President Trump Signe Executive Order on Agriculture

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PROMOTING AGRICULTURE AND RURAL PROSPERITY IN AMERICA

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure the informed exercise of regulatory authority that affects agriculture and rural communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  A reliable, safe, and affordable food, fiber, and forestry supply is critical to America's national security, stability, and prosperity.  It is in the national interest to promote American agriculture and protect the rural communities where food, fiber, forestry, and many of our renewable fuels are cultivated.  It is further in the national interest to ensure that regulatory burdens do not unnecessarily encumber agricultural production, harm rural communities, constrain economic growth, hamper job creation, or increase the cost of food for Americans and our customers around the world.

Sec. 2.  Establishment of the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity.  There is hereby established the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (Task Force).  The Department of Agriculture shall provide administrative support and funding for the Task Force to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.

Sec. 3.  Membership.  (a)  The Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as Chair of the Task Force, which shall also include:

(i)      the Secretary of the Treasury;

(ii)     the Secretary of Defense;

(iii)    the Attorney General;

(iv)     the Secretary of the Interior;

(v)      the Secretary of Commerce;

(vi)     the Secretary of Labor;

(vii)    the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(viii)   the Secretary of Transportation;

(ix)     the Secretary of Energy;

(x)      the Secretary of Education;

(xi)     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(xii)    the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission;

(xiii)   the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(xiv)    the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

(xv)     the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy;

(xvi)    the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;

(xvii)   the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy;

(xviii)  the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy;

(xix)    the Administrator of the Small Business Administration;

(xx)     the United States Trade Representative;

(xxi)    the Director of the National Science Foundation; and

(xxii)   the heads of such other executive departments, agencies, and offices as the President or the Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate.

(b)  A member of the Task Force may designate a senior level official who is a full-time officer or employee of the member's department, agency, or office to perform the member's functions on the Task Force.

Sec. 4.  Purpose and Functions of the Task Force.  (a)  The Task Force shall identify legislative, regulatory, and policy changes to promote in rural America agriculture, economic development, job growth, infrastructure improvements, technological innovation, energy security, and quality of life, including changes that:

(i)     remove barriers to economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America;

(ii)    advance the adoption of innovations and technology for agricultural production and long-term, sustainable rural development;

(iii)   strengthen and expand educational opportunities for students in rural communities, particularly in agricultural education, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics;

(iv)    empower the State, local, and tribal agencies that implement rural economic development, agricultural, and environmental programs to tailor those programs to relevant regional circumstances;

(v)     respect the unique circumstances of small businesses that serve rural communities and the unique business structures and regional diversity of farms and ranches;

(vi)    require executive departments and agencies to rely upon the best available science when reviewing or approving crop protection tools;

(vii)   ensure access to a reliable workforce and increase employment opportunities in agriculture-related and rural-focused businesses;

(viii)  promote the preservation of family farms and other agribusiness operations as they are passed from one generation to the next, including changes to the estate tax and the tax valuation of family or cooperatively held businesses;

(ix)    ensure that water users' private property rights are not encumbered when they attempt to secure permits to operate on public lands;

(x)     improve food safety and ensure that regulations and policies implementing Federal food safety laws are based on science and account for the unique circumstances of farms and ranches;

(xi)    encourage the production, export, and use of domestically produced agricultural products;

(xii)   further the Nation's energy security by advancing traditional and renewable energy production in the rural landscape; and

(xiii)  address hurdles associated with access to resources on public lands for the rural communities that rely on cattle grazing, timber harvests, mining, recreation, and other multiple uses.

(b)  The Task Force shall, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs, provide State, local, and tribal officials -- and farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other rural stakeholders -- with an opportunity to suggest to the Task Force legislative, regulatory, and policy changes.

(c)  The Task Force shall coordinate its efforts with other reviews of regulations or policy, including those conducted pursuant to Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive Order 13778 of February 28, 2017 (Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the "Waters of the United States" Rule), and Executive Order 13783 of March 28, 2017 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth).

Sec. 5.  Report.  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the other members of the Task Force, shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, recommending the legislative, regulatory, or policy changes identified pursuant to section 4 of this order that the Task Force considers appropriate.  The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide a copy of the final report to each member of the Task Force.

