The Purdue University Farmland Value and Cash Rent Survey showed that Indiana farmland prices once again hit a new record in 2024. The average price of top-quality farmland is $14,392, up 4.8 percent from June 2023. Average and poor-quality farmland also hit new high prices at $11,630 and $9,071 per acre, an annual increase of 3.7 and 4.4 percent, respectively. Survey respondents suggest that the price growth mostly occurred late in 2023 and began to retreat in the first half of this year. 

Respondents generally expect farmland prices to decline modestly through the remainder of this year. At the state level, prices in December 2024 are expected to remain just above those observed in June 2023. The survey finds a number of forces putting downward pressure on farmland prices, including interest rates and crop prices. While there is general pessimism about the rest of 2024, longer-term economic expectations aren’t as gloomy.

The Purdue University Farmland Value and Cash Rent Survey showed that Indiana farmland prices once again hit a new record in 2024. The average price of top-quality farmland is $14,392, up 4.8 percent from June 2023. Average and poor-quality farmland also hit new high prices at $11,630 and $9,071 per acre, an annual increase of 3.7 and 4.4 percent, respectively. Survey respondents suggest that the price growth mostly occurred late in 2023 and began to retreat in the first half of this year. Respondents generally expect farmland prices to decline modestly through the remainder of this year. At the state level, prices in December 2024 are expected to remain just above those observed in June 2023. The survey finds a number of forces putting downward pressure on farmland prices, including interest rates and crop prices. While there is general pessimism about the rest of 2024, longer-term economic expectations aren’t as gloomy.-NAFB

Farmland prices increase despite downward pressure

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a> State's Newsroom

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to embark on a year-long study beginning next month that will test samples for evidence of highly pathogenic avian influenza from former dairy cattle moved into meat production.

Emilio Esteban, the under secretary for food safety at the USDA, told reporters on a call Tuesday the new testing program follows three studies undertaken during the spring and summer that all found beef in the nation’s food supply is safe to eat.

“However, we want to move forward with an additional step,” Esteban said. “And what this means is that when those carcasses are tested, they are held and are not going to go into commerce until we get the results back.”

The virus, also referred to as bird flu or H5N1, has been found in wild bird and domestic poultry flocks within the United States for years. But the ongoing outbreak in dairy cattle has forced animal and human health experts to establish testing for a new community of agriculture workers and livestock.

The news of additional testing for the country’s meat supply came alongside the results of a study from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that reinforced the safety of pasteurized dairy products.

Steve Grube, chief medical officer for the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said that the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/updates-highly-pathogenic-avian-influenza-hpai#secondtesting" target="_blank">most recent round of dairy product testing</a>&nbsp;included 167 foods that were processed in 27 states in June and July.

“None of the product samples contained viable H5N1, reaffirming that pasteurization is effective,” he said. “The second survey was intended to address geographic and product gaps from the initial sampling of the commercial milk and dairy product supply that the FDA conducted during April and May.”

Federal officials have also launched a voluntary program for farmers to test the milk in bulk tanks for H5N1, a step that’s intended to make it easier for them to move their cows between states without having to individually test each one.

Eric Deeble, deputy under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs at USDA, said the department’s Farm Service Agency has approved 23 of the 35 applications it has received so far to help ease the financial burden on dairy farmers who take their herds out of production after testing positive.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/disaster-assistance-program/emergency-assist-for-livestock-honey-bees-fish/index" target="_blank">program</a>&nbsp;— known as Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-raised Fish — has approved more than $1 million in payments.

The price paid to farmers is based on a formula that includes the price of milk from the preceding month as well as the number of dairy cattle that contract H5N1.

Deeble said on the call with reporters that of the approved applications, a dozen are from Colorado, which has seen a sharp increase in the number of positive H5N1 tests within its dairy industry.

Deeble argued the uptick is due to certain factors within the state and cautioned people against assuming that if testing was increased in other areas of the country, the number of positive H5N1 tests for dairy cattle would spike.

“I don’t think that it is accurate necessarily to extrapolate from the situation in Weld County, Colorado,” Deeble said. “Weld County and Colorado dairy in particular is rather unique in the degree to which the dairies are all closely associated with one another; both spatially and the way in which there is a lot of movement between the facilities.”

“It is a tightly integrated dairy community that’s isolated from much of the rest of the state, and there is a lot of connectivity between the premises in the way in which they use vehicles, support services, milk trucks,” Deeble added.

During the last 30 days, five states have had dairy cattle test positive for H5N1, including Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota and Texas.

Colorado holds a disproportionate number of cases with 26 of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/hpai-confirmed-cases-livestock" target="_blank">dairy herds to test positive</a>, while the other four states combined hold a total of six herds.

Other mammals&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/mammals" target="_blank">diagnosed</a>&nbsp;with H5N1 during the last six weeks are overwhelmingly in Colorado, which has found the virus in house mice, deer mice, domestic cats, a desert cottontail and a prairie vole.

Public health officials said during the call Tuesday they are beginning to look more closely at when and why cats are being affected by the spread of H5N1.

Barn cats as well as those that hunt outside, coming into regular contact with wild birds that hold a reservoir of H5N1, have tested positive for the virus before.

But a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.colovma.org/cvma-news/influenza-a-highly-pathogenic-avian-influenza-h5n1-in-domestic-cats/" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association earlier this month noted that two of the six cats diagnosed with H5N1 in that state this year “were indoor only cats with no direct exposures to the virus.”

Public health officials on the call were unable to answer a question about how indoor-only cats would have come into contact with H5N1.

Experts on the call cautioned that as fall approaches, wild birds will begin migrating and dairy farmers will likely ship their cattle at higher rates, both of which could lead to an uptick in the number of positive cases of H5N1 being reported in dairy cattle as well as other animals.

