July 2014, Volume 18, Issue 5

July 2014 • Volume 18, Issue 5

20

EPA Attempts to Expand Regulatory Authority

10

IFBF Women’s Committee Selects Teacher of the Year

®

Idaho Farm Bureau

31

Rodent Control – Why it’s Important

Agriculture’s Time in the Sun

By Bob Stallman AFBF President

Ladies and gentlemen, start your grills! It’s time for Fourth of July celebrations, family reunions, neighborhood gatherings and any other excuse to get together and enjoy the summertime foods we love. I’m partial to a thick beef rib eye, and somehow it seems to taste even better if it has those

EPA’s Proposed ‘Waters’ Rule is Unworkable

By Frank Priestley President Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

The American Farm Bureau Federation recently reviewed EPA’s March 25 release of the ‘waters of the U.S.’ proposed rule. The re-

Farm Credit Crisis of the 1980’s

By Rick Keller CEO Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

Every now and then in the history of American agriculture, the cry of “Save the Family Farm” goes up.

At no time was this more evident than during the farm credit crisis 2

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

The Ag Agenda crosshatched grill marks on both sides.

Summer is the perfect time to recognize the abundance provided

by America’s farmers and ranchers. Tomato vines are dripping with fruit. The corn is ripe and sweet. Seasonal ice cream stands are open. Agricultural bounty is all around us.

Independence Day

sults of the review are dismaying.

The EPA proposal poses a serious threat to farmers, ranchers and other landowners. Under EPA’s proposed new rule, waters – even ditches – are regulated even if they are miles from the nearest ‘navigable’ waters. Indeed, socalled ‘waters’ are regulated even if they aren’t wet most of the time.

EPA says its new rule will reduce uncertainty, and that much seems to be true: there isn’t much uncer-

of the 1980’s. A massive accumulation of farm debt in the 1970’s ran head-on into an unfavorable economic climate and incredibly high interest rates in the 1980’s.

The result was that many previously successful farmers went out of business and the agriculture land market hit rock bottom.

During the mid-1970s, economic factors were good for agriculture.

Interest rates were relatively low, so farmers could borrow cheaply.

With lowered trade barriers, peo-

As we celebrate our nation’s 238th birthday, the words of the document that established the United States as a new nation—the Declaration of Independence—seem especially applicable to farmers and ranchers. The Continental Congress wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with See STALLMAN, page 6

tainty if most every feature where water flows or stands after a rainfall is federally regulated.

Under this proposed rule, farmers, ranchers and every other landowner across the countryside will face a tremendous new roadblock to ordinary land use activities. This is not just about the paperwork of getting a permit to farm, or even about having farming practices regulated. The fact See PRIESTLEY, page 6

ple in foreign countries wanted American agriculture products and had the money to pay for it. Farm incomes and commodity prices soared. Prices for farm land seemed reasonable so farmers were buying more land on credit to expand with their bankers’ encouragement.

In the 80’s the economy went bad.

Outside economic factors forced interest rates up (example, in October 1981, the average 30-year home mortgage rate was 18.45% with See KELLER, page 7

Volume 18, Issue 5

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. I1 Regional Manager ..............................Zak Miller 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: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to expand its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. The agency’s plans are to increase authority to regulate ditches, potholes and other swampy areas. Farmers, ranchers and landowners are encouraged to send EPA comments to help fend off the new regulations. See story on page 20. Photo by Steve Ritter

A C-130 in flight. These planes are used for a wide variety of military applications, as well as wildland firefighting.

Forest Service adds Air Tankers to Combat Wildfire Threat

By Jake Putnam

Boise - The 2014 fire season is underway with early season fires burning in Oregon, Arizona and California.

The biggest worries this year are the ongoing drought, lack of rain in the West and an aging fleet of air tankers.

The Forest Service added five new tankers to its fleet this spring and four attacked the early season Bend, Oregon fire last month.

“We continue to increase and modernize the fleet of aircraft available for wildland fire suppression activities,” said Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “These new planes will combine with our existing fleet to support our heroes on the ground fighting wildfires to keep our resources and communities safe.”

Last year there were just 10 air tankers that covered the entire west. Planners moved the planes into hot spots as needed including the Beaver Creek fire near Sun Valley.

But this year the U.S. Forest Service decided that 10 air tankers were not enough.

With the threat twice as great this year more air tankers will spend time at the NIFC Base in Boise or as needed. But that changes when late afternoon lightning strikes sweep the West on any given day according to Jennifer Jones at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise.

When asked where the bulk of the tankers will be based Jones said: “no place in particular, they’re mobile, and we move them based on current need and predicted fire activity.”

Last May the U.S. Forest Service made the announcement adding four more large air tankers to the next-generation firefighting fleet. That brings the total number of air tankers available this summer to 21. In 2012 the US fleet was down to 11 after two crashes destroyed a plane and grounded another. Two contract pilots, including one from Boise, were killed in the crashes.

See AIR TANKERS page 4 Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

3

AIR TANKERS

Continued from page 3

A C-130 tanker drops a load of fire retardant on the Beaver Creek Fire last summer in Blaine County.

Several of the special retro-fitted air tankers are brand new -- like the next generation MD 87s. They can fly faster, are jet powered, and can carry bigger loads of fire retardant.

The forest service has been making do with less because of the aging fleet of planes. Back in 2012, half of all orders for air tankers couldn’t be filled because of lack of aircraft.

Tankers are critical in the initial attack of wildfires, keeping fires small till hand crews catch up. But they’re a shared national resource and must go where needed most.

This year’s announcement takes the edge off the planning process at the National Fire Center, planners will have 18 tankers available instead of 10 and that is comforting for NIFC crews that work around the clock at the Boise base.

The addition of a DC-10 and three BAe146s reinforces the agency’s large fleet of air tankers. Also in reserve this year are 100 helicopters along with additional aircraft from Alaska, California, Canada and 4 #

the Department of Defense.

The DC-10, the second purchased by the Forest Service, carries up to 11,600 gallons of water or retardant and flies at 430 mph, according to a news release.

The smaller BAe-146s can deliver a payload of 3,000 gallons and fly at speeds around 350 mph.

Also eight National Guard C-130s, equipped with Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems and similar to the BAe146s, should be certified for use any day now.

The fire season is shaping up and it’s not looking good. Most of the Southwest is under extreme drought conditions according to the latest update from the U.S. Drought Monitor. Much of Oregon, the Southwest and even parts of Central Idaho report severe drought conditions.

Sen. Ron Wyden along with Sen. Mike Crapo praised the Forest Service’s expansion of its firefighting fleet.

“Devastating wildfires have ripped through California, and drought has al-

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

ready dried out much of Southern Oregon.

The administration’s deployment of these next-generation air tankers is crucial for future fire seasons and will give invaluable aid to the firefighters on the ground. I will continue to work hard with my colleague, Sen. Mike Crapo to pass our wildfire funding bill that would treat wildfires like the natural disasters they are,” said Wyden.

Between 2004 and 2013 both the Department of Interior’s and the Forest Service’s wildfire costs exceeded the 10-year average seven times. When those funds run out, agencies are forced to use money set aside for prevention like cutting underbrush, without funding those projects are set aside until funded again.

The Beaver Creek fire near Ketchum last August burned 114,000 acres and cost $25-million dollars to fight. Nationally the 2013 fire season was severe with more than 4.3 million acres burned in wildfires and six of the worst fire years since 1960 have occurred in the past decade, according to the National Interagency Fire Center

Life on the Range - Investing in Stewardship Article and Steve Stuebner

photos

by

Robert Stoll is a retired civil engineer who was looking to find a safe and productive place for his investment funds in the mid-1990s. He saw an advertisement for a cattle ranch in Hells Canyon, and it intrigued him.

“There was an ad in the Lewiston paper, and it was about that big,” Stoll says. “It said this was place was available. Finally I got a tour, and I decided right then that it was pretty interesting and that this place has a lot of potential.”

Stoll is an avid chukar hunter, so he was excited about owning a ranch in Hells Canyon, a place that’s known for great chukar hunting. But he also liked the idea of owning a well-managed cattle ranch right on the edge of the Joseph Plains. The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, all 652,488 acres of it, is his next-door neighbor.

Stoll also has a spectacular view out the backdoor of his

Goats are used to control weeds, namely Yellow starthistle, on a ranch owned by Robert Stoll in Idaho County.

ranch, where he can peer into the deepest gorge in North America.

“I think it’s fascinating,” he says. “One of my neighbors is Hells Canyon National Recreation Area -- that’s about as good a neighbor as you could ask for in terms of not thinking of development. It’s a totally unique place. I love coming down here.

“It’s peaceful and quiet, turkeys run through the front yard, there’s been a bear coming down the road toward the house, and the elk have been running through here. And the deer are all over the place. Lots of fringe benefits. It’s a really neat experience.”

Marianne Lindsey is the ranch manager. She runs a cowcalf operation, raises yearling steers, and owns a big goat herd for controlling weeds.

Lindsey uses the goats to control Yellow starthistle, a noxious weed, on the ranch. Timing is critical, she says. “Yeah, you want to hit them when they start bolting, after the rosette stage, and they start to flower.

That’s the best time because the goats really like to eat that yellow flower.”

Cattle are an important part of the range management strategy on Robert Stoll’s ranch.

The cattle herd grazes on perennial grasses at the home ranch during the fall, winter and spring. They use a deferred-rotation grazing system

to keep the range healthy.

“The bunchgrass and the fescue, they’re the lifeblood of this river country,” Lindsay says.

“It has nutrition to it, it stands up through the snow, the cattle can still eat it, and if you don’t have that, you don’t have a lot of forage for all winter long.”

During the summer, the cattle graze on Forest Service allotments near Grangeville.

Lindsey rents out her goats in the summer to control weeds around private homes and to reduce fire danger. She stays pretty busy managing the goats and the livestock, and always working to improve the ranch.

“Mary Ann has done more than I’ve asked for here, along with trying to manage her goats, and cattle,” Stoll says. “You’ve got a full-time job with that, let alone the restoration and what have you.”

Lindsey likes the lifestyle. “I See LIFE ON THE RANGE page 9

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

5

STALLMAN

Continued from page 2

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Nothing is more essential to life than food and, therefore, agriculture. Farmers and ranchers have a special appreciation for liberty—the freedom to be productive and profitable. Also, it’s much easier to pursue happiness when you are free from hunger.

While we celebrate the declaration of American independence from Britain, it is

also fitting to recognize how farmers and ranchers, who produce the bounty we enjoy, also give us our personal independence. Because farmers have chosen to work the land for a living, others are free to pursue other careers and interests—whatever constitutes their personal pursuit of happiness.

United States of Agriculture Sometimes it seems that Americans aren’t very united in our views about food, or the farmers and ranchers who

PRIESTLEY

Continued from page 2

is there is no legal right to a Clean Water Act permit – if farming or ranching activities need a permit, EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers can deny that permit. That’s why Clean Water Act jurisdiction over farmlands amounts to nothing less than federal veto power over a farmer’s ability to farm.

EPA accompanied its proposal with a new ‘interpretive rule’ claiming to clarify certain statutory exemptions for agricultural conservation practices, including activities as commonplace and essential to farming as building a fence. But these exemptions apply only to ‘dredge and fill’ permit requirements. They do not protect farmers from federal veto power over pest and weed control, fertilizer application, and other essential 6

farming activities that may result in the addition of ‘pollutants’ to ‘navigable waters,’ – providing one views every ditch and wet spot across the landscape as ‘navigable waters.’

The American Farm Bureau Federation will dedicate itself to opposing this attempted end run around the limits set

by Congress and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that Congress meant what it said: ‘navigable waters’ does not mean all waters. This proposed rule shows that EPA refuses to accept those limits.

For more information on this issue go to www.ditchtherule. fb.org. All Idaho landowners, farmers and ranchers are encourage to fill out a comment form and send it to EPA.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

provide our food security.

There is much healthy debate about what we should eat, how it should be produced, etc. It is because of our abundant food supply and farmers’ amazing productivity that we are able to have those debates.

If we didn’t live in the land of plenty, and plenty of choices, our national conversation would be very different than it is today.

We can and should have those debates, but let’s also recognize how food brings us together, especially at certain

times of the year. Let’s celebrate the things that make us uniquely American, such as our love for a pie made from fresh summer berries or that burger on the grill.

Let’s also remember to thank the farmers and ranchers who work and face risks that would keep most people awake at night, so all of us can fill our picnic plates.

