September 2014, Volume 18, Issue 6 by Matrix Digital Media Inc

September 2014 • Volume 18, Issue 6

Weather Damages Grain Crop

Bannock Commissioners Grapple With Forest Easement

Idaho Farm Bureau

Noxious Weeds Infest 8 Million Idaho Acres

Agriculture’s New Frontier By Bob Stallman

tices and crop yields is new territory.

AFBF President

Seed and farm equipment companies—we call them agricultural technology providers—are offering services to help farmers be more efficient and productive. Data will flow straight from a farmer’s tractor to the company he uses. In return, farmers will get information and recommendations on how to get the most out of every square inch of their

Many of today’s farmers and ranchers are expanding into a new frontier— the age of “big data.” Companies have been gathering data about consumer buying habits for years. For many farmers, dealing with companies that want to collect their data about planting prac-

Whose Land is it? By Frank Priestley President Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

Americans, and especially Idahoans, love and cherish public lands. We take it for granted that they will always be there for us to enjoy. Unfortunately, we all are incrementally

Celebrating Idaho Farm Bureau’s 75th Anniversary “Dedicated Leaders in Difficult Times” By Rick Keller CEO Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

In the past 75 years, the Idaho Farm Bureau (IFBF) has had 13 presidents. They came from across the state, rising from the ranks of the county Farm Bureaus. They came 2

The Ag Agenda

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

fields. Some call it prescriptive planting. It’s only the latest in a trend of exciting new technologies that help farmers produce more or better products while using fewer resources. Before You Sign The promise of agricultural “big data” is enough to tempt even the most private farmers to let the agricultural technology companies do a little mining into their proprietary information. See STALLMAN, page 6

being shut out of “our” public lands by the federal “managers.”

impacts. Restrictions increase every year.

A few decades ago there was undeniably far more timber harvesting and livestock grazing on federally managed public lands. However, recreation is also being systematically shut down. Nearly everyone who hikes, bikes, camps, hunts or rides motorized vehicles has seen roads closed and areas restricted. The federal agencies are concentrating more people and activities on fewer acres; then imposing additional limitations when their own policies cause greater

Federal management is severely curtailing our outdoor opportunities. But what can be done about it? The best remedy would be to reclaim state management of public lands. This is the way it was supposed to work, but the feds have simply taken over where they were not authorized to do so. State management would solve many of the problems we face on public lands today, including burning up

from among their neighboring farmers and ranchers. They knew firsthand the difficulties and challenges of their fellow farmers and ranchers because they, too, experienced those same difficulties and challenges. They rubbed shoulders with other producers around the state and shared a confidence in the problem-solving abilities of Farm Bureau members. Each of the 13 presidents had faith in the policy developed by the members and dedicated their service in seeking to implement those policies. Each had a vision of agricul-

ture and Farm Bureau and the force for good that each is. Each sought to meet the needs of the members they represented.

See PRIESTLEY, page 6

The first president was John Newell (J.D.) Dayley from Oakley in Cassia County (’39-’45). He was charged with chartering and starting a statewide organization of farmers and ranchers and uniting county Farm Bureaus to battle the economic distresses placed upon agriculture. See KELLER, page 7

Volume 18, Issue 6

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: Craig Fleener harvests wheat in a field north of Moscow. North Idaho farmers say much of their crop suffers from heat stress while producers in the southern part of the state are suffering sprout damage and other problems related to too much rain. Photo by Steve Ritter

Grain fields in northern Idaho suffered from heat stress this summer, while southern Idaho’s grain harvest was hampered by a series of rainstorms that brought more than four inches of moisture during August to some areas. Photo by Steve Ritter

Idaho Wheat Harvest Rocked by Wild Weather By Jake Putnam A series of inclement storms rocked southeast Idaho in August during harvest with some areas receiving upwards of four inches of moisture. Blaine Jacobsen of the Idaho Wheat Commission says it’s too early to tell how much damage the series of storms have caused. “We’ve had rain in southern Idaho through August and that’s been the divide between north and south,” Jacobsen said. “Wheat harvested prior to the rain is some of the best quality we’ve produced. We’re studying the numbers but still weeks away from assessing storm damage to the crop.” Rain across southern Idaho started falling just as grain started to ripen. Storms have persisted nearly every day throughout the month. One of the biggest threats to the crop is too much moisture. Rain causes wheat and barley to swell and shrink reducing quality. Sprouting is the biggest threat to the malt barley crop, which in large sections of southern and eastern Idaho has been reduced to feed quality. “I would say that two-thirds of our winter wheat was harvested prior to the rain,” said Jacobsen. “The rest of the wheat needs to be studied. We’re encouraging growers to bin each field separately because right now it’s a field by field situation. In many cases storms came through hitting one field and sparing the next.” See WHEAT HARVEST page 4 Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

WHEAT HARVEST

Continued from page 3

Eastern farmers went from harvest mode in late July to salvage mode to save the crop. In some areas the time between rainstorms has not allowed the fields to dry out much, if at all. “We got 6 inches of rain in the past three weeks! When has that ever happened? Not in my lifetime,” said farmer Bryan Searle of Shelly. “We harvested one field when the rains came, we started the next and it rained, then we held off a couple days to dry out. Then it rained again, then we waited and started cutting again and then it started raining. We still don’t have all the wheat in,” added Searle. “The wheat that remained standing was still in pretty good shape,” said Jacobson. “Some of the wheat that was beaten down had sprout damage and was ruined in some of those southeast Idaho fields,” said Jacobsen. Mold was reported in grain fields in the Magic Valley.

millable. They’re still getting some good prices if they’re willing to put in the time and effort,” said Jacobsen. Most of the northern Idaho harvest came in without weather interruption. However, some of the crop was effected by heat stress. Craig Fleener of Latah County said a warmer than normal summer ripened the grain faster than normal. “We’re 10 days ahead of where we were last year,” said Fleener. “I think it was due to the hot weather this year and all the consecutive hot days in the 90’s. The heat brought the crop on quicker but it shows the heat stress. I just don’t think we’re going to have a runaway year.”

In contrast to the south, Fleener blames lower yields on the lack of Palouse rainfall. “We didn’t get a lot of summer rain this year and we didn’t get the winter rain and it shows. It’s patchy and the fields are poor in some places,” said Fleener. Near Kendrick, farmer Robert Blair says the season started strong until a series of scorching hot days brought heat stress. “It set in just as the wheat was flowering and it hurt production,” he said. “We had the potential of a really good crop and now we’re having an average to below average crop.” The global and national markets are softer this year according to Jacobsen. “It’s because there’s a

lot of wheat out there and with our crop damage there’s a premium that’s starting to emerge with the higher quality wheat. Some of our sprouted wheat can potentially be blended with high protein grain to make up the difference.” “I’m probably going to hang onto my wheat for a while with the silly hope of something happening because right now we can only net a little over $6. That’s break-even so were going to hang on and see what’s going to happen,” said Fleener. “Bottom line the prices are coming in a dollar below where they were last year at this time,” said Jacobsen. “While that’s low, it’s not unattractive, but we’re hoping for better.”

“A lot of wet grain will go into cattle feed,” said Searle. “It’s the only choice. It’s well below production (cost return) but it beats plowing it under.” The storms have caused sprout damage and lowered protein levels and test weights all across the Magic Valley and throughout eastern Idaho. The damage is threatening price penalties and in many cases rejection. “We’re encouraging growers to bin it, put it under aeration so that it doesn’t sprout anymore and dry it out so the wheat is 4 #

Damage to southern Idaho’s wheat and barley crops hasn’t been fully assessed, but a high percentage of the crop, especially north of Blackfoot, isn’t likely to make the grade for either milling or malting. Photo by Steve Ritter

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Bannock County Grapples with Difficult Easement Issue

By John Thompson

Bannock County commissioners listened to three hours of public testimony August 13 over whether or not a public access exists through private land that links Marsh Creek Road to Forest Service land near Scout Mountain. Bannock County’s records of an easement linking Marsh Creek Road over about six miles of private land with the intersection of Walker Creek Trail, Scout Mountain Trail and Forest Service Road 016 are questionable. Some maps show the road while some don’t. The road in question crosses land owned by four different private entities. A majority of the private land is owned by Pocatello dentist Rick Fellows and his partner Dr. Brandon West, a family practice physician. The pair are partners in Bell Marsh Holdings Company. They purchased the property from cleaning industry mogul Don Aslett who had plans to develop but never did. According to testimony given during the hearing, Aslett didn’t restrict access to the property during the time that he owned it. Prior to that it was gated and farming, ranching and mining all took place in the area. At the time they purchased the 1,300 acre parcel, Fellows and West had no knowledge that the trail had been used by local residents for as long as 50 years according to testimony submitted to the commissioners. Fellows said he never would have purchased the property had he

known the details about the Forest access route.

In the past two years since Fellows and West bought the land they’ve dealt with regular vandalism and trespassing. In one case a steel gate was destroyed. Other landowners testified about damage caused by trespassing in the area including making trails and roads, firewood poaching, littering, theft, destroying fences and several other offenses. The public hearing came as a result of a request from local Forest Service officials. “We are promoting public access because we manage public land,” said Deborah Tiller, Forest Service Recreation and Trail Supervisor. The rub, from West and Fellows’ perspective is there are two other existing two-track trails and a single-track that recreationists can use to access the same area. They believe their right to own private property is being violated. Bannock County is currently evaluating about 50 roads and trails that cross private land and link to Forest or BLM land in the county. Bannock County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ian Service said about six of those access routes could be controversial for the county. The Bannock County prosecutor’s office mailed letters to landowners in the area and initiated the proceedings after being approached by the Forest Service. Deputy Prosecutor Service said the route in question exists on some maps and not on others. There is some doubt as to wheth-

er it is a legal public access and therefore the need exists to bring all the parties to the table. The county intends to validate the road, he said.

“The Forest Service came to us and said you’ve got to get access to our gate,” he said. “Our current priority is to open the road and minimize the impact on private landowners at the same time.” Service and T.J. Budge, an attorney representing Jim Whitely, one of the effected landowners, disagreed on whether state code indicates if the burden of proof lies with the landowners or the county on whether the route is in fact a public access point to federal land by prescriptive use. Service contends that people have been using the road to access the Forest since 1949 and perhaps even longer. He said case law shows that even someone occasionally walking a dog meets the requirements of a prescriptive use access. Budge says prescriptive use is continuous use by the public. His research indicates the road was established for farming and ranching on private land which doesn’t make it a legal access route to public land through prescriptive use. Budge added that there was a mine operating in the area at one time that the road may have been used to access. “Lots of roads are used for farming, ranching and mining but that does not create a public easement,” Budge said. Bannock County has not purchased the land or condemned

the land and it has not been platted for development. According to Budge the only way left for the county to acquire the access is through prescriptive use which in his opinion is “a very aggressive method of acquiring easements that causes the hair on the back of people’s necks to bristle.” Fellows said he hopes Bannock County doesn’t intend to take the matter to court and try to bury the landowners in legal costs. A similar, recent proceeding in Bonneville County cost landowners $300,000. Commission Chairman Howard Manwaring assured Fellows that was not the county’s strategy. Commissioners Steve Hadley and Karl Andersen nodded agreement with Manwaring but made no comments. “We have not researched this ahead of time or pre-judged it,” Manwaring said. That is absolutely not the case. We are listening with open minds. The three of us have a very conservative view of private property rights.” West said there is access to the area from the north, south and west and no good reasons exist for violating his private property rights. “All four effected landowners are adamantly opposed to this so Bannock County is going to have to take the land from us by force,” he said. “There is plenty of existing access to the area. It may not be convenient if somebody wants to drive a truck up there but I don’t think Bannock County is in the business of providing convenient access.” See BANNOCK page 17

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

STALLMAN

Continued from page 2

Before they sign up, farmers need to get answers to some important questions. Farmers need to ask who owns the data they share with the companies and how that data will be controlled and used. Could the information make its way to commodities traders? Could farmers’ information be subject to a legal subpoena? Could the information somehow end up in the hands of government agencies that regulate farm practices? Will the companies share the data with other companies that could use it to try to sell other products and services? If so, will the com-

PRIESTLEY

Continued from page 2 thousands of acres annually.

