Robert Pore's Aglines

Manifesto on lowering food prices

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:46:00 +0000

According to an article by Cole Gustafson, NDSU Agriculture Economist, and Dwight Aakre, NDSU Farm Management Specialist, it's important to review the broad range of federal policy changes that could be undertaken to increase the quantity of foods produced and moderate the rapid inflation of food prices.

A frequent question following recent speeches on the future of biofuels concerns the impact of increasing ethanol production on food prices.We always have replied that the rising value of raw commodities is small, compared with both the total food costs and price increases for other costs food processors face.

For example, even at these prices, the value of the corn in a box of Corn Flakes, by weight, is less than 30 cents. Several studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and Texas A and M University confirm that the increasing costs for transportation, labor and energy overshadow higher agricultural commodity prices.

Nevertheless, rising food prices are a public concern at present in the U.S. and abroad. Therefore, it is important to review the broad range of federal policy changes that could be undertaken to increase the quantity of foods produced and moderate the rapid inflation of food prices. In other words, what can the U.S. do to increase food production in the near-term?

Several options and their merits include:

Change farm programs – In the past, provisions of the farm program, such as direct payments and loan programs, could be adjusted up or down to manage U.S. food production goals. However, when prices for most commodities are far above support levels, such as now, these provisions matter less to producers. Therefore, even substantial changes in farm program provisions would do little to increase overall food production. Direct payments do not have an impact on what or how much is produced. Provisions, such as loan rates, loan deficiency payments, farmer-owned reserve, set-aside, target prices, counter-cyclical payments, deficiency payments, acreage allotments and subsidized crop insurance, could have an impact on the levels and mix of crops produced. Of this set of farm program tools, only crop insurance is having any significant impact today.
Open Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage – Almost 35 million agricultural acres are being idled under CRP. The USDA’s most recent survey of land use found that 442 million acres were devoted to crop production in 2006. A significant amount of acres went into CRP as whole-farm units during the financial crisis of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. Much of this acreage is very productive, even though it is highly erodible. Returning these lands to production would increase total food supplies. However, most of this land initially was enrolled because it was uneconomical to farm. However, CRP land may be economical to farm now, but concerns about the impact of farming these highly erodible lands probably would raise the ire of enviromentalists who are important constituents of farm bill legislation. Other USDA restrictions on the drainage of nuisance wetlands, commonly referred to as the Swampbuster Program, are keeping many potentially highly productive crop acres from being adequately drained. If changed, it could result in a significant increase in production on those acres.
Remove the ethanol blender’s tax credit – Removing the 51-cent-per-gallon blender’s tax credit for ethanol production would lessen the overall demand for corn. However, with less ethanol production, fewer distillers grains would be available. At present, distillers grains, a byproduct of the ethanol production process, is widely available as a livestock feed. For each bushel (56 pounds) of corn ground for ethanol, 18 pounds of distillers grains are left over for animal feed. Since demand for a livestock protein would remain, corn that is not directly used for ethanol likely still would be demanded for animal feed. Removing the tax credit would result in either more corn for food, more meat produced, more of other crops produced for food or a combination of all three. The bottom line is that saving a bushel of corn from ethanol production only provides two-thirds of a bushel for another use that wouldn’t otherwise be available. It is not a one-for-one savings. In addition, ethanol provides 5 percent of the total U.S. gasoline supply. Producing less ethanol would raise gasoline prices further, which would exacerbate another price problem the federal government is trying to solve. The 2007 Energy Indepedence Act codifies increased ethanol production from 7.5 billion gallons per year to 15 billion gallons per year, regardless of the profitability of ethanol production or secondary impacts.
Remove the tariff on foreign ethanol – Removing the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on foreign ethanol would allow more ethanol to enter the U.S. Unlike the removal of the blender’s tax credit, this policy change would dampen demand for corn acreage, but it also would result in lower, not higher, fuel prices. Again, the eventual impact would be small because ethanol constitutes only 5 percent of U.S. gasoline consumption at present. Moreover, climate change implications of this policy are mixed because imported ethanol primarily is derived from sugar cane. While the carbon footprint of sugar to ethanol is more favorable than corn ethanol, concerns have been raised about the deforestation of additional acres to meet U.S. demand.
Remove the tariff on urea from former Soviet Union (FSU) countries – The U.S. imposes a tariff on imports of urea fertilizer from FSU countries that effectively keeps imports from these countries out. The FSU countries are the world’s leading exporters of urea fertilizer. U.S. farmers are not able to utilize this lower-priced source of nitrogen, which is a key yield-enhancing input for many crops, particularly corn and wheat. Allowing it in would lead to higher overall farm production.
Raise interest and exchange rates – The most direct policy for increasing food supplies is monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve Board and its chairman, Ben Bernanke. The Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates in an effort to avoid a U.S. recession, restore confidence in distressed financial markets and aid a struggling housing sector. However, lower interest rates have had the unintended consequence of lowering the exchange rate for U.S. currency. Since 2000, the exchange value of the dollar has fallen by almost 40 percent. As the value of the U.S. dollar falls, U.S. food becomes cheaper overseas. U.S. agricultural exports have risen nearly 40 percent ($62 billion in 2004-05 to $82 billion in 2007), which is about as much as the fall in the value of the dollar. Likewise, a falling dollar has made it much more difficult to purchase the 60 percent of U.S. oil that is imported. Raising interest rates and the exchange value of the U.S. dollar would result in less export demand for U.S. agricultural commodities, but lower the cost of foreign oil purchases.

In summary, future food prices may be more dependent on the decisions of the Federal Reserve Board, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency than the Department of Agriculture.

JBS-Swift & Co. defends pending acquisitions

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:20:00 +0000

Brazilian based JBS-Swift & Co. CEO Wesley Batista argued Wednesday at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing that his company's pending acquisitions of National Beef Packing Co. and Smithfield Beef Group would not reduce market competition, according to an article by Tom Johnson at Meatingplace.com.

Some cattle producers generally have raised the concern that the merger would effectively reduce the number of cattle buyers to three from five, subjecting cattle producers to depressed prices and costing consumers more at retail. Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.) shares those concerns, which is why he called for a hearing of the Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights subcommittee.

Batista told the panel JBS-Swift plans to continue its strategy of maximizing production, improving plant operations and increasing sales domestically and abroad, which requires the purchase of more cattle. As it relates to the "beef belt" — northern Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and eastern Colorado — JBS, Cargill, Tyson and regional and local plants "will continue to compete intensely for the purchase of cattle," he said.

Steve Hunt, CEO of U.S. Premium Beef, the majority owner of National Beef, added that "the livelihood of all cattle producers depends on the health and the growth of the beef industry, which is why we agree with JBS's vision."

But opponents to packer consolidation, including R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard, aren't buying, saying the buying power JBS would have would put many independent producers out of business, especially the fewer than 80,000 beef cattle operations that have herd sizes of more than 100 head.

"This group … would be at greatest risk of being forced to exit the industry due to the price effects of monopsony power because it is presumed that this group is comprised of more full-time cattle producers wholly dependent on competitive cattle prices for their livelihoods," he testified.

NFU calls for investigation of futures trading

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:15:00 +0000

National Farmers Union President Tom Buis is strongly urging the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation of recent volatility within the commodities futures market.

"With inputs continuing to soar, producers need to market their commodities, yet have been pushed out of the traditional market intended to serve as a risk management tool," Buis said. "I urge the CFTC to take swift action to inject transparency into the marketplace.

