July 2015, Volume 19, Issue 5

July 2015 • Volume 19, Issue 5

9

Craters Group Seeks Name Change for Economic Benefits

3

Labor Dispute Threatens Pulse Crop Industry

®

Idaho Farm Bureau

6

“Science Babe” Dispels Food Myths

EPA’s New Water Rule is Even Worse Than Farmers Feared

By Bob Stallman AFBF President

The Environmental Protection Agency finally released its new “clean water” rule and actually managed to make it worse than we expected. Despite an unprecedented marketing campaign by EPA, the proposed rule was fiercely opposed by the vast majority of state and local governments, businesses

American Farm Bureau Supports National GMO Labeling Standard

By Frank Priestley President Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

GetaMoveOn.fb.org is Farm Bureau’s just-launched advocacy website that gives farmers and ranchers a simple way to “Get a Move On”

Off-Road Fuel Excise Tax Exemption

By Rick Keller CEO Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

The taxing of fuel by the federal government began in 1932 during the Hoover administration. The nation had entered in a depression and the government sought ways to increase revenue. The unpopular 2

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

The Ag Agenda and groups representing almost every part of the American economy—including farmers and ranchers. We called on EPA to ditch the rule, go back to the drawing board and craft a rule that won’t cripple farming and ranching.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that EPA failed to listen. This rule was never really about protecting water sources: It’s about giving EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the for GMOs. Through the website, farmers can easily express support for a national, science-based labeling standard, like the approach taken in the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 1599).

“Now is the time for farmers and ranchers to take action in support of innovation in agriculture,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. “Access to crop traits that resist pests, diseases and drought stress is helping farmers across the nation grow more food using less land, water, fuel and Revenue Act of 1932 assessed a 1 cent per gallon excise tax on all fuels. The next tax increase occurred in 1951 during the Truman administration. An additional 1cent tax was levied. During the Eisenhower administration, the Interstate Highway System was implemented and the fuel excise tax was increased to a total of 4 cents in 1956.

power to regulate any activity on the land that they choose to regulate. And that’s what the rule does.

What is a “water of the U.S.”?

Only the agencies can say, and their word is final. Under the new rule, just about any patch of land might be found to be “waters of the U.S.” You don’t have to see water flowing there, or even spot signs of flow. The rule gives EPA and See STALLMAN, page 8 pesticides. Biotechnology will offer even more benefits in the future.”

From the website, farmers and ranchers can send messages to U.S. House of Representatives members encouraging “yea” votes for the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. The bill will clarify the Food and Drug Administration as the nation’s foremost authority on food safety and create a voluntary labeling program run by the Agriculture Department’s Agricultural MarketSee PRIESTLEY, page 8

members from the Green Timber local, of Fremont County Farm Bureau in Idaho, believed it was not fair to pay the fuel excise tax for the highway systems, when their vehicles were not used on the highway.

The fuel excise taxes were unpopular. There were many attempts to remove the tax, but each failed.

The Green Timber local submitted the resolution to the Fremont County Farm Bureau which read: “The Farm Bureau recommends that the federal gasoline tax be refunded on non-highway used gasoline or other motor fuels.”

In 1956, a group of Farm Bureau

See KELLER, page 25

Volume 19, Issue 5

IFBF OFFICERS President ................................... Frank Priestley, Franklin Vice President ...................................Mark Trupp, Driggs Executive Vice President ............................... Rick Keller BOARD OF DIRECTORS Bryan Searle ............................................................Shelley Mark Harris ................................................. Soda Springs Chris Dalley ....................................................... Blackfoot Dean Schwendiman ........................................... Newdale Danny Ferguson ........................................................Rigby Scott Steele ..................................................... Idaho Falls Gerald Marchant .................................................. Oakley Rick Pearson ................................................... Hagerman Rick Brune............................................................Hazelton Luke Pearce ............................................. New Plymouth Cody Chandler....................................................... Weiser Tracy Walton ........................................................ Emmett Marjorie French ............................................... Princeton Alton Howell ................................................ Careywood Tom Daniel ............................................... Bonners Ferry Judy Woody ................................................................ Filer Cole Smith ...................................................... Montpelier STAFF Dir. of Organization............................... Dennis Brower Commodities & Marketing Assistant ........... Peg Pratt Member Services Assistant ..................... Peggy Moore Public Relations Assistant ........................ Dixie Ashton Dist. I Regional Manager ........................... Justin Patten Dist. II 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 Administrative Assistant ............................... Cara Dyer Assistant Treasurer.................................. Tyler Zollinger 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

Commodity shippers and transportation officials speak to Palouse area farmers during a meeting at the Port of Lewiston in late May. Photo by Steve Ritter

Port of Lewiston Shippers Struggle with Loss of Container Options

By John Thompson The option of shipping commodities, mainly pulse crops, by container from Lewiston through Portland was lost recently due to a union labor dispute at the Oregon seaport.

The fallout is creating hardship and increased costs for Pacific Northwest farms, commodity handling companies, businesses that ship farm supplies such as fertilizer and chemicals, and many other businesses in surrounding communities. In addition, the loss of container capability creates questions about the future economic viability of the Port of Lewiston.

Companies that package and ship pulse crops such as garbanzo beans, lentils, split peas and whole peas are scrambling to find truck and rail options to move an estimated 60,000 metric tons of commodities that were previously transported by barge, while farmers are searching for how to absorb a cost increase expected in the $1 per hundredweight range. It takes 134 trucks to move the same amount of cargo as one barge.

“I don’t see it coming back, the Port of Portland has run its course and is drying up,” said Mike Hainey, a forage exporter from Ellensburg, Washington, during a recent meeting held at the Port of Lewiston. Another added difficulty at Portland is the Port itself lies 90 miles inland from the coast and the new larger vessels have difficulty navigating a channel that is too shallow.

Two foreign companies that own and move the 53-foot long steel boxes that can be fitted with a chassis and pulled behind a semi-truck, or stripped of the chassis and transCover: Legislators and supporters of the Change the ported by rail or ship throughout the world, pulled out of Portland in March. GermanName Coalition toured Craters of the Moon National Monument in late June. The coalition is made up of based Hapag-Lloyd and Hanjin, a South Korean company cited inability to maintain local business owners and citizens who want Craters to become a national park. Photo by John Thompson

See PORT DISPUTE page 4 Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

3

PORT DISPUTE

Continued from page 3

shipping schedules due to a nearly threeyear long work slowdown at Terminal 6, Port of Portland. The two companies combined represent 98 percent of Portland’s container business. The Port of Portland’s Terminal 6 is one of only two terminals that handle containers on the U.S. West Coast. The other is in Seattle.

Representatives from nearly all of the effected businesses from container shippers to farms place the blame squarely at the feet of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). Union dock workers at Portland’s Terminal 6, who recently negotiated a new contract, have moved less than half as many containers per hour over the last two years as longshoremen at Seattle’s container handling

terminal.

However, a spokesman for the longshoremen says Terminal 6 doesn’t have a labor problem, it has a management problem. A sour relationship has existed for several years between ILWU and ICTSI Oregon, a company based in the Philippines that manages Portland’s container shipping at Terminal 6.

In an e-mail to the Idaho Farm Bureau, ILWU spokeswoman Jennifer Sargent wrote that longshore workers and farmers are on the same side with both seeking to export agricultural products, but are at the mercy of a powerful overseas corporation.

“ICTSI operates on American turf solely for profit, without regard for the workers

and farmers who rely on smooth transport of our goods,” Sargent wrote. “ICTSI is a Philippines-based company that operates in about 30 countries around the world typically in low-wage and developing nations where workers and farmers have few rights compared with large multinational corporations. ICTSI signed conflicting contracts when coming from the Philippines to operate Terminal 6, and fails to provide adequate staffing and equipment.”

Sargent added that work flow and labor / management relations are normal and productive at the Port of Portland’s other ten export terminals.

In an e-mail to Oregon Public Broadcasting in May, ICTSI CEO Elvis Ganda had a much different point of view. “For Ter-

The Port of Lewiston’s future viability is threatened by downstream labor issues. Container on barge shipping is no longer an option since two international shipping companies pulled out of Portland in March. Photo by Steve Ritter 4 #

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

minal 6 to be successful, the ILWU must signal to potential container shipping lines that its almost three-year campaign of work stoppages, slowdowns, and safety gimmicks at Terminal 6 has come to an end,” he wrote. “No carrier will want to make a long-term commitment to the terminal so long as ILWU workers delay cargo and vessels as a strong-arm tactic to get what they want.”

Under the new ILWU contract workers have a measure of protection called a Pay Guarantee Plan. It guarantees longshoremen a salary even if there is no work to perform. Longshoremen who qualify under the plan can now show up to work and if no work is available they are paid for 40 hours per week at a rate of $36.38 per hour. Under the previous contract they were paid for 37.5 hours per week – even if there was no work to perform.

In spite of the statistics showing significant work slowdown at Terminal 6, Sargent’s email response fails to acknowledge that a work slowdown occurred. In addition, when asked about the loss of jobs at Terminal 6, the union provided no numbers and stuck with its strategy of blaming management. When asked about the Pay Guarantee Plan and workers being paid for doing nothing, Sargent said she didn’t understand the question. Following are two of the questions and answers sent to ILWU from Idaho Farm Bureau that will provide readers some perspective on the union’s views of the situation: Question - How many jobs will be lost at Terminal 6 due to the container shipping companies pulling out? Is that a concern or can those longshoremen who work at Terminal 6 just transfer to another terminal or port?

Answer - Terminal 6 is one of eleven operating terminals in Portland, and all are operating smoothly with the same union longshore workforce that ICTSI blames for their own mismanagement. When ICTSI still had regular carriers calling, they were so difficult to work with that the most experienced workers choose to work at the

Pulse crops in production on the Palouse Prairie near Genesee. Photo by Steve Ritter

other terminals where the employers follow the rules of the contract and provide adequate equipment to do the job. ICTSI’s loss of Hanjin and Hapag-Lloyd will have an impact on Portland’s regular registered longshore workforce – but the company’s mismanagement is having an even bigger impact on customers, including family farmers, which is regrettable.

Question - Does the Union acknowledge that a work slowdown occurred at Terminal 6 over the past two years? If so, what is the thinking behind that strategy? It appears that the Longshoremen shot themselves in the foot. Wasn’t it obvious that the foreign container shipping companies would pull out? Do you believe they had other options?

