13:55:00
05/21/2013
By Pam Smith
DTN Progressive Farmer Crops Technology Editor
CHAPIN, Ill. (DTN) -- Dean Werries monitored everything that mattered to him from his tractor cab last week. No less than eight monitors surrounded him, constantly spewing information to indicate corn was being seeded in a precise fashion.
With one ear trained on the beeps and warning alerts associated with corn planting, he turned the other to the radio and the broadcast of his daughter's softball game. "It's killing me not to be there," said Werries. "I don't miss very many, but a year like this, you've just got to roll."
And roll they did. Work shifts allowed Werries and his father, John, to keep a planter in the field 24 hours a day last week. As of Monday, the west-central Illinois father-son duo had planted nearly 3,500 acres despite rain events that have delayed them off and on all spring.
The planting progress of this past week is testimony to how small the planting window can be and still get the job done. According to reports released Monday, planting progress is now only 8 percentage points behind the five-year average, an average that includes last year's blistering 95% planted rate.
Using USDA's 97.3 million acre corn planting projection, DTN Senior Analyst Darin Newsom estimated more than 41.8 million acres were planted last week.
Dean Werries said planting comes faster these days with larger equipment and technology such as auto guidance that makes the work less grueling. "Some days are better than others, but we can generally get 425 acres planted in a day," Dean said.
Comparing that to prior years isn't as easy as it sounds. The farm now uses a 24-row planter, compared to a 16-row planter in previous years. The use of starter fertilizer slows the process some, though, because of time required to refill tanks.
The Werries farm is participating in a GroundBreaker trial for Monsanto's FieldScripts program this year. FieldScripts is a prescription planting system that bases plant populations on soil type and tweaks over-all planting practices. However, the farmers have been headed down that path for several years.
"Because of all the guidance equipment and the feedback from our 20/20 precision monitor, we are now planting slower -- 4.5 miles per hour (mph) compared to 5.5 mph in earlier years," Dean said. On the other hand, they've shaved time by using mostly refuge-in-a-bag products this year, which eliminate the time-consuming process of planting a separate insect refuge. The Werries also use a strip-planting tillage system that lets them trim field operations and avoid time required for tillage.
"When the machinery company ads first came out claiming guidance systems reduced stress, I thought they were full of it," Dean said. "However, I now realize how grueling it was to keep looking over your shoulder and monitor planting operations the old way."
The permanent tracks saved are especially helpful in years like this, said John. "You can enter a field at night and actually know where you are. It allows us to safely and accurately run a whole lot more hours," he said.
"It's definitely less stressful," Dean said of new guidance technology. "You can concentrate on what the planter is doing rather than things like trying to plant a straight row."
It also frees his hands up to root and cheer Elisabeth's ball team on to victory from the tractor seat, too.
Pamela Smith can be reached at pamela.smith@telventdtn.com
(AG/SK)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
12:28:00
05/21/2013
By Richard Oswald
DTN Special Correspondent
LANGDON, Mo. (DTN) -- When God created Earth, He made it 24,901 miles in circumference. While the size of the planet hasn't changed, its hungry population has grown steadily. Feeding so many hungry mouths can be tiring. That's the reality faced by farmers everywhere, including View From the Cab farmers William "Shep" Sheppard of Louisiana, Mo., and Kane Bercaw of Union City, Mich.
Kane is starting to feel the pressure. "I'm tired. We've been pushing pretty hard getting stuff in," he told DTN late Sunday.
Spring planting weather has changed from frosty to warm. "It was 87 degrees (Fahrenheit) Sunday afternoon," he said.
From too cool and wet to too dry. That's what Kane faces as he prepares to irrigate in case forecast rain fails to materialize. Warm weather and dry planting conditions belie the fact that last week's cold left its mark on the tomato crop. "We ended up losing two-thirds of our tomatoes to the frost (last week)," Kane said. Damaged tomato acreage must be "scuffed" with a 15-foot field cultivator, run shallow enough to avoid disturbing previously applied herbicide, and then replanted.
The pressure is always there. Kane and his partners at B&V Farms work hard to keep up. "We do everything ourselves, plus 1,200 acres for my father-in-law." That includes tomatoes, green beans, seed corn, field corn and soybeans.
Perhaps one of Kane's most pressing jobs right now is seed corn production. While growing the world population seems an easy thing to do, growing seed corn can be a tricky business. Female plants must be planted alongside male plants so that pollination comes off without a hitch. It takes serious planning.
Male and female plants are sowed in separate rows. In order to broaden the pollination window, only a percentage of male plants are planted initially -- about 60%. Once the field has amassed 150 heat units, the other 40% of the pollen-shedding plants are seeded. (Heat units, also referred to as growing degree days, are a measurement of corn maturity.) But there's more to it than that: "We've had fields where a couple of hours made the difference between the crop pollinating or not. For instance, in one field, Spencer planted 1 3/4 deep. I had to go 2 inches (because the soil had dried) and had to allow for additional emergence time," Kane explained. He added, "Pollination is the biggest thing for seed corn because that determines yield and production."
From space, planet Earth may seem like a perfect ball. With boots on the ground, Shep knows there are definitely highs and lows. For instance, his low-lying river-bottom land along the Mississippi tributary Salt River is still too wet for field work. Corn acres have been downsized to match that reality. "Here once you get past the 10th of June, you're coming up against the frost date, looking at having a lot of wet corn," Shep said.