Sec. 6.  Revocation.  Executive Order 13575 of June 9, 2011 (Establishment of the White House Rural Council), is hereby revoked.

Sec. 7.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Tracking Black Cut Worm Moth Flights in Illinois | with Kelly Estes

Todd Gleason talks with Illinois Natural History Survey Entomologist Kelly Estes about insect pests of corn in the state.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue | April 25, 2017

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue addresses USDA employees and guests shortly after being sworn in April 25, 2017.



“We want the public to feel as welcome and as home here (USDA Bldg) as they do in their own home.” - Sonny Perdue

“I view USDA worldwide as a family, and we are going to treat it as a family.” - Sonny Perdue

“I was a farmer first and we are going to get comfortable in working clothes.” Perdue sheds his coat and tie….

“We want to make decisions on facts and evidence. Good sound science.” “We want to be data-driven.” - Sonny Perdue

Evaluating Barley Yellow Dwarf Resistance in Oats

Fred Kolb heads up the small grains breeding program at the University of Illinois. He and his crew were out working on the south farms last week (Wednesday, April 18). They swing specialized tubes to deliver a little corn meal and an aphid that carries Barley Yellow Dwarf disease. The aphid, says Kolb, infects the oats. About a week after the aphids are released, he and his team come back to eradicate them. Fred Kolb is a crop scientist at the University of Illinois.

Cattle | Increase Conception Rates after Lush Spring Turnout

During the winter most cattle are supplemented with dry forages, grains, and co-products. This ration is balanced and delivered to cattle. Then spring comes along and cattle are put out to grass. While green grass solves a lot of problems associated with winter feeding (manure, pen maintenance, calf health, and labor demands), it can pose nutritional challenges, especially for newly bred cows.

>

That lush green grass forage has three major challenges when it comes to meeting cattle nutrition requirements.

• it can lack enough dry matter
• it is high in protein, but the excess can become a problem without the dry matter
• and it is low in fiber

The beef cattle specialists at the University of Illinois wondered if this combination of problems has taken a hand in some of the lower artificial insemination conception rates they’ve seen in one of the three campus herds. Animal Scientist Dan Shike and Extension Beef Educator Travis Meteer set up an experiment to find out. Low dry matter and excess protein has been well documented by the dairy industry as a detriment to reproductive performance. The two wanted to know if a supplemental dry matter feed stock would make a difference. Shike says it did, “We did a synchronized timed A.I. At the first pregnancy check about 58% of the supplemented cows were pregnant to A.I. and 46% of the non-supplemented cows were pregnant to A.I.”

A twelve percent increase is significant. However, Shike cautions he has just two years worth of data to support the findings. Shike and Meteer did a Facebook live video discussing lush spring grasses and the impact on cattle going to pasture that includes more details on conception rate work. Search Facebook for “University of Illinois Beef Cattle Extension”.

Choosing Nitrogen Rates

read blog post

The growing season has started and most corn farmers have already applied nitrogen. It is a very expensive plant food and getting the rate right may mean using a little less.

Here’s how the University of Illinois nitrogen recommendation used to work. It was formula equal to roughly one-point-two times the expected yield minus the nitrogen leftover from the previous crop. That “yield-goal-based system” recommends too much for today’s corn hybrids says University of Illinois Extension Agronomist Emerson Nafziger, “That yield-goal-based system flat-out doesn’t work anymore. The reason it doesn’t is that our yields have gone up a lot, and we are clearly showing that yields have gone up more than requirements for nitrogen have gone up.”

Nafziger believes there are two reasons for the change. First, he says the system always recommended more nitrogen than was really needed. The other is that hybrids have become much better at extracting what’s there; water and the nutrients that come with water. Nitrogen is the main one of those. Nafziger says, “Today we get higher yields and do not have to use the 1.2 pounds of nitrogen per bushel or what ever formulation people were using.”

ILLINOIS abandon the formula about ten years ago in a favor of a system used and promoted by Land Grant’s throughout the corn belt. It is called the N Rate Calculator and it actually brought the Illinois rates down by a few pounds for this year.