A short history lesson may be helpful. Many of the thirteen original colonies had vast “territories” that they controlled to the west. To pay down the Revolutionary War debt, these new states agreed that they would cede their territories to the federal government for the sole purpose of creating new states that would become part of the new nation. The proceeds from the sale of the land to settlers would be used to pay off the debt. Later, as the U.S. acquired other territories through the Louisiana Purchase and later acquisitions, the covenant continued. New states that were admitted to the Union disclaimed the title to the “public” lands within their borders to the federal government with the agreement that the land would be disposed of (sold) to new settlers. Under this contract, state relinquishment of title was a 6

pany pay the farmer for the value of his data? Will farmers be able to get their data back if they end their agreements with the companies? What happens if the farmer wants to switch to a different agricultural technology provider; will the data be portable? Signing data sharing agreements without knowing the answers to these questions is too big a gamble to take. Farmers must also ensure that the contracts they are being asked to sign are consistent with the assurances that companies have provided in other documents that are not legally binding, such as

legally necessary step; otherwise there would be a clouded title when the land was sold. This is why our Idaho Constitution states: “the people of the state of Idaho do agree and declare that we forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof . . . and until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be subject to the disposition (sale) of the United States.” However, we agreed to disclaim title only, not management nor jurisdiction. The federal government never expected to manage the land, just hold the title until the land was disposed of. This promise to dispose of the land was eventually kept with all states east of Colorado, but not with the western states, even though the contract with all states is the same.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

guiding principles, privacy statements or marketing brochures. The Wild, Wild West The news almost regularly includes a story about a data security breach by a large company, affecting millions of consumers. PCWorld magazine recently listed the five biggest data breaches of 2014 “so far,” affecting customers of eBay, Michaels stores and others. Farmers should be just as concerned about their farm data as retail customers are about their financial information. Before they agree to share their farm data, farmers need to know what precautions companies are taking to protect them.

Furthermore, the purpose of the US Constitution is to limit the authority of the federal government to specifically enumerated items. Other than for those limited purposes, the federal government is only authorized to exercise jurisdiction over a few specifically mentioned places, such as military bases. All other areas within state boundaries are to be managed under the jurisdiction of the states. Therefore, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from exercising management authority on public lands within states, even if we had agreed to relinquish management or legislative authority over the land, which we didn’t, it would not be valid. By every measure, the 2.4 million acres of Idaho’s state managed lands are more productive, healthier and better managed than the 32 million acres of federally managed lands. Wouldn’t it be far better for recreation and

As with any fast-developing technology or industry, things can seem a little lawless out there in data country. Farm Bureau is working with the agricultural technology providers to develop principles for how farmers’ data will be managed and secured, and we are working to help farmers be informed consumers in the data marketplace. Rolled out on a large scale this year, the use of “big data” in agriculture is growing with the speed of a locomotive steaming across the transcontinental railroad. Farm Bureau doesn’t want to put the brakes on, but we do want farmers to know where they are headed when they climb aboard.

resource decisions to be made here locally than back in DC by some bureaucrat who has never set foot in Idaho? Idaho is great in spite of its poorly managed federal “public” lands, not because of them. State management of all public lands in Idaho would not only provide better opportunities for outdoor enthusiasts, but would be a tremendous boon to our economy, restoring good paying, resource based jobs. We can have both. The Idaho Farm Bureau and the American Farm Bureau both have clear policy supporting the states’ right to manage the public lands within their borders. As Utah and other western states work to reclaim state management of their public lands, Idaho must strongly support these efforts. “Our” public lands are not truly ours until we reclaim our right to manage the public lands within our borders.

keller

Continued from page 2 George C. Yates of Pocatello, Bannock County (’46), labored to provide economic programs and enterprises to improve the net income of Farm Bureau’s members. Under his guidance, the groundwork was laid for the creation of an insurance company that would benefit farmers and ranchers for generations. Don W. Clegg of Grace, Caribou County (’47-’48), finalized the creation of the insurance company which has become the largest domestic insurance company in Idaho. He also became a strong advocate for protecting farmers’ rights in the Idaho legislature. J.F. Fredrickson of Malad, Oneida County (’49), carried Farm Bureau’s opposition to a disabling 13 percent increase in railroad tariffs, robbing farmers of necessary income but also the ability to market their goods. J. Cyril Lau of Pocatello, Bannock County (’50), continued the opposition to and sought relief from the railroad tariff and witnessed that relief due to their efforts. Mr. Lau also was an outspoken critic of increasing federal control of commodity pricing. E. Duane Bingham of Emmett, Gem County (’51-54), witnessed significant membership growth during his tenure, reaching 12,500 members. The threat of war in Korea was heavy upon the membership. Inflation was increasing, placing hardships upon the farming and ranching communities. L.B. Martin of Caldwell, Canyon County, became the sev-

enth president to lead the IFBF. He served from ’55-’63. Federal price controls and increased government intrusion became more alarming. During his tenure the “Wheat Wars” occurred, pitting wheat growers against one another as the federal government lure of promises of profitability in exchange for control was defeated in a national referendum. During Mr. Martin’s term, a need to share the farmers’ story was addressed by the creation of a public relations staff. Nyal Rydalch from St. Anthony, Fremont County (’64-’66), followed. Mr. Rydalch fought the call for Idaho’s water to be diverted out of state. Inflation due to government spending became a burden upon the farms. Under Mr. Rydalch, the Idaho Farm Bureau began a commodity marketing association and invited and hosted Iowa cattle buyers to Idaho, emphasizing the quality of Idaho range-fed beef. Monroe Hays from Filer, Twin Falls County (’67-’69), followed. Marketing for members expanded to corn and potatoes. Legislative issues became more prominent and the Farm Bureau opened up a “field office” in Boise to achieve better legislative results. Farm Bureau initiated a tax plan to expand the tax base before the legislative Interim Tax Study Committee. Hays continued to speak against “continuing down the dead-end road of government supply-management, price fixing and subsidies.” Dale Rockwood of Iona, Bonneville County (’70-’73), initiated a livestock marketing

program where feeder cattle were sold by the Marketing Association for rancher members. Members saw a 3-4¢ per pound increase when FB began bidding on cattle. Natural resources and environmental quality issues became more demanding and IFBF created an Environmental Division within the organization. IFBF sought an end to the dock workers strike crippling the marketing of Idaho commodities. The eleventh president was Oscar Field of Grandview, Owyhee County (’73-’83). Membership continued to grow and the organization became more financially secure. IFBF began marketing sweet corn and sought to trade oil for wheat with Libya. Government overreach continued and Farm Bureau became involved in the “Sagebrush Rebellion.” Tom Geary of Burley, Cassia County, became the next president (’84-’97). Membership continued to grow. Farm Bureau faced endangered species issues with snails and wolves. Litigation became one of IFBF’s strategies against the federal government, winning several key decisions. International marketing became more critical with the passage of NAFTA. A political action committee was formed to encourage the election of legislators sympathetic to agriculture’s interests. Frank Priestley of Franklin, in Franklin County, became the 13th and current president of the Idaho Farm Bureau (’98 – current). The marketing of Idaho grain and other products domestically and in Mexico was

realized, providing a premium to IFBF members. Litigation efforts continued on a widerange of subjects from takings in the “rails to trails” program to grazing to water issues. Contributions to IFBF political action increased to one of the largest in the state. Market information was provided to all members and continued to expand. In-depth planning and review of Farm Bureau programs are ongoing through a regular leadership and structural review process. IFBF continues a strong presence in legislative and administrative issues. This year, Farm Bureau has instructed 24,000 children about agriculture at county fairs across the state and 18,000 students in 79 schools. Membership today exceeds 70,000 member/families. One of Farm Bureau’s greatest assets is its capable leaders. Over the past 75 years, the membership has demanded and found leaders who have wisdom, courage, patience and practicality, as well as vision, enthusiasm and determination. Farm Bureau leaders make sacrifices – in money, in time taken from their regular work, in absence from family – in order to carry on the work which the members plan. Leadership is entrusted to men and women who are dedicated not only to Farm Bureau, but to the overall welfare of our country. Farm Bureau officers are thoughtfully chosen, trained, and tested by experience. They are truly representative of the members and consequently receive their loyal support. We are grateful for their sacrifice and dedication.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

A modern UAV in flight Photo by Steve Ritter

FAA Bans Agricultural Drones By Jake Putnam Kendrick—Farmer Robert Blair flew drones on his Palouse prairie farm for nearly a decade until July when the Federal Aviation Administration grounded all drone flights. “I had to stop flying my fields when the FAA issued the ban. They say it’s okay to fly over my garden or my house but not over my fields,” Blair said. “With crops for sale, it’s considered commercial.” That leaves agricultural use of drones or UAVs nationwide at a standstill and Blair says it’s a technological step backward. “I’ve worked to get agriculture a seat at the table in this debate. We wrote new rules that make sense and now the FAA ignores all that work and bans us from flying,” said Blair, “I’m not happy. Faced with rising input costs, the number of farmers using drones doubles each year 8

because it’s a viable way of cutting input costs and keeping yields up. “The advantage of UAV’s is that it’s cheaper. We produce higher resolution images because we fly at just 150 feet. We can get leaf-size resolution on a plant and you can’t get that with manned aircraft,” said Bradley Ward, former Air Force drone pilot and now a UAV agriculture consultant. “To remain profitable in this day and age farmers have to cut costs on the input side because we have little control once it leaves the farm,” added Blair. Last month model aircraft hobbyists, research universities and commercial farm interests filed lawsuits challenging the FAA directive that imposed the new drone limits. The lawsuits ask the U.S. Court of Appeals to review the validity of the FAA ban. The agency claims their directives are an attempt to clarify what is a model aircraft