Upland is a different story, where well-drained soil finally became workable last week ... for a while. "I got started planting beans Friday at about 2:30 (p.m.)," Shep told DTN. "Got rained out about 5:00."
Since then, soil conditions have improved so that anhydrous ammonia can be applied to some planned corn fields. One custom applicator pulling a 19-knife tool bar (47 1/2 feet wide) is doing the work, supplemented by a full-time man whose sole job is to supply fresh nurse tanks of ammonia. As of Sunday, they'd already applied over 600 acres. Shep's neighbors have been working just as hard. "I'd say people around here have started rolling. Quite a few guys have finished corn over the weekend -- unless they're on the river bottom. I think the majority of our corn here has gone in the last four days," Shep told DTN late Sunday.
Few people realize the time-consuming downside of farming productive river-bottom land. That's cleaning up stuff left behind by rampaging rivers. "We've been picking up debris and corn stalk piles from flooded fields," Shep said.
One thing the wet spring has been good for is wet-baling fescue hay. "We ended up with 80 bales on Tuesday," Shep said. If things go according to plan, the field will make enough regrowth for grazing later on, or another cutting of hay. Depending on summer weather, forage may be important later in the year. That's because with the arrival of 100 more yearlings, pastures are stocked. About 150 head of the entire herd are left to be vaccinated and turned out.
Last week, DTN Staff Reporter Russ Quinn wrote about the possibility of additional regulation of fertilizer storage in the wake of a massive explosion at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas. For the record, DTN asked Shep and Kane how some proposed changes might affect their ability to feed the hungry world.
Though they have no on-farm storage, Shep notes they've been using ammonium nitrate fertilizer on his farm, Pike Grain, for a long time without any issues. He concedes no one would want 1,000 tons of AN stored near their home, and sets a high priority on containment systems meant to protect the environment.
That's because in Shep's neck of the woods, one big fish-killing spill can find its way to a major river in short order.
On the other hand, cost-conscious farmers must consider a bottom line raised higher by government oversight. "Anytime you have new regulations or another law passed, the price goes up," he said.
B&V Farms stores small amounts of fertilizer on site. Kane sees inevitable regulation as a given. That may end up being something good with a downside. "I think regulation in that area may not be a bad idea, but I think they are going to blow it completely out of proportion," he said. One way that might happen would be through higher-priced substitutes packaged in individual bags or too much focus on unrealistically small amounts of product.
Given the size of most modern farming operations, adequate available fertilizer tonnage when needed, where needed, is crucial to meeting world food demand.
"I don't think they understand the consequences of limiting AN to 25 tons per facility. We could come in with our semi and pick that much up in an hour," Kane said.
(AG/SK)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
12:27:00
05/21/2013
By Russ Quinn
DTN Staff Reporter
OMAHA (DTN) -- Retail fertilizer prices are continuing to hold steady, according to data tracked by DTN for the second week of May 2013. Retailers expected some price movements in different forms of nitrogen, but that has yet to emerge.
Six of the eight major fertilizers were lower compared to last month, but these moves to the low side were fairly slight. DAP had average price of $613 per ton, MAP $655/ton, potash $582/ton, urea $568/ton, anhydrous $846/ton and UAN28 $400/ton.
The remaining two fertilizers were higher compared to the second week of April, but again the move higher was extremely negligible. 10-34-0 had an average price of $613/ton and UAN32 $449/ton.
On a price per pound of nitrogen basis, the average urea price was at $0.62/lb.N, anhydrous $0.52/lb.N, UAN28 $0.71/lb.N and UAN32 $0.70/lb.N.
Rabobank International Food & Agribusiness Research and Advisory (FAR) group reported late last week that cool and wet weather in much of the Midwest has delayed the normal cycle of fertilizer restocking, which could bring uncertainty to the 2013 second-quarter fertilizer markets. The report added that the pace of fertilizer demand is now increasing and a pick-up in global trading activity is expected.
"Across most regions, a financial incentive to maximize production is driving a large planting, which will lead to a predominately neutral price outlook," Sterling Liddell, senior vice present with the FAR group, said in a press release. "However, there are some uncertainties regarding policy, which will ultimately impact market sentiment. As a result, buyers will be cautious, but eventually, global purchasers will need to lock in fertilizer supply contracts."
Rabobank reported global urea prices have started to wane because of the delayed field work combined with oversupply. The Rabobank outlook for urea in Q2 2013 is neutral to negative.
Phosphate prices are expected to increase slightly, with various factors limiting demand, according to the report. U.S. farmers applied significant amounts of MAP/DAP in the fall 2012, which will result in lower demand this spring. In addition, several years of strong commodity prices have pushed farmers to restore P levels in their soils.
Lower international potash prices are directly related to the renegotiation of new supply contracts with importers in China and India. Farmers in India are willing to reduce potash applications because of high prices, but demand is expected to increase in South America and parts of Asia, the reported stated.
Only one of the eight major fertilizers is showing a price increase compared to one year earlier. Anhydrous is now 11% higher compared to last year.
Four fertilizers are a single digit lower in price compared to May 2012. DAP is 4% lower, MAP is down 5%, UAN28 is 7% less expensive and UAN32 is 9% lower compared to last year.
The remaining three fertilizers are now down double digits from a year ago. Potash is now down 12% while 10-34-0 is 22% less expensive and urea is 25% lower.
DTN collects roughly 1,600 retail fertilizer bids from 330 retailer locations weekly. Not all fertilizer prices change each week. Prices are subject to change at any time.