Buis urged the commission to place a moratorium on any new commodity training index until the investigation is completed. He said the CFTC needs to look at the role and impact of over the counter (OTC) trading and swaps are having on markets.

"Without a full understanding of these trades or their impact, it is impossible to say that manipulation of the commodity markets is not occurring," Buis said.

Buis said NFU opposes any increases in the speculative positions limit, which was proposed by CFTC in 2007. He added that the CFTC needs to recognize that speculators have different interests than farmers and other traditional, commercial users of the exchanges.

The CFTC held a roundtable meeting on April 22 to gather information on whether the futures markets are adequately and appropriately performing their risk management and price discovery roles. At the time, Buis said rural America is headed for a train wreck if these challenges are not appropriately addressed.

Ethanol producers struggling

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:21:00 +0000

According to Daniel Gross of Slate.com, continuing crisis over high food prices has inspired a round of global finger-pointing. Politicians blame speculators, and speculators blame the Federal Reserve. Free-traders blame countries with agricultural subsidies, and countries with agricultural subsidies blame free-traders. And everyone blames the ethanol industry: The current mania to turn food crops, especially corn, into gasoline is pushing up the global price for maize, crowding out the production of other crops and generally creating an unfair competition between gas tanks in Missouri and poor consumers in Mumbai.

But judging by recent financial results, the big villains in this story—the American companies that are responding to government mandates by buying about 20 percent of the U.S. corn harvest and processing it into fuel—aren't exactly thriving. In fact, their bottom lines and stock prices are suffering pretty badly.

VeraSun (which owns Nebraska ethanol plants in Central City, Ord and Albion) is one of the largest U.S. producers of ethanol. Last month it completed its merger with U.S. BioEnergy, giving it an annual capacity of nearly 1 billion gallons. (For 2007, total U.S. production was about 6.5 billion gallons.) In the 2007 fourth quarter, VeraSun ran all out, making 142.1 million gallons, double its output in the 2006 fourth quarter. But prices fell (down 14 percent), and gross profit (broadly speaking, the difference between sales and what it costs to make it) slumped by one-quarter. For all of 2007, VeraSun's gross profit fell to 11.3 percent of revenues from 34.5 percent of revenues in 2006. The stock has lost nearly 60 percent of its value in the past six months.

The chart tells a similar tale at Pacific Ethanol, whose stock has fallen from about $15 to about $3. Pacific Ethanol's gross margin dropped from 11 percent in 2006 to 7.1 percent in 2007 partly because of higher corn costs. Aventine Renewable's one-year chart shows a precipitous fall in stock price from $20 to $4. And a Wall Street analyst recently noted that it faced a potential cash shortfall. When it reported quarterly earnings last week, Aventine said that its average sales price per gallon rose from the first quarter of 2007 enough but not enough to outweigh the rise in corn. And thanks to the high price of energy (it takes energy to produce energy), the cost of converting corn into ethanol rose more than 10 percent per gallon during the same time period. So, between the first quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, Aventine's operating margins shrunk from about 6.5 percent of sales to 4.7 percent of sales. And MGP Ingredients said profit margins in its distillery products unit fell to 2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007, down from 22 percent in the final quarter of 2006.

What gives? In theory, business should be gangbusters in the ethanol patch. Government policy has mandated consumption of the fuel, thus stimulating investment. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 called for 5.4 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be sold in 2008 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Last year, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 dramatically jacked up the short-term targets (9 billion gallons by 2008) and the long-term targets (36 billion gallons by 2022), with corn-based ethanol expected to meet most of this demand.

But just because the government forces people to buy your product doesn't mean it's a surefire win. The combination of high oil prices, tariffs that protect domestically produced ethanol from imports, and tax credits for companies that blend ethanol into gasoline has stimulated something of an ethanol bubble. And as always happens during a bubble, excess capacity—and the vicious competition it creates—winds up eroding margins. The Renewable Fuels Association has excellent data on ethanol production that show a massive spike in capacity. The U.S. industry has grown from 3.4 billion gallons of capacity in 2004 to 6.5 billion in 2007. Today, some 134 plants with a capacity of 7.23 billion gallons are in operation, and another 77 with 6.2 billion gallons of capacity are under construction. Capacity has more than doubled since 2004, and, once all the plants in the works are completed, it will nearly double again. But with demand for gasoline declining nationwide, and with ethanol an imperfect substitute for gasoline (not all vehicles can use it; the distribution network isn't fully built out), producers aren't always able to dictate prices to the marketplace.

As for the bottom line, processors and distributors of agricultural commodities—from Kraft to Morton's Steakhouse—are being pinched by rising costs of grains and energy, tough competition, and softened demand stemming from the weakening economy. These factors are shrinking margins at every rung of the food-processing business. Ethanol producers are no different than cookie-makers and restaurants in this regard. After all, their biggest inputs include an agricultural commodity (corn) and energy.

While environmentalists have warned that the rapid growth of ethanol posed a danger to sustainability, the alarm may be somewhat misplaced. Oil has topped $122 a barrel and could be heading to $150. But the ethanol bubble has already popped. The recent poor results from ethanol producers is far more likely to hinder further development than any change in government policy.

Blender pumps allow for higher ethanol blends

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:10:00 +0000

South Dakota is poised to lead the nation in raising public awareness for higher blends of ethanol with a new blender pump initiative earlier this month.

Through a partnership between the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council (EPIC) and the South Dakota Corn Utilization Council (SDCUC), the initiative will help gas station retailers obtain funding and the equipment needed to sell blends of ethanol ranging from 20 to 40 percent to be used in flex-fuel vehicles.

According to EPIC Director of Operations Robert White, South Dakota is the perfect place to launch this new program.

“South Dakota is where the blender pump movement started and we are happy to partner with the corn producers there to get this initiative off the ground,” said White.

White explains that the blender pumps actually blend unleaded gasoline and ethanol in various levels. “It really is a multi-product dispenser,” he said. “It’s just like punching the octane button on a multi-product dispenser now, but instead of octane levels, you’re choosing the level of ethanol in that blend.”

There are currently about 20 blender pumps in the state and the goal is to install a minimum of 100 new blender pumps over the next year.

SDCUC Executive Director Lisa Richardson says South Dakota’s ethanol industry is uniquely positioned to increase the use of higher ethanol blends to meet the Renewable Fuels Standard.

“The two largest ethanol companies are here, people in South Dakota are highly educated about ethanol and our goal is simply that we need to figure out we can use more product and we need to give consumers the choice and the blender pump does just that,” Richardson said.

Richardson says they are directly providing the funding to help retailers obtain and install the blender pumps.

“We are actually going to give gas stations $2500 from us with a match of $2500 from the ethanol industry to install one of these,” she said. “And because it is an E85 pump they can also get up to a $30,000 tax credit from the federal government.”

All blender pumps will be branded with the stylized “e” logo and the program includes a marketing and PR campaign to increase public awareness.

“We’re going to have a website and we’re going to work with our auto dealers to tell people where they are,” said Richardson. “We’re going to launch a whole campaign, everything from radio to billboards and let people know where they can go and fill up with higher blends of ethanol.”

White says that consumer choice is the goal. “There has been a lot of outcry for choices and in this situation drivers of flex fuel vehicles will have the opportunity to make that selection of an ethanol blend above ten percent,” White said.

Agriculture can address climate change

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:21:00 +0000

National Farmers Union is part of a coalition of 13 organizations in a letter sent Tuesday to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe outlining a number of principle priorities within federal climate change legislation.