Happy birthday, America!

keller

Continued from page 2 2.1 points.) In 1980, Russia invaded Afghanistan. The U.S. protested and President Jimmy Carter stopped the shipment of farm products to Russia in response to the invasion. That embargo on farm products hurt the farm export market, driving prices down. Debts piled up.

With less demand and lower prices for their products, many American farmers had no way to pay back the loans they had taken out. Many borrowed even more money, hoping that better crops and prices would rescue them in a year or two. It didn’t happen.

Farming was in a crisis. For a period of time it was almost impossible to open a newspaper or turn on the television without facing images of farm auctions and foreclosure sales.

Delinquency on property taxes escalated. Many of the farmers were able to survive the 1980s by finding work off the farm to supplement their meager farm incomes. Rural populations declined.

Populist farm groups began popping up, some calling on farmers to strike if the government wouldn’t guarantee high enough prices for their commodities to cover the cost of production and a reasonable profit. Organized tractorcades to Washington, D.C. and state capitals occurred, only to harm public sympathy the groups hoped to establish. Violence at farm auctions was rare although some county sheriffs reported that they were met with guns when they went to serve foreclosure orders. Radical groups like the Posse Comi-

tatus sprang up to disrupt sheriffs’ sales. Many farm activists felt that the bankers were being too greedy, and that the farmers deserved a break in tough times. So, hundreds of farmers would show up at the auction and bid ridiculously low amounts for the equipment and land on the sale. Serious bidders were discouraged. Then, the activists would turn around and give the material back to the farm family in trouble.

These became known as “nickel auctions.” These radical measures advocated by these groups were a measure of the desperation that farmers felt in the face of the farm crisis.

Despite all the clamor and frustration in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, Farm Bureau was still the organization that farmers looked to for a solution to the farm crisis, and one was found in the Two-Tier Debt Restructuring Program that Farm Bureau championed. The basic idea was to get farmers and lenders beyond the “one more year” syndrome and help those who could make things work out in the long run.

able to reduce Tier-1 debt, equal amounts would shift over from Tier 2. An internal Farm Bureau report indicated that 100,000 to 125,000 farm operators needed debt restructuring in order to avoid liquidation.

The Idaho Farm Bureau and other state Farm Bureaus met with Farm Credit System and Farmers Home Administration officials, and commercial bankers. Within a month of Farm Bureau’s plan, commercial banks had received the regulatory clearance they needed to work things out with farmers and practice forbearance. The Farm Credit System was still a reluctant restruc-

turer. In May 1986 Farm Bureau went to Congress to pass a resolution to pressure the Farm Credit System to implement a nationwide loan restructuring program. The vote from Congress was 407 to 0 and left no doubt where the House stood on the loan restructuring.

The plan did not eliminate foreclosures but made them a last resort after careful analysis of the alternatives. In the end, the tractorcades, Farm Aid concerts, and sympathetic media coverage did not solve the farm crisis. Hard work by Farm Bureau and a coalition of farm groups, and action by Congress produced a solution.

In the Farm Bureau plan, Tier-1 debt was the amount of a farmer’s debt which analysis showed the operator would be able to pay interest and principal from the expected commodity prices over the next five years. The prevailing interest rate would be paid on Tier-1 debt. Tier2 debt was the amount of total debt not part of Tier-1. No principal payments would be required and the lender would charge a reduced interest rate.

As the farming operation was Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

7

Owyhee County ranchers attend a bull sale in Homedale last winter. Ranchers in the area are fighting a lawsuit to keep their grazing allotments intact.

Farm Bureau file photo

Ranchers win another grazing victory on Owyhee 68

By Jake Putnam

Owyhee 68 rancher Tim Lowry.

Murphy— The Owyhee 68 coalition is gaining momentum in Federal District court.

The court date was remanded and withdrawn and sent back to the BLM according to Lowry. “Now they’ll have to go back and comply with NEPA rules and regulations and take into consideration improvements ranchers made on the land.”

Earlier this summer ranchers won their second legal battle over curtailed grazing permits. But that decision didn’t sit well with the Bureau of Land Management.

“Of course the BLM immediately filed a motion to dismiss the appeal,” said Wyatt Prescott of the Idaho Cattle Association.

“It is under consideration but we think this case will go the same as the Garat case.”

“We had just found out about the second case, Castlehead- Lambert. They received summary judgment, that’s the same as the first case, the Garat allotment,” said fellow 8

In 2013 after the National Environmental Policy Act study, the BLM imposed grazing restrictions on the 68 allotments in Owyhee County. Cutting grazing was cut by more than 50-percent on the Owyhee range.

“I’d just heard about the second one,” said Ted Blackstock, another member of the socalled Owyhee 68, ranchers that graze on the Owyhee.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

“It’s the same as the first they were remanded back to the BLM because they didn’t consider improvements on the land.

Those decisions will help our case too because we were not allowed to present our improvements in the NEPA. We’re still asking for summary judgment, and its’ looking good,” said Blackstock.

It all started 15 years ago when Federal District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ordered the BLM’s Owyhee field office in southwestern Idaho to rewrite the 68 grazing permits, permits that it had reconsidered just two years before.

Back then Winmill’s decision voided the old permits on the heels of a lawsuit by Western Watersheds Project. Watersheds argued the permits weren’t properly ana-

lyzed in accordance with the NEPA.

consider all alternatives to address the situation.”

Last fall the BLM started drastically cutting grazing allotments in accordance with the NEPA.

Ranchers Blackstock and Lowry welcomed the latest ruling, saying ranchers are improving their allotments, and have for years but that work went unnoticed by the BLM. They say they’re confident that they’ll at least get a more balanced allotment assessment in the NEPA process.

Ranchers took the BLM to court and earlier this year in an ironic twist the court found that the permits were not properly analyzed in accordance with NEPA. “I was absolutely surprised that we were not allowed to show improvements,” said Lowry.

“Not only did it not make range management sense but according to regulations they need to

“The thing that bothers ranchers is the redundant direction the court is going, wasting a lot of hard earned money on legal fees,” said Lowry.

Lowry says the court is send-

ing a clear-cut message; “It’s simple, the court is telling the BLM to go back and do it right.

I would hope the BLM would withdraw the remaining 66 cases and not make everyone go through the long process.

That’s a lot of spending money on attorneys to get identical judgments.”

Owyhee County ranchers say the NEPA’s decision to cut grazing on the range is the biggest threat to ranching in more than a 150 years.

“These renewals are unlivable and completely lacking in common sense as far as we’re

concerned. The cutbacks don’t take into consideration seasons of use,” said Lowry.

Under the permit issued in 2013 by the BLM, Lowry’s cattle are already off the range yet allowed to graze the Owyhee mountaintops. That’s left Owyhee ranchers scratching their heads.

“Going to mountaintops in April when the snow melts or December when the snow is falling you can’t use it, there’s no feed, so actual reductions are more severe than the past reductions,” added Lowry.

LIFE ON THE RANGE

Continued from page 5

just ride my horse and have a picnic lunch every day,” she jokes.

“My family thinks I’m crazy.

They quit worrying about me, I guess. It’s not for everybody.

It’s a pretty tough life, really. I have 2-3 young men that help me. Between Bob being a good person to work with that has the same goals, and I’m only as good as my guys and my dog, other than that, I try to put it all together and make everything work for me.”

Stoll and Lindsey are always trying to improve the ranch for cattle and wildlife. “What’s good for the range, is good for just about everything,” Stoll says. “I particularly like to hunt birds, and it’s good habitat -- good for the wildlife, the chukars, the huns and the quail. They’re like a little added whipped cream on a piece of pie here.”

Carl Crabtree, supervisor of the Idaho County Weed Manage-

ment program, says it’s great to see an investor like Robert Stoll support a well-managed ranch and also work to make it better. “Bob sees this as an investment. He doesn’t want to let that investment degrade. He wants to improve it.”

“We used to see investors coming in as kind of a negative deal,” Crabtree explains. “A lot of times they’ll get rid of the livestock, and they let the weeds grow. And then they sell the place, and leave it in a condition that’s a lot worse than when they found it.

“I see Bob and others like him coming in as more of a positive thing. They’re injecting some cash into the area, which is good, they want to be good neighbors and good stewards. I think the ones coming in now are a good breed that will help rangelands for the future.”

Stoll says he would recommend investing in ranches as a long-term venture.

Ranch owner Robert Stoll is an avid upland bird hunter.

“Like any investment, you have to understand the risk involved, and the costs involved,” he says. “In improving anything, it costs money. If you are looking for short-term returns, this is not the place. It’s a long-term investment. Mother Nature doesn’t work real fast.

Outside of fires, it’s all a pretty slow process.”

But having an experienced ranch manager is critical, he

says. “I’m real lucky. I have extremely good tenants. I gotta be honest with you, that’s the key to it. If you don’t have good tenants, it’s just not going to work.”

Steve Stuebner is the writer and producer of Life on the Range, www.lifeontherange. org, an educational project sponsored by the Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

9

Teacher of the Year Selected The Idaho Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership Committee has selected Tom Coates from Challis High School as the 2014 Teacher of the Year.

Coates is a vocational agriculture teacher who recently entered the profession after a career of work in construction, as a rancher, and as an environmental policy advisor for the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. For the past two years he has taught agriculture, welding, animal husbandry, crop management, fabrication and is the school’s Future Farmers of America (FFA)

advisor.

Coates is a graduate of Mackay High School, Boise State College, and Willamette University.

A letter from Rose Cheff, president of CHS Parent Teacher Association, which was part of the nomination packet, states: “Tom’s greatest asset is his personality.

He works well with all of the high school teachers and administrators. He’s involved in the community through coaching, having served as the junior high boy’s basket-

ball coach for two years. He maintains an open-door policy for students, staff and parents and is gracious to deal with even under the most difficult circumstances.”

CHS Principal Rustan Bradshaw wrote that Coates’ teaching skills and knowledge of subject matter are of great benefit to the school district. “On a personal side, Tom is a great mentor to our young educators.

He encourages them to understand the area they live in by teaching them about local farming and ranching. He is a superb FFA leader and the students love him.”

Tom Coates, second from right, from Challis High School, was recently selected as the Idaho Farm Bureau Teacher of the Year. Also pictured from the left are students JD Taylor, Harley Maxwell and Tommy Herrick.

10

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

Here’s to bringing up the sun.

Here’s to muddy boots and grease-stained hands.

Here’s to caring for this great land.

Here’s to protecting what you live for.

We’re proud of our agricultural roots, and proud to be the insurance company so many families rely on to protect them from the unexpected. Here’s to protecting you, your family and your future.

www.fbfs.com FB10 (4-14)

ID-Here’sTo…(4-14).indd 1

5/14/14 3:04 PM

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

11

Focus on Agriculture

Cutting Regulations to Stimulate the Economy - #DitchTheRule

By Stewart Truelsen Billionaires don’t always say the smartest things, but one of them has a smart idea. At the Forbes Reinventing America Summit, billionaire real estate developer Sam Zell said, “If you want to see the economy go wild just cut all the regulations in half.”

Zell is known for his contrarian views and more often than not has been a successful investor. Cutting regulations is certainly contrary to what generally takes place in Washington. Regulations, especially environmental regulations, just keep piling up and up.

“We’re in a society where we think all risk can be regulated out,” said Zell. “There are just unending interpretations, revisions, legal fees to the sky— when you’re focused on that, you’re not focused on growing and getting new customers.”

a heavy rain. Farms, ranches, businesses and new construction could be affected.

EPA claims the proposed rule is a clarification of which waters fall under its jurisdiction.

But in tracing the history of major regulatory acts like the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, the words that stand out on EPA’s own timeline are “expanded,” “increased,” “authorized” and “established.”

The Office of Management and Budget reviews pending federal regulations, and it comes as no surprise that EPA has the most regulatory activities under review at the present time.

It is only a natural tendency for federal regulatory agencies to extend their reach by adding more and more regulations to the laws that Congress writes.

Farmers know that feeling all too well. When they should be focused on growing this season’s crops and tending livestock, their attention is diverted by the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Waters of the U.S.” proposed rule. The rule broadens federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and could extend permit requirements to ditches, small ponds and even depressions in fields that are only wet during 12

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

The last president who really tried to stop them and tackle regulatory overkill was Ronald Reagan. A reduction in regulations was one of the major policy objectives of his 1981 economic recovery program.