DTN Pro Grains subscribers can find current retail fertilizer price in the DTN Fertilizer Index on the Fertilizer page under Farm Business.
Retail fertilizer charts dating back to November 2008 are available in the DTN fertilizer segment. The charts included cost of N/lb., DAP, MAP, potash, urea, 10-34-0, anhydrous, UAN28 and UAN32.
DTN's average of retail fertilizer prices from the second week of the month ($ per ton).
| DRY |
| Date Range |
DAP |
MAP |
POTASH |
UREA |
| May 14-18 2012 |
638.68 |
689.37 |
664.91 |
760.76 |
| June 11-15 2012 |
634.20 |
675.84 |
653.06 |
739.02 |
| July 9-13 2012 |
633.98 |
662.83 |
647.29 |
680.47 |
| Aug 13-17 2012 |
632.20 |
665.20 |
626.14 |
614.96 |
| Sep 10-14 2012 |
630.81 |
670.50 |
621.01 |
605.20 |
| Oct 8-12 2012 |
636.58 |
674.25 |
617.68 |
595.25 |
| Nov 12-16 2012 |
640.24 |
679.36 |
617.75 |
587.44 |
| Dec 10-14 2012 |
639.24 |
675.67 |
613.49 |
574.71 |
| Jan 14-18 2013 |
621.87 |
665.88 |
597.58 |
575.85 |
| Feb 11-15 2013 |
621.87 |
665.88 |
597.58 |
575.85 |
| Mar 11-15 2013 |
615.54 |
663.81 |
590.23 |
574.81 |
| Apr 8-13 2013 |
616.35 |
660.35 |
588.01 |
573.48 |
| May 13-17 2013 |
612.79 |
654.64 |
582.25 |
567.85 |
| LIQUID |
| Date Range |
10-34-0 |
ANHYD |
UAN28 |
UAN32 |
| May 14-18 2012 |
781.68 |
760.06 |
431.85 |
491.27 |
| June 11-15 2012 |
715.10 |
772.38 |
426.94 |
477.48 |
| July 9-13 2012 |
694.76 |
762.34 |
395.59 |
454.35 |
| Aug 13-17 2012 |
631.70 |
811.29 |
387.11 |
423.33 |
| Sep 10-14 2012 |
630.93 |
832.47 |
386.49 |
426.57 |
| Oct 8-12 2012 |
614.09 |
850.18 |
378.78 |
421.77 |
| Nov 12-16 2012 |
617.48 |
858.15 |
380.10 |
421.86 |
| Dec 10-14 2012 |
601.72 |
876.79 |
368.64 |
417.81 |
| Jan 14-18 2013 |
610.46 |
861.78 |
382.38 |
434.68 |
| Feb 11-15 2013 |
610.46 |
861.78 |
382.38 |
434.68 |
| Mar 11-15 2013 |
611.54 |
862.09 |
394.76 |
442.46 |
| Apr 8-13 2013 |
611.33 |
855.27 |
401.98 |
446.88 |
| May 13-17 2013 |
613.29 |
846.46 |
399.77 |
449.20 |
Russ Quinn can be reached at russ.quinn@telventdtn.com
(MZT/AG)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
16:54:00
05/20/2013
By Cheri Zagurski
DTN Managing Editor
OMAHA (DTN) -- Corn producers across the United States outdid themselves this week, propelling the amount of acres planted to 71% by Sunday, May 19. Last week only 28% of the nation's crop was in the ground. This pace is reportedly a record-setter.
Thanks to last week's sprint, planting progress is now only 8 percentage points behind the five-year average, an average that includes last year's blistering 95% planted rate.
"If my math is correct, and USDA is still using its 97.3 million acre corn planting projection, then over 41.8 ma were planted last week," said DTN Senior Analyst Darin Newsom.
Nineteen percent of the corn is emerged, compared to 5% last week and a 46% five-year average.
"Despite rains over the past weekend, corn planting should speed to an end, putting the attention on emergence," said Newsom. "This could remain a concern as a slower emergence pace pushes silking, doughing, and denting deeper into the heat of the summer."
The report should be viewed as bearish for corn, Newsom said.
Soybean planting progress rose to 24%, compared to 6% last week and a 42% five-year average. Three percent of the soybean crop has emerged, compared to a 14% five-year average.
The numbers should be viewed as bearish for soybeans, Newsom said.
Winter wheat headed rose to 43%, compared to 29% last week and a 62% five-year average. Winter wheat conditions worsened to 41% poor to very poor, compared to 39% last week. It's uncertain how much, if any, of this past weekend's severe weather damage is factored into these condition ratings.
"The drop in ratings led to a DTN Winter Wheat Crop Condition Index of only 32 points," Newsom said. "Last week this index came in at 39 points. Key states continue to decline with the Kansas crop showing a rating of 26 points, Oklahoma (-7) points, and Texas (-94) points.
"The percent headed as of Sunday, May 19, was reported at 43% as compared to the five-year average of 62%. Kansas was pegged at 41%, Oklahoma 79%, and Texas 70%, all well behind average."
The numbers are bullish for winter wheat, Newsom said.
Spring wheat planting increased to 67% complete, compared to 43% last week and a 76% five-year average. Twenty-two percent of the crop was emerged, compared to 10% last week and a 49% five-year average.