Answer - The Port of Portland has eleven marine terminals, all of which are experiencing good labor relations and optimal production from the same longshore workforce that works at ICTSI. Again, to explain the drop in productivity at Terminal 6, one must look to management. The ILWU is always open to having dialogue and improving operations, but it’s very difficult to improve productivity when the terminal operator is failing to provide ad-

equate staffing and equipment per its contract.

Longshore men and women would like nothing more than to have a decent, responsible employer in Portland that operates in compliance with its contract – the same contract that all other terminals in Portland and along the entire West Coast are following. The fact that ICTSI’s Terminal 6 is having issues right now, while dozens of other terminals are thriving with ILWU workers, makes it clear that poor ICTSI management is at the root of the problem.

During the meeting held at the Port of Lewiston in late May, Mike Hainey from Wesco International, a forage shipping company, said his company has evaluated rail shipping to Seattle but has moved to trucking. Both methods present many complexities. Rail cars have to be unloaded and reloaded into containers before going onto ships. Trucks hauling containers are more seamless but back-hauls are difficult to obtain in some cases and trucks are often delayed inside the Port. In addition, trucks must travel through high-traffic areas in downtown Seattle to reach the Port.

See PORT DISPUTE page 16

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

5

Science Babe Blasts Use of Pseudoscience

By Jake Putnam Look deeper for information then learn how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.

That’s the sage advice of the Science Babe.

Yvette d’Entremont, also known as the Science Babe spoke to a gathering of American Farm Bureau staff members last month in Charlotte, North Carolina. d’Entremont, has gained notoriety for blasting Vani Hari, aka, the Food Babe for what she claims is a lack of scientific fact in her popular blog titled the Food Babe.

Both Babes have been fighting a titanic internet battle the past few months that went viral.

“The Food Babe is full of Sh_t,” d’Entremont told a shocked audience at the Farm Bureau’s annual SPARC conference in Charlotte. “Science doesn’t care what you believe, doesn’t care about your feelings and your fantasies about what foods are good or bad for you.”

In past two years the Food Babe took the world by storm and along the way amassed millions of fanatic followers. The New York Times, The Post and the NY Times Magazine wrote flattering profiles on her.

Hari’s cover girl good looks and endless food warnings added fuel to the foodie fire.

But many working in sci6

Yvette d’Entremont is the Science Babe.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

ence field were aghast at her constant warnings and the Food Babe’s cult-like following.

since the 1920s and in the quantity they’re used in bread, are harmless,” said d’Entremont.

For instance, the Food Babe directed followers to petition food companies and fast food outlets to change their formulas. The Science Babe couldn’t take it any longer.

So she sprang into action April 6th addressing the Food Babe from her gawker. com blog site attacking her use of pseudoscience.

The Science Babe explained that it all started for her when the Food Babe attacked Starbucks pumpkin spice latte claiming that the coffee had a ‘toxic’ dose of sugar. “Don’t mess with a Bostonians pumpkin spice latte!” she exclaimed, and the war was on. The Science Babe’s article on the Gawker blogsite to date has drawn more than 4.4 million reads.

d’Entremont holds a bachelor degree in chemistry and a master’s degree in forensic science. She worked as an analytical chemist and this past year turned The Science Babe blog into a full time job.

“I’m never going to be able to combat every B.S. story that hits the internet,” she said. “Hopefully I can help them differentiate between something that’s real and their fantasy about what science is.”

Just two years ago The Food Babe launched a clean-food eating revolution in this country. It happened just as Dr. Oz was doing the same in health and fitness but the scientific community was concerned by the claims. The Food Babe even got Subway to eliminate a chemical used to soften dough in their sandwich buns.

“I think it’s good that people are more aware of what they’re eating. But taking out ingredients in Subway bread? That’s not necessary at all. Dough conditioners have been used

“She doesn’t know what toxic is,” said d’Entremont.

“I picked away at the premise of what she was saying and I went after her with facts. That’s how you get people on your side.”

food and biotech companies and not our health. This is a desperate attempt to stop the food movement,” wrote Hari.

The Science Babe worked on some myth-busting in her speech as well.

“People think organic means pesticide free, they think of virginal maidens picking their food onto a bed of gossamer tear drops and that’s organic. It’s just not true.

There are backyard gardens that don’t use pesticides, but if you’re buying anything at the store, pesticides were used, organic, or non-organic because you have to get rid of bugs or it won’t sell,” said d’Entremont.

The Science Babe said she’s

gone viral because people want the truth. “Behind these nefarious corporations are human beings that go to work each day. No one has ever interviewed Monsanto’s workers. If they did they’d find them to be amazingly normal like us all.

We need to raise the level of consciousness and quit demonizing companies to justify their own selfish motives, and just tell the truth.”

The lasting message of Science Babe is simple.

“I think Skepticism is a wonderful thing to have when they’re searching for answers on the internet, looking where the study came from, if it was pulled from context or not, and ask what they’re selling.”

d’Entremont listed a few outrageous things that Food Babe wrote in her blog that were systematically accepted as gospel by millions of gullible followers.

“She wrote last year that there’s not an acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever. I wonder if anyone warned her about dihydrogen monoxide? That’s water by the way. She’s all about using big words and scaring people,” the Science Babe told the Farm Bureau crowd.

The Food Babe fired back her blog.

“I want a safer and healthier food system, and some people want to keep the food system just like it is today broken, corrupt and full of unregulated food additives and chemicals that only improve the bottom line of Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

7

STALLMAN

Continued from page 2

the Corps the trump card: the power to use remote “desktop tools” to identify and regulate a so-called “tributary” on your land—or even just places where a “tributary” used to be—whether or not you can see anything that looks like a water feature. What’s more, the rule automatically regulates other waters within certain distances of any such invisible or historical “tributary.” So much for clarity.

The rule does provide several exclusions from regulation. But most of the exclusions, including the one for farm ponds, apply only to features “created in dry land.” Was your farm pond “created in dry land”? Who knows! EPA’s hundreds of pages of regulatory “clarity” don’t help you distinguish between “waters” and “dry land.” Only the agencies can say for sure.

Identifying bodies of water, and especially bodies of water

Priestley

Continued from page 2

ing Service, the same agency that administers the USDA Organic Program.

The legislation will provide a federal solution to protect consumers from a confusing patchwork of 50-state GMO labeling policies, and the misinformation and high food costs that would come with them.

Through GetaMoveOn.fb.org, farmers can not only connect with their lawmakers, but find state-by-state fact sheets detailing the value and share of GMO crops in each state. They can then share this information in their emails.

“It’s critical that we as farmers help our lawmakers understand that there’s a cost associated with discouraging agricultural innovation,” Stallman said.

“That cost will go well beyond the higher prices consumers will pay at the supermarket if each state passes its own GMO labeling law,” he added.

8

In addition to the advocacy site, Farm Bureau’s grassroots toolkit continues to be a helpful resource for farmers and ranchers who want to share the many positives about biotechnology with policymakers, community members and others. Accessible at fb.org/biotech, this free online resource includes an overview of biotechnology; an explanation of biotechnology’s benefits to consumers, the environment, farmers, the U.S. economy, and more; links to credible sources for biotech information; and avenues for getting active on social media.

A strong consumer-focused resource is GMOAnswers. com, which allows people to ask any and all questions about GMOs. Responses come from independent experts in leading academic institutions, industry groups and representatives from Biotechnology Industry Organization member companies. The website also features studies, articles and safety data.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

regulated by the federal government, shouldn’t be rocket science. But EPA has made it impossible for farmers and ranchers to look at their own land and know what falls under federal jurisdiction and what doesn’t. But if the government does later find that your land is “waters of the U.S.,” you will already be in violation of the law for farming there, even though you had no reason to know your land was regulated.

This puts landowners at risk of steep fines in “gotcha” enforcement just for using their lands.

It sounds crazy, but it’s true.

It’s time for Congress to step in and check EPA’s blatant overreach. Farmers and ranchers know the importance of protecting water resources. Federal rules should let them continue taking care of the land while producing our food, fiber and renewable energy.

The Change the Name Coalition, made up of Butte County business owners and others, sponsored a tour of Craters of the Moon National Monument in late June. The group supports changing the monument to a national park.

Coalition Petitions for Craters Name Change Article and photos by John Thompson Craters of the Moon National Monument is a unique destination with a misleading name, according to a group of local residents.

The Change the Name Coalition believes swapping the word “Monument” for “Park” will bring needed tourism dollars to the communities of Arco and Carey, and in turn help shore up the economy of the entire region.

During a meeting held at the Monument in late June, Butte County Commissioner Rose Bernal, Butte County School Board Chair Marie Cummins, and Butte County Chamber of Commerce President Helen

Merrill, argued that Craters deserves to become a national park which will generate more tourism. They added that potential for regulatory changes that may come with a name change could happen regardless of whether Craters becomes a park or not.

The word monument is confusing to travelers whom often aren’t expecting a 750,000 acre destination complete with unique geology, a bounty of plants and animals, walking trails and campgrounds, said Craters Superintendent Dan Buckley.

“From Highway 26 it may look like big pile of black rocks, but when you get out and explore it, you’ll find it’s extraordinary,” Buckley said. “It’s amazing that animals can survive in a place that experiences 200 degree temperature swings.”

It is the largest and youngest volcanic flow in the continental United States where rock surface temperatures can reach 178 degrees Fahrenheit and dip to minus 20 in the winter. Also there are nearly 500 documented caves ranging from small to massive, one of the largest cinder cones in the world, and several small, isolated, vegetated areas among the lava flows called Kipukas where nature is preserving what the Snake River plain looked like before Europeans arrived here.

Craters of the Moon sees an average of 200,000 visitors each year. Cummins said when people see the word monument on a map they expect less than they would if it were changed to a national park. “It See CRATERS OF THE MOON page 10

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

9

CRATERS OF THE MOON

Continued from page 9

could be just a statue, or a small cave or something more typical than what we have here,” she said. “It doesn’t inspire to you to plan to spend a whole day.”

Buckley added that many visitors stop in on a tight time schedule on their way to other area attractions such as Yellowstone. But after they receive some information about Craters, they often spend several hours.

Adding to the confusion surrounding official names it’s important to note that there

are two existing monuments, and a national preserve within the existing Craters of the Moon complex. They include the original 54,000-acre National Park Service-administered Craters of the Moon Monument established in 1924 by President Calvin Coolidge, where no hunting or grazing are permitted; a National Park Service-administered preserve, where hunting is allowed and a Bureau of Land Management-administered monument where both hunting and grazing are allowed.

Change the Name Coalition members say changing the name of the original monument to park, leaving one park, one monument and one preserve reduces confusion for travelers.

