Farm2015

FARM PROGRESS 2015

A Special Supplement to the March 14,2015 Morris Sun Tribune

Page 2C - Saturday, March 14, 2015

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Fodder production systems and their use in dairy operations Brad Heins West Central Research and Outreach Center There is renewed interest in fodder systems for dairy and livestock production systems. As organic grain prices have remained high and organic alfalfa hay in short supply because of drought conditions across the United States, producers are looking for information about fodder sprouting systems to supply essential nutrients to dairy cattle.

In a fodder system, a grain like barley, wheat or oats is sprouted in plastic trays and allowed to grow for seven days and then fed to livestock. Sprouted grains can be grown indoors without soil. It is essential to begin fodder sprouting with clean seed that is free from mold.

The seed is soaked for 12 to 24 hours, spread onto trays, and watering two or three times daily for seven days. Everyday seven-day sprouts are harvested and fed to livestock and new, clean seed is placed in trays for harvest in seven days There is very little research done on feeding fodder to dairy animals, with a lot of research being conducted in Australia.

There are many perceived benefits to growing fodder for livestock systems. A fodder system can feed a vast variety of livestock for milk and meat production. Depending on feed costs of hay and grain, fodder may produce a higher quality feed for less money than traditional methods. If

there is a drought, a fodder system will provide a small amount of forage for livestock. However, many of these statements have yet to be validated by research with dairy cattle.

The fodder that is harvested from the system is very digestible. Grain changes as it undergoes the sprouting process.

Preliminary analysis of the fodder shows high sugars, high neutral detergent fiber, and comparable net energy to the original grain used. Information of animal performance need to be researched on how to incorporate fodder into rations for dairy cattle.

At the WCROC organic dairy, we have installed a 1,150 pound fodder

system to research these emerging forage systems.

Our system will produce enough fodder to feed 40 cows. We will evaluated fodder for dairy cattle with a three-year research project. First, we will evaluate alternative grains (barley, wheat, oats, triticale, rye) harvested at 7 days for forage quality to establish their potential benefits of feeding to dairy cattle.

For evaluation of fodder in cattle, groups of cows will be fed fodder and TMR compared to a TMR with 10 pounds of corn during the grazing season.

A follow-up study will evaluate fodder feeding levels (0, 20, and 40 percent of the ration), along with pasture during the

grazing season. During the third year of the project, fodder will be fed to dairy heifers on pasture to evaluate growth potential and profitability. These studies may provide benefits to farmers because fodder may keep livestock healthy during drought or when supplemental feeds are expensive.

For our first study, we evaluated the performance of varieties of organic barley, oats, wheat, rye, and triticale harvested at seven days after the start of growing. During September and October 2014, every Monday for six weeks, 28 fodder trays from a FarmTek Fodder Pro system were filled with nine pounds of wet

grain. Each tray was automatically watered twice days for four minutes each time. On the seventh day, each tray was harvested, weighed, and scored on a 1 to 5 scale for mold.

Ten random samples from each grain each week were saved for dry matter and forage quality analysis.

Triticale and wheat had the greatest crude protein content of the alternative grains. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) was the greater for barley and oats, indicated that they have the highest digestible fiber. When the digestible fiber is greater in feeds, there are more benefits to cattle including higher milk production.

The barley and oats

had lower values of NFC (Non-fiber carbohydrates). The lower values of NFC indicate that there is less starch in the barley and oat fodder. Higher starch content was found in the rye and triticale. Barley fodder had the highest calcium percentage of any of the fodder samples.

The minerals results of the different grains are quite variable. The results show that barley has the highest forage quality for fodder production systems. However, oats may be another option for fodder production systems in the upper Midwest.

2XU 4XDOLĂ&#x20AC;HG 7HDP LV 5HDG\ WR 6HUYH <RXU )DUP

Morris Coop Agronomy Center

Stop by our Agronomy Center and visit with the guys for all your Agronomy needs...

Fertilizer â&#x20AC;˘ Chemical Seed & Seed Treatment Field Applications

001213296r1

6($621$/ -2% 23325781,7,(6 $9$,/$%/( &RQWDFW %ULDQ RU 'DUUHO DW

20944 State Hwy 9, Morris MN 320-589-4749

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

7Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 3C

Oats are not only for horses!

Abdullah Jaradat USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Morris The nutritional value of whole-grain oats has been recognized for millennia.

Although it originated in the Fertile Crescent region of the Middle East along with wheat and barley, the oat did not become an established crop in its center of origin. It spread northwards with these crops as a seed contaminant.

In northern Europe, the oat successfully competed with wheat and barley as an established and highly productive crop adapted to continental climates, especially in the region of present-day Germany.

Humans ate the groat (seed without hull) when food became scarce and used it as a medicine some four thousand years ago.

The groat was described as a healing agent, a desiccant for the skin, a cough reliever; and with the hull, as a natural feed for horses.

The Germanic tribes, some two thousand years ago, knew of the oat very well and made porridge and breadlike products from its groats.

The all-familiar breakfast oatmeal was an invention of the late 19th cen-

tury. Large-scale domestic milling, easy transport, and development of packaging equipment made it possible for consumers to have access to the new and healthy product.

Numerous studies have recently confirmed the nutritional and health benefits of the oat. Renewed interest in oat whole grain and oat products in the United States can be attributed to its claimed health benefits, including from its soluble fibers, micronutrients, special protein profile, and antioxidants. New food products, especially â&#x20AC;&#x153;functional foodsâ&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that is to say, foods thought to provide benefits beyond basic nutrition and may play a role in reducing or minimizing the risk of certain diseases and other health conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; are being developed to satisfy increased public demand, and promise to expand the cropâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s utilization.

That could be especially good news for oat production in Minnesota, which declined dramatically with the disappearance of horses and mules from family farms, especially after the 1970s. Oat used to be â&#x20AC;&#x153;kingâ&#x20AC;? in Stevens County. Today, a few

farmers in Minnesota still grow oats, but on a smallscale for their own use or for local consumption â&#x20AC;&#x201C; or as animal feed.

Of the many oat varieties which have been grown

by Minnesota farmers, many can be traced to the work of researchers at the University of Minnesota and USDA-Agricultural Research Service. Recently, we at the ARS Lab in Morris, Minnesota, brought back seed of some thirty-five varieties from the agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s National Small Grain Collection in Aberdeen, Idaho.

Scientists at Morris have evaluated about 500 oat lines from countries known to be large oat producers in Europe and other parts of the Old World. We planted these at the Swan Lake Research Farm for evaluation and to select the most productive and adapted ones. We plan on expanding our research program on small grains like Emmer wheat and develop high-yielding oat varieties adapted not only to current and future crop rotations and climate change in Minnesota, but also the Abdullah Jaradat/USDA-ARS changing economic needs The Soils Lab in Morris brought oats back to Stevens County. In 2014 researchers planted an of farmers.

oat nursery at the Swan Lake Research Farm to evaluate 500 oat lines. Among these oat lines were 39 old Minnesota varieties.

USDA provides one-time extension of deadline to update base acres or yield history for ARC/PLC programs program choice of ARC or PLC coverage also must be made by March 31, 2015, or there will be no 2014 payments for the farm and the farm will default to PLC coverage through the 2018 crop year.

Nationwide, more than

2.9 million educational postcards, in English and Spanish, have been sent to producers, and over 4,100 training sessions have been conducted on the new safety-net programs.

The online tools, available at www.fsa.usda.gov/ 001215298r1

arc-plc, allow producers to explore projections on how ARC or PLC coverage will affect their operation under possible future scenarios.

Covered commodities include barley, canola, large and small chickpeas,

corn, crambe, flaxseed, grain sorghum, lentils, mustard seed, oats, peanuts, dry peas, rapeseed, long grain rice, medium grain rice (which includes short grain rice), safflower seed, sesame, soybeans, sunflower seed and wheat.

Upland cotton is no longer a covered commodity.

To learn more, farmers can contact their local Farm Service Agency county office.

Morris Lumber & Millwork For All of Your Ag Building Needs Machine Storage, Cattle Barns, Hog Confinement, Horse Barns, Sheep Sheds, Insulated Shops, Utility Sheds, Grain Dryer Control Sheds & More

Red Horizon Equipment is a family owned company.

We Provide:

We sell all types of used farm equipment as well as trucks and trailers. Trained technicians in our large repair shop will solve any problems with your trucks or equipment. We offer quality new parts for your equipment repair needs at reduced prices as well.

KÂĽ Â&#x192;EÂĽ%8LvÂĽ KÂĽ ÂŻÂ&#x;§Â&#x192;zÂĽ ¯§¼ KÂĽ ÂŻwwÂĽ p \ÂĽÂ&#x192;gÂĽ LL\Â&#x;Â&#x;Â&#x192;Â&#x153;p\Â&#x; KÂĽ Â&#x192;EÂ&#x;p§\ÂĽ \wpÂľ\Â&#x153;¸ KÂĽ ÂŻÂ&#x;§Â&#x192;zÂĽ LL\Â&#x;Â&#x;Â&#x192;Â&#x153;p\Â&#x;ÂĽ Âľ8pw8Ew\ KÂĽÂĽ pVw8 VÂĽ Â&#x192;Â&#x192;Â&#x153;Â&#x;RÂĽÂĽ po Â&#x192;wVSÂĽ Âľ\Â&#x153;n\8VSÂĽ ¸VÂ&#x153;8ÂŻwpLÂĽ pg§

%Â&#x192;w\ÂĽ 8Â&#x153; Â&#x;SÂĽ(§pLvÂĽ Â&#x153;8z\ÂĽ>ÂĽ Grain Storage Buildings ÂŻÂ&#x153;8Epwp§¸ Versatility Âľ8pw8Ew\ÂĽp ÂĽ 8 ¸¼LÂ&#x192;wÂ&#x192;Â&#x153;Â&#x;

We can help with your new home and remodeling needs, too.

Come in or contact us for all your needs on the farm or over the road.

West Hwy 28 Morris, MN (320) 589-2331

Phone: (320) 634-4445 | Fax: (320) 634-4747 21915 160th St Glenwood, MN 56334

BE READY FOR PLANTING!

1038031

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that a one-time extension will be provided to producers for the new safety-net programs established by the 2014 Farm Bill, known as Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC). The final day to update yield history or reallocate base acres has been extended one additional month, from Feb. 27, 2015 until March 31, 2015. The final day for farm owners and producers to choose ARC or PLC coverage also remains March 31, 2015.

If no changes are made to yield history or base acres by March 31, 2015, the farmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current yield and base will be used. A

New Vehicle

BUY A NEW CHEVROLET TRUCK NOW! LIFETIME

LIMITED WARRANTY

includes Lifetime Towing Coverage

2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 3500HD

2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2500HD

#55116 Victory Red, regular cab, 4WD, touch screen

New!

SALE PRICE

$

35,650*

#55115 Crew Cab, Victory Red LTZ, Z71, 4WD, Bose, leather

New!

SALE PRICE

2014 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 LTZ

#55140 Lt. Silver Ice Metallic, V8, camera, 4WD!

heated and cooled leather!

SALE PRICE

$

43,125*

2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO #55138 3500 Double Cab, Summit White, 4WD, long box

New!

SALE PRICE

$

New! New!

SALE PRICE

(320) 589-2223 â&#x20AC;˘ 800-992-8839

$36,795*

2015 CHEVROLET COLORADO CREW

37,750*

301 E Hwy 28 â&#x20AC;˘ Morris, MN

56,815*

2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 LT

#54342 White Diamond V8, Bose, 4WD,

New!

$

AFTER HOURS, CALL OUR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS: Marv Westrom â&#x20AC;˘ 651-587-6972 Kyle Athey â&#x20AC;˘ 320-305-1512 Lynn Boots â&#x20AC;˘ 320-589-2654 Kevin Wohlers â&#x20AC;˘ 320-287-0279 Ryan Stout â&#x20AC;˘ 320-349-0456

001218010r1

1.9% APR ON SELECT CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED GM VEHICLES

#55107 Red Hot, Z71, 4WD!

SALE PRICE

$33,740*

We have your best interest at heart. www.heartlandmotor.com

Like us on Facebook â&#x20AC;˘ Facebook.com/HeartlandMotorCompany *Must own a 1999 or newer GM vehicle.

OVER 300 NEW & PRE-OWNED VEHICLES IN STOCK

Page 4C - Saturday, March 14, 2015

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Soils Labâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; energy saving investment Major investment made for future of local agricultural research lab the temperature of the hot water in the system is automatically raised to keep the building at a comfortable temperature. This control practice is known as an â&#x20AC;&#x153;outdoor reset.â&#x20AC;? This creates efficiencies in the system as steam always requires water to be heated to 212 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of the building heating load.

The new boiler design also includes a fully condensing â&#x20AC;&#x153;shoulderâ&#x20AC;? boiler to heat the building in the spring and fall. This feature further improves efficiency. In addition to avoided maintenance costs, the new system eliminates make-up water use and on-going boiler chemical costs. Also, new Steve Wagner/USDA-ARS circulation pumps are Charles Hennen, a USDA-ARS Soils Lab employee, shut down the 1960 vintage boilers for the controlled more efficiently last time. These boilers were demolished to make room for more efficient models. with frequency drives that Steve Wagner, Chuck Hennen, Scott Larson USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Morris In the late 1950s, a forward thinking group of local farmers and businessmen formed the Barnes Aastad Soil and Water Association. Barnes Aastad was successful in establishing a federal agricultural research lab in Morris. This research lab, informally known as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Soils Lab,â&#x20AC;? continues to work today to solve agricultural problems on a local, regional, national and global scale with the support of Barnes Aastad members.

The original Soils Lab building was constructed in 1960. Over the years, the facility has grown to include about 35,000 square

feet of building space. This space includes offices, labs, conference rooms, chemical storage, greenhouses, growth chambers, shop, and soil and plant processing areas. The original boiler system served the heating systems needs of the lab for many years, until recently when the ARS approved funding to install a new, more efficient boiler system.

There were many reasons to invest in the Soils Lab heating plant (including an Executive Order directing federal agencies to lead by example in energy and water conservation). Executive Order 13514 states â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Federal Government owns and operates nearly three billion square feet of Federal building space. Upgrading the energy performance of buildings is one of the fast-

new system resulted in approximately a 19 percent reduction in natural gas use. The energy and other cost savings, in turn, have provided precious discretionary dollars to accomplish our research mission.

Reducing energy use provides both economic and environmental benefits. The reduced energy use has lowered our carbon footprint by preventing approximately 38 tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year.

The Soils Lab continues to look for more efficient ways to do business. The recent investment in our facility will help us to continue to serve our stakeholders for many years to come.

reduce electrical operating costs.

To maximize efficiency, the design engineers were encouraged to â&#x20AC;&#x153;right sizeâ&#x20AC;? the boilers to match the building load. When a system is designed, the system is sized based on what is known as â&#x20AC;&#x153;design day conditions.â&#x20AC;? These are the coldest days of winter.

The new heating plant is in its second heating season.

Last winter was the first test of the system. Remember last winter? Every day seemed to be a â&#x20AC;&#x153;designâ&#x20AC;? day. Fortunately, the new system passed the test!

An energy audit conducted after a full heating season compared the energy use of the new heating plant to the old system.

After correcting the data for weather conditions, the audit showed that the

est and most effective ways to reduce energy costs, cut pollution, and create jobs in the construction and energy sectors. We have a responsibility to lead by example, reduce our energy use, and operate our buildings efficiently.â&#x20AC;?

The original boilers were a low-pressure steam system. The system was showing the wear of many years of service and required on-going maintenance costs for boiler and pump repair.

Hot water boilers replaced the low-pressure steam system. Hot water has the advantage of allowing better control based on the outside air temperature. On mild days, water is only heated to a temperature that will satisfy the building heatSteve Wagner/USDA-ARS ing load. As the outside air Scott Larson, a USDA-ARS Soils Lab employee, is pictured with the recently installed modern temperature goes down, and efficient boiler system.

North American Fa r m & Po w e r S h o w 0DUFK

Four Seasons Center 1525 South Elm Ave. Owatonna, MN

ÇťĂ&#x152;Č&#x2013;Ç&#x2039;ÇŁ_ É´ ˨ Ĺ? Ë&#x161; ˤƝĹ? ÂŽÇ&#x2039;Ă&#x17E;_ É´ ˨ Ĺ? Ë&#x161; ˤƝĹ? Ǣ ÇźČ&#x2013;Ç&#x2039;_ É´ ˨ Ĺ? Ë&#x161; ËŁĆťĹ?

M N F FA S il en t A uc t io n

Free Parking

Free Admission

Free Educational Ag Seminars

5HJLVWHU WR :LQ D -RKQ 'HHUH ' 5LGLQJ 0RZHU &RXUWHV\ RI

Ag Power Enterprises Serving you from Belle Plaine, Hollandale & Owatonna, MN Northwood & Osage, IA For a seminar schedule & additional farm show information call Tradexpos 800-949-3976 or visit our website at www.tradexpos.com

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

7Morris, Minnesota 56267

Minnesota small farms down 400, but farm acres unchanged

The total number of farms in Minnesota in 2014 was 74,000, down 400 farms compared to a year ago, according to the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, Upper Midwest Regional Office. The largest decrease in number of farms came in the $1,000 to $9,999 range with a decrease of 400 farms from 27,000 in 2013 to 26,600 in 2014.

Total land in farms in Minnesota in 2014 was 25.9 million acres, unchanged from 2013. Farms in the $1,000,000 and over sales class showed a decrease of 30,000 acres from a year ago while farms in the $500,000$999,999 range showed an increase of 30,000 acres.

The average farm size in Minnesota in 2014 was 350 acres, up two acres from 2013. The average farm size in the $1,000,000 and over sales class increased 29 acres from 1,798 acres on average in 2013 to 1,827 in 2014.

State corn harvest lowest since 2008 Minnesota corn growers produced 1.18 billion bushels in 2014, the seventh largest on record, but the lowest since 2008 according to estimates released by the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. Redwood County, in the Southwestern District, was the largest corn producing county in Minnesota with 39.1 million bushels. Mower, Martin, Renville, and Faribault rounded out the top five.

