- Idaho Farm Bureau

Transcription

- Idaho Farm Bureau

July 2014 • Volume 18, Issue 5
20
EPA Attempts to
Expand Regulatory
Authority
10
IFBF Women’s
Committee Selects
Teacher of the Year
®
Idaho Farm Bureau
31
Rodent Control –
Why it’s Important
Agriculture’s Time in
the Sun
By Bob Stallman
AFBF President
Ladies and gentlemen, start your
grills! It’s time for Fourth of July
celebrations, family reunions,
neighborhood gatherings and any
other excuse to get together and
enjoy the summertime foods we
love. I’m partial to a thick beef
rib eye, and somehow it seems
to taste even better if it has those
EPA’s Proposed ‘Waters’
Rule is Unworkable
By Frank Priestley
President Idaho Farm Bureau
Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation recently reviewed EPA’s
March 25 release of the ‘waters
of the U.S.’ proposed rule. The re-
Farm Credit Crisis
of the 1980’s
By Rick Keller
CEO Idaho Farm Bureau Federation
Every now and then in the history
of American agriculture, the cry of
“Save the Family Farm” goes up.
At no time was this more evident
than during the farm credit crisis
2
Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014
The Ag Agenda
crosshatched grill marks on both
sides. Summer is the perfect time to recognize the abundance provided
by America’s farmers and ranchers. Tomato vines are dripping
with fruit. The corn is ripe and
sweet. Seasonal ice cream stands
are open. Agricultural bounty is
all around us. Independence Day
sults of the review are dismaying.
The EPA proposal poses a serious
threat to farmers, ranchers and
other landowners. Under EPA’s
proposed new rule, waters – even
ditches – are regulated even if
they are miles from the nearest
‘navigable’ waters. Indeed, socalled ‘waters’ are regulated even
if they aren’t wet most of the time.
EPA says its new rule will reduce
uncertainty, and that much seems
to be true: there isn’t much uncer-
of the 1980’s. A massive accumulation of farm debt in the 1970’s
ran head-on into an unfavorable
economic climate and incredibly
high interest rates in the 1980’s.
The result was that many previously successful farmers went out
of business and the agriculture
land market hit rock bottom.
During the mid-1970s, economic
factors were good for agriculture.
Interest rates were relatively low,
so farmers could borrow cheaply.
With lowered trade barriers, peo-
As we celebrate our nation’s 238th
birthday, the words of the document that established the United
States as a new nation—the Declaration of Independence—seem
especially applicable to farmers
and ranchers. The Continental
Congress wrote, “We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with
See STALLMAN, page 6
tainty if most every feature where
water flows or stands after a rainfall is federally regulated.
Under this proposed rule, farmers, ranchers and every other
landowner across the countryside will face a tremendous new
roadblock to ordinary land use activities. This is not just about the
paperwork of getting a permit to
farm, or even about having farming practices regulated. The fact
See PRIESTLEY, page 6
ple in foreign countries wanted
American agriculture products and
had the money to pay for it. Farm
incomes and commodity prices
soared. Prices for farm land seemed
reasonable so farmers were buying
more land on credit to expand with
their bankers’ encouragement.
In the 80’s the economy went bad.
Outside economic factors forced
interest rates up (example, in October 1981, the average 30-year home
mortgage rate was 18.45% with
See KELLER, page 7
Volume 18, Issue 5
IFBF OFFICERS
President ................................... Frank Priestley, Franklin
Vice President ...................................Mark Trupp, Driggs
Executive Vice President ............................... Rick Keller
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Bryan Searle ............................................................Shelley
Mark Harris ................................................. Soda Springs
Chris Dalley ....................................................... Blackfoot
Dean Schwendiman ........................................... Newdale
Danny Ferguson ........................................................Rigby
Scott Steele ..................................................... Idaho Falls
Gerald Marchant .................................................. Oakley
Rick Pearson ................................................... Hagerman
Rick Brune............................................................Hazelton
Curt Krantz ............................................................. Parma
Cody Chandler....................................................... Weiser
Tracy Walton ........................................................ Emmett
Marjorie French ............................................... Princeton
Alton Howell ................................................ Careywood
Tom Daniel ............................................... Bonners Ferry
Carol Guthrie ......................................................... Inkom
Luke Pearce ............................................. New Plymouth
STAFF
Dir. of Admin. Services ....................... Nancy Shiozawa
Dir. of Organization............................... Dennis Brower
Commodities & Marketing Assistant ........... Peg Pratt
Member Services Assistant ..................... Peggy Moore
Publice Relations Assistant ...................... Dixie Ashton
Dist. I Regional Manager ........................... Justin Patten
Dist. I1 Regional Manager ..............................Zak Miller
Dist. III Regional Manager .................. Charles Garner
Dist. IV Regional Manager ..........................Brody Miller
Dist. V Regional Manager ....................... Bob Smathers
Dir. of Governmental Affairs ................Russ Hendricks
Asst. Dir. of Governmental Affairs .... Dennis Tanikuni
Energy/Natural Resources ....................... Bob Geddes
Director of Public Relations .............. John Thompson
Video Services Manager ............................ Steve Ritter
Broadcast Services Manager ..................... Jake Putnam
Office Manager, Boise .................... Julie Christoffersen
Member Services Manager ........................ Joel Benson
Printed by: Owyhee Publishing, Homedale, ID
GEM STATE PRODUCER
USPS #015-024, is published monthly
except February, May, August and November by the
IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
275 Tierra Vista Drive, Pocatello, ID 83201.
POSTMASTER send changes of address to:
GEM STATE PRODUCER
P.O. Box 4848, Pocatello, ID 83205-4848.
Periodicals postage paid at Pocatello, Idaho,
and additional mailing offices.
Subscription rate:
$6.00 per year included in Farm Bureau dues.
MAGAZINE CONTACTS:
Idaho Farm Bureau Federation
EDITOR (208) 239-4292 • ADS (208) 239-4279
E-MAIL: [email protected]
www.idahofb.org
Cover: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is attempting
to expand its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act.
The agency’s plans are to increase authority to regulate ditches,
potholes and other swampy areas. Farmers, ranchers and
landowners are encouraged to send EPA comments to help fend
off the new regulations. See story on page 20. Photo by Steve Ritter
A C-130 in flight. These planes are used for a wide variety of military applications, as well as
wildland firefighting.
Forest Service adds Air Tankers
to Combat Wildfire Threat
By Jake Putnam
Boise - The 2014 fire season is underway with early season fires burning in Oregon,
Arizona and California. The biggest worries this year are the ongoing drought, lack of rain in the West and
an aging fleet of air tankers.
The Forest Service added five new tankers to its fleet this spring and four attacked
the early season Bend, Oregon fire last month.
“We continue to increase and modernize the fleet of aircraft available for wildland
fire suppression activities,” said Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “These new
planes will combine with our existing fleet to support our heroes on the ground fighting wildfires to keep our resources and communities safe.”
Last year there were just 10 air tankers that covered the entire west. Planners moved
the planes into hot spots as needed including the Beaver Creek fire near Sun Valley.
But this year the U.S. Forest Service decided that 10 air tankers were not enough.
With the threat twice as great this year more air tankers will spend time at the NIFC
Base in Boise or as needed. But that changes when late afternoon lightning strikes
sweep the West on any given day according to Jennifer Jones at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise.
When asked where the bulk of the tankers will be based Jones said: “no place in
particular, they’re mobile, and we move them based on current need and predicted
fire activity.”
Last May the U.S. Forest Service made the announcement adding four more large air
tankers to the next-generation firefighting fleet. That brings the total number of air
tankers available this summer to 21. In 2012 the US fleet was down to 11 after two
crashes destroyed a plane and grounded another. Two contract pilots, including one
from Boise, were killed in the crashes.
See AIR TANKERS page 4
Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JuLY 2014
3
AIR TANKERS
Continued from page 3
A C-130 tanker drops a load of fire retardant on the Beaver Creek Fire last summer in Blaine County.
Several of the special retro-fitted air tankers are brand new -- like the next generation MD 87s. They can fly faster, are jet
powered, and can carry bigger loads of fire
retardant.
The forest service has been making do
with less because of the aging fleet of
planes. Back in 2012, half of all orders for
air tankers couldn’t be filled because of
lack of aircraft.
Tankers are critical in the initial attack
of wildfires, keeping fires small till hand
crews catch up. But they’re a shared national resource and must go where needed
most.
This year’s announcement takes the edge
off the planning process at the National
Fire Center, planners will have 18 tankers
available instead of 10 and that is comforting for NIFC crews that work around the
clock at the Boise base. The addition of a DC-10 and three BAe146s reinforces the agency’s large fleet of
air tankers. Also in reserve this year are
100 helicopters along with additional aircraft from Alaska, California, Canada and
4
#
the Department of Defense.
The DC-10, the second purchased by the
Forest Service, carries up to 11,600 gallons
of water or retardant and flies at 430 mph,
according to a news release.
The smaller BAe-146s can deliver a payload of 3,000 gallons and fly at speeds
around 350 mph.
Also eight National Guard C-130s,
equipped with Modular Airborne Fire
Fighting Systems and similar to the BAe146s, should be certified for use any day
now.
The fire season is shaping up and it’s not
looking good. Most of the Southwest is under extreme drought conditions according
to the latest update from the U.S. Drought
Monitor. Much of Oregon, the Southwest
and even parts of Central Idaho report severe drought conditions.
Sen. Ron Wyden along with Sen. Mike
Crapo praised the Forest Service’s expansion of its firefighting fleet.
“Devastating wildfires have ripped
through California, and drought has al-
ready dried out much of Southern Oregon.
The administration’s deployment of these
next-generation air tankers is crucial for
future fire seasons and will give invaluable
aid to the firefighters on the ground. I will
continue to work hard with my colleague,
Sen. Mike Crapo to pass our wildfire funding bill that would treat wildfires like the
natural disasters they are,” said Wyden.
Between 2004 and 2013 both the Department of Interior’s and the Forest Service’s
wildfire costs exceeded the 10-year average seven times. When those funds run
out, agencies are forced to use money set
aside for prevention like cutting underbrush, without funding those projects are
set aside until funded again.
The Beaver Creek fire near Ketchum last
August burned 114,000 acres and cost
$25-million dollars to fight. Nationally the
2013 fire season was severe with more than
4.3 million acres burned in wildfires and
six of the worst fire years since 1960 have
occurred in the past decade, according to
the National Interagency Fire Center
Life on the Range - Investing in Stewardship
Article and
Steve Stuebner
photos
by
Robert Stoll is a retired civil
engineer who was looking to
find a safe and productive place
for his investment funds in the
mid-1990s. He saw an advertisement for a cattle ranch in
Hells Canyon, and it intrigued
him.
“There was an ad in the Lewiston paper, and it was about that
big,” Stoll says. “It said this was
place was available. Finally I
got a tour, and I decided right
then that it was pretty interesting and that this place has a lot
of potential.”
Stoll is an avid chukar hunter,
so he was excited about owning
a ranch in Hells Canyon, a place
that’s known for great chukar
hunting. But he also liked the
idea of owning a well-managed
cattle ranch right on the edge
of the Joseph Plains. The Hells
Canyon National Recreation
Area, all 652,488 acres of it, is
his next-door neighbor.
Stoll also has a spectacular
view out the backdoor of his
Goats are used to control weeds, namely Yellow starthistle, on a ranch owned by Robert Stoll in Idaho County.
ranch, where he can peer into
the deepest gorge in North
America.
“I think it’s fascinating,” he
says. “One of my neighbors is
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area -- that’s about as
good a neighbor as you could
ask for in terms of not thinking
of development. It’s a totally
unique place. I love coming
down here.
“It’s peaceful and quiet, turkeys run through the front
yard, there’s been a bear coming down the road toward the
house, and the elk have been
running through here. And the
deer are all over the place. Lots
of fringe benefits. It’s a really
neat experience.”
Marianne Lindsey is the ranch
manager. She runs a cowcalf operation, raises yearling
steers, and owns a big goat herd
for controlling weeds.
Lindsey uses the goats to control Yellow starthistle, a noxious weed, on the ranch. Timing is critical, she says. “Yeah,
you want to hit them when they
start bolting, after the rosette
stage, and they start to flower.
That’s the best time because the
goats really like to eat that yellow flower.”
Cattle are an important part of the range management strategy on
Robert Stoll’s ranch.
The cattle herd grazes on perennial grasses at the home
ranch during the fall, winter
and spring. They use a deferred-rotation grazing system
to keep the range healthy.
“The bunchgrass and the fescue, they’re the lifeblood of this
river country,” Lindsay says.
“It has nutrition to it, it stands
up through the snow, the cattle
can still eat it, and if you don’t
have that, you don’t have a lot
of forage for all winter long.”
During the summer, the cattle
graze on Forest Service allotments near Grangeville.
Lindsey rents out her goats in
the summer to control weeds
around private homes and to
reduce fire danger. She stays
pretty busy managing the goats
and the livestock, and always
working to improve the ranch.
“Mary Ann has done more than
I’ve asked for here, along with
trying to manage her goats, and
cattle,” Stoll says. “You’ve got
a full-time job with that, let
alone the restoration and what
have you.”
Lindsey likes the lifestyle. “I
See LIFE ON THE RANGE page 9
5
STALLMAN
certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.”
Nothing is more essential to
life than food and, therefore,
agriculture. Farmers and
ranchers have a special appreciation for liberty—the
freedom to be productive and
profitable. Also, it’s much easier to pursue happiness when
you are free from hunger.
While we celebrate the declaration of American independence from Britain, it is
also fitting to recognize how
farmers and ranchers, who
produce the bounty we enjoy,
also give us our personal independence. Because farmers
have chosen to work the land
for a living, others are free to