"Spring wheat, like corn and soybeans, saw a great deal of work done as the weather finally cleared," Newsom said. "Minnesota jumped to 71% from the previous report's 19%, while North Dakota nearly doubled its plantings to 50% completed."
Oats were 86% planted, compared to 70% last week and a 91% five-year average. Emergence was reported at 62%, compared to 47% last week and a 77% five-year average. Oat conditions, reported for the first time this year are 47% good to excellent.
Barley is 70% planted, compared to 55% last week and a 77% five-year average. Barley emergence is reported at 35%, compared to 25% last week and a 47% five-year average.
Sorghum is 35% planted, compared to 29% last week and a 42% five-year average.
Cotton is 39% planted, compared to 23% last weke and a 52% five-year average. Rice is 80% planted and 60% emerged with a condition rating of 54% good to excellent.
| National Crop Progress Summary |
| |
This |
Last |
Last |
5-Yr |
| |
Week |
Week |
Year |
Avg |
| Corn Planted |
71 |
28 |
95 |
79 |
| Corn Emerged |
19 |
5 |
73 |
46 |
| Soybeans Planted |
24 |
6 |
71 |
42 |
| Soybeans Emerged |
3 |
NA |
32 |
14 |
| Sorghum Planted |
35 |
29 |
53 |
42 |
| Rice Planted |
80 |
69 |
90 |
84 |
| Rice Emerged |
60 |
49 |
80 |
67 |
| Oats Planted |
86 |
70 |
99 |
91 |
| Oats Emerged |
62 |
47 |
94 |
77 |
| Barley Planted |
70 |
55 |
97 |
77 |
| Barley Emerged |
35 |
25 |
76 |
47 |
| Spring Wheat Planted |
67 |
43 |
98 |
76 |
| Spring Wheat Emerged |
22 |
10 |
82 |
49 |
| Winter Wheat Headed |
43 |
29 |
80 |
62 |
| Cotton Planted |
39 |
23 |
59 |
52 |
| National Crop Condition Summary |
| (VP=Very Poor; P=Poor; F=Fair; G=Good; E=Excellent) |
| |
This Week |
|
Last Week |
|
Last Year |
| |
VP |
P |
F |
G |
E |
|
VP |
P |
F |
G |
E |
|
VP |
P |
F |
G |
E |
| W Wheat |
21 |
20 |
28 |
27 |
4 |
|
20 |
19 |
29 |
27 |
5 |
|
4 |
10 |
28 |
45 |
13 |
| Rice |
1 |
7 |
38 |
38 |
16 |
|
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
1 |
5 |
28 |
51 |
15 |
| Oats |
5 |
10 |
38 |
41 |
6 |
|
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
2 |
3 |
21 |
57 |
17 |
Please send comments to talk@telventdtn.com.
(AG)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
14:34:00
05/20/2013
By Todd Neeley
DTN Staff Reporter
OMAHA (DTN) -- Genetically-engineered alfalfa can once again be grown in U.S. fields, and could be the dominant alfalfa type in some geographies, following a court decision handed down by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
USDA took the right action in deregulating Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, a three-judge panel ruled Friday, in a lawsuit that had been filed by environmental and ag groups. The groups stated that deregulation would lead to more widespread weed problems and harm endangered species.
The court found the Plant Protection Act "does not regulate the type of harms that the plaintiffs complain of, and therefore the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service correctly concluded that Roundup Ready Alfalfa was not a 'plant pest' under the act," according to the ruling.
Once USDA concluded Roundup Ready alfalfa was not a plant pest, the court ruled the agency no longer "had jurisdiction to continue regulating the plant, and this obviated the need for the agency to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and to consider alternatives to unconditional deregulation under the National Environmental Policy Act."
Monsanto declined to provide information on how many acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa are currently planted. A spokesperson for Monsanto did email DTN regarding a survey of U.S. alfalfa growers conducted by a trade magazine that said approximately 25% of those growers intended to utilize the RR alfalfa technology. Actual trait penetration appears to be slightly higher than 25% on a national basis, with localized trait penetration of between 10% and 80% based on geography.
In addition, the court said the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, did not violate the Plant Protection Act by not considering whether Roundup Ready Alfalfa was a noxious weed.
The Center for Food Safety, Sierra Club and a number of agriculture groups asked the court to stop the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa because of potential harm to organic crops from transgenic contamination. For example, the plaintiffs in the case argued that such contamination could force ranchers who raise organic meat to spend money testing alfalfa they feed their animals to ensure none of it is genetically modified.
If ranchers are unable to show their animals are fed with non-modified alfalfa, they would be unable to market their meat as organic.
In addition, the plaintiffs argued that deregulation of the Roundup Ready alfalfa would lead to glyphosate-resistant weeds. They contended that farmers would then apply even more glyphosate and a mix of herbicides to combat weeds, potentially threatening endangered species.
SAFETY UNQUESTIONED
In a statement released Friday, Monsanto said the decision confirms that "the USDA properly regulates biotech seed products, and protects farmers' rights to choose how they produce their crops. No court has ever questioned the safety of ag biotech crops in course of hearing lawsuits questioning USDA's regulation of ag biotech."
Kyle McClain, Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, said in a statement that the ruling provides alfalfa growers with "legal certainty" and is "important reaffirmation of USDA's process for regulating biotechnology improved crops."
Most corn, soybeans, cotton and sugarbeets grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, according to USDA.