Lia Chien contributed to this report.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1722448527185.png" alt="Photo courtesy of Iowa State Dairy Association)." />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy of Iowa State Dairy Association).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a> State's NewsroomWASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to embark on a year-long study beginning next month that will test samples for evidence of highly pathogenic avian influenza from former dairy cattle moved into meat production.Emilio Esteban, the under secretary for food safety at the USDA, told reporters on a call Tuesday the new testing program follows three studies undertaken during the spring and summer that all found beef in the nation’s food supply is safe to eat.“However, we want to move forward with an additional step,” Esteban said. “And what this means is that when those carcasses are tested, they are held and are not going to go into commerce until we get the results back.”The virus, also referred to as bird flu or H5N1, has been found in wild bird and domestic poultry flocks within the United States for years. But the ongoing outbreak in dairy cattle has forced animal and human health experts to establish testing for a new community of agriculture workers and livestock.The news of additional testing for the country’s meat supply came alongside the results of a study from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that reinforced the safety of pasteurized dairy products.Steve Grube, chief medical officer for the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said that the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/updates-highly-pathogenic-avian-influenza-hpai#secondtesting" target="_blank">most recent round of dairy product testing</a>&nbsp;included 167 foods that were processed in 27 states in June and July.“None of the product samples contained viable H5N1, reaffirming that pasteurization is effective,” he said. “The second survey was intended to address geographic and product gaps from the initial sampling of the commercial milk and dairy product supply that the FDA conducted during April and May.”<h2>Testing milk in bulk tanks</h2>Federal officials have also launched a voluntary program for farmers to test the milk in bulk tanks for H5N1, a step that’s intended to make it easier for them to move their cows between states without having to individually test each one.Eric Deeble, deputy under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs at USDA, said the department’s Farm Service Agency has approved 23 of the 35 applications it has received so far to help ease the financial burden on dairy farmers who take their herds out of production after testing positive.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/disaster-assistance-program/emergency-assist-for-livestock-honey-bees-fish/index" target="_blank">program</a>&nbsp;— known as Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-raised Fish — has approved more than $1 million in payments.The price paid to farmers is based on a formula that includes the price of milk from the preceding month as well as the number of dairy cattle that contract H5N1.Deeble said on the call with reporters that of the approved applications, a dozen are from Colorado, which has seen a sharp increase in the number of positive H5N1 tests within its dairy industry.Deeble argued the uptick is due to certain factors within the state and cautioned people against assuming that if testing was increased in other areas of the country, the number of positive H5N1 tests for dairy cattle would spike.“I don’t think that it is accurate necessarily to extrapolate from the situation in Weld County, Colorado,” Deeble said. “Weld County and Colorado dairy in particular is rather unique in the degree to which the dairies are all closely associated with one another; both spatially and the way in which there is a lot of movement between the facilities.”“It is a tightly integrated dairy community that’s isolated from much of the rest of the state, and there is a lot of connectivity between the premises in the way in which they use vehicles, support services, milk trucks,” Deeble added.During the last 30 days, five states have had dairy cattle test positive for H5N1, including Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota and Texas.Colorado holds a disproportionate number of cases with 26 of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/hpai-confirmed-cases-livestock" target="_blank">dairy herds to test positive</a>, while the other four states combined hold a total of six herds.Other mammals&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/mammals" target="_blank">diagnosed</a>&nbsp;with H5N1 during the last six weeks are overwhelmingly in Colorado, which has found the virus in house mice, deer mice, domestic cats, a desert cottontail and a prairie vole.<h2>Effect on cats</h2>Public health officials said during the call Tuesday they are beginning to look more closely at when and why cats are being affected by the spread of H5N1.Barn cats as well as those that hunt outside, coming into regular contact with wild birds that hold a reservoir of H5N1, have tested positive for the virus before.But a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.colovma.org/cvma-news/influenza-a-highly-pathogenic-avian-influenza-h5n1-in-domestic-cats/" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association earlier this month noted that two of the six cats diagnosed with H5N1 in that state this year “were indoor only cats with no direct exposures to the virus.”Public health officials on the call were unable to answer a question about how indoor-only cats would have come into contact with H5N1.Experts on the call cautioned that as fall approaches, wild birds will begin migrating and dairy farmers will likely ship their cattle at higher rates, both of which could lead to an uptick in the number of positive cases of H5N1 being reported in dairy cattle as well as other animals.Lia Chien contributed to this report.&nbsp;

USDA to take ‘additional step’ in testing beef from former dairy cattle for bird flu 

Beau Ann Graves, daughter of Preston and Samantha Graves, is the exhibitor of the 2024 Grand Champion Market Steer at the Missouri State Fair. Beau Ann is from Chillicothe and is a member of the Chillicothe FFA Chapter. The prize-winning steer weighed 1,370 pounds.

The Reserve Grand Champion Market Steer honor went to Abagayle Britton. She is a member of the Saxony Lutheran FFA Chapter. Abagayle’s steer weighed 1,330 pounds.

On Saturday, August 17th, both FFA members will sell their steers in two of 12 lots offered in the Missouri State Fair Sale of Champions. Proceeds from the annual sale benefit both the winning exhibitors and the Missouri State Fair Youth in Agriculture&nbsp; Scholarship Program, administered by the Missouri State Fair Foundation.

Beau Ann Graves, daughter of Preston and Samantha Graves, is the exhibitor of the 2024 Grand Champion Market Steer at the Missouri State Fair. Beau Ann is from Chillicothe and is a member of the Chillicothe FFA Chapter. The prize-winning steer weighed 1,370 pounds.The Reserve Grand Champion Market Steer honor went to Abagayle Britton. She is a member of the Saxony Lutheran FFA Chapter. Abagayle’s steer weighed 1,330 pounds.On Saturday, August 17th, both FFA members will sell their steers in two of 12 lots offered in the Missouri State Fair Sale of Champions. Proceeds from the annual sale benefit both the winning exhibitors and the Missouri State Fair Youth in Agriculture&nbsp; Scholarship Program, administered by the Missouri State Fair Foundation.

Missouri State Fair Grand and Reserve Grand Champion Steers Announced 

 The 2024-2025 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report is calling for larger corn supplies, lower domestic use, greater exports, and smaller ending stocks. Corn production is forecast at 15.1 billion bushels, 47 million higher than last month. Ending stocks are forecast down 24 million bushels to 2.1 billion. The season-average corn price dropped a dime to $4.20 a bushel. 

The outlook for soybeans includes higher production, exports, and ending stocks. Production is forecast at 4.6 billion bushels, 154 million higher than in July. Ending stocks are forecast at 560 million bushels, 125 million more than last month. The season-average soybean price dropped 30 cents to $10.80 per bushel. 

The wheat outlook is for lower supplies, slightly higher domestic use, unchanged exports, and smaller ending stocks. Projected ending stocks are down 28 million bushels. The season-average farm price is unchanged from last month at $5.70 per bushel.

The 2024-2025 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report is calling for larger corn supplies, lower domestic use, greater exports, and smaller ending stocks. Corn production is forecast at 15.1 billion bushels, 47 million higher than last month. Ending stocks are forecast down 24 million bushels to 2.1 billion. The season-average corn price dropped a dime to $4.20 a bushel. The outlook for soybeans includes higher production, exports, and ending stocks. Production is forecast at 4.6 billion bushels, 154 million higher than in July. Ending stocks are forecast at 560 million bushels, 125 million more than last month. The season-average soybean price dropped 30 cents to $10.80 per bushel. The wheat outlook is for lower supplies, slightly higher domestic use, unchanged exports, and smaller ending stocks. Projected ending stocks are down 28 million bushels. The season-average farm price is unchanged from last month at $5.70 per bushel.-NAFB

August WASDE calls for lower corn, higher soybean ending stocks

Senate Agriculture Committee members Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst and, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, are urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to improve its process for the electronic submission and retention of foreign-owned farmland disclosures. The bi-partisan letter, signed by a bevy of other senators, follows alleged inaccuracies posted online by the Farm Service Agency, pursuant to the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act.  

