, Know Your Options,” Nebraska Extension’s four-part farm and ranch record-keeping course, will be held virtually on Thursdays beginning June 3, from 10 a.m. to noon CDT, each day.
Participants should plan on attending each of the four workshop dates — June 3, 10, 17 and 24. The course requires participants to have an internet connection.
This course is designed to help farmers and ranchers understand their current financial position and how big decisions like large purchases, new leases or changes in production will affect their bottom line. Participants will work through the financial statements of a case study farm, watching pre-recorded videos, completing assignments, and participating in video chats. Upon completion of this program, participants will have a better understanding of how financial records can be used to make decisions and confidently discuss their financial position with their family, business partners, and lenders.
The course fee is $20 per participant and class size is limited to 20 people. Register online at https://wia.unl.edu/know. Registration closes May 27.
This course is hosted by Nebraska Extension and made possible by Annie's Project, which is supported by Farm Credit Services of America in Nebraska. This material is based upon work supported by USDA/NIFA under Award Number 2020-70017-32735.
2021 PASTURE RENTAL RATES
- Todd Whitney, NE Extension
Preliminary Nebraska Farm Real Estate Market survey pasture rental rates are now posted on our Nebraska Extension Ag Economic website: agecon.unl.edu The full final report is expected in early June.
Although higher crop grain prices have likely increased cropland rental agreements 6% compared to last year; average grazing land and hayland market values will likely increase 3% to 5%.
Unlike crop ground leases, which begin on March 1st, handshake or verbal pasture leases are typically for a five-month grazing season. Since the lease is only in effect for that time, the lease is terminated at the end of the grazing season.
Written pasture rental agreements are strongly recommended over handshakes and verbal leases; and, establishing fair rates are important although at times challenging. Variables such as grassland quality; pasture location; fence maintenance; water, management responsibilities; and individual relationships…all influence individual pasture rental rates.
According to this year’s survey, the average monthly rent being paid to graze a cow-calf pair this season is lowest in the Western Panhandle, at just over thirty-nine dollars per month per cow-calf pair. The highest average rate is in the Northern District at sixty-three dollars per month with the central region around fifty-nine dollars per month. Projecting these rates over a five-month grazing period, it will cost an average of $195 to $315 dollars to graze a cow-calf pair for the summer in Nebraska. Remember that these are only averages.
Pastures are a major resource for farmers, ranchers and our Nebraska cattle industry;
and pasture rental is a critical factor in the financial well-being of both landlords and tenants. Knowing what others are paying for rental rates may help you negotiate a fair rate for yours.
CHS Reports Fiscal 2021 Second-Quarter Results
CHS Inc., the nation's leading agribusiness cooperative, today released results for its fiscal second quarter ended Feb. 28, 2021. The company reported a net loss of $38.2 million versus net income of $125.4 million in the same quarter in fiscal 2020. Significant year-over-year earnings increases in Ag and Nitrogen Production segments and Corporate and Other businesses were offset primarily by ongoing COVID-19 pandemic-related impacts in Energy.
"Improved trade relations between the United States and foreign trade partners combined with our operating efficiency initiatives led to record grain and oilseed volume increases and continued price gains, significantly improving our Ag segment earnings over the prior year," said Jay Debertin, president and CEO of CHS Inc. "Additionally, favorable growing conditions and overall strength in agriculture, helped drive demand for crop inputs, including crop nutrients and crop protection products and services.
"Our Energy segment, while showing improvement over the previous quarter, continues to experience unfavorable refined fuels market conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and exceptionally higher costs for renewable energy credits. These factors resulted in volume and margin declines that significantly reduced earnings compared to the prior year."
Fiscal 2021 second-quarter results reflect:
Revenues of $8.3 billion versus $6.6 billion in fiscal 2020 second quarter, a 26.1% increase.
Energy segment impacts that include:
Continued low refining margins stemming from COVID-19-impacts on global energy demand.
Exceptionally high costs of renewable energy credits, which decreased margins.
