March 2014, Volume 18, Issue 2

March 2014 • Volume 18, Issue 2

3

12

®

Idaho Farm Bureau

13

Owyhee Ranchers

State Proposes

Soil and Water

Face Grazing

Regulation to Clean up

Conservation:

Restrictions

Ring Rot in Potatoes

A Historical Perspective

Ag Labor: Congress Needs to get the Job Done

With high expectations that Congress will finalize both the farm bill and Water Resources Development Act early this year, farmers are optimistic Congress will next turn its sights to moving immigration reform to the front burner.

any longer for effective, long-term solutions to the agricultural labor crisis, which has forced growers to leave millions of dollars-worth of crops unharvested and threatens the country’s food security. Farmers and ranchers need effective, long-term solutions to agricultural labor shortages. And Congress needs to get the job done.

Farmers and ranchers can’t wait

A Crisis in Farm Country

By Bob Stallman AFBF President

Idaho - The Sage- Grouse State

By Frank Priestley President Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

Forget potatoes, forget gems, while our state legislators are in Boise this spring they may want to consider an additional piece of legislation declaring Idaho “The Sage-Grouse

Celebrating Idaho Farm Bureau’s 75th Anniversary The Wheat “War” Referendum

By Rick Keller CEO Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

During the late 1950’s, farm issues and policy alternatives received widespread examination by congressional committees, presidential hopefuls, agricultural economists 2

The Ag Agenda

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

It’s not as if Congress would be starting from scratch. The Senate in June passed a balanced, Farm Bureau-supported immigration reform bill that includes a fair and workable farm labor provision. The House took a piecemeal approach, passing a series of immigration reform bills at the committee level, including an agricultural guest worker bill. As this is See STALLMAN, page 7

State.”

graze.

It has a ring to it.

Let’s add in protection of large predators and maybe a few endangered plants, since they’re also more important than the people whose ancestors settled this state.

Let’s forget about the farms and ranches that form the backbone of our state’s economy and just protect sage-grouse habitat because these birds are more important than any use we could possibly concoct for public or even private land. Let’s forget about the science that shows how range fires are the biggest threat to sage-grouse and how these birds are more prone to congregate in areas where livestock actively in and out of government, and by others with an interest in farming. As a result of such pursuits, the years of the late 50’s and early 60’s became a watershed period for the economic appraisal of the chronic excess-capacity, farm-income problem. Earlier agriculture economists nearly unanimously recommended reliance on market prices to allocate productive resources while hailing flexible price supports as the best means to prevent price variations.

During this new period advances

Let’s route giant power transmission lines across the prime farmland that sustains us because sagegrouse habitat can’t be disturbed.

Let’s all just step back and allow See PRIESTLEY, page 8

in productivity were so widespread and rapid that the capacity to produce was growing faster than the demand to buy wheat, resulting in chronic downward pressure on prices. This condition could be corrected by moving to a free market, but the wringing-out process in terms of business failure and asset devaluation would be more painful and prolonged than society was willing to accept. Hence, many agricultural economists and farm See KELLER, page 22

Volume 18, Issue 2

IFBF OFFICERS President ................................... Frank Priestley, Franklin Vice President ..................................Mark Trupp, Driggs Executive Vice President .............................. Rick Keller BOARD OF DIRECTORS Bryan Searle ............................................................Shelley Mark Harris ................................................ Soda Springs Chris Dalley ....................................................... Blackfoot Dean Schwendiman ........................................... Newdale Danny Ferguson ........................................................Rigby Scott Steele ..................................................... Idaho Falls Gerald Marchant .................................................. Oakley Rick Pearson ................................................... Hagerman Rick Brune............................................................Hazelton Curt Krantz ............................................................ Parma Cody Chandler....................................................... Weiser Tracy Walton ....................................................... Emmett Marjorie French .............................................. Princeton Alton Howell ................................................ Careywood Tom Daniel ............................................... Bonners Ferry Carol Guthrie ......................................................... Inkom Luke Pearce ............................................. New Plymouth STAFF Dir. of Admin. Services ....................... Nancy Shiozawa Dir. of Organization............................... Dennis Brower Commodities & Marketing Assistant ........... Peg Pratt Member Services Assistant . ................... Peggy Moore Publice Relations Assistant ..................... Dixie Ashton Dist. I Regional Manager .......................... Justin Patten Dist. III Regional Manager .................. Charles Garner Dist. IV Regional Manager ..........................Brody Miller Dist. V Regional Manager ...................... Bob Smathers Dir. of Governmental Affairs ...............Russ Hendricks Asst. Dir. of Governmental Affairs ... Dennis Tanikuni Energy/Natural Resources . ..................... Bob Geddes Director of Public Relations ............. John Thompson Video Services Manager ............................ Steve Ritter Broadcast Services Manager .................... Jake Putnam Office Manager, Boise ................... Julie Christoffersen Member Services Manager ........................ Joel Benson Printed by: Owyhee Publishing, Homedale, ID GEM STATE PRODUCER USPS #015-024, is published monthly except February, May, August and November by the IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, 275 Tierra Vista Drive, Pocatello, ID 83201.

POSTMASTER send changes of address to: GEM STATE PRODUCER P.O. Box 4848, Pocatello, ID 83205-4848.

Periodicals postage paid at Pocatello, Idaho, and additional mailing offices.

Subscription rate: $6.00 per year included in Farm Bureau dues.

MAGAZINE CONTACTS: Idaho Farm Bureau Federation EDITOR (208) 239-4292 • ADS (208) 239-4279 E-MAIL: dashton@idahofb.org www.idahofb.org

Cover: Tim Lowry and several other ranchers in Owyhee County are facing grazing restrictions brought about by a lawsuit claiming a federal government agency has not complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Farm Bureau file photo

A heifer donated by South Mountain Ranch was sold during the ranch’s annual bull sale to raise money for a legal effort to protect grazing rights in Owyhee County.

Photo by Steve Ritter

BLM Imposes Grazing Restrictions on Owyhee Ranches

By Jake Putnam Thanks to a decade-long lawsuit, the Bureau of Land Management has imposed new grazing restrictions on 68 grazing permits on the Owyhee Range.

The new BLM permits severely limit the time and locations of cattle grazing.

“I’m not afraid of the BLM,” said Murphy rancher Paul Nettleton, “We can beat them again.”

Nettleton and fellow rancher Tim Lowry beat the BLM in a decade-long water rights case seven years ago. Now, along with most of their ranching neighbors are gearing up for another multi-year legal fight with the BLM. Federal District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ordered the BLM’s Owyhee field office in southwestern Idaho to rewrite the 68 grazing permits in 1999, permits that it had renewed just two years before.

Judge Winmill’s decision voided the old permits on the heels of a lawsuit by Western Watersheds Project. Western Watersheds argued the permits weren’t properly analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. See OWYHEE 68 page 4 Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

3

OWYHEE 68

Continued from page 3

Ranchers from all over southwest Idaho and southeast Oregon recently attended the South Mountain Bull Sale in Melba. Part of the proceeds were donated to a legal effort to defend grazing rights in Owyhee County.

Photo by Steve Ritter

“If we don’t fight this, it’ll destroy ranching not only in Owyhee’s but across the west,” said Nettleton.

half. Lowry says the decisions handed down by the BLM is the biggest threat to ranching to date.

ation the seasons of use and are completely lacking in common sense,” said Lowry.

Ranchers like Lowry and Nettleton found that under the latest decision their grazing allotments were reduced by

“These renewals are unlivable and unsustainable as far as we’re concerned.

The cutbacks don’t take into consider-

For instance under the permit just issued, Lowry’s cattle would be off the range but allowed to graze high elevation moun-

4 #

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

tain top areas in April. The BLM failed to consider the fact that snow can last in the Owyhee high country until June and there’s very little feed, according to Lowry.

last fight with the BLM for the rest of his life says this latest fight is no surprise.

“Going to the top of the mountain in April when the snow goes off or December when the snow is falling, you can’t use it, so actual reductions will be far more severe than all the past reductions,” added Lowry.

“The Bureau of Land Management is a broken, dysfunctional system. It’s an economy-killing, rights-destroying system and if something can’t be accomplished by moving management of some of these lands to the states, it’ll ruin us.

It would still be a socialist system but at least it would be closer to home,” said Lowry.

When the BLM renewed the 68 permits, they reduced utilization numbers

The Idaho Cattle Association is also upset with the new permits.

BLM’s Environmental assessment failed “to consider a reasonable alternative that included the utilization of range improvement projects,” by ranchers by 30-50 percent according to Wyatt Prescott of the Idaho Cattle Association.

The BLM also changed the grazing seasons keeping cattle off the range during peak grazing times to protect the sage grouse.

“That basically crippled ranchers down to 70 percent cuts on most of the permits,” said Prescott, “and they did it in the name of sage grouse even though they used faulty science in making those determinations. We researched the adverse rangeland health assessment study. The feds say grazing wasn’t even the causal factor of habitat decline, yet the only changes they made was reducing grazing.”

Ranchers depend on the grass those rangelands produce and if it’s taken away, the consequences for many small businesses will be severe.

“We might have to reduce our herd because we’ll be feeding more and the cost of feed is up,” said Lowry. “It’ll drive a lot of us out of business.”

Lowry who will make payments on his

“We immediately recognize that there is something wrong with the changes, said ICA President Jaret Brackett. “It’s not the right way to manage the range.”

The ICA Board of Directors met with other groups including the Idaho Farm Bureau and decided that the fight was bigger than Idaho. “This is a western fight and we’ll take it to the courts,” he said.

“Lawyers are not cheap and so we’re trying to raise as much money as possible so we can see this through to the bitter end. There’s already has been some success because of the litigation, these talks with the BLM in other parts of the state are sensitive to what’s happening in Owyhee county,” said Brackett.

Ranchers have teamed up with the Idaho Farm Bureau to form a legal defense fund. The first Owyhee 68 court victory came just weeks ago on a large permit on the Nevada border.

“The BLM’s decision on the Garat allotment in the southern-most part of Owyhee County was reversed by the court because the agency refused to consider range improvements by ranchers on their allotment. The Garat permit now goes back to the BLM and they’ll have to issue a new permit,” said Prescott.

Although this first ruling only applies to the Garat allotment, ICA said the permittees will advance this same argument in all of the other pending permit

decisions. If the BLM uses the same rationale in those decisions there’s a chance to overturn this latest round of permit adjustments.

In the appeal, Administrative Law Judge Robert Holt wrote that BLM’s Environmental assessment failed “to consider a reasonable alternative that included the utilization of range improvement projects,” by ranchers.

The BLM according to Holt’s decision declined to consider all NEPA analysis.

He wrote while NEPA does not require

“We’re optimistic in our ability to halt the implementation of these faulty decisions which call for the removal of grazing by up to 70% on the majority of allotments in Owyhee County” agencies to consider particular alternatives, NEPA does require agencies to briefly explain why they excluded range improvements. Simply put the BLM didn’t give a reason for not including rancher improvements from NEPA analysis.

“So we’re optimistic in our ability to halt the implementation of these faulty decisions which call for the removal of grazing by up to 70% on the majority of allotments in Owyhee County,” said Prescott. Be he concedes that this is just the first appeal of the 68 permits and the rest could take years.

Ranchers are appealing the rest of the grazing reductions. For now its business as usual on the Owyhee range because the proposed reductions won’t go into effect until the appeals are thoroughly reviewed.