The groups thanked the committee for recognizing the role agriculture can play in helping the United States address climate change, through storing carbon on agricultural lands as well as capturing greenhouse gases on livestock facilities. Carbon sequestration projects on agricultural lands are the easiest and most readily available means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a meaningful scale.

National Farmers Union President Tom Buis pointed to the Farmers Union Carbon Credit program as a step in the right direction. The voluntary program has enrolled 3.6 million acres across the country since October 2006.

"There are no better stewards of the land than those involved in agriculture," Buis said. "Farmers and ranchers are eager to play a vital role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting our environment for future generations."

The coalition urged the committee to consider the following:

—Provide USDA implementation authority over the agriculture offset allowance program - utilize the positive track record of county offices to work with farmers participating in the offset program.

—Eliminate artificial cap on use of domestic offset allowances - at a minimum, the cap on domestic offsets should be raised significantly to ensure all domestic offset projects on agricultural lands qualify.

—Recognize early actors - recognize those that have taken previous steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

—Stackable credits - do not exclude projects participating in a greenhouse gas offset market from also participating in other markets for environmental services.

"We look forward to working with the Senate to craft a bill that maximizes carbon sequestration from agricultural lands," Buis said.

Investigation uncovers abuse at livestock auctions

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:40:00 +0000

Abuse of “downer” cows occurs not just at slaughter plants, but may be an everyday happening at livestock auctions and stockyards around the country — the midpoints between farm and slaughter — according to an expanding undercover investigation by The Humane Society of the United States.

“Downer” cows are those too frail to stand on their own — dragged and prodded with inhumane handling methods, and increasing the threat of carrying and passing disease.

During April and May, HSUS investigators visited auctions in Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Texas and videotaped downer cows at each stop — animals left to suffer for hours and in one instance overnight. Executives of The HSUS brought preliminary evidence of the abuse to the attention of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer last week at a face-to-face meeting, and Secretary Schafer has promised to examine the issue. The HSUS looks forward to working with USDA to address the problem.

“This has to stop immediately,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. “Our earlier investigation into the callous and abusive treatment of live animals at a slaughter plant in California appalled the nation and led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history. These new video images show that the rot in the factory farming system of raising animals goes much deeper. The problems are systemic, the laws and regulations are inadequate, and the industry’s resolve insufficient.”

The HSUS urged Secretary Schafer to expedite regulations that would require more humane treatment of animals destined for the food supply, at every step from producer to slaughter. The HSUS particularly urges USDA to close the risky loophole that allows some downer cows to be slaughtered for consumption.

Until this loophole is closed, producers and middlemen in the supply chain have a financial incentive to push sick and injured animals to the brink — and in many cases to torture them beyond the brink — in attempts to turn them into profitable beef. Until the federal government steps in to assume firm jurisdiction, the food supply will be subject to the patchwork vagaries of local and state regulation, which can mean no oversight at all.

Details of the new undercover HSUS investigation include:

At the Livestock Exchange (LSX) in Hereford, Texas, HSUS investigators videotaped two downed cows left in the parking lot for four hours. Neither cow could lift her head. They were still alive in the parking lot at closing time. HSUS had received a complaint from a passing motorist about live, downed cows at LSX hanging from their legs by chains attached to a front-end loader.

At the Westminster auction in Maryland, HSUS investigators documented a downed cow abandoned outside of the auction barn, left to suffer through the night. HSUS investigators contacted agents with the Carroll County Humane Society. An officer expertly ended the cow’s suffering.

At the Clovis Livestock Auction in New Mexico, two downed cows were filmed over a period of five hours. One was suffering from obvious pain, flailing her legs as she expelled watery feces into the pen where other cows were held for auction.

At the Greencastle Livestock Auction in Pennsylvania, HSUS investigators documented a calf only days old who was unable to stand and left to die.

In 2002, Congress directed the USDA to investigate the question of downed animals at livestock auctions and markets — including the scope of problems, the causes, and the resulting cruel treatment of animals. Further, Congress ordered the USDA to follow up with “regulations to provide for the humane treatment, handling, and disposition of nonambulatory livestock by stockyards, market agencies, and dealers.”

The video evidence produced by this investigation clearly demonstrates that dairy farmers and auction houses have not solved the problems on their own, far from it.

Release of this phase of The HSUS investigation into downer cows follows January’s undercover video of animals being tortured at the Westland/Hallmark slaughter plant in Chino, Calif., a major supplier to the National School Lunch Program. This investigation resulted in the recall of 143 million pounds of meat, the shuttering of the plant, and widespread loss of confidence in the U.S. food production system and regulatory safeguards.

USDA Secretary Ed Schafer said the dairy cattle shown in the video were non-ambulatory and were abandoned in parking lots of these auctions and yards. These animals were not in slaughter facilities. However, he said, even though this is not a food safety issue, these actions of animal cruelty are not acceptable.

"USDA's authority to regulate the treatment of animals includes the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Animal Welfare Act. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act protects animals when they are presented for slaughter at federally inspected establishments. The Animal Welfare Act allows us to ensure the proper care of live animals when used in biomedical research, testing, and exhibition. When animals fall within our authorities, USDA has acted to prevent animal cruelty such as this," Schafer said.

He said policies for humane handling of animals, however, consist of a combined effort of federal, state, and local authorities, as well as private industry. Since learning about this investigation, we are reaching out to states and industry groups to address this issue.

"In my conversation with the Humane Society last week, I expressed my sincere desire to work with them to resolve these atrocities, and I trust USDA was given all the information HSUS has on this issue so we can thoroughly address it. It is essential that we work together in good faith to address these issues, and ensure that animals are treated with care and dignity," Schafer said.

According to Ashby Green, DVM, vice president, producer education for National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, NCBA is committed to working with "every segment of the food production chain to ensure all livestock are treated humanely, and we strongly support strict compliance with and enforcement of all state and federal animal welfare laws."

" Appropriate cattle care includes close supervision of cattle health and wellbeing," Green said. "We believe it’s important to promptly attend to animals that appear non-ambulatory."

To date, in cooperation with the nation’s livestock markets, Green said NCBA has distributed more than 2,000 cattle care and handling training videos to the nation’s 1,250 livestock markets and other cattle sales locations, as well as veterinarians who work with these operations.

"Additionally, we are in the process of conducting hands-on staff training sessions at livestock markets led by cattle handling experts," he said.

"Beef producers and livestock market owners understand that animal care and raising cattle go hand-in-hand. We know that giving animals the proper care and supervision they deserve is an obligation, not an option, and also is smart business," Green said.

Corn-based ethanol increasing food prices

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:06:00 +0000

According to Congressional testimony, the American Meat Institute said government mandates and subsidies have a profound impact on the meat and poultry industry.
The mandate by Congress to utilize a key food ingredient as the dominant input for biofuels has inextricably coupled food to fuel prices, driving up costs for consumers and affecting the economy, said AMI President and CEO J. Patrick Boyle in testimony submitted to the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

"Valuing food for its energy content instead of nutrition is adding unnecessary inflationary pressure on the US economy," he said.

Boyle said that the goal of energy security is commendable and should be considered in relative context to risk posed to domestic and international food security.

"Congressional and Administration leaders should develop and implement a plan to decouple the increasing price correlation of food from fuel," said Boyle.

Boyle noted that, in 2007, livestock and poultry producers saw their feed prices rise by more than 65 percent and are anticipating an equally difficult environment for 2008.

