U.S. beef exports continue to outperform pre-BSE levels | TheFencePost.com

U.S. beef exports continue to outperform pre-BSE levels

Background Following the discovery of a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in December 2003, U.S. beef and beef product exports fell. Since 2003, USDA led a multi-agency full-court press, dedicating significant resources to restore foreign market access for U.S. beef. As a result, U.S. beef shipments regained pre-BSE volumes by 2011 and even reached record values by 2014. Another central element of the U.S. strategy to maintain and expand foreign market access is insistence on policies that are based on the guidelines of the World Organization for Animal Health. The past seven years have represented the strongest period in history for American agricultural exports, with international sales of U.S. farm and food products surpassing $1 trillion between fiscal years 2009 and the present. Snapshot of the Beef Export Market in 2003 In fiscal year 2003, U.S. beef exports, excluding beef products, totaled $3.0 billion — 0.9 million tons — to 112 countries. As a result of the December 2003 BSE case, U.S. beef exports fell to $1.1 billion — 0.3 million tons in fiscal year 2004. Snapshot of the Current Market In spite of some remaining restrictions, which USDA continues to prioritize, U.S. beef exports have recovered to pre-2003 levels. In FY 2015, U.S. beef exports totaled $5.8 billion — 0.8 million tons — to 112 countries. USDA Forecasts for U.S. Beef Exports In 2015, U.S. beef production fell to the lowest level since 1993. A strong dollar also dampened foreign demand for U.S. beef. These factors have contributed to recent volume declines in U.S. beef exports but longer-term forecasts are positive. Expanding production and declining wholesale beef prices will drive shipments higher, but a strong dollar remains a constraint. Global beef demand is expected to strengthen along with a pickup in global economic growth. U.S. beef exports are forecast to rise to $5.3 billion — 0.8 million tons — in fiscal year 2017, up from $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2016, with additional gains in sales of beef products expected as well. This is well above the value of 2003 exports and marginally below on volume. Recent BSE Trade Successes USDA worked to eliminate BSE-related restrictions in 16 countries since January 2015, and gained additional market access for U.S. beef in China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Guatemala, Iraq, Lebanon, Macau, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Singapore, South Africa, Ukraine, Vietnam and Brazil. Due to extensive work by USDA, in May 2013 the World Organization for Animal Health upgraded the United States to negligible risk status for BSE, and USDA has aggressively used this status to reopen or expand markets for beef. The USDA continues still works to remove remaining BSE-related restrictions on beef to overseas markets, such as Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Australia. ❖

Beef Checkoff under scrutiny as industry leaders demand repeal and reform

Since 1988 when it was approved by 79 percent of beef producers in a national referendum vote, the Beef Checkoff Program has collected a $1-per-head of beef cattle assessment to be used for promotion, education and research for the beef cattle industry. Of the program and its effectiveness, John Robinson, National Cattlemen's Beef Association executive director of organizational communications, said, "From my perspective, without the checkoff, American beef would be at a disadvantage on the global stage where we compete against nations whose producers are looking for any edge they can find to push our product out of the market. In the U.S., consumers continue to choose beef because they know that they're buying a safe, wholesome, high-quality product that they can rely on, thanks to the work done by the checkoff. Whether that consumer is choosing a flat iron steak that's only in the meat case because of checkoff research investments, or a filet that's labeled lean because of nutrition work conducted by the checkoff, it's all demand that supports beef prices." Despite the checkoff's list of achievements, it's long been contested by some industry leaders that beef producers' dollar investments are being misused by contractors of the checkoff. "Our members have voted and decided that the checkoff program is unsalvageable," said Bill Bullard, R-CALF USA CEO. "We fully support a repeal and reform of the checkoff because we feel NCBA has abused the program, and we have evidence that shows NCBA is working against cattle producers' interest." Bullard said of the $80 million checkoff assessment, NCBA receives half of the dollars beef producers have invested, and he believes evidence within the 12,000-plus pages of financial records from a 2011 audit might prove just that. LAWSUIT March 31, 2017, marked the U.S. Department of Agriculture's court-ordered deadline to release documents from the 2011 audit of the federal Beef Checkoff Program. The information is being sought in a lawsuit by the Organization of Competitive Markets through the Freedom of Information Act. Of the total 12,341 pages of financial records, USDA released less than 175 pages, most of which were already public tax forms, using confidentiality as the reason behind the lack of transparency. "In 2010, an independent accounting firm did an audit of NCBA's beef checkoff expenditures, and within just nine days of spending by the NCBA, the audit found nearly $200,000 in wrongdoing by the organization," said Angela Huffman, OCM director of communications and research. "That's when we got involved and requested USDA do a full audit. That audit started in 2011 and wrapped up in 2013 with USDA concluding that there was no wrong-doing committed by the NCBA." Following that announcement, OCM, along with several farm groups such as R-CALF USA, protested USDA's conclusion, arguing that the agency white-washed the facts. In January 2014, the USDA issued a corrected report that removed the claim that there was no wrong-doing by NCBA. In November 2014, OCM filed its FOIA Complaint, demanding the information of the audit conducted by the Office of the Inspector General to be released by the USDA. Upon receiving word about this information request, NCBA got involved to attempt to protect its private business records. "As the court records show, the original FOIA request involved in this litigation was made by OCM in 2013, and litigation was filed by OCM against the USDA Inspector General a year later," Robinson said. "NCBA did not become aware until August 2016, that our documents were among those requested by OCM's FOIA request, and NCBA only became aware the following month that there had been litigation about the FOIA request for two years. NCBA moved to intervene in the litigation because, like most businesses, NCBA normally does not disclose its confidential business information to the public and, as the court determined, NCBA has a substantial interest in not disclosing such information to its competitors." "When USDA was finally court-ordered to release the documents, 98.5 percent of them were completely blacked out," Huffman said. "We will go back to court to challenge that decision and continue to demand to see the actual documents. We have very strong concerns about NCBA receiving 80 percent of its funding from the checkoff program. They have been able to build their brand and organization and are now seen as a group that represents cattle producers even though their membership only represents 4 percent of cattle producers. They lobby against laws that would help family farmers such as COOL and the new GIPSA rules, and we believe it's a conflict of interest that they are receiving these funds in the first place." "There seems to be a general misunderstanding about how NCBA is structured and how we conduct our work," Robinson said. "We're composed of two divisions, with one being the Federation division which serves as a contractor to the beef checkoff. NCBA's Federation division work is reviewed daily by an in-house compliance officer and an accounting department which ensures that regulations and guidelines are being followed by staff throughout each individual project. The compliance officer and accounting departments review all expenditures, time coding, contracts and any other aspects of the projects to ensure NCBA is in full compliance with the Act and Order." Robinson added, "The other division is the policy division which is our member-driven side which conducts the work of our members. The work conducted by the policy division, which includes the representation of our member interests and policies in Washington, D.C., is directed by volunteer cattlemen and women who spend a significant amount of time and their own personal resources to represent their operations and those of their fellow producers. The points of view we promote are those of our members and they are agreed upon by a majority vote." UNCONSTITUTIONAL? In addition to the ongoing OCM lawsuit, R-CALF is battling the checkoff in the legal system in Montana, arguing that the use of checkoff dollars on the state level is unconstitutional. "We have a pending lawsuit in the district court in Montana," Bullard said. "In May 2016, we alleged that it is unconstitutional for the checkoff to allow the state beef councils to siphon off half the money to spend. These state beef councils are not an arm of the USDA; they are a private entity, so we argue it's illegal to force beef producers to fund private speech with federal tax dollars." Bullard said a decision from the judge will be forthcoming soon, and that part of the lawsuit stems from the Montana Beef Council promoting an advertisement by Wendy's which promotes North American Beef. "Producers have been told that the checkoff is not allowed to market any country's particular beef product, so we believe that this was an exception to that rule without authority. We think the entire checkoff program is being mishandled and producers are not receiving the benefit they should from their investment." If Bullard could construct his ideal beef checkoff program, it would be voluntary and would promote only U.S. beef. "If producers realize a benefit, they will support a voluntary program," Bullard said. "The argument that some producers will benefit from it but won't pay, well, that's part of our capitalistic free enterprise system. It makes us work harder. That's why we need an accountable and responsive checkoff program, and the best way to do it is to make it a voluntary program. Producers can then vote in real-time with their pocket books, and money that is collected from domestic producers should be used to promote domestic beef producers. It's counterproductive for producers to be forced to promote competitors' products." In Washington, checkoff reform is in the works with Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Mike Lee R-Utah introducing legislation in late March that calls for further transparency and accountability to all checkoff programs. The Opportunities for Fairness and Farming Act of 2017 (OFF ACT) and the Voluntary Checkoff Act would do two things — make the checkoff voluntary and prohibit lobbying groups like NCBA from contracting checkoff dollars. "We are in full support of these bills," Bullard said. "We need to repeal and start new. The 100-plus member CBB should decide where the funds should go and contract directly with advertisers or universities to conduct their projects. This would stop NCBA from siphoning off administration costs with checkoff dollars." CHECKOFF REFORM OCM favors the two pieces of legislation (HR1752 and S741), which they say would promote transparency and accountability, and R-CALF USA fully supports the checkoff reform, as well. NCBA, however, has its concerns. "We're concerned to see this legislation for several reasons, for starters because HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) seems to be so excited about this. We know that HSUS ultimately wants to see meat off the table, and they know if they can make it harder for folks on the production side then meat gets too expensive for consumers to afford. If they can hurt the checkoff, we would have to scale back on research and promotion," said Colin Woodall, NCBA vice president of government affairs. "Second, we are supportive of the checkoff process, so we don't believe there needs to be reform. These aren't tax dollars; the checkoff is made up of producer dollars, so they need to be the ones who need to make decisions regarding the checkoff. The voluntary bill counters the original intent of the checkoff, and the second would prevent any organization that has a lobbying arm from being a contractor of the checkoff. "Additionally, the work that I do in D.C., is paid for by our members, and we don't use checkoff dollars. The firewall that exists is one that has been there from the get-go and is audited by ourselves internally, USDA AMS (Agricultural Marketing Service) and the Inspector General. On the plus side, this has been a great opportunity for NCBA to explain the checkoffs to the new administration. Some have the impression that this is an unfair tax, but the checkoff was voted on by beef producers." ❖

