Tuesday March 25 Ag News

IANR Listening Sessions

The Institute of Ag and Natural Resources (IANR) will be hosting a series of listening sessions across the state regarding meeting the demand of Nebraska’s agricultural workforce. Below are the dates / times with a request to RSVP by clicking on the link.  

    Community Listening Session - Norfolk - https://nuramp.nebraska.edu/ems/event.php?EMSEventUUID=433d4de7-ca3d-4892-a435-f3a210a2fd85
    April 8, 2025
    6:30 pm to 8:00 pm
    TBD
    Norfolk, NE

    Community Listening Session - Fremont - https://nuramp.nebraska.edu/ems/event.php?EMSEventUUID=bfc44ef6-8021-49cf-bb21-0ed19c841e2a
    April 9, 2025
    11:30 am to 1:00 pm
    Fremont Golf Club
    2710 N Somers Ave, Fremont, NE 68025

Other listening sessions ar being held in Grand Island, Valentine, Scottsbluff, Ogallala, Beatrice, and Curtis.  



Different Time, Different Market . . .
NeFB Newsletter

Sustainable Beef, a rancher-owned beef processing facility in North Platte, is set to open this spring. The facility is expected to process 1,500 head of cattle per day, roughly 40 truckloads, and ship 22-26 truckloads of beef when fully operational. The genesis for the facility was spawned a few years ago when cattle producer frustrations with the processing sector were widespread. At the time cattle were plenty, cattle prices were low, and beef cutout prices were relatively high. Plant shutdowns and slowdowns due to COVID, fires, and cyber-attacks were a frequent occurrence. Cattle producers were losing money. Processors were generating record profits.

Fast forward to today and market conditions are vastly different. Cattle numbers have declined to multi-decade lows, cattle prices have hit record highs, and retail beef prices are even higher. Today, ranchers are experiencing record profits. Feedlots have opportunities for positive returns. Now it’s the processors who are unprofitable. Drovers reported in February that beef packers saw operating losses of $174 per head. Other reports have suggested processor losses exceed $200 per head.  

The turnabout has market observers asking different questions today compared to a few years ago. A few years ago, it was the financial health of ranchers and feeders and the competitiveness of cattle markets being questioned. Now the questions center on how long processors can absorb the losses, especially smaller processors, before plants shut down. Dennis Smith of Archer Financials says packers are facing the perfect storm, “the fundamental issue right now is the deeply red packer processing margins . . . Their strategy for months has been to control throughput, slowing the chain speed, propping up the cutout and forcing weights upward. But this strategy has never resulted in profitable margins.” Stephen Koontz, livestock economist at Colorado State University adds, “Packer margins have been tight for several years and there is little in the supply outlook to imply relief. The surprise will likely be reduced packing capacity sometime in the next several years. Which plants and what regions?”

Sustainable Beef will begin operations in a market particularly difficult for processors. The timing of a turn in the cattle cycle and growth in the cow herd is unknown. But when it does, it will take 2-3 years for cattle numbers to reflect the turn. Thus, the stress on processors will continue for the foreseeable future. Sustainable Beef’s unique features like its cattle purchasing (allowing cattle producers to invest in the project through providing animals and buying shackle space) and attracting Walmart as an investor and customer should help it weather this phase of the cattle cycle. Still, reduced processing capacity appears a certainty.



Iowa Corn Farmers Celebrate Iowa Ag Week  

Yesterday marked the beginning of Iowa Ag Week, and Iowa corn farmers are excited to highlight the important role that agriculture plays in helping our state thrive. This annual celebration shines a spotlight on the contributions of farmers and the agricultural community that support our state’s economy and heritage.

Each year, Iowa’s corn farmers grow over 2.5 billion bushels of corn, adding over $16 billion back into the state’s economy. With over 86,900 farms in Iowa, 97% of those being family-owned, farm families are working hard to supply corn around the world. That is why Iowa Corn invests in research, market development and education, striving to continue finding new uses and markets for Iowa grown corn.