"Food to fuel mandates and subsidies have had a profound impact on the meat and poultry industry and its ability to source affordable feed," he added.

Boyle pointed out that the The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), its predecessor, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAC), and existing biofuel subsidies and trade protections have concentrated the adverse impacts on animal agriculture producers and consumers‚ food budgets.

"When the EPAC was signed, food inflation was coincidently at its ten-year average of 2.3 percent. In January 2008, the CPI food index was 4.9 percent, which is more than twice the ten-year average. Food inflation creates a drag on the economy and reduces the purchasing power of consumers," Boyle noted. He pointed out that the consequences of this added inflation contribute to an increased food bill of nearly $200 for a household of four.

Boyle added that corn is one of the largest components in the diets of livestock and poultry. Swine rations often contain about 60-85 percent corn, poultry rations contain about 65-75 percent and beef animals often have diets averaging 35 to 65 percent shell corn, although some producers will feed 100 percent corn to beef animals as either shell corn, flaked, or silage.

"As a result of a significant increase in ethanol production, animal nutritionists are being confronted with a new challenge in attempting to incorporate a significant amount of ethanol's byproduct or distillers grains into existing feed rations and maintaining meat and poultry quality and the economic well-being of the livestock and poultry producer," he said.

Bruning investigates gas cheats

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Tue, 06 May 2008 13:00:00 +0000

Attorney General Jon Bruning is investigating Nebraska gas stations trying to cheat customers by selling alcohol-blended gas as regular unleaded.

“We intend to prosecute those who deceive the public," Bruning said. "Certainly, I would ask Nebraskans to be patient as we investigate these claims but rest assured we’re going to make sure people play by the rules.”

“Gas prices are high and people ought to get what they pay for.”

The Associated Press reported that last week the administrator for the Nebraska Department of Agriculture’s Division of Weights & Measures said his inspectors were finding three to four gas stations a week trying to deceive customers.

According to the AP, Administrator Steve Malone said that’s an unusually high number.

"Malone said the most common trick is for stations to put ethanol blends in pumps labeled as regular, 100 percent gasoline. That way the stations can charge the extra 5 to 10 cents regular gas sells for compared to the common blend of 10 percent alcohol, 90 percent gas," the AP reported.

Regular gas prices without ethanol in Grand Island Tuesday, according to Nebraska AAA, was $3.478 per gallon. Diesel was $4.126 per gallon. Statewide, regular without ethanol averaged $3.533 per gallon and diesel was $.4.147 per gallon. Nationwide, regular without ethanol was $3.610 per gallon and diesel was $4.237 per gallon.

Consumers who believe they’ve been victims of this scam should contact the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division toll-free at (800)727-6432 or file a complaint online at http://www.ago.ne.gov

Senators call for renewable fuels waiver

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:53:00 +0000

According to the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), some U.S. Senators want the EPA to waive the Renewable Fuels Standard ethanol requirement.

“The U.S. ethanol industry welcomes an examination of the facts regarding higher food prices, as opposed to the vast amounts of misinformation that have led these Senators to question their own carefully planned energy legislation," said Brian Jennings, Executive Vice President of ACE. "While we may not be able to top ethanol opponents’ well-funded public relations campaign, we are absolutely certain that an examination of the facts will confirm ethanol’s role in reducing gas prices and its minimal impact on food prices

Jennings said ethanol has little or no impact on the price of food, and it is a fact that ethanol is bringing down the price of gasoline.
"Abandoning ethanol would not only provide zero relief in the grocery aisle, it would immediately drive up the price of gasoline for American motorists who are already suffering from oil at $120 per barrel," he said.

According to Ed Lazear, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, ethanol accounts for just 2 to 3 percent of the recent increase in global food prices, while demand from emerging markets makes up almost 20 percent of the increase. Texas A&M research agrees, stating that corn prices have little to do with food prices, and that relaxing the Renewable Fuels Standard would have little impact on corn prices.

According to a study by Iowa State University, the growth in ethanol production has caused retail gas prices to be 29 to 40 cents a gallon lower than would otherwise have been the case. Also, Merrill Lynch analysts state that oil and gas prices would be 15 percent higher if not for the availability of ethanol. At today’s national average pump prices, this means ethanol is a value of approximately 50 cents a gallon to American consumers.

"Ethanol is the only alternative to gasoline available today, and its production is generating economic benefits for the nation while reducing the need for expensive imports of oil and gasoline, often from unstable or openly hostile sources.," Jennings said. “These facts have been largely unreported by the media, but will be examined carefully by EPA and regulators who will review whether the RFS should be waived.”

Farm Bill agreement includes livestock title

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:23:00 +0000

Last Thursday, the Farm Bill Conference Committee voted down a ban on packer ownership of livestock, but there were several other areas in which language remained intact to the benefit of independent U.S. cattle producers.

“While we did suffer that particular defeat on the packer ban, which was a huge disappointment, we must thank our champions on this issue who argued strenuously that the packer ban is needed to maintain the independence of U.S producers who market their livestock into an extremely concentrated market,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “And while we are deeply disappointed that the Conference Committee chose to defend the anticompetitive practices of a handful of multinational meatpackers at the expense of hundreds of thousands of independent cattle producers, we maintain our resolve to continue the fight to reclaim our competitive markets.

“It’s also very important to recognize that we had a number of victories and made significant progress in some areas with this Farm Bill, and chief among them is that we have a Livestock Title in the Farm Bill for the first time ever,” he continued. “Country-of-origin labeling (COOL) has been significantly strengthened and is scheduled to be implemented this fall.

“If you recall, R-CALF had hoped the Conference Committee would establish an office of special counsel within GIPSA (Grain Inspection Packers Stockyards Administration), and although we didn’t get that, we did move forward in terms of ensuring that the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) is adequately enforced through a new mechanism that will allow Congress more oversight over the enforcement of the PSA,” said Bullard.

“We also won interstate shipment of state-inspected beef so that state-inspected plants can soon begin to engage in interstate commerce across state lines, and we also succeeded in including language that requires USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) to finally define what is meant by the prohibition against ‘unreasonable preferences or advantage’ in cattle procurement transactions,” he added. “We also won the right for contract growers to voluntarily participate in arbitration as a means of redressing disputes that arise during the production contract.

“Again, although we lost the packer ban, we won some very important reforms for our industry, and R-CALF demonstrated to Congress and the meatpacker lobby that we are an effective force that will continue to grow in strength to reclaim our competitive markets,” Bullard concluded.

The current, 2002 Farm Bill was extended to May 16, 2008, and the new, 2007 Farm Bill must now be voted on by both the Senate and the House and signed by the President before it becomes law.

Senate to hold hearing on JBS/Swift acquisitions

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:14:00 +0000

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing before the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights on “Concentration in Agriculture and an Examination of the JBS/Swift Acquisitions” at 2 p.m. EDT, on Wednesday, May 7, 2008, in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard has been invited to testify on the second panel and will present information to show the subcommittee that if JBS is allowed to purchase National Beef Packing Co., Smithfield Beef Group and Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding, such action would cause injury to competition in both the U.S. cattle industry and the U.S. beef industry, which would result in harm to both independent U.S. cattle producers and U.S. consumers.