Deregulation was applied primarily to regulations that restricted economic activity, like price controls on oil and natural gas.

Every administration since Reagan’s, including the Obama administration, has expressed a desire for regulatory reform, but the results have been slow to materialize. Cost-benefit analysis is done on only a fraction of new regulations.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates the annual cost of regulations to be about $1.8 trillion.

On a household basis, regulations cost more than every budget item except housing; that’s more than health care, food, transportation, etc. Cutting regulations in half, as Zell suggests, would indeed cause the economy to go wild.

There are alternatives to regulations that can get the same or better results. The American Farm Bureau Federation advocates market-based solutions and incentives as preferable to government mandates. Incentives have proved successful with conservation efforts.

Regulation can also be accomplished without the government through competition, reputation, contracts, insurance and other means.

Sam Zell probably won’t get his wish, but he is correct about the need to throttle back government regulations. They are stifling innovation and economic growth.

Idaho Farm Bureau members are encouraged to learn more about the EPA’s effort to expand regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. Send comments to EPA at www. ditchtherule.fb.org Stewart Truelsen, a food and agriculture freelance writer, is a regular contributor to the Focus on Agriculture Series.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

13

Policy Development: IFBF Governmental Affairs Team Releases White Papers The following three issue briefs have been prepared by the IFBF Governmental Affairs office to help inform Farm Bureau members of issues that are likely to receive considerable attention in the upcoming legislative session and for which IFBF either has no policy, or needs clarification of current policy.

Each Farm Bureau member is encouraged to research these issues, carefully consider what direction would be best for Idaho agriculture, and then bring your thoughts and ideas to your county Farm Bureau policy development meeting. As Farm Bureau members thoughtfully consider these issues and share their ideas, it will help guide our organization as we work with legislators to support agriculture in Idaho.

Legislative Oversight of Executive Rulemaking

Issue – This fall, there will be a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot.

The amendment would protect the current practice requiring the Idaho Legislature to accept or reject executive agency rules.

IFBF supports this proposed amendment and encourages Farm Bureau members to vote in favor of the amendment.

This paper examines another related issue, whether the Senate and House of Representatives should both be required to reject a rule, as is the current practice; or, if the rejection of one body should be sufficient to send a rule back to the agency for additional work prior to its adoption and implementation.

Background – The Idaho Constitution grants the lawmaking power of the state exclusively to the Idaho Senate and House of Representatives. The Executive Branch of the state is granted the power to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

For nearly 80 years since statehood, executive agencies relied primarily upon the language contained in Idaho Code as they enforced the law. However, beginning in the 1960s, agencies began promulgating a far greater amount of rules to help clarify how laws should be interpreted and enforced.

In 1966, the Administrative Procedures Act was enacted giving rules the force and effect of law. This was a direct delegation of legislative authority from the Idaho Legislature to the Executive Branch agencies.

14

Without this delegation, executive agency rules would not carry the force and effect of law under the Idaho Constitution.

Then, in 1969, SB1086 was passed which provided for legislative review of rules, thus allowing the legislature to accept, amend or reject rules promulgated by agencies. It was not until 1976 that the legislature actually amended a rule, and in 1977 the legislature first rejected a rule.

In 1985, the Board of Health and Welfare adopted rules for individual subsurface sewage disposal systems. The 1989 legislature subsequently rejected the 1985 sewage system rules; therefore the District VII Health Department no longer enforced those rules. Governor Andrus then directed the Board of Health and Welfare to sue the District Health Department, challenging the constitutionality of legislative rule rejection.

That case, known as Mead v. Arnell, was decided by the Idaho Supreme Court on a 3-2 decision in March, 1990 in favor of the legislature. Since then, agencies have submitted over 5,300 rules and the legislature has rejected about 230 of them for a rejection rate of only about 4.4 percent. Because of the close court decision, the legislature has been somewhat tenuous in exercising their legitimate oversight authority.

Forty-three rules were amended by the legislature from 1976 until 1996. Then the practice of amending rules was discontinued on the advice of the director of the Legislative Services Office. He believed

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

if they attempted to modify a rule, it may be struck down by the court. No rules have been amended by the legislature since 1996.

Now, nearly 25 years after the Idaho Supreme Court decision, the legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment to protect and enshrine their authority to oversee the executive agency rulemaking process. However, the proposed amendment only provides that the legislature can accept or reject, in whole or in part, rules promulgated by agencies. The amendment does not specify the process or procedure for this to occur, which leaves these items to be determined by the lawmakers.

Current procedures require both the Senate and the House to reject a rule, or else it is deemed accepted. This means that as long as one body is satisfied with the rule, it will go into effect. This is exactly the opposite of the legislative process where both bodies must affirmatively accept a bill before it can become a law. Since rulemaking is a direct result of delegated lawmaking authority from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch should have the final say over whether a rule is approved or rejected. There are many who believe that unless both bodies are satisfied with the rule, it should not proceed, just like a law.

Pros – Agencies have at least nine months, and in many cases several years to develop rules, while the legislature has only a few weeks to review rules, meaning they receive a cursory review at best. Single body

rejection would put rules under the same legislative process as laws; only those that receive the affirmative support of both bodies would be approved. This should provide incentive for agencies to ensure that all parties are satisfied with rules before they proceed to the legislature for approval.

Cons – This is a change in procedure from the current system of rules review. It may meet with resistance from those who believe that rules have already gone through a public review process. Agencies are not anxious to have their efforts scrutinized more closely. If agencies believe that they are having their rules rejected more often, they may throw their hands up and quit proposing rules.

Farm Bureau Policy – IFBF currently has no policy that addresses this issue.

Questions for Consideration –

Should executive agencies be required to ensure that both the House and the Senate are fully satisfied with a rule before it is accepted?

Since rulemaking is only possible through a delegation of legislative lawmaking authority, is it appropriate for one body of the legislature to reject a rule similar to the lawmaking process?

Are there unintended consequences to a change in current procedures?

Should IFBF develop a policy that supports the rejection of rules by one body of the legislature?

Raising Revenue for Highway and Infrastructure Maintenance Issue: Should the State of Idaho raise additional revenue to maintain highways, bridges and other transportation infrastructure?

Background: The Governor’s Transportation Task Force in 2010-2011 determined that the State of Idaho has a backlog of highway and infrastructure maintenance needs of approximately $240-260 million

per year just to maintain our current highway system. To put that in perspective, Idaho’s state fuel tax raises approximately $250 million each year.

Several bills discussed in this white paper originated from the legislature in 2013, not the Executive Branch or the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The bills were printed at the end of the 2013 legislative session to provide a starting point in the potential funding discussion. These bills have accomplished that purpose and are used as examples of possible future revenue raising proposals. It was intended that any new revenues raised would be used for highway and infrastructure maintenance, not new construction.

Pros: There is a general recognition that Idaho’s highways and transportation infrastructure need regular maintenance.

Agricultural commodities depend on an adequate and well-maintained state highway system to get to market. To address concerns over the use of current highway funding, ITD has aggressively implemented an internal administrative plan over the past three years that streamlines, consolidates and creates greater efficiencies within its operations. These actions have resulted in significant cost savings.

ITD has demonstrated to the legislature a greatly improved ability to manage its budget and projects and get more dollars on the ground.

Cons: All of the 2013 bills proposed tax increases, license and fee increases or both. H337 increased the sales tax by 1 cent ($.01) for 5 years and would have raised $162 million annually. H338 increased fuel taxes over 5 years, increased fuel transfer fees, doubled car and pickup registration, increased truck registration for commercial and farm trucks, imposed additional fees on electric and hybrid cars, hiked permit fees, imposed a new tax on rental cars equal to the sales tax and established a 3-year enforcement pilot project for dyed fuel. H338 would have raised an additional $236 million annually once it was fully implemented. H339, H340 and H341 were various combinations of the

different components of H338.

2014 Developments: No transportation maintenance revenue-specific bills received hearings during the 2014 Legislative Session. Three bills- H481, H494 and H505 were printed. H481 raised the fuel tax $.02 per year from 2015 through 2017, for a total increase of $.06 after July 1, 2017. The additional annual revenues after July 1, 2017 would be approximately $52.8 million per year. H494 redirected sales tax revenues from the General Fund (GF) to the Highway Distribution Account (HDA) after trigger amounts of general fund revenue and public school appropriations were reached. H505 redistributed existing sales tax revenue to the HDA approximately equal to the amount of sales tax paid on tires and vehicle accessories.

A fourth bill, H547, which was signed into law, redirected cigarette tax revenue in a number of ways; providing $4.7 million for GARVEE bond debt service, the next $5 million was earmarked for aquifer recharge and “any remaining tax monies will go to the State Highway Account to pay for maintenance of the state highway system” per the bill’s statement of purpose.

These are ongoing allocations through 2030 and should be around $6 million per year.

Other considerations for the 2015 Legislature include a number of redirections of certain existing sales tax revenues for highway maintenance.

At the request of House Transportation Chairman, Rep. Joe Palmer (R-Meridian), ITD has identified a number of bridge replacements and maintenance projects in their current 5-year plan which includes the years 2014-2018. Construction costs for the 69 projects total approximately $195 million. This amount does not include nonconstruction costs such as environmental studies, right-of-way acquisition, engineering and other costs.

ITD says 261 bridges are built for lighter, smaller trucks, 785 are 50 years old or older and 894 bridges will be 50 years of age

See WHITE PAPERS, page 16

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

15

WHITE PAPERS Continued from page 15

or older after the completion of the current Five-Year Plan. Bridges are designed to last 40 to 60 years. ITD says that at current funding levels, Idaho’s bridges will have to last 120 years. Replacement cost for all bridges is estimated at about $1.2 billion.

Farm Bureau Policy - Transportation # 192 reads in part: “. . . We would consider an increase in the state fuel tax for infrastructure construction. We would consider a tax or fee increase on vehicles of 12,500 GVW and under if this revenue is used for infrastructure construction. . . We support the Idaho Department of Transportation policy of issuing oversize load permits for Idaho public roads. We support continued improvement of Idaho’s agricultural roadways. . . We support increasing permit fees on loads exceeding 200,000 GVW to be comparable with fees in surrounding states. . . We support the review of current Idaho Transportation Department policies regarding economics of maintenance versus new construction of roadways.”

Questions for Consideration:

Are Idaho roads in good shape or do they need additional attention/funding?

Are existing highway funds being spent effectively?

Have all opportunities for increased efficiencies and cost reductions been explored, such as consolidation of services with local districts for snow removal, road maintenance, etc?

Do Farm Bureau members support:

Registration or license fee increases? Cars, light trucks, farm trucks, commercial trucks?

Fuel tax increases?

General sales tax or other tax increases?

Redirection or redistribution of existing tax revenues?

If so, how much?

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State Pri16

macy

ISSUE – Should Idaho seek primacy (the lead role) in administering the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program?

BACKGROUND – As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.

Idaho remains one of only four states that do not have primacy to administer the NPDES program. Since 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 has administered this program for Idaho, meaning that the EPA is responsible for permitting and enforcing all NPDES permits in the State. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is responsible for certifying that EPA permitted facilities meet Idaho water quality standards.

About half of Idaho’s NPDES permit holders are cities or other municipalities; the rest are industrial users, from mines to fish farms. Currently, there is a large backlog of permits that are pending or that are out of date. An existing permit will remain in effect until a new permit is issued. EPA Region 10 has categorized many permits as being “low priority” and it is not uncommon for permits in this program to be in a pending status for many years.

Idaho has evaluated receiving primacy on a routine basis since 2000. Studies were completed in 2001, 2002 and 2005. It is expected that primacy will require capability to administer this program in a manner that is as stringent as what is currently administered by EPA Region 10. EPA is usually required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FSW), the Na-

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

tional Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service on the state’s primacy application.

The Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI) has projected the IPDES program budget in 2005 was 23 FTEs and $2.125M. This estimate was reviewed and updated in 2009 by the Association of Idaho Cities and the projected staffing level did not change (23 FTES). The budget was estimated to be $2.6M annually. New estimates will need to be made and a funding strategy developed to achieve full program implementation. Full implementation is targeted for State Fiscal Year 2021. (IACI Environmental Committee Minutes, October 24, 2013) To date, EPA Region 10 has required no Idaho agricultural operations to obtain an NPDES permit. Some states that have primacy have an agricultural component and permits are required. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and dairy operations could be the most likely to have a point source discharge. Oklahoma has primacy and allows their Department of Agriculture to administer oversight and permitting of agricultural activities through a memorandum of agreement with their Department of Environmental Quality.