Decreased propane margins and volumes due to warm winter weather conditions across the CHS trade territory during most of the fiscal 2021 second quarter.
Modest improvements over fiscal 2021 first quarter as volumes and margins began to rebound.
Ag segment impacts that include:
Favorable weather conditions and improved relations between the U.S. and foreign trade partners, including China, that increased volumes of grain and oilseed commodities as well as feed and farm supplies.
Higher margins for certain agricultural products, including processing and food ingredients, which improved because of soybean crush strength.
Enterprisewide initiatives that include:
Focused cost-reduction initiatives launched in fiscal 2021 that helped reduce marketing, general and administrative costs.
COVID-19-related working arrangements and increased hygiene and infection-control processes to mitigate risk and support business continuity – all CHS operations were deemed to be essential infrastructure industries by federal and state governments.
For the six-month period ending Feb. 28, 2021, CHS reported net income of $31.4 million versus $303.3 million for the same period in fiscal 2020. Revenues for the first six months of fiscal 2021 rose to $17.0 billion, a $2.8 billion, or 19.8%, increase from $14.2 billion in the same period the previous year.
"I am encouraged by the resilience of our employees and their commitment to owners in what continues to be a challenging operating environment," said Debertin. "We are cautiously optimistic about the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and other progress being made in response to the pandemic in the U.S. and around the world and the potential impact on our domestic and global businesses.
"As we look ahead to the second half of fiscal 2021, we remain committed to protecting the financial health of CHS, adding efficiency throughout our enterprise to benefit owners and customers, and caring for those who depend on us as we continue creating connections to empower agriculture."
NPPC Applauds the Philippines’ Decision to Import More Pork
To combat rising pork prices and stabilize supplies, the Philippine government announced today it will provide more market access for pork imports. Securing better access to the Philippines market has been a top, long-term trade priority for the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).
“Since 2019, the Philippines has been battling African swine fever (ASF), and as a result, domestic production has declined, supplies have tightened, and pork prices have spiked,” said NPPC President Jen Sorenson, communications director for Iowa Select Farms in West Des Moines, Iowa. “While we are saddened by the spread of ASF in the Philippines, we appreciate the opportunity to send more high-quality U.S. pork to ease the shortage and the spike in prices.”
Under today’s announcement, beginning April 7, tariffs for imported pork under the increased minimum access volume (MAV) of 404,210 metric tons (MT) would be reduced from 30 percent to five percent for the next three months, and then 10 percent thereafter. Tariffs for imported pork above the MAV would be reduced from 40 percent to 15 percent for the next three months, and then increase to 20 percent thereafter. The reductions would be in effect for one year.
This announcement comes on the heels of NPPC’s meeting with the Philippine Ambassador to the U.S. Jose Manuel Romualdez. NPPC has been pressing both the U.S. and Philippines governments to lower pork import tariffs since ASF outbreaks began in the Philippines.
From January-December 2020, the U.S. exported 49,660 MT of pork worth $121 million to the country. The expanded market access is expected to generate significantly more U.S. pork exports to the country. With a population of 109 million and pork as the preferred protein of choice, pork consumption will continue to increase as the economy grows.
The Asia-Pacific region is the fastest growing economic region of the world with significant opportunities for U.S. pork exports. NPPC will continue to advocate for the United States to rejoin the CPTPP trade agreement.
Weekly Ethanol Production for 4/2/2021
According to EIA data analyzed by the Renewable Fuels Association for the week ending April 2, ethanol production rose 1.0%, or 10,000 barrels per day (b/d), to 975,000 b/d, equivalent to 40.95 million gallons daily. Production was 45.1% above the same week last year when the effects of the pandemic were reflected but was 2.7% below the same week in 2019. The four-week average ethanol production rate increased 0.9% to 958,000 b/d, equivalent to an annualized rate of 14.69 billion gallons (bg).