CME trading, antitrust activity could have caused market swings

One national cattle group is talking with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to learn more about how lightning-fast electronic trading – the buying and selling of cattle "on paper" might affect the value of real, live feeder calves. Another national cattle group asked a senate committee to investigate possible antitrust behavior. On November 14, 2014, 74 head of 609 pound black and baldy steers fetched $2.71 per pound at St. Onge Livestock in St. Onge, South Dakota. Every week brought new record prices that year, with a few 600-weight steers breaking the $3 per pound mark. A year later, that same ranch sold 32 black and red steers weighing 603 pounds. Those calves were worth $1.95 per pound. Every rancher in the country is asking the neighbor, the mailman and the border collie, "What is going on with the market?" Justin Tupper, St. Onge Livestock manager, said the swings are caused by more than the usual market signals. "There is no basis, there is no supply and demand controlling it. Yesterday we were up two dollars, and now we're down four today. There is no way we should have a six dollar swing in one day." What happened? Don Close, Rabo AgriFinance Protein Analyst, said the 2014 record high market was driven by tight supplies, caused by the 2011 drought. Additionally, he blamed the bird flu and porcine epidemic diarrhea in the swine industry. "We had all waited so long for that rally, that when it occurred we wanted to believe it was the dynamics of short supply of beef that drove it. In hindsight, it was also driven by short supplies of those competitive proteins as well," he said. A "perfect storm" in 2013 and 2014 is what forced the market up to record highs, said Ethan Oberst an analyst with CattleFax. "It was the classic expansion cattle cycle phase. Strong demand, tight competing meats, strong exports," all contributed to the upswing. And another "perfect storm" has applied intense down pressure on the market in recent months, he said. A softening of the export market caused by a stronger U.S. dollar, demand that has moved toward "long term support levels," and an increase in imports have all contributed to the market drop. Despite an optimistic feeling throughout the industry in 2014, it was hard to predict what the global economy would do. "Looking back, it's not a surprise that we did what we did. Yes, it was one of the most extreme moves we've seen. We've transitioned to a different period in the cattle cycle," Oberst said. But R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard doesn't buy it. And Ed Greiman isn't so sure either. Ed Greiman, chairman of the National Cattlemens Beef Association Cattle Marketing and International Trade committee, said the calves he bought on the record high market during the fall of 2014 made him money. The market held long enough. One half of Greiman Brothers, a cow-calf and finishing operation that typically feeds about 2,500 calves per year, Greiman said that the next round of calves he bought, in the second half of 2015, have not worked out. "We are losing money right now. That's what's trickling down to the cow-calf sector." Greiman, who, along with his brother, buys calves through the video market and through some South Dakota auction barns, added that he did feed cattle to heavier weights than normal in the latter part of 2015, in an effort to squeeze a few more dollars out of each animal. R-CALF USA, on Jan. 5, 2016, asked for an official investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee, into potential anti-trust and anti-competitive conduct in the U.S. beef and cattle markets. The group asserts that at least three cattle procurement practices by the big four meatpackers caused feeders to put more pounds on cattle then necessary, further driving the market down. First, meatpackers can simply delay delivery of cattle under formula contracts. Second, they can pass over market -ready cattle and offer competitive bids on only "green" (unfinished) cattle, and third, they can buy market-ready cattle on the condition that the feeder not deliver the cattle for two to four weeks or more, said R-CALF USA. NCBA's concerns are on the trading side of things. Greiman penned a letter Jan. 13, to the CME Group Executive Chairman and President, Terrance A. Duffy, explaining that NCBA members have voiced concern over market volatility and high frequency trading's contribution to that volatility. "We are not to the point of accusing the CME of doing anything wrong. We're wanting to work together and figure out how these high speed guys are affecting our market," Greiman said. "High frequency traders," according to Forbes magazine, use computers to "try to profit from the price movements caused by large institutional trades." The magazine article goes on to explain, "HFTs buy on the dip, hoping to be able to sell the shares a few minutes later at the normal price," saying the activity is secretive and mysterious but not "evil," and that it can serve to level out the bumps and dips in the market. Greiman and his committee said the split-second actions happen too fast. "High frequency trading occurs at a rate faster than any human can analyze." They called for a one-second delay between trade actions in order to level the playing field so that everyone sees the market at the same speed. "In order to better analyze and understand market action, the CME Group must release audit trail data for analysis that includes firm-level generic identification. This would be utilized by industry and researchers to better understand trading behavior which could possibly be damaging," said Greiman and NCBA's president in the CME Group letter. They also said that CME Group "has to more actively engage in monitoring and acting upon violations or market manipulation," and that it should be vocal in reporting such actions. According to R-CALF USA, the USDA Economic Research Service projected about a year ago that the fed cattle market would continue to rise, and by 2017 would be $10 per cwt higher than it had been in 2014. Then USDA had expected a gradual five- year decline, amounting to about $2.51 per cwt per year, beginning in 2018. Experts, including a Kansas State economist and CattleFax analyst, agreed that 2015 prices could be expected to be as strong as or stronger than 2014 prices, said the R-CALF USA letter. In correlation with Greiman's on-the-ground experience, R-CALF USA says it was in the second half of 2015 that the market began to tumble. They told the committee of a $41.35 per cwt price drop, or a loss of about $516.88 per head on 1,250 pound steers, between the first and second half of 2015. According to R-CALF USA, the producers' share of the consumer beef dollar dropped from 58.2 percent to 45.3 percent between November of 2014 and November of 2015. Other participants within the beef supply chain are capturing a significant share of the consumers' beef dollar that a competitive market should…allocate to the producer. R-CALF USA says this is evidence of antitrust and anticompetitive behavior by the nation's four largest meatpackers. Additionally the meatpackers' conduct of dividing, if not assigning, cattle procurement territories and depriving some territories of any buyers should be investigated. Greiman talked about this activity – or lack of, citing the small number of cash bids for finished cattle in the south. "We saw it at its worst at the end of the year – the lack of cash trades." In the beginning of 2016, up to 20,000 head of Kansas cattle per week were sold on the cash market, he said, compared to less than 5,000 per week the last few weeks of the year. "I don't think it's just the packer – the feedyards were also asking for formula pricing," he said. R-CALF USA hopes the committee will direct the Department of Justice to initiate enforcement action to halt all antitrust and anticompetive practices and introduce legislation to restore competition in areas where antitrust laws are silent, said R-CALF USA's Bullard. The widening spread between retail beef prices and feeder calf prices has not escaped Tupper's attention. "They are still charging almost the same for a ribeye as when the market was at the high. Somebody's making a boatload between when it got killed and when it gets to the consumer." Close doesn't argue. "I would agree that beef prices aren't dropping as fast as cattle prices." It could be that the retailers are waiting to see if the lower market is permanent, retailers might be trying to make up for lost ground after a tough 2014 – "they couldn't raise counter prices and preserve customer cooperation at a rate as fast as they needed to,"- or it could be plain old greed. "It is a free market," Close says. What is ahead? Tupper said his expectations for the 2016 market vary from day to day. Heavier fat cattle have added to market woes, he said, but those should be getting worked out of the system. "If we were in a true market where weather was a factor, we should have a good fat cattle market here for the first quarter but it might not be market driven again." Greiman also said the fat cattle market could rally in April, depending on finished cattle weights. But then he worries that the global economy will keep downward pressure on the market. We are still in an expansion phase, Tupper and Oberst said, and an upturn is not necessarily expected. Green calves headed to summer grass should be a relatively valuable commodity in the next few months, said Oberst. Close said monthly average placements have averaged down the last six months, which indicates that the number of feeder calves outside of feedyards is big. And that the available supply of fed cattle for the first half of 2016 will be tight. "So sooner or later this growing supply of cattle outside of feedyards is going to make its way to the market. That will lead to a larger beef supply somewhere during the second half of 2016." The market "feels better now," said Greiman. "There is more bid and ask going on." But with other commodities down, he's not sure. "If oil keeps dropping, the stock market keeps dropping, cattle might not rally," he said. "All of a sudden we're tied to things we've never been worried about in the past." CME Group Executive Chairman and President Terry Duffy will speak to NCBA's Cattle Marketing and International Trade Committee during their convention this week.