The senators wrote to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, “The current practice of manual data entry, including the re-typing of paper-filed reports into FSA systems, can lead to the publication of problematic and inaccurate information,” 

Senate Agriculture Committee members Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst and, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, are urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to improve its process for the electronic submission and retention of foreign-owned farmland disclosures. The bi-partisan letter, signed by a bevy of other senators, follows alleged inaccuracies posted online by the Farm Service Agency, pursuant to the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act. The senators wrote to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, “The current practice of manual data entry, including the re-typing of paper-filed reports into FSA systems, can lead to the publication of problematic and inaccurate information,”

FSA under fire for AFIDA mishandling

The Bureau of Land Management announced its intent to develop a Federal Advisory Committee to engage the public and help inform the BLM’s implementation of the Public Lands Rule. The committee will allow the agency to continue working with and hearing from a range of experts and the public to support successful rule implementation.  BLM Director Tracy Manning-Stone says “The Public Lands Rule provides essential tools to help the Bureau improve and conserve the health of the lands we’ve been entrusted with for present and future generations.”  

In the weeks ahead, BLM will publish a call for nominations and a charter for the committee to the Federal Register. The BLM also released a set of initial guidance documents to support clear and consistent implementation of the rule across the Bureau’s 12 state and 175 field offices. The guidance documents will give direction to field personnel on how the rule will work.

The Bureau of Land Management announced its intent to develop a Federal Advisory Committee to engage the public and help inform the BLM’s implementation of the Public Lands Rule. The committee will allow the agency to continue working with and hearing from a range of experts and the public to support successful rule implementation. BLM Director Tracy Manning-Stone says “The Public Lands Rule provides essential tools to help the Bureau improve and conserve the health of the lands we’ve been entrusted with for present and future generations.” In the weeks ahead, BLM will publish a call for nominations and a charter for the committee to the Federal Register. The BLM also released a set of initial guidance documents to support clear and consistent implementation of the rule across the Bureau’s 12 state and 175 field offices. The guidance documents will give direction to field personnel on how the rule will work.-NAFB

Bureau of Land Management lands rule implementation

Leaders of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council were not happy about the indictment of Charles and Heather Maude, family ranchers in western South Dakota. “I’m deeply disgusted by the Forest Service’s persecution of Charles and Heather,” says NCBA President Mark Eisele. On June 20, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Dakota indicted them on charges of theft of government property related to a small piece of Forest Service land surrounded by the Maude’s private land. 

The family has stewarded that government land for generations. “The Forest Service’s deference to the heavy-handed special agent with a long history of abusing permittees is unconscionable,” says NCBA V.P. of Government Affairs Ethan Lane. The groups say the Forest Service has a long and shameful history of confronting ranchers in South Dakota, and their escalation to imprisonment over a century-old fence line has shaken the confidence of every permittee.

Leaders of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council were not happy about the indictment of Charles and Heather Maude, family ranchers in western South Dakota. “I’m deeply disgusted by the Forest Service’s persecution of Charles and Heather,” says NCBA President Mark Eisele. On June 20, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Dakota indicted them on charges of theft of government property related to a small piece of Forest Service land surrounded by the Maude’s private land. The family has stewarded that government land for generations. “The Forest Service’s deference to the heavy-handed special agent with a long history of abusing permittees is unconscionable,” says NCBA V.P. of Government Affairs Ethan Lane. The groups say the Forest Service has a long and shameful history of confronting ranchers in South Dakota, and their escalation to imprisonment over a century-old fence line has shaken the confidence of every permittee.-NAFB

Cattle industry leaders react to rancher persecution

A coalition of attorneys general is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to implement a new rule that would create uniform labeling requirements on pesticide products across the country. By streamlining the process and preempting misbranding in states like California, the rule would lift the burdens currently placed on farmers across the country. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act allows each state to create separate requirements that manufacturers must include when labeling their products. 

A coalition of attorneys general is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to implement a new rule that would create uniform labeling requirements on pesticide products across the country. By streamlining the process and preempting misbranding in states like California, the rule would lift the burdens currently placed on farmers across the country. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act allows each state to create separate requirements that manufacturers must include when labeling their products.

Petition to clarify labels on farm products

The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating the supply chain of at least two renewable fuel producers amid industry concerns that some may be using fraudulent feedstocks for biodiesel to secure government subsidies. Farm Policy News says the EPA declined to elaborate further or identify the companies being targeted because the investigations are ongoing. A flood of used cooking oil from China and elsewhere is causing several senators to question whether some of the shipments meant to supply the biofuel market may be fraudulent. 

Producing biodiesel from sustainable ingredients like cooking oil can earn refiners a number of state, federal, and environmental climate subsidies, including tradable credits under the Renewable Fuel Standard. Investigators are trying to determine whether some supplies labeled as used cooking oil are cheaper and less sustainable virgin palm oil that’s been associated with deforestation and other environmental damage. Cooking oil imports reached three billion pounds in 2023.  

The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating the supply chain of at least two renewable fuel producers amid industry concerns that some may be using fraudulent feedstocks for biodiesel to secure government subsidies. Farm Policy News says the EPA declined to elaborate further or identify the companies being targeted because the investigations are ongoing. A flood of used cooking oil from China and elsewhere is causing several senators to question whether some of the shipments meant to supply the biofuel market may be fraudulent. Producing biodiesel from sustainable ingredients like cooking oil can earn refiners a number of state, federal, and environmental climate subsidies, including tradable credits under the Renewable Fuel Standard. Investigators are trying to determine whether some supplies labeled as used cooking oil are cheaper and less sustainable virgin palm oil that’s been associated with deforestation and other environmental damage. Cooking oil imports reached three billion pounds in 2023.

EPA investigating used cooking oil imports

June exports of U.S. beef reached the highest value in nearly two years. Data compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation shows beef exports totaling more than 110,000 metric tons, down four percent from 2023 but the second-largest total in 2024. Export value reached near $940 million, up three percent year-over-year and the highest level since August 2022. Despite a four percent volume decline through the first half of 2024, the export value climbed five percent to $5.2 billion. 

U.S. Meat Export Federation President and CEO Dan Halstrom says, “June beef exports performed well in Japan despite the headwinds beef faced there.”  June pork exports totaled 224,000 metric tons, down nine percent from 2023 and the lowest level since last September. Pork export value fell five percent to $659 million. However, the January-June volume still reached 1.5 million metric tons, three percent above the first half of 2023, while the export value increased five percent to well over $4.2 billion.