“We are only focusing on the original 54,000 acre monument,” Cummins said. “It deserves national park status because it’s not a singular monument. It’s a large area of awesome attractions and the term national monument doesn’t do it justice.”

Snow Cone Crater is a deep hole in the earth that spewed lava around 2,000 years ago. Craters along Idaho’s Great Rift are expected to erupt within the next 1,000 years and some geologists believe the eruption could come in the next 100 years.

10

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

Commissioner Bernal said monuments that have been upgraded to park status have shown tourism increases up to 30 percent. “We think with our close proximity to Yellowstone Park the tourism increase could be even greater here,” she said.

Merrill said the region’s economy is “dying on the vine,” and that more tourism could bolster the base economy (agriculture). “We understand that we wouldn’t be here without farming, ranching and mining but we can do a better job of tapping into tourism’s economic potential.”

At present, Craters provides 112 jobs lo-

cally and stimulates the local economy by $6.6 million per year, Buckley said.

Concerns raised during the meeting related to the potential for increasing regulations if the proposal is considered at the federal level. Congress or appointed agency officials could decide to explore whether to increase or change boundaries, limit access, limit hunting or grazing, or charge a toll for vehicle traffic passing through the Monument on State Highway 26.

Buckley said they have no intention of charging a toll to pass through the park and he explained that the State of Idaho has jurisdiction over the road. Cummins

said the Coalition doesn’t want anything to change but the name and that if the federal government decides changes are needed, those changes could occur even if the name stays the same.

Several bordering counties have signed on in support of the change. They include Bingham, Butte, Bannock, Bonneville, Camas, Lincoln and Minidoka counties, the Idaho Recreation Council, the Idaho Association of Counties and the cities of Mackay, Carey and Arco. The Coalition is also circulating petitions and collecting support on Facebook under Craters of the Moon, Change the Name.

Syringa is one of many wildflowers that bloom in June at Craters of the Moon National Monument. Park Service officials say visitation at the Monument is up this spring because of the abundant wildflower blooms brought on by timely rainstorms.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

11

Focus on Agriculture

Working Towards a Common Goal for Ag Education

By Julie Tesch Throughout the agricultural community, we are regularly looking for ways to help America’s youth better understand agriculture. But we all have busy schedules, and many people may think it is somebody else’s job to work with students and teachers. Surely somebody will help agriculture come together and tell our story, right?

Unfortunately, many times there are antiagriculture organizations posing as friends of agriculture while playing into the hearts and minds of youth, teachers and parents with false information. They play on emotions and tell an inaccurate story of agriculture. They are nimble, well-funded and like to wax poetic with their romanticized view of agriculture.

Fortunately, there are two organizations working together to tell the real story of agriculture. The National Agriculture in the Classroom Organization is a nonprofit organization representing most of the state Agriculture in the Classroom programs 12

around the country. Its mission is to educate K-12 teachers and students about the importance of agriculture by creating classroom materials and awards programs as well as hosting a national conference to demonstrate how agriculture can be applied in teaching core subject areas.

The American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture is proud to support the important work of the National Ag in the Classroom Organization by providing comprehensive, accurate materials that AITC coordinators can utilize in their states. The Ag Foundation is also proud to be sponsoring the NAITCO annual conference and providing scholarships to classroom teachers and volunteers to attend.

This year more than 400 educators nationwide will attend the conference in Louisville, Kentucky, June 16-20, to learn to incorporate real-life agricultural applications into science, social studies, language arts, math and nutrition lessons.

Resources are tight everywhere, so we

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

consider it our duty at the Ag Foundation to help create programs and products that can easily be used by AITC coordinators across America from the tip of Alaska to the coast of Florida. In order to keep telling the story of agriculture accurately both the Ag Foundation and NAITCO need your continued help and support.

Next time you have questions about how to work with teachers or students, please contact your AITC state coordinator or the Ag Foundation. We are happy to help you tell the story of agriculture.

Making accurate, trusted educational resources available to youth is not a limited market. While we may come from different organizations and backgrounds, we share a common goal and will continue to work together for the common good of agriculture. All are welcome under the tent and we look forward to working with you!

Julie Tesch is the executive director of the American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

13

Jason Brown was at one time the highest paid centers in the NFL.

Football Player Quits NFL,Takes Up Farming

By Jake Putnam “I’m humbled by it all,” said Jason Brown, the former St. Louis Ram who quit the NFL to start a farm of his own.

Brown addressed a packed lunchtime crowd at the American Farm Bureau, SPARC conference held in mid-June in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Jason Brown story hit the headlines two years ago and still has legs. Newspapers across the country continue to tell the story of a football star who answered a greater calling. But it’s rare that in a football-mad country, that a player at the top of his game would quit to take up a new vocation on the farm.

In 2009, Brown signed a five-year, $37.5 million contract with the Rams making 14

him the highest-paid center in the NFL. But it wasn’t enough of a calling he felt to benefit his fellow man.

“I was cut and then offered a new contract. So I asked God what could I do for him?” said Brown. “I prayed for a way to better serve my fellow man and waited for the answer and secretly hoped it would be something glamorous. Do you know the answer? God told me: farming! I said whoa, isn’t there something cooler?” But I was good with it.”

Then he set out on a journey that would change his life.

Brown recalled at the time he knew nothing about farming. In spite of it, he took a blind leap of faith and put his St. Louis mansion on the market. After a six-month

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

search he moved to North Carolina to begin his mission.

“We literally operated on faith, but soon found the 1,000 acre First Fruit Farm with the intention to giving all the fruit of our labor to feed the hungry,” said Brown.

Along the way the revelations piled up and challenges presented themselves but soon the family had their feet firmly in the soil.

“I cannot think of a better place to raise a family, or a better place to serve my fellow man,” said Brown.

The first six years have come and gone and the former Ram has never been happier.

He never forgets that he’s a humble farmer with the added responsibility of feeding the hungry. He says as much as his job is farming, his second job is learning.

Brown now spends his summers growing crops for charity.

“When I come in at night I’m on the computer, reading crop reports and researching,” he says. “I found that you can learn anything from YouTube. I do my own plumbing, wiring, carpentry, all learned online. I’m learning all about farming sweet potatoes from there too.”

Back in 2005 Brown was drafted 124th overall out of North Carolina and played nine seasons in the NFL before getting cut by the Rams. At 29, he knew he had plenty of playing years ahead of him. But he also knew he’d lost a step or two. He had offers from a lot of teams including the Baltimore Ravens. He could have scored another multi-million dollar contract.

That decision drew a lot of attention.

When he walked away from the game fans and sportswriters were surprised and wanted to know why. ESPN magazine even ran a story called “The Curious of Jason Brown.” No one seemed satisfied that he quit to farm but he never gave it a second thought.

“My Teammates, agents, reporters said you’re making the biggest mistake of your life,’’ Brown said. “I didn’t.”

By trial and error, Brown got the farm up and going and the first year raised a mod-

est five acres of vegetables. Along the way, church groups and inner city kids heard about his cause and helped with the harvest.

“We learned not only farming together but how to be as efficient as possible, and I found that’s a task that is universal among farmers. I found that part of that efficiency is allowing gleaners to pick up peppers, cucumbers and potatoes. I learned that nothing is wasted on the farm,” he said.

That first year more than 50 volunteers came out and gleaned 10,000 pounds of food and the die was cast.

“Some have said I’m special, but the farmhands are special. Everyone that comes out here’s important. More important than me. I’m just a farmer and we’re in this together. I was amazed with all the strangers that came out and pitched in. I found that they all had had the same heart that I did,” said Brown.

Brown says he’s developed a profound respect for those who produce food because that food goes straight to the dinner plate feeding the nation’s families.

“Not only that farmers are good stewards and take care of the land, it’s a land that keeps giving and feeds us,” added Brown.

Word has spread about Jason Brown and the number of volunteers have grown to more than 500. They come from the cities and the countryside. The farm hands are rich, young, poor, old, all working to put food on the table. The farm continues to grow and while yields are up there’s a spiritual growth for those willing to get their hands dirty and join the miracle of harvest.

“I still don’t know that much about farming but I found that fellow farmers don’t care about what I know, just that I care,” he said.

Farmer Brown has never made a dime off the farm. Yet this past year he gave away 120,000 pounds of food.

“When people know where your heart is, their heart will be drawn to yours as well,” said Brown.

It’s a long way from the NFL, but the former multi-million dollar player says farming is universal and it sustains life.

Like all farmers this summer he has crops in the ground and is watching them grow.

He’s battling pests now not linemen and hoping for a good year.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

15

PORT DISPUTE

Continued from page 3

Ted Kadau, marketing manager for Great Northwest Railroad in Lewiston, a short line, said they have a rail siding 75 miles west of Lewiston where they interchange with the Burlington Northern rail line. “We have existing infrastructure to move containers but it’s complicated when you’re dealing with international freight,” he said. “There are lots of players involved but we are very willing to help pick up the slack and move the product.”

Bert Brocke, from GF Brocke and Sons in Kendrick, said his company has been shipping pulse crops down the river for the past 15 years. He said 75 percent of the pulse crops grown in the Palouse region are exported and 85 percent of that volume traditionally went down the river. “We are looking at both truck and rail but the cost comparison is roughly double the money than with the Port of Lewiston,” he said.

Hainey said his company has lost many of its overseas customers during the Port labor slowdown. Customers that need forage crops to feed livestock have gone to other countries including Australia, Pakistan and Spain to find what they need even though Pacific Northwest forages are consistently higher quality.

“The bottom line is we produce better forages but livestock have to eat and when our customers couldn’t get what they needed from us they went elsewhere,” he said. “There is no vigor in the world market right now for forage products.”

16

He added that the labor vs management problems have made the West Coast an unreliable shipper. In addition, the new ILWU contract will come up for renewal in five years and similar turmoil is likely when the time comes.

“We need changes and they need to be federally mandated changes,” he said. “Unions give a lot of money to politicians which makes the problem more difficult to solve.”

The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), a coalition of agriculture groups and other exporters, support legislation introduced by Sen. John Thune of South Dakota.

The Port Transparency Act (S. 1298) would establish port performance standards and measurements. A letter from the group in support of Sen. Thune’s bill states as follows: “The lack of good port operations data has hampered the ability of the business community to drive efficiencies at the nation’s ports. The business community understands that good management of complex systems begins with good measurement and good data.