What’s in store for northern Colorado farms?

The forecast has been made enough at this point that Weld County residents are well aware of it. There are going to be a lot more dairy cows in the area during the next few years – about 60,000 additional head in the region, all needed to support operations at the new Leprino Foods cheese processing plant in Greeley. But while that invasion of cattle is expected to help shape the future of agriculture in Weld County, in what shape will the dairy industry itself be to support those expanded local operations in the future – one year from now, five years from now, or even 10 years from now? Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture attempted to answer those questions, along with many, many others regarding the future of farming, ranching and other areas of agriculture production. The USDA released its annual 10-year outlook on agriculture on Feb. 13. Among many other projections, the 96-page report stated that the many dairy farmers in Weld County – as well as milk producers across the U.S. – are expected to be well positioned to expand exports of dairy products. The report showed milk prices increasing by nearly 20 percent by 2021, with milk production across the U.S. increasing by about 15 percent in that time frame, and technology, innovation and genetic development allowing that to be accomplished with fewer dairy cows than the U.S. has today. However, experts and producers alike agree that such sweeping projections into the future, such as the USDA’s recent report, have to be taken with a grain of salt. “A lot of things can happen between now and then,” said Bill Wailes, a professor and extension dairy specialist at Colorado State University. “But it’s certainly going to be interesting to see what happens with the dairy industry in the next 10 years.” According to the USDA report, commercial U.S. dairy exports are forecast to increase steadily over the next decade, reaching record levels on both a fat and a skim-solids basis. Increased production among the U.S. and other major dairy exporting countries is even expected to lag the growth in global import demand, according to the numbers. After declining this year from 2011’s high levels, farm-level milk prices are projected to rise steadily over the next 10 years. However – as was a concern of Wailes’ – the report also noted that the price increases look to be less than the overall rate of inflation. “It’s good to see prices going up … but I still suspect it isn’t going to be an easy ride for dairy producers here, and everywhere else, for that matter, during the next decade,” said Wailes, who – in addition to expressing his concerns of how increases in milk prices will stack up against the rate of inflation in the future – mentioned that uncertainties regarding government programs that help stabilize the industry leave important questions unanswered when looking down the road. “Dairy producers face challenges … with finding environmentally sustainable methods of production that are still profitable, among many others. “It’s interesting to hear what the 10-year outlook is, but we’ll never really know what’s going to happen until that time comes. We’ll just see what happens.” The USDA’s new 10-year outlook – which details a scenario expected to take place under a continuation of current farm legislation and specific assumptions about external conditions – projected the futures of numerous sectors in the agriculture industry. Below is a look at projected dairy numbers provided in the report, as well as a look into the future of other commodities that play key roles in Weld County agriculture. DAIRY Colorado’s U.S. rank in the number of milk cows: 16 Weld County’s rank in milk cow numbers for Colorado: 1 Number of milk cows in Weld County: 66,000 (2011) Projected milk prices »2012: $18.50 per hundredweight »2016: $19.50 »2021: $21.75 Projected milk production »2012: 198.4 billion pounds »2016: 212.7 billion »2021: 227.3 billion Projected number of U.S. milk cows »2012: 9.2 million head »2016: 9 million »2021: 8.9 million CORN Colorado’s U.S. rank in production: 13 Weld County’s rank in production in Colorado: 3 Acres planted in Weld County: 126,900 (2010) Projected crop prices »2012-13: $5.00 per bushel »2016-17: $4.50 »2021-22: $4.65 Projected input costs »2012-13: $335 per acre »2016-17: $339 »2021-22: $465 The USDA’s projections for corn don’t sit too well with local producers, as it shows that corn prices will come down from the recent record highs of nearly $8 per bushel, down to about $5 this year, and staying in the mid-$4 range on into the future – all while costs to grow the crop are expected increase. As the report explains, increases in corn-based ethanol production in the U.S. are projected to slow. Therefore, prices are expected to fall from current high levels, but will still remain historically high – as the case will be for many major crops, according to the USDA projections. Farmers across the U.S. began planting more corn during the last few years as more of the crop went into ethanol production – driving up demand for corn, as well prices for the commodity. Prior to the ethanol production, corn prices were typically in the $2 range. “We can’t go back to lower crop prices and still make a profit at this point,” said Artie Elmquist, a Weld County grower in the Mead area. “With input costs where they’re at now, it’s tough to make a profit with corn price at $6. If input costs keep going up and corn prices drop, that’ll make things awfully tough.” The number of acres of corn planted across the U.S. are expected to drop during the next 10 years by 2 million, from a record-high of 94 million acres planted this year, to 92 million acres planted in 2021. Elmquist said his hope is that farmers can find more cost-effective ways to grow the crop – such as using new, drought-resistant breeds of corn, and using no-till and strip-till methods – if prices are indeed going to fall in the future. “That might be the only way we can do it,” he said. BEEF Colorado’s U.S. rank in beef cattle numbers: 14 Weld County’s rank in beef cattle numbers in Colorado: 1 Number of head in Weld County: 48,000 (2011) Projected beef cattle prices »2012: $119.35 per hundredweight »2016: $109.79 »2021: $119.34 Cash expenses on cow-calf enterprises »2012: $582.34 per cow »2016: $563.93 »2021: $623.36 Returns above cash costs on cow-calf enterprises »2012: $178.92 per cow » 2016: $152.46 »2021: $252.98 U.S. beef cattle inventory »2012: 30.2 million head »2016: 33 million »2021: 34.4 million U.S. total cattle inventory »2012: 91 million head » 2016: 94.8 million »2021: 97 million According to the USDA outlook, world meat demand will continue strong growth, especially in many middle- and low-income countries. Projected global growth for overall meat consumption is expected to average more than 2 percent annually over the next decade, with per capita consumption increasing for each major type of meat – beef, pork and poultry. Weld is home to two JBS USA Five Rivers Cattle Feeding feedlots, which are among the nation’s largest. JBS averages about 180,000 beef cattle on feed at its Gilcrest and Kuner locations. Overall, the cattle and calves inventory in Weld County for 2011 was 545,000 head. SUGAR BEETS Colorado’s U.S. rank in production: 8 Weld County’s rank in production in Colorado: 1 Acres planted in Weld County: 12,600 (2010) Projected prices »2012-13: $55.92 per ton »2016-17: $54.70 per ton »2021-22: $51.56 per ton (Input cost projections for sugar beets were not available.) LaSalle-area grower Frank Eckhardt said the USDA’s 10-year outlook wasn’t the first time he’d heard that sugar beet prices could potentially go down in the years to come. “But we’ll just keep growing what Western Sugar tells us to,” said Eckhardt, referring to the Western Sugar Cooperative for which he grows beets. “A lot of predictions have been made over the years, but you never know until the time comes. We’ll just keep doing what we’re doing until then, and hope for the best.” WHEAT Colorado’s U.S. rank in production: 5 Weld County’s rank in production in Colorado: 10 Acres planted in Weld County: 145,000 (2010) Projected prices »2012-13: $5.75 per bushel »2016-17: $5.90 »2021-22: $5.90 Projected input costs »2012-13: $126 per acre »2016-17: $129 »2021-22: $142 BARLEY Colorado’s U.S. rank in production: 4 Weld County’s rank in production in Colorado: 5 Acres planted in Weld County: 7,900 (2010) Projected prices »2012-13: $5.20 per bushel »2016-17: $4.70 »2021-22: $4.80 Projected input costs »2012-13: $157 per acre »2016-17: $162 »2021-22: $178 For more The USDA’s full 96-page, 10-year outlook can be viewed at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/OCE121/OCE121.pdf. What about other key commodities in Weld County? Stephen Koontz, a professor and agriculture economist at CSU, said projections for some commodities aren’t included in the USDA’s outlook in large part because there are few or no government programs that support their production. Two major commodities in Weld County that were not included in the report are hay and alfalfa – Weld County is the leader in production for Colorado, with about 175,000 total acres planted in 2010 – and sheep and lambs – Weld County ranks as one of the top producers of the livestock in the nation. Other notes of interest in the USDA outlook »Soybeans will see the largest growth in planted acres among the eight major crops grown in the U.S. during the next 10 years, increasing by 2 million acres, from 74 million acres to 76 million acres. »Wheat will see the biggest decrease in planted acres among the eight major crops grown in the U.S. during the next 10 years, falling by 5.6 million acres, falling from 56.5 million acres down to 51 million acres. »Farm income reached a record-high level in 2011 largely reflecting high commodity prices. Although projected to initially decline as commodity prices retreat, strengthening global food demand and sustained biofuel demand will keep net farm income historically high over the next ten years. » The combined region of Africa and the Middle East is projected to have some of the strongest growth in food demand and agricultural trade over the coming decade. Mexico is projected to be another large growth market, not only for meat imports, but also for selected grains and oil seeds. » The weaker dollar will remain a facilitating factor in projected gains in U.S. agricultural exports. Although trade competition will continue to be strong, the U.S. will remain competitive in global agricultural markets. »Crude oil prices are assumed to increase over the next decade as global economic activity improves, rising somewhat faster than the general inflation rate in the latter part of the projections. By the end of the projection period, the nominal refiner acquisition cost for crude oil imports is projected to be over $120 per barrel. » The U.S. economy is projected to grow at an average rate of about 2.5 percent over the next decade. »U.S. retail food prices rose faster than the general inflation rate in 2011 and are projected to do so again in 2012. During the next 10 years, food-price increases average less than the general inflation rate, largely reflecting livestock production increases that facilitate gains in per capita meat consumption and limit retail meat price increases. »Acreage enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program is projected to decline to under 30 million acres over the next several years before rising back to close to its legislated maximum of 32 million acres throughout the remainder of the projections.