June exports of U.S. beef reached the highest value in nearly two years. Data compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation shows beef exports totaling more than 110,000 metric tons, down four percent from 2023 but the second-largest total in 2024. Export value reached near $940 million, up three percent year-over-year and the highest level since August 2022. Despite a four percent volume decline through the first half of 2024, the export value climbed five percent to $5.2 billion. U.S. Meat Export Federation President and CEO Dan Halstrom says, “June beef exports performed well in Japan despite the headwinds beef faced there.” June pork exports totaled 224,000 metric tons, down nine percent from 2023 and the lowest level since last September. Pork export value fell five percent to $659 million. However, the January-June volume still reached 1.5 million metric tons, three percent above the first half of 2023, while the export value increased five percent to well over $4.2 billion.-NAFB

Beef export value climbs in June

The loss of agricultural land to different types of development is a long-standing topic at the national and state level. The University of Illinois’ Farmdoc Daily says development accounted for 55 percent of the 1.6 million acres lost in eight Midwestern states during the 21st Century. The states include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The National Land Cover Database says agricultural land in the eight Midwest states dropped from 150,312,467 acres in 2001 to 148,716,812 acres in 2021. 

That’s a total drop of almost 1.6 million acres. Of that number, 877,386 acres were converted to developed land, likely due to urbanization, infrastructure expansion, or other development activities. Development accounted for the biggest loss in Iowa, totaling 90 percent of the lost farmland between 2001 and 2021. Illinois lost the largest number of acres at 155,653. Almost 81 percent of lost land occurred because of urban area expansion.

The loss of agricultural land to different types of development is a long-standing topic at the national and state level. The University of Illinois’ Farmdoc Daily says development accounted for 55 percent of the 1.6 million acres lost in eight Midwestern states during the 21st Century. The states include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The National Land Cover Database says agricultural land in the eight Midwest states dropped from 150,312,467 acres in 2001 to 148,716,812 acres in 2021. That’s a total drop of almost 1.6 million acres. Of that number, 877,386 acres were converted to developed land, likely due to urbanization, infrastructure expansion, or other development activities. Development accounted for the biggest loss in Iowa, totaling 90 percent of the lost farmland between 2001 and 2021. Illinois lost the largest number of acres at 155,653. Almost 81 percent of lost land occurred because of urban area expansion.-NAFB

Large loss of midwest farmland

All three broad-based measures of farmer sentiment improved in the July Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer. The index rose eight points from June to 113. The Index of Current Conditions increased 10 points to 100. The Index of Future Expectations rose seven points from June to 119. Farmer sentiment improved in July despite declines in corn and soybean prices from mid-June to mid-July. 

The July survey showed that higher input costs remain the biggest concern to 34 percent of the respondents. Also, 29 percent of the respondents cited lower crop and livestock prices as their number one concern. The Farm Financial Performance Index dropped four points in July to 81, six points lower than July 2023. Despite concerns about farms’ financial performance, the Farm Capital Investment Index rose six points in July to 38. However, at seven points lower than July 2023, it does remain at a weak level.

All three broad-based measures of farmer sentiment improved in the July Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer. The index rose eight points from June to 113. The Index of Current Conditions increased 10 points to 100. The Index of Future Expectations rose seven points from June to 119. Farmer sentiment improved in July despite declines in corn and soybean prices from mid-June to mid-July. The July survey showed that higher input costs remain the biggest concern to 34 percent of the respondents. Also, 29 percent of the respondents cited lower crop and livestock prices as their number one concern. The Farm Financial Performance Index dropped four points in July to 81, six points lower than July 2023. Despite concerns about farms’ financial performance, the Farm Capital Investment Index rose six points in July to 38. However, at seven points lower than July 2023, it does remain at a weak level.-NAFB

Farmer sentiment improves despite financial concerns

Tractors will be cruising around the countryside in Holt County this weekend as part of the 11th annual Keep Missouri Farming Tractor Cruise fundraiser to benefit the Missouri Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture.

Jason Kurtz, with Missouri Farm Bureau, says registration will be held at 7:30 Saturday morning at Squaw Creek Trap Range in Mound City.

All age tractors may participate but it was noted they cannot have duals or implements attached. The registration cost for open-station tractors is $35 and air-conditioned tractors are $50. Lunch is included with that fee.

After traveling a total of forty miles throughout the county, lunch will be served at 11:30 at River of Hope Fellowship. Vernon Hart, with Missouri Farm Bureau, says, "Its a pork lunch with three or four sides. So we have a great meal for the drivers." Hart added that members of the public can attend the lunch and tickets will be available on-site. The cost is $10 for adults and $5 for children.

By RYAN SKAITHSt. Joseph PostTractors will be cruising around the countryside in Holt County this weekend as part of the 11th annual Keep Missouri Farming Tractor Cruise fundraiser to benefit the Missouri Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture.Jason Kurtz, with Missouri Farm Bureau, says registration will be held at 7:30 Saturday morning at Squaw Creek Trap Range in Mound City.All age tractors may participate but it was noted they cannot have duals or implements attached. The registration cost for open-station tractors is $35 and air-conditioned tractors are $50. Lunch is included with that fee.After traveling a total of forty miles throughout the county, lunch will be served at 11:30 at River of Hope Fellowship. Vernon Hart, with Missouri Farm Bureau, says, "Its a pork lunch with three or four sides. So we have a great meal for the drivers." Hart added that members of the public can attend the lunch and tickets will be available on-site. The cost is $10 for adults and $5 for children.The tractor cruise begins at 9:00 a.m.

Keep Missouri Farming Tractor Cruise in Holt County this Weekend

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/marymccuebell/">MARY MCCUE BELL</a>

WASHINGTON — As the number of dairy cows infected with a strain of bird flu virus grows across the country, 17 of Missouri’s roughly 60,000 dairy cows have been tested while agriculture officials and farmers keep watch for signs that the outbreak has entered the state.

So far, Missouri farmers haven’t reported any cows with the virus, called H5N1, state officials said.

However, national biosecurity and public health experts are concerned that a lack of testing in states across the country, and the economic implications of quarantining cattle, may be allowing the virus to spread undetected.

“You want to work on the assumption that it’s there, and you’re trying to find it,” said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, who focuses on pandemic policy and the intersections of infectious disease and national security. Adalja said 17 tests aren’t enough to give him confidence that Missouri’s herds are virus-free.

“Just because you’re not looking, doesn’t mean it’s not there, that you’re going to avoid the consequences,” Adalja said.

