News Update
April 19, 2011

Livestock Indemnity Program Can Help Producers

The federal Livestock Indemnity Program is available to provide payments to livestock producers who lose animals as a result of adverse weather conditions this year.

“With flooding this spring, this program could be very helpful to producers,” says Oliver County (N.D.) Extension agent Rick Schmidt. “But the program is not limited to livestock losses from flooding. It also applies to losses from blizzards, wildfires, and extreme heat or cold.”

Livestock losses from diseases also may be eligible if the disease is caused by weather, according to Jim Jost, Farm Service Agency (FSA) farm program specialist for North Dakota. The FSA administers the Livestock Indemnity Program.

Producers who have losses because of diseases must provide documentation to support how the disease was accelerated or intensified by an eligible adverse weather event. Diseases that can be prevented by implementing a vaccination program are not eligible cases of loss. For example, livestock that perished from pneumonia, scours or Clostridium perfringens are not eligible.

Producers may be eligible for payments if livestock losses exceed normal mortality and are caused by an eligible adverse weather event that occurs before Oct. 1, 2011. The FSA also requires that producers must have legally owned the livestock on the day the animals died.

The program covers livestock such as cattle, sheep, swine, poultry and goats, as well as alpacas, deer, elk, emus and llamas, that were being used for commercial purposes as part of a farming operation. The program excludes wild, free-roaming animals; pets; and animals used for recreation, such as hunting, roping or showing.

“Producers need to document all losses in a timely manner and provide proper documentation on the losses,” Schmidt says.

Producers must file a notice of loss to the FSA within 30 days of the loss being apparent. The notice of loss may be completed by telephone, in person or by email or fax.

“The notice of loss is simply a report to FSA that the livestock producer lost livestock due to an identified adverse weather event that occurred on a specific date,” Jost says. “The number and type of livestock that perished will be provided during the application process.”

Applicants must provide proof of the livestock deaths.

The proof may include verifiable documentation such as veterinary records, bank or other loan documents, or production records. Other reliable records such as photos with imprinted dates and calving books may be accepted.

If these types of records are not available, a certificate from a third party may be accepted if the third party is not affiliated with the producer’s operation and has specific knowledge of the deaths.

A third-party verifier can be a veterinarian, another livestock producer not related to the producer whose livestock died or someone else from the area who has experience with livestock, says Charlie Stoltenow, North Dakota State University (NDSU) Extension Service veterinarian.

The applicant also must provide inventory records if the proof of death is by a third-party certification or reliable records.

Inventory records could include vaccination records, balance sheets, loan records, sales and purchase receipts, or private insurance documents.

“Provide as much information as possible, such as reasons for death: temperatures, wind, snow or other weather conditions,” Schmidt says.

Applications with supporting documentation must be completed by Oct. 31, 2011.

For more information about the program, contact your local FSA office.

— Release by NDSU Extension.

USDA Seeks Public Comment to Improve Access to Critical USDA Programs

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is asking for public comment as it reviews existing program rules to determine whether any should be modified, streamlined, clarified or repealed to improve access to USDA programs. The intent is to minimize burdens on individuals, businesses and communities attempting to access programs that promote economic growth, create jobs, and protect the health and safety of the American people. The review was directed by President Obama in Executive Order 13563, which he signed Jan. 18, 2011.

“The comments will allow us to hear directly from those who use USDA programs as we work to streamline rules in a way that improves access to resources intended to create jobs and grow the economy,” said Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack.

USDA initially intends to focus on Rural Development, the Risk Management Agency, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The Department is particularly interested in hearing from the public concerning areas where USDA can simplify and reduce the reporting burden for entry and access to USDA programs, while reducing its administrative and operating costs by sharing similar data across participating agencies.

USDA is seeking input from the public through May 20, 2011. Those interested in offering comments are asked to provide them at www.regulations.gov. All comments received will be considered as USDA reviews its existing rules.

— Release by USDA.

View The Angus Report

The April 15 edition of The Angus Report, available at http://bit.ly/hfoup8, focuses on cattle market forecasts, the upcoming Sure Champ Angus Hour and an important approaching scholarship deadline. The American Angus Association’s online news covers a variety of topics in a traditional television news format. Watch www.angus.org for reports posted each Friday.

PEAQ Helps Alfalfa Producers Capture Top Dollars

With high-quality alfalfa capturing premiums of nearly $50 a ton, it’s time for producers to start measuring their alfalfa in order to determine the best time to harvest the first cutting, said Mike Hutjens, University of Illinois (U of I) professor of animal sciences emeritus.