The 68 permits in the Owyhee’s affect more than a hundred thousand acres of land.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

5

A registered Angus heifer donated by Matt Duckett of South Mountain Ranch is auctioned to raise money to pay for a lawsuit challenging grazing rights in Owyhee County. Photo by Steve Ritter

Auction Raises Funds to Support Grazing

By Jake Putnam At South Mountain Ranch in Melba, pickup trucks from all over Owyhee County and the surrounding area parked in a muddy parking lot in early February in a show of solidarity.

South Mountain Ranch holds a bull sale every year on the second Tuesday of February. But this year, the sale was different.

They decided to help raise money for the Owyhee 68, a group of ranchers facing a lawsuit that could severely restrict grazing in the region and have far-reaching effects across the West.

The legal fund will help ranchers appeal a decision to cut grazing permits by as much as 70 percent. “We’re talking about hundreds of appeals and at least a couple of 6

years of legal work and lawyers don’t come cheap,” said Idaho Cattle Association Executive Director Wyatt Prescott.

South Mountain Ranch co-owner Matt Duckett donated a registered Angus heifer at the auction to raise money for the legal defense fund.

In a matter of minutes ranchers raised more than $13,000. That money according to organizers, will help fund a legal battle over the BLM’s plans to reduce public grazing land.

“I’m confident we can beat them again,” said rancher Paul Nettleton. He and rancher Tim Lowry beat the BLM in a long water rights case seven years ago. Their case preserved their stock water rights and although they won in court, their legal costs

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

exceeded $1 million. “If we don’t fight, it’ll destroy ranching,” Nettleton added.

The grazing permit fight started15 years ago when Federal District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ordered the BLM’s Owyhee Field Office in southwest Idaho to rewrite 68 grazing permits. The Western Watersheds Project argued that permits were not up NEPA standards.

The new permits were issued last year and ranchers found their grazing allotments cut in half, some up to 70 percent, according to Nettleton.

More than a hundred ranchers showed up for the auction, The Duckett Angus heifer was sold three times to passionate fellow ranchers and supporting businesses.

STALLMAN

Continued from page 2

the second session of the 113th Congress, these bills are still in play.

Passage of the Senate bill last year gave farmers great momentum. And while the House may be doing things differently, farmers and ranchers will be right alongside lawmakers throughout the process making sure they understand how critical this issue is to agriculture and all consumers who count on U.S.-grown food.

From a Colorado potato grower to a Pennsylvania fruit farmer, and from a South Carolina peach farmer to a Tennessee tobacco grower, farmers all across the country are facing a labor crisis.

And then there is California, the top fruit and vegetable producing state. A survey by the California Farm Bureau found that 71 percent of tree fruit growers and near-

ly 80 percent of raisin and berry growers were unable to find enough employees to prune trees and vines or pick crops.

When you have that many farmers unable to get the workers they need, you have a crisis in farm country. That also means a crisis for Americans who want their food grown in the United States.

A Simple Truth The current H-2A temporary agricultural worker program is broken. It artificially raises wages above the market rate, and often does not bring workers to the farm until after the need for them has passed— after the crops have already started to rot.

That’s why at the American Farm Bureau’s 95th Annual Meeting in January, delegates reaffirmed their strong support

for meaningful ag labor reforms that ensure farmers and ranchers have access to workers when they are needed. Delegates also voted to support flexibility that would allow the employment of workers by more than one farmer.

Farmers and ranchers need a reliable supply of labor. That is a simple truth. It’s about availability and flexibility—neither of which have been hallmarks of the system our farmers, ranchers and growers have operated under for many years.

Congress has known about these problems for more than 30 years. It’s time for Congress to put the nation’s needs above politics and work toward finding solutions. It’s time for Congress to get the job done.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

7

PRIESTLEY

Continued from page 2 animal rights activists from other states and anti-grazing environmentalists from Sun Valley, their lawyers and the judge in their pocket to take charge of Idaho and see how that goes.

What the hell, maybe we can even start a trend where people from rural areas of all the western states pack up and move off to the city. All these folks could toss aside their work ethic and go on the government dole.

Not to belabor the point, but perhaps it would be a good idea to block off some large tracts of scenic land for new wilderness areas. Maybe we should start with Fremont and Owyhee counties. Might as well toss in Lemhi and Custer since they’re

almost all federal land anyway.

And we don’t want to leave out northern Idaho. Bonner and Boundary counties have some caribou and grizzly bears and probably some owls that need protection – might as well add them to the mix in the sake of fairness. Let’s add in Blaine County too, while we’re at it, but we will cordon off a nice section where rich people can live – and ski.

When you add up all of the nonsensical developments, the disregard for reason and logic, the inaction of our Congress, the misguided yet powerful influence of large corporations and public utilities, failure to learn from mistakes (spotted owls is one) and the corruption of our legal system, it shows that the efforts of some of our

Are you ready to get serious about marketing your farm or ranch?

23 Kazoos can help!

We do the marketing you need to do, want to do, and don't have time to do!!

• Social Media Management Call Wendy at • Blogging to discuss 208-450-2047 • Email Newsletters your marketing needs.

• Publicity • Blog, Website & Logo Design • Search Engine Optimization • Online Reputation Management • Advertising Campaigns • And more!

We KNOW Agriculture!

23 Kazoos helps with Arizona Farm Bureau’s Social Media Management

23kazoos.com 208-450-2047 8

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

best thinkers coupled with the general apathy of our population, have allowed stupid to take over.

Case in point: About 16 years ago the Western Watersheds Project sued the Bureau of Land Management making the absurd claim that the feds didn’t do enough to protect sage-grouse in Owyhee County and therefore the livestock that have grazed that land in harmony with all sorts of wildlife for well over 100 years, have got to go. The lawsuit ordered BLM to evaluate 120 grazing allotments in Owyhee County and although the lawsuit is under appeal, BLM has begun ordering cuts that will reduce the number of cattle on public lands in the county by as much as half.

Cuts that deep will put many ranches under. Ranchers in the area are holding benefit auctions to raise money for the legal defense, but the environmental group’s court tactic is draw out the legal process until the court costs amount to millions.

So the ranchers are in a legal battle to maintain their way of life. Win or lose they risk going broke while the environmental group can recoup its legal fees through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which takes us back to the predicament of the takeover of stupid.

Our advice is plan to put your kids in law school. No one else is going to have a job in this state in a few more years if we continue down this path.

The lifeblood of America .

They’re the humble heroes who rise before dawn and battle the elements. They put clothes on our backs and food on our tables. Their genuine values and tireless work ethic are an inspiration to us all. We appreciate all that America’s farmers do and invite you to join us in saying thanks at www.fbfs.com/SayThanksToAFarmer.

/SayThanksToAFarmer FB02-ID (7-13)

ID-Tribute(7-13).indd 1

6/6/13 3:41 PM Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014 9

Focus on Agriculture

Immigration Reform, Important for Agriculture

By Robert Giblin Immigration reform is one of the most important challenges facing American agriculture. While Washington is gridlocked on many issues, most members of Congress recognize that the current immigration system in the United States is broken. However, there are strong disagreements on the meaning of “reform” as well as how to fix the system.

Well-meaning legislators and advocates for immigration policy changes cite 10

numerous reasons to support their positions. Often lost in the discussion are the unintended negative consequences, including decreased domestic food production and higher prices, of only doing part of the job and not passing complete, responsible immigration reform.

Labor is farming’s third-highest expense—17 percent of production costs averaged across all sectors, and 35 percent to 48 percent in labor-intensive subsectors, such as fruits, vegetables and

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

horticulture.

In the last decade, hired farm workers have grown in importance among other sectors, including dairy, hogs and poultry. Yet farming is hard work; farm labor is hard to find and harder to keep.

Most Americans have “outgrown” farm work; they are unwilling to take farm jobs even if unemployed. As a result, farmers have come to rely on an immiSee FOCUS ON AG, page 25

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

11

Bacterial ring rot was confirmed in 30 commercial potato fields in southern Idaho last year. Some growers have speculated that high levels of the disease were present in upward of 100 commercial potato fields. Farm Bureau file photo

Ag Department Considers Ring Rot Rule

By John Thompson State officials are considering new regulations after an outbreak of bacterial ring rot infected 30 commercial potato fields in Idaho last season.

Some growers have speculated that ring rot infected many more fields than University of Idaho officials were able to confirm.

Several cellars at a potato processing plant near American Falls had to be emptied in a hurry to keep potatoes from melting down and other problems were reported from across southern Idaho.

The Idaho Potato Commission approached the Idaho State Department of Agriculture seeking a new rule to regulate the disease and meetings commenced this winter with the University of Idaho, a few seed potato growers and members of the Idaho Crop Improvement Association.

Several ideas were put forward and debated 12

in search of ways to curb the spread of the disease. Bacterial ring rot was first identified in Idaho in the 1930’s. Slight levels of the bacteria have been present ever since.

The disease can be identified in plants growing in fields and is most often spread during seed cutting operations. It tends to manifest itself when potatoes are in storage and can spread in storage causing major problems when cellars full of potatoes begin to break down.

After several meetings the new preliminary rule has been written and amended several times. The main provisions of the preliminary rule include mandatory reporting, trace back investigations, sampling, testing and seed cutting. Penalties for anyone caught violating the rule fall under three statues of Idaho Code. They include the Idaho Plant Pest Act of 2002, the Idaho Invasive Species Act of 2008 and the Seed Potato statute. Anyone caught violating the

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

rule is subject to misdemeanor penalties of up to a year in jail and fines ranging from $10,000 to $10 per hundredweight.

The preliminary rule must be adopted by the Idaho Legislature before it becomes a permanent rule. It will be at least a year until that can happen but potato growers should be aware that the rule is slated to take effect before the beginning of the 2014 growing season.

Under mandatory reporting, the rule states that anyone who discovers bacterial ring rot is required to report the finding to the Idaho State Department of Agriculture immediately along with location of the field or facility, date of discovery, location at which suspect potatoes were grown, variety and generation of suspect potatoes, laboratory submission report and test results, certification tags and North American Plant See RING ROT RULE, page 21

A CCC Camp near Moscow in the 1930’s..

Photos Courtesy of Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission

Sowing the Seeds of Ag-related Conservation in Idaho

By Steve Steubner

Soil and water conservation in Idaho has come a long way since the beginning of the agriculture-conservation era in the 1930s.

Today, as the Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission celebrates its 75th anniversary, a strong, four-way partnership between the Commission, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the state’s 50 soil and water conservation districts and private landowners supports literally hundreds of boots-on-the-ground conservation projects throughout the state every year. The projects conserve topsoil, reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, enhance fish and wildlife habitat and emphasize best management practices on Idaho’s farm lands, ranches and forest lands.

In the Dust Bowl-era of the 1930s during the Great Depression, Idaho’s farmers struggled to stay afloat financially while receiving poor farm commodity prices and coping with severe droughts that reduced crop yields. By 1934, crop losses were estimated to be $22.4 million statewide.

“Farmers were unable to pay their mortgages, much less practice conservation,” according to a paper titled “Serving People and the Land: A History of Idaho’s Soil Conservation Movement” by the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts.

Hugh Hammond Bennett, a North Carolina-based soil scientist, was the father of the soil conservation movement in the United States. Twenty years into his career as a soil scientist, Bennett wrote Soil Erosion: A National Menace, a USDA publication in

1928. The paper was a cry for action that immediately drew the attention of the U.S. Congress. In five years, Congress created the Soil Erosion Service, the forerunner to the Soil Conservation Service and NRSC, and Bennett was the agency’s first director.