pursue other careers and interests—whatever constitutes
their personal pursuit of happiness.
United States of Agriculture
Sometimes it seems that
Americans aren’t very united
in our views about food, or
the farmers and ranchers who
PRIESTLEY
is there is no legal right to a
Clean Water Act permit – if
farming or ranching activities need a permit, EPA or the
Army Corps of Engineers can
deny that permit. That’s why
Clean Water Act jurisdiction
over farmlands amounts to
nothing less than federal veto
power over a farmer’s ability
to farm.
EPA accompanied its proposal with a new ‘interpretive rule’ claiming to clarify
certain statutory exemptions
for agricultural conservation
practices, including activities
as commonplace and essential to farming as building a
fence. But these exemptions
apply only to ‘dredge and fill’
permit requirements. They do
not protect farmers from federal veto power over pest and
weed control, fertilizer application, and other essential
6
farming activities that may
result in the addition of ‘pollutants’ to ‘navigable waters,’
– providing one views every
ditch and wet spot across the
landscape as ‘navigable waters.’
The American Farm Bureau
Federation will dedicate itself
to opposing this attempted
end run around the limits set
by Congress and the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court
has ruled repeatedly that Congress meant what it said: ‘navigable waters’ does not mean
all waters. This proposed rule
shows that EPA refuses to accept those limits.
For more information on this
issue go to www.ditchtherule.
fb.org. All Idaho landowners,
farmers and ranchers are encourage to fill out a comment
form and send it to EPA.
provide our food security.
There is much healthy debate
about what we should eat,
how it should be produced,
etc. It is because of our abundant food supply and farmers’
amazing productivity that we
are able to have those debates.
If we didn’t live in the land of
plenty, and plenty of choices,
our national conversation
would be very different than
it is today.
We can and should have those
debates, but let’s also recognize how food brings us together, especially at certain
times of the year. Let’s celebrate the things that make us
uniquely American, such as
our love for a pie made from
fresh summer berries or that
burger on the grill.
Let’s also remember to thank
the farmers and ranchers who
work and face risks that would
keep most people awake at
night, so all of us can fill our
picnic plates.
Happy birthday, America!
keller
2.1 points.) In 1980, Russia invaded Afghanistan. The U.S.
protested and President Jimmy
Carter stopped the shipment of
farm products to Russia in response to the invasion. That
embargo on farm products hurt
the farm export market, driving
prices down. Debts piled up.
With less demand and lower
prices for their products, many
American farmers had no way
to pay back the loans they had
taken out. Many borrowed
even more money, hoping that
better crops and prices would
rescue them in a year or two. It
didn’t happen.
Farming was in a crisis. For
a period of time it was almost
impossible to open a newspaper or turn on the television
without facing images of farm
auctions and foreclosure sales.
Delinquency on property taxes
escalated. Many of the farmers
were able to survive the 1980s
by finding work off the farm to
supplement their meager farm
incomes. Rural populations
declined.
Populist farm groups began
popping up, some calling on
farmers to strike if the government wouldn’t guarantee high
enough prices for their commodities to cover the cost of
production and a reasonable
profit. Organized tractorcades
to Washington, D.C. and state
capitals occurred, only to harm
public sympathy the groups
hoped to establish. Violence
at farm auctions was rare although some county sheriffs
reported that they were met
with guns when they went to
serve foreclosure orders. Radical groups like the Posse Comi-
tatus sprang up to disrupt sheriffs’ sales. Many farm activists
felt that the bankers were being
too greedy, and that the farmers deserved a break in tough
times. So, hundreds of farmers would show up at the auction and bid ridiculously low
amounts for the equipment and
land on the sale. Serious bidders were discouraged. Then,
the activists would turn around
and give the material back to
the farm family in trouble.
These became known as “nickel auctions.” These radical
measures advocated by these
groups were a measure of the
desperation that farmers felt in
the face of the farm crisis.
Despite all the clamor and frustration in the late 1970s and the
early 1980s, Farm Bureau was
still the organization that farmers looked to for a solution to
the farm crisis, and one was
found in the Two-Tier Debt Restructuring Program that Farm
Bureau championed. The basic idea was to get farmers and
lenders beyond the “one more
year” syndrome and help those
who could make things work
out in the long run.
able to reduce Tier-1 debt,
equal amounts would shift over
from Tier 2. An internal Farm
Bureau report indicated that
100,000 to 125,000 farm operators needed debt restructuring
in order to avoid liquidation.
The Idaho Farm Bureau and
other state Farm Bureaus met
with Farm Credit System and
Farmers Home Administration officials, and commercial
bankers. Within a month of
Farm Bureau’s plan, commercial banks had received
the regulatory clearance they
needed to work things out with
farmers and practice forbearance. The Farm Credit System
was still a reluctant restruc-
turer. In May 1986 Farm Bureau went to Congress to pass a
resolution to pressure the Farm
Credit System to implement a
nationwide loan restructuring
program. The vote from Congress was 407 to 0 and left no
doubt where the House stood
on the loan restructuring.
The plan did not eliminate foreclosures but made them a last
resort after careful analysis of
the alternatives. In the end, the
tractorcades, Farm Aid concerts, and sympathetic media
coverage did not solve the farm
crisis. Hard work by Farm Bureau and a coalition of farm
groups, and action by Congress
produced a solution.
In the Farm Bureau plan, Tier-1
debt was the amount of a farmer’s debt which analysis showed
the operator would be able to
pay interest and principal from
the expected commodity prices
over the next five years. The
prevailing interest rate would
be paid on Tier-1 debt. Tier2 debt was the amount of total debt not part of Tier-1. No
principal payments would be
required and the lender would
charge a reduced interest rate.
As the farming operation was
7
Owyhee County ranchers attend a bull sale in Homedale last winter. Ranchers in the area are fighting a lawsuit to keep their grazing allotments intact.
Farm Bureau file photo
Ranchers win another grazing victory on Owyhee 68
By Jake Putnam
Owyhee 68 rancher Tim Lowry. Murphy— The Owyhee 68 coalition is
gaining momentum in Federal District
court.
The court date was remanded and withdrawn and sent back to the BLM according to Lowry. “Now they’ll have to go back
and comply with NEPA rules and regulations and take into consideration improvements ranchers made on the land.”
Earlier this summer ranchers won their
second legal battle over curtailed grazing
permits. But that decision didn’t sit well
with the Bureau of Land Management.
“Of course the BLM immediately filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal,” said Wyatt
Prescott of the Idaho Cattle Association.
“It is under consideration but we think this
case will go the same as the Garat case.”
“We had just found out about the second
case, Castlehead- Lambert. They received
summary judgment, that’s the same as the
first case, the Garat allotment,” said fellow
8
In 2013 after the National Environmental
Policy Act study, the BLM imposed grazing restrictions on the 68 allotments in
Owyhee County. Cutting grazing was cut
by more than 50-percent on the Owyhee
range.
“I’d just heard about the second one,” said
Ted Blackstock, another member of the socalled Owyhee 68, ranchers that graze on
the Owyhee. Idaho Farm Bureau producer / JULY 2014
“It’s the same as the first they were remanded back to the BLM because they
didn’t consider improvements on the land.
Those decisions will help our case too because we were not allowed to present our
improvements in the NEPA. We’re still
asking for summary judgment, and its’
looking good,” said Blackstock.
It all started 15 years ago when Federal
District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ordered the BLM’s Owyhee field office in
southwestern Idaho to rewrite the 68 grazing permits, permits that it had reconsidered just two years before.
Back then Winmill’s decision voided the
old permits on the heels of a lawsuit by
Western Watersheds Project. Watersheds
argued the permits weren’t properly ana-
lyzed in accordance with the
NEPA.
consider all alternatives to address the situation.”
Last fall the BLM started drastically cutting grazing allotments in accordance with the
NEPA. Ranchers Blackstock and Lowry welcomed the latest ruling,
saying ranchers are improving
their allotments, and have for
years but that work went unnoticed by the BLM. They say
they’re confident that they’ll at
least get a more balanced allotment assessment in the NEPA
process.
Ranchers took the BLM to
court and earlier this year in an
ironic twist the court found that
the permits were not properly
analyzed in accordance with
NEPA. “I was absolutely surprised that
we were not allowed to show
improvements,” said Lowry.
“Not only did it not make range
management sense but according to regulations they need to
“The thing that bothers ranchers is the redundant direction
the court is going, wasting a lot
of hard earned money on legal
fees,” said Lowry.
Lowry says the court is send-
ing a clear-cut message; “It’s
simple, the court is telling the
BLM to go back and do it right.
I would hope the BLM would
withdraw the remaining 66
cases and not make everyone
go through the long process.
That’s a lot of spending money
on attorneys to get identical
judgments.”
Owyhee County ranchers say
the NEPA’s decision to cut
grazing on the range is the biggest threat to ranching in more
than a 150 years.
“These renewals are unlivable and completely lacking in
common sense as far as we’re
concerned. The cutbacks don’t
take into consideration seasons
of use,” said Lowry.
Under the permit issued in
2013 by the BLM, Lowry’s cattle are already off the range yet
allowed to graze the Owyhee
mountaintops. That’s left
Owyhee ranchers scratching
their heads.
“Going to mountaintops in
April when the snow melts
or December when the snow
is falling you can’t use it,
there’s no feed, so actual reductions are more severe than the
past reductions,” added Lowry.
LIFE ON THE RANGE
just ride my horse and have a
picnic lunch every day,” she
jokes.
“My family thinks I’m crazy.
They quit worrying about me,
I guess. It’s not for everybody.
It’s a pretty tough life, really. I
have 2-3 young men that help
me. Between Bob being a good
person to work with that has
the same goals, and I’m only as
good as my guys and my dog,
other than that, I try to put it all
together and make everything
work for me.”
Stoll and Lindsey are always
trying to improve the ranch
for cattle and wildlife. “What’s
good for the range, is good for
just about everything,” Stoll
says. “I particularly like to
hunt birds, and it’s good habitat -- good for the wildlife,
the chukars, the huns and the
quail. They’re like a little added whipped cream on a piece of
pie here.”
Carl Crabtree, supervisor of the
Idaho County Weed Manage-
ment program, says it’s great
to see an investor like Robert
Stoll support a well-managed
ranch and also work to make
it better. “Bob sees this as an
investment. He doesn’t want to
let that investment degrade. He
wants to improve it.”
“We used to see investors coming in as kind of a negative
deal,” Crabtree explains. “A
lot of times they’ll get rid of
the livestock, and they let the
weeds grow. And then they sell
the place, and leave it in a condition that’s a lot worse than
when they found it.
“I see Bob and others like him
coming in as more of a positive thing. They’re injecting
some cash into the area, which
is good, they want to be good
neighbors and good stewards. I
think the ones coming in now
are a good breed that will help
rangelands for the future.”
Stoll says he would recommend investing in ranches as a
long-term venture.
Ranch owner Robert Stoll is an avid upland bird hunter.
“Like any investment, you
have to understand the risk
involved, and the costs involved,” he says. “In improving
anything, it costs money. If you
are looking for short-term returns, this is not the place. It’s a
long-term investment. Mother
Nature doesn’t work real fast.
Outside of fires, it’s all a pretty
slow process.”
But having an experienced
ranch manager is critical, he
says. “I’m real lucky. I have extremely good tenants. I gotta be
honest with you, that’s the key
to it. If you don’t have good
tenants, it’s just not going to
work.”
Steve Stuebner is the writer
and producer of Life on the
Range, www.lifeontherange.
org, an educational project
sponsored by the Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission.
9
Teacher of the Year Selected
The Idaho Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership Committee has selected Tom Coates
from Challis High School as the 2014
Teacher of the Year.
Coates is a vocational agriculture teacher
who recently entered the profession after a
career of work in construction, as a rancher, and as an environmental policy advisor
for the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. For the past two years he has taught
agriculture, welding, animal husbandry,
crop management, fabrication and is the
school’s Future Farmers of America (FFA)
advisor.
Coates is a graduate of Mackay High
School, Boise State College, and Willamette University.
A letter from Rose Cheff, president of
CHS Parent Teacher Association, which
was part of the nomination packet, states:
“Tom’s greatest asset is his personality.
He works well with all of the high school
teachers and administrators. He’s involved
in the community through coaching, having served as the junior high boy’s basket-
ball coach for two years. He maintains an
open-door policy for students, staff and
parents and is gracious to deal with even
under the most difficult circumstances.”
CHS Principal Rustan Bradshaw wrote
that Coates’ teaching skills and knowledge
of subject matter are of great benefit to the
school district. “On a personal side, Tom
is a great mentor to our young educators.
He encourages them to understand the area
they live in by teaching them about local
farming and ranching. He is a superb FFA
leader and the students love him.”
Tom Coates, second from right, from Challis High School, was recently selected as the Idaho Farm Bureau Teacher of the Year. Also pictured from the
left are students JD Taylor, Harley Maxwell and Tommy Herrick.
10
Here’s to bringing up the sun.
Here’s to muddy boots and grease-stained hands.
Here’s to caring for this great land.
Here’s to protecting what you live for.
We’re proud of our agricultural roots, and proud to be the insurance company so
many families rely on to protect them from the unexpected. Here’s to protecting
you, your family and your future.
www.fbfs.com
FB10 (4-14)
ID-Here’sTo…(4-14).indd 1
5/14/14 3:04 PM
11
Focus on Agriculture
Cutting Regulations to Stimulate
the Economy - #DitchTheRule
By Stewart Truelsen
Billionaires don’t always say
the smartest things, but one of
them has a smart idea. At the
Forbes Reinventing America
Summit, billionaire real estate
developer Sam Zell said, “If
you want to see the economy
go wild just cut all the regulations in half.”
Zell is known for his contrarian views and more often than
not has been a successful investor. Cutting regulations
is certainly contrary to what
generally takes place in Washington. Regulations, especially
environmental regulations, just
keep piling up and up.
“We’re in a society where we
think all risk can be regulated
out,” said Zell. “There are just