Missouri State Veterinarian Steve Strubberg acknowledged that only a small fraction of the state’s dairy cows have been tested for the virus. Strubberg, who leads the Missouri Department of Agriculture Animal Health Division, said he believes Missouri farmers would have reported sick cows to their veterinarians if their herds were becoming infected.

Because H5N1 is a “Reportable Disease,” veterinarians and laboratories are required to disclose detections. However, while farmers are encouraged to report H5N1 symptoms, it’s not a requirement because there is no confirmation they are ill with the H5N1 virus.

“We just feel like most livestock producers, they really do a great job of watching the health of their animals,” Strubberg said. “I mean, it’s their livelihood.”

Health experts investigating the H5N1 outbreaks in Texas and Colorado told&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a>&nbsp;that because labs must report positive results to agriculture departments, many farmers may decide against testing and try to outlast the outbreak to avoid a negative stigma.

In dairy cattle, the virus causes low appetite and reduced milk production, and the milk can have an abnormal appearance. Occasionally, farmers have cows with similar symptoms, which can also be caused by other diseases.

While H5N1 is associated with high mortality rates in poultry, reports indicate infected dairy cattle rarely die. Even when cows in a herd become sick, they seem to recover rather quickly after a few weeks, as long as dairy farmers are using disease management procedures, Strubberg said.

Since&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/mammals.html#:~:text=A" target="_blank">March 25</a>, when the world first learned H5N1 had developed the ability to infect and spread among cows, infections have been reported so far in at least&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/hpai-confirmed-cases-livestock" target="_blank">140 herds in 12 states</a>&nbsp;– including Missouri’s neighboring states of Kansas and Iowa — according to the USDA dashboard updated July 3.

However, experts say the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s numbers&nbsp;<a href="https://www.statnews.com/2024/06/26/bird-flu-outbreak-avian-flu-containment-h5n1-eradication-in-cattle" target="_blank">likely underestimate the size of the outbreak</a>&nbsp;because so few cattle are being tested.

Currently, the USDA requires lactating cattle to be tested before being shipped&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/aphis-requirements-recommendations-hpai-livestock.pdf" target="_blank">across state lines</a>.

Adalja said that because of the lack of proactive testing, he said he doesn’t believe “anybody in the field would think that those 38 states could be declared non-H5N1 cow (infected) states.”

Historically, when the H5N1 virus has infected people on rare occasions,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2024-DON512" target="_blank">the death rate has been over 50%</a>. In the current U.S. dairy cattle outbreak, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/p-0703-4th-human-case-h5.html" target="_blank">four farm workers with documented infections</a>&nbsp;have had mild cases, mostly including symptoms of eye redness, following&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/prevention/farm-workers.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/h5/farm-workers.html" target="_blank">direct contact with sick cows</a>. The most recent human case was announced as of last week.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/spotlights/h5n1-response-06282024.html#:~:text=To" target="_blank">health risk to the general public remains low</a>&nbsp;and has recommended&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/prevention/worker-protection-ppe.html" target="_blank">personal protective equipment</a>&nbsp;for those working with infected cows.

While dairy cows have generally recovered during this current outbreak, the virus has proven to be fatal to cats who drank raw milk from infected cows.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration said its tests indicate that the pasteurization process used in commercial milk processing is effective at inactivating the H5N1 virus. While there is concern that the virus can be transmitted to humans through the consumption of unpasteurized, or raw, milk from infected cows, the FDA continues to emphasize its longstanding recommendations about ingesting raw milk because of its potential to be contaminated.

The fact that no farms are reporting symptoms in cows is the best indication that H5N1 is not in Missouri, state officials said. One of the reasons they believe Missouri has avoided the virus is because the state imports so few cows.

Missouri’s tests on 17 dairy cows, as of Monday, occurred because the animals were being moved across state borders. However, it remains unclear how the virus is circulating, and in some states, herds have become infected despite no movements of cattle.

It appears that farm workers may be involved in the outbreak’s spread, but Missouri has minimal shared labor between farms, state officials said.

Even so, in preparation for the 2024 Missouri State Fair, scheduled to begin Aug. 8 in Sedalia, the Missouri Department of Agriculture and Strubberg announced last week updated biosecurity protocols for exhibiting dairy cattle. All lactating dairy cattle must have a negative H5N1 test within seven days before arrival at the Missouri State Fairgrounds.

The Missouri Department of Agriculture has been doing outreach to dairy producers and veterinarians and providing updated information on the virus.

Scott Poock, a dairy and beef cattle veterinarian with the University of Missouri Extension, said he would be confident that Missouri “probably hasn’t had it.”

“Can I say 100%? Absolutely not. Never,” Poock said.

Missouri, like other states, has been battling H5N1 in poultry for some time. And as it remains unclear how the virus jumped from birds to dairy cows, Strubberg said the lack of many new H5N1 detections in Missouri poultry can provide more confidence, to a degree, that the virus isn’t in Missouri cows.

While some experts are concerned about a lack of proactive testing, there is a risk aversion for farmers who would have to quarantine lactating cattle with a positive test. The USDA has taken some actions to help farmers, including offering loans to farmers and livestock producers to alleviate biosecurity measurement costs, such as veterinary and testing expenses.

Like experts in infectious diseases, farmers are aware of the issue but have differing opinions and levels of concern, Strubberg said.

Chloe Collins, an MU Extension dairy field specialist, said that most farmers she has recently spoken with have been optimistic about the H5N1 risk. She said farmers are practicing good biosecurity and are tapping into expert resources. Collins also described the state’s dairy industry as “prepared and resilient.”

Adalja said he believes that the USDA and state agriculture departments are walking a tightrope trying to balance the economic and public health implications. This includes what stigma might occur if a farm tests positive.

“These (cows) are not pets,” Adalja said. “They are economic vessels, basically, that are important for the economies of those farms, the economies of those counties and the states.”