The Minnesota corn yield, at 156 bushels per acre, is the tenth ranked yield on record. The record high yield of 177 was set in 2010. Watonwan led all counties with an

average of 186.3 bushels per acre. Dodge (185.3), Olmsted (185.0), and Goodhue (182.0) Counties also topped the 180 bushel level. Wabasha County rounded out the top five.

A cool and very wet spring hindered planting and delayed emergence in 2014. Generally favorable conditions prevailed the rest of the growing season, but development remained behind normal all summer. The crop ripened later than normal and harvest also progressed behind normal.

EPA expected to announce RFS this spring The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to offer a proposal for Renewable Fuels Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 this spring, and will use actual production levels to determine last year’s mandated volumes.

Reuters reports that the agency will address all three years at once and plans to look at broader changes to address longterm issues of demand as well as arguments from refiners that ethanol blending capacity has hit its peak, said Christopher Grundler, a director at the EPA’s Office of Air Quality and Transportation, at an industry conference in Grapevine, Texas.

Further, the agency will likely set mandated volumes for 2014 that are near last year’s actual production levels.

“It will be based on what actually happened,” Grundler told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference.

The EPA is late in designating volumes for ethanol and other biofuels to be blended into the domestic fuel supply. The agency has struggled to

increase the mandated levels as designated in a plan laid out by Congress in 2007 as growth of overall fuels demand has slowed.

Last year, makers of ethanol and other renewable fuels pumped out more than 17 billion gallons, above the revised target of 15.2 billion the EPA proposed in late 2013.

The vast majority of that was corn-based ethanol, which rose to a record of 14.3 billion gallons in 2014, according to government data. That could put the volumes allotted for ethanol blending at about 13.5 billion gallons, as export markets accounted for just a sliver of that output at 836 million gallons, according to estimates from industry group Renewable Fuels Association.

The EPA has been inundated with public comments after proposing in 2013 sharp cuts to blending volumes for ethanol and other biofuels.

The annual production of milk for the United States during 2014 was 206 billion pounds, 2.4 percent above 2013.

Annual milk production in 2014 was up 2.4 percent Production per cow averaged 22,258 pounds for 2014, 442 pounds above 2013. The average annual rate of milk production per cow has increased 13.9 percent from 2005.

The average number of milk cows on farms in the U.S. during 2014 was 9.26 million head, up 0.4 percent from 2013. The average number of milk cows was revised up 2,000 head for 2014.

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 5C

Determining feeder space requirements for growing-finishing pigs Yuzhi Li West Central Research and Outreach Center Kimberly McDonalds and Harold Gonyou Prairie Swine Center, Saskatoon SK, Canada A key component in swine production is how the feed is delivered to pigs. A producer can supply the “best feed money can buy,” but if it is not readily accessible to his pigs, the money will be wasted. So, a producer must determine how many pigs to put in the pen and the corresponding number of feeders. However, deciding how many feeder spaces to provide is no simple matter as many factors influence the number of pigs that can eat from a feeder.

One way to determine feeder space requirement for pigs is to measure how much time pigs need to eat their daily rations at the feeder. This will dictate the total amount of time that the feeder is used by the pigs in a pen. When the feeder is expected to be used 100 percent of the time, feeder capacity reaches 100 percent. The maximum number of pigs that can eat from a single space feeder, which is the feeder space requirement, should not exceed 100 percent feeder capacity. A study was conducted to determine effects of feed form (mash vs. pelleted diets) and presentation (dry vs. wet/dry diets) on the amount of time needed for pigs to consume their daily rations. Ultimately, the maximal number of pigs that can eat from a single-space feeder was estimated based on feeder capacity less than 100 percent.

The study used eight pens of 12 pigs, with a single-space feeder in each pen.

Two pens were randomly assigned to

each of four treatment combinations: mash diets fed from a dry feeder, mash diets fed from a wet/dry feeder, pelleted diets fed from a dry feeder and pelleted diets fed from a wet/dry feeder. Eating behavior was video-recorded when the pigs were 80 to 100 pounds and 200 to 220 pounds respectively. Then, the total duration of eating was determined for pigs during each phase.

Using the eating behavioral data, the number of pigs needed to achieve 100 percent feeder capacity was estimated.

Results indicate that pigs fed mash diets from a wet/dry feeder spent less time eating (Table 1) compared with pigs fed the same diets from a dry feeder.

Consequently, more pigs (20 vs. 13 for the grower phase, and 23 vs. 13 for the finishing phase) can eat from a wet/dry feeder than from a dry feeder when fed mash diets at 100 percent feeder capacity.

Likewise, pigs fed pelleted diets (dry or wet/dry) spent less time consuming their daily rations than pigs fed dry mash diets.

To maintain feeder capacity less than 100 percent, the estimated feeder requirement is 12 pigs per feeder space for pigs fed mash diets from dry feeders during both growing and finishing phases. For pigs fed pelleted diets or mash diets from wet/dry feeders, the estimated feeder requirement is between 17 and 19 pigs per feeder space for the growing phase, and between 21 and 22 pigs per feeder space for the finishing phase.

Table 1. The total duration of eating and the number of pigs needed to achieve 100% feeder capacity for growing and finishing pigs using single-space feeders

• Repair • Troubleshooting hydrostatic service, inc

• Sales

(320) 634-4360 Toll Free (320) 634-4360

• Design R001868712

16084 State Hwy. 29 Glenwood, MN 56334

Service Calls Made

Stop in and see us for all your lumber, paint, hardware & building needs!

Do you want to learn about the benefits of digital radios? Some key benefits are: t 4NPPUI NJHSBUJPO UP GVUVSF OBSSPXFS CBOEXJEUIT t &OIBODF BVEJP RVBMJUZ SBOHF t 4UBUJD BOE OPJTF SFEVDUJPO t -POHFS CBUUFSZ MJGF t $BMM VT GPS NPSF EFUBJMT

NEW wide area radio coverage with lease options now available! Call us to request a digital radio demonstration.

For More Information Call Toll-Free 1.800.223.1676

Brandon Communications 800 Central Avenue North Brandon, MN 56315 320.524.2283

Hwy. 28 West • Chokio (320) 324-7171

Let us help you from the planning phase through the construction and completion of your building project.

001213538r1

BRANDON COMMUNICATIONS

Hooter’s Lumber

Page 6C - Saturday, March 14, 2015

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Planting for pollinators Steve Poppe and Esther Jordan West Central Research and Outreach Center

Pollinators, especially bees, are responsible for the pollination of nearly 90 crops in North America and 30 percent of what we eat. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, honey bees and wild bees (bumble bees, leaf cutter bees, alkali bees and mason bees) pollinate more than $15 billion worth of crops in the United States each year. Without pollinators, one-third of fruits and vegetables would not exist as we know them. Many plants such as almond, apple, blueberry, sunflower, clover and canola cannot reproduce without the help from insect pollinators.

Pollinator populations have rapidly decreased in recent years. Winter honey bee colony losses have ranged from 30 to 90 percent, at least twice the 15 percent loss considered sustainable. There are approximately 20,000 species of wild bees in the world, and they are disappearing from areas where they were once common.

Scientists currently be-

lieve pollinator population declines are caused by multiple factors acting together including diseases, parasites, exposure to pesticides, and lack of nutrition. One reason for poor pollinator nutrition is that modern landscapes contain both fewer and less diverse flowers resulting in a scarcity of pollen and nectar, and pollen and nectar of low nutritional value. When bees have access to a good diet, we have access to good nutrition through their pollination services and the bees are better able to engage their own natural defenses.

What we are doing to help Habitat establishment and enhancement for native pollinators has numerous potential benefits that may include decreasing soil erosion and improving water quality, fertility, and soil health as well as supporting other wildlife populations. Beneficial insects can also help control agricultural pests.

The West Central Research and Outreach Center (WCROC), in collaboration with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), created a pollinator evaluation plot

Gravity Box Drill Fills Now Available at

DJN Electric 810 W. 5th St. Morris

(320) 589-4323 Jeff Scheldorf

near the WCROC Pomme de Terre Overlook. The evaluation plot consists of five different mixes of native forbs and grass, and oil seed crops containing canola, echium, cuphea, and calendula.

The objectives of our pollinator habitat include: 1. Conduct evaluation studies to determine the adaptation and performance of various plant materials for benefit to native pollinators.

2. Develop evaluation plots to be used as demonstration sites and outdoor classrooms to provide information about supporting pollinators to the general public.

3. Document establishment and management techniques, as well as plant performance.

How to create your own pollinator garden The public can help by planting pesticide-free flower gardens to create pollinator habitats. Better-fed pollinators will be able to better resist diseases and parasites.

Pollinator gardens can be targeted to help honey bees, wild bees, or other pollinators such as butterflies.

• Choose a sunny location for your pollinator garden.

• Avoid disturbing areas where pollinator activity is already present, such as ground nests.

• Leave downed logs, leaf litter, flower stems and bare spots to provide nesting and overwintering habitat for pollinators.

(Check city ordinances for rules about dead wood).

• Choose seed mixes for prairie plantings that have a high percentage (40 percent or more) of flowering plants.

• Select native plants for which local pollinators are well-adapted.

• Plan for continuous bloom throughout the growing season.

• Plant single-flowered cultivars versus double-flowered cultivars, (doubled-flowered culti-

vars frequently lack pollen or nectar).

• Select several different flower shapes and colors to attract a variety of pollinators. Bees and butterflies are especially attracted to blue, purple, violet, white, or yellow flowers.

• Plant flowers in large clusters.

• Avoid using pesticides on your pollinator garden.

If you must use a pesticide choose a contact (rather than systemic) pesticide and apply in the evening when bees are not present.

For more information on pollinator research at the WCROC, visit wcroc. cfans.umn.edu. Pollinator fact sheets and other helpful information can also be found at www.nrcs.usda. gov.

Morris, Minnesota 56267

U.S. cattle inventory up 1 percent from 2014 WASHINGTON – As of January 1, there were 89.8 million head of cattle and calves on U.S. farms, according to the Cattle report published today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). This is the first increase in U.S. herd inventory since 2007.

Other key findings in the report were: There are 29.7 million beef cows in the United States as of January 1, 2015. This is up 2 percent from last year.

The number of milk cows in the United States increased to 9.3 million.

U.S. calf crop was estimated at 33.9 million head, up 1 percent from 2013.

Of the 89.8 million cattle and calves, 39.0 million

were all cows and heifers that have calved.

All cattle on feed increased to 13.1 million, up 1 percent from 2014.

To obtain an accurate measurement of the current state of the U.S. cattle industry, NASS surveyed more than 38,200 operators across the nation during the first half of January. NASS interviewers collected the data by mail, telephone, internet, and through face-to-face personal interviews. NASS asked all participating producers to report their cattle inventories as of January 1, 2015.

The semiannual Cattle report and all other NASS reports are available online at www.nass.usda. gov.

Grants available for Minnesota farmers WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is now accepting applications for Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grants to help Minnesota farmers lower energy costs and boost renewable energy.

Minnesota farmers received $560,000 in grants through USDA’s rural energy program in 2014 for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

Klobuchar successfully fought to provide an additional $100 million for REAP in the 2014 Farm Bill. Franken helped write the energy section of the 2014 Farm Bill, including reauthorization of REAP. “Minnesota’s farmers and rural communities are the backbone of our state’s economy,” Klobuchar said.

“I fought to expand the REAP program in the 2014 Farm Bill, and I encourage Minnesota farmers and

small business owners to take advantage of this program by applying for a grant or loan to help cut their energy costs.”

“When Minnesota farmers and rural communities deploy renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects, it lowers their overall energy costs and makes our country more energy secure,” Franken said. “As co-author of the Farm Bill’s energy section, I was proud to include strong support for the Rural Energy for America Program. These REAP grants will assist in the installation of energy projects, and I urge all Minnesota farmers, ranchers, and rural businesses who qualify to apply for this important program.”

Klobuchar, who is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, helped craft the 2014 Farm Bill and served on the conference committee responsible for negotiating the final version of the

legislation. The five-year bill passed with strong bipartisan support. It reduces the deficit by $23 billion, strengthens the safety net for Minnesota farmers and ranchers, streamlines conservation programs, and supports homegrown energy.

Franken championed several key provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill to help Minnesota’s ag communities. He helped author the energy section of the bill – including a reauthorization of REAP – to give Minnesota farmers, ranchers, and rural businesses the support they need to deploy renewable energy and energy efficient technologies.

For more information about how to apply, contact Minnesota’s USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinator Ron Omann at (651) 602-7796 or ron.omann@mn.usda. gov.

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

7Morris, Minnesota 56267

USDA extends farm bill deadline The U.S. Department of Agriculture extended until March 31 the Feb. 27 deadline to update yields and reallocate base acres.

The final day to apply for farm bill safety-net coverage also is March 31, USDA says.

The extension was announced Feb. 27.

“This (the yield update and base acre reallocation extension) is an important decision for producers, because these programs provide financial protection against unexpected changes in the marketplace,” USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack says in a news release. “Producers are working to make the best decision they can.

And we’re working to ensure that they’ve got the time, the information, and the opportunities to have those final conversations, review their data, and to visit the Farm Service Agency to make those decisions.”

Farm Service Agency officials and others who talked with Agweek before the Feb. 27 extension say the signup process was going smoothly.

“It’s gone well,” says Diane Beidler, executive director of Turner County (S.D.) FSA. Debra Crusoe, executive state director of Minnesota FSA, says her impression is that many landowners signed up.

Even with the extension, most attention is on the March 31 deadline to sign up for the farm bill safety-net provisions.

FSA officials say they’re optimistic that sign-up for these complicated provisions also will go well, but they stress that farmers shouldn’t wait until the last minute to sign up.

“If you’re 99 percent sure of what you’re going to do, come in and sign up. If you change your mind (before the March 31 deadline), you can always come back in,” says Aaron Krauter, executive state director of North Dakota FSA.

The other big difference is the yield update/ base allocation sign-up decision is relatively clearcut, while the safety-net provision sign-up decision is murky at best. Regional extension economists and other experts say allocating crop base acres, authorized by the new farm bill approved in 2014, merits careful consideration.

Crop yields help determine the size of potential farm program payments, so updating them could mean more money for farmers.

“It’s a no-brainer to update yields if you can,” says Howard Person, veteran Pennington County, Minn., extension agent.

Improving crop practices had pushed up yields overall, he and others note.

Reallocating base acres, in turn, could make more acres on a farm eligible for farm program programs, which also could mean more money for farmers.

Soybeans are increasingly common in northwest Minnesota, prompting many farmers there to reallocate, Person says.

The popularity of both corn and soybeans has risen across much of the Upper Midwest, often at the expense of wheat, increasing the incentive to reallocate, ag officials say.

Dan Weber, with Weber Insurance in Casselton, N.D., in the east-central part of the state, says many of his clients have reallocated to reflect increased corn acres on their farms.

Safety-net options But the decision on the farm bill safety-net programs is more complicated.

Farmers need to choose between Agricultural Risk Coverage, which protects against falling revenue, and Price Loss Coverage, which provides payments

when crop prices fall.

To complicate matters, ARC comes in two versions: the county level and individual producer/ farm level.

FSA offers these reminders for farmers who still need to sign up for the farm bill program: n Signatures: Using the correct signature when doing business with FSA can save time and prevent a delay in program benefits.

The following are FSA signature guidelines: Spouses may sign documents on behalf of each other for FSA and CCC programs in which either has an interest, unless written notification denying a spouse this authority has been provided to the county office.

Spouses shall not sign on behalf of each other as an authorized signatory for partnerships, joint ventures, corporations, or other similar entities.

• Power of attorney: FSA has a power of attorney form available that allows producers to designate another person to conduct business at the office.

• Farming operation changes: Producers who have established a trust or other entity, bought or sold land, or added or dropped rented land from their operation must report those changes to the FSA office as soon as possible. A copy of the deed or recorded land contract for purchase property is needed to maintain accurate records with FSA.

Tech colleges team up for ag education program Robb Jeffries Forum News Service ST. PAUL – With an aging workforce and pressing labor shortages, a new collaboration among tech colleges will focus on infusing the ag industry with skilled workers.

Educators and lawmakers gathered Tuesday in St. Paul to announce the opening of a new Center of Excellence within the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system.

Called AgCentric, the program will address the growing shortage of educated workers in the ag industry and the increasing global food demands through outreach and education.

Program enrollment will begin in the fall semester of 2015 at Central Lakes College in Staples, Ridgewater College in Willmar and Northland Community and Technical College in Thief River Falls. The schools will pool resources to guide students to programs that best fit their talents.

“It’s about trying to provide a clear path for students to find their way into agriculture, because

the opportunities aren’t just there for someone who comes from a farm to be a farm operator,” Ridgewater College President Douglas Allen said.

“It’s in ag business, ag technology, science, seed genetics. It’s everywhere, all over the map, and it’s our challenge to bring it all together at our center of excellence.”

The variety in programs between the member colleges will bring new opportunities for students, school administrators said. AgCentric will develop shared curriculum offerings in ag studies based off each college’s specialties, opening up increased course offerings at each member school.

Northland’s unmanned aircraft program, for example can help enhance precision ag education, said Anne Temte, president of NCTC. “What we don’t have are the programs Ridgewater and Central Lakes have, and so their strengths tied to our strengths will give us the ability to take an emerging industry and make it accessible to the farmers of Minnesota,” she said.

Jonathan Knutson is a staff writer for Agweek.

To subscribe to the weekly agriculture magazine, call (800) 811-2580 or email subscriptions@agweek. com.

Keith Olander, the director of the Central Lakes Ag & Energy Center, was appointed director of AgCentric. He said one of the most important tasks the center will have is recruitment.

“Planting those seeds of an agriculture career in middle school and high school is becoming more important than ever,” he said. “When we talk to students in most of our areas, particularly in the urban arena, kids are a couple generations removed (from farming). There isn’t a lot of knowledge of where food really comes from, or the processes involved.”