"With the court's ruling, growers can be confident of their right to make their own decisions about the crops they want to plant and harvest," Monsanto said in a statement.
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety, said in a statement that the ruling runs contrary to other rulings on similar cases.
"This is an irresponsible decision," he said.
"The court acknowledged the many stark environmental and economic impacts of these crops, and yet bends over backwards in allowing USDA to avoid addressing those concerns in its regulatory process. This decision is contrary to the Supreme Courts' decision on GE alfalfa and prior decisions by numerous other courts," Kimbrell said.
APHIS prepared an environmental assessment for glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa, declared it safe and deregulated the crop in 2005.
The crop was grown for two years, but a lawsuit brought by environmental groups claimed that the genetically-engineered alfalfa could contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa.
The lawsuit charged APHIS had not followed the National Environmental Policy Act when it prepared an environmental assessment rather than a full environmental impact statement, or EIS.
In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that APHIS would have to complete a full EIS. In December 2010, USDA announced that it had completed the EIS and would consider three options on Roundup Ready alfalfa.
That included the continued regulation, full deregulation or a partial deregulation that would require isolation distances from other crops of up to five miles and other geographic restrictions, and would establish measures to make sure that Roundup Ready alfalfa did not contaminate other alfalfa crops.
Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@telventdtn.com.
(CZ/AG)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
11:32:00
05/20/2013
By Chris Clayton
DTN Ag Policy Editor
OMAHA (DTN) -- USDA officials expect to meet the department's Thursday deadline to modify mandatory country-of-origin labels for meat due to a World Trade Organization ruling even though the USDA proposal remains under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Despite complaints from Canada and Mexico, USDA has moved ahead with attempts to rewrite its rule following a trade case in the WTO against the U.S. that concluded USDA's original label discriminated against livestock from other countries. Canada has threatened to offer a list of U.S. products for retaliatory tariffs if the new rule goes into effect.
USDA has a May 23 deadline to demonstrate it had complied or responded to the WTO ruling. Yet, as of Monday, the USDA proposal to rewrite COOL continued to be reviewed by other Obama administration officials. A USDA spokesman responding to an email Monday maintained USDA still planned to meet the Thursday deadline for its new labeling requirements.
Backers of country-of-origin labeling touted a new survey from the Consumer Federation of America citing that 90% of Americans favor labeling the origin of meat even though at least some members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees seek to repeal country-of-origin labeling.
The survey gave a needed injection of support to backers of country-of-origin labeling, or COOL. According to the CFA poll of 1,000 people, 87% favor, "strongly or somewhat" a label that would require retailers to label the country in which animals were born, raised and processed. Slightly more people backed a label that also noted the fact that the meat was processed in the U.S.
"The survey results are a further indication of what we have known for some time: Consumers overwhelmingly want to know more about the origins of their food, and farmers and ranchers want to provide this information," said National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson. "These findings, coupled with the recent withdrawal of two short-sighted amendments to the Senate and House's respective farm bills that would have negatively impacted country-of-origin labeling, are promising indications that country-of-origin labeling is vitally important and here to stay."
COOL in the U.S. is in its 11th year of being perfected after originally passed into law with the 2002 farm bill. Funding freezes in Congress blocked implementation of the labeling rule. It wasn't until the 2008 farm bill was passed that USDA actually began to implement the law. Canada and Mexico sued in the WTO quickly after.
The modified rule from USDA would require more information for muscle cuts on where each of the production steps -- born, raised and slaughtered -- occurred. For instance, a steer born in Canada, but raised and slaughtered in the U.S. would be labeled effectively in that manner, "Born in Canada, Raised and Slaughtered in the United States."
For all domestic animals, the label would change from "Product of the U.S." to "Born, Raised and Slaughtered in the U.S."
Retailers also would be prevented from commingling muscle cuts from different countries in packaging. Currently, a label for multiple cuts of meat may state "Product of the United States, Mexico and Canada." Now, meat from animals from different countries will have to be segregated during processing to provide more accurate information.
In marking up their respective farm bills last week, Republican members of both committees introduced amendments to eliminate mandatory COOL, only to withdraw them. It's likely amendments will come to the floor on COOL, particularly if the Canadians raise Cain over the new USDA rule. Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., who was agriculture secretary when the Bush administration largely worked to delay or eliminate COOL, told fellow senators, "We have bitten off more than we can chew" with the COOL rewrite.
"The proposed solution from USDA would be more of a burden for everyone in the value chain," Johanns said.
Johanns also challenged the way the new proposal would prohibit commingling meat from livestock from different countries
"Talk about a regulatory nightmare," he said. Nonetheless, Johanns withdrew his proposed amendment in committee.
In the House, Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., also introduced an amendment to eliminate COOL but withdrew it. Taking the time to speak against Scott's proposal was fellow GOP Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, whose cattle ranchers largely back COOL.
The House bill includes language that would require USDA's Office of Chief Economist to conduct an economic analysis on the new rule within six months of the new farm bill being enacted.
Jon Wooster, president of the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, said the Consumer Federation of America study was released at a perfect time with the USDA deadline this week.
"It is proof that consumers not only want their meat labeled as to origin but they also approve of USDA's proposed resolutions. I urge individuals and groups to reference this survey as we move forward with issues surrounding COOL in the development of farm policy legislation," Wooster said. "As the 2013 Farm Bill proceeds in Congress, COOL opponents will seize any opportunity to undermine the program as already evidenced by the inclusion of marker language in the House version of the Farm Bill. This new consumer survey should put to rest any question about what consumers want. We thank CFA for undertaking this consumer poll."