“R-CALF hopes the Senate Judiciary Committee would take steps to prevent this merger from going through,” Bullard said. “At the very least, we would hope that if the merger is not blocked, the Judiciary Committee would do what the Senate and House Ag Committees failed to do, and that is to put in place protections to prevent packers from using packer-owned cattle and other captive-supply cattle to artificially force cattle prices lower.”

Testifying just before Bullard will be Wesley M. Batista, the CEO of North America JBS Swift & Co.

The Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights has jurisdiction over: 1) oversight of antitrust law and competition policy, including the Sherman, Clayton and Federal Trade Commissions Acts; 2) oversight of antitrust enforcement and competition policy at the Justice Department; 3) oversight of antitrust enforcements and competition policy at the Federal Trade Commission; and, 4) oversight of competition policy at other federal agencies.

Fighting global warming at the dinner table

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:46:00 +0000

According to an article by Livescience.com, substituting chicken, fish or vegetables for red meat can help combat climate change, a new study suggests.

In fact, putting these foods on the dinner table does more to reduce carbon emissions than eating locally grown food, researchers report in the May 15 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Environmental advocates and retailers urge customers to purchase goods from local sources to minimize environmental impacts. The idea is that food grown locally requires less fuel for shipping to the store. The new study does not argue that point. Yet few studies have compared greenhouse gas emissions from food production to those of transportation.

The production phase is responsible for 83 percent of the average U.S. household's greenhouse-gas burden with regard to food, while transportation accounts for only 11 percent, the new study found. The production of red meat, the researchers conclude, is almost 150 percent more greenhouse-gas-intensive than chicken or fish.

The study, by Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews of at Carnegie Mellon University, was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation.

"We suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household's food-related climate footprint than 'buying local,'" the researchers write. “Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more greenhouse-gas reduction than buying all locally sourced food."

Weber and Matthews acknowledge that consumers choose food based on many other criteria, including taste, freshness and a desire to support local farming.

Fungus to produce lean, mean biogas production

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:53:00 +0000

The bane of military quartermasters may soon be a boon to biofuels producers. The genome analysis of a champion biomass-degrading fungus has revealed a surprisingly minimal repertoire of genes that it employs to break down plant cell walls, highlighting opportunities for further improvements in enzymes customized for biofuels production.

The results were published online May 4 in Nature Biotechnology by a team of government, academic, and industry researchers led by the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (DOE JGI) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

The discovery of Trichoderma reesei, the target of the published analysis, dates back to World War II, when it was identified as the culprit responsible for the deterioration of fatigues and tents in the South Pacific. This progenitor strain has since yielded variants for broad industrial applications and is known today as an abundant source of enzymes, particularly cellulases and hemicellulases, currently being explored to catalyze the deconstruction of plant cell walls as a first step towards the production of biofuels from lignocellulose.

“The information generated from the genome of T. reesei provides us with a roadmap for accelerating research to optimize fungal strains for reducing the current prohibitively high cost of converting lignocellulose to fermentable sugars,” said Eddy Rubin, DOE JGI Director and one of the paper’s senior authors. “Improved industrial enzyme ‘cocktails’ from T. reseei and other fungi will enable more economical conversion of biomass from such feedstocks as the perennial grasses Miscanthus and switchgrass, wood from fast-growing trees like poplar, agricultural crop residues, and municipal waste, into next-generation biofuels. Through these incremental advances, we hope to eventually supplant the gasoline-dependent transportation sector of our economy with a more carbon-neutral strategy.”

For millennia, civilization has long relied on nature’s bounty for shelter and sustenance, with cheap and plentiful supplies of fossil fuels powering the economic engine of the industrial age, leading to the broad diversity of products synthesized from petroleum. With rising concern about dependence on imported oil for transportation, the 21st century is signaling a shift towards “white” or industrial biotechnology—harnessing the metabolic processes of microbes to address energy challenges.

The research team compared the 34-million-nucleotide genome of T. reesei with 13 previously characterized fungi and discovered something counterintuitive. Despite its reputation as an avid plant polysaccharide degrader, T. reesei, was found to have the smallest inventory of genes powering its robust degradation machinery.

“We were aware of T. reesei’s reputation as a producer of massive quantities of degrading enzymes, however we were surprised by how few enzyme types it produces, which suggested to us that its protein secretion system is exceptionally efficient,” said Diego Martinez, the study’s lead author and researcher supported by DOE JGI at LANL, and at the University of New Mexico. Subsequently, he and his colleagues turned their attention to the complexities of T. reesei’s secretory pathway components, which they had a hunch played an important role in the organism’s success.

“While little appears to have changed in the secretion machinery since divergence with a common ancestor with yeast,” said Martinez, “there are some intriguing differences in the way T. reesei processes some protein bonds important for cellulase production.”

In their comparative analysis of T. reesei with other fungi, the team observed clustering of carbohydrate-active enzyme genes, which suggested a specific biological role: polysaccharide degradation. “While plant tissues are not likely the main source of nutrients for T. reesei, upon detection of cellulose and hemicellulose it seems that the organization of these degrading genes may be the key to a rapid response,” said Martinez.

“The sequencing of the Trichoderma reesei genome is a major step towards using renewable feedstocks for the production of fuels and chemicals,” said Joel Cherry, director of research activities in second-generation biofuels for Novozymes, one of the collaborating institutions on the study. “This soft rot fungus serves as the world’s most prodigious producer of cellulases and is already a dominant source of a wide variety of cellulase products for the textile industry worldwide. It is also the organism of choice for producing enzymes for the breakdown of cellulosic biomass to fermentable sugars, which can then be biologically converted to fuels and chemical building blocks. The information contained in its genome will allow us both to better understand how this organism degrades cellulose so efficiently and to understand how it produces the required enzymes so prodigiously. Using this information, it may be possible to improve both of these properties, decreasing the cost of converting cellulosic biomass to fuels and chemicals.”

Speculators driving food prices up

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:41:00 +0000

Giant agribusinesses are enjoying soaring earnings and profits out of the world food crisis which is driving millions of people towards starvation, according to an online article by Geoffrey Lean of the Independent UK. And speculation is helping to drive the prices of basic foodstuffs out of the reach of the hungry.

"The prices of wheat, corn and rice have soared over the past year driving the world's poor -- who already spend about 80 per cent of their income on food -- into hunger and destitution.

"The World Bank says that 100 million more people are facing severe hunger. Yet some of the world's richest food companies are making record profits. Monsanto last month reported that its net income for the three months up to the end of February this year had more than doubled over the same period in 2007, from $543m (£275m) to $1.12 billion. Its profits increased from $1.44 billion to $2.22 billion.

"Cargill's net earnings soared by 86 per cent from $553m to $1.030 billion over the same three months. And Archer Daniels Midland, one of the world's largest agricultural processors of soy, corn and wheat, increased its net earnings by 42 per cent in the first three months of this year from $363m to $517m. The operating profit of its grains merchandising and handling operations jumped 16-fold from $21m to $341m.

"Similarly, the Mosaic Company, one of the world's largest fertiliser companies, saw its income for the three months ending 29 February rise more than 12-fold, from $42.2m to $520.8m, on the back of a shortage of fertiliser. The prices of some kinds of fertiliser have more than tripled over the past year as demand has outstripped supply. As a result, plans to increase harvests in developing countries have been hit hard.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that 37 developing countries are in urgent need of food. And food riots are breaking out across the globe from Bangladesh to Burkina Faso, from China to Cameroon, and from Uzbekistan to the United Arab Emirates.