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

and the limitations on their operation. That definition could impact agriculture at a time when input costs are shrinking farm profit margins. “Like I said before, agriculture needs a seat at the table,” said Blair. “We need to help write the rules for farm use. Competing countries in South America and Australia are able to fly commercially and now we’re behind our competitors. It’s all about saving money and they’re producing crops cheaper. We need rules that make sense and as soon as possible.” Last June the FAA started working on those regulations that will expand to eventually permitting commercial drone flights over U.S. skies for the next decade. But insiders like Blair think new rules are months even years away. “It’s going to hurt. Right now I’m using UAV’s for general scouting over my fields. We’re flying steep hillsides where we can’t

ers fly responsibly because our livelihood depends on it the most. We know what they’re doing. We enforce our industry and kick out the bad actors. You don›t have the level of responsibility with hobbyists. The fact that they can still fly creates a bigger safety problem,” said Blair. Blair uses an unmanned aerial vehicle similar to military drones, but agriculture UAV’s are much smaller and most are made of foam. The remote control planes map and analyze fields with sharp precision. The high-resolution photos from the drones form a mosaic image of the field that compliments work on the ground. “I would argue that our UAV’s are safer,” Ward said. “In a lot of cases the planes we fly weigh just a pound and-a-half and they’re made of foam. The most hazardous part of our flights is driving to the field. I haven’t heard of an aviation accident caused by an ag drone.” Congress passed legislation in 2012 directing the FAA to publish rules permitting commercial drone flights by fall of 2015. Attorneys representing UAV interests think the FAA ban is an end-around approach of implementing new regulations without collecting public input or economic impact analysis. But Ward says it’s more complicated than that. “This is new technology and the FAA must ensure that the air is safe,” Ward said. “Sure, they’re being conservative and making sure there’s an even level of safety. When unmanned systems can prove they’re safe as regular aircraft, then they’ll consider authorizing for commercial use but that could take a while.” FAA officials have not publicly commented on the lawsuits. Kendrick Farmer Robert Blair with a UAV he uses to scout fields. Photo by Steve Ritter

walk every day. We look for things like insects, disease and dry spots. We pinpoint applications of water, chemicals and fertilizer without spreading it over a broad area. In a single flight we can save ourselves thousands of dollars,” said Blair. Rulemaking takes time and the FAA is be-

hind. The agency must go back to square one, writing rules that will distinguish between hobby drones and workhorse drones used on farms. In the meantime Blair says the federal agency has created a void. “What the FAA has done is increased risks,” he said. “I think commercial us-

The Academy of Model Aeronautics filed the lawsuit representing more than 170,000 model aircraft hobbyists. The Council on Governmental Relations, an association of 188 research universities; and several commercial drone and UAV aircraft interests filed just a few weeks ago. All argued that the FAA policy would impede their activities, from hobby use to research and innovation.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

A lone sage grouse shares the scene with cattle on the Big Creek Ranch Rosana Rieth photo

Rancher Applies “All Lands Management” Principles By Steve Stuebner On a hilltop in the upper Pahsimeroi Valley, Rosana Rieth points to a large pancake-like flat. That’s where about 80-100 sage grouse come to mate each spring, below the shadow of the highest mountain peaks in Idaho’s Lost River Mountains. It’s a perfect spot for a sage grouse lek –it’s flat, surrounded by sagebrush, totally remote, and next to the Pahsimeroi (Pasimmer-Roy) River. Rieth, a rangeland management specialist for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, knows from wildlife research that sage grouse travel from the lek on public land over to the sage-covered Donkey Hills (on federal and state land). Then, the mother hens take their broods across a dirt road into a spacious wet meadow on private ranchland to 10

raise their young. When rancher Tom Page approached Rieth about improving the Goldburg wet meadow for wildlife, it didn’t take her long to sign him up for a Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) project. Under the SGI program, Page has made a number of changes to the livestock management and fencing of the wet meadow to benefit sage grouse, nesting curlews, mule deer, elk, antelope and songbirds. Page supports the concept of “all lands management,” where it’s possible to manage cattle and wildlife on a broad scale, regardless of land ownership. Custer and Lemhi counties are over 90 percent public land, and home to several endangered species. Successful operators in this region have integrated land management and good working relationships with the

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

federal and state agencies. The Goldburg wet meadow is one of several ranch properties owned by Page and his brother that are located in the upper, middle, and lower Pahsimeroi Valley. The high habitat value puts Page in a unique position to make multiple contributions to conservation. The Big Creek Ranch works closely with The Nature Conservancy and the Lemhi Regional Land Trust to protect the working lands in perpetuity through conservation easements. The NRCS is contributing funding toward the Goldberg pending easement. Keeping lands intact and not fragmented addresses the main threat to the future of sage grouse habitat. SGI dollars through the NRCS and Farm Bill are key to both easements and range improvements. Page also is a partner in a range-

restoration revegetation project on one of his BLM allotments, again through SGI. The project awaits the completion of an environmental assessment and subsequent decision. A waterdevelopment project in the lower valley is also part of the conservation effort. Page and his brother, who are partners in running Big Creek Ranches, “are really progressive,” Rieth says. “They’re always looking to see how they can make things better.” “I love working with SGI -- the flexibility is the really great thing,” Page says. “The project can be about fencing; it can be about a revegetation project, or potentially it can be about funding for a conservation easement, which has more to do with the management of the property. I also like that the SGI program works effectively

with other federal and state agencies.” Tom Page has a deep background in land conservation work. You might say he’s a conservationist first, and a rancher second. A former resident of Colorado, Page has worked for land trusts, watershed groups and as a landowner and manager. Inheritance from his late father provided an opportunity for Page and his brother to purchase ranch properties of their own. In the late 2000s, during the national recession, Page toured around Idaho with a friend from The Nature Conservancy (TNC). He was looking to invest in working ranches where he could improve the land through conservation activities. He had experience in the Madison River Valley in Montana, restoring a ranch from a weed patch into a productive place for livestock, fish and wildlife. He settled on the Pahsimeroi Valley because of the large amount conservation work already under way in the valley through SGI and the many partners working in the Upper Salmon River Basin such as; the Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Trout Unlimited, TNC, USFWS, NRCS, and local soil and water conservation districts –to name a few. “I wanted to advocate for conservation from a private lands perspective,” Page says. “It’s a lot easier and faster to make conservation gains on private land than it is on public lands, and private property rights have been underutilized by conservationists. You can do some great things for conservation on private lands and it

doesn’t take years of paperwork and uncertainty to get it done.” As part of carrying out his “all lands management” principle, Page wants to keep the Goldburg wet meadow open for wildlife in the early spring. To achieve that goal, he grazes his livestock on state lands upslope from the meadow. A livestock management plan delays the time when cattle move into the meadow for several months. When the sage grouse broods go there in the spring, they share it with other wildlife raising their young. Page has installed 10,000 feet of wildlife-friendly fence around the perimeter of the property through SGI and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. The top wire of the new fence is equipped with reflective markers spaced every three feet to prevent sage grouse from colliding with the wire. Wildlife-friendly fence has other important components. The brace posts -- used as the primary foundation for the fencing structure -- are capped to prevent any mortality from nesting birds. The fence itself is 42 inches high. There is a 12inch gap between the top wire and second wire, to prevent deer or elk from getting their legs caught in it as they jump over, and the bottom smooth wire is 16 inches from the ground surface, to allow antelope to crawl underneath it. The reflective markers on the top wire are the product of a University of Idaho graduate student Bryan Stevens’ work. “It’s been documented that fence strikes are a significant risk to sage grouse mortality,”

Male sage grouse display on a lek in spring, Upper Pahsimeroi Valley. BLM photo

Rieth says. “Sage grouse are a low-flying bird. These markers increase the visibility of that top wire.” Page and his ranch manager have set up 12,000 linear feet of permanent solar fencing inside the new perimeter fence in the meadow. That fencing allows for the rest-rotation grazing of seven pastures to promote the health and vigor of rangeland vegetation and to provide for control of livestock around riparian areas and Grave Springs. “When we developed a grazing plan in here, it really integrated a lot of the way the state, the BLM, and the private lands could be used better,” Page says. “So rather than having cows in here all of the time, without much of a pattern, now we go through a rest-rotation system on the state pastures, and then the cows come in here (in late July), and go through the pastures - four get used and two get rested every year. We mainly tried to adjust the timing to get a little better control and allow those wildlife values

to flourish.” As Page describes the grazing system, we see antelope running around the meadow and hear curlews calling. Suddenly, we see a sage grouse flush and fly to safety in the meadow. Just in a couple years’ time, Page is already starting to see the results of improved cattle and wildlife management. “I’m seeing more antelope here than there used to be,” Page says. “The antelope didn’t used to fawn here, and they do now. I’ve seen more and more elk show up in here, we’re seeing more curlews in the meadow. It’s getting a little bit better all the time.” With the completion of the SGI-sponsored fencing project, Page has kept cattle grazing in adjacent pastures from trespassing on the Goldburg property. He’s slowly seeing the springs come back to life. “The sage grouse have loved it in here in the last couple of years,” he says. “This is one of

See SAGE GROUSE page 15

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Focus on Agriculture Food as a Weapon

By Stewart Truelsen We can only guess how the decision was made for Russia to ban food imports from most of the Western world, but perhaps it went something like this: President Vladimir Putin was sitting with some of his old pals from his KGB days. Putin was desperate for a way to retaliate against the West for its economic sanctions leveled against Russia for intervening to help the rebels in Ukraine. He asked for suggestions. “Why not a boycott of their food?” suggested a former Soviet general, remembering the grain embargoes of the 1980s. “The Americans, they hate food boycotts and embargoes.” That much is true—American farmers and ranchers hate the use of food as a weapon. In January 1980, President Jimmy Carter announced a U.S. embargo of grain and oilseed shipments to the Soviet Union because of its invasion of Afghanistan. The American Farm Bureau Federation thought it was unwise to single out American farmers by using food as a weapon of foreign policy. If sanctions were needed, AFBF preferred they be across-the-board, not just on food. 12

The grain embargo of 1980 proved to be a failure. It stimulated more grain and oilseed production in South America to fill the void left by the U.S. Fifteen months later when President Reagan ended the Carter embargo, it had cost American farmers around $1 billion in lost export business. If anything good came of it, it was passage of the Biomass Energy and Alcohol Fuels Act of 1980 which sought to diversify the American marketplace for grain. This time the biggest losers will not be American farmers. “This is clearly a political move,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman of Putin’s ban on food imports. “It is unfortunate that the biggest losers will be the Russian consumers, who will pay more for their food now as well as in the long run.” The old Soviet Union was dependent on American grain and oilseeds in the 70s and 80s to make up for harvest shortfalls that were common under the communist system. Beginning in the 2000s, the three major grain producing regions of the former USSR—Russia, Ukraine and Kazakh-