Transportation and trade stakeholders agree that good, empirical data is the absolute first step in any effort to address complex congestion and infrastructure issues. While private efforts to move forward with developing port metrics are ongoing, we believe the nation as a whole would benefit if the federal government would collect and publish basic baseline information about port performance, such as cargo through-

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

put and metrics that measure factors relating to congestion and delay. While the issues at each U.S. port are different, one universal set of data points would be enormously helpful in efforts to study and address costly bottlenecks at our nation’s ports.”

ILWU opposes the legislation.

Their letter states that establishing port performance standards assumes that all ports are faced with the same issues while in reality problems are generally port specific. “Senate Bill 1298 is unnecessary to the efficiency of port performance, and more importantly the collection of data on performance indicators throughout the na-

tion’s ports would be onerous.

As articulated and emphasized by the maritime industry, improved and expanded infrastructure to support growing shipping needs and collaborative efforts of those parties involved is needed for the effective functioning of the ports, not statistics surrounding maritime labor agreements and the average number of lifts per hour.”

More information on S. 1298 can be found at the following link: http://www.commerce.senate. gov/public/index.cfm/?a=files. ser ve&File_id=56c682c5a421-4938-bd1f-55a73827c8be

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% rm Te s 7-15 Years Up to $200,000 CONSERVATION

LOAN PROGRAM

swc.idaho.gov | 208-332-1790

One Agent for Life and Annuities and Farm/Ranch Succession and Estate Strategies

All from one agent.

We take simple seriously. Learn more at FBFS.com.

Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company*/West Des Moines, IA. *Company provider of Farm Bureau Financial Services M121 (1-15)

F131-036875-05_PrintAd_IDGemProd_Vs2.indd 1

12/12/14 4:52 PM

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

17

An Overview of Some Major Forest Herbicides

By Randy Brooks Herbicides are among the most widely used forms of weed control in forested areas.

Most forest weeds do not lend themselves to non-chemical control as well as they do Forest weeds are more easily controlled in with chemicals due to terrain, especially in plantations. to herbicides. Most (but not all) weed and ers must be applied as a directed spray to foliage and translocated within the plant. brush control in forestlands are accomminimize or avoid spray contact with the Applications are made postemergence. plished with 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, trees. Herbicides are used in various stages Plants are most susceptible to 2,4-D when metsulfuron, or triclopyr. Atrazine, 2,4-D of tree growth. Know the existing weeds they are young and rapidly growing. It , sulfometuron, and hexazinone are comand used recommended herbicides that not mimics natural plant hormones, disrupting monly used for herbaceous weed control only control the weeds, but are safe for the normal plant growth by affecting cell wall in plantations, while clopyralid is used for desired trees and shrubs. plasticity and nucleic acid metabolism. controlling elderberry, thistles and other composite and leguminous weeds during Major Herbicides Labeled for Forestry Glyphosate (Rodeo, Accord) active seedling growth. Herbicides have in the Inland Northwest Glyphosate is another one of the more comseveral advantages over other weed conWhat follows is a list and discussion of the mon herbicides. It is non-selective is used trol methods due to their selective and major herbicides labeled for forestry appli- to control grasses, broadleaf and woody rapid control. They are especially effeccations in the inland northwest, their regis- plants. It is absorbed through the foliage tive on tough perennial weed species such tered names (in italics) and trade names (in and moves to actively growing parts of the as quackgrass, bromegrass, and Canada parenthesis), along with their modes of ac- plant. It does not have soil activity. Bethistle. The selection of an herbicide vartion. Other herbicides exist that are labeled cause of this, it is applied postemergence ies with species and growth of both the for forestry, but their use is not as common. only. Rodeo and Accord require the addiweed and tree. Problem weeds should be Mention of specific chemicals and trade tion of a surfactant. It acts in a plant by incontrolled during site preparation as they hibiting amino acid production and protein names does not imply endorsement. can be more difficult to control once trees synthesis. are planted.

2,4-D Imazapyr (Arsenal, Chopper, or ConMany herbicides are labeled for use in tree Probably the most commonly used of all tain) plantings, site preparation, and general use herbicides, 2,4-D is a selective herbiin forested situations. Some herbicides can cide used to control annual and perennial This herbicide controls many plant species be applied directly over the trees while oth- broadleaf weeds. It is absorbed through the and is less selective than most herbicides 18

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

used in forestry and it does have residual soil activity. Imazapyr is readily absorbed through foliage or roots. The herbicide moves to actively growing areas within the plant. It is used to control annual and perennial grasses, broadleaf weeds and woody species. It can be applied pre or postemergence for long-term non-crop lands. Its action is to inhibit enzymes used in synthesis of some amino acids.

Metsulfuron (Escort, Ally) This is a selective, postemergence herbicide used at low rates to control broadleaf weed and brush in non-cropland areas. Escort is used for selective broadleaf weed and brush control in pastures, rangeland and noncropland. It works within a plant by preventing synthesis of amino acids by interfering with an enzyme.

Triclopyr (Garlon 3a) This is a systemic, growth-regulating herbicide used to control woody and broadleaf perennial weeds in non-cropland, forestlands, range, permanent grass pasture, and right-of-ways. It also mimics natural plant hormones, disrupting normal plant growth by affecting cell wall plasticity and nucleic acid metabolism.

Hexazinone (Velpar or Pronone) Hexazinone is a herbicide that moves in the direction that water moves within the plant. It has activity on leaves and can also be take up through the soil by the roots, allowing for additional residual control. It controls broadleaf weeds, brush, and grasses, and is used for selective weed control in conifers, and for conifer release. It should be applied when plants are actively growing for control of annual, biennial, and perennial weeds and woody plants. It affects the plant by inhibiting photosynthesis.

Clopyralid (Stinger, Transline) Clopyralid is a translocating herbicide, it moves within the plant to actively growing areas. It is active primarily through the plant foliage, where it is absorbed but it also can be taken up by roots so the herbicide has some residual activity. It is used postemergence on broadleaf herbaceous

Forested settings make herbicides convenient to control weeds and brush.

weeds, mostly on Asteraceae, Fabaceae, and Polygonaceae families. It mimics natural plant hormones, disrupting normal plant growth by affecting cell wall plasticity and nucleic acid metabolism.

tent in the soil, precautions should be taken to avoid damage to desirable plants. It mimics natural plant hormones, disrupting normal plant growth by affecting cell wall plasticity and nucleic acid metabolism.

Picloram (Tordon)

Atrazine (AAtrex)

Picloram is a restricted use herbicide so special licensing is required to use it. It is a translocated, selective herbicide for broadleaf weeds and woody plants. It is active through foliage and roots, and has a long persistence in the soil. Because it is persis-

Atrazine is another restricted use herbicide. It is a selective herbicide in agriculture, but is used non-selectively in noncrop areas. It is primarily root absorbed, alSee UI FORESTRY page 23

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

19

20

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

Final “Waters of the U.S.” Rule: No Clarity, No Certainty, No Limits on Agency Power AFBF On May 27, 2015, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a pre-publication version of their final rule defining “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) that are subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The rule will go into effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Below is an abbreviated summary of some of the major concerns with the rule.

The final WOTUS rule is even broader

than the proposed rule. The definition of “tributary” has been broadened to include landscape features that may not even be visible to the human eye, or that existed historically but are no longer present.

The rule’s definition of tributaries— which may be the most common WOTUS feature on the landscape under the rule—is even more expansive than in the proposed rule. The agencies rejected requests from commenters to exclude features that carry water only when it

rains and to require more than just the presence of the highly subjective bed, bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Instead, the final rule broadened the definition and made so-called tributaries even more difficult for landowners to identify. The rule allows the agencies to identify a tributary regardless of whether there is anything visible on the ground for the landowner to recognize as a “tributary.”

See WOTUS RULE page 22

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

21

WOTUS RULE

Continued from page 17

The proposed rule required “the presence of a bed and banks and ordinary high water mark” (OHWM)—plus some flow, sometimes, that eventually reaches a navigable water.

In the final rule, there is no need for the presence of an actual bed, bank and OHWM, but only the “presence of physical indicators of a bed and banks and ordinary high water mark.” (Final Rule at 204) The agencies can utilize “remote sensing or mapping information” and other “desktop tools” (e.g., LIDAR, aerial photography and NRCS Soil Surveys) to establish the presence of a tributary.

(Final Rule at 91-92) Contrary to the proposed rule, the final rule also allows the agencies to identify tributaries based entirely on past conditions rather than current conditions. The rule allows the agencies to regulate land areas where these “desktop tools” indicate ephemeral tributaries used to be present. (Final Rule at 94-95) Thus, land features may be deemed to be tributaries (regulated immediately under the rule) even if they are invisible to the landowner and even if they no longer exist on the landscape. So much for clarity!

Ditches are defined as tributaries (Final Rule at 204) and the agencies say they “in many instances can meet the definition of tributary.” (Final Rule at 97) Ephemeral ditches (that flow only when it rains) are excluded only if they were not “excavated in” a tributary and are not “relocated tributaries.” Because the exclusion is tied to determining the existence of historic ephemeral tributaries, it will be impossible for landowners to know which ditches are excluded.

All waters “adjacent” to other WOTUS—including those invisible tributaries—are automatically regulated. Adjacent/ neighboring is defined based on several possible distance 22

thresholds, but there are many steps and layers in determining whether a feature is within these distances. The trickiest part will be determining whether “any water” on your lands is within the 100year floodplain of, and not more than 1,500 feet from, any tributary—especially since tributaries might not be visible on the land.

Erosional features are excluded unless they meet the definition of a tributary.

Again because of the expansive and unknowable scope of “tributaries,” it will be impossible for landowners to distinguish a jurisdictional tributary from a non-jurisdictional erosional feature.

The rule regulates isolated features that should not be regulated under Supreme Court precedent. The rule asserts jurisdiction over non-navigable, remote features, such as isolated wetlands and ponds based on even the most tenuous connection to navigable waters—such as “maturation for stream insects.” (Final Rule at 38) Five specific types of waters are deemed “similarly situated” and must be aggregated across an entire watershed to determine whether they collectively have a significant nexus to downstream traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas. (Final Rule at 129-31) Because they must always be considered in the aggregate, it’s a virtual certainty that each and every Prairie pothole, Carolina bay and Delmarva bay, Pocosin, Western vernal pool and Texas coastal prairie wetland will be regulated.