The first order of business was to conduct soil erosion surveys nationwide. In 1934, Idaho’s survey underscored serious soil erosion problems: 27.2 million acres of Idaho, or roughly half the state, was suffering from sheet erosion.

More than 7.2 million acres had lost threefourths of the topsoil.

Severe gullying was discovered on 12.9 million acres.

See CONSERVATION page 14

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

13

CONSERVATION

Continued from page 13

Wind erosion affected 7.9 million acres, of which 620,000 acres of land was “essentially destroyed.”

There also were severe erosion issues on forest lands.

During the mid-1930s, Civilian Conservation Corps camps were established in 10 different locations in Idaho to work on a variety of projects, including soil erosion control. The very first CCC camp was established in Moscow in May 1934 to work on soil-erosion demonstration projects on the Palouse River. Other noteworthy camps were established in Genesee, Pocatello, Emmett and Weiser.

The notion of conserving topsoil was quickly accepted and embraced by farmers and government officials. “The call to action by SCS to save the soil as a national heritage was the most easily understood and widely accepted objective of the agricultural programs inaugurated during the 1930s,” the authors wrote in “Serving People and the Land.”

“Since it stopped with people’s relationship to the land and didn’t become involved with the disturbing prices, land ownership or rural poverty, it could be universally accepted without controversy.”

Perhaps Hammond put it best, telling farmers and ranchers to, “Take care of the land and the land will take care of you.”

Against this backdrop, the first state director of the SCS, R. Neil Irving, actively lobbied the Idaho Legislature to pass state legislation to foster the creation of soil conservation districts in the late 1930s. As a matter of national policy, the SCS was not supposed to work on soil conservation projects in various counties until a soil and water conservation district had been established.

The Idaho Soil Conservation District Law was passed in 1939, establishing the Idaho Soil Conservation Commission and setting forth its purpose and duties. The enabling 14

A gully caused by erosion on the Palouse in the 1930’s.

Photos Courtesy of Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission

legislation called for a three-member commission, to be appointed by the governor, an administrative officer, and technical experts as necessary. Its responsibilities included: Offering assistance to supervisors of soil conservation districts.

Keeping district supervisors informed of the activities and experience of other districts to “facilitate an interchange of advice and experience between such districts and cooperation between them.”

Coordinating soil conservation programs in Idaho with the federal government and the SCS in particular.

Encouraging the formation of soil conservation districts in Idaho.

James Rabdau, who ran the CCC camp in Moscow and later worked as a soil conservationist in multiple locations in Idaho, said the SCS was very instrumental in creating the Idaho Soil Conservation District Law.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

“The reason it had to be passed was that SCS couldn’t work on private land unless there was a district,” Rabdau said in a history of the SCS/NRCS. “While SCSers were working with farmers in the CCC designated areas, Neil Irving was working around the clock in Boise trying to convince the Legislature to pass the State Soil Conservation District Law. It was a hard job. Many counties in the state knew nothing of SCS or that they had an erosion problem.”

Rabdau notes that the formation of districts was key to gain the cooperation and trust of farmers and landowners. “Whoever figured out the district idea was a wise person indeed. Without the grassroots nonpartisan basis of districts, SCS would have been gone many years ago. And because of districts, SCS will continue.”

Teri Murrison, the current administrator of the Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission, says the importance of districts continues to this day. “Idaho farm-

ers, ranchers and landowners are the most important and necessary partners in the whole four-way conservation partnership,” Murrison says. “Without their cooperation, boots-on-the-ground conservation projects would not be possible.”

The first Commission members were Harold Nagle, a farmer from Parker (near St. Anthony), J.M. Isaacson, a rancher in Malad, and E.J. Iddings, Dean of the University of Idaho College of Agriculture in Moscow. Nagle was elected as chairman.

Oddly enough, the Legislature did not appropriate any funds for the commission to operate. Nevertheless, the commission moved forward with its job, and worked on forming districts and attending meetings at the commissioners’ own expense.

The first soil and water conservation districts to form in Idaho occurred in areas where CCC camps had been established and where enthusiasm for conservation work was high, according to historical papers. Latah County was a leader because of farmers’ concerns about soil erosion, plus it had a CCC camp in Moscow and Genesee. In 1936, three years before the state law was passed, farmers from various towns voluntarily formed conservation groups representing 95 percent of the cropland in Latah County.

What was the impetus? A 1940 hearing report said, “Eighty percent of the county’s cropland had lost 25 to 75 percent of its topsoil. Gullies were common. Fires, overgrazing and clearcutting had severely eroded wooded areas. The many CCC demonstration projects showed farmers solutions to these problems.”

The Latah Soil and Water Conservation District was organized in May 1940 and went to work.

The Portneuf Soil and Water Conservation District was another pioneering district in Idaho. State law required at least 25 farmers to sign a petition to form a district before things could move forward. In 1939, a meeting of farmers in Lava Hot Springs brought together 63 signatures to form a district in Bannock County. The Portneuf Soil and Water Conservation District was

formed in May 1940.

It’s interesting to note that while Idaho’s first soil and water conservation districts were being formed, farmers also joined together to form the Idaho Farm Bureau in September 1939 “to work for the wellbeing of farm and ranch families.”

Fish and wildlife conservation also was important to Idahoans in view of the creation of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission by citizen’s initiative in 1938.

Idaho sportsmen feared that politics were causing undue influence on the management of fish and wildlife resources, and through the citizens initiative, they formed the independent Fish and Game Commission, with members to be appointed by the governor.

You might say that the period of the 1930s during the Great Depression was the dawn of the early conservation movement in the United States. Aldo Leopold, the father of ecology and a professor at the University of Wisconsin in the 1930s, espoused conservation principles that were publicized on a national level. Hammond’s call to action on the farm front was eagerly accepted and the SCS quickly developed engineering techniques to provide guidance on solving erosion problems through demonstration projects on farm lands. And Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, which brought order and much-needed management to the practice of livestock grazing on Bureau of Land Management property and on the national forests managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

By 1944, the Idaho Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (IASWCD) was formed to provide an independent voice for conservation districts in the state and to work closely with the Idaho Soil and Water Commission on conservation issues and priorities. The organization provided a forum for district officials to share common problems, strategies and techniques.

It also was helpful in assisting the Commission in forming new districts.

Twelve years after the state soil conservation law was passed, 31 soil and water conservation districts had been formed in

Idaho, covering nearly two-thirds of the state’s agricultural lands.

Most of the time, farmers and ranchers were supportive of forming districts, historical interviews show. “Generally, farmers and ranchers were favorable to districts,” said Luther jones, who worked for the SCS in SE Idaho. “The earlier districts were organized in problem areas, and farmers were looking for technical help with flooding problems, laying out and constructing irrigation systems, and conserving irrigation water.”

“A number of farmers and ranchers opposed the idea of forming districts -- some for political reasons and some just to be against something,” added Irving, the SCS state conservationist.

The vote to create the Latah district was very close to being defeated, says Rabdau.

“All precincts in Latah County had a favorable vote except the Genesee precinct.

There it was voted down. The editor of the local paper and a prominent farmer stood next to the voting area and told everyone who came in to vote that they were voting on something that was unconstitutional.”

Nevertheless, the district organizational movement continued in Idaho, and conservation projects moved forward in many fronts. Among the early priorities were: Addressing the impacts of flooding -- in crop fields, earthen ditches, streams and rivers.

Building irrigation systems Conserving irrigation water Managing livestock grazing Contour leveling of farm fields Crop rotation Next issue: Part Two of our historical look at soil and water conservation in Idaho will track the evolution of Ag-related water-quality planning and implementation in the last four decades and highlight the importance of expanded conservation partnerships in the 21st century.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

15

Farm Bureau Rebate $500

New Idaho Farm Bureau Program With General Motors

Eligible Farm Bureau members in Idaho can receive a $500 rebate on each qualifying 2013 or 2014 model year Chevrolet, GMC or Buick vehicle they purchase or lease. This Farm Bureau member exclusive is offered for vehicles purchased or leased at participating dealerships through Farm Bureau’s—GM PRIVATE OFFER at a participating GM dealership. Members simply go to www.fbverify.com, enter their Farm Bureau membership number (i.e. 123456-01) and zip code, and print off a certificate to take to the dealership. Discount must be processed at time of purchase. To qualify for the offer, individuals must have been a Farm Bureau member for at least 60 days prior to the date of delivery of the vehicle selected. The Farm Bureau discount is stackable with some incentives and non-stackable with others. See dealership for full details or call Joel at (208) 239-4289.

Chevrolet Sierra Chevrolet Silverado Chevrolet Sonic Chevrolet Suburban Chevrolet Tahoe Chevrolet Traverse

16

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

17

Post-Harvest Activities erosion.

Residual stocking

By Randy Brooks In the Fall 2013 issue of Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly I wrote about choosing the right harvesting system (see page 18 at http://www.idahofb.org/assets/pdfs/QuarterlyFall_2013_web.pdf ) based on what type of ground you are working on. Once the trees are cut and hauled away there are still many activities that need to be accomplished before the job is completed. These activities may include tree planting in harvest and riparian areas, slash management, seeding forest roads and skid trails, and controlling unwanted vegetation such as noxious weeds. There’s not enough room to talk about all of these topics in this issue, so today I’ll be discussing tree planting after harvest and a few rules that pertain to what we need to do.

Newly harvested areas must have a certain number of acceptable tree species trees left on site or must regenerate trees in order to meet the residual stocking requirements of the IFPA. Residual stocking are the trees remaining after a silvicultural treatment.

IFPA Rules concerning residual stocking include: On any operation, trees left for future harvest shall be of acceptable species and adequately protected from harvest damage to enhance their survival and growth.

Acceptable tree species are any of the tree species normally marketable in the region, which are suitable to meet stocking requirements and must be of sufficient

health and vigor to assure growth and harvest.

Acceptable residual trees should have a minimum live crown ratio of thirty percent (30%), minimum basal scarring, and should not have dead or broken tops.

When stands have a high percentage of unacceptable trees, consider stand replacement rather than intermediate cuttings.

If immediately following harvest, the stand consists of retained trees of mixed size classes that are reasonably well distributed over the harvested area, and none of the size classes individually equal or exceed the minimum trees per acre shown above, stocking will also be deemed adequate if the weighted total of all of the size classes of the retained trees exceeds

Residual Stocking and Reforestation Prompt reforestation minimizes the effect that harvesting can have on watersheds.

The Idaho Forest Practices Act (IFPA) Rules state: The purpose of these [IFPA] rules is to provide for residual stocking and reforestation that will maintain a continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species by describing the conditions under which reforestation will be required, specifying the minimum number of acceptable trees per acre, the maximum period of time allowed after harvesting for establishment of forest tree species, and for sites not requiring reforestation, to maintain soil productivity and minimize 18

Recently harvested areas must have a certain number of acceptable tree species growing on the site within three to five years. Areas like this may be naturally or artificially regenerated.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

below minimum stocking.

Reforestation practices must insure seedlings become established. This can be accomplished by adequate site preparation, utilizing acceptable seed or seedlings, following accepted planting or sowing practices, or by other suitable means.

Prompt reforestation minimizes the effect harvesting can have on watersheds.

a value of one hundred seventy (170) for a stand in the North Region and one hundred twenty-five (125) in the South Region. The weighted total is calculated by multiplying the number of retained trees per acre in each size class by weighting factors and adding all of these size class totals.

Harvested stands which are not adequately stocked, as defined above, will be subject to supplemental reforestation requirements.