Ethanol stocks thinned by 2.2% to a 20-week low of 20.6 million barrels, which was 23.8% below a year-ago and 11.0% below this time in 2019. Inventories dropped across all regions except the Gulf Coast (PADD 3). Notably, West Coast (PADD 5) stocks declined to the lowest level since April 2014.
The volume of gasoline supplied to the U.S. market, a measure of implied demand, declined 1.2% to 8.78 million b/d (134.61 bg annualized). Gasoline demand was 73.4% above a year ago but was 10.5% below the same week in 2019.
Refiner/blender net inputs of ethanol eased by 0.5% to 878,000 b/d, equivalent to 13.46 bg annualized. This was 74.9% above a year ago but was 4.5% below 2019.
There were zero imports of ethanol recorded for the sixteenth consecutive week. (Weekly export data for ethanol is not reported simultaneously; the latest export data is as of February 2021.)
U.S. Ethanol Exports Slow to Five-Month Low Following Surge in January
Ann Lewis, Senior Analyst, Renewable Fuels Assoc.
American ethanol shipments eased 38% in February after January’s volume set a record high for the month. Exports were 101.7 million gallons (mg), with half destined for just three countries. However, exports spiked to South Korea, up 120% (11.9 mg) to 21.8 mg. This is the largest volume imported in more than two years and was a sufficient boost to make South Korea our top market in February. Exports to Canada remained steady at 18.5 mg, while India’s imports dropped 76% (40.4 mg) to 12.8 mg. U.S. ethanol exports to other larger markets softened as well, including Brazil (7.8 mg, -55%), Nigeria (5.0 mg, -44%), Colombia (4.9 mg, -51%), the Philippines (4.9 mg, -64%), and China (4.7 mg, -79%).
For the second consecutive month, the U.S. did not log foreign ethanol imports.
U.S. exports of dried distillers grains (DDGS)—the animal feed co-product generated by dry-mill ethanol plants—shifted 15% lower in February to 779,324 metric tons (mt) and came in 9% below year-ago levels. Exports were down across the board among our top markets, with volumes to Mexico down a third from January to a five-month low of 123,096 mt. Shipments also moderated to Indonesia (81,198 mt, -8%), South Korea (81,019 mt, -23%), and Vietnam (65,563 mt, -25%). Other larger trade partners were Ireland (48,477 mt), Turkey (45,006 mt), Japan (41,340 mt), and Egypt (38,431 mt).
Prices of All Fertilizers Continue Higher
Retail fertilizer prices continued to rise the last week of March 2021, according to sellers surveyed by DTN. But for the first time in many weeks, some fertilizers moved just slightly higher instead of considerably higher. While all eight of the major fertilizer were again higher, only five fertilizers moved significantly higher, which DTN designates as 5% or more.
Continuing to lead the way to the high side was UAN28, which was again up 34% from last month and had an average price of $340 per ton. UAN32 was 24% more expensive compared to the prior month and had an average price of $377/ton. Anhydrous was up 22% compared to last month and had an average price of $685/ton.
10-34-0 was 7% higher compared to the prior month and had average price of $599/ton. Urea was 6% more expensive than the prior month and had an average price of $502/ton. Urea was above the $500/ton level for the first time since the first week of November 2014 when the price was at $500/ton. The remaining three fertilizers were higher again, but these fertilizers saw just slight price increases. MAP had an average price of $697/ton, potash at $429/ton and DAP $618/ton.
On a price per pound of nitrogen basis, the average urea price was at $0.55/lb.N, anhydrous $0.42/lb.N, UAN28 $0.61/lb.N and UAN32 $0.59/lb.N.
With retail fertilizer prices moving higher over recent months, all fertilizers are now higher in price from a year ago. Potash is now 16% more expensive, 10-34-0 is 28% higher, urea is 31% more expensive, UAN32 36% higher, anhydrous is 39% more expensive, UAN28 is 44% higher, DAP is 52% more expensive and MAP 61% is higher compared to last year.