USDA and partners invest $720 million in conservation projects

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack last week announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and partners across the nation together will direct up to $720 million towards 84 conservation projects that will help communities improve water quality, combat drought, enhance soil health, support wildlife habitat and protect agricultural viability. These projects make up the second round of the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) created by the 2014 Farm Bill. Through the 2015 and 2016 rounds, USDA and partners are investing up to $1.5 billion in 199 strategic conservation projects. Projects are selected on a competitive basis, and local private partners must be able to at least match the USDA commitment. For this round, USDA received 265 applications requesting nearly $900 million, or four times the amount of available federal funding. The 84 projects selected for 2016 include proposed partner matches totaling over $500 million, more than tripling the federal investment alone. RCPP draws on local knowledge and networks to fuel conservation projects. Bringing together a wide variety of new partners including businesses, universities, non-profits and local and Tribal governments makes it possible to deliver innovative, landscape- and watershed-scale projects that improve water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, soil health and other natural resource concerns on working farms, ranches and forests. Water quality and drought are dominant themes in this year's RCPP project list with 45 of the 84 projects focusing on water resource concerns. "From the harmful impact of algal bloom in the Great Lakes region to the devastating effects of persistent drought in California, RCPP helps private landowners and producers develop solutions that work for them and meet the needs of their communities and local wildlife," Vilsack said. "It's encouraging to see so much interest in the program." USDA is committed to invest $1.2 billion in RCPP partnerships over the life of the 2014 Farm Bill. This announcement brings the current USDA commitment to almost $600 million invested in 199 partner-led projects, leveraging an additional $900 million for conservation activities in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. For the full list of 2016 projects, go to http://1.usa.gov/1kkYT9t. -USDA

Farm program payments and projections for wheat and corn

The 2014 farm bill reached its halfway point last year, and Congress is beginning to think about a 2018 farm bill. Based on past and projected supports from 2014-18, some farmers may wonder whether they selected the right farm bill commodity program. The answer to this question depends on the commodity and on what kind of protection was desired when enrolling acres. The 2014 commodity program had two options for enrollment: Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC, available at the county or individual level). These programs provided different types of protection: PLC offered long-term protection from price shortfalls and ARC-CO short-term protection from downward shocks in prices and yields. This article will compare the protection of the Panhandle's two major program crops, corn and wheat, under the two programs for counties where data are available. Those who enrolled acres in the PLC program selected long-term protection against low prices. The program was designed to protect against crop prices falling below a set level, called a reference price. PLC payments are the difference between the reference price and the national marketing year average price or the loan rate, whichever is higher. Payments are based on updated individual farm PLC yields and made on 85 percent of base acres. The set reference price for corn is $3.70 per bushel, and wheat is $5.50 per bushel. Those who enrolled acres in the ARC-CO program selected revenue protection below a moving-average guarantee, providing support early in periods of declining prices or long-term yield shortfalls. ARC-CO is a revenue-based program designed to adjust to major declines in price or yield. Payments are made when the average county revenue for a covered commodity is less than the guarantee. The guarantee is 86 percent of the value of the 5-year Olympic average price multiplied by the 5-year Olympic average yield for the county. Payments are made on 85 percent of base acres. For some counties, the yield used for this calculation is separated for irrigated and non-irrigated ground. For other counties, the yield is "blended" or not separated between irrigated and non-irrigated. REDUCED INCOME No matter which program you enrolled in, commodity program payments reflect reduced income for crop producers. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the program payments and projections by county and program. Calculations were made using U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency estimated prices available as of Feb. 9, 2017. Differences in payment rates among counties are largely the result of different yield estimates used to project the payments. To estimate the PLC payments and projections per acre, the average PLC yield of the county was used. ARC-CO payments and projections are based on reported USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service yields as of Feb. 23, 2017. Total payments are subject to an estimated 7 percent reduction for budget sequestration not factored into the estimates. Table 1 shows that wheat base acres enrolled in the PLC program are expected to receive a higher amount of total program payments through the life of the 2014 farm bill than wheat enrolled in ARC-CO. Differences in the size of the PLC payment between farms will be based on farm-level PLC yields. Table 2 shows in most cases, especially in counties where the yield was blended, that corn acres enrolled in the ARC-CO program are expected to receive higher total payments than those enrolled in PLC. This table also illustrates that there were differences in payment rates between counties. Larger ARC-CO payments in bordering counties are an indication of larger revenue losses. In Table 2, where corn production was split into irrigated and non-irrigated (such as Kimball, Neb.), non-irrigated base acres will receive less support under the ARC-CO program than in the PLC program. This difference in payment between irrigated and non-irrigated corn acres under ARC-CO and PLC in a county can be attributed to the differences in PLC payment yields, and USDA NASS and FSA actual yields used to calculate ARC-CO payments. This side-by-side comparison of ARC-CO to PLC payments may not be fair for farms that have both irrigated and non-irrigated corn on the same farm number. For these farms, the ARC-CO payment will be an average of the irrigated and non-irrigated rates based on percentage of irrigated and non-irrigated base acres. Farmers, or landowners, could not enroll base acres for a given crop on the same farm number in separate programs. WHICH WORKED BEST? Which was the best program? Your answer might be a function of your total expected payments over the life of the 2014 farm bill, as well as your preferences for temporary support from falling revenues vs. permanent support from lower prices. Your answer might also affect your preferences for programs and choices under a new 2018 farm bill. Although it seems like yesterday we were enrolling in the 2014 farm bill, discussions for the 2018 farm bill have begun and producers could face a new enrollment decision in 2019. Most wheat base acres in the Panhandle enrolled in PLC. If the 2014 farm bill programs are extended past 2018, wheat base acres will continue to receive support under this commodity program as long as prices stay below $5.50 per bushel, while ARC-CO payments would effectively trigger at lower prices assuming average yields going forward. Most Panhandle corn base acres were enrolled in ARC-CO. If the 2014 farm bill programs are extended past 2018, corn base acres may not receive any additional support, unless we see major yield losses or further declines in prices. By comparison, PLC could continue making substantial payments as long as prices remain below the $3.70 per bushel reference price. Information provided for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 crop years are projections. Changes in price and yield during these crop seasons will change the farm program payment outlook. These projections are for educational purposes, actual payments will be determined by USDA FSA. ❖ — Groskopf is an Extension educator-agricultural economics for the Panhandle Research and Extension Center and Lubben is an assistant professor of agricultural economics with IANR.