Reforestation If your harvested area does not meet the IFPA residual stocking requirements you will need to establish new trees. Reforestation is the establishment of an adequately stocked stand of trees of species acceptable to the department to replace the ones removed by a harvesting or a catastrophic event on commercial forest land. Reforestation is not required for:

Noncommercial forest land.

Land converted to another use.

This may include land converted to roads used in a forest practice.

A forest practice which will result in ten (10) acres or less below minimum stocking levels.

Some sites will be unpractical to reforest and are generally ponderosa pine and drier Douglas-fir habitat types.

These sites shall not be harvested below minimum stocking, unless the site is converted to some other land use.

On lands exempted under Sites Unpractical to reforest, where reforestation is not being planned, some form of grass or planted cover shall be established within one (1) year in order to maintain soil productivity and minimize erosion.

Reestablishment of forest cover can be accomplished naturally from the seeds of nearby trees

(called natural regeneration) or by direct seeding or planting (called artificial regeneration).

In Idaho, moisture is almost always the most limiting factor to new tree seedlings’ survival and growth. IFPA Rules regarding reforestation include: Seeding and/or planting may be required if after three (3) growing seasons from the date of harvest, stocking levels do not meet the IFPA standards.

Required seeding and/or planting shall be completed before the end of the fifth growing season following the time of harvest, except that the director shall grant an extension of time if suitable seeds or seedlings are not available or if weather or other conditions interfere.

The party responsible for reforestation is the person, partnership, corporation, or association of whatever nature that directed the area be harvested

To ensure that the maximum amount of moisture is available to new seedlings, competing vegetation should be managed to enhance tree seedling survival while conserving enough surface vegetation to help build and stabilize soils.

Site preparation on forestlands is the practice of altering site conditions (mainly the soil surface) to favor the establishment, survival, and growth of a desired tree species and can be critical to the survival of tree seedlings. Site preparation can be accomplished through mechanical means, prescribed fire, herbicides, or a combination of these practices, but that is a topic for another day!

The selection of planting stock and methods is also important to the successful establishment of new trees. For more information on these topics see the following University of Idaho publications CIS No. 923 “Choosing Nursery Stock for Landscaping, Conservation, and Reforestation�.

For more information on the Idaho Forest Practices Act, go to http://adminrules.idaho.gov/ rules/current/20/0201.pdf Randy Brooks is a University of Idaho Extension Forestry Specialist based on campus in Moscow. He can be reached at: rbrooks@uidaho.edu

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

19

The Wood family raise cattle near Sandpoint. They utilized federal programs to make improvements, including this barn.

Loan Program Funds Conservation Projects

By Steve Steubner NAPLES, Idaho - Several years ago, Liz and Bert Wood began thinking about moving the location of the livestock barn where they kept their weaned calves during the cold, wet North Idaho winter months.

There was more than one reason to do so.

First, their barn was located near a stream, causing concern about water quality impacts.

In addition, the Woods’ home ranch in Naples was 40 miles away round-trip from their barn and winter-feeding operation in Sandpoint. Commuting back and forth was time-consuming and burdensome.

So they decided to phase-out the old barn and build a new one at the home ranch in Naples -- one that employed a clever waste-management technology. The design incorporated a removable, slatted floor built out of 4x6 lumber, allowing cattle waste to drop into a concrete pit, to collect for eventual land-application.

The Woods approached the Natural Resources Conserva20

tion Service (NRCS) and the Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission to help fund the waste-management aspect of their project. They worked with NRCS to develop a conservation plan for the home ranch, and received cost-share assistance from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). They harvested, milled, and used lumber from their own property, and obtained a $75,000 lowinterest loan from the Conservation Commission’s Resource Conservation & Range Development Program (RCRDP) to build the $160,000 facility.

In addition to their savvy partnership and funding strategy, the Woods have received kudos from NRCS and the Commission for the unique waste-management aspect of the confined feeding animal facility.

“We learned from the Woods about the design. It’s a pretty neat system that collects and contains the manure,” said Anna Marie “Ree” Brannon, district conservationist for NRCS in Boundary County.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

Periodically, floor boards are removed, and the waste is extracted with a tractor to be used as fertilizer on the Woods’ property. Under the Woods’ conservation plan, NRCS developed a nutrient management plan prescribing the land application of the manure. The Plan helps calculate how much manure can be spread over their 240-acre ranch over a given amount of time without impacting the ground water.

The Woods are “awesome producers -- it shows up in everything they do,” Brannon said.

Terry Hoebelheinrich, RCRDP loan officer for the Conservation Commission, said the Commission was excited to provide a low-interest loan to the Woods for the waste-management facility. The project is unique, and is an example of how the Conservation Commission can expand its reach to help ranchers and farmers achieve their conservation goals through the RCRDP low-interest loan program.

“This project definitely was different than what we typical-

ly fund, but it has a lot of conservation benefits,” Hoebelheinrich said. “We’ve funded a lot of irrigation systems, but those projects have been mostly in southern Idaho. People will be surprised to learn we can fund a lot of different things to help farmers and ranchers do projects and in the process, realize their conservation goals.”

“We want farmers and ranchers to know that not only do we have funds available, but we’re also encouraging non-traditional types of projects to help landowners with their conservation work.”

The RCRDP loan program offers low-interest loans up to $200,000 for individual projects or $300,000 maximum.

The loan terms vary. Loan rates are: 2.5 percent for a 1- to 7-year term.

3 percent for an 8- to 12-year term.

3.5 percent for a 13- to 15-year term.

Statewide, applications for loan projects that involve livestock

management are increasing, Hoebelheinrich said. These include fencing off streams to prevent livestock from staying too long in riparian areas and waste-management systems.

The Conservation Commission also provides loans for projects related to irrigation efficiency such as drip irrigation, upgrading from flood irrigation to pivots, installing solar-powered stock-water pumping operations, purchasing no-till drills, funding lime treatments to improve soil pH, pre-commercial thinning of timber and more.

“Generally, if it fits into a conservation plan, the project is eligible,” Hoebelheinrich said.

“We can supply funding to an eligible borrower to be used with NRCS funds, or fund a portion or an entire project as long as it fits within our $200,000 per project limit.”

If landowners have an idea for a conservation project they think might be eligible, they should contact Hoebelheinrich to discuss their idea in detail. Terry can be reached at terry.hoebelheinrich@swc.idaho.gov or by

calling 208-332-1790.

Landowners must work with the NRCS or Commission staff and develop a conservation plan to apply for a RCRDP low-interest loan. Because the Commission loans public funds, there are additional criteria on the website at www. swc.idaho.gov/what-we-do/ conservation-loans . Those were not deal-breakers for the Woods.

The Woods’ conservation plan also included fencing to keep livestock back from Deep Creek, a 303(d)-listed stream that supports bull trout, a federally listed threatened species.

Their project also included some stream bank-stabilization and willow-planting, as well as a hardened livestock crossing on the Creek to prevent sedimentation when cattle cross it.

Liz Wood said the barn and waste-management project has been beneficial for their operations. Their calves have higher weight gains from indoor winter feeding which should result in more income from cattle sales, helping offset the cost of

the RCRDP loan. “It was very valuable for us to be able to obtain this loan at such a low interest rate,” she said.

Building the barn and wastemanagement facility was a collaborative effort that benefits their ranch, she said. “This is the third barn that we’ve built, and each time we do it, we’ve redesigned things to make it a little bit better,” Wood said.

“We get so much rainfall up here in the winter, it’s really great to have our calves under

a roof.”

As part of the project, the Woods have donated about $30,000 of labor, she said. “My husband, Bert, put in lots of hours, hauling all kinds of construction materials on and off the site and helping with the construction, and our daughters and I helped with the clean up during construction. We’ve been pretty busy with all of it.

But now that it’s done, it looks really nice.”

The new barn keeps calves and feed dry during the wet northern Idaho winters.

RING ROT RULE

Continued from page 12 Health Certificate.

Under trace back, sampling and testing, the rule states the Department of Agriculture will conduct investigations upon receiving reports of the disease. The trace back may include review of inspection, certification, shipping and production records held by any person for the potatoes in question.

End use of potato lots found to be infected with bacterial ring rot may not be utilized for planting as seed under the preliminary rule.

Seed potatoes to be used for commercial

production in Idaho, whether they originated here or in another state or foreign country, are required to be certified and must undergo testing for bacterial ring rot “in a manner and at a laboratory approved by the director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture after consultation with the University of Idaho Extension Service and the Idaho Potato Commission,” according to the new rule.

The new rule also regulates seed cutting operations but only those seed cutting operations that are commercially contracted.

A grower who cuts his own seed is not

subject to the regulation. The rule requires commercial seed cutting operations to maintain records of the origin of all seed cut by the operation; the cutting sequence employed by the operation; the sanitation schedule and methodology employed by the operation; documents demonstrating that the operation has complied with the sanitation schedule and methodology and a North American plant health certificate for each seed lot.

For more information on the preliminary rule, contact the Idaho State Department of Agriculture.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

21

KELLER

Continued from page 2 leaders concluded that movement to a free market was no longer a viable policy option.

The 1960 presidential campaign manifested the two opposing views. The Kennedy campaign wanted farm production and marketing controls with price guarantees. Nixon didn’t. The difference was sharp and important - more government intervention or less. Nixon said the farm problem was temporary. Kennedy described it as chronic.

The Democratic victory at the polls brought the new president and Congress to power when corn and wheat prices were at postwar lows and carryovers at all-time highs. A few weeks after Kennedy’s inauguration, he sent a special message to Congress containing his proposal for permanent agricultural legislation. The central and most controversial tenet was a procedural change which transferred to the executive branch the responsibility for drafting farm programs, granting the Congress veto but not amending power.

The procedural change was viewed as necessary in order to establish commodity programs which would effectively control supply, provide adequate farm incomes and entail only modest expenditures. Congress did not approve the procedural change, but the Kennedy administration gained Congressional support for production control and more government in agriculture.

Farm Bureau opposed and fought against the administration and Congress, citing loss of economic freedom as its chief argument. Grudging congressional approval was finally won for a bill containing voluntary 22

provisions for feed grains and mandatory controls only for wheat.

The new wheat bill was a major legislative innovation on the path toward a supply management program for wheat. Before becoming operative, the program required approval by two-thirds of the wheat producers voting in a referendum. If not approved, a less restrictive program offering much lower price supports would apply. The choice was popularly phrased as $1 freemarket wheat vs. $2 government supply-side wheat.

The administration launched a large-scale campaign to inform the farmers of the program and of the referendum. Its assumption was that a “yes” vote was the logical outcome if the two alternatives were understood by farmers. The administration was supported by a huge army – the federal bureaucracy, the Grange, the Farmers Union, the National Farmers Organization the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Federation of Grain Cooperatives, and others.

The Farm Bureau led the opposition forces. Much of its effort was directed toward small-acreage wheat farmers previously exempt from acreage restrictions.

It charged that farmers were being asked to surrender their freedom to an unprecedented extent.

Farm Bureau stated, “the real issue in the Wheat Referendum is …’Freedom to Farm.’” Farm Bureau policy stated: “The basic issue before them is whether American agriculture is to remain free or whether we shall turn to a system of farming by government directives.” Farm Bureau was outmanned and outgunned.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

The Idaho Farm Bureau board approved a “NO” vote on the wheat referendum and did all possible to “substantiate” that position. Efforts to defeat the referendum in Idaho were opposed by many of the state affiliates of other national farm groups. Farm Bureau’s efforts to defeat the proposal were not popular in northern Idaho where wheat was the major commodity. Sentiment still runs deep on this issue, even 50 years later.