Nafziger says at current corn and nitrogen prices, guideline rates for corn following soybean are 154, 172, and 179 pounds of nitrogen per acre in northern, central, and southern Illinois, respectively. 200, 200, and 189 for corn after corn. Southern Illinois farmers will make note that their rate for corn after soybeans is higher than in either central or northern Illinois and lower than both of those for corn after corn.

Too Early to Worry About Late Planting

Farmers have been a bit worried about getting into the field because of rains throughout the Midwest. It looks like those will clear out for the week, mostly, and even if they don’t, there isn’t much to worry about, yet. Todd Gleason has more on when the ag economist at the University of Illinois think late planting impacts the markets and yields.

Working to Create New Illini Brand Soybean Varieties

Troy Cary & Lauran Widman (wihd-man) are working to create twelve-thousand 2017 University of Illinois soybean breeding program plots. Todd Gleason caught up with them on Tuesday morning and put together this look at some of the pre-planting season work.

YouTube Link

The Frozen Sweet Peas Recall, Listeria, & Pregnant Women

voluntary recall notice
read blog post

Earlier this week (April 11th) frozen sweet peas sold under the Season’s Choice Brand at Aldi stores in seven states (including Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Florida, Wisconsin) were voluntarily recalled.

Listeria is a particularly concerning pathogen that University of Illinois Extension Nutrition and Wellness Educator Mary Liz Wright says should especially be avoided by pregnant women. However, Wright says there are some easy ways to make sure frozen peas are listeria free, "We need to cook those frozen vegetables before we add them to a cold salad. Listeria can be killed at 155 degrees F. So, bringing the peas up to a 155 degrees will kill the listeria and then you can safely chill them and use them in your salad."



The U.S. government reports pregnant women are twenty-percent more likely to contract listeria. It can lead to miscarriage.

Lakeside Foods says the 16 ounce packages of Season’s Choice frozen sweet peas were potentially contaminated. The product has already been removed from store shelves. Consumers should either throw the frozen peas they’ve purchased away, or return them for a full refund.

Pork Industry Favored by Strong Demand

Chris Hurt - This is basically a forecast for a breakeven year with all costs being covered, including labor costs and equity investors receiving a normal rate of return.

by Chris Hurt, Purdue University Extension farmdocDaily article

Hog prices are expected to increase in 2017 even with three percent more pork production. Prices will be supported by stronger demand because of a growing U.S. economy and by a robust eight percent growth in exports as projected by USDA. New packer capacity is also expected to contribute to stronger bids for hogs. Feed costs will be the lowest in a decade and total production costs are expected to be at decade lows.

The recently updated USDA inventory report found that the nation’s breeding herd was one percent larger than the herd of a year-ago. This continues a rebuilding of the herd that began in 2014 as feed prices began to move sharply lower and the industry began to recover from pig losses due to PED. The national breeding herd has increased by four percent since 2014. Notable expansions of the breeding herd in the past three years have occurred in Missouri 25 percent; Ohio 9 percent; Illinois 8 percent; and Indiana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma each up 4 percent. Farrowing intentions are up one percent for this spring and slightly below year previous levels for this coming summer.

Producers indicated to USDA that they had four percent more animals in the market herd, reflecting four percent higher farrowings last fall, a three percent increase in winter farrowings and a one percent increase in the number of pigs per litter. Given these numbers, pork supplies are expected to rise by five percent in April and May and then drop to a four percent increase for June through August. Three percent more pork can be expected for September through November of 2017 with supplies up one percent this coming winter compared to year-previous levels.

Live hog prices averaged about $46 last year with losses estimated at $11 per head. Prices are expected to be $3 to $4 higher this year. Live hog prices averaged about $50 per hundredweight in the first quarter of 2017. Prices for the second and third quarters are expected to average in the very low $50s. Prices will likely be seasonally lower in the fourth quarter and average in the mid-$40s. If so, prices would average near $49 for the year and be slightly under projected total costs of production with $1 of loss per head. This is basically a forecast for a breakeven year with all costs being covered, including labor costs and equity investors receiving a normal rate of return.