2008 Colorado Farm Show Exhibitors and Booth Numbers

Booth No. Exhibitor Name E 163 1031 Exchange Specialists E 65 A Dbl R Well Services E 115 A-M Valve Co, LLC. E 123-124 ABC Seamless E 55-56 ABI Irrigation E 25-29 Abilene Machine Inc. FEA E Ackerman Distributing 4-H 230 Ag Journal EC 580-582 Agland, Incorporated FEA 344-345 Agri King E 144 Agri-Enterprises E 121-122 Agri-Inject EC 613-614 AgSolutions, LLC FEA 366 AgXplore International EC 587 All Truck Sales EC 571 Allison Transmissions E 9 American Nat’l Insurance Co. EC 530 American Pride Co-op EC 594 Anderson Alfalfa Co E 138 Archer Petroleum E 70 Area Diesel Service, Inc. E 37-38 Arkansas Valley Seed 4-H B A Terrific Mechanic, Inc. FEA A & C B & G Equipment, Inc. EC 513 Bank of Colorado 4-H 216 Banner Health-North Colorado Medical Center 4-H 214-215 B-A-R Distribution Co. Inc. FEA G2 Beaver Valley Supply FEA 319-320 Bekaert Corporation E 109 Betaseed, Inc. E 77-79 Big R of Greeley EC 467-468 Bill’s Volume Sales West FEA 367-368 Blu-Jet by Thurston Mfg. Co. FEA 331-333 Bobcat of the Rockies 354-356 Bobcat of the Rockies EC 547-549, Brothers Equipment, Inc. 573-575 Brothers Equipment, Inc. 4-H 206 Buckboard Bean, Inc. E 105-107 Buckeye Welding Supply FEA G 1 Burrows Enterprises & Fisher Pumps, Inc FEA 337-339 Bush Hog FEA 322 Bushel 300, Inc. E 97 Cache Valley Select Sires FEA 327-330 Carson Trailer 357-360 Carson Trailer EC 568-569 Centennial Ag Supply FEA 376-377 Central City Scale, Inc. EC 596 Central Colo. Water Conservancy EC 566-567 Central, Inc. Booth No. Exhibitor Name EC 495-497, 521-523 Champion Dodge FEA 371-372 Clarks Ag Supply E 76 Cleanfix Reversible Fans OS Cochran Farm Supply 4-H 221 Collins Communications 4-H 232 Colorado 4-H Foundation E 42 Colorado Bean Company EC 532 Colorado Beef Council E 5 Colo. Conservation Tillage Assoc. EC 620 Colorado Corn E 66-67 Colorado Dairy Service, LLC 4-H 208 Colorado Department of Ag E 101 Colo. Division of Water Resources 4-H 218-220, 225-227 Colorado Division of Wildlife EC 562-563 Colorado East Bank & Trust EC 589-591 Colorado Equipment E 14-16 Colorado Equipment E 88-89 Colorado Farm Bureau E 1 Colorado FFA Foundation E 2 Colorado Foundation For Ag E 64 Colorado Hay & Forage Assoc. FEA 303 CHFA E 127 Colorado Land Investments E 90 Colorado Seed Growers Assoc. E 94 Colorado Soy, LLC E 8 Colo. Wheat Admin Committee E 133 Colorado Young Farmers EC 621 Cox Oil Co. 4H 222 Crop Quest, Inc. EC 583 Crossroads Insurance Agency E 135-136 Crow Valley Panels E 33 Crows Hybrid Corn Co. E 71 Custom Marketing Co., Inc. E 142 D & D Commodities Ltd E 10-12 Dairy Specialists E 63 Dairyland Laboratories E 72-74 Dixon ZTR Mowers E 128 Diversity D, Inc. 4-H C-D Double “O” Farms E 22 DTN E 160-162 Eastern Colo. Seeds/BarenbrugUSA 4-H 224 Ecoquest Independent Dlr. EC 593 Edward Jones Investments EC 2 Ehrlich Toyota E 57 Empire Irrigation, Inc. E 154 Energy Panel Structures EC 510 Evans Excavating 4-H 231 Fairbanks Equipment FEA 343 Farm Credit Leasing FEA 323 Farm Plus Financial EC 592 Farm Works Software Booth No. Exhibitor Name E 13 Farmco/High Plains Livestock EC 553 Fastline Publications E 137 Feldt Sales EC 616 Fence Post E 6 First FarmBank FEA 340 Flat Iron Steel EC 550-551,576-577 Flat River Agri, Inc EC 615 Flood & Peterson Insurance EC 558-559 Fontanelle Hybrids E 103-104 Frontier Glove Co. EC E G&M Implement, Inc. EC 607 Garnsey & Wheeler Ford E 145-150 Garnsey & Wheeler Ford EC 557 Garst Seed Co. E 155-158 General Air FEA 334 Genesis Soil Rite Calcium/ Midstates Consulting E 68 Genex Cooperative FEA 361-363 GFC EC 552 Giant Rubber Water Tanks FEA 301-302 Golden Harvest/JC Robinson Seed Company 4-H 210-211 Grand Valley Hybrids E 115 Great Plains Meters FEA B1 Great Plains Mfg., Inc. OS Great West Trailer & Truck Sales E 111 Greeley Independence Stampede EC 608 Guaranty Bank and Trust FEA 309-310 H2O Power Equipment Inc E 53 Hagie Mfg. Company FEA L 1 Harsh International, Inc. EC 595, E 17 High Plains Journal E 143 Hill Petroleum EC 512 Hilleshog/Syngenta Seed EC 556 Hitchcock, Inc. E 117 Hotsy Equip of No. Colo. 4-H 234 Hydropedes E 151-153 Hydroscreen EC 579 Interstate Energy Inc. 4-H 223 J&T Country Feeds FEA B2 JJ Equipment/Brillion/Rhino EC D John Deere E 130 Johnstown Clothing& Embroidery 4-H A Kaput Products-Ridarodent FEA 335-336, 351-352 KD Loaders FEA B1 KP Sales and Marketing Inc EC 619 Kreps Wiedeman E 164 KSIR Radio EC 555 Kugler Company EC 3 Kuhn-Knight Mfg. EC 525-526 Larson Metal Inc. EC 528-529 Lawson Products Inc EC 586 Lefever Building Systems 4-H 203 Legacy Land Trust E 125-126 Lewton Ag Services/Nitro Sprayers E 93 LG Seeds Booth No. Exhibitor Name FEA 311 Loveland Distribution FEA L2 Luther Equipment FEA D MacDon, Inc. E 86-87 Magnum Manufacturing/ Woodys Pivot Service FEA 369-370 Maize Corp/Kearney Equip EC 508 Maxey Companies, Inc. EC 564 Mel Brown Farm Supply EC 578 Metrogro EC 599-602 MHC Kenworth E 32 Mid West Truck Parts EC 537 Midwest Seed Genetics 4-H 233 Miracle Ear FEA 373 Moly Mfg, Inc./Silencer EC 534-536 Monosem E 112-113 Monsanto FEA 315-316 Moreta Company, Inc. E 84 Morgan CC-Agri & Bus Mgmt. FEA 307-308 Mortec Industries, Inc. EC 527 Morton Buildings, Inc. EC 539 Mountain Plains Farm Credit EC 531 NAPA Parts E 95 Nat’l. Farmers Union Insurance E 75 Nations Pipe & Steel E 54 Navigator E 59 NC+ Hybrids E 92 Neb. College of Technical Ag E 129 Netafim USA EC 617-618 New Frontier Bank EC 511 NK Brand Seed of Syngenta E 102 No-Bull Enterprises E 7 Northeastern Jr. College FEA 317 Northern Colo. Driveline Service EC 506-507 No. Colo. Water Conservancy EC 478-480, 492-494 Orthman Mfg. EC 517-518, 543-544 Outback Guidance 4-H 201 Paradise Landscaping FEA 326 Paul’s Custom Grinding Svc. E 30-31 Pawnee Buttes Seed, Inc. 4-H 205 P-Diamond Irrigation Sales, Svc. E 91 Petersen Mfg Co. Inc EC 498 PGS Hybrids, Inc. FEA 306 Pickett Equipment E 118-120 Pioneer, A Dupont Co. E 21 Pivots Plus 4-H 223 Pletcher Enterprises E 99-100 Poudre Valley Co-Op Seed Div. FEA 324-225 Poudre Valley Co-Op/ Hutchison Western FEA 336 Poudre Valley REA EC 561 Poulsen Ace Hardware FEA G3 Power Equipment Co. 4-H Prairie Dog Man E 52 Producer’s Choice Seed/PGI FEA 318 Pure Ag Products Booth No. Exhibitor Name E 43-45 Quality Well & Pump EC 588 Rabo AgriFinance EC 502-503 Ranch-Way Feeds 4-H 207 Red Wing Shoes E 39 Regent Broadcasting K99 (KUAD-FM) E 18-19 Reinke Manufacturing EC 524 Reliance Industrial Products E 49 Reliv, International EC 603-605 Renewable Fiber FEA B2 Rhino-Brillion EC 471-473, 485-487 RHS/Bestway E 98 Ritchey Mfg E 41 Robinson Hay Company EC 584-585 Rky. Mtn. Cleaning Systems EC 538 Rky. Mtn. Water Environ Assoc. FEA 313 Rodenator EC 572 Rodman & Company, Inc. EC 554 Roggen Farmers Elevator Assn. EC C Ron’s Equipment Co. Inc. 4-H 212 Rural Community Ins. Svcs. EC 514-516, 540-542 Schaben Industries 4-H 209 Schaeffer Oil & Grease Co. EC 469-471, 483-484 Schlagel Mfg. E 96 Schmidt’s Bakery & Deli E 46 Schroeder’s Tire E 159 SFR HiTech Lubricants E 80-81 Sharp Bros. Seed EC 499-501 Shield Ag Equipment FEA 312 Shur-Co E 47 Silveus Insurance Group E 34-36 Simplot Soilbuilders 4-H 204 Soil Savers E 62 Soybest EC 607, E 145-150 Spradley-Barr OS Stampede Steel FEA 314 Starco Mfg EC 570 Stewart & Stevenson FEA 375 Stinger Ltd. EC 509 Stockton Roofing E 131 Strategic Financial Mgmt. EC 519-520, 545-546 Sutherland Lumber Co. EC 505 Synthetic Resources, Inc. FEA 346-350 T&B Welding & Trailers, LLC EC 597 Tarps Unlimited EC 481-482 Tidenberg Welding & Repair EC 565 Tire Pro FEA 304-305 Tool & Anchor Supply E 134 Toro Micro-Irrigation EC 504 TractorHouse EC 1 Transwest Trailers Booth No. Exhibitor Name FEA 378-380 Triple C, Inc. Booth No. Exhibitor Name E 69 Triumph Seed FEA 364-365 Tru Blu, LLC E 82-83 Twin Peaks Powersports EC 598 U.S.D.A. Colo. Ag Statistics E 85 USDA Farm Service Agency E 50-51 USDA National Appeals Div. E 114 UNI Design E 139-141 Valley Irrigation of Greeley EC 560 Vander Wal Dairy S & S E 3-4 Viaero Wireless EC B Wagner Ag/Wagner Rents E 23-24 Walco Animal Health E 110 Warren Analytical Laboratory FEA 342 Water Colorado, LLC E 60-61 WDPA/ Northern Colo. Dairyettes FEA G4 & G5 Weiss Master Mfg. 4-H 217 Weld County Drug Task Force E 48 Weld County Fair EC 606 Weld County Garage 4-H 202 Weld County Public Works Dept/Weed & Pest 4-H 228 Weld County Sheriff’s Office E 108 West Greeley Conservation District E 132 West Plains Grain EC 609-610 Western Irrigation EC 611-612 Western Material Handling E 20 Whatwire Broadband EC A Wickham Tractor Co./Krone E 40 Wild West Motorsport E 58 Wilson Trailer Sales 4-H 229 Wingfoot Commercial Tire systems EC 533 WW Auctions & Real Estate EC 474-477, 488-491 Wylie Sprayers FEA 374 Xpect Solutions, Inc. Legend e exhibition building fea farm equipment area 4-H 4-h building ec event center os outside