The rule provides “bright line” distance thresholds that in fact provide no clarity or certainty at all. The only waters conceivably excluded from jurisdiction under the rule are waters more than 4,000 feet (about ¾ mile) from any other WOTUS, including any tributary. Landowners would have to map the locations of all (possibly invisible or historical) ephemeral “tributaries” within ¾ mile to determine whether any waters on

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

their lands are beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act. If they did that, they would probably find that no waters are beyond the agencies’ reach. According to the agencies’ economic analysis (at 11): “The agencies have determined that the vast majority of the nation’s water features are located within 4,000 feet of a covered tributary, traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea.”

Exclusions - The rule sets forth a number of exclusions (like farm ponds), but most apply only to features “created in dry land.” But “dry land” doesn’t actually mean land that looks dry. Instead, only the agencies will have the power to decide what is “water” and what is “dry land.” Here’s why…

Is it “water” or “dry land”? Each and every feature that is WOTUS must first be “water.” And many exclusions apply only to features “created in dry land.”

But the rule doesn’t define either of these terms, and the agencies only offer vague and circular explanations of what they mean.

Regarding the key term water, the agencies say “waters” are “natural or manmade aquatic systems, identifiable by the water contained in these aquatic systems or by their chemical, physical, and biological indicators. (Final Rule at 7, fn.1) This vague concept makes it easy for the agencies to find “waters” with very little evidence of the actual presence of H2O. Tricky! “Dry land” is just something that isn’t “water” (according to the agencies). (Final Rule at 173) The refusal to clearly define these key terms means that the agencies will have broad discretion to identify “waters”— and to limit the scope of most of the exclusions. As with any ambiguous regulation, the agencies will hold the trump card later in interpreting what’s arguably the most important word in this rule: WATER.

County Happenings

Greg Howell, a driver for Interstate Concrete in Rathdrum was recently searching for an agriculture slogan for the drum of a new cement truck. Greg’s father, Alton Howell, an Idaho Farm Bureau State Board member suggested the slogan in the photo.

Pictured left to right in the photo are Greg Howell, Alton Howell, Bob Smathers and Steve Horton an Interstate Concrete employee.

U I Forestry

Continued from page 19

though some foliar absorption does take place. Due to its long residual activity in the soil, it can provide season long control for weeds, but precautions must be taken to avoid damage to desirable plants. This herbicide inhibits photosynthesis.

Sulfometuron (Oust) Sulfometuron is a broadspectrum herbicide. It controls plants through foliar contact or through root uptake. It controls grasses and broadleaf weeds, and can be applied pre or post-

emergence. It works within a plant to prevent synthesis of amino acids by interfering with an enzyme.

Surfactants Surfactants are used to reduce the surface tension of water, allowing the water droplet to spread out on the leaf, increasing contact of the herbicide with the leaf. Consult the label for forestry applications as some conifers may be affected by the addition of a surfactant.

This list in not inclusive and

does not imply endorsement, but is a starting point for informational purposes. Restricted use herbicides require a pesticide applicators license. Lastly, timing and rates of herbicides applications are very important. Timing depends on the herbicide being used and its persistence, along with other characteristics. Remember to always read and follow the directions on the label, and check to make sure the chemical you are buying is registered for your intended use – the label is

the law! Always maintain good records regarding application rates, timing, climatic conditions, etc.

For further reading, visit: http://pnwhandbooks.org/ weed/other-areas/forestryand-hybrid-cottonwoods/ forestry Randy Brooks is a University of Idaho Extension Forestry Specialist based on campus in Moscow. He can be reached at: rbrooks@uidaho.edu

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

23

Grain Marketing with Clark Johnston

Wheat Margins Looking Thin: Producers Advised to Track Costs

By Clark Johnston Since the last month we have received a fair amount of rain scattered over the state.

The dry land wheat in the southern and southeast regions has seen a significant improvement in the quality of the crop.

The producers in these areas are now optimistic and in the southern region it looks as though they will be harvesting wheat in the middle of July.

The Chicago September futures continue to trade the range which began the first week of April. We have traded a seventy cent range between $5.40 and $4.70 trading the high and the low a couple times each. The high end may not be all that exciting but it is still a seventy cent range.

Futures this year aren’t that much different than the same time frame last year. Chicago wheat traded between $5.15 and $5.60 from the middle of July through the Third week of August last year. Futures did move lower last year trading the bottom of $4.85 near the end of September. By the middle of December the market had moved to a high in the area of $6.30 before starting the decline into the spring of this year.

What I am trying to say is that with the futures markets trading as near to last year we should look at just where the difference is. Last year the basis was stronger than the current levels. However, we have seen the basis in most classes of wheat strengthen over the past couple of months.

The strength may not have been huge but, it is moving in the right direction.

We will have times over the next few months the basis could weaken for short 24

periods. After all, remember that basis is our indicator of the local supply/demand.

We definitely have the potential for a good supply of quality wheat this year which could put pressure on any strength in basis moves. If the basis strengthens 20 to 30 points there will be a very good chance that wheat will move to market.

These will be the opportunities that we need to take advantage of this year. I know that the cash prices may still not be all that exciting but, this is shaping up to be the year when we need to contract the spikes in the market even though we may not be all that excited about the price. It just might be all that the market is going to give us this year.

What just might save us this year is the potential we have for good yields. When it comes right down to it yield is everything.

Let’s take soft white for example; 120 bushel yield and $5.75 per bushel would give us a gross income of $690 per acre.

A field with a yield of 110 bushels would now need to contract at $6.27 per bushel in order to give us the same profit potential.

I’m not talking about this to depress you but rather show you just how important it is to know just where you are as far as production costs are concerned. I know that at this time of the year you are extremely busy trying to maximize your production but it is just as important to know where you stand on expenses and the level you need to contract your commodities.

For whatever reason if the market was to run 50 cents higher over the next few days would you know if that level was profitable

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

Clark Johnston and contract wheat or would you simply say I wonder how much higher we are going thus losing your chance to contract.

It looks as though this year will be like years past and continue to be volatile. We will have opportunities this year to at least break even. When we know just where we stand we will be able to take advantage of what the market is giving us. If not we will end up with a list of lost opportunities.

When looking at marketing our commodities I feel that nothing is once in a lifetime but, having said that, I really don’t like looking at the market and saying, If the market ever gets back up to that level again I am going to sell. What this really means is that I didn’t have my ducks in a row the first time the opportunity presented itself.

As a teenager I spent a fair amount of time working with my uncle on his farm. He had a saying that didn’t make sense to me at first but I did eventually figure it out. I think it pertains quite well when it comes to marketing our commodities. He would always say, “ya hafta shoot the ducks when they’re flyin.”

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

KELLER

Continued from page 2 The resolution was adopted by the county and became policy of the Idaho Farm Bureau, which then forwarded the policy to the American Farm Bureau.

a total of 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel fuel used on highways. The last increase in the federal fuel excise tax was in 1993.

In 1957, the American Farm Bureau presented the resolution to various Congressional leaders. Because of the already unpopular excise tax and the inability to eliminate the tax, Congress unified to exempt non-highway gasoline and fuels from the excise tax. This benefited farmers and ranchers all over the nation.

In order to strengthen the enforcement of diesel fuel tax collections, the government’s 1993 provisions moved the tax collection point from the wholesale to the terminal level and required that any diesel fuel removed from the terminal for taxfree use must be dyed. Under this system, the terminal operator is liable for the diesel fuel tax when the fuel is removed from the terminal. The terminal operator is to forward the taxes to the IRS. If this taxpaid fuel is subsequently sold for a tax-free use, IRS is to refund the tax to purchasers or provide credits against other taxes, depending on the specific situation.

Feeling the success of the new law, the Idaho Farm Bureau in 1957 developed a policy which read, “The Federal 3 percent Transportation Tax was a war emergency measure. We recommend that this tax be repealed.” This policy was never acted upon by Congress.

Other tax increases followed during the Reagan, Bush and Clinton presidencies, to

The federal government instituted the dyed fuel program as an easy way to tell whether untaxed fuel, intended to be used

as home heating oil or for other off-road uses, was being used in diesel-powered vehicles. In addition, those dyed fuels are not subject to the federal and state taxes that are due on clear diesel fuel. By dying the non-taxable fuel red, federal and state authorities can immediately see that no tax has been paid on the fuel.

In addition to the federal fuel excise tax, the state of Idaho also assesses a fuel tax of 25 cents per gallon for both diesel and gasoline for highway use. On July 1, 2015 the state tax on fuels will increase to a total of 32 cents per gallon. The off-highway fuel exemption continues for both the state and federal governments.

When we fill up the tractors before entering into our fields, we should express appreciation to those farmers in Green Timber, Idaho, who sixty years ago challenged a federal law and won, benefiting all of agriculture annually.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

25

Top Farm Bureau Agents

Rookie of the Month:

Heather Grothaus

Agent of the Month:

Paul DeWitt Palmer Agency

Agency of the Month:

Reilly Agency

26

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

Touring Boundary County Agriculture Article and photos by Bob Smathers The Boundary County Farm Bureau and Boundary County Soil and Water Conservation District farm tour went off mostly without a hitch on May 28. At least until the fuel pump gave out on the bus about one hour into the tour. Fortunately, there was a brigade of pickups following the bus that could get the 50 or so participants to the next stop. A replacement bus met up with the tour group at the culmination of that stop.

The first stop on the tour was more of a Boundary County, Idaho historical stop.

It was a settlement as they called it on land now owned by Lee Pinkerton, current Boundary County Commissioner. The settlement was approximately 5 acres that the government provided at a reduced rate People who attended a tour of Boundary County in late May stopped at Apple Creek Propagators, a nursery. to establish farming in the county back in the 1930’s. It came with a house, a barn receiving a place and had to make a liv- Mr. Pinkerton toured the group through and a milk house. The tenants had to have ing off the land. The men then farmed on his refurbished barn that was a part of the a cow, horses and chickens to qualify for a larger scale on a different parcel of land. original settlement.

The second stop of the day was Apple Creek Propagators owned by John and Rosalyn Driedger. Apple Creek Propagators is a wholesale nursery that grows plants suitable to withstand harsh inland and high elevation climactic conditions. This nursery is unique in that it produces ornamental and native varieties as well as cultivars not commonly found in other nurseries.

Apple Creek Propagators offers bare-root, balled & burlap, and containerized trees and shrubs.

At another stop on the tour, the group visited Selkirk Mountain Elk Ranch.