unending interpretations, revisions, legal fees to the sky—
when you’re focused on that,
you’re not focused on growing
and getting new customers.”
a heavy rain. Farms, ranches,
businesses and new construction could be affected. EPA claims the proposed rule
is a clarification of which waters fall under its jurisdiction.
But in tracing the history of
major regulatory acts like the
Clean Water Act and Clean Air
Act, the words that stand out
on EPA’s own timeline are “expanded,” “increased,” “authorized” and “established.” The Office of Management and
Budget reviews pending federal regulations, and it comes
as no surprise that EPA has the
most regulatory activities under review at the present time.
It is only a natural tendency for
federal regulatory agencies to
extend their reach by adding
more and more regulations to
the laws that Congress writes.
Farmers know that feeling all
too well. When they should
be focused on growing this
season’s crops and tending
livestock, their attention is diverted by the Environmental
Protection Agency’s “Waters
of the U.S.” proposed rule. The
rule broadens federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water
Act and could extend permit
requirements to ditches, small
ponds and even depressions in
fields that are only wet during
12
The last president who really
tried to stop them and tackle
regulatory overkill was Ronald
Reagan. A reduction in regulations was one of the major
policy objectives of his 1981
economic recovery program.
Deregulation was applied primarily to regulations that restricted economic activity, like
price controls on oil and natural gas.
Every administration since
Reagan’s, including the Obama
administration, has expressed
a desire for regulatory reform,
but the results have been slow
to materialize. Cost-benefit
analysis is done on only a fraction of new regulations.
The Competitive Enterprise
Institute estimates the annual
cost of regulations to be about
$1.8 trillion.
On a household basis, regulations cost more than every budget item except housing; that’s
more than health care, food,
transportation, etc. Cutting
regulations in half, as Zell suggests, would indeed cause the
economy to go wild.
There are alternatives to regulations that can get the same or
better results. The American
Farm Bureau Federation advocates market-based solutions
and incentives as preferable
to government mandates. Incentives have proved successful with conservation efforts.
Regulation can also be accomplished without the government
through competition, reputation, contracts, insurance and
other means. Sam Zell probably won’t get his
wish, but he is correct about the
need to throttle back government regulations. They are stifling innovation and economic
growth. Idaho Farm Bureau members
are encouraged to learn more
about the EPA’s effort to expand regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. Send
comments to EPA at www.
ditchtherule.fb.org
Stewart Truelsen, a food
and agriculture freelance
writer, is a regular contributor to the Focus on Agriculture Series.
13
Policy Development: IFBF Governmental
Affairs Team Releases White Papers
The following three issue briefs have been prepared by the IFBF Governmental Affairs office to help inform
Farm Bureau members of issues that are likely to receive considerable attention in the upcoming legislative
session and for which IFBF either has no policy, or needs clarification of current policy.
Each Farm Bureau member is encouraged to research these issues, carefully consider what direction would
be best for Idaho agriculture, and then bring your thoughts and ideas to your county Farm Bureau policy
development meeting. As Farm Bureau members thoughtfully consider these issues and share their ideas, it
will help guide our organization as we work with legislators to support agriculture in Idaho.
Legislative Oversight of Executive
Rulemaking
Issue – This fall, there will be a proposed
constitutional amendment on the ballot.
The amendment would protect the current
practice requiring the Idaho Legislature
to accept or reject executive agency rules.
IFBF supports this proposed amendment
and encourages Farm Bureau members to
vote in favor of the amendment.
This paper examines another related issue,
whether the Senate and House of Representatives should both be required to reject
a rule, as is the current practice; or, if the
rejection of one body should be sufficient
to send a rule back to the agency for additional work prior to its adoption and implementation.
Background – The Idaho Constitution
grants the lawmaking power of the state
exclusively to the Idaho Senate and House
of Representatives. The Executive Branch
of the state is granted the power to ensure
that the laws are faithfully executed.
For nearly 80 years since statehood, executive agencies relied primarily upon the language contained in Idaho Code as they enforced the law. However, beginning in the
1960s, agencies began promulgating a far
greater amount of rules to help clarify how
laws should be interpreted and enforced.
In 1966, the Administrative Procedures
Act was enacted giving rules the force and
effect of law. This was a direct delegation
of legislative authority from the Idaho Legislature to the Executive Branch agencies.
14
Without this delegation, executive agency
rules would not carry the force and effect
of law under the Idaho Constitution.
Then, in 1969, SB1086 was passed which
provided for legislative review of rules, thus
allowing the legislature to accept, amend
or reject rules promulgated by agencies. It
was not until 1976 that the legislature actually amended a rule, and in 1977 the legislature first rejected a rule.
In 1985, the Board of Health and Welfare
adopted rules for individual subsurface
sewage disposal systems. The 1989 legislature subsequently rejected the 1985
sewage system rules; therefore the District
VII Health Department no longer enforced
those rules. Governor Andrus then directed the Board of Health and Welfare to sue
the District Health Department, challenging the constitutionality of legislative rule
rejection.
That case, known as Mead v. Arnell, was
decided by the Idaho Supreme Court on a
3-2 decision in March, 1990 in favor of the
legislature. Since then, agencies have submitted over 5,300 rules and the legislature
has rejected about 230 of them for a rejection rate of only about 4.4 percent. Because
of the close court decision, the legislature
has been somewhat tenuous in exercising
their legitimate oversight authority.
Forty-three rules were amended by the
legislature from 1976 until 1996. Then the
practice of amending rules was discontinued on the advice of the director of the
Legislative Services Office. He believed
if they attempted to modify a rule, it may
be struck down by the court. No rules have
been amended by the legislature since
1996.
Now, nearly 25 years after the Idaho Supreme Court decision, the legislature has
proposed a constitutional amendment to
protect and enshrine their authority to
oversee the executive agency rulemaking
process. However, the proposed amendment only provides that the legislature can
accept or reject, in whole or in part, rules
promulgated by agencies. The amendment
does not specify the process or procedure
for this to occur, which leaves these items
to be determined by the lawmakers.
Current procedures require both the Senate
and the House to reject a rule, or else it is
deemed accepted. This means that as long
as one body is satisfied with the rule, it will
go into effect. This is exactly the opposite
of the legislative process where both bodies must affirmatively accept a bill before
it can become a law. Since rulemaking is
a direct result of delegated lawmaking authority from the Legislative Branch to the
Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch
should have the final say over whether a
rule is approved or rejected. There are
many who believe that unless both bodies
are satisfied with the rule, it should not proceed, just like a law.
Pros – Agencies have at least nine months,
and in many cases several years to develop
rules, while the legislature has only a few
weeks to review rules, meaning they receive a cursory review at best. Single body
rejection would put rules under the same
legislative process as laws; only those that
receive the affirmative support of both
bodies would be approved. This should
provide incentive for agencies to ensure
that all parties are satisfied with rules before they proceed to the legislature for approval.
Cons – This is a change in procedure from
the current system of rules review. It may
meet with resistance from those who believe that rules have already gone through
a public review process. Agencies are not
anxious to have their efforts scrutinized
more closely. If agencies believe that they
are having their rules rejected more often,
they may throw their hands up and quit
proposing rules.
Farm Bureau Policy – IFBF currently
has no policy that addresses this issue.
Questions for Consideration –
Should executive agencies be required to
ensure that both the House and the Senate
are fully satisfied with a rule before it is
accepted?
Since rulemaking is only possible through
a delegation of legislative lawmaking authority, is it appropriate for one body of the
legislature to reject a rule similar to the
lawmaking process?
Are there unintended consequences to a
change in current procedures?
Should IFBF develop a policy that supports the rejection of rules by one body of
the legislature?
Raising Revenue for Highway and
Infrastructure Maintenance
Issue: Should the State of Idaho raise
additional revenue to maintain highways,
bridges and other transportation infrastructure?
Background: The Governor’s Transportation Task Force in 2010-2011 determined
that the State of Idaho has a backlog of
highway and infrastructure maintenance
needs of approximately $240-260 million
per year just to maintain our current highway system. To put that in perspective,
Idaho’s state fuel tax raises approximately
$250 million each year.
Several bills discussed in this white paper
originated from the legislature in 2013,
not the Executive Branch or the Idaho
Transportation Department (ITD). The
bills were printed at the end of the 2013
legislative session to provide a starting
point in the potential funding discussion. These bills have accomplished that
purpose and are used as examples of possible future revenue raising proposals. It
was intended that any new revenues raised
would be used for highway and infrastructure maintenance, not new construction.
Pros: There is a general recognition that
Idaho’s highways and transportation infrastructure need regular maintenance.
Agricultural commodities depend on an
adequate and well-maintained state highway system to get to market. To address
concerns over the use of current highway
funding, ITD has aggressively implemented an internal administrative plan
over the past three years that streamlines,
consolidates and creates greater efficiencies within its operations. These actions
have resulted in significant cost savings.
ITD has demonstrated to the legislature a
greatly improved ability to manage its budget and projects and get more dollars on
the ground.
Cons: All of the 2013 bills proposed tax
increases, license and fee increases or
both. H337 increased the sales tax by
1 cent ($.01) for 5 years and would have
raised $162 million annually. H338 increased fuel taxes over 5 years, increased
fuel transfer fees, doubled car and pickup
registration, increased truck registration
for commercial and farm trucks, imposed
additional fees on electric and hybrid cars,
hiked permit fees, imposed a new tax on
rental cars equal to the sales tax and established a 3-year enforcement pilot project
for dyed fuel. H338 would have raised an
additional $236 million annually once it
was fully implemented. H339, H340 and
H341 were various combinations of the
different components of H338.
2014 Developments: No transportation
maintenance revenue-specific bills received hearings during the 2014 Legislative Session. Three bills- H481, H494 and
H505 were printed. H481 raised the fuel
tax $.02 per year from 2015 through 2017,
for a total increase of $.06 after July 1,
2017. The additional annual revenues after
July 1, 2017 would be approximately $52.8
million per year. H494 redirected sales tax
revenues from the General Fund (GF) to
the Highway Distribution Account (HDA)
after trigger amounts of general fund revenue and public school appropriations were
reached. H505 redistributed existing sales
tax revenue to the HDA approximately
equal to the amount of sales tax paid on
tires and vehicle accessories.
A fourth bill, H547, which was signed into
law, redirected cigarette tax revenue in a
number of ways; providing $4.7 million
for GARVEE bond debt service, the next
$5 million was earmarked for aquifer recharge and “any remaining tax monies
will go to the State Highway Account to
pay for maintenance of the state highway
system” per the bill’s statement of purpose.
These are ongoing allocations through
2030 and should be around $6 million per
year.
Other considerations for the 2015 Legislature include a number of redirections
of certain existing sales tax revenues for
highway maintenance.
At the request of House Transportation
Chairman, Rep. Joe Palmer (R-Meridian),
ITD has identified a number of bridge replacements and maintenance projects in
their current 5-year plan which includes
the years 2014-2018. Construction costs for
the 69 projects total approximately $195
million. This amount does not include nonconstruction costs such as environmental
studies, right-of-way acquisition, engineering and other costs.
ITD says 261 bridges are built for lighter,
smaller trucks, 785 are 50 years old or older and 894 bridges will be 50 years of age
See WHITE PAPERS, page 16
15
WHITE PAPERS
or older after the completion of the current
Five-Year Plan. Bridges are designed to
last 40 to 60 years. ITD says that at current
funding levels, Idaho’s bridges will have
to last 120 years. Replacement cost for all
bridges is estimated at about $1.2 billion.
Farm Bureau Policy - Transportation #
192 reads in part: “. . . We would consider
an increase in the state fuel tax for infrastructure construction. We would consider
a tax or fee increase on vehicles of 12,500
GVW and under if this revenue is used for
infrastructure construction. . . We support
the Idaho Department of Transportation
policy of issuing oversize load permits for
Idaho public roads. We support continued improvement of Idaho’s agricultural
roadways. . . We support increasing permit fees on loads exceeding 200,000 GVW
to be comparable with fees in surrounding
states. . . We support the review of current
Idaho Transportation Department policies
regarding economics of maintenance versus new construction of roadways.”
Questions for Consideration:
Are Idaho roads in good shape or do they
need additional attention/funding?
Are existing highway funds being spent effectively?
Have all opportunities for increased efficiencies and cost reductions been explored,
such as consolidation of services with local districts for snow removal, road maintenance, etc?
Do Farm Bureau members support:
Registration or license fee increases? Cars,
light trucks, farm trucks, commercial
trucks?
Fuel tax increases?
General sales tax or other tax increases?
Redirection or redistribution of existing
tax revenues?
If so, how much?
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State Pri16
macy
ISSUE – Should Idaho seek primacy (the
lead role) in administering the EPA’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program?
BACKGROUND – As authorized by the
Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants
into waters of the United States. Point
sources are discrete conveyances such as
pipes or man-made ditches. Individual
homes that are connected to a municipal
system, use a septic system, or do not have
a surface discharge do not need an NPDES
permit; however, industrial, municipal, and
other facilities must obtain permits if their