"We like to say, you may think Iowa just grows corn. But the truth is corn grows Iowa,” said Stu Swanson, President of the Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) and a farmer from Galt, Iowa. “Iowa leads the nation in growing corn that is used for livestock feed, fiber and renewable ethanol fuel. We grow more corn than we can use just in Iowa, which is why it’s important that we add value to each kernel by feeding it to livestock to become delicious corn-fed meat, dairy and poultry products. Value is also added when corn is processed into ethanol fuel for a cleaner-burning, more affordable option at the pump and the by-product from ethanol is a high-protein livestock feed ingredient. Corn is used in over 4,000 everyday products so it impacts not just every Iowa farmer’s life but all of our lives as Iowans.”

Iowa Corn invites all Iowans to join in the celebration of Iowa Ag Week as we recognize and appreciate the dedication of those who continue to grow the food, feed, fiber, and fuel we all rely on. To show your support, consider:  
    Fueling your car with homegrown, cleaner burning and more affordable Unleaded 88
    Purchasing corn-fed pork, beef, poultry, and dairy products  
    Supporting local FFA and 4-H chapters  
    Following Iowa Corn on Facebook and Instagram to help promote farmer stories  
    Thanking those you know who work in Iowa agriculture  

Iowa farmers and agriculturalists are stewards of the land, innovators in technology, and leaders in their communities. This week, and every week, we appreciate and value their commitment to agriculture. To learn more, visit: https://www.iowacorn.org.



Livestock Risk Protection plan offers risk management alternatives for cattle producers

Cattle producers looking for tools to add to their risk management plans might want to consider Livestock Risk Protection. Just as the name says, LRP is price protection for livestock, not insurance against death, sickness, or anything else. Zach Tindall, Vice-President of Commodities - Producers Livestock, said the downside risk protection offered by the program can be a beneficial addition, especially because it leaves the top side of the market open.

Tindall, who spoke at the 2025 Feedlot Forum in northwest Iowa, said with current market highs and near highs for feeder cattle and live cattle, using LRP as a guarantee against lower prices is worth thinking about now.

“The money spent per head is a small percentage compared to the overall price of those animals,” he said. “With the volatility within the cattle market, we will see big swings higher and lower, and this insurance gives peace of mind to lower markets.”

Those not familiar with LRP might find it easier to compare with a Chicago Mercantile Exchange put option. A livestock producer can choose a time period, coverage price, and cost that fits them or satisfies the protection they are looking for, and to protect a specific number of head and weight, Tindall explained.

Unlike the CME, the LRP premium isn’t due until the end of the endorsement, the producer gets to build and customize the size of their risk protection, and it gives smaller producers and especially the cow-calf sector of the industry a better way to protect their livestock, he said. Most of the time the LRP for feeder cattle will be cheaper per cwt than a put option.

If you’re interested in learning more about the coverage, including how it works, what it does, and how it operates, there’s a lot of information available online. However, Tindall cautioned that the guidelines change a little every year and outdated details don’t always get removed in a timely manner. And although the USDA’s Risk Management Agency has the official handbook for the program, speaking with someone who sells this insurance is best.

“A lot of the ins and outs of the program are learned by using the programs and going through them,” Tindall said. “At Producers Livestock, we have information we can provide, and we send out quotes daily. If someone wants to know what could have happened if they had LPR coverage in place, we have coverage pricing, dates, and ending values to help with that comparison.”

He encouraged producers to contact him directly with questions and program detail requests for LRP and for the Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) program.

“I’m happy to answer questions and can provide information on how LRP and/or LGM works. Also, I can get them signed up so they can place coverage on livestock and receive daily quotes,” he said. “Call me at 712-541-9992 or email me at ztindall@plmcoop.com.”



National PQA Plus Program Updates to Version 6 This Summer

The national Pork Quality Assurance Plus program works on a continuous improvement three-year cycle, which allows for new research and collected data from site assessments to help shape focus areas for the next version. The next version of the program, PQA Plus 6.0, will be released at the 2025 World Pork Expo in June.

State trainers are receiving their training and education this spring, and will be able to begin certifying PQA advisors in May. Because the content of this newly revised program has changed significantly, advisors who are currently certified also must successfully complete a 6.0 session to maintain that certification, according to Iowa State University Extension and Outreach swine veterinarian Chris Rademacher.

“All current PQA Plus advisor certifications will expire on Aug. 31 of this year, regardless of when the advisor most recently certified through the 5.0 program,” Rademacher said. “These advisors can either complete the recertification online or at an in-person training.”

