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.

You are what you eat, or to be fit and healthy you need to eat good food.  That’s the secret to health care reform. Just ask a bunch of rats.

A recent study from the University of Oxford had researchers examined the effects of a very high-fat diet and a very low-fat diet on 32 rats on their ability to remember their way through a maze and on their performance on a treadmill.

The researchers found that after just a few days on the high-fat diet — consisting of a whopping 55 percent of calories from fat — the rats had more trouble recalling how to get through the maze, and they also performed 30 percent worse on the treadmill after just a few days on the high-fat diet, compared to when they were on a diet consisting of only 7.5 percent of calories from fat.

The researchers said they also have performed similar studies on humans, but those results haven’t been published yet. Assuming the human studies show comparable results, what does that mean for your diet?

Well, probably not much, at least if you tend to stick close to official recommendations for fat intake. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines have long suggested that total fat intake for adults be anywhere from 20 percent to 35 percent of total calories. That’s nowhere near the low-fat diet of 7.5 percent of total calories or the high-fat diet of 55 percent of total calories used in the rat study.

Now, if you tend to binge on high-fat foods over the course of a few days, you might find your poor diet has an effect — either on your cognitive ability, your physical ability, or both. But certainly that wouldn’t be the only reason to switch back to healthier eating habits: High-fat diets are associated with higher risks of heart disease and some types of cancer, especially diets high in saturated or trans fats.

In fact, official guidelines recommend keeping saturated fat to 10 percent of calories consumed, and eliminating, if at all possible, trans fat intake. That means, for example, if your recommended calorie intake for the day is 1,600 calories a day (the amount recommended for sedentary women age 51 or older), you should limit saturated fat to 18 grams or less. If you consume 2,400 calories a day (recommended for active women ages 14-30 or most sedentary men ages 16-40), limit saturated fat to 26 to 27 grams.

The other 10 to 25 percent of calories from fat should come from monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Check Nutrition Facts labels for good sources.

By Robert Pore

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., and Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., were critical of recent comment by U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack concerning

Addressing the nation’s farm broadcasters earlier this week, Vilsack said that “…for those who want to defend the status quo, if they think the cost of oil is going to remain static and continue to be low they are just not thinking correctly and that as the world economy begins to pick up the price of oil will skyrocket again.”

“This is an opportunity for us to move away from our addiction of foreign oil, to create new energy sources here in America and create new income opportunities for farmers and ranchers,” Vilsack said. “We should be embracing this. We should not be fearful of this. Fear has never ever moved the United States in the right direction. It has always been our willingness to embrace risk, embrace innovation, embrace change and be an international leader. Now is not the time for us to become fearful, now is the time for America to continue its leadership.”

While Vilsack was addressing the need to pass cap and trade legislation, Smith said Vilsack is wrong in claiming the economic benefits of cap and trade legislation to farmers and ranchers will outweigh added energy costs.

What’s in question is House bill H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed in late June. Smith, who voted against the legislation, said the bill will impose new greenhouse gas emissions standards and efficiency standards across the U.S. economy.

“This bill imposes enormous taxes and restrictions on energy use – placing an especially heavy burden on rural America and our nation’s energy producers,” Smith said.

He said that even a small increase in operating costs could devastate farmers and ranchers, “…as Secretary Vilsack well knows.”

“U.S. agriculture producers will also be at a severe economic disadvantage compared to farmers in nations which do not have a cap-and-trade system,” Smith said.

Vilsack is scheduled to hold a “Rural Tour” forum in Scottsbluff in late September to discuss production agriculture.

Smith said agriculture is one of the nation’s most energy intensive industries, and is expected to be impacted heavily by this legislation. Nearly 60 percent of U.S. energy is imported from other countries.

According to a Heritage Foundation economic analysis of H.R. 2454, Smith said farm income would drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and more than $50 billion in 2035 – decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 percent, respectively.

Smith said U.S. farmers would be at a severe disadvantage compared to farmers in nations which do not have a cap-and-trade system with correspondingly high input costs.

According to Smith, estimates place per household burdens from $1,600 to more than $4,000 annually to comply with the bill. The Heritage Foundation estimates Nebraska will lose more than $1 billion and nearly 10,000 jobs if cap-and-trade becomes law.

To date, more than 100 agriculture groups – including the Nebraska Farm Bureau – have expressed opposition to the legislation, according to Smith.

While cap and trade addresses growing concerns about the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the impact those gases could have on the environment, because agriculture is so energy intense, it’s dependent, like the rest of the nation, on imported fossil fuel energy.

According the Renewable Fuels Association, earlier this month the U.S. State Department approved the construction of a new petroleum pipeline with the sole purpose of importing Canadian tar sands oil to the U.S.

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the environmental footprint of tar sands (carbon emissions aside) is very damaging.

RFA said the State Department justified its decision by saying, “Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.”

Relying on increasingly environmentally unsustainable imports of petroleum is not a long term solution, according to the RFA.

” Yet, the State Department thinks so. So too does the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which is in the process of creating roadblocks for the development of America’s biofuels industry, a cleaner alternative to tar sands petroleum that creates jobs in the U.S., not Canada,
according to RFA.

RFA goes on to say, “Not only is tar sands petroleum production environmentally damaging, so too is refining this heavier source of crude oil. According to the Chicago Tribune, ‘researchers have calculated that refining the Canadian petroleum produces 15 percent to 40 percent more carbon dioxide emissions than conventional oil.’”

Johanns, in an opt-ed piece for the Omaha World Herald, he said Vilsack’s “rhetoric falls in line with the Administration’s pattern of nice sounding ideas unsupported by facts.”

“Unfortunately, the costs of cap-and-trade are real, while so far the benefits for farmers and ranchers are theoretical,” he said. “Nebraska producers are realists. And realists sift through rhetoric to focus on facts.”

Like with Smith, uses numbers from the Heritage Foundation, Johanns quotes numbers about the negative impact cap and trade would have on agriculture from the American Farm Bureau Foundation.

Johanns said Farm Bureau estimates that 40 million acres will come out of production and another analysis predicts a loss of 78 million acres to trees.

“That’s nearly 20 percent of our nation’s total cropland,” Johanns said. “The Secretary’s argument appears to hedge on one of two options: America’s farmers have the land, time, and resources to increase their acreage by 20 percent; or they can convert 20 percent of current cropland to trees without a significant loss in output and income. Neither option makes sense.”

Johanns said the bill places additional tax burdens on American businesses during a severe recession for no discernible environmental gain.

“Like the Secretary, I am supremely confident that American agriculture can adapt. But that’s no justification to support a bad bill,” he said. “While Americans will face down any challenge facing them, their lawmakers should not be in the business of creating additional ones.”