ASA & AFBF: Stepping on Stepped-up Basis Has Big Consequences
Any change in capital gains tax policy that eliminates or scales back stepped-up basis could result in a massive tax burden on the agricultural sector according to new analysis by the American Soybean Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
To minimize the impact of burdensome capital gains taxes, farmers and ranchers use stepped-up basis, which provides a reset for the asset value basis during intergenerational transfers. The magnitude of the tax burden that would be felt if basis is taken away or reduced would likely significantly exceed the annual income generated by the assets, something that has soy and other American farmers concerned.
Kevin Scott, soybean farmer from Valley Springs, South Dakota, and president of ASA said, “What people may not realize is that it could take years of returns to equal the amount of the tax if stepped-up basis is reduced, or worse, eliminated. If we inherit farmland without the step-up to level the playing field for paying capital gains, there is a significant cost to sell the land, which throws off the market for not just farmers but for everyone.”
“The value of farms is tied up in land and equipment, and many hardworking farmers struggle just to make ends meet,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall. “Eliminating stepped-up basis would make passing the family farm to the next generation much more difficult when the capital gains taxes would exceed a farm’s net income in many cases and require years to pay-off. We urge lawmakers to leave stepped-up basis intact to ensure farmers can continue feeding America’s families.”
Scott Gerlt, ASA economist, and John Newton, Farm Bureau chief economist, explain in a joint article released April 7 that heirs facing higher taxes would incur steep costs after bringing the land to market, thereby increasing costs for everyone else in the marketplace. And, if an estate is passed on with debt, it may not be possible for the family to meet the tax obligation. Gerlt and Newton in their analysis offer perspective across the U.S. and give real examples of the damage stepped-up basis changes could cause. Bottom line: Eliminating stepped-up basis to generate more federal income risks the livelihood of America’s family farms and the economic sustainability of these family operations long into the future.
Farm Bureau Supports Preserving Family Farms Act of 2021
AFBF President Zippy Duvall today commented on the introduction of a bill to help more farm families continue their livelihoods after the death of a loved one.
“Estate taxes can have devastating consequences on family farms. The special use valuation is an important tool to help farmers and ranchers navigate the difficult process of estate planning. Next-generation farmers and ranchers should be able to pay based on the actual use of the land, rather than its potential value as commercial property such as an office or warehouse. AFBF is grateful Representatives Panetta and Walorski introduced the Preserving Family Farms Act of 2021, which will help more farm and ranch businesses transition to the next generation. We call on Congress to pass this legislation.”
Background:
The Preserving Family Farms Act of 2021, sponsored by Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), modernizes the special use valuation provision of the estate tax. This valuation allows property to be appraised as farmland rather than its commercial development value when determining estate taxes.
Farm and ranch families who choose to use the special use valuation commit to continue operating their farm or ranch business for 10 years. If they stop farming or ranching, sell the farm or ranch outside of the family, or change the use of their property, they must repay the forgiven estate taxes.
NCBA Delivers Preserving Family Farms Act: A Permanent Solution to a Generational Issue
The Preserving Family Farms Act of 2021 was introduced by U.S. Representatives Jimmy Panetta (CA-20) and Jackie Walorski (IN-2). NCBA has long supported efforts to reduce undue tax burden on farmers and ranchers. This bipartisan legislation to expand IRS Code Section 2032A would allow cattle producers to take advantage of the Special Use Valuation and protect family-owned businesses from the devastating impact of the federal estate tax, commonly referred to as the Death Tax.
“We thank Representatives Panetta and Walorski for their leadership and dedication to protecting future generations of agricultural producers through the introduction of the Preserving Family Farms Act of 2021,” said Jerry Bohn, NCBA president.
The Preserving Family Farms Act increases the maximum amount allowed under the Section 2032A exemption from $750,000 to $11 million (indexed for inflation), thus reviving a critically important tool in the toolbox for farm and ranch families across the U.S. If enacted, this legislation will provide a permanent solution to an issue that has long plagued our nation’s cattle producers.