"Benedict Southworth, director of the World Development Movement, called the escalating earnings and profits "immoral" late last week. He said that the benefits of the food price increases were being kept by the big companies, and were not finding their way down to farmers in the developing world."

Gardening growing more popular as economy slumps

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:30:00 +0000

When it comes to using plant-filled pots on the porch or around the landscape, Americans are hardly able to contain themselves.

U.S. consumers spend more than $1.3 billion a year on this gardening method, according to Container Gardening Associated, an online site devoted to the technique.

Container gardens, the use of a variety of plants in any type of container, are often associated with yardless apartments or condominiums. But they also are popular with the elderly and disabled , as well as for areas where soil quality is a problem or where pots define an area or direct traffic.

Retailers can cash in on container gardening by offering more extensive plant care information, making plant and container selection easy and pricing the pre-planted or do-it-yourself containers properly, according to a new study by Dr. Terri Starman, Texas AgriLife Research horticulturist.

“We found that there is a potential to increase the value of a container garden through providing educational material with the purchase,” Starman said.

The study, in the current issue of the journal HortScience, also found that most people prefer a container garden with a complementary color harmony in the price range of $25. Complementary colors are opposite each other on the color wheel.

Starman said the research is useful for retailers, particularly as the U.S. economy slips.

Previous studies have shown that in hard economic times, people continue to garden - perhaps even more so because they stay close to home to save money, Starman said.

“The trend toward ‘green’ awareness calling us to reduce our carbon footprint also pertains to container gardening,” she said. “Everything in container gardening is confined, so it takes less water and other inputs. And people are using them not only for flowers but for growing vegetables and herbs as food prices increase.”

When container gardening became trendy about 10 years ago, retailers were initially hesitant for fear that the plants would not last long and the consumer would become dissatisfied, Starman noted.

“So retailers have developed ways to provide containers that last longer,” she said. “For the money, a container lasts longer than a similarly priced bottle of wine or dinner out, for example, and that’s important to the consumer.”

But retailers didn’t stop there, she said. Some are already offering “take-home packs” of plants marketed to replenish annual plants that have died in containers or to change out seasonally.

The next major push, Starman believes, will be toward the education, increased care information requested by people in the study.

More than three-fourths of the respondents in Starman’s study, an online survey, said they would be more likely to purchase a container garden if extensive information was provided, and 85 percent said they would be willing to visit a Web site to obtain that information.

“Developing Web sites for the information would save growers the expense of putting tags for all the plants, especially if there are multiple plants in one container,” she pointed out.

Starman said additional research is needed, particularly on the pricing side of container gardening, because there are two types of consumers for this product: the do-it-yourself type and the do-it-for-me type.

“Some are willing to spend a lot more money for a beautiful container garden,” she said. “And there is also a market for servicing container gardens, especially for independent nursery operators who can sell it, deliver it, maintain it and change it out seasonally, for example.”

USDA purchases surplus pork

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:52:00 +0000

“The American Farm Bureau Federation is pleased with the Agriculture Department’s announcement this week that it will purchase up to $50 million of pork products for child nutrition and other domestic food assistance programs," said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

AFBF, along with the National Pork Producers Council, requested this action last month in response to continued low prices for pork and live hogs, which have resulted in financial distress to many producers.

“Prices for live market hogs have plunged to levels not seen in nearly a decade. Experts have predicted that 2008 will likely be the worst financial year for pork producers in modern history. USDA’s help could not come at a more critical time," Stallman said.

“This procurement program offers two important benefits: it helps farmers facing record-low pork prices, while at the same time providing healthy, nutritious protein to their fellow citizens who are in need. It's a win-win for producers and the public.”

Earlier this month, Gov. Dave Heineman sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer requesting assistance for Nebraska’s livestock and poultry industries, which have been severely impacted by the growing cost of feed grains.

In his letter the Governor wrote, “Due mainly to the large increase in feed grain prices, our pork producers currently are losing from $40 to $50 a head, and our beef, turkey and processed egg products sectors are faced with similar circumstances. Many are losing equity and some are having difficulty securing operating financing.”

The Governor requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) consider making funding known as Section 32 funds available for the purchase of pork, beef and turkey meat, as well as processed egg products. Section 32 funds have been used in the past to purchase surplus commodities from the marketplace to help align supply and demand.

“We recognize the difficult circumstances livestock and poultry producers are facing in the current market," said Nebraska Agriculture Director Greg Ibach. "Good prices for corn, soybeans and wheat are very exciting for farmers with grain operations. They’re experiencing unprecedented market opportunities. However, rising prices have created very real problems for our animal agriculture sector. We hope USDA will respond positively to our request.”

Heineman said that we know that some loss cannot be avoided, "But we hope that if approved, these Section 32 purchases would influence the marketplace and give producers time to adjust their business plans to account for the changing cost of feed.”

Packer livestock ownership ban killed in Farm Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:41:00 +0000

The Farm Bill Conference Report maintained some key livestock reforms from the bill the Senate passed last December but failed to include a ban on meatpacker ownership of live cattle prior to slaughter.

The final 2008 Farm Bill makes important strides in leveling the playing field for independent livestock producers, especially for contract producers, but the omission of the packer ban provision will hurt cattle producers operating in a consolidating market, especially in light of the proposed JBS Swift acquisition of National Beef and Smithfield beef operations.

“The packer ban would have helped return competition to the livestock markets and fairness to livestock contracts by stopping the biggest packers from controlling market access and lowering market prices,” said Mabel Dobbs, a rancher from Weiser, Idaho, representing the Western Organization of Resource Councils. “Congress has left us to the wolves.”

The conference language included conditions for implementing the country-of-origin labeling requirements for produce, beef, pork, chicken, lamb and goats that will go into effect in September. COOL is strongly supported by livestock producers and consumers alike. Congress included COOL in the 2002 Farm Bill, but the labeling program was never implemented for meat and produce because of meat and grocery industry opposition. The language in the 2008 Farm Bill provides direction for USDA as it writes the rules for the program and should end the confusion that was used to justify four years of delay in putting this mandatory labeling program into effect.

“After a year of import safety scares, country-of-origin labeling is long overdue,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “Consumers have waited long enough to know where their food comes from. We are glad the farm bill will give USDA clear instructions on how to implement mandatory COOL by this September.”

The conference language explicitly allows growers to opt-out of one-sided contract provisions that can prevent producers from defending themselves against deceptive and coercive business practices. It also directs the USDA to strengthen the enforcement of existing laws against unfair practices on the part of meatpackers and processors.

“The conferees took a giant step forwards to provide needed protections for contract farmers, especially the voluntary arbitration provision that guarantees that farmers can protect themselves against unfair treatment and contract abuses,” noted Becky Ceartas, program director for the Contract Agriculture Reform Program at RAFI-USA.

All three groups will urge Congress to pass a packer ownership ban separately from the Farm Bill and work to ensure that Congress and the USDA swiftly write, implement and fund these new regulations governing and livestock competition.

Which food additives are safe?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:04:00 +0000

Would you like some butylated hydroxytoluene with that?

If a waiter offered you some BHT in a restaurant, you’d probably decline. Yet that chemical is one of scores of hard-to-pronounce additives that routinely show up in the fine print on packaged foods’ ingredients lists. Is BHT safe? For the record, food manufacturers use it to keep oils from going rancid, but animal studies differ on whether in promotes or prevents cancer. The Center for Science in the Public Interest says it warrants caution.