Current expectations are for feed prices to remain low in 2017, but with corn prices increasing into 2018. On a calendar year basis, U.S. corn prices received by farmers averaged $6.67 per bushel in 2012 (unweighted by marketings). Those prices fell to $3.48 per bushel in calendar 2016 and are expected to be only a few cents higher in calendar 2017. Current prospects are for corn to be $.20 to $.30 per bushel higher in calendar year 2018 due to sharp reductions in 2017 U.S. acreage.

Soybean meal averaged $478 per ton in 2014 (high-protein, Decatur, Illinois), but is expected to average only $315 per ton in 2017, the lowest calendar year price since 2010. Total feed costs per hundredweight are expected to be the lowest in a decade dating back to 2007.Total costs of production may reach 10-year lows. Estimated total costs of production reached $67 per live hundredweight in 2012 driven by high feed prices. For calendar year 2017 that may drop to $49.50, which is the lowest estimated total costs of production since 2007 and would represent 10-year lows.

What are the potential shadows for the industry this year? The first is that meat and poultry competition will be high. In addition to three percent more pork, beef production is expected to be up four percent and poultry production up two percent. There is simply a lot of competition for the consumers’ food dollars.

Secondly, the optimism for the U.S. economy that has been present in early 2017 could falter. This optimism is related to a stronger job market, low unemployment, and record seeking stock market indexes. The anticipated stimulus package of the new administration has likely been a contributor. Time will tell if Congress can agree on this legislation and move it from anticipation to reality. In addition, the FED is likely to continue a series of interest rate increases to slow growing inflation pressures.

Decade low feed cost is important reason pork producers are expected to almost cover all of their costs this year. Weather in the U.S. and in the Northern Hemisphere will be important in the final determination of yields and feed prices.

The industry needs to keep expansion of the breeding herd to near one percent each year. This one percent increase along with about one percent higher weaning rates means the industry can increase pork production about two percent a year. That is sufficient to cover a one percent growth in domestic population and about one percent annual growth needed to expand exports. Growth of the breeding herd at more than one percent could shift the industry back into losses.

Dicamba Soybeans | how to manage herbicide applications

read more from Aaron Hager, University of Illinois Extension

Farmers going to the field this spring will be using a brand new type of soybean. Todd Gleason has more on why dicamba-resistant varieties will require them to exercise caution when making herbicide applications.

farmdocDaily Webinar | USDA March Grain Stocks & Acreage

Darrel Good, Todd Hubbs, Scott Irwin - University of Illinois ACES

---

by Todd Hubbs, Agricultural Economist - University of Illinois

The high March 1 stock numbers provide some bearish sentiment for old crop corn and soybean prices in 2017. The larger than expected soybean stock number may have some implications for the size of the 2016 soybean crop, but the final estimate will not be known until September. The large corn stocks number impact the consumption of corn in the feed and residual category directly during the current marketing year and an expectation of reduced feed and residual use is prudent moving forward. Planting intentions confirmed the belief that farmers would switch to soybean production in 2017.


The large Brazilian soybean crop this year combined with stable demand over the next marketing year gives an indication of lower prices for soybeans next marketing year. The lower corn planting intentions provide some support for corn prices despite the large March 1 stock estimate. If consumption maintains its current pace, the 2017–18 marketing year should see stable to higher corn prices.

Corn & Soybean Planting Date Recommendations

by Emerson Nafziger, University of Illinois
see The Bulletin article

Relatively dry weather in recent weeks throughout much of Illinois and an early start to fieldwork might provide the unusual opportunity this year of letting us choose corn and soybean planting dates instead of having to wait until it’s dry enough.

There are reports that some corn and possibly some soybeans were planted as early as February this year. The main motivation for such plantings is often the excitement that comes (or doesn’t) from having the crop survive “against all odds.” While that may be satisfying, it doesn’t offer much profit potential. If the crop survives it hardly ever produces yields as high as those from planting at the normal time, and planting very early affects insurability and can also increase the cost of replant seed.

In the warm, dry March of 2012, we planted one date of our planting date study at Urbana on March 16. The crop emerged uniformly and grew well until frost on April 11–12 killed the tops of the plants to the ground. About 75% of the plants survived and grew back, though, and to our surprise this planting also yielded about 75% as much as the April plantings. Most corn planted in mid-March in 2012 (about 5% of the state’s corn was planted by April 1 that year) had to be replanted.