“America’s farmers and ranchers deserve certainty in the tax code overall, and they need certainty especially when it comes to the estate tax. Without it, transition planning for the next generation of producers is nearly impossible,” Bohn said.
Background:
In the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Congress recognized the disproportionate burden of the Death Tax on agricultural producers and created Section 2032A as a way to help farmers keep their farms. However, the benefits of Special Use Valuations have been stymied over the years as the cap on deductions has failed to keep pace with the rising value of farmland.
While the current 2032A reduction is 55 percent higher than the value established two decades ago, USDA estimates that cropland values have increased by 223 percent. Agricultural land values – including on-farm buildings – have also risen dramatically, increasing by 241 percent during this same period. Due to the rapid inflation of farmland values, the 2032A deduction is no longer aligned with the needs of modern agriculture – nor does it accomplish Congress’ intended goal of providing meaningful protection to those producers who are most vulnerable to the estate tax.
Beef Checkoff: Who’s Who & How It Works
Greg Hanes, CEO, Cattlemen’s Beef Board
Beef. It seems like the kind of commodity that would be simple, straightforward, easy to understand. Except…it’s not. The industry’s long history of organizational splits, reinventions, mergers and aliases — along with the fact that many association names sound similar — is enough to make anybody’s head spin. Even folks from other commodities agree that the beef world is complex, and so is its Checkoff.
For three and a half decades, the Beef Checkoff has existed to promote beef, but unless you are actively engaged in the program, you may not fully understand its management and oversight. Those duties are clearly assigned to the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion & Research Board (aka, Cattlemen’s Beef Board/CBB) by the Beef Promotion and Research Act. Even with completely separate boards, staffs and offices, two common misperceptions remain: the belief that the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) oversees the Checkoff — and that CBB and NCBA are one and the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.
BACKGROUND
The 1985 Farm Bill created the CBB to administer the Beef Checkoff program. Through the dollar-a-head assessment on the sale of all cattle and equivalent amount on imported beef and beef products, each year the CBB funds promotion, research and education proposals presented to the Beef Promotion Operating Committee (BPOC) by established, national, non-profit beef or cattle industry-governed organizations. Once a proposal is approved by the BPOC, the organization becomes a Checkoff “contractor” and conducts the work according to guidelines and program evaluations that ensure proposal objectives are met.
ANSWERING THE BIG QUESTION
By law, absolutely no Checkoff funds can be used for policy or lobbying efforts. That said, the Beef Checkoff’s largest contractor, NCBA, does have a policy division. So, how does that work? Through closely monitored processes and a “firewall” that keeps policy work and Checkoff-funded work separate.
As a trade association representing U.S. cattle producers, NCBA is like a coin with two sides. One side, the Policy Division, works to advance the political interests of its members. Any discussion of NCBA and policy is valid, but that’s NCBA’s Policy Division at play and has nothing to do with the CBB or Checkoff.
The other side of NCBA is qualified to contract with the BPOC to conduct Checkoff promotion, research and education work as an established, national, non-profit beef or cattle industry governed organization. To be clear, it is not the organization’s policy side that competes in this arena.
Just like any other Checkoff contractor, NCBA must adhere to all rules and processes, and its contract work is managed by the CBB. Each year, it must submit Authorization Requests (program proposals) that fully outline the project work it wants to do. It must file progress reports, quarterly oversight evaluations and regular reviews. It can only receive Checkoff dollars on a cost-recovery basis, which means it pays expenses up front and is only reimbursed after the CBB reviews invoices and documentation proving the money was spent appropriately and within the parameters of the Authorization Request. A dedicated compliance officer ensures all provisions of the Act and the Order are followed, that the “firewall” is maintained and that no Checkoff funds are used for policy or lobbying.
For the current fiscal year, the Beef Checkoff has nine contractors:
• American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture (AFBFA)*
• Cattlemen’s Beef Board, which manages the Producer Communications program
• Foundation for Meat & Poultry Research and Education (FMPRE)
• Meat Importers Council of America (MICA)
• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA)*
• National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA)
• North American Meat Institute (NAMI)*
• U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA)*
• U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF)
*Denotes organization with separate policy division; however, no Beef Checkoff funds support policy or lobbying efforts.