Chris Clayton can be reached at chris.clayton@telventdtn.com
(SK/AG)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
16:34:00
05/17/2013
By Russ Quinn
DTN Staff Reporter
OMAHA (DTN) -- Farmers have been moving toward storing fertilizer on their farms to ensure product is available to them when they want it and to take advantage of price breaks during certain times of the year.
The massive explosion of the West Fertilizer Co. in West, Texas, on April 17 that killed 14 people and injured more than 200 others triggered more debates on fertilizer safety.
At a press conference May 16, state and federal authorities announced they have ended a month-long scene investigation and the cause of the disaster is "undetermined." Investigators have ruled out possible causes for the fire, including rekindling from a previous fire, spontaneous ignition, a 480-watt electricity system, anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate (AN), smoking or weather concerns.
Authorities added they haven't eliminated other causes, though, such as a 120-volt electrical system, a possible spark from a golf cart battery, or an intentionally set fire. A criminal investigation continues, as well as a Line of Duty Deaths investigation connected to 10 first responders and firefighters, as well as two volunteers who were killed as they attempted to fight the initial fire.
More attention is being focused on storage regulations for certain flammable fertilizer products at retail as well as on-farm locations. There were 150 tons of ammonium nitrate on the West Fertilizer Co. property, and 28-34 tons of AN that exploded after the initial fire started in a building.
Some states have on-farm fertilizer regulations in place, while other states do not have rules governing fertilizer storage on the farm. Discovering what regulations apply in a particular state isn't always easy.
According to research gathered by DTN with the help of industry group The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), 12 states have fertilizer storage regulations specific for on-farm situations. Those states are: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Ohio and Washington. States that have no on-farm storage regulations on the books: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. DTN also made several attempts to contact officials in Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire and West Virginia, but had not received a response by the time this article was posted.
LONG-TIME REGULATIONS IN KANSAS
Rick Wiedmann, fertilizer and containment specialist for the Kansas Department of Agriculture in Topeka, said his state has had on-farm fertilizer regulations for many years.
"All of our requirements are the same for commercial and farm facilities," Wiedmann told DTN. "A spill is a spill whether on a farm or at a retailer."
Wiedmann pointed out many larger farms in Kansas could store as much, if not more, fertilizer than some commercial retailers within the state. This is especially true in the wide-open spaces of western Kansas, he said.
In Kansas, farmers who build on-farm fertilizer storage also have to worry about secondary containment structures and load pad requirements if certain thresholds are met, he said.
If a farmer has total storage capacity equal to 2,000 gallons or more, a secondary containment is needed. If 125 tons or more of liquid fertilizer is transferred in or out of the facility in any 365-day period, the farmer will need a load pad.
These regulations also apply to dry fertilizer storage. If 25 tons or more of dry fertilizer is loaded in or out during any 365-day period, a load pad and secondary containment are required.
Wiedmann said farmers considering fertilizer storage on their farms need to fill out several pages of forms and submit these forms to KDA. The KDA will review the plan and then, if they are approved, an approval letter and a certification of completion form are sent to the farmer.
After construction of the on-farm fertilizer structure is completed, the certificate of completion is returned to KDA by the farmer. Wiedmann said fertilizer facilities in the state are inspected by 14 field inspectors scattered across the state.
"Every fertilizer storage facility within the state will be inspected at least once during the course of three years," he said. "Some will be inspected more."
A TALE OF TWO STATES
While the Mount Rushmore State, South Dakota, is just a few hundred miles away from Kansas, the Sunflower State, they are much further apart when it comes to on-farm fertilizer regulations.
South Dakota has no on-farm fertilizer regulations. According to a fact sheet found on the South Dakota Department of Agriculture website, "At present time in South Dakota, no fertilizer storage and handling requirements are directed towards agricultural producer operations other than reporting spills."
Brad Berven, an administrator of fertilizer programs for the South Dakota Department of Agriculture in Pierre, said he does remember a time when the state talked about possibly having regulations of on-farm fertilizer storage.
"I believe it was in 1992, now 20 years ago, they had a bill in the South Dakota Legislature to regulate on-farm fertilizer," Berven told DTN, "but the bill didn't get passed."
While the state has no on-farm fertilizer storage/handling regulations, Berven is quick to point out pollution is still against the law in the state. Occurrences of pollution from a fertilizer spill may be a violation of state and federal laws such as the Clean Water Act, he said.
North Dakota also has no on-farm fertilizer storage regulations. Brad Thykeson, a farmer from Portland, N.D., stores dry fertilizer on his east-central North Dakota farm.
"As far as I know, the state has no on-farm regulation when it comes to storing fertilizer," said Thykeson, who grows corn, soybeans and wheat. "Hopefully I didn't just get myself in trouble."
Thykeson, who is the president of the North Dakota Grain Growers Association, stores potash in poly-lined bins. He estimates by purchasing and storing potash during certain times of the year, he saves about $40 to $50 per ton.
He has about 600 tons of fertilizer storage, which he fills twice during the course of the year. While that may seem like a good amount, he estimates many North Dakota farmers store much more fertilizer than he does.
MIX OF REGULATIONS
Some states have on-farm fertilizer regulations, but there is some flexibility within their rules.