PROS - “Where possible and while insuring the protection of Idaho’s water quality, the state will apply flexibility or innovative approaches when implementing NPDES.” (Decision Analysis Report 3, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program Review, Department of Environmental Quality, December 2005, p.3) Permittees will have only one set of rules and regulations and one agency with which to interact, resulting in less confusion for permittees and less overlap of responsibilities for regulatory agencies.

The state will have the ability to interpret and apply Idaho water quality standards to determine when permit limits are necessary and what alternate or innovative approaches are appropriate.

The state may focus more on compliance and assistance to obtain compliance rather than enforcement.

CONS - Oversight – EPA Region 10 will retain overall responsibility for Clean Water Act Compliance. Like other programs, EPA has the duty to provide oversight and has the ability to “over file” on Idaho primacy delegated programs.

Costs and Funding - the management and enforcement costs of this program remain uncertain. Federal funding or at least some cost-sharing is being explored, but no commitments have been verified. Without federal funding, an Idaho administered program is being evaluated as a “permittee pay” program. The cost of receiving a permit, compliance monitoring costs requirements and enforcement for non-compliance is undetermined.

Capacity – stakeholders will require that IDEQ must have an adequate number of capable IDEQ staff dedicated to the ad-

ministration and management of this program. Trained permit writers, inspectors and legal support will be required and evaluated prior to primacy being granted.

2014 LEGISLATIVE ACTION - HB406 authorized IDEQ to pursue approval of an NPDES Program.

HB645 appropriated $300,000 FY2015 from the General Fund to cover the first year costs of an eight year effort to seek primacy to administer the NPDES program from the Environmental Protection Agency. IDEQ has estimated the schedule and budget to take over this program. This appropriation is provided as ongoing with the understanding the program will have significantly higher costs in the future.

Costs at full build-out in 2022 are estimated at 25 full-time positions and $2.5 million.

FARM BUREAU POLICY: Idaho Farm Bureau has no specific policy addressing NPDES primacy.

QUESTIONS and CONCERNS:

Would Idaho benefit by obtaining primacy and having IDEQ administer the NPDES permits?

Is this an instance where administration is better close to the people? Or should EPA be required to operate their program and pay the cost?

How much should Idaho be willing to spend just to administer this program?

Would Idaho be required to renew all permits on a timely basis, contrary to the history of EPA’s administration of this program?

Will the federal government provide any funding for Idaho to cover the costs of administering this federally mandated program?

Does IBFB need to develop a policy on this issue, or should we stay out of this discussion?

Find Out How Nice Your Photo Of Idaho Looks On A New iPad! We all appreciate nice comments when we pass around a great photo we’ve taken. However, the ultimate compliment may be the announcement that you’ve won our Reasons to Love Idaho Photo Contest. Just ask Dave who won First Place in Round 13 with his image titled “Fly Fisherman.” Winning the contest and the Apple® iPad ® has led to even more compliments for Dave! So cast your hook on a brand new iPad. Visit ReasonsToLoveIdaho.com today to learn more.

“Fly Fisherman”

by Dave in Georgetown Apple, Inc. in no way endorses or is affiliated with this contest. iPad is a registered trademark of Apple, Inc.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

17

Traditionally, logs are bought and sold based on volume and are normally scaled at the mill with a scaling stick to determine volume.

Weighing Your Options: Understanding Weight Scaling

By Jarred Saralecos and Randy Brooks Changes in the forest products industry and fiscal insecurities are ultimately adjusting the medium through which sawlogs are bought and sold. It is becoming more common for forest industry companies and log buyers to purchase timber on the basis of weight in contrast to the traditional methods of volume (thousand board feet or mbf) which include individually measuring (scaling) each log delivered. This may be confusing for many forest landowners, especially when the time comes to market their timber. This article explains the basics of weight scaling so landowners can market their timber with confidence.

Weight scaling is the purchasing sawlogs or standing timber on the basis of weight.

The development from scaled volume to scaled weight formed as a means of cutting costs and maintaining mill efficiency as harvest volumes increased and average sawlog diameter decreased. Additionally, purchasing logs by weight in place of volume also created a universal way of assess18

ing transactions across regions utilizing different log scaling methods.

In the 1950’s, southeastern U.S. lumber markets began using weight scaling as an alternative to traditional stick scaling.

This involved weighing log trucks entering and exiting mills and paying for the net weight in product delivered. The process has continued its development to current methods employed across the U.S. where sample weight scaling is utilized. Sample weight scaling has worked to utilize the efficiency of weight scaling while retaining a portion of sawlog loads for stick scaling as a means of accuracy adjustment and improving weight scaling conversion factors. Through systematic samplings of log trucks with stick scaling procedures, additional variables of species, season, and tare truckload weight, models can be developed to predict truckload volume from weight alone on non-scaled loads. This reduction of total scaled loads and increased truck turn times at mill yards has shown significant improvements from classical scaling

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

practices. While the pulp and paper industry initially started the transformation, today weight scaling encompasses more than 70 percent of all commercial softwood scaling in the U.S. As weight scaling was proven successful for handling pulpwood-sized timber, the rest of the market began to show interest for several reasons. First, the average sawlog size used for lumber was decreasing.

This meant each mill needed to handle greater numbers of logs to maintain production levels. Second, the transition towards more efficient product utilization reduced waste. Today, computers and laser technology are used to maximize production and use the entire log including selling sawdust and chips to heat and power facilities with wood boilers. While traditional scaling only accounts for board in each log segment, weight scaling accounts for the entire log.

A common question is “Why isn’t there a standard set of weights for all sawlogs and why does the conversion have to adjust?”

The short answer is that there is no neutral conversion that would be fair, but there are accessible average weight conversions that landowners and loggers can use to help guide them in marketing timber.

There are several reasons that blanket conversion factors are not employed. First of all, trees are like fingerprints in that each one is unique from all others from its height, diameter, density, defect, and species. For example, the difference in wood density fluctuates not only amongst species but also geographically within the same species. These changes are representative of stand density, soil characteristics, and slope position in which the trees grow. Additionally, the ability to account for defect within trees is limited in weight scaling as many defects do not cause weight reduction in the wood but are limiting in the amount of lumber a log can produce. These changes make it difficult to employ only one conversion factor.

A second reason that standard sawlog weight conversions have not been established is that the diameter of a log affects the amount of lumber the log will yield, i.e., it takes more small logs to produce 1,000 board feet of lumber.

Finally, changing climate and season have the ability to affect log weight through changes in moisture content within harvested trees. Water makes up one-half the weight of wood and changes in temperature or precipitation can significantly change the weight of a log through adding or removing water from the logs through evapotranspiration. These climatic changes are most visible across yearly seasons.

Sawlogs harvested in late fall and winter typically contain more moisture and are therefore heavier as a result of the cold and wet conditions. Whereas sawlogs harvesting in the summer months are exposed to hot, dry weather that significantly reduces the weight conversion factors of the wood.

The result of this situation is that there are no industry standard sawlog weights that guide the industry. Many private timber companies have constructed proprietary conversion factors while logging contractors who are routinely immersed in the pro-

Weight to volume predictions models have been developed to determine volume of logs based on weight - allowing logs to be bought and sold on a weight basis. This also decreases the amount of time spent scaling each individual log with a stick. Trucks simply weigh entering and exiting the mill, saving drivers time as well.

cess have also developed an understanding of the conversion factors. These internal understandings remain private knowledge from which sawmill log prices are set accordingly. This is one reason why loggers and landowners observe that different mills are paying different rates per tons of sawlogs. As an example, the owner of one company knows it takes 4.80 tons of western redcedar to make a thousand board feet in January but only 4.35 tons in the August.

Through understanding his operating costs he knows the greatest amount he can pay for redcedar sawlogs throughout the year.

The variations in seasonal sawlog moisture content as well as between each species make the accuracy of weight to volume relationship conversions highly important from an economic standpoint. For example, water accounts for about 50 percent of the weight of green wood. In a recent study Douglas-fir sawlogs lost an average of 34 percent moisture content over a one month period after harvest in the summer, regardless of harvest system. The average Idaho sawlog truckload contains roughly 54,000 lbs. Therefore a 34 percent moisture content loss would result in roughly 4.59 tons of lost water weight or 17 percent

loss in total truckload value if paid using a weight basis system. While most sawmills in Idaho have developed their own conversions, it is important that each landowner understand their own timber so they can be more confident when marketing their timber. Other reasons for varying market prices might be a good supply of sawlogs, falling lumber prices, and so on.

There are many environmental and scaling factors affecting sawlog weight to volume relationships. Landowners who are marketing timber should not be intimidated by bids made in weight. Through a competitive-bidding process and careful consideration of species and season in conjunction with contacting local extension educators or state private forestry specialists for assistance, landowners can identify the best options to meet their forest management goals.

Randy Brooks is a University of Idaho Extension Forestry Specialist based on campus in Moscow. He can be reached at: rbrooks@uidaho.edu Jarred Saralecos is a University of Idaho Forest Operations Graduate Student.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

19

It’s Time to Ditch The Rule Puddles, ponds, ditches, ephemerals (land that looks like a small stream during heavy rain but isn’t wet most of the time) and isolated wetlands dot the nation’s farmland.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) on March 25 issued a proposed rule that would expand its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to these types of land features and waters, giving the agencies the power to dictate land-use decisions and farming practices in or near them.

The rule will make it more difficult to farm or change a farming operation to remain competitive and profitable.

How Did We Get Here?

Congress passed the CWA in 1972, banning discharges of pollutants from a point source (i.e., a single source or conveyance) into navigable waters without a federal permit.

The CWA has established a system of cooperative federalism that gives federal agen20

cies—mainly EPA and the Corps—the authority to regulate navigable waters such as interstate rivers. The law calls these “waters of the U.S.” State and local governments have jurisdiction over smaller, moreremote waters, such as many ponds and isolated wetlands, because state and local governments are more accountable to their citizens and more in touch with local environmental and economic situations.

Two sections of the law have particular impacts on agriculture. Section 404 requires anyone wanting to discharge “dredge and fill” material into navigable waters to obtain a federal permit. This section deals with any discharge that would result from moving the soil. It has impacts for individual landowners and homebuilders, as well as farmers who want to plant trees, construct buildings, install drainage, deep-plow the soil—the list goes on. Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program to enforce discharge mitigation requirements and limit point source

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

discharges into navigable waters.

EPA and the Corps continually have tested the jurisdictional limits of the CWA over the last 40-plus years by issuing guidance documents and regulatory enforcement actions based on ever-broader interpretations of “waters of the U.S.” Specifically, in 1986, EPA and the Corps used the “migratory bird rule” to assert authority over isolated waters by saying those waters that are or could be used by migratory birds, which cross state lines, are interstate waters or “waters of the U.S.” The regulated community, including agriculture, has pushed back, resulting in precedent-making court decisions concerning the scope of the agencies’ jurisdiction.

In two cases—Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in 2001, and Rapanos v. United States, in 2006—the Supreme Court rendered decisions that reaffirmed the CWA’s limit on federal jurisdiction, drawing the line at navigable—the migratory bird rule notwith-

standing. The American Farm Bureau Federation filed amicus briefs in both cases.

However, the 2006 Rapanos ruling was not as clear-cut as the 2001 SWANCC decision, and not as clear as Farm Bureau would have liked. Eight justices divided evenly between supporting the broad reach of EPA/Corps regulations and affirming that the CWA covers only navigable waters. One of the justices, Anthony Kennedy, was an outlier, writing that a significant nexus between an isolated wetland and a traditional navigable water could be enough for federal jurisdiction.

Justice Kennedy did not define significant nexus, and the proverbial waters have remained murky ever since.

Ditch the Rule!

In releasing the new “waters of the U.S.” proposed rule, EPA (the lead agency on the rule) has said that it is clarifying the scope of the CWA. However, EPA’s “clarification” is also a broad expansion of the types of waters and lands that would be subject to federal permit requirements and limits on farm-

ing practices and other landuses.

EPA also has claimed that the rule would have minimal economic impact and would not affect many acres—only about 1,300 acres nationwide—a laughable assertion when one considers the amount of acreage in just one state or even county that has hydric soils and, therefore under EPA’s proposal, adequate characteristics to be considered “waters of the U.S.” Farmers’ and ranchers’ ability

to remain in production often depends on being able to use the types of farm practices that would be prohibited if EPA denies a permit for them. For example, building a fence across a ditch, applying fertilizer or pesticides, or pulling weeds could require a federal permit.

