|
Posted: 27 Feb 2015 09:42 AM PST
USDA Provides One-Time Extension of Deadline to Update Base
Acres or Yield History for ARC/PLC Programs
Farmers Now Have Until March 31 to Update Yields and
Reallocate Base Acres; Deadline for Choosing Between ARC and PLC also Remains
March 31
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 2015 — Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack announced today that a one-time extension will be provided to
producers for the new safety-net programs established by the 2014 Farm Bill,
known as Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC). The
final day to update yield history or reallocate base acres has been extended
one additional month, from Feb. 27, 2015 until March 31, 2015. The final day for farm owners and producers
to choose ARC or PLC coverage also remains March 31, 2015.
“This is an important decision for producers, because these
programs provide financial protection against unexpected changes in the
marketplace. Producers are working to make the best decision they can. And we’re working to ensure that they’ve
got the time, the information, and the opportunities to have those final
conversations, review their data, and to visit the Farm Service Agency to
make those decisions,” said Vilsack.
If no changes are made to yield history or base acres by March
31, 2015, the farm's current yield and base will be used. A program choice of ARC or PLC coverage
also must be made by March 31, 2015, or there will be no 2014 payments for
the farm and the farm will default to PLC coverage through the 2018 crop
year.
“These are complex decisions, which is why we
launched a strong education and outreach campaign back in September. Now we’re providing a one-time extension of
an additional month so that every producer is fully prepared to enroll in
this program, “ said Vilsack.
Nationwide, more than 2.9 million educational postcards, in English and Spanish, have been
sent to producers, and over 4,100 training sessions have been conducted on
the new safety-net programs. The online tools, available at www.fsa.usda.gov/arc-plc, allow
producers to explore projections on how ARC or PLC coverage will affect their
operation under possible future scenarios.
Covered commodities include barley, canola, large and small
chickpeas, corn, crambe, flaxseed, grain sorghum, lentils, mustard seed,
oats, peanuts, dry peas, rapeseed, long grain rice, medium grain rice (which
includes short grain rice), safflower seed, sesame, soybeans, sunflower seed
and wheat. Upland cotton is no longer a covered commodity.
To learn more, farmers can contact their local Farm Service
Agency county office. To find your
local office visit http://offices.usda.gov.
The Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America
over the past six years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of
dollars in savings for the taxpayer. Since enactment, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has made significant progress to implement each provision of this
critical legislation, including providing disaster relief to farmers and
ranchers; strengthening risk management tools; expanding access to rural
credit; funding critical research; establishing innovative public-private
conservation partnerships; developing new markets for rural-made products;
and investing in infrastructure, housing and community facilities to help
improve quality of life in rural America. For more information, visit www.usda.gov/farmbill.
#
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence
Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free
Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642
(Relay voice users).
|
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Farm Bill Update
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Ag Expo - February 20 & 21
New
Mexico Ag Expo, Portales, NM
Friday, February 20
9:00 Expo & Exhibits Open
9:30 Cover Crop Choices--the Limitations Imposed
by Residual and In-season Herbicides
Dr.
Calvin Trostle
Extension
Agronomist
Texas
Agri-Life
Art Room, Idsinga Pavilion (1 CEU)
10:00 Simply Prepared Meals & Menus
Connie
Moyers,
Roosevelt
Co. Ext. Home Economist
McAlister
Room, JLCC
Working with Stock Dogs
Kyle Dillard
Milnesand, NM
Idsinga Pavilion
10:30 Soil Testing & Chemical Fertilizer
Management for Small Grains
Dr. Calvin
Trostle
Extension
Agronomist
Texas
Agri-Life
Art Room, Idsinga Pavilion
11:00 Antique Tractor Parade
Midway
11:00 to 2:00 Chuck
Wagon Lunch
Portales Rotary Club
1:00 Replacements Females – “Options?”
Dr.