The third and fourth stops were the Selkirk Mountain Elk Ranch owned by Fred Robbins and the Elk Mountain Hop Farm owned by Anheuser-Busch – InBev. Lunch was served to the group at the Elk Mountain Hop Farm before touring their greenhouse. The trip back to Bonners Ferry after the hop farm tour was an uneventful and scenic drive through the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge which lies about 20 miles south of the Canadian Border and 5 miles west of Bonners Ferry.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

27

County Happenings Top Photo: The Kootenai Shoshone County Farm Bureau did a MAC presentation for the Kindergartners at Fernan Elementary on June 2. There were four stations with dairy, wheat, horse and tack, and cowboy clothes. In photo is Farm Bureau member Cece Baldwin teaching the students about horse care and horse tack.

Photo by Bob Smathers

Bottom Photo: Kootenai / Shoshone County Farm Bureau and Schefflemeier Meats sponsored a beef quality workshop on Tuesday, June 16. Fred Schefflemeier, owner of Schefflemeier Meats spoke about beef quality and grading.

He compared the carcass of a grain fed steer with a grass fed heifer and what characteristics to look for when grading them.

He talked about carcass maturity, texture, and the amount and distribution of marbling within the carcass. In addition, Jim Wilson, University of Idaho Extension Educator in Kootenai County spoke to the crowd about genetics including how long it takes to get to a mature animal to grade when feeding grain vs. grass feeding. He also spoke about feed and nutrient composition of various types of feed and nutrition requirements of the animal.

Photo by Bob Smathers 28

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

29

30

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

Spousal Support Andrew David Junkin When I was in New Zealand, I went to a farm management competition where I talked to one of the judges about how he determined the winner. His answer was simple, yet surprising. His secret was that he talked to all the wives. I was taken aback by this response because I was really interested in production at that time and I thought he would have judged the competitors by measuring each farm’s return-on-investment. But the judge explained that he knew who was going to be the better farmer by talking to each wife.

In the end, he said, if a wife really wants the farm to succeed, it will. But if she doesn’t care whether or not the farm succeeds, she’s not going to kick her husband out of bed at five o’ clock in the morning when the alarm goes off.

It’s these little things that make a farm succeed. At first, I disagreed with the judge and thought he was being chauvinistic. But now I think he was right. It doesn’t matter whether the spouse is male or female; and it doesn’t matter whether they actually get dirt under their fingernails.

What matters is the amount of emotional

support they offer their spouse.

The first five years of marriage are absolutely critical in determining the amount of support a spouse will give to her partner and to the farm. Does she think of the farm as “his farm” or as “our farm?” This dynamic, along with the relationship she has with her in-laws, will have a big effect on whether the farm succeeds.

More often than not, when a couple gets married, the “in-laws” are still business partners with their son or daughter.

Whether the newcomer becomes truly engaged in the family farm depends on how he or she is treated (or mistreated) by the in-laws. For example, if the husband’s family is in constant conflict with their daughter-in-law and the issues between them don’t get resolved, the daughter-inlaw will eventually detach from the operation emotionally. Often the daughterin-law will then encourage her spouse to invest less time on the farm and eventually seek off-farm employment. This has serious consequences on the viability and future of the operation.

As much as a person might try to avoid them, conflicts are going to happen.

Whether they involve the business partners or family, smart farmers don’t bury their heads in the sand and hope that the problems will just go away. Smart farmers put a system in place to deal with problems before they become crises and know exactly what to do when something comes up.

Once I interviewed a successful farmer who also shared a very large agribusiness with his brothers. He mentioned that twice a year, all three brothers, along with their wives, went to dinner at a quiet little restaurant 40 miles from their hometown.

Their pastor was present as well, to facilitate the meeting.

Everyone would sit down to eat and to talk together about everything from work hours, to vacation time, to wages. They also discussed shared assets like housing and access to family vehicles. In other words, they proactively talked about all the issues that negatively affected the See FARMING WITH FAMILY, page 32

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

31

FARMING WITH FAMILY

Continued from page 31

business and the family.

Although these meetings were sometimes tense, no one left until all of the issues were sorted out. This family learned to accept that conflicts were bound to happen in a partnership and developed a method to deal with them before they grew, bogged down the business, and tore the family apart. These meetings likely saved both the family and the farm. Before they came up with this system, the brothers were ready to split their partnership, but now they all get along. They even take holidays together!

It wasn’t just the men who participated in these meetings.

Whether or not they’re officially business partners, it’s important to include spousal opinions and insights when attempting to prevent conflicts.

Designating a time and place for the sisters-in-law to address their pet peeves kept everyone engaged in the farm’s success. It gave everyone a platform to express concerns in constructive not destructive ways, thus fixing problems or even pet peeves before they festered.

A family meeting shouldn’t be all business. It should also carve out a place to talk about personal issues that could quickly get emotional if not dealt with properly.

A prime example of how emotional issues like jealousy can affect a farm’s bottom line is the case of Andrew. Andrew was a bachelor until he was 32

28. Even though he lived in a house down the road from his parents, his mother still cooked and cleaned for him regularly until he got married.

He didn’t even own a frying pan, until his wedding shower.

For a lot of young farmers, this is the norm.

When Andrew married, his mother loved her new daughter-in-law to bits and the two quickly became best friends.

But six months later it was a completely different story and the “in-laws” were now the “out-laws.” Sometimes another person walking onto the farm throws the family dynamics off balance. The women became jealous of each other and struggled to find their new place in Andrew’s life.

They were having a turf war.

Essentially, two women loved Andrew in different ways, and he didn’t know what to do.

In order to avoid mother inlaws from becoming the outlaws, I include a time/place for personal issues to be sorted out proactively before they become problematic issues that split the family farm apart. In my monthly business meetings that I chair, a few items on the agenda include aspects that affect personal issues.

For instance, one item on an agenda provides one area for improvement/critical feedback and we include the son’s newlywed spouse in these meetings. This girl is only 22, just out of college with a newborn and isn’t from a farm. Each meeting, the mother in law provides critical feedback

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

such as the expectation that her daughter in law brings her husband meals to the field during spring planting and doesn’t host dinner birthday parties for her side of the family during critical days like when their doing hayledge. By there being a time and place for critical feedback without it being said in an offensive way, the daughter law is forming into an excellent farm wife and appreciates the carefully thought through insight from her inlaws. Thus instead of the inlaws becoming outlaws due to a lack of communication, the family gets closer and more ef-

fective as a farming organization each month.

It’s the deep emotional issues—like jealousy—that can hit you like a frying pan across the back of your head and ruin your family business. Molehills become mountains overnight, and if you don’t have a plan in place for how to deal with them, you may lose it all.

Having a time and place to deal with the personal issues which overlap with the family business will prevent your family from “coming off track” and instead roaring forward like a steam train!

2015-16 Idaho FFA Foundation Tractor Raffle Kicks Off Win this Beautifully Restored

1975 Massey Ferguson 275 and support Idaho FFA members with your

$10 raffle ticket donation 2nd Prize—Traeger Grill 3rd Prize—$250 Carhartt Gift Card Proceeds benefit Idaho FFA Members through post-secondary education scholarships and support of Idaho FFA programs statewide through the Idaho FFA Foundation. $73,000 in scholarships has been awarded to date and another $14,000 in scholarships will be awarded in April 2016.

In addition, the local FFA chapters designated on the winning tickets will receive a portion of the total ticket proceeds.

Tickets may be purchased from your local FFA chapter or the Idaho FFA Foundation. The drawing will be on April 8, 2016 at the Idaho State FFA Leadership Conference in Twin Falls. Need not be present to win.

Idaho FFA Alumni

This restored tractor has only 3,994 original hours on it and includes a sprayer tank, new tires and blade.

Contact your local Idaho FFA Chapter for Tractor Raffle tickets, or call Idaho FFA Foundation Tractor Raffle Chairman Sid Freeman at 208-941-3584.

For more information about the Tractor Raffle, visit: www.idffafoundation.org

2015 Tractor Raffle Scholarships Winners—$14,000 Total $2,000 Agricultural Education Scholarships: Kirsten Forster, Meridian FFA Chapter Brianna Reed, Gooding FFA Chapter $1,000 Scholarships: Jordan Cates, Filer FFA Chapter Jarek Crossley, Preston FFA Chapter Riely Geritz, American Falls FFA Chapter Samantha Daniels, Malad FFA Chapter Laurel Howe, New Plymouth FFA Chapter Mary Kate Myers, Genesee FFA Chapter Taylor Sanderson, Troy FFA Chapter

Kelsey Stimpson, Melba FFA Chapter Kaitlyn Warner, Mackay FFA Chapter Dustin Winston, Middleton FFA Chapter

THANK YOU! Idaho Farm Bureau for your support of Idaho FFA and the Tractor Raffle!

For a full list of Tractor Raffle sponsors and more information about the Tractor Raffle program, please visit: www.idffafoundation.org Tickets may also be purchased on the website.

FFA—Premier Leadership, Personal Growth and Career Success through Agricultural Education Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

33

Three Counties Receive Disaster Declarations

On June 17th, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) designated Gooding, Jerome and Lincoln counties in Idaho as primary natural disaster areas due to damages and losses caused by a recent drought.

This brings the total Idaho counties with primary disaster designations to thirteen.

“An expedited process for drought was introduced in 2012,” said Idaho State Executive Director Mark Samson. “It occurs when, during the growing season, any portion of a county meets the D2 (Severe Drought) drought intensity value for eight consecutive weeks as reported in the US Drought Monitor. The 13 counties in Idaho that have primary designations fall under this expedited process.”

Farmers and ranchers in the fol-

Farmers Still Have Time to Apply for Loan Program

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Idaho Farm Service Agency (FSA) Executive Director, Mark Samson, recently announced that farmers and ranchers still have time to apply for low interest loans available through the FSA direct farm ownership 34

lowing counties in Idaho also qualify for natural disaster assistance because their counties are contiguous to those listed above. Those counties are: Blaine, Cassia, Minidoka, Camas, Elmore, Twin Falls All counties listed above were designated natural disaster areas on June 17, 2015, making all qualified farm operators in the designated areas eligible for low interest emergency (EM) loans from USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), provided eligibility requirements are met. Farmers in eligible counties have eight months from the date of the declaration to apply for loans to help cover part of their actual losses. FSA will consider each loan application on its own merits, taking into account the extent of losses, security available and repayment ability. FSA has a variety of programs, in addition to the EM loan program, to help eli-

program. Applications must be approved by Sept. 30, 2015, to take advantage of the funding available.

Eligible farmers and ranchers can borrow up to $300,000 to buy farmland, construct or repair buildings, pay closing costs, or promote soil and water conservation. The interest rate can be as low as 1.5 percent with up to 40 years to

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

gible farmers recover from adversity.