The proposed rule, in effect, would give EPA veto authority over a farmer’s or rancher’s ability to operate.

It is vital for agriculture that the proposed rule does not become final or, if that is not possible, substantially changed. Farm

Bureau will pursue this goal in the following ways: Support extending the current 90-day comment period to 180 days to give farmers and ranchers time to review the proposed rule and provide input; Comment about the impact the proposed rule would have on farms; Support any efforts in Congress to rein in the federal government’s expansion of control over private land;

media campaigns to bring attention to the impacts of the proposed rule on landowners, small businesses and the economy, as well as agriculture.

The purpose of this website is to help you answer questions about the “waters of the U.S.” proposed rule and to provide resources to make it easier for Farm Bureau members to engage in the campaign to overturn the rule as currently proposed.

Engage in traditional social

American farm bureau federation news EPA Rule Will Upend Farming and Livelihoods, Farm Bureau Says WASHINGTON, D.C., – A new Environmental Protection Agency rule will illegally expand EPA jurisdiction to millions of acres of once-unregulated farm land, exposing farmers to fines and penalties for ordinary farming activities, the American Farm Bureau Federation told Congress today.

“The EPA isn’t content with regulating just water – they want to control land use, too, even though Congress and the Courts have already told them no,” Don Parrish, Senior Director Regulatory Affairs at the Ameri-

can Farm Bureau Federation said.

The agency’s overreach, Parrish said, ignores the will of Congress and courts, alike. And as bad as the rule is, the agency compounds farmers’ problems by calling into question dozens of exemptions for basic farming techniques through a separate, interpretative rule already in effect.

“Farmers face an impossible choice,” Parrish said. The proposed rule that expands jurisdiction and the interpretive rule together are a bad idea that threatens liveli-

hoods as well as local land-use and zoning authority. It’s time to ditch this rule.”

The Clean Water Act, signed into law in 1972, protects the nation’s waters from pollution of all sorts. But Congress gave states, not the EPA, the primary responsibility to oversee land use. The latest proposal would turn that relationship on its head.

Farm Bureau, together with dozens of other farm and industry groups, is fighting the EPA’s Waters of the U.S. overreach. Find

Farm Bureau: Estate Taxes Now Ripe for Repeal WASHINGTON, D.C., – With 218 cosponsors – more than half of the House of Representatives – on board, legislation to repeal estate taxes is ripe for floor action, the American Farm Bureau Federation said today.

2012 provided significant estate tax relief, repeal is the best solution to protect all farms and ranches from the estate tax,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman.

Rep. Kevin Brady’s (R-Texas) Death Tax Repeal Act, H.R. 2429, would repeal estate taxes, and maintain stepped-up basis.

The estate tax burden falls heavily on farmers because it takes more capital assets, such as land and equipment, to generate the same level of income as other types of businesses.

“Although permanent law enacted as part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of

If Congress fails to permanently repeal the estate tax, surviving family members may

be forced to sell off parts of their farms, ultimately jeopardizing their livelihoods.

“Look at land alone,” Stallman said. “As it skyrockets in value, the chances of surviving family members having to sell some substantial acreage to pay estate taxes grows right along with it. This not only can cripple a farm or ranch operation, but also hurts the rural communities and businesses that agriculture supports.”

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

21

USDA Announces Programs to Conserve Land, Help Beginning Farmers Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently announced that farmers, ranchers and landowners committed to protecting and conserving environmentally sensitive land may now sign up for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The Secretary also announced that retiring farmers enrolled in CRP could receive incentives to transfer a portion of their land to beginning, disadvantaged or veteran farmers through the Transition Incentives Program (TIP).

“CRP is one of the largest voluntary conservation programs in the country,” said Vilsack.

“This initiative helps farmers and ranchers lead the nation in preventing soil erosion, improving water quality and restoring wildlife habitat, all of which will make a difference for future generations.”

Vilsack continued, “The average age of farmers and ranchers in the United States is 58 years, and twice as many are 65 or older compared to those 45 or younger. The cost of buying land is one of the biggest barriers to many interested in getting started in agriculture. The Transition Incentives Program is very useful as we work to help new farmers and ranchers get started.”

The Conservation Reserve Program provides incentives to producers who utilize conservation methods on environmentallysensitive lands. For example, farmers are monetarily compensated for establishing long-term vegetative species, such as approved grasses or trees (known 22

as “covers”) to control soil erosion, improve water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat.

CRP consists of a “continuous” and “general” sign-up period.

Continuous sign up for the voluntary program starts June 9.

Under continuous sign-up authority, eligible land can be enrolled in CRP at any time with contracts of up to 10 to 15 years in duration. In lieu of a general sign-up this year, USDA will allow producers with general CRP contracts expiring this September to have the option of a oneyear contract extension. USDA will also implement the 2014 Farm Bill’s requirement that producers enrolled through general sign-up for more than five years can exercise the option to opt-out of the program if certain other conditions are met. In addition, the new grassland provisions, which will allow producers to graze their enrolled land, will enable producers to do so with more flexibility.

The Transition Incentives Program provides two additional years of payments for retired farmers and ranchers who transition expiring CRP acres to socially disadvantaged, military veteran, or beginning producers who return the land to sustainable grazing or crop production.

Sign up will also begin June 9.

TIP funding was increased by more than 30 percent in the 2014 Farm Bill, providing up to $33 million through 2018.

As part of the 2014 Farm Bill, participants meeting specific qualifications may have the opportunity to terminate their

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

CRP contract during fiscal year 2015 if the contract has been in effect for a minimum of five years and if other conditions are also met.

The USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA), which administers CRP, will coordinate the various CRP program opportunities. For more information on CRP and other FSA programs, visit a local FSA county office or go online to www.fsa.usda. gov.

Both the CRP and TIP were reauthorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful re-

form and billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers. Since enactment, USDA has made significant progress to implement each provision of this critical legislation, including providing disaster relief to farmers and ranchers; strengthening risk management tools; expanding access to rural credit; funding critical research; establishing innovative public-private conservation partnerships; developing new markets for rural-made products; and investing in infrastructure, housing and community facilities to help improve quality of life in rural America.

For more information, visit www.usda.gov/farmbill.

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

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, 2014, or 2015 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

Offer available through 4/1/17. Available on all 2014 and 2015 Chevrolet, Buick and GMC vehicles. This offer available with all other offers, excluding discounted pricing (employee, dealership employee and supplier pricing). Only customers who have been active members of an eligible Farm Bureau for a minimum of 30 days will be eligible to receive a certificate. Customers can obtain certificates at www.fbverify.com/gm. Farm Bureau and the FB logo are registered service marks of the American Farm Bureau Federation and are used herein under license by General Motors.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

23

Grain Marketing with Clark Johnston

What You Can Control and What You Can’t Clark Johnston

By Clark Johnston The Hard Red Winter harvest this year was spotty to say the least. Producers in parts of Texas, Oklahoma as well as the southern part of Kansas experienced a tough year in trying to produce their crop. Everything that they had control over they did right but, Mother Nature had other plans.

Even in areas where we have the ability to irrigate our crops we can still experience conditions like a late frost in the spring or an early one in the fall. The point I’m trying to make is that in agriculture there are probably more things that we don’t have control over than ones that we do. Even in marketing we don’t have any control over prices moving higher or prices moving lower. We can only control what we can control.

We spend a great deal of time talking about market movements and basis and how we need to watch the markets closely in order to make our decisions in contracting our commodities. Last month we talked about the historical price movement patterns. Let’s not forget those patterns while we add another factor to watch.

Let’s watch the spreads in the wheat and corn markets. This 24

past February there was a 7 cent carry in the market between July and December corn.

Recently this has traded at even or even a slight inverse. With the potential for a large crop on the horizon we need to watch to see if this market moves back into a carry market as we move closer to harvest.

We should see a carry start to form from the December futures contract into the summer months of 2015. This would indicate that we have enough corn to meet the current demand. In a carry market the front month futures contract has the potential to move lower. Remember, the wider the carry the larger the stocks on hand.

Chicago wheat futures have increased the carry to 52 cents between the September 2014 contract and the May 2015 contract. This shows us just how much soft red wheat we have.

The market is willing to pay the producers 52 cents to sell their wheat now, hold it in their on farm storage and deliver the wheat in the spring. If we do the math we see that the market is willing to pay producers 5 cents per bushel per month to store the wheat for them.

This may or may not be enough for you to enter into this contract but, it is something to

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

think about as we move forward. The strategy could be to sell the futures now (in one of the deferred contracts) and wait until a later date to set the basis. We usually see the basis strengthen as we move into the end of the calendar year.

With the markets being as volatile as they are these days, separating the futures and the basis when contracting our commodities has the real potential to help us increase our contracting price. This gives us an opportunity to increase our margin.

It isn’t necessarily a layup but, it isn’t as risky as some would have you believe either.

Earlier we talked about what we have control over, well this is something that we have control of. We can’t control the futures market or the basis movements but, we can study the patterns and contract according to the movements they make.

Soft white basis has already seen some strengthening over the past few weeks. When the futures market has a large carry as we now have in Chicago wheat, the trend for basis will be to strengthen into the end of the calendar year. During the winter months the basis should level off before weakening as we move closer to the spring and new crop.

Along the way we will see some spikes in both the futures and the basis. Most often when the market spikes it doesn’t last long and corrects itself rather quickly. We need to be on the lookout for these movements in the market. These moves occur in both the futures and the basis. The strength in the basis happens more frequently than you might expect.

Usually the move in the basis isn’t published; rather they are accomplished when producers make offers to sell wheat into the market. If you have a target price in mind and the market is moving closer to your target it never hurts to make the offer at your target price. Even if the buyers reject your offer you have at least tested the market and now have a good idea of the local sentiment.

Even with all of the challenges we are faced with in today’s world let’s not forget the many opportunities that we are also blessed with every day.

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

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

25

Top Farm Bureau Agents

Rookie of the Month:

Dave Martin Mellon Agency

Agent of the Month:

Darin Pfost Newell Agency

Agency of the Month:

Newell Agency

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

26

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

Family of Member Services

TM

SPOTLIGHT ON IDAHO FFA—2014 State Career Development Event Winners State FFA Career Development Event Winners Named—Headed To Nationals Career opportunities abound within today’s agriculture industry. FFA Career Development Events (CDEs) help students develop the abilities to think critically, communicate clearly, and perform effectively in a competitive job market.

Idaho FFA conducts 27 CDEs covering job skills in everything from agricultural communications to agricultural mechanics. Some events allow students to compete as individuals, while others are team competitions. Nineteen teams and five individuals were named State Champions in 2014 Idaho FFA CDEs held at the University of Idaho in June and during the State FFA Leadership Conference at the College of Southern Idaho in April. They will represent Idaho at the National FFA Convention in Louisville, KY, October 27 through November 1.

Since 1928, FFA has worked to create events that demonstrate the meaningful connections between classroom instruction and real-life scenarios. CDEs build on what is learned in agricultural classes and the

To learn more about Idaho FFA, please visit: www.idahoffa.org www.idffafoundation.org

FFA. The events are designed to help prepare students for careers in agriculture.

2014 Idaho FFA State Champion Career Development Event Winners Agricultural Communications Agricultural Issues Forum Agricultural Mechanics Agricultural Sales Agronomy Creed Speaking Dairy Cattle Evaluation Dairy Foods Dairy Handler Environmental and Natural Resources Extemporaneous Public Speaking Farm Business Management Floriculture Food Science & Technology Forestry Horse Job Interview Livestock Evaluation Marketing Plan Meats Technology Nursery/Landscape Parliamentary Procedure Prepared Public Speaking Veterinary Science

Filer FFA Chapter American Falls FFA Chapter Middleton FFA Chapter Middleton FFA Chapter Fruitland FFA Chapter Caleb Johnston, New Plymouth FFA Chapter Castleford FFA Chapter Fruitland FFA Chapter Auguste Curtis, Filer FFA Chapter Cambridge FFA Chapter Morgan Howard, Nezperce FFA Chapter Meridian FFA Chapter Kimberly FFA Chapter Kimberly FFA Chapter Vallivue FFA Chapter Emmett FFA Chapter Lindsey Woodworth, American Falls FFA Chapter Hagerman FFA Chapter Marsing FFA Chapter Kuna FFA Chapter Rigby FFA Chapter Kuna FFA Chapter Riley Geritz, American Falls FFA Chapter Meridian FFA Chapter

FFA—Premier Leadership, Personal Growth and Career Success through Agricultural Education Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

27

Gooding/Lincoln County Farm Bureau Awards Scholarships 2014.