2008 Colorado Farm Show Exhibitors and Booth Numbers

Booth No. Exhibitor Name E 163 1031 Exchange Specialists E 65 A Dbl R Well Services E 115 A-M Valve Co, LLC. E 123-124 ABC Seamless E 55-56 ABI Irrigation E 25-29 Abilene Machine Inc. FEA E Ackerman Distributing 4-H 230 Ag Journal EC 580-582 Agland, Incorporated FEA 344-345 Agri King E 144 Agri-Enterprises E 121-122 Agri-Inject EC 613-614 AgSolutions, LLC FEA 366 AgXplore International EC 587 All Truck Sales EC 571 Allison Transmissions E 9 American Nat’l Insurance Co. EC 530 American Pride Co-op EC 594 Anderson Alfalfa Co E 138 Archer Petroleum E 70 Area Diesel Service, Inc. E 37-38 Arkansas Valley Seed 4-H B A Terrific Mechanic, Inc. FEA A & C B & G Equipment, Inc. EC 513 Bank of Colorado 4-H 216 Banner Health-North Colorado Medical Center 4-H 214-215 B-A-R Distribution Co. Inc. FEA G2 Beaver Valley Supply FEA 319-320 Bekaert Corporation E 109 Betaseed, Inc. E 77-79 Big R of Greeley EC 467-468 Bill’s Volume Sales West FEA 367-368 Blu-Jet by Thurston Mfg. Co. FEA 331-333 Bobcat of the Rockies 354-356 Bobcat of the Rockies EC 547-549, Brothers Equipment, Inc. 573-575 Brothers Equipment, Inc. 4-H 206 Buckboard Bean, Inc. E 105-107 Buckeye Welding Supply FEA G 1 Burrows Enterprises & Fisher Pumps, Inc FEA 337-339 Bush Hog FEA 322 Bushel 300, Inc. E 97 Cache Valley Select Sires FEA 327-330 Carson Trailer 357-360 Carson Trailer EC 568-569 Centennial Ag Supply FEA 376-377 Central City Scale, Inc. EC 596 Central Colo. Water Conservancy EC 566-567 Central, Inc. Booth No. Exhibitor Name EC 495-497, 521-523 Champion Dodge FEA 371-372 Clarks Ag Supply E 76 Cleanfix Reversible Fans OS Cochran Farm Supply 4-H 221 Collins Communications 4-H 232 Colorado 4-H Foundation E 42 Colorado Bean Company EC 532 Colorado Beef Council E 5 Colo. Conservation Tillage Assoc. EC 620 Colorado Corn E 66-67 Colorado Dairy Service, LLC 4-H 208 Colorado Department of Ag E 101 Colo. Division of Water Resources 4-H 218-220, 225-227 Colorado Division of Wildlife EC 562-563 Colorado East Bank & Trust EC 589-591 Colorado Equipment E 14-16 Colorado Equipment E 88-89 Colorado Farm Bureau E 1 Colorado FFA Foundation E 2 Colorado Foundation For Ag E 64 Colorado Hay & Forage Assoc. FEA 303 CHFA E 127 Colorado Land Investments E 90 Colorado Seed Growers Assoc. E 94 Colorado Soy, LLC E 8 Colo. Wheat Admin Committee E 133 Colorado Young Farmers EC 621 Cox Oil Co. 4H 222 Crop Quest, Inc. EC 583 Crossroads Insurance Agency E 135-136 Crow Valley Panels E 33 Crows Hybrid Corn Co. E 71 Custom Marketing Co., Inc. E 142 D & D Commodities Ltd E 10-12 Dairy Specialists E 63 Dairyland Laboratories E 72-74 Dixon ZTR Mowers E 128 Diversity D, Inc. 4-H C-D Double “O” Farms E 22 DTN E 160-162 Eastern Colo. Seeds/BarenbrugUSA 4-H 224 Ecoquest Independent Dlr. EC 593 Edward Jones Investments EC 2 Ehrlich Toyota E 57 Empire Irrigation, Inc. E 154 Energy Panel Structures EC 510 Evans Excavating 4-H 231 Fairbanks Equipment FEA 343 Farm Credit Leasing FEA 323 Farm Plus Financial EC 592 Farm Works Software Booth No. Exhibitor Name E 13 Farmco/High Plains Livestock EC 553 Fastline Publications E 137 Feldt Sales EC 616 Fence Post E 6 First FarmBank FEA 340 Flat Iron Steel EC 550-551,576-577 Flat River Agri, Inc EC 615 Flood & Peterson Insurance EC 558-559 Fontanelle Hybrids E 103-104 Frontier Glove Co. EC E G&M Implement, Inc. EC 607 Garnsey & Wheeler Ford E 145-150 Garnsey & Wheeler Ford EC 557 Garst Seed Co. E 155-158 General Air FEA 334 Genesis Soil Rite Calcium/ Midstates Consulting E 68 Genex Cooperative FEA 361-363 GFC EC 552 Giant Rubber Water Tanks FEA 301-302 Golden Harvest/JC Robinson Seed Company 4-H 210-211 Grand Valley Hybrids E 115 Great Plains Meters FEA B1 Great Plains Mfg., Inc. OS Great West Trailer & Truck Sales E 111 Greeley Independence Stampede EC 608 Guaranty Bank and Trust FEA 309-310 H2O Power Equipment Inc E 53 Hagie Mfg. Company FEA L 1 Harsh International, Inc. EC 595, E 17 High Plains Journal E 143 Hill Petroleum EC 512 Hilleshog/Syngenta Seed EC 556 Hitchcock, Inc. E 117 Hotsy Equip of No. Colo. 4-H 234 Hydropedes E 151-153 Hydroscreen EC 579 Interstate Energy Inc. 4-H 223 J&T Country Feeds FEA B2 JJ Equipment/Brillion/Rhino EC D John Deere E 130 Johnstown Clothing& Embroidery 4-H A Kaput Products-Ridarodent FEA 335-336, 351-352 KD Loaders FEA B1 KP Sales and Marketing Inc EC 619 Kreps Wiedeman E 164 KSIR Radio EC 