People with expired PQA advisor certification status and those who wish to become certified for the first time will need to attend an in-person session.

To help meet this industry need, Iowa Pork Industry Center has scheduled three advisor certification sessions for 2025 led by certified PQA Plus trainers Rademacher and ISU animal science professor Anna Johnson.

May 19 and Sept. 8 sessions are offered virtually, the June 20 session is in-person in Ames. All sessions will run approximately six hours including final exam, with registration at 8:30 a.m. Central time and the session beginning at 9 a.m. Central time. Six management CEUs have been approved by the Iowa Board of Veterinary Medicine.

No individual spot is guaranteed until the application is approved and payment is accepted by IPIC. The cost is $100 per person and is due upon notice of approval.

Please see the schedule, qualifications and links to session application forms on the PQA page on IPIC’s website https://www.ipic.iastate.edu/pqatqa.html.



Broad Agriculture Coalition Urges Congress to Permanently Extend Section 199A Tax Provisions

Nearly 270 farm groups, agribusiness associations, and farmer cooperatives are calling on Congress to permanently extend the expiring provisions of Section 199A as lawmakers advance the federal budget process.

In a joint letter to Congress, the coalition emphasized the critical role Section 199A plays in maintaining the competitiveness of farmer co-ops and their members against corporations that benefited from the permanently reduced corporate tax rate under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

“Section 199A has been instrumental in ensuring that farmer cooperatives and their members can compete on a level playing field. Each year, co-ops pass approximately 95% of the benefit—more than $2 billion—directly back to farmers across rural America,” the letter states. “This deduction has driven job creation, economic growth, and rural investment. It has provided vital support to producers as they navigate unprecedented challenges, including a pandemic, global instability, extended periods of low commodity prices, and the highest inflation in a generation.”

Without congressional action, Section 199A—along with many other provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act affecting farmers—will expire at the end of 2025. The expiration would result in a significantly higher tax burden for farmers and ranchers nationwide. Making Section 199A permanent is essential to providing cooperatives and their members with financial certainty in an increasingly unpredictable economic environment.



NPPC Wants USDA to Reconsider Climate-Smart Agriculture Rule
 
The National Pork Producers Council has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reconsider a proposed regulation on “climate-smart agriculture” (CSA) crops used as biofuel feedstocks because it fails to consider manure’s role in providing a renewable source of crop nutrient and reducing greenhouse gases.
 
On January 17, which was the last business day of the Biden Administration, USDA published an interim rule to establish guidelines for quantifying, reporting, and verifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to the production of biofuel feedstock crops. The rule covers CSA practices that could reduce GHG emissions or sequester carbon, including reduced till and no-till, cover crops, and nutrient management, such as the use of nitrification inhibitors. Despite numerous comments to the agency urging it to recognize the important role in crop production manure plays as “not only the original sustainable and organic renewable resource but also as a superior soil conditioner,”  USDA’s Office of Energy and Environmental Policy decided to not recognize the use of manure nutrients as a climate smart practice under the regulation.
 
NPPC wants USDA to reconsider the rulemaking and the process for developing CSA technical guidelines. It pointed out in its comments that “[m]anure is the original closed-loop recycled nutrient and the preferred source of nutrients by countless farmers across the country.”
 
The organization also noted that agronomically sound use of manure rather than commercial nitrogen fertilizer to produce crops reduces the net carbon intensity (CI) score of the feedstock being produced. “This practice must be included in the list of practices for which … Cl scores are calculated,” NPPC stated, pointing out that manure use has other environmental benefits, including improved soil health, better nutrient cycling, and support for a more circular economy, where “wastes” are put to productive and efficient uses.
 
Current scientific literature shows that replacing some amount of commercial fertilizers with manure maintains annual crop yields, increases soil organic carbon storage, reduces GHG emissions, and reduces crops’ carbon footprint.



Soybean Farmer Testifies Before USTR on Agriculture’s Concerns Over China Shipbuilding Investigation

Indiana soybean farmer and American Soybean Association director Mike Koehne testified before the United States Trade Representative on the office’s Section 301 investigation into China’s targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance. Koehne’s voice before USTR was especially significant because ASA was the only agriculture commodity group represented in which testimony specifically addressed concerns about the direct impacts of the proposal on U.S. agriculture.