Olander said he is excited for the collaboration, and the challenges facing the ag industry will keep the center busy.

“This represents a change in education,” he said. “AgCentric is collaboration with a purpose: it’s getting together … to better serve the industry, to better serve our students and to advance agriculture not only in Minnesota, but across the country.”

Let’s get

GrOwING TOGETHER!

001217736r1

Big differences There are two important differences between the two sign-ups.

Landowners are the ones to update yields and reallocate crop base acres, while farmers are responsible for the safety-net sign-up.

GIVE US A CALL! Nathan Suess

320-287-1972 or 320-297-0267 suessarelli@yahoo.com

CERTIFIFED

DEALER

46126 Hwy 28 East • Morris, MN 56267 Jerry Lesmeister, Owner • 320.287.0179 jerry@allstatetrailersales.com

001042949r1

Jonathan Knutson Forum News Service

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 7C

Belt Trailers - End Dump - Flatbed - Dropdeck - Live Floor Belt Trailers Live Floor Hay Flats & Dropdecks

Aluminum & Steel End Dump Trailers

Tarps All Steel Dropdeck & Flatbeds

Manual, Electric, Replacement Tarps & Parts. Tarps to cover anything.

Electric hopper trap openers.

W W W.A L L S TAT E T R A I L E R S A L E S .C O M

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Page 8C - Saturday, March 14, 2015

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Energy systems for farms to be showcased at the Midwest Farm Energy Conference The agricultural industry consumes an immense amount of fossil-fuel in the production of food, feed, fiber, and energy. From the electricity that cools milk, to the fuel that is burned in combines and tractors in grain fields, to the trucks that bring goods to market, and to the nitrogen fertilizer that nourishes plants; the agricultural industry is captive to large and constant supplies of a wide range of fossil energy. Agriculture’s dependence on fossil-fuel carries significant economic, environmental, and social risks for the nation and world. Despite the availability of commercial technology to increase energy efficiency and add renewable generation on farms, adoption has been slow due in part to a lack of information regarding integration of these energy systems on farms as well as the resulting financial implications.

On June 17 to June 19, the University of Minnesota West Central Research and Outreach Center will be hosting the Midwest Farm Energy Conference. The conference will showcase energy efficient and renewable energy technologies for farms. Topics include: • Energy usage in swine and dairy production systems • Lowering energy consumption by reducing temperature of swine facilities • Control strategies for swine and dairy facilities • Opportunities for solar energy on farms • Integrating energy efficient and renewable energy systems in Midwest dairies • Life cycle energy in livestock production • Incentives, grants, and loans for renewable and energy efficient systems • And tours of several renewable energy and energy efficient systems Steve Peterson, General Mills director of sustainable sourcing will be a keynote speaker. Large retailers and consumers are demanding food products with a lower energy footprint and Mr. Peterson will share an interesting perspective from the viewpoint of a food processor and large purchaser of farm commodities. (For more information regarding the conference or to register, go online to z.umn.edu/mfec2015).

The Midwest Farm Energy Conference will highlight research in progress at the West Central Research and Outreach Center (WCROC). Researchers are working together on an initiative to lower energy consumption and introduce renewable energy generation to crop, dairy, and swine production systems. Several funded research projects are currently in progress. In the first step, the research team is auditing energy consumption within the crop, dairy, and swine enterprises at the WCROC. Based on the energy audits, energy-optimized systems are being designed, developed, and tested.

Energy-optimized crop production systems Currently, there are two efforts under way to improve energy usage in cropping systems. The first project involves producing nitrogen fertilizer from wind energy.

Nitrogen fertilizer is currently produced using natural gas as the feedstock. The use of natural gas to produce fertilizer leads to volatile nitrogen fertilizer prices and a higher carbon footprint of the grain. Our approach is to use wind energy to power a process to generate hydrogen and nitrogen from water and air respectively.

The hydrogen and nitrogen are then combined to form anhydrous ammonia. Currently, the Renewable Hydrogen and Ammonia Pilot Plant at the WCROC is being operated to study the amount of energy consumed per pound of nitrogen fertilizer produced. The information is being used in an economic evaluation sponsored by the Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council.

In the second research project, our team is conducting an evaluation of diesel fuel requirements for crop production. An evaluation is being made of crop

productivity utilizing an energy-optimized organic cropping system compared to a more tillage intensive traditional organic crop system, and a conventional crop system. The three crop systems are contrasted in a silage corn-soybean-corn rotation (winter wheat chopped for forage is included in the two organic systems for weed management).

WCROC established an organic dairy herd in 2008.

One of the biggest challenges with organic production is weed management and its impact on yield. In organic systems, repetitive tillage is frequently required for weed control. While using the traditional organic system, our crop production was mostly successful. However, the system was tillage intensive and counterproductive to promoting soil sustainability – a tenet embedded within the organic production philosophy. Repetitive tillage leads to increased fuel consumption, soil carbon loss/organic matter decomposition, and promotes soil erosion. The challenge is to produce organic crops in a sustainable manner and in the spirit of organic production principles. Thus a revised, less tillage intensive production system was initiated.

A study has been in progress for two years comparing an energy-optimized organic production system, with traditional organic and conventional crop production.

Initial results indicate the conventional crop production uses 7.6 gal of diesel per acre. The energy-optimized organic system used approximately two gallons of diesel fuel per acre less when compared to the traditional organic production system (11.86 gal / ac and 13.81 gal / ac respectively). Initial results show that more progress is required to lower energy consumption in organic crop production systems.

•

Energy-optimized swine production systems The research team has recently begun work to improve

Backman Welding and our well-trained staff welcome the challenge of working with you and are pleased to have fabricated many products that have made a difference in the world of our satisfied customers.

Save $$/acre when compared to MAP & Potash Blends P&K source with complete micro-nutrient package Nitrogen Free- No need to incorporate Excellent for Corn, Sugarbeets, Alfalfa, Edibles, and Soybeans®

We have a plasma table, saw, press brake, and much more!

We can design, fabricate and build anything to your specs!

WE STOCK:

001218188r1

• •

Conference and tour Information generated from the energy research conducted at the West Central Research and Outreach Center is intended to benefit Minnesota farmers. If you are an agricultural producer looking to save energy in livestock and other farm buildings or if you are curious whether a solar energy system may fit your farm, consider registering for the Midwest Farm Energy Conference. The conference will be an excellent opportunity to learn more detailed information and network with other producers and energy professionals. For more information or to register go online to z.umn.edu/mfec2015.

Energy-optimized dairy production systems In the dairy, the research team is beginning to add and test new energy efficient systems as well as an integrated renewable generation system. One of the objectives is to produce on-site all the electric and thermal energy consumed by the dairy.

An issue with renewable electricity is that it is difficult to store. The dairy system will incorporate a thermal storage tank that can be used to “store” solar thermal, solar electric, and wind generation. The solar and wind system will provide electricity to the milking parlor when needed, but can also drive heat pumps to produce hot water during periods of low demand. Considerable energy is needed to produce hot water in the dairy as it is used for sanitizing the parlor and milk lines. Using the heat pumps is a very efficient manner in which to generate hot water.

Once produced by the heat pumps, hot water is then stored in a super insulated tank (Figure 1). The tank design incorporates vertical partitions and horizontal baffles to enhance temperature stratification in the tank (Figure 2). Temperature stratification is a result of warmer water rising and cooler water sinking in a tank and can improve the overall efficiency of thermal systems by as much as 20 percent.

The efficiency is improved because the hottest water available is used to supply the heat load and the coolest water available is supplied to the heat sources. The tank’s inlet and outlet diffusers, as well as the partitions and baffles, are carefully designed to minimize mixing when water is added and withdrawn from the tank. The tanks will be insulated with spray foam insulation to approximately R-80. Insulation allows energy to be stored longer in the tank and helps maintain temperature stratification by minimizing heat loss at the tank walls.

Designed by WCROC Renewable Energy Scientist Eric Buchanan, the tank is anticipated to be fabricated at a local business. Funding to install a small wind turbine and solar electric system for the dairy has also been awarded.

Growers are excited about NAFmicro because: •

the energy systems used in swine production. Funding has been received to measure the energy consumption within the WCROC swine production systems as well as some commercial barns in the region. This information will then be used to better control existing systems and to develop retrofit designs that incorporate energy efficient technology and renewable energy generation.

In addition, the Minnesota Agricultural Rapid Response Fund has sponsored research to study improved management of nocturnal swine building temperatures.

Decreasing temperatures at night has been shown in past research to lower energy consumption while maintaining swine performance. Our research team will work towards optimizing this practice. Additional funding has also been awarded by the Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) through the Environmental Trust Fund to install a 20 kilowatt solar electric system for the WCROC swine facilities.

To learn more or to schedule a plant tour: Call Scott or Travis in Alberta area (320)324-7461 Call Timm in Benson area (320)212-2549

• Various sizes of Angle & Flat Bar • Steel & Aluminum Tube • Stainless Steel • All Types of Sheet Metal If you need anything from material to services...come check us out.

001037518r1

Michael Reese, Eric Buchanan, and George Nelson West Central Research and Outreach Center

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 9C

Considerations for out-wintering the dairy herd Brad Heins West Central Research and Outreach Center

Quests for profitability and increased public interest in farm animal welfare have fostered a need to investigate winter housing options for low-input and organic dairy herds. Dairy cattle are commonly housed outdoors during the winter months in New Zealand and Ireland. Housing options in Minnesota, which has much colder winters, include tie-stall barns, free-stall barns, compost barns, and “out-wintering” on bedded packs with wind shelters.

We have long known that beef cows and older dairy heifers can thrive with minimal shelter during Minnesota winters. In contrast, milk cows have generally been kept indoors, in part because they were milked in tiestall barns. More recently, curtain-sided free stall barns have become the standard housing of new construction for larger herds.

Out-wintering continues to increase in popularity, and our stakeholders identified the economics of housing systems as an important research topic.

In particular, they asked if

out-wintered dairy cattle will stay healthy and comfortable. If so, out-wintering could reduce winter housing costs.

We recently completed the first two years of a three-year study to develop practical strategies for organic dairy producers to enhance the profitability of their farm by evaluating two winter housing systems and their effects on economics of organic dairy cows. The results presented are from the winter of 2013 and 2014.

Organic dairy cows at the University of Minnesota’s West Central Research and Outreach Center that calved during fall and spring calving seasons were used to evaluate production, somatic cell score, dry matter intake, animal hygiene, and behavior of organic dairy cattle housed outdoors on a straw pack or indoors in a compost bedded pack barn.

During the two years, 165 lactating Holstein and crossbred organic dairy cattle were assigned to a winter housing system (straw pack or compost-bedded pack barn).

Organic wheat straw was used as bedding for the outdoor straw packs, which were 40 feet wide by 80

Across the two winter seasons, there were no differences for body weight or body condition score for organic cows. For animal cleanliness, the cows housed on straw packs had udders that were cleaner than cows housed in compost bedded packs (udder hygiene score of 1.45 versus 1.73). We saw no difference in rumination time for cows housed outdoors or indoors.

In future years, we will focus on the profitability of the two winter housing systems for organic dairy cattle. Economically, animals outdoors may require about 15 to 20 percent more feed for the season than animals kept in confinement housing, so

feet long, and maintained to keep cows dry and absorb manure throughout the winter. The open-front compost-bedded pack barn (two pens in the barn) was bedded with sawdust, and the bedding material was stirred twice per day with a small chisel plow. Cows were fed a TMR that included organic corn silage, alfalfa silage, corn, expelled soybean meal, vitamins and minerals.

The straw pack cows had similar milk, fat, and protein production than the compost bedded pack cows (see accompanying table). Surprisingly, there were no differences in production between the two winter housing groups of organic cows for milk production or somatic cell score. The groups of cows also had similar dry matter intake, indicating that the cows that were housed on straw packs did not require more feed than cows housed in the compost bedded pack barn.

However, cows consumed about 25 percent more dry matter intake during the winter of 2014 compared to the winter of 2013.

The average temperature during the winter months was about seven degrees colder during 2014 than 2013.

improvements in animal health and welfare from out-wintering will need to exceed increased feed costs if out-wintering is to be a profitable option.

Recently, I presented an eOrganic webinar on out-wintering cattle that describes more information related to out-wintering cattle. For more information, go to the eOrganic website http:// www.extension.org/ pages/71817.

There are several obvious benefits to out-wintering: building costs are lower, diseases associated with close confinement and poor ventilation are avoided, animals are generally cleaner, bedding costs could be reduced,

feeding may be simplified, and herd size may be adjusted if weather conditions change quickly.

There are five key messages to consider when considering outwintering, 1) provide adequate wind protection, 2) additional feed may be required for cows and heifers, 3) lactating cow teats should be dry before they leave the milking facility during cold weather, 4) health problems tend to be fewer than cows housed indoors or in confinement facilities, and 5) housing under the stars may not be for everyone.

USDA seeks comment on prevented planting policies Mikkel Pates Forum News Service The U.S. Department of Agriculture is seeking comment by March 30 on recommendations that eventually could lead to changes in its prevented-planting insurance coverage levels. If approved, the changes would cut corn prevented-planting payment levels and increase rates for potatoes and green peas, among other things.

Prevented-planting insurance has been a key and often controversial factor in agriculture, especially in prairie pothole areas of North Dakota and South Dakota in recent years.

Minnesota and Iowa also have prairie pothole country, but have more field tile drainage, so the policies are used less frequently.

Crop values have increased dramatically since 1995 when prevented-planting coverage was added to the policy and USDA’s Risk Management Agency began insuring more highly valued, identity-preserved crops.

Tim Hoffmann, RMA director of product administration and standards

division in Kansas City, Mo., tells Agweek he personally took the recommendations to national commodity organizations, but emphasizes RMA is officially in the study mode and hasn’t yet proposed a rule. Any eventual rule would not go into effect in 2015, the agency says.

The entire report is available online at www. rma.usda.gov/pubs.

Submit comments to rma.pp.lah@rma.usa.gov or mail them to Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Box 419205, Kansas City, MO, 64133-6305.

Consultant’s review The RMA contracted for an independent evaluation of its prevented-planting provisions following a recent Office of Inspector General audit. The contractor, Agralytica, a food and agricultural consulting company in Alexandria, Va., reviewed the production costs for all crops eligible for prevented-planting coverage and estimated the share of costs incurred in a prevented-planting situation.

Growers in Boone and Carroll counties in Iowa pay $4 to $6.47 per acre for $508 in coverage.”

Some RMA critics say the agency has no prevented-planting loss adjustment procedures that are definitive, repeatable or scientific.

“No two adjusters will get the same answer,” in part because of individual experience and understanding of the prevented-planting procedure, says one crop insurance industry consultant who talked to Agweek on condition of anonymity.

Tom Lilja, executive director of the North Dakota Corn Growers Association, says premiums need to be addressed in the report.

“Higher PP frequency is already reflected in our (premium) rates,” he says.

“Barnes and Stutsman County growers pay $26 to $27 an acre for 70 percent coverage (with payout values of ) $296 to $330.

Losing on corn Reed Ihry, an insurance agent with Ihry Insurance Agency in McVille, N.D., notes the policy study comment period comes at a time when farmers and insurance officials are busy with farm program and spring insurance sign-up.

On an initial reading, Ihry says it appears with the new, lower compensation formulas and at current prices, a hypothetical farmer in Steele County loses $40 to $50 an acre on corn, depending on the buy-up levels for both multi-peril and prevented-planting coverage.

Ihry says the prevented-planting program is

often criticized for its potential abuse. The government should consider breaking completely away from the multi-peril base policy and making it a separate option, he says.

“That would be a benefit to the producer that doesn’t need the coverage.”

Ihry says prevented-planting has been a more important option in North Dakota and South Dakota because of the shorter cropping season and fewer crop options.

“When we end up with an insurable (weather) event, we might be very far away from our planting deadlines,” Ihry says.

If the recommendation is followed in its current form, RMA could change the rules so prevented-planting doesn’t reduce a farmer’s Actual

Production History. But if a farmer chooses to plant an insured crop in the late planting period, that yield would go into his cropping history, which could reduce APH. Agralytica says corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton accounted for 80 percent of prevented-planting indemnity payments from 1994 to 2013.

“We determined that the 60 percent coverage level for wheat and soybeans is still appropriate but that the level for corn should be reduced (from 60 percent) to 50 percent,” the Agralytica report says.

Pates is a staff writer for Agweek. To subscribe to the weekly agriculture magazine, call (800) 811-2580 or email subscriptions@ agweek.com.

Celebrating 40+ Years!

The more things change...the more they stay the same!

With over 40 years in the construction business, Jim Riley & Sons Construction has the experience and expertise that will always stay the same!

1971

0

12 3 589.2

392.563

We are your Crop & Ag Insurance Specialist Hottovy Agency offers a variety of insurance products to meet the varied risk management needs of our clients.

001039366r1

2013

1971- 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Page 10C - Saturday, March 14, 2015

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Chippewa 10% Cover Crop Network: Promoting and increasing use of cover crops in west central Minnesota

Robin Moore/Land Stewardship Project

Robin Moore/Land Stewardship Project

Sharon Weyers, USDA-ARS Soil Scientist, and a Cover Crop Network producer look over a soil sample taken fall 2014 in a corn field under-seeded with a brassica mixture for fall cattle grazing.

Tillage radish, commonly used to break up soil compaction and sequester fall nitrogen, was direct drilled here following the 2014 wheat harvest.

Sharon Weyers USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Morris Robin Moore Land Stewardship Project, Montevideo

“Soil health” has become a vital term for agricultural producers nationwide in the last few years. Soil health is defined by NRCS as “the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans.” Though the concept of “soil quality” has been used by researchers for many years, it means very much the same as “soil health.” The revision of the term to “soil health” has aroused much greater recognition by farmers, who are coming to learn how to better manage this important resource for optimal yields and other

benefits.