Most people avoid taking insurance coverage risks by planting before earliest allowable planting dates under the federal crop insurance program. Those dates for corn are April 10, April 5, and April 1 for northern, central, and southern Illinois, and for soybean are April 24, April 20, and April 15 in northern, central, and southern Illinois.

Having the earliest insurable dates for soybean about two weeks later than for corn reflects what until recently we considered to be the greater danger from planting soybeans very early compared to planting corn very early. In fact, with better seed handling and treating today, soybean seed produces acceptable stands with mid-April planting about as often as corn does.

Contrary to what many believe, soybean is no more vulnerable to frost than corn after emergence. The only time we’ve seen soybean seedlings killed by frost is when it gets near freezing at the time the hypocotyl hook is exposed to the cold sky, before the cotyledons are pulled from the soil. This period of vulnerability typically lasts no more than a day or two; after the hypocotyl straightens and the cotyledons open, soybean plants are fairly cold-hardy. While corn plants have been considered safe from frost until the growing point is near the soil surface, we have seen corn plants killed by low temperatures (often below 30 degrees) even if they have only two or three leaves exposed.

The primary cause of stand loss in both crops is having heavy rainfall soon after planting. Stand loss from wet soils before or during germination is greater for corn when soil temperatures are low. For soybean, having warm soil under wet conditions speeds up the germination process and mean that seedlings run out of oxygen before emergence. But chances of having heavy rainfall soon after planting are not higher with early planting, and stand problems due to wet soils are as common with May planting as with April planting.

Between 2007 and 2016, we ran planting date studies for corn at a total of 22 Illinois site-years, and between 2010 and 2016, at a total of 26 site-years for soybean. There were four planting dates in each trial, ranging from early April through late May for corn and mid-April through early June for soybean. Data are expressed as percentage of the yield at the highest-yielding date within each site-year.

As shown in Figure 1, planting date responses expressed as percent of maximum yield within each site-year are surprisingly similar for corn and soybean across recent trials. Both crops showed near-maximum yields when planted in mid-April to early May, and yields dropped to 95, 91, and 86% as planting was delayed to May 10, May 20, and May 30, respectively.

Figure 1. Planting date responses over 22 corn and 26 soybean site-years in Illinois.

What should we take from the fact that yields of both crops declined at about the same percentage rates as planting was delayed through May? The main message is that we need to give similar priority both crops in terms of getting them planted on time. For those with more than one planter, that may mean planting both crops simultaneously, as fields get ready to plant. Our long-held idea of planting corn first them starting to plant soybean requires rethinking and possible adjustment. At the same time, the penalty for late planting of corn is a little lower once we get to late May and into June compared to that for soybean, so in fields that stay wet longer, soybeans may still be a slightly better choice.

We also see from the data in Figure 1 that neither crop is likely to yield more when planted in early April than when planted in mid- or late April. If fields for both crops are ready to plant in central Illinois on April 6, there are two reasons to plant corn first: 1) it’s insurable; and 2) corn seed is somewhat better able to emerge at high percentage when planted early than is soybean seed.

On the other hand, we generally expect about 85% of soybean seeds and 95% of corn seed to establish plants, so corn can be a little more vulnerable to less-than-desired stands if conditions turn bad after planting. In neither crop, however, would dropping desired stands by 5 percentage points cost much yield.

Finally, we should take care not to be overly influenced by what happened in 2016, a season when growers reported much higher yields from early- compared to late-planted soybeans. Statewide, over the past 20 years or so, the average date by which we get 50% of the crop planted is about May 1 for corn and May 22 for soybean. It would be good if we could move both of those dates up some, and even better if we could move the two dates closer together. Still, with years like 2012 when planting was very early but lack of rain lowered yields by a lot, there’s little relationship between average statewide planting date and average statewide yield.