The Gooding /Lincoln County Farm Bureau is pleased to announce that three $500 and two $250 College scholarships have been awarded to area students. Two of the five winning applicants have been forwarded to the State Farm Bureau level for additional consideration.

Farm Bureau educational scholarships are available to graduating seniors or students who are already attending an institution of higher education. Scholarships are awarded in both Ag-related and Non- Ag-Related fields to Idaho Farm Bureau family members at both state and county levels.

Cora Issacs is the daughter of Robert & Rhonda Isaacs of Bliss. She has been selected to receive a $500 Gooding/Lincoln County Farm Bureau educational scholarship. She plans to attend the College of Southern Idaho and is interested in Agriculture Business Administration and Political Science. She is preparing for an occupation as an Agricultural Legislative Lobbyist.

Rachel Youren is the daughter of Doug & Mary Kay Youren of Gooding. She has been selected to receive a $500 Gooding/Lincoln County Farm Bureau educational scholarship. She plans to attend Southern Utah University or the University of Idaho. She is preparing for an occupation as an Accountant.

Cooper Astel is the son of Douglas & Janis Astle of Dietrich. He has been selected to receive a $250 Gooding/Lincoln County Farm Bureau educational scholarship. He plans to attend Lewis Clark State College.

His major course of study will be in the field of computer science & web development. He is preparing for an occupation as a web designer/ developer.

28

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

Thania Beltran is the daughter of Crispin & Leticia Beltran of Bliss. She has been selected to receive a $500 Gooding/Lincoln County Farm Bureau educational scholarship. She is currently attending the College of Idaho. Her major course of study is in Health Science. She is preparing for an occupation as a physician

Kaleigh Kelsey is the daughter of Luke & Angela Kelsey of Wendell.

She has been selected to receive a $250 Gooding/Lincoln County Farm Bureau educational scholarship. She plans to attend the Southern Virginia University this fall. Her major course of study will be in the field of English & Music. She is preparing for an occupation as an English instructor or writer.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

29

18th Annual Trailing of the Sheep Festival “To gather, present, and preserve the history and cultures of sheepherding in Idaho and the West”

18th Annual Trailing of the Sheep Festival Lineup Announced The 18th annual Trailing of the Sheep Festival is Thursday, October 9-12 and it promises a weekend filled with food, music, history, culture and fun for the entire family.

Every year the popular Trailing of the Sheep Festival celebrates the century and a half long tradition of moving sheep from mountain summer pastures south through the Wood River Valley to traditional winter grazing and lambing areas. This annual migration is Idaho living history and a weekend long festival that highlights the people, cultures, and traditions of sheep ranching in Idaho and the west.

This is not a reenactment, but a real slice of the American west.

2014 marks the 18th year of the annual Trailing of the Sheep Festival. It has grown into a four-day event including sheep storytelling and readings, music, a full day Folklife Fair with sheep shearing, wool spinning and sheep arts and crafts, and Championship Sheepdog Trials. There is dancing, singing, music and food honoring the tradition of welcoming fathers, brothers, sons and family home from a long summer of grazing in the mountains. This Festival honors the colorful history, heritage and cultures of Idaho and the

west.

A new series of cooking classes will kick off the Festival this year. Several new classes are being scheduled with the best local chefs. We will invite producers to join the chefs and share their love for life on the ranch. For the Love of Lamb Foodie Fest will take place in association with local restaurants and chefs on Friday, October 10 starting at 5 pm. Lamb tastings will be featured at several restaurants and other venues with famous local chefs and restaurants presenting their best lamb recipes.

Trailing of the Sheep Parade – 1,500 sheep parade down Main Street Ketchum, Idaho SheepTales Gathering with beloved rancher, Hank Vogler Trailing of the Sheepdog Championship trials (Sat and Sun) Gourmet cooking workshops

A Lamb Feast will take place on Saturday during the Folklife Fair. Ten chefs will be preparing the best in lamb and Basque food to benefit the Festival

Felting and fiber workshops

Sunday, before and after the Parade, Festival Board members are hosting an authentic lamb barbecue as a fundraiser for the Festival. 11:00 am – 2:00 pm

Oinkari Basque dancers

The hottest jazz and country band in the USA is coming and we’re planning two performances Saturday, October 11 in Ketchum.

Sheep shearing demonstrations

It’s the Hot Club of Cowtown and they are loved around the USA and Europe.

Named the Best Music Group by True West Magazine and presenting their new album “Rendezvous in Rhythm.”

Children’s activities

See TRAILING OF THE SHEEP FESTIVAL page 35 30

The Festival weekend includes:

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

Photography workshop Peruvian musicians and dancers Boise Highlanders, bagpipers and drummers Folklife Fair Sheep wagon displays Spinning and weaving demonstrations Wool and craft shops For a complete schedule, see the website, www.trailingofthesheep.org Brochure available upon request.

Brent Wilson is the team leader for the Payette County Gopher Control agency. Landowners are required to pay a fee for control services. Only a few counties in the state still offer the service. Photo by Steve Ritter

Burrowing Rodents Spell Trouble for Livestock

By Matt Brechwald The care of your pastures, paddocks and arenas are probably already a major part of your horse management program. Have you included a management plan for burrowing rodents? Burrowing rodents such as gophers, voles and squirrels can create major hazards for horses and riders.

What’s worse? Frequently these hazards are unknown to the rider or horse because they are just below the surface of soil that appears to be sturdy. However, when the weight of the horse hits the thin layer of sod it disappears beneath its hoof.

David Heidt is the owner of Omega Farms near Noti, Oregon; a business that specializes in providing burial for horses. He wrote an article called Observations of the Dead Horse Guy in which he states that 10 percent of the horses that he has buried that are under the age of 25 have died due to accidents. He goes on to say

that a major reason for those accidents are horses stepping in holes and breaking legs.

He suggests walking all pastures and paddocks after rains to check for new holes so they can be filled in.

America’s Horse Magazine, the official magazine for the American Quarter Horse Association, profiled one of the founders of the AQHA, Jim Minnick, in an article titled A Look Into AQHA History. The story profiles how Jim’s future wife, Della Holthausen, broke her leg when the horse she was riding stepped into a prairie dog hole. I’m sure you can imagine the fall you or your loved one could take if exercising your horse and discovering a deep hole just under the surface.

Your horses are natural athletes. Even if the horse does not have to be put down, even if the rider is not injured they will not be able to function at the same level if they step in a hole and wind up with a swol-

len fetlock, torn tendon or ligament damage. I am sure that the cost of veterinary care is secondary to your concern for your horse. However, the cost of the vet visit, treatment and rehabilitation for your horse is astronomical compared to adding burrowing rodent management to your horse safety program.

As a livestock owner/farmer myself, I understand the way you care for your horses.

Throughout college and after I worked on multiple cattle ranches and was assigned several fine horses for my work. What non-horse people do not understand is the relationship that develops between horse and rider.

Being on top of a good cow horse and working cattle is an experience that many people never get to experience. The respect you develop for the horse’s ability See RODENTS, page 33

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

31

County Happenings

Cassia County Farm Bureau Board Member Fred Darrington presents a Friend of Agriculture Award to Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke.

Representative Thyra Stevenson, R-Lewiston, center, receives a Friend of Agriculture Award from Idaho Farm Bureau President Frank Priestley, left.

Idaho Farm Bureau Director of Governmental Affairs Russ Hendricks is on the right.

Idaho Farm Bureau District 5 Regional Manager Bob Smathers, right, speaks to students at the Bonner County Elementary Agriculture Fair in late May.

Cole Gehring, left, receives a county scholarship from Clearwater / Lewis County President Tom Mosman. Gehring intends to pursue a chemical engineering degree at Montana State University.

LEFT: The Clearwater / Lewis County Farm Bureau Board of Directors recently met for the first time in their new Orofino office.

32

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

RODENTS

Continued from page 31 is immense, and having to put that horse down or “out to pasture” because of a preventable injury would be painful for anyone that understands and cares for these animals.

Trapping is very useful in a wide array of circumstances, but it also has its downsides. In order to trap a gopher the openIgnited Propane: Ignited propane is just ing of the tunnel system must be opened, what it sounds like. Propane is injected or a different section of tunnel system into the opening of the rodent’s tunnel. must be opened. The trap must then be Some gopher control equipment is better Once the tunnel is full and the oxygen/ placed inside the tunnel, waiting for the than others for working around horses. propane ratio is correct the propane is iggopher to enter and activate it. During this Common methods include carbon mon- nited causing a loud and destructive explotime it would be best to have horses out oxide fumigation, trapping, baiting and sion. The concussion from the explosion of the area to avoid injury if they were to igniting propane. is supposed to kill the rodent and cave in step into the hole and activate the trap on its tunnel.

Carbon Monoxide Fumigation: With their hoof and possibly receive an injury carbon monoxide fumigation there are no This method can further damage ground or spook. explosions that spook horses, no further or underground pipes and wiring. There Trapping might require a significant damage to ground and no residual poisons. is also the potential for igniting combusamount of time to eliminate all of your goA probe is inserted into the rodent’s tun- tible materials when the propane explodes. phers. It requires the labor of a person setnel, and engine exhaust is injected. This Of course, the loud explosions can spook ting the trap and checking the trap every puts the rodent to sleep and exterminates horses and or customers who might be pa24 hours to see if a gopher or other rodent it. tronizing boarding and riding facilities. has been captured. With gophers in parApplicators using this method frequently For carbon monoxide fumigation to work ticular, once they figure out traps, trapping notify local police when working inside properly the carbon monoxide must be becomes ineffective. Many times gophers city limits because residents frequently concentrated and pressurized through will fill the traps with dirt and render them call the police when they hear the loud exthe use of a specialized machine such as useless. plosions. a PERC (pressurized exhaust rodent conTrapping is the most effective with gotrol) or another similar device. If pressure Poison Baits: Bait can be useful. It can be phers because they isolate themselves in is not used to inject the carbon monoxide, either inserted into the opening of the tuntheir tunnels, so except for breeding seaor if the hole is opened to insert the car- nel system or a probe is inserted into the son there is only one gopher per tunnel. bon monoxide the rodents can react prior tunnel system and bait is dropped through However, with voles, squirrels and prairie the gas taking effect. Voles and squirrels the probe. dogs there will be multiple rodents per can escape the tunnel system, and gophers There is always a concern about residual tunnel and trapping might only eliminate can wall themselves off with dirt until the or systemic poisoning with the use of a small portion of your problem. threat is gone. Pressure and concentrabait. With residual poisoning, any animal tion are key to success, so the rodents are Controlling burrowing rodents in your in the area, including horses, might inoverwhelmed prior to being able to defend pasture, paddock or arena will help you gest some of the left over poison and be themselves. to supplement the safety plan you already harmed. With systemic poisoning animals have in place. Plans can be custom deThe use of carbon monoxide is the most like cats and dogs might eat the killed signed to take the worry of managing these humane method of controlling burrowing rodent and ingest the poison through the pests out of your hands completely, or they rodents as well. If the proper equipment meat of the exterminated animal. can be eradicated, giving your manageis used they are controlled with cooled enOver the counter poisons are less lethal ment plan a chance to catch up. Consider gine exhaust. So, they are not burnt, they than just a few years ago due to new EPA one of the above methods to insure you do do not bleed to death internally and they guidelines. Therefore, to effectively bait not lose a good horse and friend due to ungo to sleep as their blood can no longer somebody with an applicator’s license necessary injury or death. carry oxygen to their brain. must be used so more lethal baits can be Matt Brechwald is a small acreage Carbon monoxide fumigation is a very ef- legally applied. farmer and the owner of Idaho Gofective method of control. It has its limitaTrapping: The benefit of trapping is that it pher Control in Kuna, Idaho. You tions during very cold periods when soil provides you with proof of death. When a can contact Matt through his website is frozen. Due to the moisture in the engopher, vole or squirrel is caught in a trap http://www.idahogophercontrol.com, gine exhaust the frozen soil can freeze the there is no question of whether or not the or at matt@idahogophercontrol.com. moisture inside the probe tips, slowing or animal has been eliminated. stopping the carbon monoxide from coming out.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

33

Get the Facts: Humanitarian Benefits of GM Crops

GM crop technology serves an important role in the global fight against hunger and food insecurity, increasing agricultural productivity, particularly in smallholder farming, from which three-quarters of the world’s poorest people get their food supply. Leading NGOs are leveraging GM crop technology in their work around the world to address hunger and food insecurity.