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

stan—became major grain exporters. In 2013, Russia was the 20th largest market for U.S. agricultural and related product exports, accounting for less than 1 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports. Approximately 55 percent of these export products will be affected by the ban. Neither side, therefore, is as dependent on the other as they were in the past. Soviet grain deals once provided a huge stimulus to the American grain market. Nothing like that exists between Russia and the U.S. Europe, on the other hand, supplies 40 percent of Russia’s agricultural market and will feel the sanctions more. The idea to use food as a weapon is a bad one. American farmers could have told Putin that. Whoever suggested it to him should be put on the next train to Siberia. The Russian people have been turned into unwilling locavores—having to rely much more on locally produced food and paying more for it. Stewart Truelsen, a food and agriculture freelance writer, is a regular contributor to the Focus on Agriculture series.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Noxious Weeds Cost Idaho $300 Million Annually By Roger Batt Of all the problems plaguing Idaho’s economy, one of the least fashionable is the annual and cumulative impacts of the 68 varieties of noxious weeds now found in the Gem state. The irony is that state noxious weed managers say noxious and invasive weeds carve a hole in Idaho’s economy to the tune of at least $300 million annually in total impacts. This number includes the costs of fighting fires resulting from invasive weeds such as cheatgrass taking over productive rangelands. The number doesn’t include the $40 million annual bill to farmers, ranchers and other private landowners who have to step up control and management efforts because their neighbor does not do their part to control weed infestations. How bad is the noxious weed problem? State officials esti- Workers remove Eurasion milfoil, a noxious weed, from Payette Lake. mate more than 8 million acres Photo courtesy of Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign of Idaho lands, approximately less wild flowers or vegetation. of Canada thistle cannot maxi15 percent of the entire state, They can often appear to be mize yields of crops. A pasture are now infested with noxious useful ground cover in areas full of Leafy spurge cannot be weeds. More worrisome is the of disturbed soil, along water- grazed by livestock. Additionnumber of acres continues to ways, roads and other public ally, noxious weeds can be poiexpand every year. It’s a real areas. Many are planted as or- sonous, even deadly, for people, problem that appears to get namentals in private landscapes livestock, and wildlife, can rob worse, never better. For exonly to escape and proliferate game animals of their natural ample, in 1963, Rush skeletoninto new areas. habitat or forage, destroy fish weed, a rangeland weed, occuhabitat, and reduce grazing oppied approximately less than 40 With time it becomes painfully portunities for farm animals. acres near Banks, Idaho. Today, clear that in reality those noxweed experts say it is found ious invasive plants are in the Noxious weed infestations are across 4 million acres and con- process of eliminating native now showing up with ominous tinues to spread. vegetation, impacting our farms regularity in Idaho’s pristine and ranches, reducing recre- wilderness backcountry areas. It is the initial seemingly inational use of lands and water- The long term economic and nocuous appearance of noxious ways, and serving as a barrier recreational threat that poses weeds that lies at the heart of to productive uses of the land. for Idaho’s invaluable recrethe noxious weed problem in For example, a pasture infested ational values of tourism and Idaho. Many small, initial inwith Yellow starthistle cannot outdoor activities, plus its danfestations appear to be harmbe used for horses. A field full ger to Idaho’s big game species 14

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

cannot be understated. The aquatic noxious and prolific weed called Eurasian milfoil can bog down water craft, destroy fisheries, and even entangle and drown swimmers. It has infested numerous waterways and lakes across Idaho. Several of Idaho’s most scenic lakes, including Payette, Pend Oreille, Hayden and Spirit, have already been invaded by Eurasian watermilfoil and weed control experts are doing their best to reduce populations of this aquatic invader. For more than four decades now, Idaho has battled to hold back the growing tide of noxious and invasive weed invaders. Over

the past two decades, Idaho has considerably stepped up these efforts. Just a decade ago, weed experts had identified 36 species of noxious weeds. Today there are 68. Each noxious weed is a threat to Idaho’s economic wellbeing. But when combined into a cumulative economic assessment, it poses a challenge of immense proportion. One of the challenges with noxious weeds is that the topic of “noxious weeds” itself is not flashy and inherently attentiongetting to the public. It’s pretty difficult to get ordinary citizens fired up about innocuous looking plants with names like Rush skeletonweed, Hoary cress, Yellow toadflax, or Houndstongue. But that changes quickly when they begin to grasp the distressing impact those and the sixty-four other species of noxious weeds are having every year on our State. The Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign was set up in

2001 to create public awareness, outreach, and education to help Idahoans understand the economic and environmental impacts of noxious and invasive weeds. Since that time, the Campaign has educated approximately 1 million Idahoans and reached out to Idaho’s six bordering states to inform the public about the serious threats of noxious weeds and how to best control them and stop their spread. As public awareness has increased, so has public participation in the battle. More and more landowners are meeting their obligation under Idaho law to control or eradicate noxious weeds on those lands. More of our youth understand the noxious weed problem. More of our citizens are acquiring Idaho’s noxious weed book to reference plants they have on the lands they own. More are going to our website (www.idahoweedawareness.com) to learn about

Idaho’s 68 noxious weeds and how to control and manage them. More than three dozen cooperative weed management areas have been established from public and private partnerships to jointly battle noxious weeds across county borders. Idaho also has 42 county weed superintendents that the public can go to for technical expertise. An aggressive public outreach and educational effort has illuminated the problem and helped foster innovative and novel approaches. These include herbicide treatments using newer chemistries, herds of goats that devour acres of noxious weeds, and the use of biological agents such as an insect, a fungus, or any other organism that can retard the weed’s growth and/or reproduction.

citizens and it continues to expand and because of that, Idaho has a great opportunity of winning the war against noxious weeds. And that seemingly benign flowering plant in the pasture, along a river or canal, or in the campground of your favorite recreation area will from now on be scrutinized just to make sure it does not represent the advance of a dangerous foreign invader.

How the battle will eventually turn out is yet to be known. But one thing is clear. The battle has been joined by many of Idaho’s

Roger Batt is the spokesperson for the Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign. He can be reached at Roger@amgidaho.com

He wants to keep the cattle away from the river because of its value to ocean-going salmon and steelhead. After the fence is gone, he plans to donate this BLM inholding to the Lemhi Regional Land Trust for long-term management.

the many projects he’s managing now.

SAGE GROUSE Continued from page 11 the spots where you can almost always find them late in the summer. I’ve had days when I’ve seen 30 or 40 birds.”

About 15 miles downstream in the broad valley, Page and Rieth worked together on an SGI project to remove 29,000 feet of old sheep fence on the 475-acre Grouse Creek ranch property, another example of the “all lands management” concept. The private parcel is surrounded by a 35,000-acre BLM grazing allotment. A sage grouse lek is located just a quarter mile from the parcel. A fence-removal contracting crew will make short work

of the project, he says. “They have a machine that pulls the posts and they roll up the wire as they go,” Page says. “It’ll probably take them two weeks to knock it out.” Page developed an existing well on the sagebrush-dotted Grouse Creek parcel to provide water for livestock. By removing the fence and creating the water source, Page and two other BLM permittees will be able to keep livestock on the upper slope of the valley in the fall. Before, without a water source, the cattle used to drift down to the Pahsimeroi River to drink.

Page and various partners are waiting to hear from the BLM whether they can move forward with a range plant restoration project in the valley -- a project endorsed by SGI -- and he’s got a plethora of additional projects in mind to improve the plight of sage grouse and other wildlife species in the valley. But he’s got his hands full with

“I just love being outside, that’s why I like this work so much,” he says. “It’s a lot of opportunity, a lot of challenge, a lot of politics, but when you start to see the little gains, it makes you feel good. It’s different every day, but it’s all good!” Steve Stuebner is a longtime journalist based in Boise, Idaho. He is also the author/ producer of stories for Life on the Range. This article was written for the Sage Grouse Initiative http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

The Bagley family in Victor host tours of their elk ranch year-round. Farm Bureau file photo

Farm Recreational Activities, Risks and the Need for Proper Insurance By Russ Hendricks and Rick Peterson Many farmers and ranchers are considering offering recreational opportunities on their property to supplement their income. Examples include trail rides, wagon rides, dude ranch accommodations, hunting, fishing, backpacking, camping, corn mazes, pumpkin patches, and a host of other options. What are some of the risks of agritourism? As with any business, agritourism has a risk of injury to customers. Many of these activities have increased danger because they are conducted around livestock and are affected by weather or by the type of terrain. Insurance companies look at agritourism as a business with above average risks. In 2013, the Idaho Legislature passed the Agritourism Promotion Act (Idaho Code 16

Section 6-3001-3006). This law protects landowners from liability when providing certain paid recreational activities on their farm or ranch as long as they have conspicuously posted a sign at the entrance of the facility and also where the agritourism activity takes place. The sign must state: â&#x20AC;&#x153;WARNING Under Idaho law, there are risks associated with agritourism, which could lead to injury or death. You are assuming these risks. Section 6-3004, Idaho Code.â&#x20AC;? The protections under this law apply as long as the owner does not operate in a negligent manner. Whether there was negligence in a particular case may need to be determined by a lawsuit. Even though this law may allow a farmer to reduce their risk, the risk can never be eliminated. For that reason adequate insurance is necessary to cover both legal costs and potential damages.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

What about the risks of hunting, fishing, and similar activities? Until July 1, 2014, anyone in Idaho who offered for a fee certain recreational activities on or off their property was required to obtain a license from the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board. Activities requiring a license included hunting, fishing, trail rides, backpacking, zip-lines or other hazardous outdoor excursions. The Idaho Farm Bureau considered this a violation of private property rights; therefore, Farm Bureau sponsored and successfully passed H597 (Idaho Code Sections 36-2102 to 2103) which exempts private landowners and their employees from licensing requirements on their land when they offer outdoor recreational activities as defined. This law also provides an option for those who lease private land to avoid the licens-

ing requirement if the provisions of the lease specifically state that an outfitters and guides license is not required by the landowner. There are benefits, however, from having a license. Those who obtain an outfitters and guides license have protection from liability as long as they are not operating in a negligent manner and comply with all pertinent regulations (see Idaho Code Section 6-1201). A landowner may still obtain an outfitter and guide license if they want this protection, but they are no longer obligated to do so. Having a license does not eliminate the risk and insurance is necessary for financial protection. With or without a license, insurers consider these activities to be high risk needing specialized coverage. Does the Farm Bureau Farm and Ranch Policy cover fee based, agritourism, guide services, or other outdoor recre-

ational activities? The Farm Bureau Farm and Ranch Squire Policy does not cover nonfarm commercial ventures, including agritourism, guide services, or outdoor recreational activities, where a fee is charged. It is vital that a farmer or rancher reviews other coverage options with their agent if they plan to offer fee based activities of any kind (or other nonfarm commercial ventures). What about risks and liability coverage for no fee activities on a rancher or farmer’s property? Under Idaho Code Section 36-1604, if a landowner does not charge a fee for recreational access or activities on their property, there is limited exposure to the landowner. The law does not eliminate all risk though and coverage is still needed. Generally, there is liability coverage under the Farm and Ranch Squire Policy for most recreational activities where no fee is

charged. There is an exclusion, however, for professional services, even if no fee is charged. This could include professional guide services with or without a license. There are also other exclusions which could apply (for example, aircraft and racing). If a rancher or farmer is allowing or providing recreational activities with no charge they should talk with their insurance agent to review their coverage. This article contains general statements about insurance coverage. It is not a declaration of coverage. If there is any conflict between this article and your policy, the language of the policy prevails. Russ Hendricks is the director of governmental affairs for the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation. He can be reached at rhendricks@idahofb.org. Rick Peterson is general counsel for Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho.

BANNOCK

Continued from page 5

The landowners estimate that validating the access route would take 25 acres of their property.

the federal red tape,” he said.

Fellows agreed that access does not equate to being able to drive a pickup to the Forest boundary. “I can show you thousands of Forest Service roads that have been closed. They close them all the time,” he said. “Just because we share a property line does not give people the right to trespass.”