Cover crops are one of the management tools available that can help improve soil health. A collaboration coined the “Cover Crop Network” was started with area producers to increase the use and understanding of cover crop management systems. This collaboration, a component of the Chippewa 10% Project, is supported by the Land Stewardship Project and the USDA-Agricultural Research Service “Soils Lab” here in Morris. The project’s aim is to increase plantings of perennial cover crops in the Chippewa River Watershed by 10 percent. The end goal is to improve water quality in the watersheds feeding the Minnesota River.

Cover crops are widely accepted as a means to keep soil covered and

protected from erosion, but the main impact is increased soil organic matter. Soil organic matter, in turn, helps increase biological diversity in the soil, makes nutrients available for uptake by plants, and increases water infiltration and holding capacity.

Cover crops can also serve to keep grazing animals out in a field for a longer period of time. Late season grazing is a benefit to both the soil and the animals.

Agricultural producers participating in the Cover Crop Network seek to build soil health. They want to do this to increase organic matter and fertility, which can reduce input costs. They also want to reduce costs for winter feed by creating sources of fall forage for grazing.

These producers realize keeping the ground covered after harvest can also

help retain moisture and available nutrients.

The producers are developing their own methods and finding answers to such questions as: • What is the best cover crop or cover crop mix to use after small grains and early season harvests?

• How can cover crops be planted effectively into growing crops like corn?

• What is the most productive mix to restore a degraded pasture?

• How effective is intercropping for fall grazing?

• Can winter cover areas deter pillaging of farm-stored seed and forage by deer and mice?

As a component of this collaboration, the Land Stewardship Project and the Soils Lab conduct soil sampling twice a year on collaborating farms.

These samples are used to evaluate changes in soil

properties and soil health indicators.

One clear result from the 2014 growing season was a generalized increase in soil organic matter from spring to fall. This increase in organic matter supported biological activity, which was measured with the Solvita CO2 Burst method. The Solvita process measures the carbon dioxide respired by soil bacteria, fungi and other microbes as they feed on organic matter for a 24hour period. However, clear and distinct improvements in soil health rarely are observed in just one growing season. With continuous soil-health monitoring, producers can feel more confident in maintaining their new cover crop management practices.

Producers participating in the project have in-

creased their understanding of soil health and the benefits of applying cover crop practices. They’ve also showcased the methods they’ve used to the general public at sponsored on-farm demonstration outreach events.

For more information on the Chippewa 10% project, the Cover Crop Network or to be notified of future outreach events, please contact Robin Moore, C10 Project Coordinator, at rmoore@ landstewardshipproject. org. For more information on soil health please contact Sharon Weyers, USDA-ARS, at Sharon.

Weyers@ars.usda.gov.

Meeting All your Plumbing & Heating needs!

Mohr

Plumbing and Heating of Morris

Taking pride in responding to calls in a timely manner, providing professional service, installing quality products and solving plumbing and heating problems - both Large & Small!

Local Dependable Prompt

Knowledgeable Prepared Stocked

Excavating “Take’n Pride in What We Do, Since 1992.”

Licensed & Insured

MOHR

46400 State Hwy. 28, Morris MN 56267-4507, 320-589-1006, mohrph@mohrplumbing.com

Meet Our Team of Agribusiness Experts

001037101r1

Plumbing and Heating of Morris, Inc.

• DEMOLITION The G • DOZER WORK e Done tten’er Guys • FINISH WORK • PULVERIZED BLACK DIRT • LARGE AND SMALL BACKHOE JOBS • SCREENED GRAVEL & ROCK PRODUCTS • CERTIFIED SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION

Location: On the farm 1 Mile North of Heartland Motor Co. • Morris

Over 150 Years of Experience in Farm Tax, Accounting and Business Consulting Larry Stulen CPA, Partner

We work with many ag producers–from small operations looking for tax and bookkeeping services to large agribusinesses seeking expert assistance with complex financial, tax and business planning. Put our experience and expertise to work for your farm or business.

FARM SERVICES WE OFFER ∠ Tax Planning and Preparation ∠ Business Consulting for Family and Corporate Farms ∠ Estates and Trusts ∠ Business Succession Planning ∠ Payroll ∠ Bookkeeping Top 25 CPA Firm in MN ∠ QuickBooks ∠ Financial Reporting LOCATIONS Morris | Willmar | Benson | Litchfield | St. Cloud-Sartell 401 Atlantic Ave, Morris Phone (320) 589-2602 | Toll-free (888) 388-1040

Mark Olson CPA, CSEP™, Partner

Jim Rudnick CPA, CVA, Partner

www.cdscpa.com

320-589-4439

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 11C

Hiring expert help Growing complexity and volatility in agriculture is causing some landowners, especially ones with limited ag knowledge, to hire a professional farm manager. Farmers have a mixed view of that.

It’s been a staple of agriculture in the Upper Midwest: direct negotiations between owners of farmland and producers who want to farm it.

The practice is far from dead, but as agriculture continues to evolve, the use of professional farm managers, once confined primarily to the Corn Belt, is expanding across the Northern Plains, officials say.

Though hard statistics are tough to come by, “There’s definitely more of it in the region,” says Brian Stockman, executive vice president of the Denver-based American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.

Two main factors are responsible: • Agriculture is increasingly volatile and complicated, and more landlords are deciding they lack the knowledge to manage the land themselves.

• More landowners today have little, if any, direct connection with agriculture or farming. Often, though not always, they’re the descendents of people who quit farming decades ago. Sometimes the owners recently bought the land as an investment and have no other ties to ag.

“I think it (the use of professional farm managers) has the most appeal for people who are in the dark about agriculture,” says Andy Swenson, farm management specialist with the North Dakota State University Extension Service. “And by that, I mean people who don’t have much knowledge of farming today.”

Farmers, for their part, have mixed views on landlords using professional farm managers.

“That’s not a relationship most farmers would treasure,” says Brad Thykeston, a Portland, N.D., farmer and president of the North Dakota Grain Growers Association.

“We’d like the personal relationship, the one-onone relationship (between farmer and landlord).

Hopefully, that would be advantageous to both parties.”

On the other hand, “I can understand it from a landowner perspective when they get several generations (removed) from farming,” says Ryan McCormick, a Kremlin, Mont., farmer and president of the Montana Grain Growers Association.

McCormick, who rents a large amount of land him-

self, says he personally isn’t seeing more use of professional farm managers. He thinks that may be because much of Montana was homesteaded only a century ago, and that many landlords, even ones who no longer farm, remain close to agriculture.

To be sure, there are no hard statistics to document the trend, which is stronger in some parts of the region than others.

For instance, “We may be seeing a little more of it in central Minnesota.

But not much,” says Dan Martens, extension agent in Morrison County.

Landlords in his area generally live close to their land and retain close ties to ag, he says.

Fair to both parties?

Fair or not, professional farm managers don’t always have a good reputation among farmers.

Farm managers generally receive a percentage, typically 7 to 10 percent, of the deal they negotiate for farmers. For instance, a farm management firm that receives an 8 percent fee would collect $8 per acre on a parcel of farmland that rents for $100 per acre.

As a result, some farmers complain privately that professional farm managers are interested only in securing the highest possible rental rate for farmland they represent, thus maximizing their own income.

“They (farmers) think we’re trying to take advantage of them, trying to make money off them,” says Mark Nothwehr, a principal partner of Midwest Land Management and Real Estate in Spencer, Iowa.

His company operates in Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota and Illinois.

But managers at his company “have farm backgrounds. We try to be fair to both parties,” Nothwehr says.

Fiduciary duty Professional farm management companies have what’s called a fiduciary duty to their clients. That means the firms have a legal responsibility to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own.

That doesn’t necessarily mean taking the highest bid, says John Botsford, principal of Red River Valley Land Co. in Grand Forks, N.D. “The highest bid isn’t always the bid you want,” he says. “There’s always a range at the top that’s acceptable,” and sometimes

Start to finish . . . see us for all your hog set up needs!

it’s best to accept an offer within that range “from a producer you know that’s solid and will care for the land.

“The most important decision we make is who to put on the farm (as a tenant),” Botsford says.

His company asks potential clients a series of questions about their property.

“Is it tilled? Is it in CRP (Conservation Reserve Program)? Is it in a lease?

What are the terms? We do a review,” he says.

The review takes into account “overriding family considerations” such as whether the land has been rented to relatives or neighbors, and whether the landlord wants that to continue, he says.

“We take direction from our clients,” Botsford says.

“We try to put ourselves in their shoes.”

Not all farm management companies use the same approach, Nothwehr says.

“There are different ways of doing things,” and landlords need to understand in advance the strategy that their farm management company will employ, he says.

Landlords’ perspective A landlord, before negotiating personally with a tenant or hiring a farm manager to do it, should do some serious thinking, Martens says.

“You need to identify your goals and objectives and values as a person or as a family,” he says.

“You need to know what kind of relationship you want to have with the farmer. You need to know what kind of relationship you’ll have with the farm management firm.”

Martens compares a professional farm manager to a car mechanic.

Some people want the mechanic to handle everything and won’t ask any questions about repairing the car. Other people prefer to ask a lot of questions about what repairs are made, and why, he says.

Whether it’s a mechanic or farm manager, “Do you just want to put yourself in this person’s hands, no questions asked?” Martens says.

He also suggests that landlords ask themselves this question about hiring a farm manager: “Will that person and that firm continue to do things the way I’d want them to be done?”

New generations, volatility There’s no mystery

about why professional farm managers are becoming more popular, Stockman says.

“Part of it is just the natural evolution of society,” he says. “Part of it is the volatility (in modern agriculture).”

When a family quits farming, ownership of its land typically becomes more diffuse over time, Stockman says.

Land that once was owned by a single farmer often passes to his children and then to their children, he says.

“You have one owner, then two, then six. It becomes kind of difficult to manage. One of the best ways to do that is to hire a farm management firm,” he says.

Sometimes those descendents live far from the land they own. Sometimes they continue to live near it, farm managers say.

Even current owners who live near the land may “not be in the loop. They’re not close to the local ag world,” Botsford says.

Landowners of all ages and educational levels can benefit from professional help, farm managers say.

Botsford says his company represents “a number of younger, astute clients.”

Agriculture, however, “is outside their normal world. They need guidance from someone who’s close to the marketplace.”

Farm managers also cite volatility in agriculture as a reason their services are in growing demand.

For instance, a recent survey by North Dakota farm managers and rural appraisers found that average land values in the state rose a whopping 46 percent from 2011 to 2012.

So much volatility persuades some landlords, especially ones with no current ties to ag, to seek professional assistance,

Stockman says.

“Grandpa had this land with the same guy (farmer or tenant) for 20 years. It may be the best deal going, it may not. They just don’t know,” he says. “People want to know if they’re getting the best rate.”

‘Arm’s-length relationship’ Farm managers also say that some landlords turn to them because they don’t want the stress or hassle of negotiating directly with a tenant.

“They want to take the family stress out of it,” Stockman says.

In some cases, a landlord wants to stick with the same tenant. But they decide “we need a third party to negotiate for us so we have an arm’s-length relationship,” Botsford says.

Even some landlords who have a good relationship with the tenant want third-party help, Nothwehr says.

“Sometimes it’s hard to keep it on the business level. You want to be fair to them (the tenant), but what is the fair price? A third party can come in and make it fair to both parties,” he says.

There also are times when professional farm managers “take accounts over that are so distorted that there’s some animosity created,” Botsford says.

In some cases, a new tenant might be the best choice, he says.

Spreading out It’s unclear how many acres of U.S. farmland are managed by professional farm mangers. But members of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers handle more than 25 million acres of farm and ranch land for absentee landlords, bank trust departments, foundations, nonprofit organizations and investors.

Farm managers provide a wide range of duties, including selecting a tenant, recommending a specific lease and handling paperwork. They’ll also market the commodity raised on the farm or ranch, if the landowner is paid with a share of the crop rather than cash.

Typically, managers charge a higher fee when they provide more services.

At one time, professional farm managers were most common with highvalue farmland in the Corn Belt, Nothwehr says.

But the use of farm managers continues to spread to land that’s less fertile than what’s found in the Corn Belt, he and others say.

“I think it’s a business that will continue to grow,” Nothwehr says.

Quality that you can take to the bank Call for FREE estimate Contact Joe at 320-491-5525

Your Partner in Agricultural Energy Needs Agralite assists our members with: $ Lighting efficiency and rebates $ Farm energy strategy $ Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s) $ Agricultural ventilation $ Efficient grain drying

$ Irrigation energy $ Dairy milk cooling $ ENERGY STAR Appliances $ Ground source and air source heat pumps $ Custom energy efficiency project grants

001218056r1

The Way to a Beautiful Lawn

• PLANNING • EQUIPMENT • BLUEPRINTS • BUILDINGS

ENVIRONMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS COUNTY RD. 22 • MORRIS • (320) 589-3865

West Central Implement

320-589-3696

1100 Atlantic Avenue Morris

001219062r1

Jonathan Knutson Agweek

Page 12C - Saturday, March 14, 2015

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Reducing phosphorus and sediment in tile drainage Chris Wente USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Morris, Minn.

Gary Feyereisen USDA-Agricultural Research Service, St. Paul, Minn.

Sharon Papiernik USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Brookings, S.D.

Reducing phosphorus and total suspended sediment (TSS) in tile water is important to minimize the impact of tile drainage on our lakes and rivers.

Phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient for plant growth in freshwater. It is the nutrient most often responsible for summer algae blooms. When algae die, bacteria feed on them and use oxygen in the process. This can result in low oxygen levels that kill fish.

Phosphorus is found in two primary forms: dissolved and particulate.

The dissolved form is readily available for algae uptake. Particulate phosphorus is associated with sediments. Particulate phosphorus can dissolve when sediments are suspended in water, as is the case with tile drainage and flowing surface water.

Phosphorus and TSS can enter tile water through open tile inlets of drainage systems. During heavy rainfall, water flows across the soil surface, transporting phosphorus and TSS to surface inlets where the water enters the tile sys-

tem. In systems with open inlets, very little filtering of the water occurs and nutrients and sediments are easily transported out of the field. In some cases, tile drainage water flows directly to surface water bodies.

In many instances, open inlets can be replaced with buried inlets such as a blind gravel inlet or French drain. In a buried inlet, perforated tile is placed at the bottom of a trench that is filled with fine gravel all the way up to the soil surface. The gravel bed performs as a filtration system, slowing the flow of water so that particulate phosphorus and TSS stay in the field or gravel bed.

In addition, buried inlets allow for continuous field operations such as planting or tillage.

At the Soils Lab, we have been working with colleagues from St. Paul as well as South Dakota, Indiana, and Oklahoma to finish a study evaluating the transition from open inlets to French drains.

We performed our drainage system evaluations in Minnesota and Indiana. In Minnesota, we collected six total years of data.

More specifically, we collected tile water samples three years before and three years after transitioning to French drains.

We also analyzed samples for levels of dissolved phosphorus and TSS. Based on this study, we concluded that replacing

open inlets with French drains substantially reduced phosphorus and TSS losses to surface water. In both states, the buried inlet designs reduced TSS by at least 64 percent and dissolved phosphorus by at least 35 percent. The potential benefits of buried inlets becomes even more apparent when you consider there are 75,000 open inlets in the Western Lake Erie sub-basin and approximately 250,000 in the Minnesota River Basin!

In addition to collecting water samples in Minnesota, we are also continuing to monitor the transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in these tiledrained fields as well as to evaluate the longevity of the French drains.

In conclusion, producers can substantially reduce their phosphorus and sediment losses in tile drainage by replacing their open inlets with buried inlets.

If you are interested in reading the complete paper, please refer to the Journal of Environmental Quality, where it has been published under the title, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Effect of Replacing Surface Inlets with Blind or Gravel Inlets on Sediment and Phosphorus Subsurface Drainage Losses.â&#x20AC;? https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/articles/0/0/ jeq2014.05.0219

Chris Wente/USDA-ARS

During heavy rainfall, water flows across the soil surface, transporting phosphorus and total suspended sediment to surface inlets where the water enters the tile system. Researchers at the Soils Lab in Morris along with colleagues in St. Paul and Brookings conducted an on-farm research to evaluate the transition from open tile inlets to French drains.

Chris Wente/USDA-ARS

Researchers at the Soils Lab in Morris along with colleagues in St. Paul and Brookings conducted an on-farm research project to evaluate the transition from open tile inlets to French drains. The research team collected tile water samples three years before and three years after the on-farm collaborator transitioned to French drains.

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 1D

FARM PROGRESS 2015

Drought outlook improves; watching snow melt and flood risk Mark Seeley University of Minnesota Extension ST. PAUL — The area of Minnesota’s landscape in severe to extreme drought diminished during February, dropping from 84 percent of the state’s landscape to under 70 percent.

This modest improvement was mostly due to above normal snowfall, especially across central and northern counties.

The new climate outlooks from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center suggest that, for much of March, the Great Lakes region will see above-normal precipitation. This is welcome news in the context of improving our drought situation, especially if we can lose the soil frost as well so the ground is more receptive to moisture recharge. In some areas, frost depth ranges from 20 to 40 inches; this will take some time to thaw out.

One potential risk of a wetter-than-normal

March is the threat of flooding from snow melt.

Last week, the National Weather Service updated the spring flood outlook for major Minnesota rivers. This new outlook calls for a near-normal risk of spring snow melt flooding on portions of the Upper Minnesota River, as well as the Upper Mississippi River. This is mostly due to more abundant snowfalls during February, along with deeper ground frost, which combined to elevate the risk of spring flooding from a below normal level

to a near normal level.

You can read more about the spring flooding outlook and keep up to date here: http://1.usa.gov/ VZTAQn. Spring flood outlook probabilities for the Red River are also available from the Grand Forks NWS Office. These show a relatively higher risk of flooding on the lower end of the Red River Valley between Wapehton and Fargo, N.D. You can get more detail at: http://1. usa.gov/YPUb69.