One study estimated that, from 1996 through 2007, GM crops substantially increased the global volume of corn and soybeans, adding 67 million tons of soybeans and 62 million tons of corn to the food supply.

In Romania, GM technology improved the average soybean yield by 30 percent and, in the Philippines, it increased corn yields by 15 percent on average.

Learn about the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food and the broad base of support for The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 4432) online.

EPA Interpretive Rule; Comment Period Extended

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued an interpretive rule that will govern interpretation of “normal farming exemptions” 34

contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This rule was effective upon issuance, although the agencies have solicited comment on its provisions.

While the comment period for submission to the docket was scheduled to end June 5, EPA is extending the deadline to Oct 9.

AFBF has prepared comments on the interpretive rule. State Farm Bureaus may also submit their own comments to the docket on this interpretative rule and may wish to use the AFBF-prepared comments in preparing their own submissions. The public can comment here: http://ditchtherule.fb.org/ The Environmental Protection Agency also extended the deadline for submission of comments on the proposed “Waters of the U.S.” rule to Oct. 20. “This is a victory for farming families and a clear signal that America’s farmers know how to stand up and be counted,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman.

Further, “EPA has misled the regulated community about the rule’s impacts on land use,” he said. “If more people knew how regulators want to require permits for common activities on dry land, or penalize landowners for not getting them, they would be outraged.”

AFBF Launches Farm Bill Resources Website

The American Farm Bureau

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

Federation has launched a new website to summarize and provide access to current farm bill information and educational resources. The website includes a series of video presentations produced by AFBF in which the key commodity and crop insurance provisions of the 2014 farm bill are explained.

Video presentations include 1) Farm Bill Overview; 2) The Price Loss Coverage and Supplemental Coverage Option programs; 3) The Agricultural Risk Coverage Program; 4) The Stacked Income Protection Program for Cotton; and 5) The Dairy Margin Protection Program.

Users can link to the website from AFBF’s Voice of Agriculture website splash page, http:// www.fb.org/, or use the direct link to the site (http://goo.gl/ CgwxmT). The site will be updated as additional farm bill information becomes available.

RMA Answers Questions on Cover Crop Management

SPOKANE, Wash., – The USDA’s RMA Management Agency (RMA) released Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) concerning revisions to its position on cover crops, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Cover Crop Termination Guidelines, and crop insurance for the 2014 crop year.

The FAQs can be found online at www.rma.usda.gov/help/faq/ covercrops2014.html .

Cover crops for conservation purposes have been around for decades, but are now being embraced on a wider basis due to the increased understanding of the benefits for soil quality, nutrient cycles, erosion control, weed management, and soil water availability.

More information about cover crops and commercial crop insurability in the Cover Crop Special Provisions of Insurance is available at www.rma.usda. gov .

AFBF Joins AgGateway

Reflecting the increasing importance of data usage and privacy issues to America’s farmers, the American Farm Bureau Federation has joined AgGateway, the non-profit organization dedicated to promoting, enabling and expanding e-business in agriculture.

“Our farmers are continually seeking better tools to increase profitability, and there are multiple exciting projects at AgGateway designed to improve how farmers use data to meet that goal,” said Mary Kay Thatcher, senior director of congressional relations at AFBF. “We look forward to participating in and supporting the efforts that will make it easier for farmers to use data, and in a secure and safe way.”

Northwest Region Potato Stocks

Potato stocks in Idaho on June 1, 2014 totaled 20.0 million cwt. Disappearance of the Idaho crop to date was 111 million cwt. June 1 potato stocks in Oregon totaled 3.00 million cwt.

Disappearance to date was 18.6 million cwt. In Washington, June 1 potato stocks totaled 12.5 million cwt. Disappearance to date totaled 83.5 million cwt. Nationally, the 13 major potato States held 46.5 million cwt of potatoes in storage.

Potatoes in storage accounted for 12 percent of the fall storage States’ production. Potato disappearance totaled 344 million cwt. Season-to-date shrink and loss totaled 27.6 million cwt.

Since March 1, 2014, processors in Idaho and Malheur County, Oregon have used 22.8 million cwt of potatoes. In Washington and other Oregon counties, 19.3

million cwt of potatoes have been used by processors since March 1. Processors in the 9 major States have used 58.6 million cwt of potatoes since March 1. Dehydrating usage accounted for 11.3 million cwt of the total processing.

Ending Loss and Waste of Food

Each year, the world loses or squanders a third of the food it produces. This means that somewhere between planting seeds in fields and providing nourishment to the world’s 7 billion people, approximately 1.3 billion metric tons of food with a value of more than $1 trillion is lost or wasted. These numbers are simply untenable in a world where, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, some 870 million people do not

have enough to eat.

According to the FAO-commissioned study that tallied these numbers, if just onefourth of lost or wasted food were saved, it could end global hunger. When the study results were released, they focused global attention on the need to improve the efficiency of food-production systems. In parallel, FAO has established SAVE FOOD<http://www.fao. org/in-action/seeking-end-toloss-and-waste-of-food-alongproduction-chain/en/>, a global initiative involving a coalition of partners from the public and private sector focused on reducing loss and waste.

Successful Foundation Efforts

The American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture’s generous supporters were key to the organization’s success

in 2013 in raising consumers awareness of how farmers and ranchers do their best to feed, fuel and clothe Americans and people around the world. Driven by the motto “Deeper Understanding,” the Foundation’s work was defined by a spirit of meeting consumers where they are—whether teaching in a traditional classroom, using a tablet to access information, participating in a national discussion on technology education or learning through the lens of a different language.

In the recently released annual report learn more about the resources, games and other educational tools launched or expanded in 2013 by the Foundation as part of its mission of building awareness, understanding and a positive perception of agriculture through education. The report is best viewed in Internet Explorer or

Trailing of the Sheep Festival

Continued from page 30

FIBER CLASSES & WORKSHOPS

THE LAMB FEAST

BIG SHEEP PARADE

A dozen new classes for adults. All skill levels. Learn basic spinning, needle felting dyeing wool and more! Special children’s classes on Saturday including star weaving and painting without a brush.

CK’s Real Food, il Naso, diVine and several other local chefs will prepare scrumptious lamb specialties. At the Folklife Fair on Saturday starting at 11:00 am.

Kids love this parade. We close Main Street for 1,500 sheep coming down from the after their summer in the mountains.

Musicians, dancers, sheepwagons and more.

Dan and Jeanne Carver of Imperial Yarn will share the Imperial Stock Ranch story and the excitement of working with Ralph Lauren to create Team USA’s wool uniforms for the Sochi Olympics. Hear their hopes and dreams for the future.

Saturday, October 11 in Roberta McKercher Park. A Lamb Feast featuring the finest chefs and restaurants, wool & craft shops, music, entertainment, culture. A must experience family event.

Join Hank Vogler, an outspoken Nevada sheep rancher who shares his deep love for ranching through stories sprinkled with humor. He will be joined by three storytellers who will also share stories. This will be a living history of the west.

SHEEPDOG TRIALS Saturday & Sunday in Quigley Canyon.

The west’s most talented border collies take on the sheep. Another must see for the entire family!

HISTORY Friday at the museum, Friday night at the NexStage, Sunday morning at Starbucks and Sunday afternoon with arborglyphs.

PHOTOGRAPHY WORKSHOP Join a sheep adventure with Michael Edminster and Jack Williams as they go find the sheep before the parade to photograph these gentle wooly creatures.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

35

Farm Bureau Members Pay Less For Choice Hotels!

FARM BUREAU COMMODITY REPORT GRAIN PRICES

Portland:

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Oats

Ogden:

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Barley

Pocatello:

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Barley

A $40 room will be closer to

Burley:

$32

Nampa:

White Wheat (cwt) (Bushel)

A $60 room will be closer to

Lewiston:

$48

White Wheat H. Red Winter Dark N. Spring Barley

1.800.258.2847

Farm Bureau Discount Code advanced reservations required

Trend

7.29 8.11-8.21 8.57 280.00

6.95 7.99 8.35 280.00

- .34 - .12 to - .22 - .22 Steady

6.15 6.52 6.72 9.15

5.85 6.77 6.50 7.50

- .30 + .25 - .22 - 1.65

6.50 6.99 6.76 No Bid

5.60 6.63 6.34 No Bid

Steady - .90 - .42 N/A

5.81 6.45 6.60 6.50

5.40 6.30 6.50 7.50

- .41 - .15 - .10 + 1.00

10.50 6.30

10.25 6.15

- .25 - .15

7.05 8.19 8.51 186.50

6.80 7.73 7.79 171.50

-

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

BEAN PRICES: Pinto Pink Small Red

05/20/2014

06/24/2014

Trend

170-258 174-241 145-191 106-171

200-265 195-248 145-217 130-192

+ 30 to + 7 + 21 to + 7 Steady to + 26 + 24 to + 21

189-245 169-221 135-174 114-153

185-251 170-239 135-201 114-162

- 4 to + 6 + 1 to + 18 Steady to + 27 Steady to + 9

115-158 100-145

115-179 125-170

Steady to + 21 + 25

75-113 74-112

88-114 78-102

+ 13 to + 1 + 4 to - 10

1200-1900

1200-1800

Steady to - 100

91-139

97-140

+ 6 to + 1

34.00-35.00 39.00-40.00 39.00-40.00

34.00-35.00 No Quote No Quote

Steady N.A. N.A.

Compiled by the Idaho Farm Bureau Commodity Division 36

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

.25 .46 .72 15.00

LIVESTOCK PRICES Under 500 lbs 500-700 lbs 700-900 lbs Over 900 lbs

$72

06/25/2014

Feeder Steers

A $90 room will be closer to

00209550

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Barley

05/23/2014

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

IDaho Hay Report June 20, 2014 Tons: 8846 Last Week: 6200 Last Year: 12,400 Compared to last week, new crop Alfalfa steady to 10.00 higher. Trade moderate as first cutting alfalfa trading is in full swing. Demand remains very good especially for high testing Alfalfa going to California. Rain and even light snow was reported over most of the trade area this week. 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.

IDAHO HAY â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6/20/14 Tons: 8,846 All prices are dollars per ton and FOB unless otherwise stated.

Quality Tons Price Range Avg. Price Alfalfa Large Square Supreme 2,950 250.00-260.00 259.15 Premium 400 240.00 240.00 Fair/Good 2,000 225.00 225.00 Alfalfa Standing Premium/Supreme 874 200.00 200.00 Good/Premium 874 200.00 200.00 Fair/Good 874 200.00 200.00 Utility/Fair 874 200.00 200.00 http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ML_GR312.txt USDA Market News, Moses Lake, WA 509-393-1343 or 707-3150

Potatoes for Processing USDA Market News, Moses Lake, WA 509-393-1343 or 707-3150 POTATOES June 24, 2014

UPPER VALLEY, TWIN FALLS-BURLEY DISTRICT, IDAHO---Shipments 740-786647 (includes export of 10-2-3)---Movement expected to remain about the same.

Trading slow. Prices cartons lower, baled generally unchanged. Russet Burbank U.S. One baled 5 10-pound non size A mostly 4.00-4.50, 50-pound cartons 40-80s 10.00, 90-100s 8.00-9.00.

5 Year Grain Comparison

Grain Prices.................6/23/2010.....................6/28/2011.....................6/25/2012.................... 6/25/2013....................6/25/2014 Portland: White Wheat..................... 4.53 .............................6.70 ............................7.33 .............................N.Q. .......................... 6.95 11% Winter.....................No Bid.........................7.43-7.64 ......................7.63-7.93......................8.20-8.58..........................7.99 14% Spring....................... 10.53.............................10.42 .............................9.38 ...........................9.12.............................. 8.35 Corn...............................161-161.25....................286-288.50 ................282-284.25 .................275.00..........................280.00 Ogden:.................................................................................................................................................N.C............................... N.C. White Wheat.....................4.00 .............................6.60 ..............................6.60...............................6.55............................. 5.85 11% Winter........................3.76 ..............................6.34 ..............................6.51 ............................ 6.65............................ 6.77 14 % Spring...................... 5.29 .............................9.48 ..............................7.84 ............................ 7.79............................ 6.50 Barley.................................6.30 ............................ 11.75..............................10.20............................. 9.31............................. 7.50 Pocatello:.............................................................................................................................................N.C............................... N.C. White Wheat..................... 3.70 ..............................6.00 ..............................6.25...............................6.10............................. 5.60 11% Winter....................... 3.59 ..............................5.96 ..............................6.06 ............................ 6.63............................ 6.63 14% Spring........................ 5.21 ..............................9.56 ..............................7.95 ............................ 7.47............................ 6.34 Barley................................. 5.94 ........................... 11.35 ............................10.10............................. 9.16.......................... No Bid

IDAHO---Open-market trading by processors with growers was inactive.