Additional programs available to assist farmers and ranchers include the Emergency Conservation Program, The Livestock Forage Disaster Program, the Livestock Indemnity Program, the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program, and the Tree Assistance Program.

Interested farmers may contact their local USDA Service Centers for further information on eligibility requirements and application procedures for these and other programs. Additional information is also available online at http://disaster.fsa. usda.gov.

It’s Wild and Woolly

7th – 11th, 2015 in the picturesque Wood River Valley of Idaho. Each fall the popular Trailing of the Sheep Festival celebrates the 150+ year tradition of moving sheep from mountain summer pastures south through the valley to traditional winter grazing and lambing areas. This annual migration is Idaho living history and a weekend long familyfriendly festival that highlights the people, arts, cultures, and traditions of sheep ranching in Idaho and the west. This is not a reenactment; it is living history at its best. The wild and woolly event has national and international appeal, drawing thousands each autumn to the charming mountain communities of Hailey, Ketchum and Sun Valley in central Idaho.

One would be hard pressed to find a more authentic or unique cultural heritage event than the 19th annual Trailing of the Sheep Festival, held October

For information and detailed schedule of events, www. trailingofthesheep.org

repay.

Center Locator at https://offices.usda.gov .”

“If you are thinking about entering the ag industry or expanding your farm or ranch, our direct farm ownership program can help,” said Samson. “There are funds available to meet your needs in a timely manner, so give us a call today.” Contact information can be found by selecting Idaho from USDA’s Service

New farmers and ranchers, military veterans, and underserved farmers and ranchers also are encouraged to apply.

Each year Congress targets 80 percent of available loan funds to beginning and targeted underserved farmers and ranchers. Targeted underserved groups include American

Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asians, Blacks or African Americans, Native Hawaiians, or other Pacific Islanders, Hispanics and women.

For more information about farm loans, visit www.fsa. usda.gov/farmloans, or contact your local FSA office. To find your local FSA county office, visit https://offices.usda.gov.

Appropriations Bill Includes Fire Funding Provisions

Provisions to pay for the most extreme wildfires through federal disaster funding were included in the Fiscal Year 2016 Interior Appropriations Bill, which was passed by a Senate panel today. The funding method is similar to legislation introduced by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who have been concerned that firefighting budgets in recent years have taken funding from other programs, including those that restore habitat and maintain jobs in national forests.

The Wyden-Crapo bill, S. 235, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, would draw from disaster and emergency accounts whenever costs exceed 70 percent of the 10-year average cost of wildfire suppression, freeing up funds that could be used for wildfire prevention activities in the nation’s forests. Year after year, money is borrowed from fire prevention funds in order to pay for wildfire suppression. The Interior Appropriations measure, approved in a markup by the Senate Appropriations Committee, ends fire borrowing and calls for the use of disaster funding when 100 percent of the Forest Service

budget is exhausted.

“I’m pleased the Senate Interior funding bill addresses the dangerous cycle of fire borrowing, because fires are getting bigger, hotter and more expensive, and Federal Agencies shouldn’t have to go bankrupt in order to fight these devastating infernos,” Wyden said.

“But solving fire borrowing is only half the battle—Congress must also ensure that adequate funds are available to get out ahead of the problem and prevent wildfires from raging out of control in the first place.”

GMO Answers

GMO Answers recently developed a video about the life of a seed, featuring a new character, Jake. The video is available on the GMO Answers Educational Resources page https:// gmoanswers.com/educationalresources and YouTube channel. This new video is a great resource if you’re looking for an easy-to-understand explanation about what GMOs are and how they’re made and used in agriculture.

Livestock Insurance Programs Available

The USDA Risk Management Agency’s (RMA) Spokane Regional Office reminds livestock producers in the Pacific Northwest of upcoming important dates for federal 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 2016 crop year

on July 1, 2015. Sales will continue through June 30, 2016, or until the maximum underwriting capacity is reached. Livestock producers are encouraged to review their insurance coverage and talk to their livestock insurance agents before renewing or buying a policy.

LRP coverage protects the policyholder from the risk of prices dropping during the insurance period. LGM provides protection against the livestock’s loss of market value after feed costs. LRP and LGM do not cover any other peril such as mortality, condemnation, physical damage, disease, individual marketing decisions, local price deviations, or any other cause of loss.

Livestock producers are encouraged to contact a local livestock insurance agent to learn additional details. Federal livestock insurance program policies are sold and delivered solely through private livestock insurance companies.

A list of livestock insurance agents is available at all USDA Service Centers and online at the RMA Agent Locator (http://

www.rma.usda.gov/tools/agent. html). The RMA Spokane Re-

gional Office serves producers in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Learn more about federal livestock insurance, federal crop insurance, and the modern farm safety net at www.rma.usda.gov.

Winter Wheat Production in Northwest Up from May

Based on June 1, 2015 conditions, Idaho winter wheat production is forecast at 59.2 million bushels, up 1 percent from last year. Harvested acres,

at 705,000 acres, are down 25,000 acres from 2014. Yield is expected to average 84.0 bushels per acre, up 3 bushels from the May 1 forecast and up 4 bushels from last year.

Oregon winter wheat production is expected to total 41.7 million bushels, 3 percent above last year. Area harvested is expected to total 745,000 acres, up 5,000 acres from the previous year. Yield is forecast at 56.0 bushels per acre, unchanged from the May 1 forecast but up 1 bushel from last year.

Washington winter wheat production is forecast at 104 million bushels, up 22 percent from 2014. Harvested acres, at 1.68 million acres, are up 40,000 acres from the previous year. Yield is forecast at 62.0 bushels per acre, down 1 bushel from the May 1 forecast but up 10 bushels from last year.

The United States winter wheat production is forecast at 1.51 billion bushels, up 2 percent from the May 1 forecast and up 9 percent from 2014.

Based on June 1 conditions, the United States yield is forecast at 44.5 bushels per acre, up 1 bushel from last month and up 1.9 bushels from last year.

U.S. White Winter wheat, at 204 million bushels, is up slightly from last month. Of the White Winter production, 12.4 million bushels are Hard White and 191 million bushels are Soft White. Hard Red Winter production, at 887 million bushels, is up 4 percent from last month. Soft Red Winter, at 414 million bushels, is down less than one percent from the May forecast.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

35

FARM BUREAU COMMODITY REPORT

GRAIN PRICES

Portland:

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Oats

Ogden:

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Barley

Blackfoot/ Idaho Falls

White Wheat 11.5% Winter 14% Spring Hard White

Burley:

White Wheat 11% Winter 14% Spring Barley

Nampa:

White Wheat (cwt) (Bushel)

Lewiston:

White Wheat H. Red Winter Dark N. Spring Barley

5/18/2015

6/23/2015 New Crop

Trend

No Bid 6.45-6.46 7.72 265.00

No Bid 6.11-6.20 7.57 265.00

N/A - .34 to - .26 - .15 Steady

6.27 5.45 6.75 5.60

5.67 5.09 6.46 5.70

- .60 - .36 - .29 + .10

5.91 5.64 6.50 5.69

5.30 5.20 6.06 5.40

-

5.76 4.86 6.15 4.75

5.17 4.90 5.71 4.75

- .59 + .04 - .44 Steady

9.33 5.60

9.28 5.57

- .05 - .03

6.05 6.05 7.07 131.50

5.85 5.90 6.89 131.50

- .20 - .15 - .18 Steady

.61 44 .44 .29

LIVESTOCK PRICES

Feeder Steers

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

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

Holstein Steers Under 700 lbs Over 700 lbs

Cows

Utility/Commercial Canner & Cutter

Stock Cows

Bulls

Slaughter

BEAN PRICES: Pinto Pink Small Red Garbanzo

5/20/2015

6/22/2015

Trend

245-332 210-295 175-260 169-202

260-342 210-283 182-240 170-191

+ 15 to + 10 steady to - 12 + 7 to - 20 + 1 to - 11

230-290 195-265 167-210 135-183

238-285 195-270 163-205 140-183

+ 8 to - 5 steady to + 5 - 4 to - 5 + 5 to steady

140-229 120-185

140-197 130-190

steady to - 32 + 10 to + 5

85-114 78-108

85-115 78-105

steady to + 1 steady to - 3

1375-2025

1500-2350

+ 125 to + 325

97-144

115-149

+ 18 to + 5

24.00-25.00 Not Established 40.00 28.00-30.00

24.00 Not Established 40.00 30.00

Steady to - 1.00 N.A. Steady + 2.00 to Steady

Compiled by the Idaho Farm Bureau Commodity Division 36

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

IDaho Hay Report June 19, 2015 USDA Market News Tons: 3300 Last Week: 155 Last Year: 8846

Compared to last Friday, there were not enough sales last week for accurate trends.

Trade was moderate this week. Producers continue to cut 1st cutting and a few locations have started on 2nd cutting. Demand was light to moderate. Retail/feed store/ horse hay was not tested this week. All prices are dollars per ton and FOB the farm or ranch unless otherwise stated.

Tons Alfalfa Large Square Supreme 500 Premium/Supreme 200 Good/Premium 1000 Fair 600 1000

Price Range 125.00-125.00 210.00-210.00 170.00-170.00 110.00-110.00 60.00-75.00

Wtd Avg Comments 125.00 210.00 170.00 110.00 72.00

Old Crop Excessive Moisture Old Crop

Alfalfa hay test guidelines, (for domestic livestock use and not more than 10% grass), used with visual appearance and intent of sale Quantitative factors are approximate and many factors can affect feeding value.

Potatoes Potatoes for Processing

June 16, 2015 IDAHO---Open-market trading by processors with growers was inactive.

Potatoes

UPPER VALLEY, TWIN FALLS-BURLEY DISTRICT, IDAHO---Shipments 560-660-700 (includes export of 8-7-4) ---Movement expected to remain about the same. Trading moderate. Prices generally unchanged. Russet Burbank U.S. One baled 5 10-pound film bags non size A 2.00-2.50; 50-pound cartons 40-60s mostly 17.00-17.50, 70s mostly 14.50-15.00, 80s mostly 8.50-9.00, 90s mostly 6.00, 100s 4.50-5.00. Shipment breakdown by variety for the week ending June 13, 2015 were generally Russets.

Potatoes for Seed

IDAHO---Shipments 55-7-7---Movement expected to seasonally decline. No prices reported.

