Aglines
agriculture * food * energy * environment
Archive for September, 2009
USDA to continue aid to hog producers
Author: Robert3 Sep
By Robert Pore
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced Thursday the purchase of $30 million in pork as a measure to improve the economic climate for the industry.
“Our pork producers have been in economic distress for well over a year,” said Gov. Dave Heineman. “This type of assistance is critical for improving the market atmosphere for pork.”
Heineman, along with eight other governors from key pork producing states, sent a letter to President Barack Obama in August outlining several steps to aid pork producers, including asking for the federal government to purchase pork for government feeding programs.
Heineman said he and the Nebraska Department of Agriculture officials will continue to dialogue with Nebraska pork industry leaders.
“Pork is an important segment of our agriculture industry in the state,” said Agriculture Director Greg Ibach. “We are hopeful that USDA’s actions today will improve the outlook for our swine producers so they can weather this period of unprofitability.”
In June, USDA reported that Nebraska inventory of all hogs and pigs was 3.25 million head. This was down 4 percent from June 1, 2008 but up 3 percent from March 1, 2009. The USDA, also reported that in 2007, there were 2,200 hog farms in Nebraska with 100 of those farms having 5,000 head or more of inventory amounting to 57.5 percent of the state’s hog inventory.
Nebraska is also one of the nation’s leading hog slaughtering states. The USDA reported that in July, hog slaughter plants in Nebraska killed 627,000 hogs, down from 649,000 hogs in July 2008.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Thursday USDA’s intention to purchase an additional $30 million in pork products in FY 2009 for federal food and nutrition assistance programs. USDA will survey potential suppliers to seek the lowest overall cost by publicly inviting bids and awarding contracts to responsible bidders. Altogether, USDA has purchased approximately $151 million in pork products for food and nutrition assistance programs this year through annual appropriation and Recovery Act funding.
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., said that along with the pork product purchase, USDA is also revising the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP). LIP provides critical assistance to livestock producers when losses are incurred as a result of harsh weather, including Nebraska losses in June. The pork is being purchased for federal food and nutrition programs at a time when many pork producers are struggling to make ends meet.
“This is great news for cattle and hog owners in Nebraska and across the country,” Johanns said. “I am very pleased USDA has taken these actions to increase the accuracy of livestock compensation, and to provide a boost to pork producers facing tough market conditions.”
According to Johanns, until now, LIP used two weight classes—under and over 400 pounds—to classify cattle for compensation. Yet the cattle lost can weigh more than 1,000 pounds, resulting in cattle of wide-ranging weights falling into the “over 400 pound” category, and therefore less accurate compensation. USDA will add a new category of over 800 pounds to more specifically classify cattle for compensation purposes.
Johanns and seven of his colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee sent a letter in July to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack requesting such a change to LIP. He also urged Vilsack to purchase pork products for nutrition programs.
Earlier this summer, thousands of Nebraska cattle in feedlots died from hot, humid conditions.
According to Johanns, USDA has now purchased approximately $151 million in pork products this year. Federal programs that will benefit from the purchases include the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The American Farm Bureau Federation reports that America’s pork and dairy producers have lost much of their equity over the last year. With a wave of restructuring and forced herd sales expected over the next few months, Farm Bureauis asking Obama to initiate and continue several national measures to provide relief.
Farm Bureau is asking the Obama administration to transfer $100 million to the Agriculture Department to purchase pork for domestic food and nutrition programs. The money would come from a $1.85 billion package to fund the government’s response to issues related to H1N1 influenza. Stallman pointed out that part of today’s decrease in pork prices is due to the widespread misuse of the term “swine flu” rather than the H1N1 virus, which caused pork prices to drop sharply in spite of the fact that pork remains safe to eat.
The U.S. Meat Export Federation reported a recent survey that found nearly two-thirds of China’s consumers stopped eating pork in the early stages of the H1N1 influenza outbreak this year, and more than one in five consumers in the world’s largest pork market still believe that eating pork can result in catching the flu virus.
To add to America’s agricultural export woes, the National Pork Producers Council has joined 33 other food and agricultural organizations urging the Obama administration not to penalize China over tires imported into the United States.
What concerns the ag and food groups is that China will retaliate against U.S. products as pork and soybeans, for example, have been mentioned as candidates for retaliation.
“Pork producers are facing dire circumstances and need the government to step up to purchase more product,” Stallman stated. “The recent (price) for hogs is down $25 per head in only the last four months. If the futures price is an accurate forecast of where hogs will be priced at year’s end, producers will be losing $50 per head. Even the futures price for next April indicates a $25 per head loss.”
While many food processors are posting profits as a result of higher food price (Kraft, Kellogg, General Mills, ConAgra), Stallman said farmers and ranchers are feeling the squeeze of the economic downturn especially livestock producers.
While only a fraction of all farm loans have been affected yet, Stallman said many small and regional commercial banks are facing credit concerns. More than 80 banks have failed—the most since the early 1990s, according to Stallman.