Most planting delays are due to wet soils, and so are more or less beyond our control. Mudding in either crop, especially in April, is usually a mistake, given the slow rate at which yields for both crops fall as planting is delayed into May, and given the prevent-plant provisions of crop insurance in effect. We should be diligent at starting to plant when all (not just soil) conditions are right, but there’s little reason to panic when planting isn’t as early as we’d like

American Soybean Association Message for Congress

The president of the American Soybean Association was in Washington, D.C. Tuesday. Ron Moore, an Illinois farmer - along with his counterparts from many agricultural commodity organizations, testified at a House ag subcommittee hearing. Moore says there are a few items on the top of the farm bill agenda for the ASA.

Corn Prices Moving Forward | an interview with Todd Hubbs

May corn futures’ prices tumbled to the lowest price level since December during the week ending March 24. Large crop estimates from around the world placed downward pressure on the corn market despite some positive domestic consumption numbers in exports and corn used for ethanol. Still, Todd Hubbs from the University of Illinois is hopeful there could be some support left in the corn market over time.

read full article on farmdocDaily

The American Robin: Living up to its Superhero Image

by Chris Enroth, University of Illinois Extension

After an exceptionally mild winter, I noted my first robin sighting about three weeks ago. During that initial observation, scores of robins had arrived in my yard. Spring is a time of year when the migratory American robin can be found scouring the earth in search of protein. Sipping on my coffee, wave after wave of robins hopped through the yard, stopping to cock their head, as if listening for worms in the soil below. Scratching and digging through my leaf mulch, these red-breasted thrushes, found quite a feast.



Our American Robin suffers from an unfortunate Latin/scientific name coincidence- Turdus migratorius. Thumbing through various literature, ornithologists with an impeccably matter-of-fact tone describe the origin of Turdus as Latin for “thrush.”

Though my first sighting of a robin was in late February, most likely they’ve been here all winter. According to Douglas Stotz with the Chicago Field Museum, robins are migratory birds. In fact, fifteen years ago most American robins were flying south for the winter. With increasingly warmer winters, robins are now year-round Illinois residents. Cornell’s Journey North map reveals that robins were sighted in Southern Canada on January 24.



American robins are one of the first songbirds to nest in the spring. The male’s song is what we often hear on these crisp mornings warding off competing males while drawing in female mates. The female builds her nest and lays her beautiful blue eggs, while the male watches over and provides food during the incubation (fourteen days) and fledgling stage (about two weeks).

American robin chicks are born completely featherless, blind and totally dependent on their mother and father to regulate their body temperature, food, and protection. Only about one-quarter of baby robins survive the summer. Predators abound seeking eggs or newly hatched nestlings. Housecats have become a problematic non-native predator of songbirds. Nest predators slither, walk, and fly and range from snakes to raccoons to jays and many others.

With such a high mortality rate, it is remarkable how the American Robin has succeeded in establishing across the entire North American continent. Robins can rear two to three broods per season and adults live an average lifespan of two years.

At this point, my son joined me at the breakfast table, watching the late-winter spectacle unfold of birds digging up various invertebrates from our yard and carrying them around in their beaks (including the signature earthworm). Upon pointing out the birds picking their way through our yard were robins, his eye lit up. “Like Robin from the movie?” (Referencing his growing Batman knowledge) “Yes,” I explain, “they could be considered protectors in the bird world.”

Being so large in comparison to other songbirds, the American Robin can produce one of the loudest songs. Not only do robins use their songs to attract mates, but they also have songs to sound the alarm of an approaching predator.

Biologists have found that robin songs are so pronounced, that other species of birds, squirrels, and deer respond to their alarm call. In a way, robins act as a scout. Foraging on the open ground leaves these birds open to many predators, so they must be vigilant. Often when trouble arrives, robins are the first to sound the alarm. Signaling to other wildlife to be on the lookout, run/fly away, or a call to action to thwart a stalking housecat or sneaky snake.

While the song of the American Robin is music to our winter ears, these birds carry far more than a cheery tune. Their warnings protect and rally those being preyed upon by cunning predators. The American Robin, our backyard superhero.