It was alleged during the public hearing that the Forest Service has received several complaints about closed roads and is therefore looking to open more access to public land to assuage those complaints. Westside District Ranger Jeff Hammes acknowledged there have been complaints but his only intention is to find out if the easement and others like it are still available to the public.

He added that the Forest Service has positioned itself behind the county in this matter because it’s much easier to violate private property rights than it is to open a new access through federal land. “It’s much easier for them to fight a small property owner than it is to plow through all of

“The public is entitled to have access to the Forest and if easements exist they should be used,” Hammes said. He added that he has no authority to open or close access points on private land – only within Forest boundaries. Hammes did not attend the public hearing. Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Western Hemlock ern hemlock produces massive quantities of small, tan, papery egg-shaped cones ½ to 1 inch long. If you walk under the base of a hemlock that is at least 30 years old you will likely be struck by the large quantities of cones littering the forest floor. Cones may be found on any part of the tree. Ecology & Silviculture

By Chris Schnepf Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) fir is found on moist sites throughout the coastal and interior Pacific Northwest. In Idaho, western hemlock is found primarily north of the Clearwater and Lochsa rivers. Western hemlock is the largest of the 10 species in its genus worldwide. Idaho has one other species in the genus - mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), which grows at high elevations and is a popular landscape tree. Unlike some of our other conifers, which people sometimes refer to by different common names, nearly everyone simply refers to western hemlock as “hemlock”. Identification Western hemlock’s foliage is often described as “feathery” or “fern like”. It consists of singly-attached short, blunt-tipped needles of varying lengths (¼-3/4 inch). These varied needle lengths give the species its scientific name (heterophylla = varied leaves). From a distance, western hemlock’s most distinguishing feature is its droopy top. Western redcedar can also have a droopy top, but it has scales instead of needles. Hemlock cones are also distinctive. West18

Western hemlock is Idaho’s most shade tolerant commercially harvested conifer. As with most shade tolerant species, hemlock can hang on in a shaded understory for many years and “release” (start growing faster) when it gets more sun from the forest canopy opening up. Western hemlock does not generally live as long as some other shade tolerant species, but it can live up 300-500 years. Idaho’s current state record western hemlock is 58 inches in diameter and 165 feet tall (found, appropriately, in Idaho’s northernmost county - Boundary County).

hemlock is not commonly killed by bark beetles. Despite hemlock’s stem decay issues, western hemlock can be a very productive species to grow on suitably moist sites, particularly where you plan to harvest relatively young trees. Like other shade tolerant species, western hemlock can grow at very high stand densities, which contributes to hemlock being able to grow more wood per acre than many other conifer species. In recent years, prices for sound western hemlock logs have compared much more favorably to logs from other species than they once did. On moist sites, western hemlock’s shade tolerance lends itself well to various partial cut regeneration systems (e.g., shelterwood and selection). Hemlock’s tremendous natural seeding ability also supports

Western hemlock tends to concentrate more of its roots near the soil surface than most other Idaho conifers. This makes the species more vulnerable to being toppled by wind, and more vulnerable to soil compaction and ground fires. Hemlock’s thin bark and low branches also make it very vulnerable to fire. As with other Idaho’s other shade-tolerant species, fire exclusion and partial cutting practices (which leave more shade in the understory - giving western hemlock an edge against shade intolerant tree species) have increased western hemlock abundance in Idaho. Traditionally, western hemlock has not been not considered to be a very valuable tree, in part because it is so commonly infected by Indian paint (Echinodontium tinctorium), a fungus that infects the tree on stubs through broken branchlets and eventually decays the tree’s heartwood. Stem decay from Indian paint can become very extensive in western hemlock over 80 years old. Hemlock also has a variety of defoliating larvae that feed on the needles, but unlike many other Idaho conifers,

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Western hemlock has small cones and needles in varying sizes up to three-quarters of an inch long.

these systems. Hemlock puts out lots of tiny winged seeds (over 260,000 seeds per pound!) Nearly all Idaho conifers germinate best on bare mineral soil, but western hemlock can germinate in duff and even rotten logs and stumps more successfully than other Idaho conifers. Western hemlock is rarely planted in Idaho forests because many of our sites that can grow this species already have plenty of naturally regenerated hemlock seedlings in the understory. On sites where western hemlock grows, white pine, larch also grow very well and are commonly planted to diversify the forest, providing insurance against the vagaries of insects and disease, unknown future markets for different species, and climate. Western redcedar also grows very well on sites with hemlock, and is a welcome naturally regenerated recruit, but it is not commonly planted because of the great potential for relentless browsing by deer and elk.

and treasure having them as part of their family forest. For more information: Packee, E. C. 1990. Silvics of North America. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. vol.2, 877p. (see section on western hemlock at: http://www.na.fs. fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/ tsuga/heterophylla.htm)

Hardin, J.W., D.J. Leopold, & F.M. White. 2001. Textbook of Dendrology. Ninth Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. 544 p. Arno, S.F. & R.P. Hammerly. 1977. Northwest Trees. The Mountaineers Books. Seattle. 222 p. Chris Schnepf is an area extension educator â&#x20AC;&#x201C; forestry â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for the University of Idaho in Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai and Benewah counties. He can be reached at cschnepf@uidaho.edu.

Uses Western hemlock has been an important species for pulp and paper products in Idaho, in part because stem-decayed hemlock is not good for much else, but also because hemlock produces particularly good fiber for paper and similar products made from wood pulp. Wood from younger sound hemlock is suitable for nearly all solid wood products, and is commonly used for framing lumber, interior molding, gymnasium flooring, and treated wood products such as railroad ties. Hemlock bark is very high in tannin, a chemical compound used to tan leather. Western hemlock is also used by a variety of wildlife species. One of the silver linings to Indian paint fungus is the hollow trunks created by stem decay which provide excellent nests or dens for many wildlife species. Conclusion Western hemlock has become very common on many northern Idaho family forests. On moist sites, hemlock can grow a lot of volume if it is cut before it gets more than 80 years old. Many people also enjoy the unique, graceful beauty of hemlocks

Western hemlock has a droopy top. Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 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 / SEPTEMBER 2014 21

University of Idaho Rangeland Extension Specialist Amanda Gearhart, right, shows ranchers how to monitor rangeland health during a workshop held in Twin Falls County in early August.

DIY Range Monitoring: UI Expert Teaches Ranchers the Basics

Article and photo by John Thompson

If you want something done right, do it yourself. That’s one of several takeaway messages from range monitoring workshops conducted by University of Idaho Extension this summer. Amanda Gearhart, a rangeland extension specialist with the University of Idaho advises ranchers with federal grazing allotments to look out for their own interests when it comes to monitoring rangeland. It takes some time and effort but the investment could pay you back. Anti-grazing groups, such as the Western Watersheds Project, are dedicated to ridding western rangeland of all livestock. Lawsuits filed by this organization, and others, are preventing federal land managers from spending adequate time monitoring rangeland, Gearhart said. And even 22

in cases where federal managers are conducting adequate monitoring, it behooves ranchers to keep their own records, she said.

“It’s gotten to the point where federal land managers spend a lot of time at their desks preparing for litigation so they are not out in the field and not able to do the monitoring,” she said. “And some of the first things to go when budgets are cut are range monitoring support and the travel to pay for it.” This effort to teach ranchers how to keep their own range monitoring records is sponsored by UI Extension and the Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission. Future workshops are planned for Adams County this fall, and Owyhee County, and eastern Idaho next spring. The dates have not yet been confirmed but will be announced on the IRRC website at idrange.org.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

“We want to know about plant composition on the allotments and how we are effecting that with grazing,” she said. How to get started The first thing to understand is that range monitoring is the orderly, repeated collection, analysis and interpretation of resource information designed to detect change over time, Gearhart said. Range monitoring takes place over time, typically at least three to five years, as opposed to range assessment, range inventory or range surveys. Gearhart said nearly every federal grazing allotment in Idaho has monitoring records on file. The files won’t always be easy to find but they do exist and may help provide a starting point. The files often contain photos collected over time, plant community composition measurements, trend

data, riparian studies, management plans, stocking rates, billing and correspondence between agency officials and ranchers. The tools needed include a camera, photo board, notebook and a map. A GPS device is recommended. As a general rule, Gearhart recommends six sites that are easy to locate per allotment. Three sites should be in upland areas and three sites in riparian areas. Each site must be marked permanently with a survey stake, rock pile, or some other metal marker. It’s also advised to mark a reference point or “witness post” to help locate each site. Metal T-posts are fine as witness posts but are not recommended for site markers because cattle like to rub on them which could compromise the validity of the data.

In selecting sites it’s important to find locations that will show change over time and be relatively easy to find year after year. Key areas to monitor include points that are representative of large portions of the allotment giving consideration to topography, distance from water and fence locations. It’s also important to monitor in critical areas or places that require special management including weedy or woody invasions, head cuts, stock trails and recreation influences. Gearhart recommends monitoring every year on the same dates, once before grazing and once after. If both dates can’t be accomplished, make sure to monitor on the same date every year to show climatic and other changes that are likely to occur. Always monitor during

the growing season. Two photos should be taken at each site, one landscape and one ground photo. A photo board containing the date and GPS coordinates should be inside every photo. “Keep good notes, I cannot reiterate the importance of good notes enough,” Gearhart said. With regard to record keeping, Gearhart said many ranchers are not aware of the fact that when a federal agent contacts them about a problem on an allotment they are required to report back after the problem is corrected. For example if the BLM calls to let a rancher know his cows are out of bounds he needs to correct the problem and then let the BLM know the problem has been corrected. If that isn’t taken care of there is

no record of compliance, she said. She also stressed taking good care of the monitoring images that are collected. Photographs should be downloaded, printed, and stored in a binder in photo sheets protected from the sun. You should also keep a backup of all your files, she said. “If you drop your camera in the water or don’t preserve your files, you just wasted a lot of time and effort,” she said. Gearhart added that ranchers who are willing to put in the effort to conduct photo monitoring on rangeland will reap the benefits if their allotments come under challenge. If done right, the work will be accepted as valid by the federal agencies in charge of the allotments, she said.