The higher risk of flood-

ing along the Red River is because the abundant snow cover already contains 2 to 5 inches of liquid water trapped on top of frozen ground there. A rapid thaw could cause a great volume of runoff before the soils are capable of absorbing the moisture. If this situation develops and is further compounded by heavy March rainfalls, then indeed this area of the state could see some moderate to major flooding. Thus state and federal agencies will monitor the gauged flow volumes

on the rivers, as well as the weather very carefully during the month of March.

Visit www.extension.umn.edu/extremeweather for related educational information on drought and winter impacts. Visit climate.umn. edu for more information from the University of Minnesota’s climatology working group.

Mark Seeley is a climatologist with University of Minnesota Extension.

Starbuck Meats & Locker Service Custom Processing Beef - Pork - Lamb - Venison

Pickup Service “Old Fashioned Meat Counter” Award Winning Products

(320) 392-5609

Toll Free 888-739-4024 or 320-239-2228 117 East 5th Street, Starbuck

Located in: Morris, Herman, Chokio, Donnelly & Fergus Falls

Your Complete Ag Service Center Call us today for all your grain, agronomy and petroleum needs.

Morris: 1-800-433-9222 • Office and Grain Chokio: 1-320-324-2477 • Office and Grain

High-quality grain storage - capacities up to 1.34 million bushels for the largest commercial grain bin models.

Reliable grain handling systems - engineered for farm or commercial use.

Innovative, every-efficient grain conditioning and drying systems.

Herman: 1-800-642-1077 • Office and Grain Herman Agronomy (Fertilizer, Chemical, Seed): 1-888-654-2924 Herman Energy: 1-800-642-1077 001037688r1

Hancock - 320-392-5268

001213347r1

26406 470th Avenue, Morris, MN 56267

R001870323

Keith & Sandy Knutson, Owners

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Page 2D - Saturday, March 14, 2015

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Tips on estimating pasture forage mass with precision dairy technology Brad Heins West Central Research and Outreach Center Jim Paulson University of Minnesota Extension Pasture-based dairy production in the United States relies on the ability of the dairy producer to estimate pasture production and animal dry matter intake. Pasture availability and utilization is key to describe nutrient balance on pasture. Estimating forage mass from pasture may be difficult because pre- and post-grazing measurements must be recorded.

The standard method to measure pasture forage mass is to clip the forage from the pasture, dry the forage sample, and weigh the dried forage to determine dry matter. However, this method requires an immense amount of effort and time to collect forage samples, and dairy producers are not willing to collect this information for daily pasture management.

Precision pasture-based technology has been used for many years in New Zealand; however, these technologies have yet to gain wide acceptance among United States pasture-based dairy producers. Two popular devices to accurately measure pasture forage mass are

the electronic rising plate meter and the rapid pasture meter.

Electronic rising plate meter The electronic rising plate measures the amount of forage mass in paddocks. Briefly, the pole of the rising plate meter is pushed vertically through the sward until it touches the ground, and the weight of the plate compresses the pasture vegetation. An electronic counter records the compressed forage height in five mm increments and instantly displays the results. Pasture management software is used to evaluate the readings from the rising plate meter from different paddocks.

The rising plate meter correlates the compressed forage sward height to the forage mass below the plate, and therefore, a calibration equation is needed to convert the pasture readings to dry matter yield. Different calibration equations are required for different pasture species and different seasons, hence many dairy producers have not utilized this technology because of the effort required to update the rising plate meter calibrations on a continual basis.

Rapid pasture meter New technology is available from New Zealand (CDax pasture meter, C-Dax Ltd., Palmerson North, New Zealand) which uses GPS software to map pastures and a high speed program to take multiple measurements/second of pre- and post- grazing areas. The pasture meter can be mounted on an all-terrain vehicle or farm vehicle and has the potential to provide fast and

accurate measurements of pasture forage mass.

The rapid pasture meter uses light and optical sensors to record 200 pasture height measurements per second and averages those readings to represent a data point on a map of the paddock. FarmKeeper software aids with GPS mapping of paddocks and pastures, and recording and analyzing the pasture measurements. The rapid pasture meter must use

a calibration equation to accurately measure the forage in a pasture.

Conclusions Accurate estimation of pasture forage mass is essential for pasture-based dairy farms in the United States and around the world. Electronic rising plate meters and rapid pasture meters have been developed and evaluated in New Zealand and have shown similar dry mat-

ter accuracies from pasture forage mass. Grazing dairy producers in the United States have these technologies available to them to more accurately determine pasture forage mass, and thus improve the profitability of their dairy operation. Further research should be conducted to determine precise calibration equations for dairy operations in the United States.

U.S. hogs and pigs inventory up 2 percent vice (NASS).

Other key findings in the report were: Of the 66.1 million hogs and pigs, 60.1 million were market hogs, while 5.97 million were kept for breeding.

Between September and November 2014, 29.4 million pigs were weaned on U.S. farms, up 4 percent

from the same time period in 2013.

From September through November 2014, U.S. hog and pig producers weaned an average of 10.23 pigs per litter.

U.S. hog producers intend to have 2.87 million sows farrow between December 2014 and February 2015, and 2.90 mil-

Everything goes a little better when you use Cenex® Ruby Fieldmaster B5™. And, it’s no wonder. Ruby Fieldmaster B5 is specially formulated for the rugged demands of agriculture.

It’s proven to deliver more power, better fuel economy and longer engine life. Plus, Ruby Fieldmaster B5 is 2% soy biodiesel, made with soy oil made from the beans produced right here in America, to deliver superior engine protection.

At Cenex, we’re so confident in our premium fuel, it’s backed by the best warranty in the industry.

The Total Protection Plan® Warranty provides up to 10 years of 10,000 hours of coverage.

That’s an offer you won’t find with any other diesel.

5

Mae th switch to Ruby Fieldmaster B5.

Experience the power a true premium biodiesel delvers.

TM

001037553r1

WASHINGTON – As of December 1, there were 66.1 million hogs and pigs on U.S. farms, up 2 percent from December 2013, and up 1 percent from September 1, according to the Quarterly Hogs and Pigs report published today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Ser-

lion sows farrow between March and May 2015.

With 20.9 million head, Iowa hog producers had the largest inventory among the states. North Carolina and Minnesota had the second and third largest inventories with 8.60 million and 7.85 million head, respectively.

To obtain an accurate

measurement of the current state of the U.S. hogs and pigs industry, NASS surveyed over 10,900 operators across the nation during the first half of December. NASS collected the data by mail, telephone and through face-to-face personal interviews. NASS asked all participating producers to report their hogs

and pigs inventories as of December 1, 2014.

The quarterly Hogs and Pigs report and all other NASS reports are available online at www.nass.usda. gov.

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 3D

A specialty crop with potential health benefits Abdullah Jaradat USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Morris Emmer wheat, a nonfree threshing wheat species, was first domesticated by Neolithic farmers thousands of years ago in the Fertile Crescent region of the Middle East. The grains, upon threshing, stay firmly covered by the hulls similar to the grains of oats and barley.

Along with other wheat species such as einkorn, emmer served for millennia as source of starch and protein for peoples of the Old World. Emmer was replaced by the now-familiar durum, followed by bread wheat some 4,000 years ago. However, Emmer has persisted as relic in subsistence farming systems as animal feed and for bread-making in remote mountainous regions of West Asia, North Africa, Ethiopia, India, and parts of Europe.

Emmer wheats vary in their spike and grain sizes, protein yield, composition, fiber content, minerals, and vitamins. Emmer wheats also possess

unique profiles of amino acids and fatty acids. They also offer interesting flour and dough properties – all of which confer health benefits to humans. The nutritional value of emmer is attributed mainly to high contents of dietary fiber and antioxidant compounds, high protein digestibility, and starch with high resistance to digestibility.

In addition, emmer can be tapped as a rich genetic resource for improving tolerance to heat, drought, and poor soil conditions in commercially grown varieties. It is also a good resource for improving the nutritional quality of cultivated wheat. Emmer is an especially promising source of genes for improving grain protein, Abdullah Jaradat/USDA-ARS mineral contents – espeA Minnesota farmer inspected emmer plants during the 2014 fi eld day last August at the Swan Lake Research Farm. cially iron, selenium and zinc as well as baking and pasta quality. Moreover, tional value and palatabil- vice’s laboratory in Morris, increasing based on the it may be the best source environments. ity, as well as growing Minnesota, started screen- premise that its products Emmer became popufor breeding wheat potentially tolerated by ce- lar in Europe (where it’s popularity as a cereal food ing and evaluating emmer are healthier than those of liac patients with unique known as “Farro”) over for those suffering from for high yield, adaptation regular wheat. starch composition. Other the last 60 years or so, gluten intolerance and to local conditions, and as a potential crop for smallbenefits to wheat include and more recently in the celiac disease.

Researchers at the Ag- scale production. Demand adaptation to small-scale United States due to its farming and low-input newly discovered nutri- ricultural Research Ser- for its flour and berries is

Rumination sensors for dairy cattle In a world of precision technology, dairy cattle and dairy farms have become part of that emerging technology. Routinely, dairy farmers are often tipped off to trouble in the herd when they see a drop in milk production.

The drop could have been caused by a change in feed quality, reproductive status, sickness, or a variety of other conditions.

Now, however, with the use of precision dairy technology, we are able to track feeding behavior, activity levels, temperature and health status of cattle in hopes of better

understanding behavior and overall health. At the West Central Research and Outreach Center we installed Heatime LD-HR Tags from SCR Dairy in our organic and conventional dairy herd. So, we have tags for all 230 of our lactating dairy cows.

We are observing activity and rumination of cows on pasture and in winter housing systems to evaluate fertility and health of grazing cattle.

This system allows us to track rumination (chewing) in addition to monitoring activity levels of cows. The tags allow us to “listen” to our cows 24 hours a day, even in the middle of the night when nobody is around. Our tags

are the “HR” style, meaning they measure both rumination and activity, giving extra confirmation that cows may be sick or in heat. Like many other activity monitors, ours use an accelerometer to gauge our cows’ daily movement.

Unique to the HR Tag, we are also able to monitor rumination through a microphone installed around the neck. This microphone is actually picking up jaw movements as bones rub together during rumination. Rumination is measured in minutes of rumination per day. So far, we’ve gathered over 1,00,000+ data points.

Activity and rumination is typically observed in two hour time blocks. In our

Takes Pride in Saluting Area Farmers!

21679 320th Ave. Starbuck, MN 56831 320-239-2677

001218417r1

Brad Heins West Central Research and Outreach Center

dairy herd, activity and rumination patterns mirror each other; at night, the activity is low and rumination is high and vice versa during the day.

Activity is at the highest in the evening (4 to 8 p.m.), which is mainly because the cows are walking to and from the milking parlor. On average, our cows are ruminating 490 minutes per day, which is typical of most dairy cows.

We analyzed the rumination (minutes/day) for each of the conventional and organic dairy herd at the WCROC from May 2014 to January 2015.

Rumination for the conventional herd remained fairly constant across the seven months because

of ration and housing consistencies. However, the organic grazing herd rumination fluctuates by month. Rumination went down during June and July because cows were walking more to the pasture and each fresh grass.

As the year goes on rumination is higher for the organic herd because of the higher forage diet compared to the conventional herd. Rumination climbed in September because cows were started to be supplemented with a TMR because of the decreased productivity of the pastures.

In the future, we will be evaluating other activity and rumination systems for cows, and hope to pro-

vide valuable information to dairy producers that install these activity and rumination monitoring systems.

Please mark your calendars for the 2015 Precision Dairy Conference and Expo at the Mayo Civic Center, in Rochester, Minnesota. The dates are June 24 and 25, 2015.

For more information, please visit http://www. precisiondairyfarming. com/2015/. The program will include eight dairy producer panels, many industry updates, and three plenary talks that will summarize practical precision dairy management information.

Delivers triple protection in the form of a nematicide, and insecticide and three fungicides Start strong.... grow more soybeans!

Agronomy Center 20944 State Hwy 9, Morris MN 320-239-2230 West Central Irrigation, Inc. 810 Industrial Park, Starbuck, MN 56381

001037829r1

320-589-4749

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Page 4D - Saturday, March 14, 2015

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Minnesota budget drives ag bill topics Minnesota’s budget concerns are the overarching factor in agriculture-related legislation for the 2013 session. Gov. Mark Dayton and legislators are working to eliminate a $1.1 billion budget deficit, based on November 2012 forecasts.

This year’s Legislature convened Jan. 8. Both the Minnesota Farmers Union and the Minnesota Farm Bureau have been active throughout the first six weeks.

The Legislature will work on its own budget, which will be based on the February forecast, set to be released in mid-March.

“One of the big things we’re looking at right now is the impact of the governor’s proposal to increase the sales tax base on more goods and services,” says Chris Radatz, MFB’s policy team director.

Dayton proposed cutting the state rate from 6.875 percent to 5.5 percent, but applying it to a wider number of services, including legal, accounting, environmental consulting, crop consulting and labor on farm machin-

investment grants or rural development.

Among ag-related bills in Minnesota: •HF 632 — Forever green agriculture. This bill appropriates $1.4 million each for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, running through June 30 of each year. The bill allows the University of Minnesota to study the increased incorporation of perennial and winter-annual crops into existing agricultural practices. It was introduced Feb. 18.

•HF 473 — Minnesota Department of Agriculture appropriation. This bill appropriates $40.447 million each year in 2014 and 2015 for the MDA, the Board of Animal Health and the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute.

It modifies provisions related to animal waste technicians and includes $10.2 million each year for grants through AGRIP. Bioenergy companies and service providers can qualify.

The bill had its first reading Feb. 11 and is in the House Agriculture Policy Committee. Radatz says his organization is pleased that key programs in the MDA budget in-

Full Service Agronomy Center -

Seed Chemical Fertilizer Custom Application VRT Technology

-

Feed Farm Fuels LP Delivery Repair Shop Gas Station

volving food inspection, food safety and consumer protection programs were protected. Petersen is also grateful that Dayton didn’t propose cuts to agriculture.

•HF 407 — This bill puts $2 million from AGRIP into annual appropriation. It would be split into $500,000 for the Agricultural Utilization and Research Institute; $500,000 for Minnesota Agriculture Education Leadership Council for grants to restart high school agriculture education programs; $200,000 to the Minnesota Extension Service for 4-H; $800,000 to the commissioner of agriculture to put $200,000 each into the Center for Rural Policy and Development, “Farmamerica,” a state agricultural interpretive center, Minnesota FFA and the Minnesota Agriculture and Rural Leadership Program. It was introduced Feb. 7 and is now in the Agriculture Policy Committee. This conflicts with MFU’s preference to have that money available in general categories in the MDA and under competitive grants.

•HF 349 — Biofuel blender pump cost-share

grants. The bill was introduced Feb. 4 and is in the House Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Finance Committee. It appropriates $200,000 each for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to allow the MDA to reimburse gas station owners for up to 75 percent of the cost of installing a biofuel blender pump, up to $20,000 per pump. Both MFU and MFB are in favor of it.

•HF 251 — This bill would extend the Farmer-Lender Mediation Act through fiscal year 2018.

The bill passed the House 124-5 on Feb. 14 and on Feb. 18, was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Senate’s Jobs, Agriculture and Rural Development Committee.

•HF 230 — Industrial hemp development. This bill provides for regulation, possession and cultivation of industrial hemp.

Radatz says the bill is a perennial effort that faces difficulties in complying with federal laws.

•HF 151 — Pesticide gross sales fee increase.

The fees would increase with a temporary .1 percent surcharge through calendar year 2017. The

money would be dedicated to updating pesticide applicator education and certification. MFU is supporting the bill, but Petersen says fees will be removed.

•HF 66 — Drainage law changes. The House Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee passed this bill, which makes changes recommended by a drainage work group. It clarifies the transfer of drainage system records between a county and a watershed district when drainage authority is transferred and enables re-establishment of drainage system records that are lost or destroyed.

MFB has legislative visit days scheduled — March 5 for members in the northern part of the state and March 19 for members in the south-central and southwest regions, Radatz says.

Petersen expects there will be a bill to repeal wolf hunting in the state and that his organization will oppose it.

DUNCAN TRAILERS INC.

$5,750 Installed

$1,250

including paint and lights

Stationary

$3,750

$1,850

Kit for your installation

Tip-In/Tip-Out

We can add an engineered beavertail & hay sides to your existing trailer.

Strong Construction High Quality Paint LED lights

Questions call Roger (320) 392-5361 or (320) 212-5220 Hancock, MN

Office: 246-3555 Fertilizer: 246-3556 Shop: 246-3558

www.duncantrailersinc.com 001213727r1

sales@duncantrailersinc.com

Call For a Quote!

Ask about a DISCOUNT on trailer purchase.

001217576r1

ery repair. “Now that we have more of the details, we’re examining it to see what the impact is for Minnesota farmers and ranchers,” Radatz says.

Thom Petersen, director of government relations for the MFU, says his organization is studying the tax bill and will decide whether to support it, but likely will raise concerns about things such as new taxes on crop consulting.

“We haven’t come to a conclusion yet on the overall bill and we’re looking at the grand scheme of what we’re going to support on a tax basis,” Petersen says, noting that property tax limits likely will be accompanied by increases in other taxes.

Both the MFB and the MFU have wanted to make sure that money in the Agricultural Growth Research and Innovation Program will go toward agricultural programming. The $10 million appropriations formerly had been targeted for ethanol producer payments. The payments ran for 10 years, but expired during the past biennium. Petersen says his organization wants the funds in next-generation biofuels, livestock

Mikkel Pates Agweek

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

7Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 5D

Neither cottonseed oil nor glycerol creates firmer pork fat Lee Johnston West Central Research and Outreach Center, Morris Cassio Villela, Ryan Cox, Gerald Shurson, Kaitlyn Compart, and Pedro Urriola University of Minnesota Department of Animal Science Feed ingredient prices often drive pork producers to include very high levels (30 to 50 percent) of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) in diets for growing-finishing pigs. DDGS is the material remaining from production of corn-based ethanol and is commonly fed to livestock.