discharges go directly to surface waters.
Idaho remains one of only four states that
do not have primacy to administer the
NPDES program. Since 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
has administered this program for Idaho,
meaning that the EPA is responsible for
permitting and enforcing all NPDES permits in the State. The Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is responsible for certifying that EPA permitted facilities meet Idaho water quality standards.
About half of Idaho’s NPDES permit holders are cities or other municipalities; the
rest are industrial users, from mines to fish
farms. Currently, there is a large backlog
of permits that are pending or that are out
of date. An existing permit will remain in
effect until a new permit is issued. EPA
Region 10 has categorized many permits
as being “low priority” and it is not uncommon for permits in this program to be
in a pending status for many years.
Idaho has evaluated receiving primacy on
a routine basis since 2000. Studies were
completed in 2001, 2002 and 2005. It is
expected that primacy will require capability to administer this program in a manner that is as stringent as what is currently
administered by EPA Region 10. EPA is
usually required to consult with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FSW), the Na-
tional Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service on the
state’s primacy application.
The Idaho Association of Commerce and
Industry (IACI) has projected the IPDES
program budget in 2005 was 23 FTEs and
$2.125M. This estimate was reviewed and
updated in 2009 by the Association of Idaho Cities and the projected staffing level
did not change (23 FTES). The budget was
estimated to be $2.6M annually. New estimates will need to be made and a funding
strategy developed to achieve full program
implementation. Full implementation is
targeted for State Fiscal Year 2021. (IACI
Environmental Committee Minutes, October 24, 2013)
To date, EPA Region 10 has required no
Idaho agricultural operations to obtain an
NPDES permit. Some states that have primacy have an agricultural component and
permits are required. Confined Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and dairy
operations could be the most likely to
have a point source discharge. Oklahoma
has primacy and allows their Department
of Agriculture to administer oversight
and permitting of agricultural activities
through a memorandum of agreement with
their Department of Environmental Quality.
PROS - “Where possible and while insuring the protection of Idaho’s water quality,
the state will apply flexibility or innovative
approaches when implementing NPDES.”
(Decision Analysis Report 3, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Program Review, Department of Environmental Quality, December 2005, p.3)
Permittees will have only one set of rules
and regulations and one agency with which
to interact, resulting in less confusion for
permittees and less overlap of responsibilities for regulatory agencies.
The state will have the ability to interpret
and apply Idaho water quality standards to
determine when permit limits are necessary and what alternate or innovative approaches are appropriate.
The state may focus more on compliance
and assistance to obtain compliance rather
than enforcement.
CONS - Oversight – EPA Region 10 will
retain overall responsibility for Clean Water Act Compliance. Like other programs,
EPA has the duty to provide oversight and
has the ability to “over file” on Idaho primacy delegated programs.
Costs and Funding - the management and
enforcement costs of this program remain
uncertain. Federal funding or at least
some cost-sharing is being explored, but
no commitments have been verified. Without federal funding, an Idaho administered
program is being evaluated as a “permittee pay” program. The cost of receiving
a permit, compliance monitoring costs requirements and enforcement for non-compliance is undetermined.
Capacity – stakeholders will require that
IDEQ must have an adequate number of
capable IDEQ staff dedicated to the ad-
ministration and management of this program. Trained permit writers, inspectors
and legal support will be required and
evaluated prior to primacy being granted.
2014 LEGISLATIVE ACTION - HB406
authorized IDEQ to pursue approval of an
NPDES Program.
HB645 appropriated $300,000 FY2015
from the General Fund to cover the first
year costs of an eight year effort to seek
primacy to administer the NPDES program from the Environmental Protection
Agency. IDEQ has estimated the schedule
and budget to take over this program. This
appropriation is provided as ongoing with
the understanding the program will have
significantly higher costs in the future.
Costs at full build-out in 2022 are estimated at 25 full-time positions and $2.5
million.
FARM BUREAU POLICY: Idaho Farm
Bureau has no specific policy addressing
NPDES primacy.
QUESTIONS and CONCERNS:
Would Idaho benefit by obtaining primacy
and having IDEQ administer the NPDES
permits?
Is this an instance where administration is
better close to the people? Or should EPA
be required to operate their program and
pay the cost?
How much should Idaho be willing to
spend just to administer this program?
Would Idaho be required to renew all
permits on a timely basis, contrary to the
history of EPA’s administration of this program?
Will the federal government provide any
funding for Idaho to cover the costs of administering this federally mandated program?
Does IBFB need to develop a policy on
this issue, or should we stay out of this discussion?
Find Out How Nice Your Photo
Of Idaho Looks On A New iPad!
We all appreciate nice comments when we pass around a great photo
we’ve taken. However, the ultimate compliment may be the
announcement that you’ve won our Reasons to Love Idaho Photo
Contest. Just ask Dave who won First Place in Round 13 with his
image titled “Fly Fisherman.” Winning the contest and the Apple®
iPad ® has led to even more compliments for Dave! So cast
your hook on a brand new iPad.
Visit ReasonsToLoveIdaho.com today to learn more.
“Fly Fisherman”
by Dave in Georgetown
Apple, Inc. in no way endorses or is affiliated with this contest. iPad is a registered trademark of Apple, Inc.
17
Traditionally, logs are bought and sold based on volume and are normally scaled at the mill with a
scaling stick to determine volume.
Weighing Your Options:
Understanding Weight Scaling
By Jarred Saralecos and Randy Brooks
Changes in the forest products industry
and fiscal insecurities are ultimately adjusting the medium through which sawlogs
are bought and sold. It is becoming more
common for forest industry companies and
log buyers to purchase timber on the basis of weight in contrast to the traditional
methods of volume (thousand board feet or
mbf) which include individually measuring (scaling) each log delivered. This may
be confusing for many forest landowners,
especially when the time comes to market
their timber. This article explains the basics of weight scaling so landowners can
market their timber with confidence.
Weight scaling is the purchasing sawlogs
or standing timber on the basis of weight.
The development from scaled volume to
scaled weight formed as a means of cutting costs and maintaining mill efficiency
as harvest volumes increased and average
sawlog diameter decreased. Additionally,
purchasing logs by weight in place of volume also created a universal way of assess18
ing transactions across regions utilizing
different log scaling methods.
In the 1950’s, southeastern U.S. lumber
markets began using weight scaling as
an alternative to traditional stick scaling.
This involved weighing log trucks entering and exiting mills and paying for the net
weight in product delivered. The process
has continued its development to current
methods employed across the U.S. where
sample weight scaling is utilized. Sample
weight scaling has worked to utilize the efficiency of weight scaling while retaining
a portion of sawlog loads for stick scaling
as a means of accuracy adjustment and
improving weight scaling conversion factors. Through systematic samplings of log
trucks with stick scaling procedures, additional variables of species, season, and tare
truckload weight, models can be developed
to predict truckload volume from weight
alone on non-scaled loads. This reduction
of total scaled loads and increased truck
turn times at mill yards has shown significant improvements from classical scaling
practices. While the pulp and paper industry initially started the transformation, today weight scaling encompasses more than
70 percent of all commercial softwood
scaling in the U.S.
As weight scaling was proven successful
for handling pulpwood-sized timber, the
rest of the market began to show interest
for several reasons. First, the average sawlog size used for lumber was decreasing.
This meant each mill needed to handle
greater numbers of logs to maintain production levels. Second, the transition towards more efficient product utilization
reduced waste. Today, computers and laser
technology are used to maximize production and use the entire log including selling
sawdust and chips to heat and power facilities with wood boilers. While traditional
scaling only accounts for board in each log
segment, weight scaling accounts for the
entire log.
A common question is “Why isn’t there a
standard set of weights for all sawlogs and
why does the conversion have to adjust?”
The short answer is that there is no neutral conversion that would be fair, but there
are accessible average weight conversions
that landowners and loggers can use to help
guide them in marketing timber.
There are several reasons that blanket conversion factors are not employed. First of
all, trees are like fingerprints in that each
one is unique from all others from its
height, diameter, density, defect, and species. For example, the difference in wood
density fluctuates not only amongst species
but also geographically within the same
species. These changes are representative
of stand density, soil characteristics, and
slope position in which the trees grow. Additionally, the ability to account for defect
within trees is limited in weight scaling as
many defects do not cause weight reduction in the wood but are limiting in the
amount of lumber a log can produce. These
changes make it difficult to employ only
one conversion factor.
A second reason that standard sawlog
weight conversions have not been established is that the diameter of a log affects
the amount of lumber the log will yield,
i.e., it takes more small logs to produce
1,000 board feet of lumber.
Finally, changing climate and season have
the ability to affect log weight through
changes in moisture content within harvested trees. Water makes up one-half
the weight of wood and changes in temperature or precipitation can significantly
change the weight of a log through adding
or removing water from the logs through
evapotranspiration. These climatic changes are most visible across yearly seasons.
Sawlogs harvested in late fall and winter
typically contain more moisture and are
therefore heavier as a result of the cold and
wet conditions. Whereas sawlogs harvesting in the summer months are exposed to
hot, dry weather that significantly reduces
the weight conversion factors of the wood.
The result of this situation is that there are
no industry standard sawlog weights that
guide the industry. Many private timber
companies have constructed proprietary
conversion factors while logging contractors who are routinely immersed in the pro-
Weight to volume predictions models have been developed to determine volume of logs based on
weight - allowing logs to be bought and sold on a weight basis. This also decreases the amount of
time spent scaling each individual log with a stick. Trucks simply weigh entering and exiting the mill,
saving drivers time as well.
cess have also developed an understanding
of the conversion factors. These internal
understandings remain private knowledge
from which sawmill log prices are set accordingly. This is one reason why loggers
and landowners observe that different
mills are paying different rates per tons of
sawlogs. As an example, the owner of one
company knows it takes 4.80 tons of western redcedar to make a thousand board feet
in January but only 4.35 tons in the August.
Through understanding his operating costs
he knows the greatest amount he can pay
for redcedar sawlogs throughout the year.
The variations in seasonal sawlog moisture
content as well as between each species
make the accuracy of weight to volume
relationship conversions highly important
from an economic standpoint. For example, water accounts for about 50 percent
of the weight of green wood. In a recent
study Douglas-fir sawlogs lost an average
of 34 percent moisture content over a one
month period after harvest in the summer,
regardless of harvest system. The average
Idaho sawlog truckload contains roughly
54,000 lbs. Therefore a 34 percent moisture content loss would result in roughly
4.59 tons of lost water weight or 17 percent
loss in total truckload value if paid using a
weight basis system. While most sawmills
in Idaho have developed their own conversions, it is important that each landowner
understand their own timber so they can
be more confident when marketing their
timber. Other reasons for varying market
prices might be a good supply of sawlogs,
falling lumber prices, and so on.
There are many environmental and scaling
factors affecting sawlog weight to volume
relationships. Landowners who are marketing timber should not be intimidated by
bids made in weight. Through a competitive-bidding process and careful consideration of species and season in conjunction
with contacting local extension educators
or state private forestry specialists for assistance, landowners can identify the best
options to meet their forest management
goals.
Randy Brooks is a University of Idaho
Extension Forestry Specialist based on
campus in Moscow. He can be reached at:
[email protected]
Jarred Saralecos is a University of Idaho
Forest Operations Graduate Student.
19
It’s Time to Ditch The Rule
Puddles, ponds, ditches,
ephemerals (land that looks
like a small stream during
heavy rain but isn’t wet most
of the time) and isolated wetlands dot the nation’s farmland.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the
Corps) on March 25 issued
a proposed rule that would
expand its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) to these types of land
features and waters, giving the
agencies the power to dictate
land-use decisions and farming practices in or near them.
The rule will make it more
difficult to farm or change a
farming operation to remain
competitive and profitable.
How Did We Get Here?
Congress passed the CWA in
1972, banning discharges of
pollutants from a point source
(i.e., a single source or conveyance) into navigable waters
without a federal permit.
The CWA has established a
system of cooperative federalism that gives federal agen20
cies—mainly EPA and the
Corps—the authority to regulate navigable waters such as
interstate rivers. The law calls
these “waters of the U.S.” State
and local governments have
jurisdiction over smaller, moreremote waters, such as many
ponds and isolated wetlands,
because state and local governments are more accountable to
their citizens and more in touch
with local environmental and
economic situations.
Two sections of the law have
particular impacts on agriculture. Section 404 requires
anyone wanting to discharge
“dredge and fill” material into
navigable waters to obtain a
federal permit. This section
deals with any discharge that
would result from moving the
soil. It has impacts for individual landowners and homebuilders, as well as farmers
who want to plant trees, construct buildings, install drainage, deep-plow the soil—the
list goes on. Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
permitting program to enforce
discharge mitigation requirements and limit point source
discharges into navigable waters.