This story originally appeared in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/few-missouri-dairy-cows-tested-for-bird-flu-virus/article_03ab77de-3df9-11ef-aaa3-134d712ffccc.html#tncms-source=Top%20Story" target="_blank">Columbia Missourian</a>. It can be republished in print or online.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719397041671.png" alt="File photo Holstein milking cows&nbsp; photo by Kirsten Strough/USDA" />
 <figcaption>File photo Holstein milking cows&nbsp; photo by Kirsten Strough/USDA</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/marymccuebell/">MARY MCCUE BELL</a>WASHINGTON — As the number of dairy cows infected with a strain of bird flu virus grows across the country, 17 of Missouri’s roughly 60,000 dairy cows have been tested while agriculture officials and farmers keep watch for signs that the outbreak has entered the state.So far, Missouri farmers haven’t reported any cows with the virus, called H5N1, state officials said.However, national biosecurity and public health experts are concerned that a lack of testing in states across the country, and the economic implications of quarantining cattle, may be allowing the virus to spread undetected.“You want to work on the assumption that it’s there, and you’re trying to find it,” said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, who focuses on pandemic policy and the intersections of infectious disease and national security. Adalja said 17 tests aren’t enough to give him confidence that Missouri’s herds are virus-free.“Just because you’re not looking, doesn’t mean it’s not there, that you’re going to avoid the consequences,” Adalja said.Missouri State Veterinarian Steve Strubberg acknowledged that only a small fraction of the state’s dairy cows have been tested for the virus. Strubberg, who leads the Missouri Department of Agriculture Animal Health Division, said he believes Missouri farmers would have reported sick cows to their veterinarians if their herds were becoming infected.Because H5N1 is a “Reportable Disease,” veterinarians and laboratories are required to disclose detections. However, while farmers are encouraged to report H5N1 symptoms, it’s not a requirement because there is no confirmation they are ill with the H5N1 virus.“We just feel like most livestock producers, they really do a great job of watching the health of their animals,” Strubberg said. “I mean, it’s their livelihood.”Health experts investigating the H5N1 outbreaks in Texas and Colorado told&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a>&nbsp;that because labs must report positive results to agriculture departments, many farmers may decide against testing and try to outlast the outbreak to avoid a negative stigma.In dairy cattle, the virus causes low appetite and reduced milk production, and the milk can have an abnormal appearance. Occasionally, farmers have cows with similar symptoms, which can also be caused by other diseases.While H5N1 is associated with high mortality rates in poultry, reports indicate infected dairy cattle rarely die. Even when cows in a herd become sick, they seem to recover rather quickly after a few weeks, as long as dairy farmers are using disease management procedures, Strubberg said.Since&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/mammals.html#:~:text=A" target="_blank">March 25</a>, when the world first learned H5N1 had developed the ability to infect and spread among cows, infections have been reported so far in at least&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/hpai-confirmed-cases-livestock" target="_blank">140 herds in 12 states</a>&nbsp;– including Missouri’s neighboring states of Kansas and Iowa — according to the USDA dashboard updated July 3.However, experts say the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s numbers&nbsp;<a href="https://www.statnews.com/2024/06/26/bird-flu-outbreak-avian-flu-containment-h5n1-eradication-in-cattle" target="_blank">likely underestimate the size of the outbreak</a>&nbsp;because so few cattle are being tested.Currently, the USDA requires lactating cattle to be tested before being shipped&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/aphis-requirements-recommendations-hpai-livestock.pdf" target="_blank">across state lines</a>.Adalja said that because of the lack of proactive testing, he said he doesn’t believe “anybody in the field would think that those 38 states could be declared non-H5N1 cow (infected) states.”Historically, when the H5N1 virus has infected people on rare occasions,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2024-DON512" target="_blank">the death rate has been over 50%</a>. In the current U.S. dairy cattle outbreak, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/p-0703-4th-human-case-h5.html" target="_blank">four farm workers with documented infections</a>&nbsp;have had mild cases, mostly including symptoms of eye redness, following&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/prevention/farm-workers.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/h5/farm-workers.html" target="_blank">direct contact with sick cows</a>. The most recent human case was announced as of last week.U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/spotlights/h5n1-response-06282024.html#:~:text=To" target="_blank">health risk to the general public remains low</a>&nbsp;and has recommended&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/prevention/worker-protection-ppe.html" target="_blank">personal protective equipment</a>&nbsp;for those working with infected cows.While dairy cows have generally recovered during this current outbreak, the virus has proven to be fatal to cats who drank raw milk from infected cows.U.S. Food and Drug Administration said its tests indicate that the pasteurization process used in commercial milk processing is effective at inactivating the H5N1 virus. While there is concern that the virus can be transmitted to humans through the consumption of unpasteurized, or raw, milk from infected cows, the FDA continues to emphasize its longstanding recommendations about ingesting raw milk because of its potential to be contaminated.The fact that no farms are reporting symptoms in cows is the best indication that H5N1 is not in Missouri, state officials said. One of the reasons they believe Missouri has avoided the virus is because the state imports so few cows.Missouri’s tests on 17 dairy cows, as of Monday, occurred because the animals were being moved across state borders. However, it remains unclear how the virus is circulating, and in some states, herds have become infected despite no movements of cattle.It appears that farm workers may be involved in the outbreak’s spread, but Missouri has minimal shared labor between farms, state officials said.Even so, in preparation for the 2024 Missouri State Fair, scheduled to begin Aug. 8 in Sedalia, the Missouri Department of Agriculture and Strubberg announced last week updated biosecurity protocols for exhibiting dairy cattle. All lactating dairy cattle must have a negative H5N1 test within seven days before arrival at the Missouri State Fairgrounds.The Missouri Department of Agriculture has been doing outreach to dairy producers and veterinarians and providing updated information on the virus.Scott Poock, a dairy and beef cattle veterinarian with the University of Missouri Extension, said he would be confident that Missouri “probably hasn’t had it.”“Can I say 100%? Absolutely not. Never,” Poock said.Missouri, like other states, has been battling H5N1 in poultry for some time. And as it remains unclear how the virus jumped from birds to dairy cows, Strubberg said the lack of many new H5N1 detections in Missouri poultry can provide more confidence, to a degree, that the virus isn’t in Missouri cows.While some experts are concerned about a lack of proactive testing, there is a risk aversion for farmers who would have to quarantine lactating cattle with a positive test. The USDA has taken some actions to help farmers, including offering loans to farmers and livestock producers to alleviate biosecurity measurement costs, such as veterinary and testing expenses.Like experts in infectious diseases, farmers are aware of the issue but have differing opinions and levels of concern, Strubberg said.Chloe Collins, an MU Extension dairy field specialist, said that most farmers she has recently spoken with have been optimistic about the H5N1 risk. She said farmers are practicing good biosecurity and are tapping into expert resources. Collins also described the state’s dairy industry as “prepared and resilient.”Adalja said he believes that the USDA and state agriculture departments are walking a tightrope trying to balance the economic and public health implications. This includes what stigma might occur if a farm tests positive.“These (cows) are not pets,” Adalja said. “They are economic vessels, basically, that are important for the economies of those farms, the economies of those counties and the states.”This story originally appeared in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/few-missouri-dairy-cows-tested-for-bird-flu-virus/article_03ab77de-3df9-11ef-aaa3-134d712ffccc.html#tncms-source=Top%20Story" target="_blank">Columbia Missourian</a>. It can be republished in print or online.&nbsp;

Few Missouri dairy cows have been tested for bird flu virus

U.S. beef export value topped $900 million in May, the highest point since June 2023. 

According to data compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation, U.S. beef exports totaled 110,133 metric tons, down five percent from a year ago but the second largest amount in 2024. 