An unusually large turnout of voters defeated the proposed wheat program in referendum.

Nationwide, the referendum failed to get even half of the votes.

In commenting on the referendum, Democratic leaders could hardly disguise their resentment at the verdict, proclaiming, “Democracy has spoken and wheat farmers have voted themselves out of a program.”

It could be said that the referendum lost because Farm Bureau opposed it. But the outcome showed that Farm Bureau spoke for farmers and accurately reflected their thinking. Farmers became suspicious of supply management.

The dire consequences predicted if the wheat referendum failed did not materialize. For the first time, wheat sales to Russia were authorized and relaxation of trade barriers with communist countries was affirmed, providing additional markets for the U.S.’s abundant wheat surplus.

Farm Bureau’s victory in the Wheat Referendum of 1963 eventually led to a more market-oriented government farm policy. The freedom of producers to manage their own farming operations was preserved.

Celebrating 75 Years Conserving the Idaho Way

LOW INTEREST LOANS FOR IDAHO SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION Sprinkler Irrigation, No-Till Drills, Fences Livestock Feeding Operations Solar Stock Water Pump Systems 2.5%-3.5% Terms 7-15 Years Up to $200,000 CONSERVATION

LOAN PROGRAM

swc.idaho.gov | 208-332-1790

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

23

Grain Marketing with Clark Johnston

Expect Volatile Grain Market This Spring

By Clark Johnston Spring is upon us and if there is one thing we know it is that the markets have the potential to be volatile in the spring. Weather starts playing a larger role in market movement as we hear reports that it is too cold followed by reports of it being too wet. Then we wait just a few days and it will change to too hot and too dry.

The volatile markets definitely give us opportunities to forward contract our commodities as well as hedge the crops that are not yet contracted. These opportunities will present themselves and we can take advantage of the movement if we have a marketing plan in place.

With a defined marketing plan you will be able to contract your commodities when we reach levels on the board that meet your objective.

These markets will give you the opportunity to forward contract your crops whether you use, cash forward contracts, futures only or hedge to arrive contracts or simply hedge your crop with futures and/or options.

Very often the strategy of hedging with the futures works well as the basis for new crop this time of the year has a tendency to be lower than later in the year. Basis will usually strengthen as we move from March into August. Once your hedge is in place you are now 24

a basis trader and a very good one at that if you watch the market closely looking for your opportunities to fix the basis side of your contract.

For now the Chicago wheat futures are trading a carry into March 2015. The board then inverts into the July contract.

In years such as this the market usually will present us with opportunities to trade the basis as we move into the end of the year and possibly into the first quarter of 2015.

Let’s look at our opportunities during harvest and the months leading into the end of the year.

Using the Ogden soft white market as our example we see that in four of the past five years the basis has strengthened by at least fifty cents per bushel from the first of August through the end of November. The fifth year the basis remained flat during this time frame.

Using this information, hedging your inventory with futures and/or options, the basis strength will present you with the opportunity to add to the sale price of your wheat. This isn’t necessarily a layup but, just understanding and knowing how to use hedging and basis will definitely aid you in the years ahead.

On the flip side, those of you that are consumers will be able to take advantage of the same volatility and the same basis moves in the market. Corn ba-

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

sis has been high since harvest due to the inability of the railroad to move cars in a timely manner. Rail cars have traded at a premium in order for shippers to make their contracted deliveries.

There is a real possibility that rail cars will become more available as we move closer to April thus putting pressure on the basis. This could be your opportunity to price your feed or enter into a basis contract and set the futures price at a later date. When entering into a basis contract remember, that you could manage your upside risk by using an option strategy using call options.

With the large corn crop this past year and the estimated acreage for the 2015 crop still high enough to produce an adequate crop we could see the corn market continue to trade a small range through the summer. We could see some strength this spring but, with the current news it doesn’t look as though the market will be able to sustain the strength.

Having said this, the reason for hedging your corn purchases would be to protect you against the unknown. Just because the trade says it shouldn’t doesn’t mean that it couldn’t.

Let’s take a minute now and visit about fuel. Fuel prices will definitely trade seasonality’s during the year. Some are long stretching over many months

Clark Johnston

while others are shorter time frames but, if you watch these seasonal moves you could save money. By knowing and following the seasonal trends you will be able to either buy ahead (protect against higher prices) or buying hand to mouth while the prices move lower.

When we look at PADD IV diesel prices we see that we are currently in one such move. In four of the past five years diesel prices have moved at least 20 cents higher between the middle of February and the end of June. The fifth year prices moved 10 cents lower.

Whatever your strategy is this year, or in the years ahead, it will be important for you to know how to use the different tools that are available to you in the market place. You don’t necessarily need to use what we have talked about every year but, just remember that there are different methods for you to reach the cash prices you pay as well as receive.

Clark Johnston is a grain marketing specialist who is on contract with the Idaho Farm Bureau. He is the owner of JC Management Company in Northern Utah. He can be reached at clark@jcmanagement.net

FOCUS ON AG

Continued from page 10

grant labor force–an estimated 70 percent of which are in undocumented status. Farmers also rely on the H-2A program; however, because it is extremely costly and bureaucratic the program only accounts for 4 percent of the agricultural labor force.

Agriculture craves stability and access to a legal workforce. A just-released report shows that will come only through responsible and complete immigration reform.

The report, “Gauging the Farm Sector’s Sensitivity to Immigration Reform,” commissioned by the American Farm Bureau Federation and conducted

by World Agricultural Economic Environmental Services, studied several immigration reform alternatives. The report was released in conjunction with the #IFarmImmigration grassroots cam-

paign, a month-long initiative sponsored

by AFBF and the Partnership for a New American Economy, to promote the need for immigration reform.

According to the report, the best option includes enforcement, an adjustment of status and work authorization for experienced agricultural workers, and a redesigned, efficient guest worker program.

With only a 1-percent impact on farm income and negligible effects on food prices, this option has the fewest negative effects for farmers and consumers a like.

Two other options—enforcement-only and enforcement plus legalization— would drain the pool of agricultural workers. Enforcement-only would reduce farmers’ access to labor, while enforcement plus legalization encourages workers to leave the agricultural indus-

try, similar to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. Both options leave farmers with no ability to find replacements. If Congress passes one of these options, food prices could increase 5 percent to 6 percent over five years. Fruit production could be cut by 30 percent to 61 percent, vegetables by 15 percent to 31 percent, and meat by 13 percent to 27 percent.

Agriculture needs responsible immigration reform. This study shows that if not done correctly, the tradeoffs can be costly not only to farmers across the country, but to consumers who expect safe and affordable produce when they go to their local grocery store.

Robert Giblin consults, writes and speaks about agriculture and food industry issues and trends.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

25

Top Farm Bureau Agents

Rookie of the Month:

Bea Guzman Palmer Agency

Agent of the Month:

Paul Johnson Palmer Agency

e e y r F tar o N At all county Farm Bureau offices for Idaho Farm Bureau members.

26

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

Family of Member Services

TM

IDAHO FFA—Premier Leadership, Personal Growth and Career Success through Agricultural Education Why FFA Never before have agricultural careers been more important.

The world population of over 7 billion people is expected to near 10 billion by the year 2050 and every facet of agriculture must grow to meet the increasing demands for the world’s food supply.

FFA members are secondary agricultural education students who are preparing for leadership and careers in the science, business and technology of agriculture. Agricultural education is delivered through classroom and laboratory instruction, Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) projects or work-based learning, and student leadership through the FFA. Although we are living in a complex world with challenging times, one sure thing is that future innovators and leaders are being trained and prepared to help meet local and global challenges through their participation in high school agricultural education and FFA. The Idaho FFA Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization providing financial support to career development events and leadership activities that help students develop their potential for premier leadership, personal growth and career success.

www.idffafoundation.org

Support Idaho FFA members with your contribution to the Idaho FFA Foundation today!

I/We would like to contribute $_____________ to the Idaho FFA Foundation to support Idaho FFA members: Name _________________________________________ Address _______________________________________ City/State/Zip _________________________________ _________________________________ Phone ________________________________________ Email _________________________________________  General Contribution Memorial Contribution in honor and memory of: _________________________________________ Send notification to ________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Check Enclosed  Please bill my:  Visa or  Mastercard Name on card: _____________________________________________ Card Number and Expiration Date: __________________________________Exp________ Signature ____________________________________ Please mail to:

Idaho FFA Foundation 3401 West Pine Ave Meridian, ID 83642 Questions? Phone: 208-861-2467, or Email: lwilder@idffafoundation.org

501(c)3 Non-Profit

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

27

2014 Annual Legislative conference

Idaho Farm Bureau members dined with legislators during the organization’s annual Legislative Conference in Boise in early February.

Idaho House and Senate leaders spoke to Farm Bureau members during the organization’s annual Legislative Conference in Boise in early February. Here Senate Pro Tem Brent Hill speaks. Seated is Speaker of the House Scott Bedke.

County Happenings

RAM Trucks made a generous gift to the Idaho FFA Foundation in November to provide for the use of three trucks for FFA business by the State FFA Officer Team. Dennis Dillon RAM in Caldwell procured the vehicles and donated additional funding toward the vehicle wraps which feature Idaho agriculture photos.

From left, Daniel Heikkila, State FFA Vice President; Brett Wilder, State FFA President; McKenzie Forsberg, State FFA Treasurer; and Macy Hagler, Kuna FFA Cghapter, admire one of three RAM Trucks made available for Idaho State FFA Officer official business through a generous gift by RAM Trucks.

28 Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

Canyon County Farm Bureau members met with their legislators over lunch in Boise in late February.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

29

IFBF Women’s Leadership committee

Dixie Johnson of Weiser was the winner of this year’s Idaho Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership Committee Speech Contest. Her speech was five minutes long covering the topic of agriculture’s contribution to Idaho agriculture.

The Idaho Farm Bureau’s Women’s Leadership Committee made a donation to the Ronald McDonald House in Boise. The Committee donated groceries and household goods to the charity. They also made a cash donation and cooked a meal for residents staying at the facility. In addition, there were 14 county Farm Bureaus that made cash and in-kind donations.

FBF Women’s Leadership Committee members Sherril Tillotson, left, Allis Chandler, right and Doris Pearson, behind, cook a meal at the Ronald McDonald House.

30

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

American farm bureau federation news

630+ Ag and Business Groups Call for Immigration Reform The American Farm Bureau Federation, as part of a multi-industry coalition of 636 business organizations – 154 of them agriculture-related – recently urged Congress to move forward with immigration reform this year.

In a letter sent to House Republican leadership, the coalition noted that all of the signatories are “united in the belief that we can and must do better for our economy and country by modernizing our immigration system.” Further, “Done properly, reform will deter illegal immigration, protect and

complement our U.S. workforce, better respond to changing economic and demographic needs, and generate greater productivity and economic activity, while respecting family unity.”

The signatories included 246 businesses of every size and sector across the country and 390 business associations, bureaus, federations and chambers representing a broad cross-section of industries and commercial interests.

“Failure to act is not an option,” noted the

letter. “We cannot afford to be content and watch a dysfunctional immigration system work against our overall national interest.

In short, immigration reform is an essential element of a jobs agenda and economic growth. It will add talent, innovation, investment, products, businesses, jobs and dynamism to our economy.”

The signatories to the letter expressed support for Congress and the administration using the House Republicans’ “Standards for Immigration Reform” as guideposts for action this year.