Historical Planted Acre Changes for Corn and Soybeans | an interview with Gray Schnitkey

Friday, March 31, 2017, USDA will release the Prospective Plantings report. The survey of U.S. farmers will estimate how many acres of corn and soybeans will be sown this spring. University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Gary Schnitkey talks with Todd Gleason about the historical changes in planted acres.



by Gary Schnitkey
see farmdocDaily post

At its annual Agricultural Outlook Conference in February, USDA projected that planted acres of corn would decrease from 94.0 million acres in 2016 to 90.0 million in 2017, a decrease of 4 million planted acres. At the same time, soybean acres are projected to increase from 83.4 million acres in 2016 to 88.0 million in 2017, an increase of by 4.6 million acres. Herein, we evaluate historical changes in acres across counties, thereby providing perspective on where likely 2017 acreage changes may occur.

U.S. Planted Acres

In 2016, planted acres to corn in the United States was 94.0 million acres (see Figure 1). This acreage level was the third highest number of planted acres since 2000, only being exceeded by 2012 (97.3 million acres) and 2013 (95.4 million acres). The 2017 projection of 90 million acres would be a 4.0 million acre decrease from the 2016 level. Plantings of 90.0 million acres would be about the same level as occurred in 2014 (90.5 million acres) and would be below the average planting for the last ten years.



In 2016, planted acres to soybeans was 83.4 million acres, the highest amount ever planted in the United States. Before 2014, planted acres to soybeans never exceeded 80 million acres (see Figure 1). Planted acres exceeded 80 million acres in each year since 2014: 83.2 million acres in 2014, 82.6 million in 2015, and 83.4 million in 2016.

In the following maps, acreage changes from 2011 to 2016 will be shown. In 2011, U.S. corn acres were 91.9 million, 1.9 million acres higher than in 2016. Reversing the corn acre increases during this five year period would go part way to reaching the decreases projected for 2017. The soybean acreage increase from 2011 to 2016 of 8.4 million represents twice the change projected from 2016 to 2017.
Corn Acre Changes

Figure 2 shows a map color coded to give changes in acres from 2011 to 2016. Counties colored blue had increases in acres, counties coded in orange had decreases in acres. Those counties that are yellow had essentially the same acres in 2016 as they did in 2011.



Several areas had pronounced increases. In particular, the northern Great Plains had sizeable increases. Between 2011 and 2016, North Dakota increased acres by 1.2 million, South Dakota by .4 million, and Minnesota by .4 million. Another area of sizable increase was Texas, with the planting .9 million more acres in 2016 than in 2011. Counties along the Mississippi River, especially in Arkansas, increased acres as well.

There were areas of notable decreases as well. Sizable decreases in corn acres occurred in Illinois. Between 2011 and 2016, planted acres in decreased by 1.0 million in Illinois. Indiana and Iowa had modest decreases as well.

Soybean Acre Changes

Figure 3 shows a map with planted acre changes for soybeans. Similar to corn, soybean acres increased in the upper Great Plans. Planted acres increased by 2.0 million acres in North Dakota, 1.1 million acres in South Dakota, and .5 million acres in Minnesota.



Other areas of significant increase were Illinois with a 1.1 million acres increase in planted soybeans. Planted acres also increased along the Mississippi River, parts of Kentucky and Tennessee, as well as areas in North and South Carolina.

Perspective on Changes for 2017

Areas with large acreage changes in the past likely will contribute in a significant way to acre changes from 2016 to 2017. These areas include the upper Great Plans, Texas, and the corn belt.

It seems conceivable that total corn and soybean acres could continue to increase in the upper Great Plains in 2017. Much of the acreage increases of corn and soybeans between 2011 and 2016 came from acres previously planted to wheat. In 2017, wheat acres could continue to decrease, leading to increases in corn and soybean acres. Whether corn acres will decrease while soybean acres increase in this region is an open question. One event that could lead to acre decreases is higher incidence of prevented planting. Prevented plantings were low in 2016, leaving open the possibility of increases in prevented planting acres in 2017.

Texas could see acreage shifts away from corn. Cotton prices look favorable, and an increase in cotton acres could contribute to fewer acres in corn.

Illinois and the corn belt in general could see shifts from corn to soybeans. Returns from crop budget suggest soybeans will be more profitable than corn (farmdoc daily, December 6, 2016), suggesting a shift is possible.