In addition to serving on the ASA Board of Directors, Koehne is on the U.S. Soybean Export Council board and is chairman of the Soy Transportation Coalition. The first-generation farmer shared how he is personally dependent on maritime commerce, explaining that some of his crops are shipped by barge down the Ohio River before ending up on a bulk vessel in the Gulf. The soybeans he grows are shipped by container because they are premium-based commodities—specialty products based specifically on their export markets, namely Japan and Taiwan.

“With its inland waterways, rail, and roadways, I believe our transportation system is our competitive edge. ASA supports the goal of increasing domestic shipbuilding capacity to aid in the export of U.S. agriculture. However, the proposed solution offered by USTR in this investigation creates unintended consequences for soybean farmers like me. We have already seen negative impacts on the futures prices for soybeans because of market reactions to this proposal,” Koehne explained in verbal testimony.

One of the greatest determining factors for U.S. soybean prices is the landed price of goods in destination markets. The landed price includes the cost of goods (such as soybeans), insurance, and freight. USTR’s proposed solution to counter China’s shipbuilding industry would significantly increase freight rates for U.S. soy and soy products, in turn making the landed price of U.S. soy products less desirable compared to beans from Brazil and Argentina—U.S. soy’s largest competitors in the export market.

America’s agriculture producers are already suffering from a down farm economy. While they support efforts to boost American manufacturing and develop a thriving domestic maritime economy, farmers cannot take on the additional financial burden USTR’s remedies, as proposed, would inflict.

Koehne connected the dots on what the USTR plan would mean for soy prices: “Imposing port fees on most of the maritime fleet that exports from and imports to the U.S. will increase costs for U.S. farmers—both in terms of inputs like fertilizer, seed, etc., and getting crops to market. At the same time, our competitors in Brazil and Argentina will not be subject to the same regulations. While well-intended, this proposal would ensure U.S. soybeans will bear higher costs and be less competitive in the global marketplace.”

As the #1 agriculture export in the U.S., soybean farmers rely on an efficient maritime commerce system to move their crop to market. ASA urges USTR to work with domestic industries to set long-term goals that increase U.S. maritime competitiveness without negatively impacting U.S. agriculture.



NCGA Calls for Exemptions on Shipping Restrictions

The president of National Corn Growers Association today asked the Trump administration to grant exemptions on bulk shipments for America’s commodity groups as it considers implementing fees against Chinese vessels to level the playing field between U.S. and Chinese shipbuilders.  

The request came through comments submitted by Illinois farmer and NCGA President Kenneth Hartman Jr. to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, which is part of the administration.

“Corn farmers are currently facing numerous challenges in the farm economy, including rising input costs, volatility in commodity prices, and stagnant market access opportunities,” Hartman said. “Adding further financial strain through higher transportation costs could result in more instability for our members, particularly those who depend on global export markets to remain competitive.”

The restrictions are an outgrowth of the Trump administration’s efforts to address a report showing China has given its shipbuilding and maritime industry an unfair advantage through financial support, barriers for foreign firms, intellectual property theft, procurement policies and forced technology transfers.

To address the issue, the Office of the United States Trade Representative issued a proposal that would impose steep restrictions on Chinese operators and U.S. carriers using Chinese-made ships. The restrictions could include fees of up to $1 million per U.S. port call servicing Chinese operators and fees up to $1.5 million per entry for all Chinese-built vessels, scaled based on the percentage of an operator’s fleet built in China.
 
The proposed fees are expected to increase the cost of transporting bulk grain, which includes corn. According to a Market Intel by the American Farm Bureau Federation, these exporters could face an additional $372 million to $930 million in annual transportation costs. These costs could translate to an additional $.34 to $.64 per bushel of corn, which is almost always passed down to the farmer.

Additional shipping costs couldn’t come at a worse time for corn growers.

“Corn farmers are currently facing numerous challenges in the farm economy, including rising input costs, volatility in commodity prices, and stagnant market access opportunities,” Hartman noted. “Adding further financial strain through higher transportation costs could result in more instability for our members, particularly those who depend on global export markets to remain competitive.”