EPA and the Corps continually
have tested the jurisdictional
limits of the CWA over the last
40-plus years by issuing guidance documents and regulatory
enforcement actions based on
ever-broader interpretations of
“waters of the U.S.” Specifically, in 1986, EPA and the Corps
used the “migratory bird rule”
to assert authority over isolated
waters by saying those waters
that are or could be used by migratory birds, which cross state
lines, are interstate waters or
“waters of the U.S.” The regulated community, including
agriculture, has pushed back,
resulting in precedent-making
court decisions concerning the
scope of the agencies’ jurisdiction.
In two cases—Solid Waste
Agency of Northern Cook
County (SWANCC) v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, in
2001, and Rapanos v. United
States, in 2006—the Supreme
Court rendered decisions that
reaffirmed the CWA’s limit
on federal jurisdiction, drawing the line at navigable—the
migratory bird rule notwith-
standing. The American Farm
Bureau Federation filed amicus
briefs in both cases.
However, the 2006 Rapanos
ruling was not as clear-cut as
the 2001 SWANCC decision,
and not as clear as Farm Bureau
would have liked. Eight justices divided evenly between
supporting the broad reach of
EPA/Corps regulations and affirming that the CWA covers
only navigable waters. One of
the justices, Anthony Kennedy,
was an outlier, writing that a
significant nexus between an
isolated wetland and a traditional navigable water could be
enough for federal jurisdiction.
Justice Kennedy did not define
significant nexus, and the proverbial waters have remained
murky ever since.
Ditch the Rule!
In releasing the new “waters of
the U.S.” proposed rule, EPA
(the lead agency on the rule)
has said that it is clarifying the
scope of the CWA. However,
EPA’s “clarification” is also a
broad expansion of the types
of waters and lands that would
be subject to federal permit requirements and limits on farm-
ing practices and other landuses.
EPA also has claimed that the
rule would have minimal economic impact and would not
affect many acres—only about
1,300 acres nationwide—a
laughable assertion when one
considers the amount of acreage in just one state or even
county that has hydric soils
and, therefore under EPA’s proposal, adequate characteristics
to be considered “waters of the
U.S.”
Farmers’ and ranchers’ ability
to remain in production often
depends on being able to use
the types of farm practices that
would be prohibited if EPA denies a permit for them. For example, building a fence across
a ditch, applying fertilizer or
pesticides, or pulling weeds
could require a federal permit.
The proposed rule, in effect,
would give EPA veto authority over a farmer’s or rancher’s
ability to operate.
It is vital for agriculture that the
proposed rule does not become
final or, if that is not possible,
substantially changed. Farm
Bureau will pursue this goal in
the following ways:
Support extending the current
90-day comment period to 180
days to give farmers and ranchers time to review the proposed
rule and provide input;
Comment about the impact the
proposed rule would have on
farms;
Support any efforts in Congress to rein in the federal government’s expansion of control
over private land;
media campaigns to bring attention to the impacts of the
proposed rule on landowners,
small businesses and the economy, as well as agriculture.
The purpose of this website is
to help you answer questions
about the “waters of the U.S.”
proposed rule and to provide
resources to make it easier for
Farm Bureau members to engage in the campaign to overturn the rule as currently proposed.
Engage in traditional social
American farm bureau federation news
EPA Rule Will Upend Farming and Livelihoods, Farm Bureau Says
WASHINGTON, D.C., – A new Environmental Protection Agency rule will illegally expand EPA jurisdiction to millions
of acres of once-unregulated farm land,
exposing farmers to fines and penalties for
ordinary farming activities, the American
Farm Bureau Federation told Congress today.
“The EPA isn’t content with regulating just
water – they want to control land use, too,
even though Congress and the Courts have
already told them no,” Don Parrish, Senior
Director Regulatory Affairs at the Ameri-
can Farm Bureau Federation said.
The agency’s overreach, Parrish said, ignores the will of Congress and courts,
alike. And as bad as the rule is, the agency
compounds farmers’ problems by calling
into question dozens of exemptions for basic farming techniques through a separate,
interpretative rule already in effect.
“Farmers face an impossible choice,” Parrish said. The proposed rule that expands
jurisdiction and the interpretive rule together are a bad idea that threatens liveli-
hoods as well as local land-use and zoning
authority. It’s time to ditch this rule.”
The Clean Water Act, signed into law in
1972, protects the nation’s waters from pollution of all sorts. But Congress gave states,
not the EPA, the primary responsibility to
oversee land use. The latest proposal would
turn that relationship on its head.
Farm Bureau, together with dozens of other farm and industry groups, is fighting the
EPA’s Waters of the U.S. overreach. Find
Farm Bureau: Estate Taxes Now Ripe for Repeal
WASHINGTON, D.C., – With 218 cosponsors – more than half of the House of
Representatives – on board, legislation to
repeal estate taxes is ripe for floor action,
the American Farm Bureau Federation said
today.
2012 provided significant estate tax relief,
repeal is the best solution to protect all
farms and ranches from the estate tax,”
said AFBF President Bob Stallman.
Rep. Kevin Brady’s (R-Texas) Death Tax
Repeal Act, H.R. 2429, would repeal estate
taxes, and maintain stepped-up basis.
The estate tax burden falls heavily on
farmers because it takes more capital assets, such as land and equipment, to generate the same level of income as other types
of businesses.
“Although permanent law enacted as part
of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of
If Congress fails to permanently repeal the
estate tax, surviving family members may
be forced to sell off parts of their farms,
ultimately jeopardizing their livelihoods.
“Look at land alone,” Stallman said. “As it
skyrockets in value, the chances of surviving family members having to sell some
substantial acreage to pay estate taxes
grows right along with it. This not only can
cripple a farm or ranch operation, but also
hurts the rural communities and businesses that agriculture supports.”
21
USDA Announces Programs to Conserve Land,
Help Beginning Farmers
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently announced that
farmers, ranchers and landowners committed to protecting and
conserving
environmentally
sensitive land may now sign up
for the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP). The Secretary
also announced that retiring
farmers enrolled in CRP could
receive incentives to transfer a
portion of their land to beginning, disadvantaged or veteran
farmers through the Transition
Incentives Program (TIP). “CRP is one of the largest voluntary conservation programs
in the country,” said Vilsack.
“This initiative helps farmers
and ranchers lead the nation in
preventing soil erosion, improving water quality and restoring
wildlife habitat, all of which
will make a difference for future generations.”
Vilsack continued, “The average age of farmers and ranchers in the United States is 58
years, and twice as many are 65
or older compared to those 45
or younger. The cost of buying
land is one of the biggest barriers to many interested in getting started in agriculture. The
Transition Incentives Program
is very useful as we work to
help new farmers and ranchers
get started.” The Conservation Reserve Program provides incentives to producers who utilize conservation
methods on environmentallysensitive lands. For example,
farmers are monetarily compensated for establishing long-term
vegetative species, such as approved grasses or trees (known
22
as “covers”) to control soil erosion, improve water quality, and
enhance wildlife habitat.
CRP consists of a “continuous”
and “general” sign-up period.
Continuous sign up for the voluntary program starts June 9.
Under continuous sign-up authority, eligible land can be enrolled in CRP at any time with
contracts of up to 10 to 15 years
in duration. In lieu of a general
sign-up this year, USDA will allow producers with general CRP
contracts expiring this September to have the option of a oneyear contract extension. USDA
will also implement the 2014
Farm Bill’s requirement that
producers enrolled through general sign-up for more than five
years can exercise the option to
opt-out of the program if certain
other conditions are met. In addition, the new grassland provisions, which will allow producers to graze their enrolled land,
will enable producers to do so
with more flexibility.
The Transition Incentives Program provides two additional
years of payments for retired
farmers and ranchers who transition expiring CRP acres to
socially disadvantaged, military
veteran, or beginning producers
who return the land to sustainable grazing or crop production. Sign up will also begin June 9. TIP funding was increased by
more than 30 percent in the 2014
Farm Bill, providing up to $33
million through 2018.
As part of the 2014 Farm Bill,
participants meeting specific
qualifications may have the
opportunity to terminate their
CRP contract during fiscal year
2015 if the contract has been
in effect for a minimum of five
years and if other conditions are
also met. The USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA), which administers
CRP, will coordinate the various CRP program opportunities. For more information on
CRP and other FSA programs,
visit a local FSA county office
or go online to www.fsa.usda.
gov.
Both the CRP and TIP were
reauthorized by the 2014 Farm
Bill. The Farm Bill builds on
historic economic gains in rural
America over the past five years,
while achieving meaningful re-
form and billions of dollars in
savings for taxpayers. Since enactment, USDA has made significant progress to implement
each provision of this critical
legislation, including providing
disaster relief to farmers and
ranchers; strengthening risk
management tools; expanding
access to rural credit; funding
critical research; establishing
innovative public-private conservation partnerships; developing new markets for rural-made
products; and investing in infrastructure, housing and community facilities to help improve
quality of life in rural America.
For more information, visit
www.usda.gov/farmbill.
Celebrating 75 Years Conserving the Idaho Way
LOW INTEREST LOANS
FOR IDAHO SOIL & WATER
CONSERVATION
Sprinkler Irrigation, No-Till Drills, Fences
Livestock Feeding Operations
Solar Stock Water Pump Systems
2.5%-3.5%
Terms 7-15 Years
Up to $200,000
CONSERVATION
LOAN
PROGRAM
swc.idaho.gov | 208-332-1790
Farm
Bureau
Rebate
$500
New Idaho Farm Bureau Program With General Motors
Eligible Farm Bureau members in Idaho can receive a $500 rebate on each qualifying 2013, 2014, or 2015 model year Chevrolet, GMC or
Buick vehicle they purchase or lease. This Farm Bureau member exclusive is offered for vehicles purchased or leased at participating
dealerships through Farm Bureau’s—GM PRIVATE OFFER at a participating GM dealership. Members simply go to www.fbverify.com,
enter their Farm Bureau membership number (i.e. 123456-01) and zip code, and print off a certificate to take to the dealership. Discount must
be processed at time of purchase. To qualify for the offer, individuals must have been a Farm Bureau member for at least 60 days prior to
the date of delivery of the vehicle selected. The Farm Bureau discount is stackable with some incentives and non-stackable with others. See
dealership for full details or call Joel at (208) 239-4289.
Chevrolet Sierra
Chevrolet Silverado
Chevrolet Sonic
Chevrolet Suburban
Chevrolet Tahoe
Chevrolet Traverse
Offer available through 4/1/17. Available on all 2014 and 2015 Chevrolet, Buick and GMC vehicles. This offer
available with all other offers, excluding discounted pricing (employee, dealership employee and supplier
pricing). Only customers who have been active members of an eligible Farm Bureau for a minimum of 30
days will be eligible to receive a certificate. Customers can obtain certificates at www.fbverify.com/gm. Farm
Bureau and the FB logo are registered service marks of the American Farm Bureau Federation and are used
herein under license by General Motors.
23
Grain Marketing with Clark Johnston
What You Can Control
and What You Can’t
Clark Johnston
By Clark Johnston
The Hard Red Winter harvest
this year was spotty to say the
least. Producers in parts of
Texas, Oklahoma as well as the
southern part of Kansas experienced a tough year in trying to
produce their crop. Everything
that they had control over they
did right but, Mother Nature
had other plans.
Even in areas where we have the
ability to irrigate our crops we
can still experience conditions
like a late frost in the spring
or an early one in the fall. The
point I’m trying to make is that
in agriculture there are probably more things that we don’t
have control over than ones
that we do. Even in marketing
we don’t have any control over
prices moving higher or prices
moving lower. We can only
control what we can control.
We spend a great deal of time
talking about market movements and basis and how we
need to watch the markets
closely in order to make our decisions in contracting our commodities. Last month we talked
about the historical price movement patterns. Let’s not forget
those patterns while we add another factor to watch.
Let’s watch the spreads in the
wheat and corn markets. This
24
past February there was a 7
cent carry in the market between July and December corn.
Recently this has traded at even
or even a slight inverse. With
the potential for a large crop on
the horizon we need to watch to
see if this market moves back
into a carry market as we move
closer to harvest.
We should see a carry start to
form from the December futures contract into the summer
months of 2015. This would indicate that we have enough corn
to meet the current demand. In
a carry market the front month
futures contract has the potential to move lower. Remember,
the wider the carry the larger
the stocks on hand.
Chicago wheat futures have
increased the carry to 52 cents
between the September 2014
contract and the May 2015 contract. This shows us just how
much soft red wheat we have.
The market is willing to pay
the producers 52 cents to sell
their wheat now, hold it in their
on farm storage and deliver the
wheat in the spring. If we do the
math we see that the market is
willing to pay producers 5 cents
per bushel per month to store
the wheat for them.
This may or may not be enough
for you to enter into this contract but, it is something to
think about as we move forward. The strategy could be
to sell the futures now (in one
of the deferred contracts) and
wait until a later date to set the
basis. We usually see the basis
strengthen as we move into the
end of the calendar year.
With the markets being as volatile as they are these days, separating the futures and the basis
when contracting our commodities has the real potential to
help us increase our contracting
price. This gives us an opportunity to increase our margin.
It isn’t necessarily a layup but,
it isn’t as risky as some would
have you believe either.
Earlier we talked about what we
have control over, well this is
something that we have control
of. We can’t control the futures
market or the basis movements
but, we can study the patterns
and contract according to the
movements they make.
Soft white basis has already
seen some strengthening over
the past few weeks. When the
futures market has a large carry as we now have in Chicago
wheat, the trend for basis will
be to strengthen into the end of
the calendar year. During the
winter months the basis should
level off before weakening as
we move closer to the spring