“Just because an additive is artificial doesn’t necessarily mean it’s unsafe,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson, who began researching food additives in 1971. “That said, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t done nearly enough to police the preservatives, dyes, emulsifiers, stabilizers, thickeners, sweeteners and other chemicals many of us eat every day.”

Those artificial sweeteners are either unsafe or poorly tested. The only artificial sweetener to get a “safe” grade is sucralose (Splenda).

•Partially hydrogenated oil. This is one artificial food ingredient that CSPI has asked the FDA to get out of the food supply, since its trans fat component is a potent cause of heart disease and possibly other health problems. Yet Burger King and many other restaurants still deep fry with it; many manufacturers of frozen foods par fry with it; and some manufacturers, restaurant chains, and bakeries still use it in pie crusts, pastries, and other foods.

• Potassium bromate. This chemical strengthens dough, and most of it breaks down harmlessly. But bromate itself does cause cancer in animals, and isn’t worth the small risk it poses to humans. Many bakers have stopped using bromated flour.

An example of an additive that “certain people should avoid” is:

•Mycoprotein. Fortunately, this substance—a vat-grown fungus—is only in the Quorn line of meat substitutes. Several percent of people who eat it will experience nausea, severe vomiting, or dangerous anaphylactic reactions. Despite CSPI’s warnings, FDA refuses to take it off the market or require labeling.

CSPI says these food additives are safe:

• Maltodextrin. This thickening agent and sweetener is made from starch. You might find it in canned fruit, salad dressings, and instant puddings.

• Sodium Carboxymethyl-Cellulose. This thickening and stabilizing agent prevents sugar from crystallizing and is used in ice cream, beer, pie fillings, icings, diet foods, and candy. Studies indicate it is safe.

• Thiamin Mononitrate. Scary name, perfectly safe ingredient. It’s a form of vitamin B-1 used to fortify cereals and flour.

• Sucralose. Don’t believe the manufacturer’s claim that this sweetener is “natural” or “tastes like sugar since it’s made from sugar.” But also don’t believe the Internet conspiracy theories that it’s toxic; it appears to be safe. Used as a tabletop sweetener (Splenda) and in some baked goods, frozen desserts, and diet soft drinks. Unfortunately, it’s often used with acesulfame.

Jacobson says that while it’s important to pay attention to the presence of many of these food additives, one shouldn’t fetishize them at the expense of several ingredients whose presence we take for granted in foods, namely sugar—in both its naturally occurring forms and in high-fructose corn syrup—and salt.

“Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and high blood pressure are such problems in this country in part because Americans are eating way much more sugar and salt than our bodies can handle,” said Jacobson. “They’re both perfectly ‘natural’ ingredients but everyone should cut back.”

Nebraska asked to investigate proposed JBS mergers

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:14:00 +0000

Nebraska is one several major beef producing states that R-CALF USA and the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), have sent formal correspondence to state attorneys general asking the officials to join with other attorneys general to investigate the competitive effects of the proposed acquisitions by JBS of National Beef Packing Co., Smithfield Beef Group and Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding, the largest feeding company in the world, with an estimated 2 million head annual capacity.

“The primary focus of our concern is with the market for slaughter-ready cattle that are sold in proximity to the major meatpackers and the market for lighter-weight feeder cattle that are sold in relatively large quantities in every state of the Union,” wrote R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry. “We also note that reducing the number of major beef processors from five to three is likely to have adverse competitive effects on consumers as well.”

The five largest meatpackers currently are Tyson Foods, Cargill Meat Solutions, JBS Swift, National Beef Co., and Smithfield Beef Group. If the JBS merger is allowed, only three people – the head buyers employed by JBS, Tyson Foods and Cargill Meat Solutions – will make price decisions on over 80 percent of the slaughter-ready cattle each day.

“The current cattle market is already suffering from reduced competition,” the letter continues. “This merger will substantially lessen competition. Cattle feeders have trouble now gaining bids for their cattle from the packers within transportation distance. If the merger is allowed, feeders will have even fewer potential buyers and fewer actual buyers…fewer buyers reduce cattle prices.”

Cattle are perishable and must be sold within approximately two weeks or they degrade in quality and value, which magnifies the market power of the remaining packers. Additionally, partial vertical integration is another major market power magnification tool. This merger will substantially lessen the competition that exists and will increase the market power held by the remaining firms.

“We have witnessed packer merger approvals in the past and seen the destructive results on independent livestock producers, including the astounding 90 percent reduction in the number of U.S. hog producers,” the letter concludes. “If no action is taken now to preserve competition in the cattle market, we will wish, in five years that our leaders had more forethought and vision. Competition is the best regulator and should be preserved.”

Did dust storms make the Dust Bowl drought worse

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:29:00 +0000

The Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world.

Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. But the Dust Bowl drought was not meteorologically extreme by the standards of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Indeed the 1856-65 drought may have involved a more severe drop in precipitation. It was the combination of drought and poor land use practice that created the environmental disaster.

Much of the Plains had been plowed up in the decades before the 1930s as wheat cropping expanded west. Alas, while natural prairie grasses can survive a drought the wheat that was planted could not and, when the precipitation fell, it shriveled and died exposing bare earth to the winds. This was the ultimate cause of the wind erosion and terrible dust storms that hit the Plains in the 1930s. There had never been dust storms like these in prior droughts. In the worst years of the 1930s on as many as a quarter of the days dust reduced visibility to less than a mile. More soil was lost by wind erosion than the Mississippi carried to the sea. Although the numbers are not known, hundreds if not thousands of Plains residents died from 'dust pneumonia', a euphemism for clogging of the lungs with dirt.

But did the dust storms have a meteorological impact? There are two good reasons to ask this question. First we know from studies elsewhere in the world (e.g. the Sahel) that dust can impact circulation and precipitation. Second the Dust Bowl drought was unique in its spatial pattern - further north than is typical for a La Nina forced, or La Nina plus warm subtropical North Atlantic forced, drought. Did the dust storms impact either the intensity of the drought or its area of impact?

Food safety system in crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:18:00 +0000

A new report from Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) has identifies major gaps in the nation’s food safety system, including obsolete laws, misallocation of resources, and inconsistencies among major food safety agencies.

“Our goal should be reducing the number of Americans who get sick from foodborne illness. But we can’t adequately protect people from contaminated foods if we continue to use 100 year-old practices,” said Jeff Levi, PhD, Executive Director of TFAH. “We need to bring food safety into the 21st century. We have the technology. We’re way past due for a smart and strategic upgrade.”

Some problems outlined in the report, Fixing Food Safety: Protecting America’s Food from
Farm-to-Fork, include:

• The U.S. food safety system has not been fundamentally modernized in over 100 years;
• The bulk of federal food safety funds are spent on outdated practices of inspecting every
poultry, beef and pork carcass, even though changing threats and modern agriculture
practices and technology make this an unproductive use of government resources;
• Inadequate resources are spent on fighting modern bacteria threats, such as trying to
reduce Salmonella or dangerous strains of E. coli;
* An estimated 85 percent of known foodborne illness outbreaks are associated with
foods regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but the agency
receives less than half of the federal funding for food safety;
• In the past 3 years, the main food safety function at FDA has lost 20 percent of its science
staff and 600 inspectors;
• Gaps in current inspection practices mean acts of agroterrorism -- such as contamination
of wheat gluten or botulism -- could go undetected until they are widespread;
• While 15 federal agencies are involved in food safety, the efforts are fragmented and no
one agency has ultimate authority or responsibility for food safety;
o For instance, the FDA regulates frozen pizza, but if the pizza is topped with 2
percent or more of cooked meat or poultry, then the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture becomes the regulatory
agency;
• Only one percent of imported foods are inspected. Approximately 60 percent of fresh
fruits and vegetables and 75 percent of seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported; and
• States and localities are not required to meet uniform national standards for food safety.
Approximately 76 million Americans -- one in 4 -- are sickened by foodborne diseases each year.
Of these, an estimated 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die. Medical costs and lost
productivity due to foodborne illnesses in the U.S. are estimated to cost $44 billion annually. A
2007 public opinion poll conducted by TFAH found that 67 percent of Americans are worried
about food safety, and that public concerns about food safety rank higher than Americans’
concerns about a biological or chemical attack and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

The TFAH report follows a series of studies by experts raising concerns about America’s food
safety, including a 2007 review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Science Board that
concluded that the U.S. food supply “grows riskier each year” and a Government Accountability
Office report that found federal oversight of food safety to be one of the government’s “high
risk” programs.