Celebrating 75 Years Conserving the Idaho Way

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

LOAN PROGRAM

swc.idaho.gov | 208-332-1790 Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Grain Marketing with Clark Johnston

Market Moves Lower, Quality Issues Prevail

By Clark Johnston Are we at the bottom? The correct answer is, “Who Knows?” What we do know is that we have moved the market a long ways down in a short period of time. Chicago December futures traded a little over $2 per bushel lower from the first week in May to the last half of August. The market has moved 50 cents lower over the last month. The good news in the market is that we just may have found a level of support. Between July 11th and August 19th the December futures traded between $4.45 and $4.50 five times, each time finding a little strength and trading back higher. This may not be the case by the time this is published but we did find some comfort in the sideways trade. Historically we see a little strength in the futures market into the middle of September before we see the market trend lower through the middle of October. Over the past ten years we have only had four years when the Chicago December wheat contract was at or below $5.50 on the first of September. Of these four years we saw two years trade sideways into the end of November while the other two moved fifty cents or more higher. Of the other six years 24

the futures were at or above six dollars on the first of September. These years were a little volatile but, they finished the month of November very close to where we started in September. Corn follows close to the same pattern historically with the December contract trading the low sometime the last half of September through the first part of October. There are some extra large production numbers being reported in the market. The private forecasters are indicating a crop as large as 14.5 billion bushels. Many in the trade feel that if this does come to pass the market could trade under $3.25 per bushel. But, one tends to wonder if the trade really felt that we would literally be swimming in corn why aren’t we trading below $3.25 now. From 2005 through 2010 December futures were trading at $4.50 or below, five of the six years. All of the five years traded higher between the first of September and the end of November. Four of the five years traded between 50 cents and a dollar higher during this time frame. The fifth year finished about 20 cents higher. I know, I know, I know, things are different now than they were just a few years ago but, let’s not discount the fact that history does

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

have a way of repeating its self. We do have a very good crop of corn in the field. Maturity looks to be right on schedule and the possibility of a very large overall production is still in place. With the crop looking this good at this time frame what could possibly go wrong? I couldn’t list all of the possibilities on this page. A good friend of mine, if asked, will tell you, “It’s still a long time until harvest.” Whatever we do, let’s not get caught up in feeling that the market still has nowhere to go but down. Feeders should keep in mind that prices are considerably lower than we have seen for a few years. There are still some good carry charges in the market indicating that the trade does feel like we will have plenty of corn for the next year. A good strategy to put into place if you are willing to wait for the market to move lower in the deferred months would be to buy an at the money call. Currently, at the money calls are trading around 20 cents per bushel in the March contract. This would give you some upside protection while you wait for the futures to weaken. Wheat growers on the other hand have a whole new set of challenges facing them besides futures and basis. Quality is-

Clark Johnston

sues have recently moved to the forefront and will probably continue to stay there for a few more weeks. The processors are currently running lower quality wheat through mills in an attempt to figure out just what they and their customers will be able to do this coming year. Keep a close eye on your local basis. We have already seen the basis strengthen to levels we have not experienced for this time of the year. We have the potential for the basis to continue to be strong for wheat that grades #2 or better. This will also help the wheat that is grading #3. The real question isn’t going to be whether or not the mills will use the 56 pound wheat but rather, how much will they use. Looking at this year’s marketing strategy in both soft white as well as barley I think of a phrase from the movie, Apollo 13 when they said, “This is going to be one for the books.” 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 / SEPTEMBER 2014

Top Farm Bureau Agents

Rookie of the Month:

Garren Taylor Palmer Agency Agent of the Month:

Donna D’ Ambra Palmer Agency

Agency of the Month:

Palmer Agency

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

IDAHO FFA FOUNDATION SUPPORTS IDAHO FFA PROGRAMS Why FFA With the world population expected to near 10 billion by the year 2050, every facet of agriculture must grow to meet the increasing demands for the world’s food supply. FFA members are students who are preparing to help meet local and global challenges through careers in agricultural sciences, business and technology to through their participation in high school agricultural education and FFA. FFA has been an integral part of agriculture programs in Idaho high schools since 1929, currently with over 12,000 Idaho agricultural education students, 89 active chartered Idaho FFA chapters, and nearly 4,000 Idaho FFA members. Agricultural Education is delivered through classroom and laboratory instruction, Supervised Agricultural Experience programs or work-based learning, and student leadership through the FFA organization. FFA has provided a formal structure for thousands of members over the years to acquire leadership and public speaking skills, and learn the importance of goal setting, the value of hard work, honesty and community service. Many of our current leaders in education, business, agriculture and government got their start in FFA. The Idaho FFA Foundation was established in 1980 as the 501(c)(3) non-profit organization for the Idaho FFA Association and is proud to provide ongoing financial support to career development events and leadership activities that help students develop their potential for premier leadership, personal growth and career success.

www.idffafoundation.org

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

Idaho FFA Foundation P.O. Box 870 Meridian, ID 83680 Questions? Phone: 208-861-2467, or Email: lwilder@idffafoundation.org

www.idffafoundation.org

501(c)3 Non-Profit

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

County Happenings

Dillon Blair, left, of Nez Perce County receives a county education scholarship check from Nez Perce County Farm Bureau President Bob Konen. Blair also received a Farm Bureau state scholarship and is planning to attend the University of Idaho this fall. Photo Courtesy of Robert Blair

Brian Bagley, right, receives a Farm Bureau scholarship check from Teton County Farm Bureau President Stephen Bagley. Teton County FB also awarded scholarships to Kortney D. Hansen, Emma May Hodgson, Marissa Kunz, and Jason Clark.

Maggie the cow also attended the Teton County Fair this year. The cow is part of the Idaho Farm Bureauâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s farm education project, Moving Agriculture to the Classroom.Â 28

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Pictured are the winners of the 2014 Farm Bureau Talent Show at the Teton County Fair, held August 5.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Carpet

Laminate

Vinyl

Idaho Farm Bureau Member Benefit

Some stores will have designated staff to handle Farm Bureau members so members should identify themselves at the beginning of the process. This will prevent them from having to switch staff in the middle of the selection process. If you have any questions, call 208-239-4289.

Idaho Falls

Carpet One Floor & Home 405 West 17th Street (800) 227-7381 or 529-1951

Coeur Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Alene

Area Rugs

Hardwood

Boise

Panhandle Carpet One Floor & Home 739 West Appleway Avenue (866) 497-5088

Neef's Carpet One 1507 Main Street (208) 343-4679

Skelton's Carpet One Floor & Home 222 1st Street (208)746-3663

Pioneer Carpet One Floor & Home 326 2nd Avenue South (866) 497-8176 or 734-6015

Twin Falls

Neef's Carpet One 9601 West State Street (208) 947-1800

Pocatello

McCall

Sandpoint Furniture Carpet One Floor & Home 401 Bonner Mall Way (208) 263-5138

Lewiston

L & K Carpet One Floor & Home 129 North Second Avenue (208) 233-6190

Ceramic Tile

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Lake Fork Design Center 13872 Highway 55 (208) 634-4599

Ponderay

Urban Legislators Spend Time on Gem County Farms The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation hosted the third annual Harvesting with Farm Bureau event in Gem County in early August. There were eight urban legislators from Ada and Canyon counties who attended the event. The tour started at Black Canyon Dam where they learned about how irrigation water is managed

and delivered. It then proceeded to show the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water delivery system of canals and laterals and was followed by a meal and a speech from Idaho Farm Bureau President Frank Priestley. After dinner the legislators were treated to combine rides on five different farms in the area.

Farmer Larry Atkinson with Melissa Wintrow, from Boise, running for District 19 House seat B.

Farmer Tracy Walton with Senator Janie Ward-Engelking from Boise, an incumbent running for the District 18 Senate position.

Farmer Vaughn Jensen with Lori Den Hartog, Ada County, a candidate for Farmer Neil Hall with Representative Ilana Rubel District 18 of Boise. the District 22 Senate seat.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Kentucky Farm Bureau Visits North Idaho

A group of Kentucky Farm Bureau volunteers and staff visited northern Idaho in early August. KFBF hosts similar tours every year. The group took a bus to visit a logging operation near Sandpoint, visited a local farm during wheat harvest and also visited several other farms and livestock operations in both Idaho and Washington. Photos by Steve Ritter

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

American farm bureau federation news

American Farm Bureau to Court: Stop EPA Privacy Abuses

WASHINGTON, D.C., – The Environmental Protection Agency’s public release of farmers’ and ranchers’ personal information violates basic tenets of federal law, the American Farm Bureau Federation told a Minnesota federal court recently.

The EPA surprised the farming and ranching community in early 2013 when it publicly released a massive database of personal information about tens of thousands of livestock and poultry farmers, ranchers and their families in 29 states. The information was distributed to three environmental groups that had filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The database included the names of farmers, ranchers and sometimes other family members, home addresses, GPS coordinates, tele-

phone numbers and emails.

“The EPA is displaying a callous disregard for basic privacy rights,” AFBF President Bob Stallman said. “EPA believes that if information about you can be found somewhere on the Internet, or if you own a closely held family corporation, you have no interest in protecting your personal information. All citizens should be worried about that, not just farmers and ranchers.” AFBF’s court filing argues that privacy interests are particularly strong for farming and ranching families, who typically have multiple generations living and working on the farm. The lawsuit cites a Freedom of Information Act exemption aimed at preventing federal agencies from publicly releasing personal information held in agency files.

“We wholeheartedly support government transparency, but we insist on protecting the privacy of farm and ranch families,” Stallman said. AFBF, joined by the National Pork Producers Council, filed the lawsuit last July to block EPA from responding to new FOIA requests seeking information about farmers and ranchers in six additional states. EPA agreed not to release further information pending the court’s decision in this lawsuit. AFBF’s latest filing asks the court for a permanent order preventing future disclosures of farmers’ and ranchers’ personal information in response to similar requests. A copy of the filing may be found online at: http://bit.ly/1yRuDpQ

Farm Bureau on USDA Report: Worldwide Corn Yields Up; Wheat, Cotton and Soybeans,Too WASHINGTON, D.C., – The USDA’s latest report on agricultural supply and demand for the 2014-2015 marketing year suggests supplies will continue to be on the tight side for key U.S. crops despite record harvests, the American Farm Bureau Federation said today.

Prices are expected to trend upwards even so, since earlier forecasts had put production at about 170 bushels per acre. “Projected corn production of 14.032 billion bushels is still massive, but it is probably about 200 million bushels below what the market had expected,” he said.

“The most interesting feature of today’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates Report is the projected corn yield of 167.4 bushels per acre,” Farm Bureau Deputy Chief Economist John Anderson said. “That is up from 165.3 bushels per acre a month ago, which pushes projected U.S. corn production to just over 14 billion bushels. That’s a record.”

The bullish U.S. corn numbers were offset by less favorable world numbers for feed grains and wheat. Global feed grain production estimates, for example, rose by 4.9 million metric tons (MMT) over last month due not just to higher U.S. production, but higher EU corn production and higher barley production in the former Soviet zone, too. Projected global feed grain carryover for 2014-15 rose 2.7 MMT month over month.

Increases in projected corn use largely offset the higher production, leaving stocks projections almost flat at just 7 million bushels above last month’s estimate, Anderson said.