Beef export value reached $902.4 million in May, three percent higher than last year and the highest in 11 months. Exports trended higher year-over-year to Japan, Mexico, the ASEAN Region, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Central America. January-May beef exports followed a similar trend, increasing five percent in value to $4.29 billion despite a four percent decline in volume. 

May pork exports totaled 251,447 metric tons, down four percent from a year ago, and valued at $715.8 million. That’s two percent below last year. Shipments to leading market Mexico were below last year’s volume but still trended higher in value, topping $200 million.

U.S. beef export value topped $900 million in May, the highest point since June 2023. According to data compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation, U.S. beef exports totaled 110,133 metric tons, down five percent from a year ago but the second largest amount in 2024. Beef export value reached $902.4 million in May, three percent higher than last year and the highest in 11 months. Exports trended higher year-over-year to Japan, Mexico, the ASEAN Region, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Central America. January-May beef exports followed a similar trend, increasing five percent in value to $4.29 billion despite a four percent decline in volume. May pork exports totaled 251,447 metric tons, down four percent from a year ago, and valued at $715.8 million. That’s two percent below last year. Shipments to leading market Mexico were below last year’s volume but still trended higher in value, topping $200 million.-NAFB

May beef exports hit high point

Appropriations leaders in both chambers of Congress will convene this week with the goal of working out key spending plans. 

Farm Policy News says the coming weeks are critical for pushing funding bills ahead of the upcoming August recess. The Senate Appropriations Ag-FDA subcommittee is scheduled to mark up its fiscal year 2025 spending bill on Thursday. 

Senate appropriators will unveil their fiscal 2025 Ag-FDA spending bill in the coming days ahead of what’s expected to be another bruising federal spending clash with House Republicans. Democrats have already expressed staunch opposition to the House GOP’s agriculture spending bill, which includes spending cuts and a controversial pilot program to test restrictions on the types of foods people can buy with SNAP benefits. 

The House Appropriations Committee is set to vote on that bill on July 10. The Agriculture-FDA funding proposal published Monday would allocate $25.9 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2025.

Appropriations leaders in both chambers of Congress will convene this week with the goal of working out key spending plans. Farm Policy News says the coming weeks are critical for pushing funding bills ahead of the upcoming August recess. The Senate Appropriations Ag-FDA subcommittee is scheduled to mark up its fiscal year 2025 spending bill on Thursday. Senate appropriators will unveil their fiscal 2025 Ag-FDA spending bill in the coming days ahead of what’s expected to be another bruising federal spending clash with House Republicans. Democrats have already expressed staunch opposition to the House GOP’s agriculture spending bill, which includes spending cuts and a controversial pilot program to test restrictions on the types of foods people can buy with SNAP benefits. The House Appropriations Committee is set to vote on that bill on July 10. The Agriculture-FDA funding proposal published Monday would allocate $25.9 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2025.-NAFB

Federal Ag spending bills considered this week

Farmers National Company says the agricultural land market has been exceptional over the past five years. Value gains show up in all classes of land in every region of the country. 

“A lot has changed in the last 12 months, and even more has changed in the past five years,” says Paul Shadegg, senior vice president of real estate options. “Moving into the second half of 2023 and the first half of this year, we’ve experienced significant increases in interest rates, declining grain markets, and inflation.” 

Despite the negative pressures, Shadegg says the land market has been relatively resilient. However, it does show signs of settling in general, including single-digit decreases in specific areas. 

As buyers consider land purchases during the second half of 2024, the additional expenses for interest and lower commodity prices will be at the forefront of decision-making.

 “Ag land has never been more valuable,” adds Shadegg.

Farmers National Company says the agricultural land market has been exceptional over the past five years. Value gains show up in all classes of land in every region of the country. “A lot has changed in the last 12 months, and even more has changed in the past five years,” says Paul Shadegg, senior vice president of real estate options. “Moving into the second half of 2023 and the first half of this year, we’ve experienced significant increases in interest rates, declining grain markets, and inflation.” Despite the negative pressures, Shadegg says the land market has been relatively resilient. However, it does show signs of settling in general, including single-digit decreases in specific areas. As buyers consider land purchases during the second half of 2024, the additional expenses for interest and lower commodity prices will be at the forefront of decision-making. “Ag land has never been more valuable,” adds Shadegg.-NAFB

Ag land market shows signs of settling

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>

WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.

Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.

The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.

Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.

The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.

The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.

“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”

A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.

The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”

That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.

“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.

The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.

Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.

The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.

“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”

Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.

“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.

Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”

Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.

“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.

The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.

Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.

“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”

Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.

The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.

But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.

“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”

Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.

The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.

“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”

The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.

The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.

After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.

The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.

Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.

“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.

Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.

“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”

As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.

“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1625596705829.png" alt="Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo" />
 <figcaption>Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”<h2>Spending debate</h2>That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.<h2>‘The most frustrating time’</h2>Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.<h2>‘An uneasy alliance’ from the start</h2>The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.<h2>A trend toward fracture</h2>The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

‘Frustrating’ partisan stalemate: the new normal for farm bills?

HUTCHINSON, Kan. — The Senate Republicans released their&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate%20Republican%20Framework%20Short%20Summary.pdf">Farm Bill framework</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, and Kansas U.S. Senator Dr. Roger Marshall held a press availability on Zoom to talk about it.&nbsp;

"This Farm Bill touches, I would think, every Kansan, in some way, somehow," Marshall said. "What are the next steps? I would explain it like this. A farmer goes in to buy a combine and he agrees with the dealer, all the ins and outs he wants, what type of header he wants on that combine. What we haven't agreed on yet is the price."

It sounds like the difference really isn't that large, all things considered.

"The Democrats and Republicans, we both want strong crop insurance, we both want strong nutrition programs," Marshall said. "We want rural economic development. I think it's just a matter of where we're going to move some dollars from one place to the other and still keep this on budget, because our Farm Bill is completely paid for. We're not asking for any more monies. The Democrats Farm Bill has a request for, I think $20 or $30 billion more each year."

Practically speaking, there's not a lot of legislative time between now and the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30.

"We'll see how far apart we are," Marshall said. "There will be a lot of talks between the two staffs, the two ag committee staffs, as well and see where we can close the gap. There really aren't very many legislative days left up here this summer. We have an election in November. I understand. We'll see if we can mark up something here in the next month or so. It will probably be this summer."