Marcy Ward
NMSU
Cooperative Extension
Livestock
Specialist
Art
Room, Idsinga Pavilion
1:30 Antique
Tractor Games
Working with Stock Dogs
Kyle Dillard
Milnesand, NM
Idsinga Pavilion
2:00 Antique Tractor Parade
3:00 Water Harvesting &
Making Your Own Rain Barrel
Patrick Kircher
Roosevelt
County Ag Agent
Connie
Moyers
Roosevelt
Co. Ext. Home Economist
McAlister Room, JLCC
5:00 Expo Closes
2015 Schedule of Events
Saturday, February 21
9:00 Expo & exhibits open
10:00 Advance Your Horsemanship
Trevor
Carter
Carter
Ranch Horse
Farwell,
TX
Idsinga
Pavilion
10:00 Crazy about Succulents &
Farm House Treasures
Connie
Moyers
Roosevelt
Co. Ext. Home Economist
McAlister
Room, JLCC
Antique Tractor Games
Midway
12:00 Antique Tractor Parade
Midway
12:30 "The Scoop: An Update on Equine Supplements
and Nutraceuticals"
Dr. Jason Turner
NMSU Extension Horse Specialist
Art Room, Idsinga Pavilion
1:00 Mounted Shooting Demonstration
Kathy
Hollmann-Ellsworth
World
Champion Mounted Shooter
Outdoor
Arena
1:30 Advance Your Horsemanship
Trevor
Carter
Carter
Ranch Horse
Farwell,
TX
Idsinga
Pavilion
1:30 Xeriscaping and other Low Maintenance Ideas
for Improving Your Yard
Curt
Jaynes
Garden
Source
McAlister
Room, JLCC
2:00 Antique
Tractor Parade
3:00
Expo
Closes
Friday, February 13, 2015
Texas Agri-Life Cover Crop Workshop
Cover Cropping,
Soil Health Workshop slated for March 6 in Lubbock AgriLife experts to weigh
possible pros and cons
LUBBOCK – Cover cropping, the
practice of planting a crop to prevent soil erosion and add organic matter,
will be the focus of a workshop conducted by the Texas A&M AgriLife
Extension Service from 8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m. March 6 at the Texas A&M
AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Lubbock.
The center is located at 1102 East
Farm-to-Market Road 1294 (exit 11 on I-27 north of Lubbock International
Airport).
Individual registration is $30.
RSVP to the AgriLife Extension office in Lubbock at 806-775-1740 is requested
by March 4.
“Testimonials abound concerning the
potential benefits to cover crop use,” said Mark Brown, AgriLife Extension
agent in Lubbock County. “But with our limited water resources, will the
practice work on the South Plains? With that in mind, the goal of this program
is to bring forth information to start the validation process necessary to
determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs of cover cropping under our
growing conditions.”
Dr. Calvin Trostle, AgriLife
Extension agronomist at Lubbock said regional producers realize cover crops
would use significant amounts of water, so he said it is natural to determine
if the practice is even permissible under current water use guidelines.
“It’s a practice used mostly where
there is much more rainfall than we have here,” Trostle said. “Will it work
here? Would the water needed to grow cover crops be detrimental to our cropping
system? What are the potential long-term benefits for soil improvement? And do
tillage options affect cover cropping? These questions and more are the focus
of this workshop where we will attempt to take a pragmatic look at the pros and
cons of cover cropping, and at a minimum, identify components of cover cropping
that could enhance South Plains crop production.”
Brown said speakers will include
staff from AgriLife, Texas Tech University, U.S. Department of
Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service and several area producers
who have initiated cover cropping on part of their land.
“The exchange of ideas among
attendees, coupled with research and demonstration work conducted by AgriLife
will help us identify aspects of cover cropping that may be beneficial to the
region,” Trostle said.
For more information contact Brown at 806-778-1740, mark.brown@agnet.tamu.edu or Trostle
at 806-746-6101, ctrostle@ag.tamu.edu
Monday, February 2, 2015
Update on Farm Bill Computer Lab Help
Farm Bill
The Curry
County Extension Offices will be hosting three opportunities in February and
March at the Clovis Community College for producers to learn how to utilize the
National Association of Agriculture and Food Police Farm Bill Decision Aid Tool.
This is an opportunity for producers to enter their farm information into the
decision aid tool to help with making decisions on the new farm bill.
Clovis
Community College
February 13,
2015 - 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
February 27,
2015 - 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
March 13,
2015 - 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
There are
only 24 computers in the lab. This will
be on a first come first serve bases. So
please RSVP to the Curry County Extension Office at (575)763-6505 to reserve
your seat.
Friday, January 23, 2015
With expansion underway, how big a cowherd does the U.S. need?