Burley: White Wheat..................... 3.70 ..............................6.20 ..............................6.36...............................6.35.............................. 5.40 11% Winter....................... 3.73 ..............................6.06 ..............................6.11 .............................6.34 ............................ 6.30 14% Spring........................ 5.05 .............................9.36 ..............................7.51 .............................7.28.............................. 6.50 Barley................................. 5.25 ............................ 11.25 .............................9.50 .............................9.75...............................7.50 Nampa: White Wheat (cwt).......... 6.08 .............................9.58 .............................10.60..............................7.00............................. 10.25 (bushel)........... 3.65 ..............................5.75 ..............................6.36...............................6.40...............................6.15 Lewiston: White Wheat..................... 4.25 .............................6.40 ..............................7.10.............................. 7.15............................ 6.80 Barley................................111.50 ........................216.50............................204.50.......................... 216.50 ....................... 171.50 Bean Prices: Pintos...........................28.00-30.00........................30.00.............................50.00.......................34.00-35.00.................34.00-35.00 Pinks.................................30.00........................30.00-32.00..................45.00-48.00.................38.00-40.00...................No Quote Small Reds........................30.00...............................N/A.................................N/A....................... .38.00-40.00...................No Quote ***

Milk production June 18, 2014

May Milk Production up 1.5 Percent

Milk production in the 23 major States during May totaled 16.9 billion pounds, up 1.5 percent from May 2013. April revised production, at 16.3 billion pounds, was up 1.4 percent from April 2013. The April revision represented an increase of 27 million pounds or 0.2 percent from last monthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preliminary production estimate.

Production per cow in the 23 major States averaged 1,976 pounds for May. This is the highest production per cow for the month of May since the 23 State series began in 2003.

The number of milk cows on farms in the 23 major States was 8.55 million head, 10,000 head more than April 2014.

May Milk Production in the United States up 1.4 Percent Milk production in the United States during May totaled 18.1 billion pounds, up 1.4 percent from May 2013.

Production per cow in the United States averaged 1,951 pounds for May. The number of milk cows on farms in the United States was 9.25 million head, 10,000 head more than April 2014.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

37

5 Year livestock comparison

..................... 6/22/2010.....................6/27/2011......................6/18/2012.....................6/21/2013....................6/24/2013 Under 500 lbs................ 101-140.........................125-161 ......................140-189 .....................128-162........................200-265 500-700 lbs..................... 97-132 ........................ 112-152..........................131-169.........................120-151........................195-248 700-900 lbs..................... 85-110 ........................102-140 ........................119-155.........................111-136........................ 145-217 Over 900 lbs....................88-98 ..........................95-108..........................110-134..........................91-123......................... 130-192 Feeder Heifers Under 500 lbs................. 97-132..........................115-153 ......................135-165.........................116-143........................ 185-251 500-700 lbs.....................87-125 .........................91-136 .......................129-161.........................110-137........................170-239 700-900 lbs......................73-90 ..........................82-121...........................114-141..........................98-127......................... 135-201 Over 900 lbs...................No Bid .........................82-105...........................89-125 .........................85-114......................... 114-162 Holstein Steers Under 700 lbs.................65-102...........................65-115............................75-129........................... 84-95...........................115-179 Over 700 lbs....................65-81 ...........................65-95 ..........................75-112...........................69-100......................... 125-170 Cows Utility/Commercial...........43-68.............................52-83.............................65-86........................... 60-82........................... 88-114 Canner & Cutter..............35-60.............................40-72.............................55-79............................ 60-73...........................78-102 Stock Cows......................700-900 ......................850-1500......................1000-1300.................... 850-1275.....................1200-1800 Bulls – Slaughter............47-84.............................60-95 ..........................75-104...........................65-105.......................... 97-140

United States Cattle on Feed Down 2 Percent

June 20, 2014

Cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled 10.6 million head on June 1, 2014. The inventory was 2 percent below June 1, 2013.

Placements in feedlots during May totaled 1.91 million, 7 percent below 2013. Net placements were 1.81 million head.

During May, placements of cattle and calves weighing less than 600 pounds were 435,000, 600-699 pounds were 290,000, 700799 pounds were 477,000, and 800 pounds and greater were 710,000.

Marketings of fed cattle during May totaled 1.87 million, 4 percent below 2013. May marketings are the lowest for the month since the series began in 1996.

Other disappearance totaled 101,000 during May, 1 percent above 2013.

Cattle Outlook June 20, 2014 The Cattle on Feed Report had no surprises this month. USDA says there were 1.6% fewer cattle in large feedlots at the start of June than a year ago. The prerelease trade estimate was for the on-feed number to be down 1.5%. Placements of cattle into feed lots were down 7.0% in May while marketings were down 4.3%.

Hong Kong has agreed to lift the last of its restriction on beef imports from the U.S. that were imposed in 2003 due to BSE. The average price of choice beef in grocery stores during May was a record $5.913 per pound. That is up 68.7 cents from a year ago and up 4.2 cents from the old record set the month before. The average price for all fresh beef was $5.45 per pound in May. USDA says the 5 market average live price for slaughter steers in May was $143.60/ cwt. That was down $3.60 from the month before, but up $16.10 compared to May 2013.

USDA said this week that 17% of U.S. pastures were in poor or very poor condition on June 15, down 2 points from the previous week and down from 23% poor or very poor a year ago.

Fed cattle prices were steady this week on good sales volume. Through Thursday, the 5-area average price for slaughter steers sold on a live weight basis was $149.04/cwt, down 33 cents from last week’s average, but up $27.67 from a year ago. The 5 area average dressed price for steers was $236.94/cwt, up 56 cents for the week and up $43.37 from the same week last year.

38

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014

Wholesale beef prices were higher this week. This morning, the boxed beef cutout value for choice carcasses was $240.81/cwt, up $9.28 from the previous Friday and up $41.27 from a year ago.The select carcass cutout was $233.28/cwt on the morning report, up $9.39 from last week and up $46.87 from a year earlier.

This week’s cattle slaughter totaled 613,000 head, up 1.3% from the previous week, but down 7.1% from the corresponding week last year. The average dressed weight for steers slaughtered the week ending on June 7 was 850 pounds, up 6 pounds from the week before, but down 3 pounds compared to the same week last year.

Feeder cattle prices at this week’s Oklahoma City auction were $6 to $10 higher than the week before. This week’s prices for medium and large frame #1 steers by weight were: 400-450# $264-$280, 450-500# $243-$276, 500-550# $238-$268, 550-600# $228-$254, 600-650# $209-$227, 650-700# $201-$225, 700-750# $200$218, 750-800# $195.50-$214, 800-900# $191-$209, and 900-1000# $176-$196/ cwt.

Cattle futures ended the week a bit below the record highs set the previous week.

The June live cattle futures contract closed at $147.55/cwt today, down 5 cents from last week’s close. August fed cattle settled at $146.32/cwt, down 30 cents for the week.The October contract ended the week at $149.15/cwt. December closed at $150.50/cwt. The August feeder cattle contract ended the week at $206.87/cwt, down $1.28 for the week. The September feeder cattle contract settled at $208.17, down 55 cents from the previous Friday.

Provided by: University of Missouri

Classifieds

Animals

Farm Equipment

Wanted

Fun loving pure bred Labrador hunters (puppies) with good bloodlines $350. Six weeks old, dewclaws and first round of shots ready to go. Homedale, ID 208-573-7086.

Steel Horse Breaking Cart on rubber tires - heavy duty, $150.00; 4-Horse tongue mounted Horse Trailer - older but in good condition, $1,000.00; 4-Horse Charmack Gooseneck Horse Trailer-slant load with ramp - tack room & sleeping space - nice condition, $5,000.00. Call Jeff 208-2322166.

Looking for a Blacksmith’s Anvil. 435-2326141.

ASCA registered Australian Shepherd pups.

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

Himalayan Yaks for Sale - Yearlings, 2 year olds and Breeding Age Cows. $800.00 $1500.00 Call or e-mail for more about these amazing animals. McCall, ID. (208) 890-6399 or yakranch@frontier.com Ranch raised Morgan stock horse colts for sale, with substance and beauty not found in other breeds. www.creamridgemorgans. com or 208-476-7221.

Miniature Donkeys. Small breeding pair for sale - registered Canadian jack. Want to sell the breeding pair together. Their June baby boy is for sale also. Located in Parma, ID. Serious inquires only please. Call 208-9218089.

Help Wanted

Earn $75,000/yr Part Time in the livestock or equipment appraisal business. Agricultural background required. Classroom or home study courses available. 800-488-7570.

Miscellaneous 5” Aluminum Main Line (380 ft) with valves and couplers. $600.00; Gas/Propane Hot Water Heater-Make: G.E.-Capacity - 40 Gal. (Tall). Only used 3 years. Great Condition.

Paid $550 - Asking $300. Shelley, ID. Call 528-5337.

DR Mower - 8 hp rough terrain mower with snowblower - electric start - runs well, $2000.00; Bench Mount Drill Press, $40.00; Concrete Pavers - mixed gray and red approximately 150 sq. ft -- also a few Flag Stones, $25.00 for lot. Call Rita 208-2322166.

New squeeze-chute, hand pull, green. $1,200.

Midvale, Id 208-355-3780.

1998 Cat Challenger 55, 225 HP, 1000 PTO, 3 point, quick hitch. 16 speed power shift, 4 remotes, extra front and side weights, 24’’ rubber tracks. 6691 Hours, $50,000, Paul Id, 208-431-5991.

Massey Tractor 1949 N $3200 great shape needs TLC, 1945 wooden manure spreader $2000, drafting table $35, massage table $150, trailer $200, tomato plant protector $15.00, lawn mower $15.00 good parts.

Homedale, Id. For info call 208-337-5870.

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.

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

Payette, Id. 208-740-0178.

DEADLINE DATES: ADS MUST BE RECEIVED BY

JULY 20 FOR NEXT ISSUE.

Balewagons: New Holland self-propelled or pull-type models. Also interested in buying balewagons. Will consider any model. Call Jim Wilhite at 208-880-2889 anytime.

Real Estate/Acreage 1974 Skylark 12x60 $6,600; 1974 Academy 14x60 $7,200. 2 Year Sells Contract Possible.

Price Reduced for Cash. Good Condition. Sold “as is” condition. Natural Gas. Shelley area.

For more information, call 528-5337. Please leave message.

160 Acre Mountain Ranch, Wayan, Id. NFS on 3 sides. Sawmill creek runs entire length of ranch. $224,000. Call Steve Shelton 208557-9005 Silvercreek Realty Group.

Vehicles 1979 Chevrolet Camaro, V8 305 288L, Auto Transmission, white with carmine interior, 186224 original miles, same owner since 1987, covered in garage, original, clean.

Wendell, Id only serious callers please. Leave message. 208-536-6724.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014

39

Farm Bureau Members Pay Less www.idahofbstore.com 208-239-4289

General Admission Regular - $51.07

Meal Combo Regular - Over $59

Farm Bureau Price

Farm Bureau Price

$38.50

$44.50

*Lagoon prices include sales tax.

Purchase at Farm Bureau offices.

Regular Adult $31.79

Farm Bureau Price

$25.50

*Roaring Springs prices include sales tax.

Purchase at select Farm Bureau offices or online.

Regular Adult $29.99

Farm Bureau Online Discount Price

$23.99

Child/ (Under 58â&#x20AC;?) $22.99

Farm Bureau Online Discount Price

$18.49

Roaring Springs/Wahooz Combo available for $35.99

Regular Adult $45.99

Farm Bureau Online Discount Price

$38.99

Child/Senior $22.99

Farm Bureau Online Discount Price

$17.99