555 Kugler Company EC 3 Kuhn-Knight Mfg. EC 525-526 Larson Metal Inc. EC 528-529 Lawson Products Inc EC 586 Lefever Building Systems 4-H 203 Legacy Land Trust E 125-126 Lewton Ag Services/Nitro Sprayers E 93 LG Seeds Booth No. Exhibitor Name FEA 311 Loveland Distribution FEA L2 Luther Equipment FEA D MacDon, Inc. E 86-87 Magnum Manufacturing/ Woodys Pivot Service FEA 369-370 Maize Corp/Kearney Equip EC 508 Maxey Companies, Inc. EC 564 Mel Brown Farm Supply EC 578 Metrogro EC 599-602 MHC Kenworth E 32 Mid West Truck Parts EC 537 Midwest Seed Genetics 4-H 233 Miracle Ear FEA 373 Moly Mfg, Inc./Silencer EC 534-536 Monosem E 112-113 Monsanto FEA 315-316 Moreta Company, Inc. E 84 Morgan CC-Agri & Bus Mgmt. FEA 307-308 Mortec Industries, Inc. EC 527 Morton Buildings, Inc. EC 539 Mountain Plains Farm Credit EC 531 NAPA Parts E 95 Nat’l. Farmers Union Insurance E 75 Nations Pipe & Steel E 54 Navigator E 59 NC+ Hybrids E 92 Neb. College of Technical Ag E 129 Netafim USA EC 617-618 New Frontier Bank EC 511 NK Brand Seed of Syngenta E 102 No-Bull Enterprises E 7 Northeastern Jr. College FEA 317 Northern Colo. Driveline Service EC 506-507 No. Colo. Water Conservancy EC 478-480, 492-494 Orthman Mfg. EC 517-518, 543-544 Outback Guidance 4-H 201 Paradise Landscaping FEA 326 Paul’s Custom Grinding Svc. E 30-31 Pawnee Buttes Seed, Inc. 4-H 205 P-Diamond Irrigation Sales, Svc. E 91 Petersen Mfg Co. Inc EC 498 PGS Hybrids, Inc. FEA 306 Pickett Equipment E 118-120 Pioneer, A Dupont Co. E 21 Pivots Plus 4-H 223 Pletcher Enterprises E 99-100 Poudre Valley Co-Op Seed Div. FEA 324-225 Poudre Valley Co-Op/ Hutchison Western FEA 336 Poudre Valley REA EC 561 Poulsen Ace Hardware FEA G3 Power Equipment Co. 4-H Prairie Dog Man E 52 Producer’s Choice Seed/PGI FEA 318 Pure Ag Products Booth No. Exhibitor Name E 43-45 Quality Well & Pump EC 588 Rabo AgriFinance EC 502-503 Ranch-Way Feeds 4-H 207 Red Wing Shoes E 39 Regent Broadcasting K99 (KUAD-FM) E 18-19 Reinke Manufacturing EC 524 Reliance Industrial Products E 49 Reliv, International EC 603-605 Renewable Fiber FEA B2 Rhino-Brillion EC 471-473, 485-487 RHS/Bestway E 98 Ritchey Mfg E 41 Robinson Hay Company EC 584-585 Rky. Mtn. Cleaning Systems EC 538 Rky. Mtn. Water Environ Assoc. FEA 313 Rodenator EC 572 Rodman & Company, Inc. EC 554 Roggen Farmers Elevator Assn. EC C Ron’s Equipment Co. Inc. 4-H 212 Rural Community Ins. Svcs. EC 514-516, 540-542 Schaben Industries 4-H 209 Schaeffer Oil & Grease Co. EC 469-471, 483-484 Schlagel Mfg. E 96 Schmidt’s Bakery & Deli E 46 Schroeder’s Tire E 159 SFR HiTech Lubricants E 80-81 Sharp Bros. Seed EC 499-501 Shield Ag Equipment FEA 312 Shur-Co E 47 Silveus Insurance Group E 34-36 Simplot Soilbuilders 4-H 204 Soil Savers E 62 Soybest EC 607, E 145-150 Spradley-Barr OS Stampede Steel FEA 314 Starco Mfg EC 570 Stewart & Stevenson FEA 375 Stinger Ltd. EC 509 Stockton Roofing E 131 Strategic Financial Mgmt. EC 519-520, 545-546 Sutherland Lumber Co. EC 505 Synthetic Resources, Inc. FEA 346-350 T&B Welding & Trailers, LLC EC 597 Tarps Unlimited EC 481-482 Tidenberg Welding & Repair EC 565 Tire Pro FEA 304-305 Tool & Anchor Supply E 134 Toro Micro-Irrigation EC 504 TractorHouse EC 1 Transwest Trailers Booth No. Exhibitor Name FEA 378-380 Triple C, Inc. Booth No. Exhibitor Name E 69 Triumph Seed FEA 364-365 Tru Blu, LLC E 82-83 Twin Peaks Powersports EC 598 U.S.D.A. Colo. Ag Statistics E 85 USDA Farm Service Agency E 50-51 USDA National Appeals Div. E 114 UNI Design E 139-141 Valley Irrigation of Greeley EC 560 Vander Wal Dairy S & S E 3-4 Viaero Wireless EC B Wagner Ag/Wagner Rents E 23-24 Walco Animal Health E 110 Warren Analytical Laboratory FEA 342 Water Colorado, LLC E 60-61 WDPA/ Northern Colo. Dairyettes FEA G4 & G5 Weiss Master Mfg. 4-H 217 Weld County Drug Task Force E 48 Weld County Fair EC 606 Weld County Garage 4-H 202 Weld County Public Works Dept/Weed & Pest 4-H 228 Weld County Sheriff’s Office E 108 West Greeley Conservation District E 132 West Plains Grain EC 609-610 Western Irrigation EC 611-612 Western Material Handling E 20 Whatwire Broadband EC A Wickham Tractor Co./Krone E 40 Wild West Motorsport E 58 Wilson Trailer Sales 4-H 229 Wingfoot Commercial Tire systems EC 533 WW Auctions & Real Estate EC 474-477, 488-491 Wylie Sprayers FEA 374 Xpect Solutions, Inc. Legend e exhibition building fea farm equipment area 4-H 4-h building ec event center os outside