and new crop.
Along the way we will see
some spikes in both the futures
and the basis. Most often when
the market spikes it doesn’t last
long and corrects itself rather
quickly. We need to be on the
lookout for these movements
in the market. These moves occur in both the futures and the
basis. The strength in the basis
happens more frequently than
you might expect.
Usually the move in the basis
isn’t published; rather they are
accomplished when producers
make offers to sell wheat into
the market. If you have a target
price in mind and the market
is moving closer to your target
it never hurts to make the offer at your target price. Even if
the buyers reject your offer you
have at least tested the market
and now have a good idea of the
local sentiment.
Even with all of the challenges
we are faced with in today’s
world let’s not forget the many
opportunities that we are also
blessed with every day.
Clark Johnston is a grain marketing specialist who is on
contract with the Idaho Farm
Bureau. He is the owner of
JC Management Company
in Northern Utah. He can be
reached at [email protected]
25
Top Farm Bureau Agents
Rookie of the Month:
Dave Martin
Mellon Agency
Agent of the Month:
Darin Pfost
Newell Agency
Agency of the Month:
Newell Agency
e
e
y
r
r
F ta
o
N
At all county
Farm Bureau
offices for Idaho
Farm Bureau
members.
26
Family of Member Services
TM
SPOTLIGHT ON IDAHO FFA—2014 State Career Development Event Winners
State FFA Career Development Event
Winners Named—Headed To Nationals
Career opportunities abound within today’s agriculture
industry. FFA Career Development Events (CDEs) help
students develop the abilities to think critically,
communicate clearly, and perform effectively in a
competitive job market.
Idaho FFA conducts 27 CDEs covering job skills in
everything from agricultural communications to
agricultural mechanics. Some events allow students to
compete as individuals, while others are team
competitions. Nineteen teams and five individuals were
named State Champions in 2014 Idaho FFA CDEs held
at the University of Idaho in June and during the State
FFA Leadership Conference at the College of Southern
Idaho in April. They will represent Idaho at the National
FFA Convention in Louisville, KY, October 27 through
November 1.
Since 1928, FFA has worked to create events that
demonstrate the meaningful connections between
classroom instruction and real-life scenarios. CDEs
build on what is learned in agricultural classes and the
To learn more about Idaho FFA, please visit:
www.idahoffa.org
www.idffafoundation.org
FFA. The events are designed to help prepare
students for careers in agriculture.
2014 Idaho FFA State Champion Career Development Event Winners
Agricultural Communications
Agricultural Issues Forum
Agricultural Mechanics
Agricultural Sales
Agronomy
Creed Speaking
Dairy Cattle Evaluation
Dairy Foods
Dairy Handler
Environmental and Natural
Resources
Extemporaneous Public
Speaking
Farm Business Management
Floriculture
Food Science & Technology
Forestry
Horse
Job Interview
Livestock Evaluation
Marketing Plan
Meats Technology
Nursery/Landscape
Parliamentary Procedure
Prepared Public Speaking
Veterinary Science
Filer FFA Chapter
American Falls FFA Chapter
Middleton FFA Chapter
Middleton FFA Chapter
Fruitland FFA Chapter
Caleb Johnston, New Plymouth FFA Chapter
Castleford FFA Chapter
Fruitland FFA Chapter
Auguste Curtis, Filer FFA Chapter
Cambridge FFA Chapter
Morgan Howard, Nezperce FFA Chapter
Meridian FFA Chapter
Kimberly FFA Chapter
Kimberly FFA Chapter
Vallivue FFA Chapter
Emmett FFA Chapter
Lindsey Woodworth, American Falls
FFA Chapter
Hagerman FFA Chapter
Marsing FFA Chapter
Kuna FFA Chapter
Rigby FFA Chapter
Kuna FFA Chapter
Riley Geritz, American Falls FFA Chapter
Meridian FFA Chapter
FFA—Premier Leadership, Personal Growth and Career Success through Agricultural Education
27
Gooding/Lincoln County Farm
Bureau Awards Scholarships 2014.
The Gooding /Lincoln County Farm Bureau is pleased to announce that three $500 and two $250 College scholarships have been
awarded to area students. Two of the five winning applicants have been forwarded to the State Farm Bureau level for additional consideration.
Farm Bureau educational scholarships are available to graduating seniors or students who are already attending an institution of higher
education. Scholarships are awarded in both Ag-related and Non- Ag-Related fields to Idaho Farm Bureau family members at both
state and county levels.
Cora Issacs is the daughter of Robert & Rhonda
Isaacs of Bliss. She has been selected to receive
a $500 Gooding/Lincoln County Farm Bureau
educational scholarship. She plans to attend the
College of Southern Idaho and is interested in
Agriculture Business Administration and Political
Science. She is preparing for an occupation as an
Agricultural Legislative Lobbyist.
Rachel Youren is the daughter of Doug & Mary
Kay Youren of Gooding. She has been selected
to receive a $500 Gooding/Lincoln County
Farm Bureau educational scholarship. She plans
to attend Southern Utah University or the
University of Idaho. She is preparing for an
occupation as an Accountant.
Cooper Astel is the son of Douglas & Janis Astle of Dietrich. He has
been selected to receive a $250 Gooding/Lincoln County Farm Bureau
educational scholarship. He plans to attend Lewis Clark State College. His major course of study will be in the field of computer science &
web development. He is preparing for an occupation as a web designer/
developer.
28
Thania Beltran is the daughter of Crispin &
Leticia Beltran of Bliss. She has been selected
to receive a $500 Gooding/Lincoln County
Farm Bureau educational scholarship. She is
currently attending the College of Idaho. Her
major course of study is in Health Science. She
is preparing for an occupation as a physician
Kaleigh Kelsey is the daughter of Luke & Angela Kelsey of Wendell.
She has been selected to receive a $250 Gooding/Lincoln County Farm
Bureau educational scholarship. She plans to attend the Southern Virginia
University this fall. Her major course of study will be in the field of English
& Music. She is preparing for an occupation as an English instructor or
writer.
29
18th Annual Trailing of the Sheep Festival
“To gather, present, and preserve the history and
cultures of sheepherding in Idaho and the West”
18th Annual Trailing of the Sheep Festival Lineup Announced
The 18th annual Trailing of the Sheep
Festival is Thursday, October 9-12 and
it promises a weekend filled with food,
music, history, culture and fun for the
entire family.
Every year the popular Trailing of the
Sheep Festival celebrates the century
and a half long tradition of moving
sheep from mountain summer pastures south through the Wood River
Valley to traditional winter grazing
and lambing areas. This annual migration is Idaho living history and a
weekend long festival that highlights
the people, cultures, and traditions of
sheep ranching in Idaho and the west.
This is not a reenactment, but a real
slice of the American west.
2014 marks the 18th year of the annual
Trailing of the Sheep Festival. It has
grown into a four-day event including
sheep storytelling and readings, music, a full day Folklife Fair with sheep
shearing, wool spinning and sheep arts
and crafts, and Championship Sheepdog Trials. There is dancing, singing,
music and food honoring the tradition
of welcoming fathers, brothers, sons
and family home from a long summer of grazing in the mountains. This
Festival honors the colorful history,
heritage and cultures of Idaho and the
west.
A new series of cooking classes will
kick off the Festival this year. Several
new classes are being scheduled with
the best local chefs. We will invite
producers to join the chefs and share
their love for life on the ranch. For
the Love of Lamb Foodie Fest will take
place in association with local restaurants and chefs on Friday, October 10
starting at 5 pm. Lamb tastings will
be featured at several restaurants and
other venues with famous local chefs
and restaurants presenting their best
lamb recipes.
Trailing of the Sheep Parade – 1,500 sheep parade down Main Street Ketchum, Idaho
SheepTales Gathering with beloved rancher,
Hank Vogler
Trailing of the Sheepdog Championship trials
(Sat and Sun)
Gourmet cooking workshops
A Lamb Feast will take place on Saturday during the Folklife Fair. Ten chefs
will be preparing the best in lamb and
Basque food to benefit the Festival
Felting and fiber workshops
Sunday, before and after the Parade,
Festival Board members are hosting an
authentic lamb barbecue as a fundraiser for the Festival. 11:00 am – 2:00 pm
Oinkari Basque dancers
The hottest jazz and country band in
the USA is coming and we’re planning
two performances Saturday, October
11 in Ketchum.
Sheep shearing demonstrations
It’s the Hot Club of Cowtown and they
are loved around the USA and Europe.
Named the Best Music Group by True
West Magazine and presenting their
new album “Rendezvous in Rhythm.”
Children’s activities
See TRAILING OF THE SHEEP FESTIVAL page 35
30
The Festival weekend includes:
Photography workshop
Peruvian musicians and dancers
Boise Highlanders, bagpipers and drummers
Folklife Fair
Sheep wagon displays
Spinning and weaving demonstrations
Wool and craft shops
For a complete schedule, see the website,
www.trailingofthesheep.org
Brochure available upon request.
Brent Wilson is the team leader for the Payette County Gopher Control agency. Landowners are required to pay a fee for
control services. Only a few counties in the state still offer the service. Photo by Steve Ritter
Burrowing Rodents Spell Trouble for Livestock
By Matt Brechwald
The care of your pastures, paddocks and
arenas are probably already a major part
of your horse management program. Have
you included a management plan for burrowing rodents? Burrowing rodents such
as gophers, voles and squirrels can create major hazards for horses and riders.
What’s worse? Frequently these hazards
are unknown to the rider or horse because
they are just below the surface of soil that
appears to be sturdy. However, when the
weight of the horse hits the thin layer of
sod it disappears beneath its hoof.
David Heidt is the owner of Omega Farms
near Noti, Oregon; a business that specializes in providing burial for horses. He
wrote an article called Observations of
the Dead Horse Guy in which he states
that 10 percent of the horses that he has
buried that are under the age of 25 have
died due to accidents. He goes on to say
that a major reason for those accidents are
horses stepping in holes and breaking legs.
He suggests walking all pastures and paddocks after rains to check for new holes so
they can be filled in.
America’s Horse Magazine, the official
magazine for the American Quarter Horse
Association, profiled one of the founders
of the AQHA, Jim Minnick, in an article
titled A Look Into AQHA History. The
story profiles how Jim’s future wife, Della
Holthausen, broke her leg when the horse
she was riding stepped into a prairie dog
hole. I’m sure you can imagine the fall you
or your loved one could take if exercising
your horse and discovering a deep hole
just under the surface.
Your horses are natural athletes. Even if
the horse does not have to be put down,
even if the rider is not injured they will not
be able to function at the same level if they
step in a hole and wind up with a swol-
len fetlock, torn tendon or ligament damage. I am sure that the cost of veterinary
care is secondary to your concern for your
horse. However, the cost of the vet visit,
treatment and rehabilitation for your horse
is astronomical compared to adding burrowing rodent management to your horse
safety program.
As a livestock owner/farmer myself, I understand the way you care for your horses.
Throughout college and after I worked on
multiple cattle ranches and was assigned
several fine horses for my work. What
non-horse people do not understand is the
relationship that develops between horse
and rider.
Being on top of a good cow horse and
working cattle is an experience that many
people never get to experience. The respect you develop for the horse’s ability
See RODENTS, page 33
31
County Happenings
Cassia County Farm Bureau Board Member Fred Darrington presents a
Friend of Agriculture Award to Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke.
Representative Thyra Stevenson, R-Lewiston, center, receives a Friend of
Agriculture Award from Idaho Farm Bureau President Frank Priestley, left.
Idaho Farm Bureau Director of Governmental Affairs Russ Hendricks is on
the right.
Idaho Farm Bureau District 5 Regional Manager Bob Smathers, right, speaks to students at the
Bonner County Elementary Agriculture Fair in late May.
Cole Gehring, left, receives a county scholarship
from Clearwater / Lewis County President Tom
Mosman. Gehring intends to pursue a chemical
engineering degree at Montana State University.
LEFT: The Clearwater / Lewis County Farm
Bureau Board of Directors recently met for the
first time in their new Orofino office.
32
RODENTS
is immense, and having to put that horse
down or “out to pasture” because of a preventable injury would be painful for anyone that understands and cares for these
animals.
Trapping is very useful in a wide array of
circumstances, but it also has its downsides. In order to trap a gopher the openIgnited Propane: Ignited propane is just
ing of the tunnel system must be opened,
what it sounds like. Propane is injected
or a different section of tunnel system
into the opening of the rodent’s tunnel. must be opened. The trap must then be
Some gopher control equipment is better Once the tunnel is full and the oxygen/
placed inside the tunnel, waiting for the
than others for working around horses. propane ratio is correct the propane is iggopher to enter and activate it. During this
Common methods include carbon mon- nited causing a loud and destructive explotime it would be best to have horses out
oxide fumigation, trapping, baiting and sion. The concussion from the explosion
of the area to avoid injury if they were to
igniting propane.
is supposed to kill the rodent and cave in
step into the hole and activate the trap on
its tunnel.
Carbon Monoxide Fumigation: With
their hoof and possibly receive an injury
carbon monoxide fumigation there are no This method can further damage ground or spook.
explosions that spook horses, no further or underground pipes and wiring. There
Trapping might require a significant
damage to ground and no residual poisons. is also the potential for igniting combusamount of time to eliminate all of your goA probe is inserted into the rodent’s tun- tible materials when the propane explodes. phers. It requires the labor of a person setnel, and engine exhaust is injected. This Of course, the loud explosions can spook
ting the trap and checking the trap every
puts the rodent to sleep and exterminates horses and or customers who might be pa24 hours to see if a gopher or other rodent
it.
tronizing boarding and riding facilities. has been captured. With gophers in parApplicators using this method frequently
For carbon monoxide fumigation to work
ticular, once they figure out traps, trapping
notify local police when working inside
properly the carbon monoxide must be
becomes ineffective. Many times gophers
city limits because residents frequently
concentrated and pressurized through
will fill the traps with dirt and render them
call the police when they hear the loud exthe use of a specialized machine such as
useless.
plosions.
a PERC (pressurized exhaust rodent conTrapping is the most effective with gotrol) or another similar device. If pressure Poison Baits: Bait can be useful. It can be
phers because they isolate themselves in
is not used to inject the carbon monoxide, either inserted into the opening of the tuntheir tunnels, so except for breeding seaor if the hole is opened to insert the car- nel system or a probe is inserted into the
son there is only one gopher per tunnel. bon monoxide the rodents can react prior tunnel system and bait is dropped through
However, with voles, squirrels and prairie