So, in a nutshell, the CBB oversees operation of the Beef Checkoff and its contractors, including NCBA. The “beef world” is definitely not uncomplicated, but each organization that does Beef Checkoff-funded work on behalf of producers has a unique area of expertise. In the end, it all contributes to a great big, coordinated effort to drive demand for beef.
USDA Seeks Nominees for the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is seeking nominees for the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board. Nominations are due June 6, 2021, for 32 producer and three importer seats. Appointed members will serve three-year terms beginning February 2022 and ending February 2025.
Vacancies for producer and importer member positions are available in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Mid-Atlantic Unit (South Carolina and West Virginia), Northeast Unit (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont), Southwest Unit (California and Nevada) and Importer Unit.
Any beef producer in the United States who owns cattle or any importer that imports cattle or beef may be nominated. Producers and importers must be nominated by a USDA certified producer organization and submit a completed application. USDA will select appointees from the nominated producers and importers.
Nomination forms and a list of certified producer organizations in each state or unit are available on the AMS Cattlemen’s Beef Board webpage.
Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 and is composed of 101 members representing 34 separate states, four units of geographically grouped states, and one importer unit.
For more information, contact Kahl Sesker at (202) 253-8253 or Kahl.Sesker@usda.gov.
AMS policy is that the diversity of the board should reflect the diversity of their industries in experience of members, methods of production and distribution, marketing strategies, and other distinguishing factors that will bring different perspectives and ideas to the table. When submitting nominations, the industry must consider the diversity of the population served and the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the members to serve a diverse population.
Since 1966, Congress has authorized industry-funded research and promotion boards to provide a framework for agricultural industries to pool resources and combine efforts to develop new markets, strengthen existing markets and conduct important research and promotion activities. AMS provides oversight to 22 boards. The oversight ensures fiscal accountability and program integrity and is paid for by industry assessments.
ICASA Seeks Research to Improve Antibiotic Stewardship in Pigs and Beef Cattle
The International Consortium for Antimicrobial Stewardship in Agriculture (ICASA), one of the largest public-private partnerships focused on antibiotic stewardship in animal agriculture, is issuing two separate calls for research concepts, one to improve detection, treatment and prevention of infectious lameness in pigs and the other to develop new diagnostic methods and technologies that facilitate antibiotic traceability across the beef and pork supply chains. Matching funds are optional for this program.
Mycoplasma hyosynoviae is an organism prevalent in swine herds that can invade the joints and may lead to swelling and lameness. The condition is a major driver of antibiotic use in pigs but is difficult to diagnose by standard laboratory methods. The ICASA Swine Health Working Group is soliciting concepts related to the development of novel diagnostic protocols and procedures to better detect pigs that are infected with M. hyosynoviae, to conduct epidemiological studies, and/or evaluate standard therapeutic strategies that enhance the judicious use of antibiotics for this condition.
Separately, the ICASA Technologies Working Group is seeking projects related to early disease detection, pathogen control or elimination and antibiotic use traceability in beef cattle and pigs. Several states and municipalities require grocers to report numeric data on antibiotic use for meat products. However, producers and suppliers of these products do not have a straightforward method to collect antibiotic use data across their entire supply chains. Additionally, it is unclear how to incentivize the adoption of antibiotic traceability technologies by smaller-scale producers, given the additional time and cost involved in adoption of these tools. ICASA is supporting the development of technologies that may improve antibiotic traceability and economic cost/benefit analyses that consider trade-offs to implementation from multiple perspectives.
“These two calls for research concepts underscore the need for bold research that improves animal health and welfare while supporting farmer profitability,” said the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research’s (FFAR) Advanced Animal Systems Scientific Program Director Dr. Tim Kurt. “The tools, technologies and strategies resulting from ICASA-funded research have the potential for real world impact from producer to consumer.”