5 Year Grain Comparison

Grain Prices..................6/28/2011.....................6/25/2012.................... 6/25/2013...................6/25/2014...................6/23/2015 Portland: White Wheat..................... 6.70 ............................7.33 ..............................N.Q. ...........................6.95 ...........................N.Q. 11% Winter...................7.43-7.64 .....................7.63-7.93...................... 8.20-8.58..........................7.99..........................6.11-6.20 14% Spring....................... 10.42 .............................9.38................................9.12...............................8.35...............................7.57 Corn..............................286-288.50...................282-284.25........................275.00...........................280.00.......................... 265.00 Ogden: White Wheat..................... 6.60 .............................6.60................................6.55..............................

11% Winter.......................6.34 .............................6.51 ............................. 6.65.............................

14 % Spring...................... 9.48 ..............................7.84 ............................. 7.79.............................

Barley.................................11.75..............................10.20.............................. 9.31.............................

5.85............................. 5.67 6.77............................ 5.09 6.50............................. 6.46 7.50............................. 5.70

Pocatello/Blackfoot: White Wheat.....................6.00 .............................6.25................................6.10.............................. 5.60............................ 5.30 11% Winter....................... 5.96 ..............................6.06 ............................. 6.63............................. 6.63............................ 5.20 14% Spring........................ 9.56 .............................. 7.95 ............................. 7.47............................. 6.34............................ 6.06 Barley.................................11.35 ............................ 10.10.............................. 9.16........................... No Bid........................... 5.40

Burley: White Wheat..................... 6.20 .............................6.36................................6.35...............................5.40...............................5.17 11% Winter....................... 6.06 ............................. 6.11 ..............................6.34 .............................6.30.............................. 4.90 14% Spring........................ 9.36 .............................. 7.51 ..............................7.28...............................6.50...............................5.71 Barley.................................11.25 .............................9.50 ..............................9.75...............................7.50.............................. 4.75 Nampa: White Wheat (cwt).......... 9.58 .............................10.60...............................7.00..............................10.25..............................9.28 (bushel)......... 5.75 ..............................6.36................................6.40...............................6.15.............................. 5.57 Lewiston: White Wheat..................... 6.40 ............................. 7.10............................... 7.15............................. 6.80............................ 5.85 Barley............................... 216.50...........................204.50.......................... 216.50 ....................... 171.50......................... 131.50 Bean Prices: Pintos................................30.00.............................50.00....................... 34.00-35.00.................34.00-35.00...................... 24.00 Pinks............................30.00-32.00.................. 45.00-48.00..................38.00-40.00...................No Quote......................No Quote Small Reds..........................N/A.................................N/A.........................38.00-40.00...................No Quote.........................40.00 ***

May MILK PRODUCTION UP 1.4 percent June 18, 2015 May Milk Production up 1.4 Percent Milk production in the 23 major States during May totaled 17.2 billion pounds, up 1.4 percent from May 2014. April revised production at 16.6 billion pounds, was up 1.8 percent from April 2014. The April revision represented an increase of 3.0 million pounds or less than 0.1 percent from last month’s preliminary production estimate.

Production per cow in the 23 major States averaged 1,990 pounds for May, 11 pounds above May 2014. This is the highest production per cow for the month of May since the 23 State series began in 2003.

The number of milk cows on farms in the 23 major States was 8.63 million head, 72,000 head more than May 2014, and 4,000 head more than April 2015.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

37

5 Year livestock comparison ...................................... 6/27/2011.....................6/18/2012.....................6/21/2013.................... 6/24/2014....................6/22/2015 Under 500 lbs................ 125-161 ......................140-189 ......................128-162........................ 200-265........................260-342 500-700 lbs.....................112-152.......................... 131-169..........................120-151.........................195-248........................210-283 700-900 lbs....................102-140 ....................... 119-155..........................111-136.........................145-217........................ 182-240 Over 900 lbs...................95-108..........................110-134...........................91-123..........................130-192........................ 170-191 Feeder Heifers Under 500 lbs................ 115-153 ......................135-165..........................116-143.........................185-251........................238-285 500-700 lbs..................... 91-136 .......................129-161..........................110-137.........................170-239........................ 195-270 700-900 lbs..................... 82-121..........................114-141...........................98-127..........................135-201........................163-205 Over 900 lbs...................82-105...........................89-125 ..........................85-114..........................114-162........................140-183 Holstein Steers Under 700 lbs................. 65-115...........................75-129............................84-95..........................115-179........................140-197 Over 700 lbs....................65-95 ..........................75-112............................69-100..........................125-170........................130-190

Cattle on Feed

June 19, 2015

United States Cattle on Feed Up 1 Percent Cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled 10.6 million head on June 1, 2015.The inventory was 1 percent above June 1, 2014.

Placements in feedlots during May totaled 1.71 million, 10 percent below 2014.

Net placements were 1.63 million head. During May, placements of cattle and calves weighing less than 600 pounds were 355,000, 600-699 pounds were 260,000, 700799 pounds were 389,000, and 800 pounds and greater were 710,000.

Marketings of fed cattle during May totaled 1.71 million, 8 percent below 2014.

May marketings are the lowest since the series began in 1996.

Other disappearance totaled 82,000 during May, 19 percent below 2014.

Cows Utility/Commercial...........52-83.............................65-86.............................60-82...........................88-114.......................... 85-115 Canner & Cutter..............40-72.............................55-79.............................60-73...........................78-102..........................78-105 Stock Cows.....................850-1500......................1000-1300......................850-1275.....................1200-1800....................1500-2350 Bulls – Slaughter............60-95 ..........................75-104...........................65-105...........................97-140..........................115-149

Cattle Outlook June 19, 2015 The average retail price of choice beef during May in grocery stores was a record $6.412 per pound. That is up 1 cent from the old record set the month before and up 49.9 cents from May 2014. Choice beef prices have set 15 records in the last 20 months.

The Consumer Price Index for May was higher for the fourth consecutive month, but is still a slight 0.04% below 12 months earlier.The “core” rate, excluding food and energy, was 1.7% higher this May than last.

The average price of slaughter steers was $161.50/cwt in May.That is the same as the month before and 9.5 cents below the record set in November 2014.

Through mid June beef packer margins are equal to last year. They are above the extremely low levels of 2012 and 2013 which caused plant closings, but not nearly high enough to induce expansion.

USDA’s weekly Crop Progress report says 73% and 67% respectively of corn and soybean acres were in good or excellent condition on June 14. Both numbers are slightly lower than on the same date last year.

Fed cattle prices this week were lower on light volume.Through Thursday, the 5-area average price for slaughter steers sold on a live weight basis was $151.29/cwt, down $3.57 from last week’s average, but up $2.25 from a year ago. The 5 area average dressed price this week for steers was $240.20/cwt, down $4.99 for the week, but up $3.26 compared to the same week last year.

This morning the choice boxed beef cutout value was $250.84/cwt, up $3.70 from the previous Friday and up $10.03 from a year ago. The select carcass cutout was $245.79/cwt this morning up $4.49 from last week and up $12.51 from a year ago.

Cattle slaughter this week totaled 549,000 head, up 1.3% from the week before and down 10.6% from the same week last year.

38

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

The average steer dressed weight for the week ending on June 6 was 866 pounds, up 2 pounds from the week before, up 16 pounds compared to the same week last year and above the year-ago level for the 51st consecutive week.

Feeder cattle prices at Oklahoma City were mixed this week. Prices for medium and large frame #1 steers by weight group were: 400-450# $315-$323, 450-500# $284$323, 500-550# $273-$287, 550-600# $240-$271, 600-650# $229-$260, 650-700# $225-$256, 700-750# $224-$239, 750-800# $221.50-$229, 800-900# $192-$227.50 and 900-1000#, $192-$213/cwt.

Fed cattle futures were little changed this week this week.The June live cattle futures contract settled at $151.90/cwt today, down 55 cents for the week. August fed cattle settled at $150.67/cwt, down 13 cents from the previous week. October fed cattle gained 5 cents this week to settle at $153.25/cwt.

The August feeder cattle contract ended the week at $223.42/cwt, down 3 cents for the week.

Provided by: University of Missouri

Classifieds

Farm Equipment

Real Estate/Acreage

20 ft Big Bubba flatbed gooseneck trailer, 20,000# GVW. Very little use. $7,000. Idaho Falls, Id 208-351-8667.

Lot For Rent: Mobile Home Lot - 14x70 or smaller. 2005 or Newer Models. $175.00 monthly, plus Utilities. Shelley Area. Contract required. Shelley, ID. Call 528-5337 for more info.

CASE VAC tractor. PTO, Winch. Runs good. $1,500 OBO. Orofino, Id 208-435-4798.

New Squeeze Chute, green, hand pull. $1,300.

Midvale, Id 208-355-3780.

Practically new Cub Cadet 2008cc-DHV. Used less than 50 hours. Firth, Id. For more info call 208-346-6982 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.

Case Loader W8, Series B. Year 1964-68.

Great Condition. Shelley area. Call 528-5337 leave message.

1950’s International 300 tractor with auger and 20’ dual axle trailer with sides. Rexburg, Id 208-351-9670.

Household 1907 Malcolm Love cabinet grand piano, African mahogany, (extinct wood). Beautiful and very ornate. Would be a wonderful piano for a church, resort, or home. Very good shape. $3,000. Kimberly, Id. 208-4234247.

Real Estate/Acreage Lemhi River home in Salmon, Id for sale.

House and home, residential, secluded. 540742-2532.

Home for rent. Out of Town, perfect for retired folks, quiet but next to county rd. 3 berms, 2 baths. $700 per month. Lenore, Id. 208-476-7329.

Wanted: Rent to own or owner finance up to 1 or 2 acres or less with hookups for trailer or old house with all hookups ‘in Idaho’.

208-358-7475.

Henry’s Lake - Lot at goose Bay for Sale $55,000. Includes sewer and water. 208404-9403.

dashton@idahofb.org

Vehicles 1975 Corvette hard top soft top V-8 auto.

1974 Jeep CJ5 304 3 spd. Preston, ID 208427-6237.

Wanted Looking for 14’ stock trailer with center slam gate, duel rear gate and good condition.

208-687-8910.

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

Old License Plates Wanted: Also key chain license plates, old signs, light fixtures. Will pay cash. Please email, call or write. Gary Peterson, 130 E Pecan, Genesee, Id 83832. gearlep@gmail.com. 208-285-1258 Looking for vintage sports and entertainment trading cards. Interested in pre-1980 cards but will consider everything. Offering a fair deal. 208-280-0677.

DEADLINE DATES:

ADS MUST BE RECEIVED BY

JULY 20 FOR NEXT ISSUE.

Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2015

39