Projected global wheat production, meanwhile, rose 10.9 MMT to an expected record 716.1 MMT. Carryover is expected to

rise 3.4 MMT as a result. Soybeans held few surprises as the WASDE yield estimate rose 0.2 bushels to 54.2 bushels per acre. The slight increase in production went straight into carryover, raising projected carryover to 430 million bushels. Cotton acreage forecasts got significant adjustments, too. Projected harvested acreage rose from 9.7 million acres to 10.24 million acres over the month. Projected yield was up 4 pounds to 820 pounds per acre, adding about 1 million bales to expected production this year. The USDA consequently raised ending stocks projections from 5.2 to 5.6 million bales, which would result in the largest US carryover since 2008-2009 if realized. Changes in the U.S. cotton market will likely be offset by declining stocks abroad. China, meanwhile, is expected to hold even, exerting continued downward pressure on cotton prices.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Livestock Programs Available in the Pacific Northwest

SPOKANE, Wash., – The USDA Risk Management Agency’s (RMA) Spokane Regional Office reminds Pacific Northwest livestock producers of upcoming important dates for livestock risk management programs available in all counties in Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) program for fed cattle, feeder cattle and swine and the Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) program for swine begin sales for the 2015 crop year on July 1, 2014. Sales will continue through June 30, 2015, or until the maximum underwriting capacity is reached. LRP coverage protects the policyholder from downward price risk during the insurance period. LGM provides protection against the loss of gross margin (market value of livestock minus feed costs). LRP and LGM do not cover any other peril (e.g., mortality, condemnation, physical damage, disease, individual marketing decisions, local price deviations or any other cause of loss). Cattle and swine producers are encouraged to contact a local livestock insurance agent to learn additional details. Federal crop insurance program policies are sold and delivered solely through private crop and livestock insurance companies. A list of livestock insurance 34

agents is available at all USDA service centers throughout the United States or on the RMA website at: www3.rma.usda. gov/tools/agents. The RMA Spokane Regional Office serves Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington states.

telephone or in person to a crop insurance agent within 72 hours, but must be confirmed in writing within 15 days. It is important that producers do not dispose of the crops without contacting their insurance agent

USDA Reminds Idaho Producers of Important Procedures for Filing Crop Insurance Claims

Producers must get written consent from their insurance company before destroying any of the insured crop that is not harvested or put to another use, putting the acreage to another use, or abandoning any portion of the insured crop. Timely notices of damage and loss adjustment are extremely important for all crops.

SPOKANE, Wash., — The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Risk Management Agency reminds Idaho producers affected by recent excessive rain and hail related crop damage of important procedures for claiming losses under the federal crop insurance program. All producers should refer to their crop insurance policies for complete details on providing notice of damage or loss. In general, producers must give notice within 72 hours of the initial discovery of damage or loss of production of a planted crop, but not later than 15 days after the end of the insurance period. Additional provisions and timelines apply to crops insured with revenue protection. In the event there is no damage or loss of production for those who elect revenue coverage, producers must give notice no later than 45 days after the latest date the harvest price is released for any crop in the unit where there may be a revenue loss. Losses may be reported by

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

For more information on duties in the event of damage, loss, abandonment, destruction, or alternative use of the crop or acreage, producers should refer to their individual crop insurance policies and contact their crop insurance agents.

All Wheat Stocks Stored in Northwest Region Down 12 Percent from Last Year.

All Wheat stored in all positions on June 1, 2014 totaled 13.4 million bushels in Idaho, down from 14.1 million bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were up 4 percent, while onfarm stocks were down 41 percent compared to the previous year. In Oregon, wheat stored in all positions totaled 6.42 million bushels, down from 10.8 million bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were down 37 percent, while on-farm stocks

were down 64 percent compared to the previous year. In Washington, wheat stored in all positions totaled 31.2 million bushels, down from 33.1 million bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were down 1 percent, while onfarm stocks were down 74 percent compared to the previous year. Nationally, wheat stored in all positions totaled 590 million bushels, down from 718 million bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were down 18 percent, while on-farm stocks were down 19 percent compared to the previous year. Barley stocks in all positions on June 1, 2014 totaled 17.2 million bushels in Idaho, up from 15.9 million bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were up 13 percent, while on-farm stocks were down 18 percent compared to the previous year. In Oregon, barley stored in all positions totaled 379,000 bushels, down from 730,000 bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were down 23 percent, while on-farm stocks were down 79 percent compared to the previous year. In Washington, barley stored in all positions totaled 2.66 million bushels, up from 2.30 million bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were down 1 percent, while on-farm stocks were up 244 percent compared to the previous year. Nationally, barley stored in all positions totaled 82.0 million bushels, up from 80.4 million bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were

down 3 percent, while on-farm stocks were up 21 percent compared to the previous year. Oats stored in off-farm locations on June 1, 2014 totaled 106,000 bushels in Idaho, up from 75,000 bushels a year ago. In Oregon, oats stored in offfarm locations totaled 218,000 bushels, up from 212,000 bushels a year ago. In Washington, oats stored in off-farm locations totaled 31,000 bushels, up from 23,000 bushels a year ago. Nationally, oats stored in all positions totaled 24.7 million bushels, down from 36.3 million bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were down 40 percent, while on-farm stocks were down 15 percent compared to the previous year. Corn stored in off-farm locations on June 1, 2014 totaled 2.20 million bushels in Idaho, down from 2.86 million bushels a year ago. In Oregon, corn stored in off-farm locations totaled 245,000 bushels, up from 221,000 bushels a year ago. In Washington, corn stored in off-farm locations totaled 7.55 million bushels, up from 4.32 million bushels a year ago. Nationally, corn stored in all positions totaled 3.85 billion bushels, up from 2.77 billion bushels a year ago. Off-farm stocks were up 32 percent, while onfarm stocks were up 48 percent compared to the previous year.

Forage Production Coverage Expanding and Crop Insurance Sales Closing Dates Near

SPOKANE, Wash., — The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Risk Management Agency (RMA) today announced that availability for forage production

insurance coverage has expanded to include Idaho and Washington counties. The agency also reminded producers of the upcoming 2015 fall crop year sales closing deadlines for Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) programs.

• Canola/Rapeseed – September 2 (for fall planted types);

Forage Production is now available in Benewah, Boundary, Kootenai, Teton, and Twin Falls counties in Idaho and in Pend Oreille, Spokane, and Stevens counties in Washington. Coverage was previously only available in Klamath and Malheur counties in Oregon.

• Forage Production – September 30 (select counties, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington);

“We are very pleased to expand Forage Production coverage for the 2015 crop year in these areas,” said RMA Spokane Regional Office Director Dave Paul.

• Fall Planted Dry Peas/Lentils with Winter Coverage – September 30 (in select counties);

Within the forage production policy, the irrigated practice is insurable in all above listed counties and the non-irrigated practice is available in select counties. The alfalfa type is insurable in all above listed counties and the alfalfa-grass mixture type (alfalfa comprising less than sixty percent of ground cover) is insurable in select counties. Producers should visit with an insurance agent about requesting coverage by written agreement if a type or practice is not insurable in their counties. The sales closing date is the last day to buy federal crop insurance. Current policyholders and uninsured growers must make all of their decisions on crop insurance coverage, especially which crops to insure and what level and type of coverage to get before the sales closing date. The following are fast approaching 2015 crop year sales closing deadlines:

• Onions – September 2 (fall planted types - Umatilla/Walla Walla counties only); • Mint with Winter Coverage – September 30;

• Forage (Alfalfa) Seed Pilot – September 30; • Fall Planted Barley with Winter Coverage – September 30 (in select counties);

• Wheat – September 30. Producers are encouraged to visit their crop insurance agent soon to learn specific details for the 2015 crop year. Federal crop insurance policies are sold and delivered solely through private crop insurance companies and agents. A list of crop insurance agents is available at all USDA Service Centers throughout the United States or on the RMA website: at www3.rma.usda.gov/tools/ agents.

Women Taking On a Greater Role in Agriculture

Over the past 10 years, women have become increasingly involved with agriculture. Since 2002, the number of female farm operators has climbed 14 percent and the number of principal female farm operators has jumped up 21 percent. Terry Gilbert, the AFBF Women’s Leadership Committee chair, attributes much of this increase to women’s interest in specialty farming, especially

within the local markets. “Everybody wants to know their farmer, know their food and know where their food comes from,” said Gilbert in a recent Newsline. “I think a lot of women are getting into farming to answer that need.” Gilbert hopes this increase continues and is confident that Farm Bureau women’s programs will help train women to be spokespersons for the industry and take on leadership roles in agriculture.

‘Superweed’ Palmer Amaranth Threatens Agriculture

Palmer amaranth, a nutritious plant similar to quinoa, is threatening the heart of industrial American agriculture. Recognized as a “superweed,” Palmar amaranth can grow up to 7 feet tall, throw off up to 600,000 seeds per plant and is extremely resistant to herbicides. While the spread of Palmer amaranth has disrupted Southern farmers for years, it has recently begun to appear in Iowa fields and its resistance is stronger than ever. Although this problem was first seen on farms that solely produce crops grown with biotech seed, Palmer amaranth has expanded to destroying organic and conventional fields as well. Farmers have taken immediate and extreme action by hiring manual labor to remove the weeds, while an editorial in the science journal Nature suggests a more longterm solution of regular crop rotation throughout the Midwest. Without a solution, Palmer amaranth threatens the $330 billion agriculture industry.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

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 Hard White

A $40 room will be closer to

Burley:

$32

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Barley

Nampa:

White Wheat (cwt) (Bushel)

A $60 room will be closer to

Lewiston:

$48 A $90 room will be closer to

White Wheat H. Red Winter Dark N. Spring Barley

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

1.800.258.2847

Farm Bureau Discount Code

00209550

advanced reservations required

08/25/2014

Trend

6.78 7.22-7.47 8.10 280.00

6.93 7.08-7.23 7.96 290.00

+ .15 - .14 to - .24 - .14 + 10

5.85 6.20 6.82 7.65

6.07 6.12 6.82 6.35

+ .22 - .08 Steady - 1.30

5.40 5.91 6.22 5.91

Call Call Call Call

for for for for

pricing pricing pricing pricing

N/A N/A N/A N/A

5.57 5.81 6.50 6.75

Call Call Call Call

for for for for

pricing pricing pricing pricing

N/A N/A N/A N/A

10.00 6.00

10.25 6.15

+ .25 + .15

6.65 7.31 7.97 156.50

6.70 7.06 7.90 156.50

- .05 - .25 - .07 Steady

LIVESTOCK PRICES Feeder Steers

$72

07/25/2014

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

07/29/2014

08/21/2014

Trend

215-315 190-256 155-228 140-201

200-360 172-310 175-239 148-207

- 15 to + 45 - 18 to + 54 + 20 to + 11 + 8 to + 6

200-311 170-251 155-222 150-179

208-309 172-280 172-245 166-204

+ + + +

129-210 121-188

150-216 149-190

+ 21 to + 6 + 28 to + 2

90-128 85-115

91-128 83-112

+ 1 to steady - 2 to - 3

1200-1500

1440-1900

+ 240 to + 400

99-148

110-149

+ 11 to + 1

34.00-35.00 Not Established Not Established

Steady N.A. N.A.

Compiled by the Idaho Farm Bureau Commodity Division 36

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

8 to - 2 2 to + 29 17 to + 23 16 to + 25

IDaho Hay Report

USDA Market News, Moses Lake, WA

August 22, 2014 Tons: 15,651 Last Week: 3325 Last Year: 7180 Compared to last week the alfalfa market trended generally higher. Demand was light for non-rained on supplies. Trade is moderate with limited buyers. Many producers are busy in the field. All prices are dollars per ton and FOB the farm or ranch unless otherwise stated. Delivered prices include freight, commissions and other expenses.

Alfalfa Large Square Supreme Premium Good Fair/Good Fair

Tons Price Range Wtd Avg Comments 667 3000 667 600 667 2600 550 400

Timothy Grass Large Square Good/Premium

6500

280.00-280.00 205.00-240.00 265.00-265.00 170.00-170.00 250.00-250.00 180.00-180.00 185.00-185.00 140.00-140.00

280.00 216.67 265.00 170.00 250.00 180.00 185.00 140.00

Organic

Contracted Rain Damage

225.00-225.00 225.00

Rain Damage

Organic Organic

POTATOES Potatoes

Potatoes for Processing

UPPER VALLEY, TWIN FALLS-BURLEY DISTRICT, IDAHO---2013 CROP---Shipments 764-656-317 (includes export of 14-8-0) ---Movement expected to decrease sharply as fewer shippers remain in the old crop deal. Supplies in too few hands to establish a market.