Full application details for both opportunities are available on FFAR’s website. Applicants must submit their letter of intent by May 12, 2021. Applications will be reviewed by ICASA participants and will be evaluated on a variety of factors including potential for supply chain implementation, potential for impact, likelihood for successful completion, originality, key personnel qualifications and strength of partnerships.
FFAR created ICASA in 2019 to facilitate research that promotes the judicious use of antibiotics, advances animal health and welfare and increases transparency in food production practices. ICASA improves antibiotic stewardship by building cross-sector partnerships among participants representing all stages of the US livestock supply chain.
Farmers Seek Bigger Voice In Addressing Global Food System Issues
In its ongoing effort to ensure that the voice of U.S. farmers, ranchers and forestland owners is being heard in food system discussions that are continuously taking place on the world stage, Solutions from the Land (SfL) and a group of collaborating agricultural organizations this week held a "dialogue" for producers, who shared their experiences, insight and recommendations in anticipation UN Food Systems Summit (FSS) expected to be held this fall.
Those who actually work the land and forests have been woefully underrepresented in the global negotiations, a shortfall that SfL has been working to overcome. Perhaps the clearest and most-important result of the dialogue was evidence that the farmer voice is essential in development of food and agriculture policy.
Food-system success is inseparable from farmer success. Farmers make the investments and bear the risks of each year’s production. They are directly responsible for food products and are often the ones affected by hunger and malnutrition worldwide. These points lead to a singular conclusion: farmer success equals food system success.
The dialogue, a virtual event, drew together a wide cross section of producers whose work together underlined the importance of building a worldwide coalition of farmer voices that must be heard at the FSS. The participants discussed topics to be considered under an FSS "action track" - "Boost Nature Positive Production at Sufficient Scale." (The track is one of five laid out for the global summit, the date of which has yet to be set.)
This fall's food summit will be the first in 25 years, and stakeholders across the globe are weighing in with their suggestions for changes to our food systems, heightening the need for farmers, ranchers and forestland owners to make their voices heard now and often,
Specifically, the action track under the focus of Tuesday's discussion aims to deepen understanding among global negotiators of the constraints and opportunities facing farmers and enterprises along the food value chain. The track is also designed to support food system governance that better realigns the incentives that can enhance productivity, improve resilience, reduce food losses, mitigate climate change and address other global challenges.
Within those parameters, dialogue participants offered personal recommendations aimed at optimizing the use of environmental resources in food production, processing and distribution, all in a way that reduces the loss of biodiversity, pollution, water use, soil degradation and greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. The event offered the experience for growers to learn from each other on ways to improve efficiency and provide stability to our food system.
Discussion Tuesday also included 24 proposed "solutions" offered by the FSS Action Track 3 team that could bring greater stability to the global food system, divided among three functions: protect, manage and restore. For example, in the "protect" column was a call to achieve a just transition to sustainable agriculture through policy reform and public support. Among the recommendations under the "manage" header is a call for the adoption of regenerative agricultural practices for resilient landscapes at scale. Included in the proposals in the "restore" column is a measure that calls for the revival of grassland, shrublands and savannahs through extensive livestock-based feeding systems.
Another key takeaway from Tuesday's dialogue is that operations must be profitable for ag lands to deliver on food security and contribute to other sustainable development goals, like restoring clean water, producing clean energy and stemming climate change. Dialogue participants also called for increased investment in agricultural research, the promotion of innovation and technology pathways that are key to continuing improvements, and the reform of conflicting regulations that present a significant barrier to food systems security.
The event also underscored the reality that growers can learn from each other, sharing ways to improve efficiency and other means to attain sustainability.
Farmers face accusations of environmental degradation, yet they are the vanguard of adapting the holistic "circle of life" to modern agriculture. In Tuesday's dialogue, several farmers shared personal experiences of meetings with environmental regulators that ended with their better understanding the need for regulation and regulators understanding how to work with farmers rather than against them.