In Washington state, for example, there are on-farm fertilizer storage regulations but farmers and retailers can store liquid fertilizer in temporary locations, according to Brent Perry, fertilizer compliance manager for the Washington State Department of Agriculture in Spokane.
Because of the wide-open spaces in eastern Washington, it is not always practical for farmers to drive to nearby towns while applying fertilizer to their wheat. During a six-month period, to go along with a crop season, WSDA allows storage tanks from 500 to 10,000 gallons to sit for up to 21 days in one spot.
"Some folks might have to drive 80 miles to the closest location for fertilizer," Perry said. "This rule allows for ease in application."
TEXAS BLAST COULD LEAD TO CHANGES
Farmers may want more convenience to access fertilizer, but the deadly explosion in Texas last month could affect fertilizer storage regulations on state and federal levels.
Benny Hitch, program director for agriculture compliance for the Alabama Department of Agriculture in Montgomery, said he received several calls after the West tragedy, mainly about state regulations pertaining to fertilizer. He received calls from the media, as well as state agribusiness councils looking to train their employees on fertilizer safety.
In the wake of what happened in Texas, Hitch believes more regulations could be heading toward those who store fertilizer, but he isn't sure if it will be from the federal government or from state agriculture departments.
"I imagine some more are coming, but I really hope they are from the federal government, as many fertilizer businesses do business across state lines," Hitch told DTN. "It would be much simpler to have federal regs than to have many different state rules."
AUDITS ALSO CAN HELP
While some may feel fewer regulations are better, there could be advantages to having rules to follow and to having your farm audited by a third party.
Validus is an independent certification company based out of Urbandale, Iowa. Many of the company's clients are agribusinesses that want to be audited in areas such as on-farm security to assure they are doing all they can to be safe. This on-farm security is important to protect employees, as well as keep the environment safe from fertilizer spills.
Marj Ocheltree, program manager for Validus, said Validus created a Crisis Management and Emergency Action Plan for a large-farming operation. This plan is a written blueprint stating what exactly would happen in the case of an emergency and the duties employees are expected to do during the crisis.
Because this farm had a plan in place along with meeting state regulations, the farm got a discount on its insurance. The insurance company liked the fact the farm had a plan like this in place, Ocheltree said.
"I would think most farmers would have a plan like this at least mentally," Ocheltree said. "But by having this written plan in place, it ended up saving them some money."
So while regulations and audits are usually associated with negative situations, the opposite may actually be true, she said.
Editor's note: To see DTN's past coverage as well as updates on the West, Texas Explosion and related fertilizer stories, check out http://www.dtn.com/…
Russ Quinn can be reached at russ.quinn@telventdtn.com
(GH/ES/CZ/AG)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
14:44:00
05/17/2013
By Chris Clayton
DTN Ag Policy Editor
OMAHA (DTN) -- The House Agriculture Committee will face floor fights on a number of issues from both parties when the farm bill is taken up, but should be able to hold together its version of the bill for eventual negotiations with the Senate later this summer, ranking member Collin Peterson said Friday.
Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota, also expressed confidence the farm bill could be done before the August recess if both versions are able to get past their respective floor debates in the coming weeks. Peterson said his conversations with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., suggest the legislation will be debated in mid-June. Floor debate begins on the Senate bill Monday afternoon.
"Having said that, we have challenges facing us when we get to the floor," Peterson said.
Getting to the floor could be the hard part. Partisan agendas could keep the farm bill on the backburner. Heritage Action, an arm of the Heritage Foundation, wrote House leaders on Thursday, warning them not to bring up the farm bill or legislation from the Senate dealing with Internet sales taxes. Heritage Action said debating such bills would take away from the focus now on the Obama administration over political controversies such as the IRS and Benghazi.
"Legislation such as the Internet sales tax or the FARM Act which contains nearly $800 billion in food stamp spending, would give the press a reason to shift their attention away from the failures of the Obama administration, to write another 'circular firing squad' article," Heritage Action wrote House leaders.
With a 36-10 vote, the House Agriculture Committee had a successful markup on Wednesday by largely keeping the bill intact with the cuts and program changes crafted by Lucas and Peterson. The vast majority of the bill was comparable to the bill the committee passed last summer that GOP leaders declined to bring to the floor due, at least in part, to the presidential election. Peterson noted 13 of 21 Democrats on the committee voted for the bill, "which was better than I thought." Peterson said it showed there is ability to get Democratic votes despite $20.5 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
In the coming weeks, Peterson said he, Lucas and others will be talking with House leaders about how to manage the floor debate. Peterson said without restrictions on amendments, the floor debate will become too unwieldy to manage.
Peterson still sees significant battles on the floor, starting with nutrition programs and cuts.
"A lot of our folks on my side think not one penny can be cut out of nutrition," Peterson said. "That's a ridiculous point of view."
The key debate will still center on the level of cuts to SNAP. House leaders, notably Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., have championed converting SNAP into block grant money for states with projected savings of $130 billion over 10 years, or more. Republicans have voted to back that route past two years in supporting Ryan's budget plans.
Peterson said he and Lucas sought a middle ground by crafting language to eliminate broad-based categorical eligibility rules for SNAP. Forty-three states use such provisions, which have led to states creating a range of standards for enrolling people in SNAP. Some states only enroll people earning 30% above the federal poverty level while other states go to 100% higher than the poverty level. Peterson sees that state-to-state variance as a problem, though most Democrats, by and large, support the rules that are often simply called "cat-el."