If the deal doesn't get done by the deadline, there is still the idea of a short term continuation of the current bill, which has already been extended for a sixth year, at least to past the election. Ag state legislators really don't want that, as they'd like more certainty, if possible.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1718131641346.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>NICK GOSNELL&nbsp;Hutch PostHUTCHINSON, Kan. — The Senate Republicans released their&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate%20Republican%20Framework%20Short%20Summary.pdf">Farm Bill framework</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, and Kansas U.S. Senator Dr. Roger Marshall held a press availability on Zoom to talk about it.&nbsp;"This Farm Bill touches, I would think, every Kansan, in some way, somehow," Marshall said. "What are the next steps? I would explain it like this. A farmer goes in to buy a combine and he agrees with the dealer, all the ins and outs he wants, what type of header he wants on that combine. What we haven't agreed on yet is the price."It sounds like the difference really isn't that large, all things considered."The Democrats and Republicans, we both want strong crop insurance, we both want strong nutrition programs," Marshall said. "We want rural economic development. I think it's just a matter of where we're going to move some dollars from one place to the other and still keep this on budget, because our Farm Bill is completely paid for. We're not asking for any more monies. The Democrats Farm Bill has a request for, I think $20 or $30 billion more each year."Practically speaking, there's not a lot of legislative time between now and the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30."We'll see how far apart we are," Marshall said. "There will be a lot of talks between the two staffs, the two ag committee staffs, as well and see where we can close the gap. There really aren't very many legislative days left up here this summer. We have an election in November. I understand. We'll see if we can mark up something here in the next month or so. It will probably be this summer."If the deal doesn't get done by the deadline, there is still the idea of a short term continuation of the current bill, which has already been extended for a sixth year, at least to past the election. Ag state legislators really don't want that, as they'd like more certainty, if possible.

Senate Republicans release their Farm Bill framework

<a href="mailto:jbklaudt@ksu.edu">By JACOB KLAUDT</a> K-State Research and Extension news service

Drought plaguing parts of Kansas created shorter wheat plants and thinner crop stands this year. In turn, Kansas State University wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato advises growers to make adjustments at harvest time.

“This year, the biggest cause for short wheat has been drought stress,” he said. “During springtime, the crop starts to go through a phase called stem elongation. That’s when plant height is determined. In certain areas, there was virtually no moisture, which caused the plants to be short.”

Not all areas of Kansas have experienced this level of drought. Lollato said irregular rain patterns gave rise to significant plant height differences across counties and even in the same fields.

“The Kansas crop is not uniformly short. A very sparse and variable rainfall distribution created these ‘waves’ within areas where tall and short plants occur, simultaneously, in those locations,” he said.

According to Lollato, producers can attach stripper headers to the front of their combines to effectively harvest small wheat plants. Stripper headers separate the grain head from the remaining plant. On the other hand, traditional headers detach plants halfway down their stems.

Lollato said, “Essentially, they have fingers on them. Those fingers pluck the heads out from the stem. The stripper headers feed the combine with only the wheat heads, which means having a cleaner product go into the combine, with increased efficiency.”

Harvesting low-standing wheat plants with a stripper header can help improve soil quality in semi-arid areas.

“They leave more crop residue behind. It will act as a barrier against weeds and shade the fields, which cools soil temperatures and delays weed emergence. Moisture retention is another important advantage. Stripper headers reduce water loss through evaporation, runoff and erosion.”

If a producer uses a stripper header this year, future crops have the potential to benefit as well, according to Lollato.

“There is a lot of value in having more residue left in the fields,” he said. “When growers plant wheat directly into that crop residue after this year’s harvest, they get all of those benefits, like added moisture, weed control, and erosion reduction, which can help return a very good dollar amount the following summer.”

Conventional headers remain as another workable solution for operations not able to invest in additional implements.

“A stripper header is a pricey investment,” Lollato said. “However, there might be more challenges operating with a conventional header – especially on ground with a great slope – but they still work in this case.”

Making alterations to a traditional header may yield better results when harvesting stunted wheat fields with them.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1717505835672.jpeg" alt="Dry weather conditions have brought about a poorer wheat crop set to be harvested this summer. K-State wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato suggests specialized equipment to make the most of a tough situation. Image Courtesy KSRE" />
 <figcaption>Dry weather conditions have brought about a poorer wheat crop set to be harvested this summer. K-State wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato suggests specialized equipment to make the most of a tough situation. Image Courtesy KSRE</figcaption>
 </figure><a href="mailto:jbklaudt@ksu.edu">By JACOB KLAUDT</a> K-State Research and Extension news serviceDrought plaguing parts of Kansas created shorter wheat plants and thinner crop stands this year. In turn, Kansas State University wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato advises growers to make adjustments at harvest time.“This year, the biggest cause for short wheat has been drought stress,” he said. “During springtime, the crop starts to go through a phase called stem elongation. That’s when plant height is determined. In certain areas, there was virtually no moisture, which caused the plants to be short.”Not all areas of Kansas have experienced this level of drought. Lollato said irregular rain patterns gave rise to significant plant height differences across counties and even in the same fields.“The Kansas crop is not uniformly short. A very sparse and variable rainfall distribution created these ‘waves’ within areas where tall and short plants occur, simultaneously, in those locations,” he said.According to Lollato, producers can attach stripper headers to the front of their combines to effectively harvest small wheat plants. Stripper headers separate the grain head from the remaining plant. On the other hand, traditional headers detach plants halfway down their stems.Lollato said, “Essentially, they have fingers on them. Those fingers pluck the heads out from the stem. The stripper headers feed the combine with only the wheat heads, which means having a cleaner product go into the combine, with increased efficiency.”Harvesting low-standing wheat plants with a stripper header can help improve soil quality in semi-arid areas.“They leave more crop residue behind. It will act as a barrier against weeds and shade the fields, which cools soil temperatures and delays weed emergence. Moisture retention is another important advantage. Stripper headers reduce water loss through evaporation, runoff and erosion.”If a producer uses a stripper header this year, future crops have the potential to benefit as well, according to Lollato.“There is a lot of value in having more residue left in the fields,” he said. “When growers plant wheat directly into that crop residue after this year’s harvest, they get all of those benefits, like added moisture, weed control, and erosion reduction, which can help return a very good dollar amount the following summer.”Conventional headers remain as another workable solution for operations not able to invest in additional implements.“A stripper header is a pricey investment,” Lollato said. “However, there might be more challenges operating with a conventional header – especially on ground with a great slope – but they still work in this case.”Making alterations to a traditional header may yield better results when harvesting stunted wheat fields with them.“The most important thing to keep in mind is to maintain the cutting height as high as possible. You can also adjust the reel on the header to get more movement of wheat from the cutter bar to the auger,” Lollato said.Other combine headers appropriate for harvesting poorer quality wheat stands include draper and flex heads. More information on considerations for harvesting short wheat is available in the&nbsp;<a href="https://eupdate.agronomy.ksu.edu/article/considerations-when-harvesting-short-wheat-593-1">May 24 issue of the Agronomy eUpdate</a>, published weekly by the K-State Department of Agronomy.