TFAH calls for a series of actions to help the nation modernize the food safety system by using
strategic inspection practices and state-of-the-art surveillance. While many of the
recommendations are focused on government actions, the report finds that fixing food safety will
require a collaborative effort by food producers, processors, distributors, retailers, and
consumers, combined with strong leadership from the federal, state, and local government.
Some of the recommendations include:

• Repeal outdated end-product and processing plant inspection mandates and shift the
emphasis of inspection practices to the prevention of outbreaks and illnesses through the
entire food production process and supply chain;
• Create mechanisms that allow inspection practices to keep pace with changes in the
industry;
• Establish uniform performance standards and best practices that are enforceable through
actions including detention and recall authority and civil penalty authority;
• Require food safety education for commercial food handlers;
• Improve monitoring of foreign imports and international practices; and
• Strengthen the FDA with increased funding and aligning resources with high risk threats,
with the long-term goal of realigning all federal food safety functions.

Biofuels small part of food price increases

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:30:00 +0000

Rising food costs in the United States and overseas are receiving a great deal of attention, and a range of complex factors are behind this relatively new phenomenon, according to American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. He said ethanol is “not the culprit that American consumers are being led to believe,” and he stressed that renewable fuel and affordable food can coexist.

“We want to make sure that America’s consumers have a clear picture of this volatile and very complicated food price situation,” Stallman said. “Farmers are also deeply concerned about the issue of hunger, both on the global scale and here at home. We want to ensure that food is available and affordable to all global citizens.

“Having said that, I want to assure everyone that in the United States of America, there is not a food shortage. Our nation’s productive and efficient farm families continue to produce a full range of healthy and abundant foods and we will continue to do so.”

Stallman spoke at news conference arranged by the American Farm Bureau Federation in Washington, D.C., earlier today.

Farm Bureau analysis of the costs of food production and marketing shows petroleum-based energy is the primary factor driving domestic food prices. Forty-four percent of rising food costs is due to energy costs, according to AFBF.

“This means energy sources like natural gas, oil and gasoline,” Stallman said.

“After many commodities leave the farm gate, high costs for energy, fuel and transportation are added and passed onto the consumer,” he noted. “Increased retail prices can especially be seen on highly processed foods.”

The farmer’s share of the retail food dollar has hovered around 25 percent since the 1970s. The larger portion of the consumer’s food dollar goes to pay for processing, transporting and marketing food products after they leave the farm.

In addition, Stallman said world food prices are escalating because of other complex issues such as growing world demand, particularly in nations such as China and India, as well as lower supplies due to droughts elsewhere in the world.

Stallman stressed that market forces would lead to increased food production by farmers worldwide, thus lowering prices. He cautioned against governments enacting policies that would intervene in markets, saying such measures would be counterproductive to securing prices that are more moderate globally.

Winterkill in alfalfa requires quick action

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:27:00 +0000

Several alfalfa growers in eastern and central Nebraska have lost some of their alfalfa stands to winterkill this spring, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln forage specialist said.

Low spots in fields where water-logged soils or ice accumulated probably have killed alfalfa plants, said Bruce Anderson, UNL forage specialist in the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

"If you are one of the unlucky ones to have lost some alfalfa stands, it's important to discover this problem as soon as possible," Anderson said. "Then you will have time to select from all possible alternatives to respond to this problem."

Some alternatives need early decisions and actions to be successful, he said, such as interseeding oats or planting another crop into thin stands to boost spring hay production.

Other alternatives, such as tearing up the alfalfa field and planting it to corn, can be decided a little later as long as it doesn't limit seed corn choices or interfere with the best time to plant a new field to alfalfa.

In alfalfa fields planted last year, new alfalfa can be seeded directly into the thinned areas without worry about autotoxicity -- in which the alfalfa produces chemicals that inhibit its growth, Anderson said.

However, growers whose fields were planted more than a year ago need to consider other options, he said.

Drilling a bushel or two of oats per acre as soon as possible is a good short-term remedy for a cutting or two, he said.

A more long-term solution is to drill 15 to 20 pounds of Italian ryegrass.

"This will begin to contribute around second cutting time and usually continues until first cutting next year," he said. "And for an all-legume hay option, interseed red clover."

The best long-term solution probably is to add a perennial grass, he said. Orchardgrass, festulolium and endophyte-free tall fescue may be the best choices.

"With this option, you need to interseed as early as possible and take a super-early first cutting to reduce competition from the alfalfa," Anderson said.

If an early planting isn't possible, you can plant summer annual grasses like sudangrass, pearl millet or teff in the open areas after first cutting.

Heineman attends wind energy project groundbreaking

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Pore) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:03:00 +0000

Gov. Dave Heineman was in the northeast town of Bloomfield today for the groundbreaking of the state’s first community-based wind project. The Elkhorn Ridge Wind Facility will have 27 wind turbines and is expected to generate enough electricity to power 25,000 homes.

“Today, we celebrate the official start of the largest wind energy project to date in Nebraska,” Gov. Heineman said. “I want to offer my thanks and appreciation to everyone involved with this project, which will more than double Nebraska’s wind power capacity and when completed will be the largest wind project in our state.

“This is an industry that is in the infant stage here in Nebraska, but it’s one that holds real promise. Some of Nebraska’s emerging and fastest growing industries are those in the field of renewable energy. Nebraska is building a comprehensive renewable portfolio thanks to recent investments in expanded ethanol research and production, new investments in biodiesel production, the construction of methane digesters, and new opportunities to harness the wind in powering our homes and businesses.”

The facility is the first project to be developed using provisions contained in LB 629, which was passed during the 2007 legislative session. It allows Nebraska’s publicly-owned utilities to purchase electricity generated by wind turbines owned by Community-Based Energy Development (C-BED) partnerships.

Public entities are not eligible for federal incentives encouraging wind power development and the bill was an important step in attracting new wind investments to Nebraska. Prior to the bill’s passage, opportunities to develop wind projects weren’t as economically feasible.

Gov. Heineman said, “The success of the C-BED bill is that it is helping encourage the kind of public-private partnerships that today are moving Nebraska’s wind industry forward.”

The Elkhorn Ridge facility will be the biggest wind farm in the state at 80-megawatts. Another C-BED venture recently announced by Nebraska Public Power District and Juhl Energy Development, the Crofton Hills Wind Farm planned for Knox County, will add 42-megawatts when it is completed next year. The Nebraska Energy Office reports current wind energy production in Nebraska to be 73-megawatts.