June 24, 2014 IDAHO---Open-market trading by processors with growers was inactive.

5 Year Grain Comparison Grain Prices.................08/20/2010...................08/24/2011.................. 08/22/2012..................8/21/2013...................8/25/2014 Portland: White Wheat..................... 6.38................................N/A................................8.90...............................7.34.............................. 6.93 11% Winter...................6.56-5.60.......................8.25-8.44.......................9.35-9.60...................... 8.05-8.11......................7.08-7.23 14% Spring......................No Bid...........................No Bid.............................9.90...............................8.36...............................7.96 Corn...............................182-188.75......................16-319.25.....................342-346.50....................65-267.25.......................No Bid Ogden: White Wheat..................... 5.60 .............................7.25............................... 8.00............................. 11% Winter....................... 5.54 ............................. 7.45 ............................. 8.05 ........................... 14 % Spring......................6.04 .............................9.02 ............................. 8.68............................. Barley.................................6.25 ............................12.45..............................13.50.............................

6.32............................ 6.07 6.87............................. 6.12 7.58............................ 6.82 8.30............................ 6.35

Pocatello: White Wheat..................... 5.40 ..............................6.90................................7.70.............................. 5.90.......................... 11% Winter........................5.15 ..............................7.44 ..............................7.91.............................. 6.44.......................... 14% Spring.........................6.17 ..............................8.67 ..............................8.39.............................. 6.89.......................... Barley.................................6.25 ........................... 11.67..............................12.81........................... No Bid........................

No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid

Burley: White Wheat..................... 5.29 .............................7.00................................7.97............................. 11% Winter....................... 5.48 .............................. 7.18 ..............................7.93............................. 14% Spring........................ 6.07 .............................8.65 ..............................8.30............................. Barley.................................6.00 ..........................12.50..............................13.00............................

6.16........................ 6.51........................ 7.00........................ 8.75........................

No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid

Nampa: White Wheat (cwt).......... 9.50 .............................10.50..............................13.08.............................10.58........................... 10.25 (bushel)..... 5.70 ..............................6.30................................7.85............................. 6.35........................... 6.15 Lewiston: White Wheat..................... 6.30 .............................6.85................................8.62...............................7.12.............................. 6.70 Barley............................... 126.50...........................221.50............................246.50...........................181.50.......................... 156.50 Bean Prices: Pintos..................................N/A.................................N/A.................................N/A........................40.00-42.00.................34.00-35.00 Pinks.................................30.00.............................30.00...............................N/A............................... N/A................................N/A Small Reds........................30.00.............................30.00...............................N/A............................... N/A................................N/A ***

Idahoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s July milk production up 4.0 percent August 19, 2014 Milk production in the 23 major States during July totaled 16.4 billion pounds, up 4.0 percent from July 2013. June revised production, at 16.2 billion pounds, was up 2.3 percent from June 2013. The June revision represented an increase of 50 million pounds or 0.3 percent from last monthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preliminary production estimate. Production per cow in the 23 major States averaged 1,911 pounds for July, 61 pounds above July 2013. This is the highest production per cow for the month of July since the 23 State series began in 2003. The number of milk cows on farms in the 23 major States was 8.58 million head, 56,000 head more than July 2013, and 6,000 head more than June 2014.

July Milk Production in the United States up 3.9 Percent Milk production in the United States during July totaled 17.5 billion pounds, up 3.9 percent from July 2013. Production per cow in the United States averaged 1,882 pounds for July, 64 pounds above July 2013. The number of milk cows on farms in the United States was 9.27 million head, 37,000 head more than July 2013, and 5,000 head more than June 2014.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

5 Year livestock comparison .....................................08/20/2010...................08/23/2011...................08/20/2012.................. 8/20/2013....................8/22/2013 Under 500 lbs................ 101-150 ......................130-188 ......................126-180.........................140-195........................200-360 500-700 lbs.....................95-130 ........................ 119-153..........................116-164.........................129-190.........................172-310 700-900 lbs..................... 95-114 .......................107-137..........................115-144.........................120-149........................175-239 Over 900 lbs...................85-100..........................110-121..........................101-130..........................97-138.........................148-207 Feeder Heifers Under 500 lbs.................93-140 ....................115-167..........................117-171.........................125-179........................208-309 500-700 lbs.....................90-118 ......................112-148..........................110-157.........................123-158........................172-280 700-900 lbs.....................89-107..........................103-130.........................105-134.........................115-140........................ 172-245 Over 900 lbs....................70-97 ..........................85-109............................92-12............................83-135.........................166-204 Holstein Steers Under 700 lbs..................65-92 ..........................75-110............................75-110...........................67-115......................... 150-216 Over 700 lbs....................60-83 ..........................70-104...........................75-100...........................81-105......................... 149-190 Cows Utility/Commercial...........47-69.............................63-84.............................60-83........................... 62-84........................... 91-128 Canner & Cutter..............37-67.............................55-74.............................53-77............................ 60-82........................... 83-112 Stock Cows......................700-900 ......................675-1200.......................800-1200.......................... N/A..........................1440-1900 Bulls – Slaughter............60-80.............................60-94 ...........................72-93........................... 70-109......................... 110-149

Idaho Cattle on Feed Down 3 Percent from Previous Year

August 23, 2014 Cattle and calves on feed for the slaughter market in Idaho from feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head on August 1, 2013 totaled 185,000 head, down 3 percent from the previous year, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service.The cattle on feed inventory is down 5 percent from July 1, 2013. Placements of cattle in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head during July totaled 39,000 head, up 11 percent from July 2012 placements. Marketings of cattle from feedlots with 1,000 head or more during July totaled 48,000 head, up 4,000 head from last year. Other disappearance totaled 1,000 head during July. Cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled 10.0 million head on August 1, 2013. The inventory was 6 percent below August 1, 2012. Placements in feedlots during July totaled 1.72 million, 10 percent below 2012. Net placements were 1.66 million head. During July, placements of cattle and calves weighing less than 600 pounds were 390,000, 600-699 pounds were 275,000, 700-799 pounds were 455,000, and 800 pounds and greater were 602,000. Marketings of fed cattle during July totaled 2.00 million, 5 percent above 2012. Other disappearance totaled 64,000 during July, 2 percent above 2012.

Cattle Outlook August 22, 2014 This summer’s record cattle prices have been made possible by record consumer prices. Retail prices for choice beef were record high during July for the sixth consecutive month. The average grocery store price for a pound of choice beef in July was $5.951. That was up 3.4 cents from the month before and 62 cents higher than a year ago. The average price for a pound of fresh beef, regardless of grade, was a record $5.559 during July.That was 5.1 cents higher than the previous record, which was set the month before. The 5 area average price of slaughter steers was a record $157.70/cwt during July, up $8.30 from the month before and up $39.10 from July 2013. Statistics Canada’s midyear cattle inventory report indicates the Canadian cattle herd is smaller than a year ago and isn’t showing signs of herd expansion. The Canadian cattle herd was down 1.4% at midyear. The number of Canadian beef cows was down 1.0%, and dairy cow numbers were down 0.3% compared to July 1, 2013. The inventory of beef replacement heifers was down 3.6% and the number of dairy heifers being kept as herd replacements was down 0.9%. Choice boxed beef cutout values are down for the third consecutive week. The cutout value for choice carcasses this morning was $250.20/cwt, down $5.84 from last Friday, but $54.26 higher than a year ago. The select cutout declined to $240.07/ cwt on today’s morning report, down $10.14 for the week, but still $55.47 higher than a year earlier.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014

Through Thursday, the 5-area average price for slaughter steers sold on a live weight basis was $152.82/cwt, down $1.92 from last week’s average, but up $29.38 compared to a year ago. The 5 area average dressed price for steers declined $1.84 for the week to $241.85/cwt. Cattle slaughter totaled 590 thousand head this week, up 2.3% from the week before, but 7.2% fewer than the same week last year. The average dressed weight for steers slaughtered the week ending August 9 was 875 pounds, up 1 pound from the week before and 8 pounds heavier than the same week last year. Feeder cattle prices were steady to $4 higher at this week’s Oklahoma City auction. This week’s prices for medium and large frame #1 steers by weight group were: 400450# $306-$309, 450-500# $258-$297, 500-550# $264.50-$281, 550-600# $252$271, 600-650# $221-$247, 650-700# $215-$236, 700-750# $214.50-$229, 750800# $212-$224, 800-900# $205-$218.50, and 900-1000# $205.75-$209.50/cwt. Cattle futures were mostly lower this week. The August live cattle futures contract closed at $151.85/cwt today, up $1.25 on the week. October fed cattle settled at $147.00/cwt, down 75 cents for the week. The December contract ended the week at $149.85/cwt. The August feeder cattle contract lost $1.12 this week to end at $216.10/cwt. September feeders closed at $210.90.

University of Missouri

Classifieds Animals

Vehicles

Geldings 6, 7, and 28 y/o. All trained to ride, the oldest also drives. Marathon Carriage: torsion axles, pole & shafts, harness’s for pair, 2 breast smuckers & an old heavy collar type. Cart, tack, saddles. Blackfoot, Id. 208-681-9979

2002 Dodge Ram 350 dually diesel. Extended cab, leather interior, pipe running boards, mud flaps, automatic transmission. Like new, 40,000 miles with 1995 Lance Camper 11’3”, generator, awning, solar air, microwave, catalytic heater. Excellent condition, $30,000 for both or $8,000 for camper, $22,000 for truck. Twin Falls, Id. 208-420-3922.

ASCA registered Australian Shepherd pups. Working line since 1968. Full satisfaction guaranteed. All four colors available. Boise, Id 208-484-9802.

Farm Equipment EZ on loader fits Massey 165, includes PTO. Needs new hose, 1 Hydraulic cylinder repair. As is. $600. Rupert, Id. 208-219-9034. New squeeze chute, green, hand pull. $1200. Midvale, Id 83645. 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

Household Gas/Propane Hot Water Heater - G.E., Capacity - 40 Gal. (Tall), Great Condition. Paid $550 - Asking $250. Shelley, ID. Call 528-5337. Please leave message.

Miscellaneous Outdoor wood furnace for sale. Ideal for a home and shop/barn. Works in conjunction with existing furnace. Double square footage and keep house warmer for less. Saves $! most efficient way to heat. Sweet, Id. Call John 208-781-0691

Real Estate/Acreage Mobile Home Lot for rent - 14x70 or smaller - 2008 Mobile Home or Newer. $175.00 monthly., includes water/sewer Only. Shelley Area. Application process and contract required. For more info please call 528-5337, leave message.

Wanted 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.

FREE CLASSIFIED ADS

FOR IDAHO FARM BUREAU MEMBERS send to: dashton@idahofb.org

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

DEADLINE DATES: ADS MUST BE RECEIVED BY

SEPT. 20 FOR NEXT ISSUE. Idaho Farm Bureau producer / SEPTEMBER 2014