The dialogue drew American farmers who believe that their innovation – and their collaborative approach to change – can translate to other farmers and other cultures around the world. SfL appreciated the opportunity to facilitate this timely discussion and invites farmers and livestock producers across the globe to join us in advancing pragmatic solutions from the land.
Groups Urge Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Stay with FDA not USDA
This week, thirteen national advocacy groups concerned about public health, environment, and animal welfare urged key federal agencies to maintain regulatory authority over genetically engineered food animals within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In response to a Trump U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposal to withdraw most of the FDA’s regulatory authority over genetically engineered animals, including fish, and transfer that authority to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the groups sent letters to U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS) Secretary Becerra and USDA Secretary Vilsack urging them to maintain authority of genetically engineered animals within FDA.
“Despite concerns that FDA still needs to develop final regulations on genetically engineered animals, FDA possesses the scientific and administrative capacities to regulate these animals better than USDA,” said Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the Center for Food Safety. “President Biden has said that his Administration will be science-based. Leaving genetically engineered animal regulation to the FDA is the science-based approach here.”
USDA’s administrative action took the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)—signed on January 13, 2021, by former USDA Secretary Perdue and HHS Assistant Secretary for Health, Dr. Brett Giroir—and was subsequently posted on the APHIS website. However, although HHS did sign the MOU, the MOU has not been posted on FDA’s website, which means that the MOU is not currently in effect, as it states, “This agreement will become effective when signed by both parties and made publicly available on the USDA and FDA websites.”
FDA’s inaction signaled the last-minute effort by Secretary Perdue to deregulate genetically engineered animals was rejected by the FDA Commissioner. On January 11, FDA Commissioner Hahn told HHS leadership that he refused to sign the MOU, according to Politico, “amid concerns about its legality and the potential health repercussions of relaxing oversight of certain genetically altered products.” One senior administration official told POLITICO that the White House was behind the sudden push for approval. Career FDA lawyers opposed the MOU, but were overruled by HHS’ political appointees. The MOU is part and parcel of other Trump administrative initiatives to weaken FDA’s authority to protect public health.
The groups behind the letters share Commissioner Hahn’s concerns and are urging HHS Secretary Becerra to ask Secretary Vilsack to instruct USDA officials to remove the MOU from the APHIS website, since it is not in effect. Additionally, the groups are urging Secretary Becerra to order the HHS Office of the General Counsel to evaluate the legality of the MOU in the context of FDA’s statutory authorities and scientific capacity to regulate and conduct pre-market and post-market risk assessment of genetically engineered animals and fish.
“Genetically engineered animals are a significant new threat to our food system. With the GMO salmon company AquaBounty looking for buyers, the FDA must urgently strengthen its regulations to fully evaluate GMO animals for public health and environmental safety,” said Dana Perls, program manager for Friends of the Earth’s emerging tech program. “Handing authority over to the USDA will dilute the already-weak GMO animal regulations and exacerbate harm to farmers and the environment.”
Secretary Perdue, in announcing the MOU, repeated meat industry arguments that FDA’s safety-oriented regulatory approach impedes rapid commercialization of genetically engineered animals. The industry demands, in the words of the National Pork Producers Council, “regulatory certainty” to expedite investment in and commercialization of GE animals, especially swine. However, reassigning regulatory authority to an agency avid to market genetically engineered animal products worldwide is very likely to compromise the scientific integrity of the risk assessment of these animals.
“USDA must not encroach on the FDA’s clear authority and competence to conduct risk assessments on the processes of genetic engineering applied to agricultural animals and fish,” said Dr. Steve Suppan, policy analyst at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “If importing country authorities believe that USDA has usurped FDA authority over genetically engineered animals, the reputation and sales of U.S. agricultural exporters will likely suffer. “
The thirteen groups that signed the letters are Center for Food Safety, A Greener World, American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Food and Water Watch, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, International Center for Technology Assessment, National Family Farm Coalition, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, and World Animal Protection.
No comments:
Post a Comment