Burt Rutherford January 22, 2015
There’s a chance everyone will be surprised, but the sure money among industry analysts and pundits alike is that the forthcoming USDA Jan. 1, 2015 Cattle Inventory report will show that herd rebuilding is well underway.
“What we’re seeing today are market prices that are increasingly a market insistence that we need to be bigger,” Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension livestock marketing economist, told a packed room at the Southwest Beef Symposium recently in Amarillo, Texas. “We are smaller than we need to be.”
And while he’s certain that 2014 data will show herd rebuilding is underway, he says that’s not really the question. “If you can tell me what the weather will be and (what) drought conditions (will be), we’ll know if that’s sustainable going forward. But once we stop liquidating, then the next question is how big do we need to be?”
A look back at recent history might give a clue. “If you go back to 2004, we tried to grow from there. We had minor growth to 2006.” But remember what happened then? “That’s when the feed market shocks, the ethanol juggernaut, fuel prices, fertilizer prices, took us for a ride in 2008 and 2009. Then recession in 2009 and 2010 aggravated it. It was really cost-side impacts that caused this liquidation (since 2007). So all else being equal, the last time we tried to grow as an industry was at 32.5 million (beef) cows,” he says.
Last year’s Cattle Inventory report pegged beef cows at somewhere around 29 million. “When you look at U.S. demand, international potential and other things, I think this industry needs to be somewhere in the 32 to 34 million head (beef) cow range,” he says. “We’re a lot smaller than we need to be and we took a long time to get here for reasons we didn’t plan on. In order to rebuild, it’s going to take some time.”
Just how long is how long? Since cows don’t have litters, Peel says it will be next year or into 2017 before we see any payoff from heifers retained in 2014. Then there’s this: will cattle producers believe it’s going to be good enough long enough to make it worth the extremely high prices we’re seeing for breeding animals?
In addition, Peel says you have to factor in things like the age of the average cattle producer, financial considerations and what the weather might do. “All those are things that could slow down (rebuilding) even slower than the biology lag does,” he says.
Here’s Peel’s bottom line: “When I look at the numbers and look at a relatively aggressive expansion starting from a year ago with some expansion beginning in 2015, I think we’re talking out to 2020 or beyond to get us very far back to that 32 to 34 million head.”
There’s a chance everyone will be surprised, but the sure money among industry analysts and pundits alike is that the forthcoming USDA Jan. 1, 2015 Cattle Inventory report will show that herd rebuilding is well underway.
“What we’re seeing today are market prices that are increasingly a market insistence that we need to be bigger,” Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension livestock marketing economist, told a packed room at the Southwest Beef Symposium recently in Amarillo, Texas. “We are smaller than we need to be.”
And while he’s certain that 2014 data will show herd rebuilding is underway, he says that’s not really the question. “If you can tell me what the weather will be and (what) drought conditions (will be), we’ll know if that’s sustainable going forward. But once we stop liquidating, then the next question is how big do we need to be?”
A look back at recent history might give a clue. “If you go back to 2004, we tried to grow from there. We had minor growth to 2006.” But remember what happened then? “That’s when the feed market shocks, the ethanol juggernaut, fuel prices, fertilizer prices, took us for a ride in 2008 and 2009. Then recession in 2009 and 2010 aggravated it. It was really cost-side impacts that caused this liquidation (since 2007). So all else being equal, the last time we tried to grow as an industry was at 32.5 million (beef) cows,” he says.
Last year’s Cattle Inventory report pegged beef cows at somewhere around 29 million. “When you look at U.S. demand, international potential and other things, I think this industry needs to be somewhere in the 32 to 34 million head (beef) cow range,” he says. “We’re a lot smaller than we need to be and we took a long time to get here for reasons we didn’t plan on. In order to rebuild, it’s going to take some time.”
Just how long is how long? Since cows don’t have litters, Peel says it will be next year or into 2017 before we see any payoff from heifers retained in 2014. Then there’s this: will cattle producers believe it’s going to be good enough long enough to make it worth the extremely high prices we’re seeing for breeding animals?
In addition, Peel says you have to factor in things like the age of the average cattle producer, financial considerations and what the weather might do. “All those are things that could slow down (rebuilding) even slower than the biology lag does,” he says.
Here’s Peel’s bottom line: “When I look at the numbers and look at a relatively aggressive expansion starting from a year ago with some expansion beginning in 2015, I think we’re talking out to 2020 or beyond to get us very far back to that 32 to 34 million head.”