While NCGA supports initiatives to strengthen American manufacturing and shipbuilding capabilities, Hartman said, an exemption for bulk grain shipments would allow the U.S. to address the problems caused by the Chinese government without hurting America’s farmers.



U.S. grain and feed industry opposes proposed export penalties

In comments submitted today to the U.S. Trade Representative, the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) opposed a government proposal to levy steep fines and restrictions on exporters that use Chinese-made ships. It encouraged the USTR to seek alternative methods to boost U.S. shipbuilding.

“Though well intentioned, this proposal threatens to impose significant costs on U.S. grain and oilseed exporters and erode America’s competitiveness in the international market,” explained NGFA President and CEO Mike Seyfert.

The industry’s comments, which were filed jointly with the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) and the National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA), were in response to a USTR Section 301 investigation into China’s dominance over global shipping and shipbuilding.

Proposed penalties include fines of up to $1.5 million for each Chinese-made ship that enters a U.S. port, up to $1 million per port call for Chinese operators, and up to $1 million for operators with orders from Chinese shipyards. The USTR’s plan would also set minimum amounts that carriers must export on U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged vessels.

“If enacted, this proposal would effectively eliminate half of the global bulk fleet that we need to export almost one-third of grains and oilseeds that are produced in America,” Seyfert explained. “That puts U.S. agriculture at a considerable competitive disadvantage in global markets. We are already seeing disruptions in the marketplace since the proposal was put forward, including lost sales and difficulty contracting ships.”

There are approximately 21,000 vessels in the world’s bulk shipping fleet, nearly 50 percent of which were made in China. Only five ships currently operating in the global fleet were built in America, or 0.2 percent.

Container vessels, which were used to export about $9 billion of grain and oilseeds in 2024, are also important to agricultural shippers and would be severely affected by the proposal, Seyfert said.

NGFA is asking the administration to consider other ways to promote the U.S. maritime industry, such as shipbuilding grants, tax credits, and reduced regulations. However, if the USTR moves forward with proposed penalties, NGFA wants agricultural commodities exempted.

“Without an exemption we could see a significant drop in corn, soybean, and wheat exports,” Seyfert concluded. “That jeopardizes the $65 billion trade surplus America enjoys on U.S. grains and oilseeds and hurts all of U.S. agriculture, from the exporters to the farmers.”

The groups estimate that an additional $1 million fee on vessels carrying agricultural exports would increase costs of most shipments between $15 and $40 per metric ton, which equates to about $0.50 to $1.25 per bushel.

Grain and oilseed exports support 450,000 American jobs and add $174 billion to the U.S. economy, according to the groups’ testimony,



Is This the Start of Something Big?
David Anderson, Extension Specialist – Livestock and Food Product Marketing, Texas A&M University

Is this the start of something or is it just normal month-to-month gyrations in cattle feedlot placements and marketing? USDA released its latest cattle on feed report on Friday, March 21st, indicating some large, but not unexpected, swings compared to a year ago.

Placements in February 2025 were 17.8 percent, or 336,000 head, smaller than those of February 2024. It was the smallest placements for any month since June 2016 and the smallest for a February since 2015. The exceptionally large placements in 2024 meant that this year’s decline was going to look big. The number of cattle going through the CME feeder cattle index during the month was down 39 percent compared to last year. Combined with fewer cattle from Mexico impacting Southern feedlots and the placements were lower. But placements were small enough to begin some thinking about whether this might be the beginning of placements indicated herd rebuilding given that they were the fewest since the last herd rebuilding in 2015. It’s probably too early to tell. The data on the number of heifers on feed in the next report might give us some better evidence.

Feedlot marketings were 9 percent lower than those of February 2024. About half of the percentage point decline was due to last year being a leap year so there was one less working day in the month this year. Daily average marketings accounts for the number of days and it was 81,650 head in February compared to 85,380 head last year.

Combined marketings and placements leave cattle on feed 2.2 percent smaller than a year ago. That is certainly moving total supplies more in line with the smaller cow herd. Reduced marketings contributed to an increase in the number of cattle on feed longer than 120 and 90 days than last year. So, while the total number on feed is moving in the right direction there are ample near-term supplies of fed cattle.