Other floor challenges in the House will come against Peterson's proposed dairy program, which also is in the Senate bill. Still, the dairy issue will be contentious. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, last year called it a "Soviet-style" program because of the supply-management language. Another floor debate likely will come in sugar policy as well.
"It's not going to be easy, but we think we can hold things together," Peterson said.
The battle over requiring farmers to meet conservation compliance standards for soil erosion and wetlands preservation also will likely be argued on the floor. Language in the Senate bill would tie compliance to eligibility for crop-insurance premium subsidies, but Lucas opposes that idea.
"There will be an amendment on this on the floor," Peterson said. "It will be a tough fight."
In 2008, then-chairman Peterson and others were concerned they could be outflanked by a left-right coalition seeking more cuts to farm programs. Moreover, there was the threat of a veto from President George W. Bush. But Peterson not only had backing of now-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., but the committee put together its own in-house shop to whip up support for the bill on the floor. The 2008 farm bill ended up with a veto-proof 317 votes. While the Obama administration wants a farm bill, Peterson said he has talked to Lucas about reviving the in-house whipping operation. Strategy sessions are already planned to deal with dairy and sugar. "We don't have to do what we did in '08 because at least we don't have to fight the administration," Peterson said.
Higher SNAP cuts could help the bill through the House. Despite the expected House fights, Peterson also reiterated that "at the end of the day, this bill's going to be written in conference. The key is getting it that far. He also thinks the Senate will be unwilling to accept the level of nutrition savings offered by the House.
"There are certain things that are required to get the bill passed over here that aren't going to fly in the Senate," he said. "But we have to get that far before we can sort all of this out."
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., also made that same point in a press call Thursday.
"Well, first of all, I absolutely reject the level of cuts and the way this is done in the House," Stabenow told reporters. "They eliminate something called categorical eligibility, which we've now voted down either two or three times on the Senate floor on a bipartisan basis. It came up in committee this week, it was voted down on a bipartisan basis. So that policy does not have support in the U.S. Senate. I won't support it in conference, and so we will look for ways that we can continue to provide savings by tackling abuse, or misuse."
Chris Clayton can be reached at chris.clayton@telventdtn.com
(CZ/AG)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
12:02:00
05/17/2013
By Katie Micik
DTN Markets Editor
OMAHA (DTN) -- Private analytical firm Informa Economics expects farmers will plant 455,000 fewer acres of corn than USDA suggested in its Prospective Plantings report in March. Soybean acreage is likely to increase 1.2 million acres, while spring wheat acres are expected to be 300,000 acres fewer.
"Warm and dry weather last season allowed for rapid planting progress and low prevented plantings. This year's weather has not been as cooperative with a wet, cool start delaying spring row crop plantings," the report stated. "There appears to have been some switching from corn to soybeans (primarily in Minnesota, North Dakota and the Mid-South), which is consistent with delayed plantings, but elsewhere the survey indicated that farmers have yet to give up on acres intended for corn or soybeans despite the slow start to spring planting."
Informa estimates farmers will plant 96.8 million acres of corn as compared to March's USDA estimate of 97.28 ma. North Dakota leads the decline. Farmers there are expected to plant 400,000 fewer acres of corn. Minnesota farmers will plant 300,000 less, while Mississippi and Arkansas growers are each expected to sow 150,000 acres less.
The declines will be partially offset by higher corn plantings in Illinois, expected to increase by 300,000 acres, and Missouri, up 200,000.
DTN Analyst Todd Hultman thinks Informa's corn acreage estimate is on the high side.
"I don't have any problem assuming that the Corn Belt will get planted just fine this year, except I think that North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin will lose more corn acres than Informa shows here," he said. "Last Monday, the USDA showed 18%, 18% and 14% planted in those three northern states. With this week's rain in Wisconsin and southeast Minnesota, some progress was probably made in North Dakota and Minnesota, but DTN's five-day forecast has 1-2 inches of rain expected for the Dakotas, Minnesota and northern Wisconsin. That will add to further delays in these three states that have a limited growing season.
"I would not be surprised to see another 400,000 to 800,000 of corn acres (total) reduced from those three states in the June acreage report," Hultman said.
Informa expects soybean acreage to total 78.3 ma, up from March's USDA estimate of 77.13 ma. That's 1.1 ma higher than last year with the largest increases seen in the Western Corn Belt. Minnesota will plant 450,000 more acres to soybeans, drawing away from spring wheat and corn, while Nebraska will plant 300,000 more acres than previously expected. Illinois' 300,000-acre gain in corn translates to a 300,000-acre soybean decline.
"We are not believers in the big corn-switching-to-soybeans theory here at DTN," Hultman said. "I just think that the USDA's initial soybean planting estimate was too low given the current environment of strong commercial demand for available soybeans. 78.3 million acres is more in line with estimates from earlier this year, before the planting intentions report."
Double-crop soybean acres are expected to increase 7% from last year to 6.3 million acres, Informa's report stated.
Informa estimates spring wheat acreage at 12.4 ma, up from last year but 300,000 acres lower than USDA's March acreage estimates.
Informa's all-cotton acreage estimate is 2.1 ma lower than last year at 10.2 ma, but 215,000 acres higher than USDA's March estimate. Texas upland cotton acreage is expected to total 5.6 million acres, 100,000 more than USDA's March estimate.
USDA will release its updated acreage estimates on June 28.
Katie Micik can be reached at katie.micik@telventdtn.com
(AG/SK)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.