the gas taking effect. Voles and squirrels the probe.
dogs there will be multiple rodents per
can escape the tunnel system, and gophers
There is always a concern about residual tunnel and trapping might only eliminate
can wall themselves off with dirt until the
or systemic poisoning with the use of a small portion of your problem.
threat is gone. Pressure and concentrabait. With residual poisoning, any animal
tion are key to success, so the rodents are
Controlling burrowing rodents in your
in the area, including horses, might inoverwhelmed prior to being able to defend
pasture, paddock or arena will help you
gest some of the left over poison and be
themselves.
to supplement the safety plan you already
harmed. With systemic poisoning animals
have in place. Plans can be custom deThe use of carbon monoxide is the most like cats and dogs might eat the killed
signed to take the worry of managing these
humane method of controlling burrowing rodent and ingest the poison through the
pests out of your hands completely, or they
rodents as well. If the proper equipment meat of the exterminated animal.
can be eradicated, giving your manageis used they are controlled with cooled enOver the counter poisons are less lethal ment plan a chance to catch up. Consider
gine exhaust. So, they are not burnt, they
than just a few years ago due to new EPA one of the above methods to insure you do
do not bleed to death internally and they
guidelines. Therefore, to effectively bait not lose a good horse and friend due to ungo to sleep as their blood can no longer
somebody with an applicator’s license necessary injury or death.
carry oxygen to their brain.
must be used so more lethal baits can be
Matt Brechwald is a small acreage
Carbon monoxide fumigation is a very ef- legally applied.
farmer and the owner of Idaho Gofective method of control. It has its limitaTrapping: The benefit of trapping is that it pher Control in Kuna, Idaho. You
tions during very cold periods when soil
provides you with proof of death. When a can contact Matt through his website
is frozen. Due to the moisture in the engopher, vole or squirrel is caught in a trap http://www.idahogophercontrol.com,
gine exhaust the frozen soil can freeze the
there is no question of whether or not the or at [email protected].
moisture inside the probe tips, slowing or
animal has been eliminated.
stopping the carbon monoxide from coming out.
33
Get the Facts:
Humanitarian
Benefits of GM Crops
GM crop technology serves
an important role in the global
fight against hunger and food
insecurity, increasing agricultural productivity, particularly
in smallholder farming, from
which three-quarters of the
world’s poorest people get their
food supply. Leading NGOs
are leveraging GM crop technology in their work around the
world to address hunger and
food insecurity.
One study estimated that,
from 1996 through 2007, GM
crops substantially increased
the global volume of corn and
soybeans, adding 67 million
tons of soybeans and 62 million
tons of corn to the food supply.
In Romania, GM technology
improved the average soybean
yield by 30 percent and, in the
Philippines, it increased corn
yields by 15 percent on average.
Learn about the Coalition for
Safe Affordable Food and the
broad base of support for The
Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 4432) online.
EPA Interpretive Rule;
Comment Period
Extended
The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers issued an interpretive rule that
will govern interpretation of
“normal farming exemptions”
34
contained in Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. This rule
was effective upon issuance, although the agencies have solicited comment on its provisions.
While the comment period for
submission to the docket was
scheduled to end June 5, EPA is
extending the deadline to Oct 9. AFBF has prepared comments
on the interpretive rule. State
Farm Bureaus may also submit their own comments to the
docket on this interpretative
rule and may wish to use the
AFBF-prepared comments in
preparing their own submissions. The public can comment
here: http://ditchtherule.fb.org/
The Environmental Protection Agency also extended
the deadline for submission
of comments on the proposed
“Waters of the U.S.” rule to
Oct. 20. “This is a victory for
farming families and a clear
signal that America’s farmers
know how to stand up and be
counted,” said AFBF President
Bob Stallman.
Further, “EPA has misled the
regulated community about the
rule’s impacts on land use,” he
said. “If more people knew how
regulators want to require permits for common activities on
dry land, or penalize landowners for not getting them, they
would be outraged.”
AFBF Launches Farm
Bill Resources
Website
Federation has launched a new
website to summarize and provide access to current farm bill
information and educational resources. The website includes a
series of video presentations
produced by AFBF in which
the key commodity and crop
insurance provisions of the
2014 farm bill are explained.
Video presentations include 1)
Farm Bill Overview; 2) The
Price Loss Coverage and Supplemental Coverage Option
programs; 3) The Agricultural
Risk Coverage Program; 4)
The Stacked Income Protection Program for Cotton; and 5)
The Dairy Margin Protection
Program.
Users can link to the website
from AFBF’s Voice of Agriculture website splash page, http://
www.fb.org/, or use the direct
link to the site (http://goo.gl/
CgwxmT). The site will be
updated as additional farm bill
information becomes available.
RMA Answers
Questions on Cover
Crop Management
SPOKANE, Wash., – The USDA’s RMA Management Agency (RMA) released Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQs) concerning revisions to its position
on cover crops, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Cover Crop Termination Guidelines, and crop insurance for the 2014 crop year.
The FAQs can be found online
at www.rma.usda.gov/help/faq/
covercrops2014.html .
Cover crops for conservation
purposes have been around
for decades, but are now being
embraced on a wider basis due
to the increased understanding
of the benefits for soil quality,
nutrient cycles, erosion control,
weed management, and soil
water availability. More information about cover
crops and commercial crop
insurability in the Cover Crop
Special Provisions of Insurance
is available at www.rma.usda.
gov .
AFBF Joins
AgGateway
Reflecting the increasing importance of data usage and privacy issues to America’s farmers, the American Farm Bureau
Federation has joined AgGateway, the non-profit organization dedicated to promoting,
enabling and expanding e-business in agriculture.
“Our farmers are continually seeking better tools to increase profitability, and there
are multiple exciting projects
at AgGateway designed to improve how farmers use data
to meet that goal,” said Mary
Kay Thatcher, senior director of congressional relations
at AFBF. “We look forward to
participating in and supporting the efforts that will make it
easier for farmers to use data,
and in a secure and safe way.”
Northwest Region
Potato Stocks
Potato stocks in Idaho on June
1, 2014 totaled 20.0 million
cwt. Disappearance of the Idaho crop to date was 111 million
cwt. June 1 potato stocks in Oregon totaled 3.00 million cwt.
Disappearance to date was 18.6
million cwt. In Washington,
June 1 potato stocks totaled
12.5 million cwt. Disappearance to date totaled 83.5 million cwt. Nationally, the 13 major potato States held 46.5 million cwt of potatoes in storage.
Potatoes in storage accounted
for 12 percent of the fall storage
States’ production. Potato disappearance totaled 344 million
cwt. Season-to-date shrink and
loss totaled 27.6 million cwt.
Since March 1, 2014, processors
in Idaho and Malheur County,
Oregon have used 22.8 million
cwt of potatoes. In Washington
and other Oregon counties, 19.3
million cwt of potatoes have
been used by processors since
March 1. Processors in the 9
major States have used 58.6
million cwt of potatoes since
March 1. Dehydrating usage
accounted for 11.3 million cwt
of the total processing.
Ending Loss and
Waste of Food
Each year, the world loses or
squanders a third of the food
it produces. This means that
somewhere between planting
seeds in fields and providing
nourishment to the world’s 7
billion people, approximately
1.3 billion metric tons of food
with a value of more than $1
trillion is lost or wasted. These
numbers are simply untenable
in a world where, according
to the United Nations’ Food
and Agriculture Organization,
some 870 million people do not
have enough to eat.
According to the FAO-commissioned study that tallied
these numbers, if just onefourth of lost or wasted food
were saved, it could end global
hunger. When the study results
were released, they focused
global attention on the need
to improve the efficiency of
food-production systems. In
parallel, FAO has established
SAVE FOOD<http://www.fao.
org/in-action/seeking-end-toloss-and-waste-of-food-alongproduction-chain/en/>, a global
initiative involving a coalition
of partners from the public and
private sector focused on reducing loss and waste.
Successful Foundation
Efforts
Foundation for Agriculture’s
generous supporters were key
to the organization’s success
in 2013 in raising consumers
awareness of how farmers and
ranchers do their best to feed,
fuel and clothe Americans and
people around the world. Driven by the motto “Deeper Understanding,” the Foundation’s
work was defined by a spirit
of meeting consumers where
they are—whether teaching in
a traditional classroom, using
a tablet to access information,
participating in a national discussion on technology education or learning through the
lens of a different language. In the recently released annual report learn more about
the resources, games and other
educational tools launched or
expanded in 2013 by the Foundation as part of its mission
of building awareness, understanding and a positive perception of agriculture through
education. The report is best
viewed in Internet Explorer or
Trailing of the Sheep Festival
FIBER CLASSES & WORKSHOPS
THE LAMB FEAST
BIG SHEEP PARADE
A dozen new classes for adults. All skill
levels. Learn basic spinning, needle felting dyeing wool and more! Special children’s classes on Saturday including star
weaving and painting without a brush.
CK’s Real Food, il Naso, diVine and several other local chefs will prepare scrumptious lamb specialties. At the Folklife Fair
on Saturday starting at 11:00 am.
Kids love this parade. We close Main
Street for 1,500 sheep coming down from
the after their summer in the mountains.
Musicians, dancers, sheepwagons and
more.
Dan and Jeanne Carver of Imperial Yarn
will share the Imperial Stock Ranch story
and the excitement of working with Ralph
Lauren to create Team USA’s wool uniforms for the Sochi Olympics. Hear their
hopes and dreams for the future.
Saturday, October 11 in Roberta McKercher Park. A Lamb Feast featuring the
finest chefs and restaurants, wool & craft
shops, music, entertainment, culture. A
must experience family event.
Join Hank Vogler, an outspoken Nevada
sheep rancher who shares his deep love for
ranching through stories sprinkled with
humor. He will be joined by three storytellers who will also share stories. This
will be a living history of the west.
SHEEPDOG TRIALS
Saturday & Sunday in Quigley Canyon.
The west’s most talented border collies
take on the sheep. Another must see for
the entire family!
HISTORY
Friday at the museum, Friday night at the
NexStage, Sunday morning at Starbucks
and Sunday afternoon with arborglyphs.
PHOTOGRAPHY WORKSHOP
Join a sheep adventure with Michael Edminster and Jack Williams as they go find
the sheep before the parade to photograph
these gentle wooly creatures.
35
Farm Bureau Members
Pay Less For
Choice Hotels!
FARM BUREAU COMMODITY REPORT
GRAIN PRICES
Portland:
White Wheat
11% Winter
14% Spring
Oats
Ogden:
White Wheat
11% Winter
14% Spring
Barley
Pocatello:
White Wheat
11% Winter
14% Spring
Barley
A $40 room will be closer to
Burley:
$32
Nampa:
White Wheat (cwt)
(Bushel)
Lewiston:
$48
White Wheat
H. Red Winter
Dark N. Spring
Barley
1.800.258.2847
Farm Bureau Discount Code
advanced reservations required
Trend
7.29
8.11-8.21
8.57
280.00
6.95
7.99
8.35
280.00
- .34
- .12 to - .22
- .22
Steady
6.15
6.52
6.72
9.15
5.85
6.77
6.50
7.50
- .30
+ .25
- .22
- 1.65
6.50
6.99
6.76
No Bid
5.60
6.63
6.34
No Bid
Steady
- .90
- .42
N/A
5.81
6.45
6.60
6.50
5.40
6.30
6.50
7.50
- .41
- .15
- .10
+ 1.00
10.50
6.30
10.25
6.15
- .25
- .15
7.05
8.19
8.51
186.50
6.80
7.73
7.79
171.50
-
Feeder Heifers
Under 500 lbs
500-700 lbs
700-900 lbs
Over 900 lbs
Holstein Steers
Under 700 lbs
Over 700 lbs
Cows
Utility/Commercial
Canner & Cutter
Stock Cows
Bulls
Slaughter
BEAN PRICES:
Pinto
Pink
Small Red
05/20/2014
06/24/2014
Trend
170-258
174-241
145-191
106-171
200-265
195-248
145-217
130-192
+ 30 to + 7
+ 21 to + 7
Steady to + 26
+ 24 to + 21
189-245
169-221
135-174
114-153
185-251
170-239
135-201
114-162
- 4 to + 6
+ 1 to + 18
Steady to + 27
Steady to + 9
115-158
100-145
115-179
125-170
Steady to + 21
+ 25
75-113
74-112
88-114
78-102
+ 13 to + 1
+ 4 to - 10
1200-1900
1200-1800
Steady to - 100
91-139
97-140
+ 6 to + 1
34.00-35.00
39.00-40.00
39.00-40.00
34.00-35.00
No Quote
No Quote
Steady
N.A.
N.A.
Compiled by the Idaho Farm Bureau Commodity Division
36
.25
.46
.72
15.00
LIVESTOCK PRICES
Under 500 lbs
500-700 lbs
700-900 lbs
Over 900 lbs
$72
06/25/2014
Feeder Steers
00209550
White Wheat
11% Winter
14% Spring
Barley
05/23/2014
Contracted price - Price and conditions of sale agreed upon when buyer and
Seller negotiates a transaction.
IDaho Hay Report
June 20, 2014
Tons: 8846 Last Week: 6200 Last Year: 12,400
Compared to last week, new crop Alfalfa steady to 10.00 higher. Trade
moderate as first cutting alfalfa trading is in full swing. Demand remains very
good especially for high testing Alfalfa going to California. Rain and even light
snow was reported over most of the trade area this week. Retail/feed store/horse
not tested this week. Buyer demand good with light to moderate supplies. All
prices are dollars per ton and FOB unless otherwise stated.
IDAHO HAY – 6/20/14 Tons: 8,846
All prices are dollars per ton and FOB unless otherwise stated.
Quality
Tons
Price Range Avg. Price
Alfalfa Large Square
Supreme 2,950 250.00-260.00
259.15
Premium 400
240.00
240.00
Fair/Good 2,000
225.00
225.00
Alfalfa Standing
Premium/Supreme 874
200.00
200.00
Good/Premium 874
200.00
200.00
Fair/Good 874
200.00
200.00
Utility/Fair 874
200.00
200.00
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ML_GR312.txt
USDA Market News, Moses Lake, WA 509-393-1343 or 707-3150
Potatoes for Processing
USDA Market News, Moses Lake, WA 509-393-1343 or 707-3150
POTATOES
June 24, 2014
UPPER VALLEY, TWIN FALLS-BURLEY DISTRICT, IDAHO---Shipments 740-786647 (includes export of 10-2-3)---Movement expected to remain about the same.
Trading slow. Prices cartons lower, baled generally unchanged. Russet Burbank
U.S. One baled 5 10-pound non size A mostly 4.00-4.50, 50-pound cartons 40-80s
10.00, 90-100s 8.00-9.00.
5 Year Grain Comparison
Grain Prices.................6/23/2010.....................6/28/2011.....................6/25/2012.................... 6/25/2013....................6/25/2014
Portland:
White Wheat..................... 4.53 .............................6.70 ............................7.33 .............................N.Q. .......................... 6.95
11% Winter.....................No Bid.........................7.43-7.64 ......................7.63-7.93......................8.20-8.58..........................7.99
14% Spring....................... 10.53.............................10.42 .............................9.38 ...........................9.12.............................. 8.35
Corn...............................161-161.25....................286-288.50 ................282-284.25 .................275.00..........................280.00
Ogden:.................................................................................................................................................N.C............................... N.C.