Such high inclusion rates of DDGS create very soft fat in the resulting pork carcasses due to the high concentration of unsaturated fatty acids in DDGS. Soft pork fat causes great concern for processing and marketing of pork. Pork processors find it difficult to slice bellies for bacon when the fat is soft. In addition, shelf-life is reduced in pork products with soft fat and their visual appearance to consumers is less desirable. Pork producers want to continue using DDGS in diets when it is priced competitively but they also want to produce pork carcasses with the more desirable firm fat. So, we have been looking for solutions to this challenge.

Earlier research conducted at the West Central Research and Outreach Center (WCROC) indicated that crude glycerol fed in corn-soybean meal based diets improved firmness of pork bellies. Pork bellies are high in fat and are processed for bacon. Crude glycerol is a by-product of biodiesel production and is sometimes fed to livestock as an energy source. Since glycerol seemed to increase fat firmness in corn-soybean meal based diets, we wanted to try using it in the high DDGS-containing diets being fed today.

Feeding cottonseed oil is a novel approach to correct DDGS-induced soft pork fat.

Cottonseed oil contains relatively high levels of cyclopropene fatty acids. Cyclopropene fatty acids are part of the cottonseed oil and can decrease the conversion of saturated fatty acids to unsaturated fatty acids in the body. Unsaturated fatty acids are the primary cause for soft fat in pork carcasses. By decreasing this conversion, we may be able to improve the firmness of fat in pigs fed high levels of DDGS. Over fifty years ago, prominent researchers recognized that cottonseed products (oil and meal) made pork fat hard. For the past 50 years, this knowledge has been forgotten.

Cottonseed oil is not a common ingredient for swine diets.

So, we decided to conduct a study to determine if adding glycerol or cottonseed oil to a corn-soybean meal diet with high levels of DDGS would improve firmness of pork fat. Financial support of the Minnesota Pork Board and the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute (AURI) made this study possible.

Procedures Two hundred sixteen grower pigs were housed in the grower-finisher swine research unit at the WCROC. Beginning weight for the pigs was about 53 pounds. Pens of pigs (nine pigs/pen) were assigned randomly to one of three dietary treatments resulting in eight pens per treatment. Pigs were kept on their experimental diets for 108 days and were marketed at a body weight of about 265 pounds.

Experimental diets consisted of: 1) a corn-soybean meal diet with 40 percent DDGS (CONTROL); 2) the control diet plus five percent cottonseed oil (COTTON); or 3) the control diet plus eight percent crude glycerol added for the last six weeks before harvest (GLYCEROL). Pigs had unlimited access to feed and water throughout the experiment.

Two pigs from each pen (47 pigs in total) were selected for in-depth evaluation of fat firmness. Bellies from the right side of the carcasses were retrieved at harvest.

Bellies were subjected to a belly flop test as a measure of fat firmness. In a belly flop test, bellies are placed perpendicularly on an elevated stick. The distance between the two drooping ends of the belly are measured. Firmer bellies would be more rigid and therefore have a longer distance between the belly ends (see Figure 1) compared with a softer belly (see Figure 2). Belly flop is measured in degrees. So, the larger the number, the firmer the belly.

Results Neither cottonseed oil nor glycerol diets improved belly firmness as measured by the belly flop angle (See Table 1). The belly firmness measurement for cottonseed oil was numerically higher than the control diet but the difference was so small and variable that we would not expect this result consistently. The belly flop measurement for glycerol-fed pigs was very similar to that of the control Figure 1. A firm belly pigs. Similarly, subjective firmness scores of belly fat were not different when comparing cottonseed oil or glycerol diets with the control diet.

Iodine value is a common measure to indicate how much unsaturated fat is present in a sample. Unsaturated fat is soft fat. As the Iodine Value number gets higher, the fat gets softer. Feeding cottonseed oil increased the Iodine Value compared with con- Figure 2. A soft, drooping belly trol and glycerol-fed pigs.

We expected that feeding cottonseed oil would decrease the Iodine Value number but the opposite occurred.

The cottonseed oil diet had higher fat content than the other diets and this may be why the Iodine Value rose for these pigs. We hoped that the cyclopropene fatty acids in the cottonseed oil would be able to overcome the problem with soft fat but our data suggest the cottonseed oil was not effective. Likewise, feeding glycerol was not effective in making bellies and pork fat firmer.

In conclusion, neither cottonseed oil nor glycerol additions to diets containing 40 percent DDGS increased belly firmness or reduced Iodine Value. Our results are disappointing in that we did not find a solution to the problem with soft fat caused by feeding DDGS. However, we did learn that cottonseed oil and glycerol are not good solutions. This means pork producers and other researchers can spend their time and effort on potential solutions other than cottonseed oil or glycerol for this problem in the future.

Farm sector profitability expected to weaken in 2015 According to new information published by the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, net farm income is forecast to be $73.6 billion in 2015, down nearly 32 percent from 2014â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s forecast of $108 billion. The 2015 forecast would be the lowest since 2009 and a drop of nearly 43 percent from the record high of $129 billion in 2013. Lower crop and livestock receipts are the main drivers of the change in 2015 net farm income from 2014 as production expenses are projected up less than 1 percent. Net cash income is forecast at $89.4 billion, down about

22 percent from the 2014 forecast. Net cash income is projected to decline less than net farm income primarily because it reflects the sale of carryover stocks from 2014.

Crop receipts are expected to decrease by $15.6 billion (7.9 percent) in 2015, led by a projected $6.7-billion decline in corn receipts and a $3.4-billion decline in fruit/nut receipts. Livestock receipts are forecast to decrease by $10.1 billion (4.9 percent) in 2015 largely due to lower milk prices. The implementation of new programs under the Agricultural Act of 2014 results in a projected 15-percent

increase ($1.6 billion) in government payments.

Total production expenses are forecast to increase by $2.5 billion (about 1 percent) in 2015, extending the upward movement in expenses for a sixth straight year.

The rate of growth in farm assets is forecast to slow in 2015 compared to recent years. The slowdown in growth is a result of lower net income leading to less capital investment, and a slight decline

in farmland values. Farm sector debt is expected to increase 3.1 percent, well above the expected increase in the value of farm assets (0.4 percent). Most of the anticipated increase in debt is for nonreal estate loans, with lower income spurring demand for operating funds. Despite the anticipated higher debt, the historically low levels of debt relative to assets and equity reaffirm the sectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relatively strong financial position despite 2

years of declining net farm income.

The median income of farm households is forecast to increase slightly in 2015, to $72,298, up from $70,718 projected for 2014. Given the broad USDA definition of a farm, many farms are not profitable even in the best farm income years.

The projected median farm income of -$1,558 is essentially unchanged from the 2014 forecast of -$1,570. Most farm

households earn all of their income from off-farm sourcesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;median off-farm income is projected to increase 4 percent in 2015 to $66,361. (Note: Because they are based on unique distributions, median total income will generally not equal the sum of median off-farm and median farm income.)

Page 6D - Saturday, March 14, 2015

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Shortchanging ag research?

Too little money is being invested globally in agricultural research, experts say. Serious questions have been raised about whether the world can increase food production sufficiently to meet burgeoning demand.

Jonathan Knutson Forum News Service

Catherine Woteki, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientist, sees two powerful trends that both connect and conflict: -- Global population and food needs are soaring, and the world will need to produce roughly as much food in the next 50 years as has been consumed since civilization began.

-- U.S. public sector spending on agricultural research is flat — going backward, actually, when inflation is factored in.

“For much of the last two decades, we’ve had really a stagnant level of investment,” Woteki says.

“In the last couple of years, we’ve had a decrease that’s been very substantial.

“We are at a very critical time,” she says.

She’s not alone in that judgment.

A wide range of experts, including the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, say public spending on ag research is at worrisomely low levels.

The “nation’s agricultural research enterprise is not prepared to meet the challenges that U.S. agriculture faces in the 21st century,” according to the Presidential Council’s December 2012 report, which concluded that the federal government needs to increase ag research investments by $700 million per year. The federal government spends roughly $4 billion a year on ag research now.

Federal budget problems could torpedo any such increase and even cut into existing spending, many in agriculture worry.

“It’s a concern,” says Erik Younggren, a Hallock, Minn., farmer and president of the National Association of Wheat Growers.

Some other developed countries also are scaling back on public sector spending on ag research, when inflation is considered, says Philip Pardey.

Pardey, a professor of applied economics and director of the International Science and Technology Practice and Policy Center, both at the University of Minnesota, has studied world agricultural research and development for 25 years.

“My sense is we’re not heading for a calamity, but there is cause for concern,” he says. Growing population — the world is expected to add 2 billion people by 2050 — is only part of it. Hundreds of millions of people globally will move into the middle class in coming years, and their food needs will grow.

The combination of more people and the growing middle class is expected to increase world food needs by 70 to 100 percent by 2050.

On the production side, water scarcity and limited ability to bring new farmland into production are huge concerns, experts say.

Reasons for optimism There are some encouraging developments in global spending on ag

research.

One bright spot is private sector spending. It rose to $11 billion in 2010 from $5.6 billion in 1994 — an annual growth rate of 1.4 percent after inflation is factored in, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service. The most rapid growth came in crop seed and biotechnology traits.

The United States leads the world in private sector spending on ag research, accounting for more than one-third of the world total.

But some of the money spent by U.S. companies is for ag research that will be applied outside the country, Pardey says.

Also, much of the private-sector spending is for research on food processing, not food production, he and other experts note.

Another reason for optimism, at least from a global perspective, is the fact that several countries, most notably China and India, are stepping up public sector spending on ag research.

China has even surpassed the U.S. In 1960, the U.S. led the world with $1.2 billion of public spending on ag research, triple the $433 million of China, which ranked second. In 2009, China led the world with $5.8 billion, topping the $4.5 billion spent by the second-place U.S. Of course, as experts point out, America’s competitive advantage in ag lessens when other countries outspend it on ag research. Fifty years ago, America accounted for 21

percent of global public sector spending on ag research. Today, the U.S. share is only 13 percent, according to information from Pardey.

And there is a third reason for optimism about spending on research.

There are indications, not yet supported by hard data, that some of the world’s poorest countries are beginning to spend more on ag research, says Nienke Beintema, head of the Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators initiative for the International Food Policy Research Institute, based in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, such increases are coming after many years of limited spending and a great deal of catching up is needed, she says.

Why not more spending?

A number of factors are working against spending on ag research. The biggest may be complacency, at least in the United States.

“We have the most productive agricultural system in the world,” says Ken Grafton, vice president for agricultural affairs at North Dakota State University and a former plant breeder. “We’re the envy of the world in research and production.

“I suspect people become a little complacent,” he says.

The United States hasn’t had food shortages since the Dust Bowl (in the 1930s), and many Americans take a stable food supply for granted, Woteki says.

Spending on ag research also can be a hard sell to policymakers because the spending can take years to pay off, experts say.

By some estimates, a minimum of 10 years is needed before ag research begins to pay for itself. By other estimates, as many 50 years are required before its full benefits are achieved.

Ag research has been referred to as “slow magic,” the benefits of which don’t occur right away, then endure for many years.

But, $1 spent on ag research typically results in at least $10 of economic benefits, according to the Presidential Council’s report on ag research.

Nonetheless, that slow payback can be daunting to policymakers, especially ones in poor countries, Beintema says.

Investing in schools, roads and clinics, rather than ag research, may seem more prudent, she says.

Public sector spending on ag research in the U.S. also is hampered because it’s not always a priority for farmers and farm groups, Pardey says.

“There’s a lot of rhetoric” about the need for spending on ag research.

But producers often place much greater emphasis on securing funding for programs such as federal crop insurance, he says.

Private sector spending Spending by private companies, often in collaboration with universities, is growing.

Monsanto, the agribusiness giant, in 2011 gave more than $21 million to 146 universities nationwide for research, licensing agreements, field trials and scholarships, among other things, according to the company.

Last September, Monsanto announced a partnership in wheat breeding with North Dakota State University.

Both Grafton and Connie Armentrout, Monsanto’s director of academic licensing, says the partnership, though still in its early stages, is going well for NDSU and Monsanto.

To be successful, such partnerships “have to bring value to both parties,” Armentrout says.

Grafton says the wheat-breeding partnership with Monsanto draws on the strengths of both organizations.

The number of private and public partnerships at land-grant universities probably will continue to grow as less federal money for ag research becomes available, Grafton says.

“The underlying principle of land-grant universities is improving society. As long as we don’t lose sight of that, I don’t think it ( collaboration) is problematic.

That’s my own personal opinion,” he says.

Grafton adds that state government financial support for ag research is unusually strong in North Dakota.

The public sector’s role in ag research remains vital, Woteki says.

Public spending on ag research focuses on fundamental, long-term needs, with companies building on that research, she says.

That’s true globally, too, Pardey says.

“The world is still pretty dependent on public spending for agricultural R&D,” he says.

Private-sector spending is concentrated on a handful of crops, particularly corn and soybeans, Pardey and others say.

Some people wonder if private companies will cut back on spending for ag research if crop prices fall sharply.

“I hope we don’t have to find that out,” Armentrout says.

But whatever happens with crop prices, “We’re always looking for ways

to meet farmers’ needs,” she says.

‘Maintenance spending’ By all accounts, ag research is costly.

Ag research, particularly when it’s directed to production, “costs more dollars than it used to. It’s just like farming. Producers have to spend more money on their operations,” says Don Tanaka, a retired soil scientist who spent more than 20 years with the USDA Agricultural Research Service station in Mandan, N.D. So-called “maintenance spending” is part of the reason.

“You have to invest to maintain past gains, as well as to promote future gains,” Pardey says.

For instance, crop diseases such as stem rust in wheat can hammer yields, reducing or even eliminating yield gains achieved from earlier research.

Unless time and money is invested to battle those crop diseases, those past gains will be lost, Pardey says.

Maintenance spending can account for as much as 40 to 60 percent of all spending on ag research, according to estimates.

Bringing in young blood Many ag researchers, both in the United States and other countries, are nearing retirement age, experts say.

Attracting talented young scientists to ag research can be difficult in poor countries, where other types of research may be more profitable and seem more exciting, Beintema says.

Bringing in a new generation of ag researchers is important in the United States, too, and funding is the key, Woteki says.

“It’s a truism in the scientific community. If there is funding for research, you’ll be able to attract good people to work on those problems,” she says.

Breakthroughsachieved by a new generation of ag researchers would help a new generation of farmers, Pardey says.

Unless spending on ag research increases, “The sons of today’s farmers will bear the brunt of these bad decisions,” he says.

Because the United States did a good job of ag research for many decades, U.S. agriculture can temporarily withstand recent spending cuts, Pardey says.

“We were doing pretty well until 10 or 15 years ago. We had a big stock of knowledge. You can nibble on that. But eventually it (not spending enough) catches up on you,” he says.

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 7D

Ethanol, ag can work together

By Mikkel Pates Forum News Service SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Jeff Broin says if farmers want corn prices back at a profitable level, they need to get involved in politics and get engaged to keep the ethanol industry strong.

At age 49, Broin is the executive chairman and founder of Poet LLC, a company that operates 27 ethanol plants across seven states, producing an estimated 1.7 billion gallons of ethanol a year.

“If it weren’t for ethanol, corn would be $1 per bushel to $1.50 per bushel,” Broin says. “Farmers need to let their senators and representatives know that we need more ethanol production in this country to save the American farm, or we’ll see a long, long period of depressed grain prices and dropping land prices that could go on for decades.”

Ensuring the Environmental Protection Agency keeps ethanol use targets strong, despite lower-than-predicted gasoline consumption, will be crucial. The EPA guidance from the 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard had mandated 14.4 billion gallons for 2014 and 15 billion gallons for 2015. EPA says it will have final numbers this spring for 2014 and 2015, and a proposed rule for 2016. The petroleum industry wants the RFS program scrapped. Significant parts of the livestock industry also oppose it.

Broin and the ethanol industry say farmers need to strongly advocate for the standards to be left alone, although they’re increasingly alone in that fight.

Big yields Broin says farmers were deep in the ethanol debate in the 1980s and into the 1990s. They became “complacent” when corn hit $7 per bushel, and more so in the drought of 2012, he says.

Ethanol helped add $5 trillion to U.S. farmland values and farmers will wake up when those dollars start to go away, he says. Broin thinks last year’s record corn yield could be followed by another record yield in 2015.

“I’ve seen technology where they’re averaging 300 bushels per acre on corn,” Broin says. “The national average is in the 160s, but the average could go to 300 bushels in the next 10 years. Where’s all that corn going to go?

The only place for it to go is ethanol.”

He thinks farmers won’t have any problem feeding the world, even with an estimated 9 billion people by the year 2050.

He says the pedestrian

who hears 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is purchased by the ethanol industry is ignorant of the fact that 6 percent — the starch portion — goes to ethanol production. The rest, including distillers grains and oils, goes back into the food and animal feed supply.

The ‘war’ “There’s a war going on between oil and agriculture for the future fuel supply of the world,” Broin says. “If that’s a shared situation, which is what it should be, agriculture and oil will both have sustainable, decent prices.

If oil wins — and ethanol never gets beyond 10 percent — oil is going to be very high-priced and corn is going to be well below the cost of production and subsidized by the U.S. government.”

Broin and his various ethanol allies are attempting to move the U.S. from a 10 percent ethanol standard (E10) in gasoline to 15 percent (E15).

David Kolsrud, president of DAK Renewable Energy Inc., of Brandon, S.D., agrees with Broin’s points on the importance of farmer involvement in the fight to keep the RFS. Kolsrud, a member of the American Coalition for Ethanol, was a former manager of the Agri-Energy plant in Luverne, Minn., one of the plants built by Broin in the late 1990s.

Kolsrud, who also farms near Beaver Creek in southwest Minnesota, acknowledges he and Broin don’t always agree, but he admires Broin for his commitment to ethanol.

Dave Ripplinger, a North Dakota State University Extension bioenergy specialist, says Broin likely has had the biggest influence on building the industry — the business model, the plants, the markets and the policy.

Ripplinger says he can’t say whether corn prices would drop to $1.50 per bushel without an RFS, because that would depend on how the existing ethanol plants would continue.