Nominations sought for the Kurt Bucholz Award

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – The Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust is seeking nominations for the 2017 Kurt Bucholz Award. The award was created in 2008, in memory of Kurt Bucholz, DVM, a legislator and rancher from Saratoga. Recipients exemplify the core beliefs held by Bucholz during his lifetime of dedicated public service and commitment to conservation. The award is presented by the Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust at its Annual Roundup Fundraiser and Barbeque, which will be held in Elk Mountain, Wyo., on Aug. 26, 2017. Past recipients are: Dennis Sun, 2008; John Lunt, 2009; Joe Glode, 2010; Jim Chant, 2011, Bob Budd, 2012, Mike Healy, 2013; Bobbie Frank, 2014; Alan Barnett, 2015; and Patrick O'Toole, 2016. Individuals eligible for nomination will have achieved a lasting impact in one or more of the following ways: · Ardent supporter of conserving Wyoming's working landscapes and one who recognizes the indispensable role of ranching in this endeavor. · Astute and successful rancher and land steward who has been active in state and/or national natural resource issues, and a strong proponent of private enterprise and private solutions for conservation in Wyoming. · A background of actions promoting the bedrock importance of water to Wyoming and the vital significance of protecting traditional water rights. · A strong and abiding interest in hunting and wildlife and a personal commitment to habitat conservation. Submissions are due by May 19, 2017. Please direct questions to Travis Brammer at (307) 772-8751 or travis@wsgalt.org. Nomination forms can be found, and submitted, online at http://www.wsgalt.org/what-we-do/.

Lee Mielke: Monthly Dairy Prices 10-14-13

The dust is settling over the recent government "shutdown" due to political differences in Washington but while the majority of government workers are unaffected, many were furloughed and the impact on the dairy industry boils down to this; the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the Economic Research Service (ERS), and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) have been furloughed. Data reported by these agencies will be on hold. USDA's Dairy Market News is also shuttered and with it, its daily and weekly reports. The monthly Dairy Products report which was to be released Thursday was not and, unless the Administration and Congress come to an agreement, several others will be suspended, including the October Milk Production report, which would have resumed milk cow numbers and output per cow data, stopped because of the sequester. Other casualties are the Cold Storage, Livestock, Dairy & Poultry, World Ag/Supply/Demand Estimates, and Ag Prices reports. USDA will not publish the weekly National Dairy Products Sales Report (NDPSR), what I refer to as the "lagging" Ag Market Services (AMS-surveyed) dairy product prices used to calculate Federal order Class milk prices as well as settlements for Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) futures. High Ground Dairy's Eric Meyer reports that sources at USDA informed him that it would be invoking a special rule taken from the Code of Federal Regulations titled "Equivalent Price" in calculating this week's Class prices. Remaining on the job are USDA dairy graders, inspectors as well as federal milk marketing administrators as their funding is provided by the industry. The September Federal order Class III benchmark milk price is $18.14 per hundredweight (cwt.), up 23 cents from August, 86 cents below September 2012, $1.49 above California's comparable 4b cheese milk price, and equates to about $1.56 per gallon. The 2013 Class III average now stands at $17.76, up from $16.54 at this time a year ago, and compares to $18.28 in 2011, $14.07 in 2010, and $10.49 in 2009. The October Class III futures price setttled Friday at $18.14; November, $17.98; and December at $17.27 per cwt. The FO Class IV price is $19.43, up 36 cents from August, $2.02 above a year ago, and the highest it's been since September 2011. The 2013 Class IV average now stands at $18.49, up from $15.23 a year ago and compares to $19.48 in 2011, $14.70 in 2010, and $10.06 in 2009. The four-week, AMS-surveyed cheese price used in calculating the September milk prices was $1.7961 per pound, up 2.3 cents from August. Butter averaged $1.4263, up almost a penny. Nonfat dry milk averaged $1.8085, up 3.8 cents, and dry whey averaged 57.91 cents, up 1.3 cents. California's comparable 4b cheese milk price is $16.65 per cwt., up 33 cents from August but 85 cents below September 2012. The 2013 4b average now stands at $16.10, up from $14.69 at this time a year ago and compares to $16.48 in 2011. The 4a butter-powder milk price is $19.47, up 77 cents from August and $2.85 above a year ago. The 4a average now stands at $18.27, up from $14.88 a year ago and compares to $19.24 in 2011. Meanwhile; the cash dairy markets start October without much change. Block Cheddar cheese closed Friday at $1.7650 per pound, up a penny and a half on the week but 33-1/2-cents below that week a year ago when they were trading at $2.10. The barrels finished at $1.75, up 3 cents on the week and 31 cents below a year ago. Fifteen cars of block traded hands on the week and nine of barrel. The AMS-surveyed prices were not available due to the government shutdown. USDA's Dairy Market News (DMN) reports that demand for cheese is good with increased seasonal buying interest. Export demand is also good and clearing additional inventories. But, cheese plants are having difficulties sourcing additional spot loads of milk to fill the demand. Tight milk supplies are restricting cheese production schedules. Plants are directing available milk to highest efficiencies and to the making of high demand products. Cheese cold storage numbers are above year ago levels, however cheese makers are being cautious not to over sell to be sure of filling future contract commitments. Cash butter saw a fourth week of gain, closing Friday at $1.6150, up a half-cent on the week but 24-1/2-cents below a year ago when it lost 9 cents. Thirty eight cars were sold on the week. Butter production is still lagging due to good cream demand and milk production not quite back to levels of a few weeks ago, according to DMN. Cash Grade A nonfat dry milk finished Friday at $1.8450, up 1-1/2-cents on the week, while Extra Grade remained at $1.78, where it's been since August 22. ❖