“As long as land values hold up, lenders should be willing to refinance carryover debts,” he said. “Falling land prices are making it harder for farmers to borrow because land is their biggest source of collateral. This is particularly true for the pork and dairy sectors. Considering these bank problems, we fear they may not be able to provide leniency to farm borrowers.”
In August, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, Nebraska Field Office reported that farm real estate values in Nebraska continue to climb.
Nationwide, farm real estate, a measurement of the value of all land and buildings on farms, saw a decline, according to the USDA.
According to the USDA, Nebraska’s farm real estate value rose from 2008, extending a trend that began in 1993.
Farm real estate value on Jan. 1 averaged $1,340 per acre in Nebraska, a record high. This is up $10 per acre or 1 percent from last year’s level.
Also, according to Farm Bureau, another contributing factor to the downturn in milk and livestock prices is U.S. agricultural exports have dropped more than 20 percent in the first six months of this year compared to a year ago. Net farm income is forecast to be $54 billion in 2009, down $33.2 billion and 38 percent from the preliminary estimate of $87.2 billion for 2008. The 2009 forecast is $9 billion below the average of $63.2 billion in net farm income earned in the previous 10 years.
According to the USDA, in 2008, Nebraska was the nation’s second leading live animal and meat exporting state behind Iowa with exports of $1.134.8 billion. Nebraska was leading the nation in the export of hides and skins at $391.5 million and animal fats at $212.8 million.
No love lost between humans and flies
Author: Robert3 Sep
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — The poet Karl Shapiro began his poem “The Fly” with the line: “Oh hideous little bat, the size of snot.” It is not necessary to read further in the poem to get the idea that Shapiro is not a fan of flies. Shapiro, like most people, considers the fly to be a despicable organism.
Shapiro’s poem is about the house fly, an insect that has been a companion of unwilling humans from at least the beginning of recorded time and probably even longer. Even the scientific name of the housefly, Musca domestica, suggests a close association of the insect with humans.
To be sure, there are flies other than the house fly. Flies are classified in the scientific order Diptera, a word that literally means two wings, a characteristic of the order. There are over 15,000 named species of Diptera found in North America, so there are a lot of flies in the world. The most widely dispersed and the best known of all of these flies is the house fly.
Even though the house fly lives in close association with humans, it certainly has not been domesticated as its scientific name might suggest. Indeed, as Emerson suggested: “A fly is as untamable as a hyena.”
The house fly neither bites nor stings, so what is it about this insect that elicits such disdain among humans? The predominant reason would seem to be that the house fly can be called a filth fly. That term has been used to describe fly species that are associated with waste material, such as sewage and garbage, or with rotting plant material, animal manure and dead animals.
House flies hang around decaying stuff in order to deposit eggs on material that will be good food for their maggots. That in itself is not a bad thing. After all, fly maggots are part of nature’s recycling crew. However, house flies travel some distance from their breeding sites and that often results in conflict with humans.
Humans, you see, are not happy about sharing their abode with an insect that has been walking around on a dead animal or on raw sewage. Walking around on stuff is something that a house fly does almost as well as it flies. The reason for all of this walking around is that the house fly tastes with its feet. So when the fly stomps over our mashed potatoes and gravy it is searching for a meal.
Of course, most people have come to recognize that flies are not at all selective about the type of material on which they walk. That means that the house fly is capable of picking up disease organisms on its feet and transmitting them from one area to another. Consequently, the house fly has been shown to be able to carry germs that cause a number of human diseases, including typhoid, cholera, dysentery, tuberculosis, anthrax and infantile diarrhea.
As if being a vector of disease organisms is not bad enough, the house fly adds insult to injury by being a nuisance pest. It makes a nuisance of itself by flying around and crawling on people and things. But to most people, the most disgusting thing that the fly does is vomit on its food. The house fly has sponging mouthparts and has to predigest solid food before it can ingest it. So the insect spits digestive juices on potential food before sopping it up.
Having a fly spit in our food is insult enough but to be reminded that the insect might have been walking around on something like garbage, sewage or a dead animal before taking a hike on our food sort of seals the deal of why we hate house flies. Consequently, we try to avoid contact with them.
Back in the Middle Ages, humans took note of the fact that some animals such as horses had built-in fly swatters. So we took hair from the tail of a horse, or used some suitable substitute material, attached it to a stick and called the device a fly whisk. We used fly whisks to keep flies from landing on our food. We developed swatters to inflict lethal physical damage to flies that would dare come within reach.
Physical barriers such as window screen were employed to keep flies out of our places. And, of course, in modern times we concocted chemicals to spray on the offending insects.
I have an old fly swatter that is constructed of window screen attached to a stick. It is not just a fly swatter but also an advertising device. On the handle it says: “For your health’s sake, swat the fly and buy Dr. Lynas’ Products.” I don’t know who Dr. Lynas was, but he certainly was exploiting human hate of flies in his advertising.