But he says the outlook would be bearish. He says the pro-ethanol coalition that included farmers, environmentalists and even parts of the oil and gas industry itself are gone.

One key change has been domestic oil production in North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields.

Started at age 14 Broin has seen ethanol overcome big challenges before.

His first exposure to ethanol was when he was 14, growing up on a farm south of Minneapolis near the town of Wanamingo, Minn. Corn was cheap and

farmers were heading into a credit crisis.

It was a desperate time of agricultural policy theater. The American Agriculture Movement launched 3,000 tractors to Washington, D.C., in January 1978 and in February 1979.

Broin remembers how Paul Middaugh, a microbiology professor at South Dakota State University, built the first operating dry mill ethanol plant in the country. In April 1979, Middaugh took a farm-scale alcohol plant to Washington, D.C., where he made ethanol on the National Mall. Farmers in the North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota built many plants from 1979 to 1981, many of them small, 10,000-gallon-per-year, inefficient plants that soon stopped working.

Broin’s father, Lowell (who still farms today) started experimenting with ethanol in 1983. He was being paid by the government to store corn in Quonset buildings.

“Storing corn for the government — being paid to grow weeds by the government,” Broin recalls.

“Corn was $1.30 a bushel and it cost $2.75 a bushel to grow it, and there was no end in sight.”

In 1986, the Broins built an on-farm ethanol plant to use surplus corn and produce 250,000 gallons per year.

In 1987, the Broins bought a Scotland, S.D., plant out of bankruptcy and restarted it in 1988, running at 1 million gallons per year. It was the only operating plant in the state. Jeff Broin, who held an ag business degree from the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, was the company’s general manager at age 22.

“As soon as I got it running and starting to make some money, I knew that it had to be bigger to sur-

vive,” Broin recalls.

In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act. The same year, the Broins broke ground to increase the Scotland plant to 2.7 million gallons per year, forming Broin Enterprises as a construction company. A couple years later, the Broins created Broin & Associates, a design and engineering firm. They took their own Scotland plant to 7 million gallons, then 11 million.

“We rebuilt that plant three different times,” Broin says.

They built Heartland Grain Fuels in Aberdeen, S.D., and Heartland Corn Products in Winthrop, Minn.

The Broins also created management and marketing companies to market ethanol and distillers grains from the plants they helped build. They built research and technology entities, today housed on a grand Poet campus in Sioux Falls. The subsidiaries brought DDGs into the swine, poultry, fish and pet food markets.

Beyond corn In 2000, the family developed Broin Project, a plan to convert starch to ethanol without cooking.

The technology was released in 2004. The same year, they built a plant in Emmetsburg, Iowa, called Project Liberty, to become a cellulosic ethanol plant that uses corn leaves, husks and cobs as feedstock.

In 2005, Broin helped found the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council, to educate an “often misinformed gen-

eral public” about ethanol, he says.

In 2007, Broin bought out his family members.

He changed the company name to Poet LLC and expanded its headquarters.

The name was created to evoke creativity shared by actual poets and farmers.

“I love that it’s short, I love that it’s memorable and that people ask why Poet? Does that make sense?” he says.

In 2008, Poet launched a quarterly magazine called “Vital.” In 2012, Poet hired Jeff Lautt as CEO, while Broin became chairman of the board.

In September 2014, the cellulosic plant in Emmetsburg opened for business.

“We’re leaving almost all of the stalk in the field for erosion control and fertilizer,” Broin says of the corn-based feedstock for the plant. “The plant’s up and operating well.”

Poet and the enzyme and yeast companies each have spent tens or hundreds of millions of dollars developing the technology, he says.

“We can get about 80 gallons of ethanol per acre, about a ton per acre of stover, which is about 80 gallons of ethanol per acre. When you look at corn around the country, you could produce about 10 billion gallons of ethanol, using 25 percent of the above-ground stover.”

A total of 100 billion tons of biomass go to waste every year in the U.S. that could produce 80 billion gallons of ethanol, Broin says.

“That’s enough to replace all of our imported

DRAINAGE/TILING

gasoline and oil,” he emphasizes.

The right business model Broin says Poet is involved in companies that have 6,000 farmer investors. The company owns about 25 percent of the stock in plants it’s involved with — ranging from 2 percent to 75 percent each, a business model that he considers vital to company success. Scotland is the only plant owned 100 percent by Poet.

“We did it right,” Broin says.

Poet built plants in the Corn Belt where corn prices were historically low, compared with national markets. The company became an expert at analyzing sites for infrastructure such as natural gas.

Broin holds up a chart that shows the price of corn and the production of ethanol from 1994 to 2014. The two values are strongly correlated.

“I remember this industry was created and talked about as a way to increase corn prices,” Broin says. “It was the way we sold the stock in the original plants, that you could hedge your grain against energy.”

But he describes the EPA blend wall as, “basically our own government holding back the industry by locking us in at 10 percent ethanol in gasoline.”

Pates is a staff writer for Agweek. To subscribe to the weekly agriculture magazine, call (800) 811-2580 or email subscriptions@ agweek.com.

BACKHOE/DOZER

Still in business after 50+ years! Serving the Region.

You can depend on us for a functional drainage system to remove excess field water and get you in the filed as soon as possible.

Van Heuveln - The ORIGINAL Farm Drainage Company

• Call for an estimate.

• Locally done, guaranteed work.

• Ken 320-264-3211 • Kevin 320-979-1522 Kerkhoven, MN 56252

001222863r1

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Page 8D - Saturday, March 14, 2015

Morris, Minnesota 56267

USDA releases county yield and productions estimates for 2014 Minnesota’s 2014 corn crop seventh-largest but lowest since 2008 Minnesota corn growers produced 1.18 billion bushels in 2014, the seventh largest on record, but the lowest since 2008 according to estimates released by the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. Redwood County, in the Southwestern District, was the largest corn producing county in Minnesota with 39.1 million bushels. Mower, Martin, Renville, and Faribault rounded out the top five.

The Minnesota corn yield, at 156 bushels per acre, is the tenth ranked yield on record. The record high yield of 177 was set in 2010. Watonwan led all counties with an average of 186.3 bushels per acre.

Dodge (185.3), Olmsted (185.0), and Goodhue (182.0) Counties also topped the 180 bushel level. Wabasha County rounded out the top five.

A cool and very wet spring hindered planting and delayed emergence in 2014. Generally favorable conditions prevailed the rest of the growing season, but development remained behind normal all summer. The crop ripened later than normaland harvest also progressed behind normal.

Minnesota’s 2014 soybean crop fifth-largest on record In 2014, Polk, Redwood, Renville and Lac Qui Parle were the four largest soybean-producing counties in Minnesota, with Polk’s 10.6 million bushels leading the way, according to estimates released by the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Cool and wet conditions to start the growing season delayed the planting and development of the soybean crop in Minnesota,

with areas of the state receiving an excessive amount of moisture.

Despite the conditions, the state’s production of 305 million bushels was the fifth largest on record from the third highest harvested acreage.

The counties with the lowest yields were Benton (27.3), Mille Lacs (26.9) and Isanti (21.8).

The state yield averaged 42.0 bushels per acre, with the highest county yields in Goodhue (54.8), Winona (53.9), and Olmsted (53.7).

Corn for Grain

Stevens Big Stone Douglas Grant Pope Swift Traverse

2013 Harvested Acres

2014 Harvested Acres

2013 Total Production (bushels)

2014 Total Production (bushels)

2013 Average Yield

2014 Average Yield

147,300 105,900 69,600 131,900 125,600 201,500 151,100

123,200 99,900 51,500 112,500 105,400 181,800 131,000

23,370,000 15,150,000 9,815,000 21,150,000 18,951,000 32,898,000 22,031,000

20,247,000 18,481,000 7,054,000 16,303,000 16,633,000 28,681,000 19,168,000

158.7 143.1 141.0 160.3 150.9 163.3 145.8

164.3 155.0 137.0 144.9 157.8 157.8 146.3

Soybeans

Stevens Big Stone Douglas Grant Pope Swift Traverse

2013 Harvested Acres

2014 Harvested Acres

2013 Total Production (bushels)

2014 Total Production (bushels)

2013 Average Yield

2014 Average Yield

96,400 105,400 68,900 94,000 78,000 112,700 133,800

109,300 109,200 67,600 102,700 85,300 120,900 151,600

4,042,000 4,126,000 2,227,000 3,655,000 2,957,000 4,339,000 4,998,000

5,160,000 4,692,000 2,539,000 4,421,000 3,835,000 5,358,000 5,935,000

41.9 39.1 32.3 38.9 37.9 38.5 37.3

47.6 43.0 37.6 43.0 45.0 44.3 39.1

Gain a sense of security with the right insurance for your farm, crops, auto, or home.

320-589-9060

The Harrison Company Sales • Auctions • Tax Deferred Exchanges

“We Sell Farms” Bill & Kay Harrison 320-842-7303 – 320-760-0150

w w w. T h e H a r r i s o n C o . c o m

32754 470th Ave. Hancock, MN 56244 Paul Cell

Hancock, MN 56244

320-766-3612

Well Drilling and Well Repair Since 1878

Phone: John (320) 392-5662 Joe (320) 392-5711 Email: conroywell@mchsi.com

conroywelldrilling.com

Land Improvement Contractor

001213742r1

Office 320-392-3339

Excavating • Site Prep • Demolition Dozer • Scraper • Trucking

001215015r1

202 East 7th St., Morris

001215174r1

Juanita Staples • Lonnie Anderson

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

7Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 9D

Less organic grain means more profit Organic dairy numbers in the upper Midwest continues to grow. We are still discovering organic best management practices, but we know these farms need a consistent season-long supply of high quality forage to ensure animal health and optimal milk production.

Currently, the biggest factor affecting the bottom line of organic dairy herds in the United States is the high price of organic grains. During 2010, organic corn prices hovered around $6/bushel. However, in 2011, organic corn price rapidly climbed to $14/bushel. Early 2013 prices indicate that organic corn and soybeans remained at high levels.

Organic soybean meal averaged $1,150 per ton during 2012, which is not economical to feed to organic dairy cattle.

Supplemented feeds should complement pasture forage at a reasonable cost. Neither grass nor legume pasture will meet the energy requirement of the high producing dairy cow based on Dairy NRC recommendations. Levels of neutral detergent fiber (NDF), especially in grasses, will limit the ability of the cow to maximize dry matter intake.

High quality legumes or grasses provide adequate levels of protein, although requirements for rumen undregradable protein (RUP) may not be met.

There remain unanswered questions on appropriate supplementation for grazing cows.

Milk production for cows on all-forage diets should respond to supplementation of high-energy feeds.

Unfortunately, today’s high-priced grains replace forage in the diet. Stored

forage or additional grain may be provided to adjust for seasonal changes in pasture performance.

Three different strategies During the summer of 2012, we looked for practical strategies that organic dairy producers could use to enhance the profitability of their farm.

We compared organic grain supplementation levels, and its effect on economics, behavior, and pest management of organic dairy cows.

That summer, we put 96 lactating Holstein and crossbred organic dairy cows on paddocks at the University of Minnesota’s West Central Research and Outreach Center in Morris. All cows calved during fall 2011 or spring 2012 calving seasons. We divided cows into three levels (no grain, low grain, and high grain) of supplementation based on breed groups. These groups included pure Holsteins and various crossbreds of Jersey, Normande, Holstein, Montbéliarde, and Scandinavian Red. “No grain” cows, as the name implied, received only 100 percent pasture.

“Low” and “High” grain cows received six and 12 pounds of grain per cow per day, respectively. All three groups grazed along side each other in the same pasture, consisting mainly of smooth bromegrass, orchardgrass, timothy, alfalfa, and red and kura clover.

A supplemental total mixed ration (TMR) was provided to the Low and High Grain cows. The TMR was 25 pounds of organic corn silage, 20 pounds of organic alfalfa silage, and 1.5 pounds of organic minerals. Furthermore, in compliance with National Organic Program rules, we ensured that at least

30 percent of their diet consisted of high-quality organic pasture during the grazing season. The TMR was fed in a compost barn after the morning milking, but Low and High Grain cows were allowed to graze during the afternoon and overnight. The No Grain cows were continually on pasture except during milking.

Less grain, less milk The No Grain cows had lower milk, fat, and protein production than the Low and High supplemented cows. Surprisingly, there were no differences in production between the two supplemented groups of organic cows, but the High supplemented cows may have been partitioning the extra six pounds of grain into body condition.

Based on residual pasture results, the No Grain cows were simply not consuming enough quality dry matter intake from pasture during the latter

part of the grazing season.

This is likely the reason for the lower milk production.

As expected, the No Grain cows had higher milk urea nitrogen (MUN) than the supplemented groups of cows. When correcting for the fat and protein content in milk, the difference between the no grain and supplemented cows was reduced, but the no grain cows were still lower for energy-corrected milk.

Across the grazing season, there were no differences for body weight for the No (1,079 lb), Low (1,080 lb), and High Grain (1,089 lb) organic cows.

For body condition scores across the grazing season, the No Grain (2.98) cows had lower body condition scores than the Low (3.09) and High Grain (3.15) cows. Potentially, the Low and High Grain cows in this study devoted more of the energy they consumed to maintain and restore BCS compared to No

Grain cows. This, in turn, may have resulted in the enhanced reproductive cyclicity of the Low and High cows.

As expected, TMR cost was lower ($0.00 versus $3.18 versus $4.21), pasture cost was higher ($1.02 versus $0.86 versus $0.87), and production revenue from milk was lower ($5.02 versus $6.35 versus $5.53) for No Grain, versus Low and High Grain cows, respectively. But, income over feeds costs (IOFC $/cow/day) was higher for the No and Low Grain cows compared to the High Grain cows ($3.61 versus $2.20 versus $0.38, respectively).

More milk, but less profit For profitability, grain costs were substantially higher for the High Grain cows, and therefore, resulted in a reduced IOFC. This higher cost of production is due to the extremely high value of organic corn

($13.21/bushel, April 2013). The No Grain cows had the highest income over feed costs compared to the other supplementation groups because of these lower feed costs.

Therefore, a low grain ration may reduce feed costs without sacrificing profit in an organic dairy system.

Pasture can be a cost effective source of feed and housing for dairy animals.

The results of our study indicate that both organic and conventional producers looking to reduce input costs during high grain prices could limit grain supplementation. Producers who have a handle on their feed costs in an organic dairy production system can make informed decisions that reduce financial loss. The most important point for reducing inputs and improving profits in organic dairy systems is to produce high quality forages and maximize dry matter intake on pasture.

1000 Atlantic Avenue, Morris

(320) 589-4744

Blender Pump E-85 Available

Morris Co-op has all your Bulk Oil Needs Superlube TMS 15W-40 12.05/gal Quicklift HTB hydraulic 11.23/gal

Discounts Expire March 31, 2015

All grease

Cenex Oil All Automotive & Heavy Duty Oil Filters

55 gal barrels, 2 1/2 gal jugs & quart bottles in case lots

15 OFF 15% OFF 15% OFF %

001213292r1

Brad Heins West Central Research and Outreach Center

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Page 10D - Saturday, March 14, 2015

Morris, Minnesota 56267

A shot in the dark Decision time nears on murky farm bill safety-net options COLGATE, N.D. -- Jason Mewes has done his homework. He’s collected statistics, made assumptions, performed calculations and come to a few conclusions. Now, he’s getting ready to visit his county Farm Service Agency office to sign up for key safety-net options in the new federal farm bill.

The Colgate, N.D., farmer won’t know for five years whether the selections he makes this month are right or wrong.

All he can do is make an educated guess and hope for the best.

“You just can’t be sure what you should do,” he says.

Farmers across the Upper Midwest have until March 31 to decide between Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage. Both options, created by the federal farm bill approved in early 2014, provide financial help in tough economic times, but they do so in different ways. ARC protects against falling revenues; PLC provides payments when crop prices fall.

To complicate matters further, ARC comes in two varieties: county and individual.

Farmers are locked in to the choice for five years.

Picking ARC or PLC is a “difficult thing to get a handle on,” says Howard Person, veteran Pennington County, Minn., extension agent. “You have to guess prices out for the next five years. It comes

down to who can outguess the market, and it’s a hard sandwich to swallow if you guess wrong.”

In general, the pricedriven PLC has more appeal if farmers hold a pessimistic view of prices over the next five years, while ARC-County is more attractive if prices are assumed to hold up relatively well.

Predicting future prices is tricky, at best, making the choice between ARC and PLC a “shot in the dark,” says Darrell Davis, an Ipswich, S.D., farmer.

Beginning late last year, area farmers, often using computerized programs developed by their state extension service, have analyzed details of their individual operation — crops, yields and prices, both past and future — to weigh the merits of ARC and PLC. What they’re learning varies from farm to farm and crop to crop across the sprawling Upper Midwest.

Split appeal In general, however, ARC-County appears to be the better choice for corn and soybeans, with PLC and ARC-County holding split appeal for wheat, farmers and others in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and Montana tell Agweek. Corn, soybeans and wheat are the region’s three major crops.

ARC-County is particularly popular for soybeans, says Mewes, president of the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association.

The option holds widespread appeal for corn, too.

Ryan Buck, a Goodhue, Minn., corn farmer, already has signed up for ARC-County.

“Down in the southeast part of the state, that (ARC–County) seems to be the consensus. A few guys will try PLC on a few acres to see how it plays out,” he says.

Generalizations about wheat are risky.

In eastern North Dakota, for instance, farmers generally are picking ARCCounty for wheat, says Dan Weber, with Weber Insurance Agency in Casselton, N.D., which has many farm clients.

In contrast, Davis says PLC is winning favor with wheat farmers in his immediate area in South Dakota.

And in wheat-dominated Montana, most producers are leaning toward PLC, even though ARC-County might be a better option, says Matt Flikkema, a Manhattan, Mont., farmer and immediate past president of the state Growers Association.

“PLC seems easier, so guys prefer it. But make sure you don’t overlook ARC-County,” he says.