Congressional Tax Proposals Would Cost Agriculture $4.8 Billion Proposed changes to the tax code restricting the use of cash accounting by agricultural operations would reduce agriculture’s access to capital by as much as $12.1 billion over the next four years, according to a study released today by Kennedy and Coe, LLC and Farmers for Tax Fairness.

The study prepared by the independent research firm, Informa Economics, revealed that U.S. agricultural producers forced to switch from cash-basis to accrual-basis accounting under new laws would have to pay out as much as $4.84 billion in taxes during the next four years. Additionally, borrowing capacity of these operations would decrease by another $7.26 billion over the same time period.

“The Informa study quantifies what we’ve been hearing from producers across the U.S.,” said Jeff Wald, the CEO of Kennedy and Coe, a national agricultural accounting firm. “This tax payment and subsequent loss of financial flexibility will have a major negative effect on America’s agriculture.

Meeting the immediate tax burden is going to be very difficult for most of the affected operations.”

According to the study, “In aggregate, these farms have less than $1.4 billion in current cash on hand to pay the additional taxes. If the tax bill associated with deferred income

comes in an unprofitable farm year or if the producer cannot otherwise meet the capital requirements, the farmer or livestock producer may have to downsize to survive (e.g., sell land or livestock).”

“The impact of these changes would extend far beyond producers and would affect their lenders, processors, and other key suppliers,” said Brian Kuehl, Director of Federal Affairs for Kennedy and Coe. “Producers will no longer have these funds available to buy tractors and combines, or invest in labor and other inputs. These purchases support a lot of small towns and ag-related businesses, small and large. The economic effects of these proposals are potentially staggering.”

In 2013, the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee and the majority staff for the U.S. Senate Finance Committee both released discussion drafts of tax-reform proposals that would reduce the number of agricultural operations that can use cash method of accounting.

“Farmers in America have used cash accounting for decades,” adds Kuehl. “Cash accounting is a simpler form of accounting and allows farmers to better manage volatility and risk. They are already at the mercy of external factors for input prices, commodity prices, and weather. Requiring a change to accrual-based accounting takes away the

one thing they can actually control: their cash flow. It just doesn’t make sense. Producers already face enough risk.”

The study used U.S. Department of Agriculture data to estimate the financial impact of congressional proposals to require agricultural operations with more than $10 million in gross receipts to shift to the accrual form of accounting.

In January, 33 agricultural organizations including the American Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association and National Pork Producers Council sent a letter to the Senate Finance Committee expressing their concerns about the proposed changes to the cash-accounting rules.

“Cash accounting combined with the ability to accelerate expenses and defer income gives farmers and ranchers the flexibility to manage their tax burden on an annual basis by allowing them to target an optimum level of taxable income, commensurate with longterm annual earnings,” according to Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Cash accounting also gives farmers and ranchers the flexibility they need to plan for major investments in their businesses and in many cases provides guaranteed availability of some agricultural inputs.”

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

31

2014 Young Farmers & Ranchers Conference

Luke and Amber Pearce of Payette County are Idaho Farm Bureau’s new Young Farmer and Rancher chairmen.

Idaho Farm Bureau’s Young Farmers and Ranchers group toured the statehouse and got to listen to several legislators speak including Senators Steve Bair and Bert Brackett.

Idaho Farm Bureau President Frank Priestley conducts an auction during the annual Young Farmer and Rancher Conference held in Boise in late January.

32

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

American farm bureau federation news

Ag Census Reveals Treasure Trove of Farm and Food Data The Agriculture Department’s National Agricultural Statistics Service has released selected data for farmers, ranchers and their farms for each state and the nation, as part of its preliminary report on the 2012 Census of Agriculture, available online at http://1.usa. gov/MeZzi3.

“Anyone with an interest in numbers will find a treasure trove of data in the ag census,” said Bob Young, chief economist at the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Also revealed are important trends about farmers that relate to their role in the economic health of rural America and the agriculture

sector overall. Information about who farmers and ranchers are, how old they are and what type of food or farm animals they raise is available,” he said.

Ag Census data includes information on number of farms, land in farms, market value of agricultural products sold including government payments and selected principal operator characteristics. Information on background, terms and methodology also is available.

cial demographic characteristics of farms,” explained Young. “Between the sequester last fall and associated furloughs, NASS faced a number of unusual challenges with this census, consequently, the agency has more work to do before full details are available,” he said.

Young also pointed out that unlike other government agencies, NASS is prohibited by law from releasing any information related to individual farmers.

“Today was a release of the preliminary set of data, and really just looked at overall farm numbers as well as some breakouts of spe-

The full report is slated for release by NASS in May.

ries and blackberries, a fall corn maze and educational school tours year-round on their farm near McDonough, Ga.

pounds. Illinois Farm Bureau raised the most money, $645,158. And, Michigan Farm Bureau tallied the most volunteer friend hours, 4,980. Thanks to the generosity of Chevrolet/GM, each of those state organizations received a $1,500 grant to donate to a local food bank of their choice.

Farm Bureau Posts Record Donations for Feeding America The farm and ranch families of Farm Bureau raised more than $810,000 and donated a record of more than 32 million pounds of food to assist hungry Americans as part of Farm Bureau’s “Harvest for All” program in partnership with Feeding America. Combined, the monetary and food donations also reached a record level of the equivalent of more than 34 million meals.

Now in its 11th year, Harvest for All is spearheaded by members of Farm Bureau’s Young Farmers & Ranchers program, but Farm Bureau members of all ages from across the nation contribute to the effort. In all, 18 state Farm Bureaus heeded the call to action. The joint effort between Farm Bureau and Feeding America, the nation’s largest hunger relief organization, is a national community action program through which farmers and ranchers can help ensure every American enjoys the bounty of food they produce.

In addition to raising food and funds for the initiative, farmers and ranchers tallied nearly 13,000 volunteer friend hours assisting local hunger groups in 2013.

“We are encouraged by what we can accomplish by working together and sharing our bounty, to help nourish those who need help the most,” said Jake Carter, who chairs the AFBF YF&R committee. He and his wife, Jennifer, offer u-pick strawberries, blueber-

“America’s farmers and ranchers continue to step up to the table in a coordinated effort to serve their fellow Americans,” Carter said. “No American should be allowed to go without food and because of Harvest for All, the equivalent of 34 million meals made it to the tables of those who needed it the most this past year.”

Harvest for All is one of the most important community service efforts undertaken

by Farm Bureau members. Despite some improvement in the U.S. economy overall, many Americans still need the help provided by Feeding America and its national network of local food assistance organizations, according to Carter.

“Feeding America greatly appreciates the American Farm Bureau and its Young Farmers & Ranchers for its consistent contributions through Harvest for All and for our 11-year partnership that has provided muchneeded assistance for the 1 in 6 Americans who are struggling with hunger,” said James Borys, regional produce officer at Feeding America.

The Florida Farm Bureau took top honors for donating the most food in 2013, 11,207,790

Second-place winners were the California Farm Bureau for food donated at 11,088,062 pounds; Michigan Farm Bureau for donated funds at $38,558; and Illinois Farm Bureau for volunteer time at 2,986 hours. Each of the second-place winners received a $1,000 grant from Chevrolet/GM to donate to the local food bank of their choice.

In addition, five state YF&R committees received $500 grants from Chevrolet/GM for “most innovative” programs. Those winners were Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Mexico and North Carolina.

The awards were presented Sunday during AFBF’s YF&R Conference in Virginia Beach, Va. Since Harvest for All was launched 11 years ago, Farm Bureau families have gathered more than 105 million pounds of food, logged more than 84,000 volunteer hours and raised more than $3.5 million in donations. Combined, the food and money donations are the equivalent of more than 117 million meals.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

33

Annual Crop Summary

All wheat planted in Idaho totaled 1.31 million acres, down slightly from 2012. Area harvested, at 1.24 million acres, is down 1 percent from the previous year. All wheat production totaled 102 million bushels, up 4 percent from last year. Yield is estimated at 82.1 bushels per acre, up 3.9 bushels from 2012. In Oregon, all wheat planted totaled 880,000 acres, down 1 percent from a year ago. Area harvested, at 868,000 acres, is down 1 percent from 2012. Production totaled 53.9 million bushels, down 6 percent from last year.

Yield is estimated at 62.1 bushels per acre, down 3.5 bushels from 2012. In Washington, all wheat planted totaled 2.19 million acres, down 1 percent from 2012. Area harvested, at 2.16 million acres, is down 1 percent from the last year.

Production totaled 144 million bushels, down 1 percent from 2012. Yield is estimated at 66.9 bushels per acre, down 0.4 bushel from the previous year.

All hay harvested in Idaho totaled 1.48 million acres, up 10 percent from 2012. All hay production totaled 4.98 million tons, up 5 percent from last year. Yield is estimated at 3.36 tons per acre down 0.19 tons per acre from 2012.

In Oregon, all hay harvested totaled 1.02 million acres, up 2 percent from the previous 34

year. Production totaled 3.20 million tons, up 4 percent from a year ago. Yield is estimated at 3.14 tons per acre up 0.07 tons from 2012. All hay harvested in Washington totaled 760,000 acres, down 3 percent from 2012. Production totaled 3.22 million tons, up 8 percent from last year.

Yield is estimated at 4.24 tons per acre, up 0.41 tons per acre from 2012.

Potatoes planted in Idaho totaled 317,000 acres, down 8 percent from 2012. Harvested area, at 316,000 acres, is down 8 percent from a last year.

Production totaled 131 million cwt, down 8 percent from 2012. Yield is estimated at 415 cwt per acre, up 3 cwt from last year. In Oregon, potatoes planted totaled 40,000 acres, down 5 percent from 2012.

Harvested area, at 39,600 acres is down 5 percent from last year. Production totaled 21.6 million, down 6 percent a year ago. Yield is estimated at 545 cwt per acre, down 5 cwt from 2012. Potato planted acres in Washington totaled 160,000 acres, down 3 percent from 2012. Area harvested at 160,000 acres is down 2 percent from the previous year.

Production totaled 96.0 million cwt, up slightly from a year ago. Yield is estimated at 600 cwt per acre, up 15 cwt from 2012.

Dry beans planted in Idaho totaled 125,000 acres, down 14 percent from 2012. Harvested

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

area, at 124,000 acres, is down 14 percent from last year. Production totaled 2.36 million cwt, down 22 percent from a year ago. Yield is estimated at 1,900 pounds per acre, down 200 pounds from 2012. In Oregon, dry beans planted totaled 8,300 acres, down 21 percent from 2012. Harvested area, at 8,200 acres, is down 22 percent from a year ago. Production totaled 185,000 cwt, down 28 percent from 2012. Yield is estimated at 2,260 pounds per acres, down 200 pounds from last year. In Washington, dry beans planted totaled 115,000 acres, unchanged from the previous year. Harvested area, at 114,000 acres, is down 1 percent from a year ago. Production totaled 2.08 million cwt, down 7 percent from 2012. Yield is estimated at 1,820 pounds per acre, down 110 pounds from last year.

Cattle Inventory Down 5 Percent

January 1, 2014 all cattle inventory in Idaho, was estimated at 2.19 million head, down 8 percent from 2013. Inventory of all cattle in Oregon was 1.28 million head, unchanged from last year. In Washington, all cattle inventory totaled 1.10 million head, down 4 percent from January 1, 2013. Nationally, January 1 all cattle inventory was estimated at 87.7 million head. This was down 2 percent from January 1, 2013.

The 2013 calf crop, at the US level, was estimated at 33.9 million head, down 1 percent from 2012. This is the smallest calf crop since the 33.7 million born during 1949. Calves born during the first half of 2013 are estimated at 24.7 million, down 1 percent from 2012.