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Ask the Consultant: Does feeding heifers in late gestation increase dystocia?
Written by Bryan Nichols and Deke AlkirePublished on 19 Jan 2015
Progressive Cattleman Online Magazine
Consultants at the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation work with livestock producers on ranch solutions related to their operations.
This column highlights common questions asked by producers of Noble consultants. This month’s question: Does feeding heifers in late gestation increase dystocia?
According to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 28 percent of all calf deaths before weaning are due to birth-related problems. Therefore, managing females to calve with minimal difficulty is extremely important.
A topic that is often discussed in cattle production is whether or not the level of nutrition given to a pregnant female late in gestation affects birthweight and calving difficulty (dystocia). Many producers worry that providing good nutrition to a pregnant female, especially heifers, increases birthweight of the calf and, subsequently, dystocia.
However, providing inadequate nutrition can have long-term effects on pregnancy rates and profitability. This is a topic that has been very well researched over the past several decades.
Ten studies were summarized where differing levels of energy were offered (high energy, more than 100 percent of NRC requirements; moderate energy, approximately 100 percent of NRC requirements; low energy, less than 100 percent of NRC requirements).
In nine of the 10 studies, moderate or high energy increased birthweights; however, only two of those 10 studies reported an increase in dystocia when feeding higher energy levels. One study actually reported an increase in dystocia when feeding lower energy levels.
Five studies were summarized where differing levels of protein were offered (high protein, more than 100 percent of NRC requirements; moderate protein, approximately 100 percent of NRC requirements; low protein, less than 100 percent of NRC requirements).
Two of the five studies showed increased birthweights when feeding high-protein versus low-protein diets.
One of the five studies showed increased dystocia with increased protein, and one study showed decreased dystocia when feeding increased protein. In general, calf vigor was also decreased when feeding lower levels of protein.
Second, dystocia is not decreased in thin females compared to those of adequate body condition; however, calf vigor is decreased.
In addition, most research agrees that body condition score (BCS) at calving is the most important factor affecting subsequent estrus and ovulation, and therefore pregnancy rates. Table 1 shows the relationship of BCS to pregnancy rate and calving interval.
Several studies agree that pregnancy rates increase from about 60 percent at a BCS of 4 to 79 to 86 percent at a BCS of 5 and to 90 to 92 percent at a BCS of 6. However, these differences can be much greater in first-calf heifers and second-calf heifers.
In a Florida study, pregnancy rate was only 50 to 53 percent for first-calf and second-calf heifers with a BCS of 4 compared to 84 to 90 percent of those with a BCS of 5 or greater.
Therefore, it is imperative that heifers are in adequate body condition at calving and provided an adequate plane of nutrition through the breeding season to maintain future production.
While there is an argument that calves whose dams were nutrient-restricted during gestation may be more efficient later in life, one study showed no difference in intake, average daily gain or feed efficiency. This topic is not completely understood and needs more research.
Maternal nutrition may also affect the fertility of the calves born. In a 2007 Nebraska study, researchers showed that heifers born to supplemented cows had a pregnancy rate of 93 percent compared to 80 percent for heifers from unsupplemented cows.
In addition, 77 percent of these heifers calved in the first 21 days, whereas only 49 percent of the heifers from unsupplemented cows calved in the first 21 days. This could have long-term implications because, typically, heifers that calve early tend to calve early the rest of their lives, and calves born early should weigh more at weaning.
Given specific goals, resources and abilities, some producers may be able to capitalize on reduced feed costs and potential increases in efficiency when developing heifers to lighter weights. However, there can be risks to this approach, and due diligence should be given to the risk and reward of such situations, especially in times of record-high prices.
There is a wealth of data on the subject of bred-heifer nutrition. The data supports that for most producers the ideal BCS of a bred heifer at calving is 6. If a producer’s goal is to decrease calving difficulty, selecting bulls for calving ease and providing proper nutrition to heifers will yield much better results.
Deke Alkire and Bryan Nichols are livestock consultants with The Noble Foundation.
References omitted due to space but are available upon request. Click here to email an editor.
Progressive Cattleman Online Magazine
Consultants at the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation work with livestock producers on ranch solutions related to their operations.
This column highlights common questions asked by producers of Noble consultants. This month’s question: Does feeding heifers in late gestation increase dystocia?