While budgets suggest the possibility, acre shifts have been slow in coming. Perhaps the most likely area where a shift will occur is where corn acres exceed soybean acres by a considerable margin. Corn acres divided by soybean acres exceed 1.0 in many counties in southern Minnesota, Iowa, northern and central Illinois, and western Indiana (see Figure 4). Bringing these areas back closer to a 50% corn - 5% soybean rotation, indicated by 1.0 corn divided soybean value, could increase profits suggesting that switches are possible.



Summary

Areas that experienced large acre changes in the past likely will be the ones where acres changes occur in 2017. This suggests focus on the upper Great Plains, Texas, and Illinois and the corn belt more generally. Continued corn and soybean acreage increases in the upper Great Plains seem reasonable to expect, except if prevented planting acres increase significantly. Texas could experience reduced corn acres. Budgets suggest switches to more soybeans from corn in the Midwest, although this is the case in previous years. Further indications of planting attentions will be received with the release of NASS’s Prospective Plantings report on March 31.

Building Extension 3.0

Kim Kidwell, Dean of the College of ACES - University of Illinois

Extension personnel facilitate the translation of many of the fantastic discoveries made at land-grant universities to people around the world. Oftentimes, this is the only way that this valuable information reaches people so they can make good decisions that improve the qualities of their lives. Kim Kidwell, Dean of the University of Illinois College of ACES, believes Extension embodies the essence of the land-grant mission because this is where transformation happens. She discusses, with Todd Gleason, how the future of Extension in the state of Illinois can provide the basis through which the discovery process can continue to help change people’s lives.

Read more from College of ACES Dean Kim Kidwell’s blog post here.

Anticipating the March 1 Soybean Stocks Estimate

USDA, at the end of this month, will let us know how much of the nation’s soybean crop there is left in the bin. It “should” be a fairly uneventful number.

by Todd Hubbs
read full farmdocDaily article

On March 31, the USDA will release the quarterly Grain Stocks report, with estimates of crop inventories as of March 1, and the annual Prospective Plantings report. For soybeans, the stocks estimate is typically overshadowed by the estimate of planting intentions. Usually, the quarterly stocks estimates for corn garners more interest because these reports reveal the pace of feed and residual use which is a large component of total corn consumption. The March 1 soybean stocks estimate this year may not provide much new information despite recent growth in marketing year ending stocks and concerns about the size of the South American crop… continue reading the full article by clicking here.

Generally, Todd Hubbs says it is pretty easy to figure out how many soybeans have been consumed. There is a regular reporting system for how many bushels are exported and one for how many are crushed. That second report, the crush, calculates how many soybeans are crushed in the United States into its two components. These are soybean meal and soybean oil. Hubbs, an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois, says the reports make it easy enough to calculate disappearance, consumption, usage, whatever you want to call, and consequently come up with a number that approximates how many bushels are left to use. Hubbs’ March 1 grain stocks figure for soybeans is 1.68 billion bushels. Here’s the math he used to get there.

Quote Summary - Exports for the first quarter were 932 million bushels. For the second quarter, I have them pegged at about 721 million bushels. I have the second quarter crush at 491 million bushels. This brings the total crush for the first half of the marketing year to 976 million bushels. We’ve been crushing a really good rate, but we have a lot of soybeans. So, with USDA raising ending stocks to 435 million, if that number holds and we don’t drive those numbers down, and if the March 1 stocks number is 1.68 billion, it means the last half of the marketing year we are going to have to consume about 1.23 billion bushels.

Hubbs thinks that is a reasonable number. It depends, though, he says mostly on what happens in the export market through August.

---

On the Value of Ethanol in the Gasoline Blend

Read farmdocDaily Article

There has been much debate and much written about the likely costs and benefits of including ethanol in the domestic gasoline supply. Costs and benefits fall into two major categories–environmental and economic (e.g., Stock, 2015). One economic consideration is the potential impact on domestic gasoline prices from augmenting the gasoline supply with biofuels. A second economic consideration, and one that has received the most attention, is the cost of ethanol relative to petroleum-based fuel. What has been missing from the analysis of the value of ethanol in the gasoline blend is an estimate of the net value of ethanol based on: i) an energy penalty relative to gasoline; and ii) an octane premium based on the lower price of ethanol relative to petroleum sources of octane.

This farmdocDaily article provides an analysis of that net value since January 2007.