Sheep and Lamb Inventory

January 1, 2014 sheep and lamb inventory in Idaho was estimated at 250 thousand head, up 6 percent from 2013.

Inventory of sheep and lambs in Oregon was 195 thousand head, down 7 percent from last year. In Washington, sheep and lamb inventory totaled 55,000 thousand head, up 2 percent from January 1, 2013. Nationally, January 1 all sheep and lamb inventory was estimated at 5.21 million head.

This was down 2 percent from January 1, 2013.

January 1, 2014 meat and other goat inventory in Idaho totaled 14,000 head, up 4 percent from a year ago. Inventory of meat and other goats in Oregon was estimated at 24,000 head, down 10 percent from last year. In Washington, meat and other goat inventory was 25,000 head, unchanged from the previous year. Nationally, January 1 meat and other goat inventory was estimated at 2.28 million head, down 2 percent from January 1, 2013.

Partnership for a Better Energy Future Launches

Stakeholders from nearly every sector of the U.S. economy are coming together to advocate for a commonsense approach to greenhouse gas policies to ensure the continued availability of affordable and reliable energy for American families and businesses. The Partnership for a Better Energy Future, which comprises groups representing consumers and businesses from sectors such as manufacturing, agriculture, refining and mining, will serve as the leading voice in support of a unified strategy and message in response to the Obama administration’s GHG regulatory agenda.

In addition to advocating reasonable reforms to the current regulatory approach, the partnership will work to inform the general public and local, state and national policymakers about the impact that poorly crafted GHG regulations will have on the availability of affordable and reliable energy.

“Farmers and ranchers across America rise each day to face the challenges that confront them. Inevitably, that includes the weather and a changing climate. While they struggle to meet these challenges head on, providing the necessary food, fiber and fuel that this country and our world needs, they don’t expect their government or the EPA to craft further burdensome climate regulations that make their jobs that much harder,” said Dale Moore, executive director

for public policy at the American Farm Bureau Federation, in a news release about the partnership. AFBF is a member of the coalition. Follow the partnership on Twitter and Facebook.

New farm to school training templates

The National Farm to School Network (NFSN) is excited to release a set of new farm to school and farm to preschool training materials developed by and for key stakeholder groups including farmers, child nutrition directors, educators and early care providers. Each training template consists of a customizable slide deck, speaker notes, handouts and an evaluation form. Anyone can use these tools to conduct effective trainings and share the value of farm to school in communities across the country. Download the training templates here. (Click on Idaho Farm Bureau website to get the link from the magazine.)

The materials were developed by the Peer Leadership Network, a group of 18 experienced farm to school and preschool practitioners convened by NFSN and funded in part by the Newman’s Own Foundation.

Technology, Data Privacy a Concern

One of the most important issues related to “big data” goes directly to property rights and who owns and controls farm-level data that may be collected, the American Farm Bureau Federation told Congress today. Risks to privacy that farmers face are

of great concern, according to Farm Bureau.

“For years, farmers have used technology advances to better match varieties of seeds, production inputs and management practices with specific field characteristics,” said Brian Marshall, a farmer and Missouri Farm Bureau member testifying to the House Small Business Committee on behalf of AFBF. Further, noted Marshall, “While farmers have been experimenting for well over a decade, only now is the industry starting to consider all the uses of this transformative technology.”

Recent Changes to the Organic Farm Safety Net

SPOKANE, Wash.,– The USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) reminds producers of the expanded crop insurance options for insurable organic crops.

In its support for the continued growth of organic agriculture, RMA expanded the coverage options for producers through Federal crop insurance. Through efforts to better collect and evaluate price and yield data, RMA has worked with other USDA agencies over the past several years to enhance the coverage options for organic producers.

Starting with the 2014 crop year, the 5 percent premium surcharge for acreage insured under organic farming practices has been removed; a new contract price option is available to organic producers who grow eligible crops under guaranteed contracts; and

changes to organic transitional yields (t-yields) will be phased in so they will be more reflective of actual organic farming experience. RMA continues to add organic price elections for certain crops based on availability of data. Additional information on risk management tools available for organic farmers can be found on the RMA Organic Crops website at: www.rma.usda.gov/ news/currentissues/organics/.

RMA Spokane Regional Office also reminds all producers, including organic producers of the March 17, 2014 spring sales closing date for multiple peril crop insurance programs. This is the last day to buy or change all other spring seeded multiple peril crop insurance coverage (excluding wheat in counties with fall and spring planted types); and the last day to buy 2014 AGR-Lite insurance for new application/ enrollment policies.

Current policyholders and uninsured growers must make all of their decisions on crop insurance coverage before the sales closing date. If there is no coverage in a county for a specific crop under the traditional multiple peril crop insurance program, producers may ask a crop insurance agent whether they would be eligible for coverage under a written agreement.

Producers are encouraged to visit their crop insurance agent soon to learn specific details for the 2014 crop year. Federal crop insurance program policies are sold and delivered solely through private crop insurance companies and agents. A list of crop insurance agents is available at all USDA service centers throughout the United States or on the RMA website at www3. rma.usda.gov/tools/agents.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

35

FARM BUREAU COMMODITY REPORT GRAIN PRICES

Portland:

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Oats

Ogden:

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Barley

Pocatello:

Idaho Farm Bureau Discounts

San Diego Adult $15 Off Other discount available for Orlando & San Antonio locations.

For member coupons to SeaWorld go to

www.idahofbstore.com

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Barley

Burley:

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Barley

Nampa:

White Wheat (cwt) (Bushel)

Lewiston:

White Wheat Barley

01/24/2014

02/25/2014

Trend

6.78 7.68-7.83 8.26 265.00

7.36 8.47-8.57 8.61 265.00

+ .58 + .79 to + .74 + .35 Steady

6.05 6.87 7.42 7.40

6.35 7.00 7.77 8.05

+ + + +

5.80 6.40 6.62 No Bid

6.10 7.15 7.41 No Bid

+ .30 + .75 + .79 N/A

5.60 6.17 6.48 7.50

6.08 6.81 6.97 7.50

+ .48 + .64 + .49 Steady

9.92 5.95

10.50 6.30

+ .58 + .35

6.58 141.50

7.02 156.50

+ .44 + 15.00

02/21/2014

Trend

165-240 155-215 140-176 110-155

180-259 167-231 130-175 105-152

+ 15 to + 19 + 12 to + 16 - 10 to - 1 - 5 to - 3

150-224 144-207 125-169 110-130

170-237 153-197 129-174 101-144

+ 20 to + 13 + 9 to - 10 + 4 to + 5 - 9 to + 14

82-135 90-130

98-128 90-130

+ 16 to - 7 Steady

60-92 60-79

70-97 60-94

+ 10 to + 5 Steady to + 15

1000-1775

925-1425

- 75 to - 350

68-107

70-111

+ 2 to + 4

35.00-37.00 39.00-40.00 40.00

35.00-37.00 39.00-40.00 40.00

Steady Steady Steady

.30 .13 .35 .65

LIVESTOCK PRICES 01/24/2014

Feeder Steers

FARM BUREAU ONLINE INSTRUCTIONS

San Diego Zoo Online Instructions 1. Go to www.sandiegozoo.com On the mainwww.sandiegozoo.org/tickets/ page click on “buy tickets” in the upper right hand 1.2.Log onto

corner of the screen. Select the number of adults and children going

2. Select the like tickets for, San Diego and click on park “BUY” you buttonwould just to the right of the numbers.

Tickets Wild Park Tickets.

3.Zoo The next screenorwill showAnimal your totals.

Near the bottom is a box that reads “Promotional Code”. In that box type 2005-USG-156 and click 3. Select Hotelsdiscount then will 1-Day submit.Tickets The Farm&Bureau then Tickets, be applied.Best Value Tickets, click on the BUY button.

Farm Bureau Members Save

4. Select the quantity of 1-Day Best Value Zoo or Wild Animal Park Tickets you want to purchase. and click the Add to Cart button. (Don't Just press the Enter or Return Button)

$4

6. In the Shopping Cart, type in your Promotional Code "20066" and click on Apply (Don't Just press the Enter or Return Button). The page will automatically update with your discounted price.

7. Continue to check out.

Under 500 lbs 500-700 lbs 700-900 lbs Over 900 lbs

Feeder Heifers Under 500 lbs 500-700 lbs 700-900 lbs Over 900 lbs

Holstein Steers Under 700 lbs Over 700 lbs

Cows

Utility/Commercial Canner & Cutter

Stock Cows Bulls

Slaughter

Save $4

BEAN PRICES: Pinto Pink Small Red

Compiled by the Idaho Farm Bureau Commodity Division 36

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

Contracted price - Price and conditions of sale agreed upon Seller negotiates a transaction.

IDaho Hay Report

IDAHO HAY – 2/21/14 Tons: 11,500 All prices are dollars per ton and FOB unless otherwise stated.

Quality

Tons

Price Range

Avg. Price

Supreme - Tarped

1,400

220.00

220.00

Premium/Supreme-Tarped

5,000

220.00

220.00

Good/Premium - Tarped

5,100

180.00-195.00

181.76

February 21, 2014 Tons: 11,500 Last Week: 7000 Last Year: 1110 Compared to last week, Premium and Supreme Alfalfa steady. Trade moderate this week. Demand remains good for all classes due to higher milk prices.

Retail/feed store/horse not tested this week.

Buyer demand good with light to moderate supplies.

All prices are dollars per ton and FOB unless otherwise stated.

Alfalfa Large Square

http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ML_GR312.txt USDA Market News, Moses Lake, WA 509-393-1343 or 707-3150 USDA Market News, Moses Lake, WA 509-393-1343 or 707-3150

POTATOES UPPER VALLEY, TWIN FALLS-BURLEY DISTRICT, IDAHO---Shipments 727-675680--- (includes export of 2-4-2) ---Movement expected to remain about the same.

Trading baled and carton 70-100s active, others fairly slow. Prices baled slightly higher, carton 40-50s slightly lower, others generally unchanged. Russet Burbank U.S. One baled 5 10-pound non size A 6.50-7.50, 50-pound cartons 40-50s 6.00-8.50, 60100s mostly 8.50-9.00. Russet Norkotah U.S. One baled 5 10-pound film bags non size A 6.00-7.50, 50-pound cartons 40-50s 6.00-8.50, 60s 7.50-8.50, 70-100s 8.00-

5 Year Grain Comparison

Grain Prices.................2/22/2010.....................2/25/2011.....................2/20/2012....................2/19/2013....................2/25/2013 Portland: White Wheat..................... 4.70 ..............................7.60 ...........................7.00 ............................8.64...............................7.36 11% Winter.....................No Bid.........................8.74-8.94 .....................7.25-7.32......................8.64-8.91......................8.47-8.57 14% Spring........................ 6.85.............................. 11.88 ..........................No Bid.............................9.26...............................8.61 Corn...............................173-173.75....................287-288.25 ...............271-272.25...................290.50-293......................No Bid Ogden: White Wheat..................... 4.27 .............................6.95 ..............................6.20.............................. 8.40............................ 6.35 11% Winter....................... 4.24 .............................7.63 .............................6.17 ........................... 8.03............................. 7.00 14 % Spring...................... 5.67 ............................. 10.16...............................8.02 ........................... 8.60............................. 7.77 Barley................................. 6.27 ............................10.50..............................10.80.............................12.00............................ 8.05 Pocatello: White Wheat..................... 4.10 ..............................6.90 ..............................5.90.............................. 8.00............................. 6.10 11% Winter....................... 4.07 ............................. 7.59 .............................5.83 ........................... 7.52............................. 7.15 14% Spring........................ 5.55 .............................10.50...............................7.78 ........................... 7.81............................. 7.41 Barley................................. 5.52 ............................9.90 ...........................9.27 .......................... 12.08......................... No Bid

8.50. Shipments for weekending February 15, 2014 were generally Russets with 50 percent Burbanks and 41 percent Norkotahs.