Mix and match The farm bill covers barley, canola, large and small chickpeas, corn, crambe, flaxseed, grain sorghum, lentils, mustard seed, oats, peanuts, dry peas, rapeseed, long grain rice, medium grain rice, safflower seed, sesame, soybeans, sunflower seed and wheat.

Many of those crops are grown in the region, and, again, ARC-County and

PLC have mixed appeal for them, farmers say.

For instance, PLC appears a much better option for canola, a popular crop in northern North Dakota, experts say.

Farmers can mix and match ARC and PLC, using ARC-County for one or more crops they raise and utilizing PLC for other crops.

ARC-Individual isn’t generating much interest, in part because it’s more complex than ARCCounty or PLC. Experts say ARC-Individual shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. They also say it’s usually best only for farms with highly variable yields.

There’s a major downside to ARC-Individual.

A producer who selects it must use it for the entire farm and for all his crops, losing the ability to mix and match that ARCCounty and PLC allow.

That loss of flexibility is a serious shortcoming with ARC-Individual, says Dwight Aakre, North Dakota State University farm management specialist.

Part of the process Farmers and farm groups pushed hard in Washington, D.C., to include a safety net in the federal farm bill, the centerpiece of U.S. food and agricultural policy. ARC and PLC are cornerstones of that protection, which plunging crop prices might invoke over some or all of the next five years.

“I give them (political leaders) credit. I think they’re moving in the right direction (with ARC and PLC). But it’s just that these (ARC and PLC) are new, and anytime somethings new it takes time to understand,” Person says.

By all accounts, extension service and FSA officials have worked hard to help farmers understand ARC and PLC. More than 2.9 million

educational postcards have been sent to producers and more than 4,100 training sessions have been held, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, of which FSA is an arm.

Some farmers have attended two or three meetings, often at their local county level, to learn more, says Debra Crusoe, state executive director of Minnesota FSA. FSA and the extension service have held many joint meetings, with FSA focusing on explaining deadlines and technical aspects of the options and extension officials offering insight into which might make more financial sense for producers.

FSA and the extension service also have cooperated on informational meetings about updating crop yields and reallocating crop base acres, which the new farm bill also authorized.

On Feb. 27, FSA extended the deadline to update and reallocate to March 31.

Landowners are responsible for updating and reallocating, while producers are the ones who decide between ARC and PLC. What to do next Farmers, FSA and extension officials have been working for months on ARC and PLC. By all accounts, most producers have a fairly good idea of what they should do.

But a handful are getting a late start, and they need to act quickly, experts say.

Key steps now include: Communicate as soon as possible with your local FSA office.

Visit with other producers in your county.

Tap online tools developed by the extension service that evaluate the merits of ARC and PLC.

FSA wants farmers to take their time and make the best decision, says Aaron Krauter, state executive director of the North Dakota Farm Service Agency.

But the agency also wants to avoid a last-minute sign-up rush that will swamp its local offices, he says.

So Krauter and other FSA officials suggest farmers who are fairly sure of their intentions sign up as soon as possible. The election decision can be reversed before the March 31 deadline, so farmers can adjust their choice if they change their mind before then.

The choice can’t be changed after March 31, however.

Though the ARC vs. PLC decision is complicated, completing the actual form is quick and simple, farmers and FSA officials say.

USDA’s last-minute decision to extend the Feb. 27 yield update and reallocation deadline has led some farmers to speculate whether the March 31 ARC-PLC deadline will be extended, too.

USDA says the ARC-PLC deadline remains in place.

If a choice isn’t made by March 31, the farmer will receive no payments for the 2014 crop year and the farm will default to PLC coverage through the 2018 crop year.

Mewes says he plans to sign up sooner rather than later.

“I’m pretty sure of what I’m going to do. And FSA will appreciate if I don’t come in at the last minute,” he says.

Jonathan Knutson is a staff writer for Agweek.

To subscribe to the weekly agriculture magazine, call (800) 811-2580 or email subscriptions@agweek. com.

R E B A T E

Jonathan Knutson Forum News Service

Spring is just around the corner.

We are ready to help with all your agronomy needs.

Agronomy Services • Dry Fertilizer • Liquid Fertilizer • NAF • Seed • Data RX • Custom Application • Next field

DON’T MISS THE KICK DIRT REBATE ON FIRESTONE RADIAL TRACTOR AND DESTINATION FARM RADIAL IMPLEMENT TIRES! January 1, 2015, through March 31, 2015, get money back on top-performing Firestone farm tires – available only at your Certified Firestone Farm Tire Dealer. $50 back on select Destination Farm AD2™* technology implement radials** $100 back on select standard tractor radials** $125 back on select AD2 technology rear tractor radials** Offer limited to 16 eligible Destination Farm radial implement tires and any combination of 16 eligible standard radial and AD2 radial rear tractor tires per address.

Contact Scott 320-287-2410, Travis 218-849-5668 or Kari 324-7461

Your Certified Firestone Farm Tire Dealer has the tires you want and the “Kick Dirt” rebate form for your money back. Visit FirestoneAg.com to learn more. Rebate paid with a Firestone Prepaid MasterCard®.

MORRIS COOP ASSOCIATION 1000 ATLANTIC AVENUE 1000 Atlantic Ave, Morris MORRIS, MN (320) 589-4744 320-589-4744 *Advanced Deflection Design (AD2) **Limited-time offer valid from 1/01/15 through 03/31/15, subject to product availability. Requests must be postmarked on or before 04/30/15.

Once submitted rebate requests are validated, rebate will be issued in the form of a prepaid card. Prepaid card is given to you as a rebate and no money has been paid by you for the card. Prepaid card is issued by MetaBank®, Member FDIC, pursuant to license by MasterCard International Incorporated. MasterCard is a registered trademark of MasterCard International Incorporated. No cash access or recurring payments. Card valid for up to 12 months; unused funds will be forfeited at midnight EST the last day of the month of the valid thru date.

Card terms and conditions apply, see MyPrepaidCenter.com/site/mastercard-promo. Offer cannot be combined with any other offers, promotions or discounts. Offer limited to 16 eligible Destination Farm radial implement tires and any combination of 16 eligible standard and AD2 radial rear tractor tires per address – visit FirestoneAg.com for eligible tire list. Offer subject to Terms and Conditions available on the official Claim Form and at FirestoneAg.com. Offer valid only for purchases of eligible tires at participating Certified Firestone Farm Tire Dealers in the 50 United States and DC and void where prohibited, taxed or restricted. This is a limited-time offer and may be subject to change at any time at the sole discretion of Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC. 001219496r1

FirestoneAg.com

001213253r1

Morris Coop

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

7Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 14, 2015 - Page 11D

The ABCs of GMOs Garrett Richie Forum News Service

CASSELTON, N.D. – GMOs – or Genetically Modified Organisms – first hit U.S. grocery shelves in 1994. They have been hotly debated in the two decades since, being denounced as unstable, unhealthy “frankenfoods” by some while being touted as a solution to feeding a growing global population by others.

“Farmers are obviously not out to harm their buyers,” said Scott Sinner, who grows both GMO and non-GMO crops. “Why would they be? It doesn’t make any sense.”

Sinner is a partner and procurement manager with Sinner Bros. and Bresnahan, a large, Casselton, N.D., agribusiness that produces, processes and exports both GMO and non-GMO crops.

He said he is frustrated with the abundance of contradictory information regarding GMOs, which he thinks makes it hard for consumers to understand the issue.

“There are so many different studies and so much information in this Internet age,” he said. “How do you truly sort through that? If you don’t have an agriculture background, how do you ever know?”

For those without such a background, GMO crops have specific traits engineered into the seed, essentially accelerating crop modifications that have been done in agriculture over thousands of years through selection and crossbreeding.

“Can you walk into a forest and pick an ear of corn, or a tomato?” said Steven Ralph, associate professor for the University of North Dakota’s biology department. “These don’t occur in nature in the forms that we actually eat. We’ve been modifying plants for a very long time via domestication. It’s just now we have the ability to do it in a more designed

and intentional way with GMOs.” While crops have been altered over time through breeding, GMOs have had their genes altered by DNA from other species to create change.

GMOs are touted by farmers for their higher yields, drought resistance and ability to tolerate the herbicide Roundup.

While farmers reap these benefits, groups such as The Non-GMO Project have campaigned against the use of GMOs in food and for the labeling of GMOs, and 64 countries currently have some sort of law mandating that companies must label GMOs if they are in a product, according to Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.

Despite the anti-GMO backlash, the World Health Organization and The Oxford Journal have both stated that GMO foods available on the market do not pose a risk to human health any more than conventional foods, and there is little research to support theories that GMOs are dangerous to eat.

While there is a lack of scientific evidence condemning GMOs, consumer concern persists, as does the confusion over what exactly GMOs are, and what they might do to the environment.

Misconceptions In the midst of the debate, many farmers and experts say misinformation is making things more complicated, especially when people don’t know what is GMO and what isn’t.

Katie Pinke, a marketing consultant with the Northern Food Grade Soybean Association, said she thinks there is a misconception about the amount of GMOs consumers are exposed to, pointing to the produce aisle’s relative lack of GMO products.

“There’s just very little GMO out there,” Pinke said.

Although the government recently approved commercial planting of GMO apples that don’t brown as easily, the majority of the 10 major GMO crops aren’t found in the produce aisle: soy, corn, canola, cotton, sugar beets, zucchini, yellow squash, papaya and alfalfa.

Therefore, many GMO foods are coming in the form of products produced with soybean oil, corn syrup or canola oil.

However, the percentage of these crops that are genetically modified is high.

In 2013, 85 percent of U.S.-produced corn, 91 percent of U.S.-produced soybeans, and 88 percent of U.S.-produced cotton came from genetically modified stock, according to a 2014 Gizmodo article.

However, for crops that aren’t genetically modified, GMO versus nonGMO can still come into play.

Scott Gauslow, chairman of the North Dakota Soybean Council and a grower of GMO soybeans and GMO corn in Colfax, N.D., said he thinks some food manufacturers are using the non-GMO label as a marketing tactic.

He mentioned sunflower seeds as an example, because all sunflower seeds are non-GMO – a GMO sunflower seed doesn’t even exist.

“There’s a sunflower manufacturer that puts ‘non-GMO product’ right on the label. Well, you can’t buy GMO sunflowers,” Gauslow said. “I think it’s using a marketing ploy more than anything else.”

Why GMO? For Jason Mewes, who grows GMO corn and GMO soybeans near Colgate, N.D., and is president of the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association, there is an obvious reason for growing GMO.

“The primary reason we grow the GMO crops is we get a better product in the end,” he said.

Whether it is better drought resistance, easier herbicide treatments or higher product yield, GMOs offer a competitive advantage over non-GMO crops, but it can come at a cost.

Large companies like Monsanto fund much of the research used to produce GMOs by assigning technology fees to GMO seeds.

Mewes estimated a bushel of GMO seed could cost $60 while a non-GMO seed of the same plant would cost $10 per bushel.

However, Mewes said the higher yield gotten from GMO soybean crops is necessary to meet demand.

“I don’t believe that we could produce enough beans to meet the demand for soy oil or soy meal (without GMOs),” Mewes said.

Pinke said it’s important to remember that this demand extends to markets beyond North Dakota.

“We have to be able to grow more food on less land, and there’s a growing global population so North Dakota growers aren’t just growing for North Dakota or the U.S., we’re growing for a global population,” Pinke said.

In addition to a higher yield, the general advances of the GMO seeds are hard for farmers to turn down when others are growing them.

“It’s like a cell phone,” Gauslow said. “You want to keep up with the times.”

But like cell phones, which often need upgrades to avoid becoming obsolete, there is a similar concern with the engineering of GMOs to tolerate the herbicide Roundup.

When Roundup is the predominant or only herbicide used -- which is often the case with GMOs

-- farmers can run into problems.

The science journal Nature, as well as other sources, have brought up the danger of GMOs creating these Roundup-resistant super pests.

“Over the last 20 years there have been some weeds that have developed a natural tolerance to Roundup, and because of that the game is changing a little bit,” Gauslow said.

While weed resistance is a legitimate concern for GMOs, Ralph explained that agriculture is already a system of making modifications to nature to gain certain advantages while tolerating certain setbacks.

One of the oldest and most dramatic modifications he pointed out was monoculture.

“You’re growing the same thing acre after acre after acre,” Ralph said.

“Monoculture probably has more of an effect on the environment than any modification we’re likely to make through GMO,” he said.

Consumer choice While research on GMOs doesn’t find any harm in eating them, farmers on both sides are still responsive to the demands of GMO-wary consumers.

Sinner said a large share of the food-grade soybeans produced in the U.S. are exported to Asia for tofu, natto and soy milk.

He said Japanese customers are wary of GMO beans because there hasn’t been enough time to do a generational study on them yet.

For Sinner, this wariness represents a different food preference, which he compared to someone going into a car dealership and buying one brand of car instead of another.

“It’s up to the consumer what they want to buy, and

if they feel like they want to pay for organic? Great, we’ll sell it to them,” he said. “If they feel like they want to buy non-GMO? Great, we’ll sell it to them.

To us, it’s more of a consumer-driven issue than it is anything else.”

Mewes agreed with Sinner, saying farmers will respond to the desires of the consumer.

“At the end of the day, we’re all businessmen,” Mewes said. “If the market demands non-GMO beans, that’s what we’ll do.”

Katie Pinke, who often speaks on agriculture and is a proponent of consumers having both GMO and non-GMO choices, said the choice also applies to farmers.

“I think it’s amazing in America that we have an abundance of choices,” Pinke said. “It’s important that we me make sure that consumers understand that farmers have choices just like consumers have choices,” Pinke said. “The most important thing for us is that we celebrate the choices that we have and help North Dakota understand the importance of agriculture to our economy.”

Beyond the farm, retailers also respond to the demand for certain types of food.

“Amazing Grains Food Co-op carries natural and organic foods, some of those are specifically nonGMO labeled products that our shoppers want,” said Ashley Decker, general manager of the Grand Forks grocery store. “We receive feedback every day that food transparency is important to them and they want to know what is in their food.”

Morris Bearing & Supply Keeping the World Turning one Bearing at a time!

Grain Storage, Handling, and Drying Steel Bins, Hopper Bins, & more!

Your Auto, Truck, Tractor Parts Headquarters!

814 W. 5th St., Morris

320-589-1733

For Pre-Season Discounts!

Auto Plus

A&S Ag Sales

Argyle, MN Travis Anderson (218)-201-0782 Reece Setterholm (218)-280-5890

001213550r1

CALL NOW

Hours: 8 am - 6 pm, Monday-Friday; 8 am 4 pm, Saturday

Plan Your Spring Fertilizer Needs Now!

864665

AIR TOOL CLINIC Air Tools and Air Compressors Sales and Service

Stop by or give us a call!

001218798r1

We are your local Pioneer Seed Dealer

320-795-2221 320-287-2368 airtoolclinic@yahoo.com

001216386r1

Rick Brustuen 106 W. Main Street Cyrus, MN 56323

Page 12D - Saturday, March 24, 2015

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Celebrating National Ag Week March 15-21, 2015 These area businesses support our local farmers with pride!

Gain a sense of security with the right insurance for your farm, crops, auto, or home.

519 Atlantic Avenue, Morris HEALTH

&

PRODUCTION

621 Pacific Avenue, Morris

(320) 589‐0111

Insurance and Travel

(320) 589-2442

714 Atlantic Avenue, Morris

(320) 589-3335 I N C

TONY & ANDREW MESSNER

320-392-5496 38499 County Rd. 2, Hancock, MN 56244 FAX: 320-392-6339

STARBUCK, MN

320-239-2677

www.meixeltrucksales.com

(320) 589-2972 Agralite Electric Cooperative 320 Hwy. 12 East, Benson, MN 320-843-4150

Juanita Staples • Lonnie Anderson

202 East 7th St., Morris

26406 470th Avenue • Morris

320-589-9060

320-392-5609

Delta Commodities 6 East Hwy. 28, Morris

320-589-4345

601 Atlantic Avenue • Morris

170 So. Cty. Rd. 22, Morris

966 6th St., Hancock

23 East 6th Street, Morris

(320) 589-3865

(320) 392-3143

ENVIRONMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS

16084 St. Hwy. 29, Glenwood

CHS SERVICE CENTER Herman • 677-2251 ~ Donnelly • 246-3239 Morris • 589-1581 ~ Chokio • 324-7451 Fergus Falls •218-736-3297

(320) 589-3434

Knute Nelson Home Care

hydrostatic service, inc.

(320) 634-4360 866-634-4360

(320) 589-3933

589-2331

Hwy 28 West Morris

“Serving the Morris & Benson Area”

1-888-404-SOFT (7638)

514 Atlantic Ave., Morris (320) 589-6402 24-hr skilled nursing care at home

KANNEGIESSER TRUCK SALES

www.kannegiessertrucksales.com

(320) 795-2827

Your Full Service Plumbing & Heating Company

MOHR Plumbing & Heating of Morris

1057 State Hwy. 9, Hancock

(320) 392-2833

320.589.1006

102 Atlantic Avenue, Morris

24 E. 7th St., Morris, 320-589-4008

(320) 589-3881

Locations: Elbow Lake, Morris, Ashby, Evansville & Hoffman

www.PrairieHealth.org

Owned and operated by Phil Harpstead

MORRIS AREA SCHOOLS 201 So. Columbia Ave.

320-304-2885 Licensed & Insured

MN Lic #BC636115

HANCOCK CO‐OP, INC. FERTILIZER & FEED 355 Atlantic Avenue, Hancock

(320) 392‐5291

714 ATLANTIC AVENUE, MORRIS

(320) 589-3964

Morris

(320) 589-4840

MICHAELSON SERVICES Owner: Tim Michaelson * Trees * Snow Removal * Metal Recycling 320-589-1664 320-808-7093 1627 State Hwy 329, Morris, MN 56267

607 Pacific Ave., Morris

(320) 589-2525

www.morrissuntribune.com

www.hancockrecord.com

P.O. Box 425, Hancock (320) 392-5527

Located at 607 Pacific Ave., Morris