White Wheat.....................4.00 .............................6.60 ..............................6.60...............................6.55............................. 5.85
11% Winter........................3.76 ..............................6.34 ..............................6.51 ............................ 6.65............................ 6.77
14 % Spring...................... 5.29 .............................9.48 ..............................7.84 ............................ 7.79............................ 6.50
Barley.................................6.30 ............................ 11.75..............................10.20............................. 9.31............................. 7.50
Pocatello:.............................................................................................................................................N.C............................... N.C.
White Wheat..................... 3.70 ..............................6.00 ..............................6.25...............................6.10............................. 5.60
11% Winter....................... 3.59 ..............................5.96 ..............................6.06 ............................ 6.63............................ 6.63
14% Spring........................ 5.21 ..............................9.56 ..............................7.95 ............................ 7.47............................ 6.34
Barley................................. 5.94 ........................... 11.35 ............................10.10............................. 9.16.......................... No Bid
IDAHO---Open-market trading by processors with growers was inactive.
Burley:
White Wheat..................... 3.70 ..............................6.20 ..............................6.36...............................6.35.............................. 5.40
11% Winter....................... 3.73 ..............................6.06 ..............................6.11 .............................6.34 ............................ 6.30
14% Spring........................ 5.05 .............................9.36 ..............................7.51 .............................7.28.............................. 6.50
Barley................................. 5.25 ............................ 11.25 .............................9.50 .............................9.75...............................7.50
Nampa:
White Wheat (cwt).......... 6.08 .............................9.58 .............................10.60..............................7.00............................. 10.25
(bushel)........... 3.65 ..............................5.75 ..............................6.36...............................6.40...............................6.15
Lewiston:
White Wheat..................... 4.25 .............................6.40 ..............................7.10.............................. 7.15............................ 6.80
Barley................................111.50 ........................216.50............................204.50.......................... 216.50 ....................... 171.50
Bean Prices:
Pintos...........................28.00-30.00........................30.00.............................50.00.......................34.00-35.00.................34.00-35.00
Pinks.................................30.00........................30.00-32.00..................45.00-48.00.................38.00-40.00...................No Quote
Small Reds........................30.00...............................N/A.................................N/A....................... .38.00-40.00...................No Quote
***
Milk production
June 18, 2014
May Milk Production up 1.5 Percent
Milk production in the 23 major States during May totaled 16.9 billion pounds, up
1.5 percent from May 2013. April revised production, at 16.3 billion pounds, was up
1.4 percent from April 2013. The April revision represented an increase of 27 million pounds or 0.2 percent from last month’s preliminary production estimate.
Production per cow in the 23 major States averaged 1,976 pounds for May. This
is the highest production per cow for the month of May since the 23 State series
began in 2003.
The number of milk cows on farms in the 23 major States was 8.55 million head,
10,000 head more than April 2014.
May Milk Production in the United States up 1.4 Percent
Milk production in the United States during May totaled 18.1 billion pounds, up 1.4
percent from May 2013.
Production per cow in the United States averaged 1,951 pounds for May.
The number of milk cows on farms in the United States was 9.25 million head,
10,000 head more than April 2014.
37
5 Year livestock comparison
..................... 6/22/2010.....................6/27/2011......................6/18/2012.....................6/21/2013....................6/24/2013
Under 500 lbs................ 101-140.........................125-161 ......................140-189 .....................128-162........................200-265
500-700 lbs..................... 97-132 ........................ 112-152..........................131-169.........................120-151........................195-248
700-900 lbs..................... 85-110 ........................102-140 ........................119-155.........................111-136........................ 145-217
Over 900 lbs....................88-98 ..........................95-108..........................110-134..........................91-123......................... 130-192
Feeder Heifers
Under 500 lbs................. 97-132..........................115-153 ......................135-165.........................116-143........................ 185-251
500-700 lbs.....................87-125 .........................91-136 .......................129-161.........................110-137........................170-239
700-900 lbs......................73-90 ..........................82-121...........................114-141..........................98-127......................... 135-201
Over 900 lbs...................No Bid .........................82-105...........................89-125 .........................85-114......................... 114-162
Holstein Steers
Under 700 lbs.................65-102...........................65-115............................75-129........................... 84-95...........................115-179
Over 700 lbs....................65-81 ...........................65-95 ..........................75-112...........................69-100......................... 125-170
Cows
Utility/Commercial...........43-68.............................52-83.............................65-86........................... 60-82........................... 88-114
Canner & Cutter..............35-60.............................40-72.............................55-79............................ 60-73...........................78-102
Stock Cows......................700-900 ......................850-1500......................1000-1300.................... 850-1275.....................1200-1800
Bulls – Slaughter............47-84.............................60-95 ..........................75-104...........................65-105.......................... 97-140
United States Cattle on Feed
Down 2 Percent
June 20, 2014
Cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market in the United
States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled
10.6 million head on June 1, 2014. The inventory was 2 percent
below June 1, 2013.
Placements in feedlots during May totaled 1.91 million, 7
percent below 2013. Net placements were 1.81 million head.
During May, placements of cattle and calves weighing less than
600 pounds were 435,000, 600-699 pounds were 290,000, 700799 pounds were 477,000, and 800 pounds and greater were
710,000.
Marketings of fed cattle during May totaled 1.87 million,
4 percent below 2013. May marketings are the lowest for the
month since the series began in 1996.
Other disappearance totaled 101,000 during May, 1 percent
above 2013.
Cattle Outlook
June 20, 2014
The Cattle on Feed Report had no surprises this month. USDA says there were
1.6% fewer cattle in large feedlots at the start of June than a year ago. The prerelease trade estimate was for the on-feed number to be down 1.5%. Placements
of cattle into feed lots were down 7.0% in May while marketings were down 4.3%.
Hong Kong has agreed to lift the last of its restriction on beef imports from the U.S.
that were imposed in 2003 due to BSE.
The average price of choice beef in grocery stores during May was a record $5.913
per pound. That is up 68.7 cents from a year ago and up 4.2 cents from the old
record set the month before. The average price for all fresh beef was $5.45 per
pound in May.
USDA says the 5 market average live price for slaughter steers in May was $143.60/
cwt. That was down $3.60 from the month before, but up $16.10 compared to May
2013.
USDA said this week that 17% of U.S. pastures were in poor or very poor condition
on June 15, down 2 points from the previous week and down from 23% poor or
very poor a year ago.
Fed cattle prices were steady this week on good sales volume. Through Thursday, the 5-area average price for slaughter steers sold on a live weight basis was
$149.04/cwt, down 33 cents from last week’s average, but up $27.67 from a year
ago. The 5 area average dressed price for steers was $236.94/cwt, up 56 cents for
the week and up $43.37 from the same week last year.
38
Wholesale beef prices were higher this week. This morning, the boxed beef cutout
value for choice carcasses was $240.81/cwt, up $9.28 from the previous Friday and
up $41.27 from a year ago.The select carcass cutout was $233.28/cwt on the morning report, up $9.39 from last week and up $46.87 from a year earlier.
This week’s cattle slaughter totaled 613,000 head, up 1.3% from the previous week,
but down 7.1% from the corresponding week last year. The average dressed weight
for steers slaughtered the week ending on June 7 was 850 pounds, up 6 pounds
from the week before, but down 3 pounds compared to the same week last year.
Feeder cattle prices at this week’s Oklahoma City auction were $6 to $10 higher
than the week before. This week’s prices for medium and large frame #1 steers
by weight were: 400-450# $264-$280, 450-500# $243-$276, 500-550# $238-$268,
550-600# $228-$254, 600-650# $209-$227, 650-700# $201-$225, 700-750# $200$218, 750-800# $195.50-$214, 800-900# $191-$209, and 900-1000# $176-$196/
cwt.
Cattle futures ended the week a bit below the record highs set the previous week.
The June live cattle futures contract closed at $147.55/cwt today, down 5 cents
from last week’s close. August fed cattle settled at $146.32/cwt, down 30 cents for
the week.The October contract ended the week at $149.15/cwt. December closed
at $150.50/cwt. The August feeder cattle contract ended the week at $206.87/cwt,
down $1.28 for the week. The September feeder cattle contract settled at $208.17,
down 55 cents from the previous Friday.
Provided by: University of Missouri
Classifieds
Animals
Farm Equipment
Wanted
Fun loving pure bred Labrador hunters
(puppies) with good bloodlines $350. Six
weeks old, dewclaws and first round of shots
ready to go. Homedale, ID 208-573-7086.
Steel Horse Breaking Cart on rubber tires
- heavy duty, $150.00; 4-Horse tongue
mounted Horse Trailer - older but in good
condition, $1,000.00; 4-Horse Charmack
Gooseneck Horse Trailer-slant load with
ramp - tack room & sleeping space - nice
condition, $5,000.00. Call Jeff 208-2322166.
Looking for a Blacksmith’s Anvil. 435-2326141.
ASCA registered Australian Shepherd pups.
Working line since 1968. Full satisfaction
guaranteed. All four colors available. Boise,
Id 208-484-9802.
Himalayan Yaks for Sale - Yearlings, 2 year
olds and Breeding Age Cows. $800.00 $1500.00 Call or e-mail for more about
these amazing animals. McCall, ID. (208)
890-6399 or [email protected]
Ranch raised Morgan stock horse colts for
sale, with substance and beauty not found
in other breeds. www.creamridgemorgans.
com or 208-476-7221.
Miniature Donkeys. Small breeding pair for
sale - registered Canadian jack. Want to sell
the breeding pair together. Their June baby
boy is for sale also. Located in Parma, ID.
Serious inquires only please. Call 208-9218089.
Help Wanted
Earn $75,000/yr Part Time in the livestock
or equipment appraisal business. Agricultural
background required. Classroom or home
study courses available. 800-488-7570.
Miscellaneous
5” Aluminum Main Line (380 ft) with valves
and couplers. $600.00; Gas/Propane Hot
Water Heater-Make: G.E.-Capacity - 40 Gal.
(Tall). Only used 3 years. Great Condition.
Paid $550 - Asking $300. Shelley, ID. Call
528-5337.
DR Mower - 8 hp rough terrain mower
with snowblower - electric start - runs well,
$2000.00; Bench Mount Drill Press, $40.00;
Concrete Pavers - mixed gray and red approximately 150 sq. ft -- also a few Flag
Stones, $25.00 for lot. Call Rita 208-2322166.
New squeeze-chute, hand pull, green. $1,200.
Midvale, Id 208-355-3780.
1998 Cat Challenger 55, 225 HP, 1000 PTO,
3 point, quick hitch. 16 speed power shift,
4 remotes, extra front and side weights, 24’’
rubber tracks. 6691 Hours, $50,000, Paul Id,
208-431-5991.
Massey Tractor 1949 N $3200 great shape
needs TLC, 1945 wooden manure spreader
$2000, drafting table $35, massage table
$150, trailer $200, tomato plant protector
$15.00, lawn mower $15.00 good parts.
Homedale, Id. For info call 208-337-5870.
Paying cash for German & Japanese war
relics/souvenirs! Pistols, rifles, swords,
daggers, flags, scopes, optical equipment,
uniforms, helmets, machine guns (ATF
rules apply) medals, flags, etc. 549-3841
(evenings) or 208-405-9338.
Old License Plates Wanted: Also key chain
license plates, old signs, light fixtures. Will
pay cash. Please email, call or write. Gary
Peterson, 130 E Pecan, Genesee, Id 83832.
[email protected]. 208-285-1258.
Paying cash for old cork top bottles and
some telephone insulators. Call Randy.
Payette, Id. 208-740-0178.
DEADLINE
DATES:
ADS MUST BE
RECEIVED BY
JULY 20
FOR NEXT
ISSUE.
Balewagons: New Holland self-propelled or
pull-type models. Also interested in buying
balewagons. Will consider any model. Call
Jim Wilhite at 208-880-2889 anytime.
Real Estate/Acreage
1974 Skylark 12x60 $6,600; 1974 Academy
14x60 $7,200. 2 Year Sells Contract Possible.
Price Reduced for Cash. Good Condition. Sold
“as is” condition. Natural Gas. Shelley area.
For more information, call 528-5337. Please
leave message.
160 Acre Mountain Ranch, Wayan, Id. NFS
on 3 sides. Sawmill creek runs entire length
of ranch. $224,000. Call Steve Shelton 208557-9005 Silvercreek Realty Group.
Vehicles
1979 Chevrolet Camaro, V8 305 288L, Auto
Transmission, white with carmine interior,
186224 original miles, same owner since
1987, covered in garage, original, clean.
Wendell, Id only serious callers please. Leave
message. 208-536-6724.
39
Farm Bureau
Members
Pay Less
www.idahofbstore.com
208-239-4289
General Admission
Regular - $51.07
Meal Combo
Regular - Over $59
Farm Bureau Price
Farm Bureau Price
$38.50
$44.50
*Lagoon prices include sales tax.
Purchase at Farm Bureau offices.
Regular Adult $31.79
Farm Bureau Price
$25.50
*Roaring Springs prices
include sales tax.
Purchase at select
Farm Bureau offices
or online.
Farm Bureau Online
Discount Price
$23.99
Child/ (Under 58”) $22.99
Farm Bureau Online
Discount Price
$18.49
Roaring Springs/Wahooz Combo
available for $35.99
Farm Bureau Online
Discount Price
$38.99
Child/Senior $22.99
Farm Bureau Online
Discount Price
$17.99

- Idaho Farm Bureau

Transcription

Similar documents

Market Plan

Financial Strength - Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance

Homemade Probiotics Flyer (To Print)

john fluevog shoes - Page One Publishing

Dennis Reis Universal Horsemanship ~ Freedom Course Clinic

Homeowners Extra - Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance

Canyon Ada Twin Falls Gooding

AgriPac - Michigan Farm Bureau

UFF Invitation - Underwood Family Farms

January