Potatoes for Processing

FEBRUARY 19, 2014 IDAHO---Open-market trading by processors with growers was inactive.

Burley: White Wheat..................... 3.90 .............................. 7.12 .............................5.95.............................. 7.90............................ 6.08 11% Winter....................... 4.09 .............................7.44 .............................5.97 ........................... 7.50............................. 6.81 14% Spring........................ 5.38 ............................ 10.18...............................7.96 ........................... 7.90............................. 6.97 Barley................................. 5.50 ............................10.00 .............................9.50 .......................... 12.25............................ 7.50 Nampa: White Wheat (cwt).......... 6.33 ............................10.85..............................10.17............................ 13.08........................... 10.50 (bushel)................. 3.80 .............................6.51 ..............................6.10............................. 7.85............................ 6.30 Lewiston: White Wheat..................... 4.45 .............................. 7.40 .............................6.70.............................. 8.48............................. 7.02 Barley................................116.50 ........................201.50............................186.50.......................... 231.50........................ 156.50 Bean Prices: Pintos................................32.00........................26.00-27.00........................50.00.......................35.00-35.00..................35.00-37.00 Pinks............................30.00-32.00...................25.00-28.00..................45.00-46.00..................40.00-42.0..................39.00-40.00 Small Reds........................30.00.............................30.00.......................45.00-46.00.................40.00-42.00......................40.00 ***

Milk production February 20, 2014 January Milk Production up 1.0 percent Milk production in the 23 major States during January totaled 16.1 billion pounds, up 1.0 percent from January 2013. December revised production at 15.7 billion pounds, was down 0.3 percent from December 2012. The December revision represented a decrease of 19 million pounds or 0.1 percent from last month’s preliminary production estimate.

Production per cow in the 23 major States averaged 1,891 pounds for January, 17 pounds above January 2013.

The number of milk cows on farms in the 23 major States was 8.51 million head, 7,000 head more than January 2013, and 6,000 head more than December 2013.

2013 Annual Milk Production up 0.3 Percent from 2012 The annual production of milk for the United States during 2013 was 201 billion pounds, 0.3 percent above 2012. Revisions to 2012 production increased the annual total 213 million pounds. Revised 2013 production was up 32 million pounds from last month’s publication.

Production per cow in the United States averaged 21,822 pounds for 2013, 102 pounds above 2012. The average annual rate of milk production per cow has increased 15.1 percent from 2004.

The average number of milk cows on farms in the United States during 2013 was 9.22 million head, down 0.1 percent from 2012. The average number of milk cows was revised down 5,000 head for 2013.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

37

5 Year livestock comparison ......................................2/22/2010.....................2/21/2011......................2/20/2012....................2/19/2013.................... 2/21/2013 Under 500 lbs................ 102-139.........................137-179 .....................155-226 .....................142-207........................180-259 500-700 lbs.....................94-130 ........................120-167.........................137-199.........................120-175........................ 167-231 700-900 lbs.....................85-108 ........................105-137 ........................125-160.........................115-142........................ 130-175 Over 900 lbs....................85-96 ..........................95-116............................95-140 .........................92-131......................... 105-152 Feeder Heifers Under 500 lbs................. 97-124..........................108-161 ......................140-210.........................128-172........................170-237 500-700 lbs..................... 89-119 ..........................97-153 .......................132-186.........................116-153........................ 153-197 700-900 lbs......................82-98 ..........................91-128...........................115-162.........................107-134........................ 129-174 Over 900 lbs....................83-90 ........................90-110..........................110-119........................ 100-120........................ 101-144 Holstein Steers Under 700 lbs..................55-80 .........................65-102...........................75-129...........................75-110..........................98-128 Over 700 lbs....................48-74 ...........................65-94 ..........................75-110...........................55-103..........................90-130 Cows Utility/Commercial...........38-62.............................54-84.............................61-84.............................59-79............................70-97 Canner & Cutter..............27-58.............................40-72.............................55-81.............................53-70............................60-94 Stock Cows.....................650-1195.......................875-1500...................... 800-1600..................... 750-1425......................925-1425 Bulls – Slaughter............46-71.............................65-95............................62-107........................... 60-95............................70-111

United States Cattle on Feed Down 3 Percent February 21, 2014 Cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled 10.8 million head on February 1, 2014. The inventory was 3 percent below February 1, 2013.

Placements in feedlots during January totaled 2.03 million, 9 percent above 2013. Net placements were 1.96 million head. During January, placements of cattle and calves weighing less than 600 pounds were 470,000, 600-699 pounds were 440,000, 700799 pounds were 560,000, and 800 pounds and greater were 559,000.

Marketings of fed cattle during January totaled 1.79 million, 5 percent below 2013.

Other disappearance totaled 71,000 during January, 10 percent below 2013.

2013 Cattle on Feed and Annual Size Group Estimates Cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head represented 83.4 percent of all cattle and calves on feed in the United States on January 1, 2014, down from 83.8 on January 1, 2013.

Marketings of fed cattle for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head during 2013 represented 87.8 percent of all cattle marketed from feedlots in the United States, down from 88.5 percent during 2012.

Cattle Outlook February 21, 2014 USDA’s February Cattle on Feed report said the number of cattle on feed at the start of the month was down 2.8% compared to February 2013. The trade expected that number to be down 4.0%. Placements into feed yards in January were up 8.6%. The trade predicted up 2.7%. USDA said marketings were down 5.5%. December steer and heifer slaughter was down 5.2%.

The average retail price of all fresh beef in January was record high for the fourth consecutive month. Beef in grocery stores averaged $5.044 per pound in January, up 0.7 cents from the record set in December and up 13.2 cents from a year ago. The average retail price of choice beef in grocery stores in January was $5.346 per pound.

The 5 area average live price for slaughter steers was $141.80/cwt in January.That was up $9.60/cwt from the record set in December and up $17.10/ cwt from January 2013.

Cattle prices increased faster than retail prices during January causing the margins for the middlemen between farm and consumer to decline by 20.3 cents from December.

There were 429.3 million pounds of beef in cold storage at the end of January. This was down 2.3% from the month before and down 11.4% from a year ago.

Through Thursday, the 5-area average price for slaughter steers sold on a live weight basis was $142.00/cwt, up 1 cent from a week ago and up $19.24 from a year ago. Steer sales on a dressed basis averaged $230.00/cwt this week, up $7.00 from a week ago and up $34.42 from year ago. Volume was very light.

38

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

This morning, the boxed beef cutout value for choice carcasses was $214.78/ cwt, up $7.55 from the previous Friday and up $32.04 from a year ago. The select carcass cutout is $211.82/cwt, up $4.52 for the week and up $31.29 from last year.

This week’s cattle slaughter totaled 539,000 head, unchanged from the previous week and down 5.1% from the corresponding week last year. The average steer dressed weight for the week ending on February 8 was 871 pounds, down 3 pounds from the week before, but up 3 pounds from a year earlier.

Feeder cattle prices at this week’s Oklahoma City auction were steady to $5 higher in good volume. This week’s prices for medium and large frame #1 steers by weight were: 400-450# $222-$244, 450-500# $198-$230, 500550# $191-$221, 550-600# $191-$208, 600-650# $172.50-$199, 650-700# $173-$186, 700-750# $168-$175.50, 750-800# $164.50-$173.10, 800-900# $152.25-$171, and 900-1000# $145-$158.50/cwt.

The February live cattle futures contract closed at $144.55/cwt today, up $1.95 from last week’s close. April fed cattle settled at $141.45, up 35 cents for the week. June settled at $132.72/cwt, up 42 cents.

The March feeder cattle futures contract ended the week at $170.70/cwt, up 23 cents for the week. May feeders closed at $171.20/cwt, down 15 cents from the previous Friday.

Provided by: University of Missouri

Classifieds

Animals

Miscellaneous

Vehicles

Wanted

Free Alpacas - others for sale, many colors, good fiber, pets or breeders. Ellis, Id 208876-4073

2 in. water rights on Burgess Canal Sell $150. OBO 208-745-7306

1983 Ford E-350 van. 14ft box, extra insulation. Call for pricing. St Anthony, Id. 208-624-7735

Paying cash for old cork top bottles and some telephone insulators. Call Randy.

Payette, Id. 208-740-0178

Natural working, listening ability Border Collie pups (faithful) $225.00 each. Hagerman, Id 208-539-6221 ASCA registered Australian Shepherd pups.

Working line since 1968. Full satisfaction guaranteed. All four colors available. Boise, Id 208-484-9802

Farm Equipment Malsam terrace, model D, S/N 277. Duel belts, clean those dirt filled terraces out. $5,600. Meridian, Id 208-866-0810 Trailer mounted 80 H.P. diesel irrigation pump. Spudnik potato scooper. Davis potato piler. Older Belville potato sorter. Call for pricing. St Anthony, Id. 208-624-7735 Balewagons: New Holland self-propelled or pull-type models/parts/tires. Also interested in buying balewagons. Will consider any model. Call Jim Wilhite at 208-880-2889 anytime

YOUR AD HERE!

Punchbowl set, iridescent green glass with 12 cups and ladle, asking $39. 1980’s Roger Rabbit stuffed animal, 14� tall, red corduroy overalls, blue with yellow polka dots bowtie, yellow glove hands. Pristine condition. $22.

Wendell, Id 208-536-6724 Coleman Ram-X17 Canoe. $300. Obo. MTD rear tine tiller $450. Bliss, Id 208-4901300

Real Estate/Acreage Cabin style, 6 bed, 2 bath, huge porch, woodstove, appliances on 4.5 acres. Garage, quonset, machine shop, 8 stall horse barn, tack, hay, Hotwalker tractor w/attach.

100x300 outdoor riding arena. Located in N. Rupert. Asking $235,000. 208-532-0165

Wanted Small Farm/Ranch Grain Grinder with mixer.

Call Lyle. American Falls. 281-797-6955 Paying cash for German & Japanese war relics/souvenirs! Pistols, rifles, swords, daggers, flags, scopes, optical equipment, uniforms, helmets, machine guns (ATF rules apply) medals, flags, etc. 549-3841 (evenings) or 208-405-9338.

Old License Plates Wanted: Also key chain license plates, old signs, light fixtures. Will pay cash. Please email, call or write. Gary Peterson, 130 E Pecan, Genesee, Id 83832. gearlep@gmail.com. 208-285-1258

DEADLINE DATES: ADS MUST BE RECEIVED BY

MARCH 20 FOR NEXT ISSUE.

Tower Creek (near Salmon), Orchard, Barn, Sheds, Crossed fenced, Spring, Older mobile home grandfathered next to creek. $149,000.

435-229-3473

Recreational Equipment 2010 Springdale 17ft RV trailer. Like new.

Used 4 times. Central Heat, Awning, Micro, 3 burner stove, over, Queen bed. Tub/shower. $8,500. Filer, Id. 208-326-5238

SEND US YOUR CLASSIFIED AD FREE TO IDAHO FARM BUREAU MEMBERS! send to: dashton@idahofb.org Idaho Farm Bureau producer / MARCH 2014

39