According to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 28 percent of all calf deaths before weaning are due to birth-related problems. Therefore, managing females to calve with minimal difficulty is extremely important.
A topic that is often discussed in cattle production is whether or not the level of nutrition given to a pregnant female late in gestation affects birthweight and calving difficulty (dystocia). Many producers worry that providing good nutrition to a pregnant female, especially heifers, increases birthweight of the calf and, subsequently, dystocia.
However, providing inadequate nutrition can have long-term effects on pregnancy rates and profitability. This is a topic that has been very well researched over the past several decades.
Protein and energy supplements
In 1989, researchers assembled an extensive review of studies examining the effect of prepartum energy supplementation, protein supplementation and cow condition at calving on birthweight and dystocia.Ten studies were summarized where differing levels of energy were offered (high energy, more than 100 percent of NRC requirements; moderate energy, approximately 100 percent of NRC requirements; low energy, less than 100 percent of NRC requirements).
In nine of the 10 studies, moderate or high energy increased birthweights; however, only two of those 10 studies reported an increase in dystocia when feeding higher energy levels. One study actually reported an increase in dystocia when feeding lower energy levels.
Five studies were summarized where differing levels of protein were offered (high protein, more than 100 percent of NRC requirements; moderate protein, approximately 100 percent of NRC requirements; low protein, less than 100 percent of NRC requirements).
Two of the five studies showed increased birthweights when feeding high-protein versus low-protein diets.
One of the five studies showed increased dystocia with increased protein, and one study showed decreased dystocia when feeding increased protein. In general, calf vigor was also decreased when feeding lower levels of protein.
BCS and pregnancy rate
Body condition at calving was also examined in five studies. These studies demonstrated two important messages. First, dystocia is increased in obese (BCS greater than 7) compared to moderately conditioned females.Second, dystocia is not decreased in thin females compared to those of adequate body condition; however, calf vigor is decreased.
In addition, most research agrees that body condition score (BCS) at calving is the most important factor affecting subsequent estrus and ovulation, and therefore pregnancy rates. Table 1 shows the relationship of BCS to pregnancy rate and calving interval.
Several studies agree that pregnancy rates increase from about 60 percent at a BCS of 4 to 79 to 86 percent at a BCS of 5 and to 90 to 92 percent at a BCS of 6. However, these differences can be much greater in first-calf heifers and second-calf heifers.
In a Florida study, pregnancy rate was only 50 to 53 percent for first-calf and second-calf heifers with a BCS of 4 compared to 84 to 90 percent of those with a BCS of 5 or greater.
Therefore, it is imperative that heifers are in adequate body condition at calving and provided an adequate plane of nutrition through the breeding season to maintain future production.
Fetal programming
Research has shown that inadequate nutrition in the last two-thirds of gestation can decrease muscling and marbling potential. Other complications reported from inadequate nutrition during gestation include increased abortion, decreased birthweight, reduced ability of the calf to produce body heat after birth, increased sickness and death, poor growth performance and reduced meat quality.While there is an argument that calves whose dams were nutrient-restricted during gestation may be more efficient later in life, one study showed no difference in intake, average daily gain or feed efficiency. This topic is not completely understood and needs more research.
Maternal nutrition may also affect the fertility of the calves born. In a 2007 Nebraska study, researchers showed that heifers born to supplemented cows had a pregnancy rate of 93 percent compared to 80 percent for heifers from unsupplemented cows.
In addition, 77 percent of these heifers calved in the first 21 days, whereas only 49 percent of the heifers from unsupplemented cows calved in the first 21 days. This could have long-term implications because, typically, heifers that calve early tend to calve early the rest of their lives, and calves born early should weigh more at weaning.
Given specific goals, resources and abilities, some producers may be able to capitalize on reduced feed costs and potential increases in efficiency when developing heifers to lighter weights. However, there can be risks to this approach, and due diligence should be given to the risk and reward of such situations, especially in times of record-high prices.
There is a wealth of data on the subject of bred-heifer nutrition. The data supports that for most producers the ideal BCS of a bred heifer at calving is 6. If a producer’s goal is to decrease calving difficulty, selecting bulls for calving ease and providing proper nutrition to heifers will yield much better results.
Deke Alkire and Bryan Nichols are livestock consultants with The Noble Foundation.
References omitted due to space but are available upon request. Click here to email an editor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)