“There is a science to harvesting quality alfalfa hay,” Hutjens said. “It starts with a good, old-fashioned yardstick and a trip to the field, and ends with a little work on the Internet.”

Once measurements and evaluations are obtained in the field, Hutjens recommends that producers enter this information into the PEAQ (Predictive Equations for Alfalfa Quality) website. This site calculates the relative forage value (RFV).

RFV is similar to relative forage quality (RFQ) for the first cutting of alfalfa of the season, Hutjens said. First-cutting alfalfa needs to be harvested in the bud stage as soon as the RFV/RFQ in the field reaches 180 to 190. Researchers from Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota recommend this should be done in order to achieve high-quality hay and haylage and to set up the cutting schedule for the rest of the growing season.

With corn grain prices over $7 a bushel, high-quality forage can reduce the amount of corn grain and protein supplement needed as a source of rumen fermentable carbohydrates and protein sources. For each one-point increase in RFV/RFQ, the alfalfa hay equivalent may be worth $1 to $1.10 more per ton. For example, an RFQ of 140 could be valued at $154 per ton compared to alfalfa with an RFQ of 180 valued at $198 a ton on a hay equivalent basis.

PEAQ uses plant height (measured in inches) and maturity (pre-bud, bud or flower stage) to estimate the RFV/RFQ. By determining the RFV of standing alfalfa, producers can more accurately gauge when to begin the first crop harvest, he said.

“You have to be ready to roll to most effectively use this method,” Hutjens said. “Remember, the RFV drops about five points every day with good growing conditions. If it’s 190 today, in 10 days, it could drop 50 points. And once alfalfa is cut, additional loss of points (typically 15 to 20 points) occurs between cutting and storing. Harvesting alfalfa can be an economically more important decision than planting corn when the alfalfa is ready to be harvested.”

For more information, visit the PEAQ website at http://peaq.traill.uiuc.edu/.

— Release by U of I Extension.

You Decide: Can Good Deeds and Economics Coincide?
Commentary by Mike Walden, NCSU Extension

I was in a different state and on an unfamiliar road. Suddenly, and without warning, I heard a loud pop, about like a gunshot. Then I felt the vehicle sag, and I knew exactly what had happened: a flat tire.

A piece of wood had flown out of the pickup truck in front of me, and I couldn’t avoid it. My left front tire went over it and was shredded. I thought there was no way I would make it to my meeting.

I limped off the interstate and into the parking lot of a convenience store. I was driving a rental vehicle with a tire jack I’d never seen before and didn’t know how to use. But before I could call the auto club, the first of four special events occurred.

A young man in, how should I phrase it, full contemporary attire — shaved head, body piercing and tattoos galore — approached me. My reaction was caution. However, he extended his hand, said I looked to be in trouble, and offered to help.

Almost before I could say “yes,” he had the spare tire out (it was under the vehicle), expertly assembled the jack, quickly removed the torn tire and installed the spare, all in the span of 15 minutes. As I watched in amazement, he smiled and assured me the jack of this particular vehicle was different. But he had plenty of experience changing tires.

With the job complete, I offered to pay my new friend. He shook his head no and stated he tried to do five good deeds a day, and this was number three, so he had two to go!

Renewed by this act of kindness, I arrived at my meeting on time. Afterward, and thinking that the rental company would impose a large expense for the tire, I decided to purchase a replacement myself. The decision resulted in three more good deeds.

Using the GPS on my cell phone, I located the closest big box store with a tire department and hurried to its location. It was approaching 6 p.m. Fortunately, the store’s tire department was still open, but the tire I needed wasn’t available.

The workers at the big box store could have shrugged their collective shoulders and said, “too bad.” But they didn’t. Instead, they gave me perfect directions to a tire store a couple of miles away that they were certain would have my tire.

By the time I arrived it was after 6, when the store closed. But the manager was still there, and he waved me inside. Patiently listening to my story, he checked his inventory. Ironically, earlier in the day he had had four of the tires I needed, but sold all four just hours before.

Again, the story could have ended there, but it didn’t. The manager had an idea. He called one of his colleagues who managed the same tire store in another part of the city. Not only did the manager have my tire, but he agreed to stay open until I arrived and would change the tire that night.

Once again I was on the move, and 30 minutes later pulled in to the second tire store. The manager and his crew were waiting and ready, and in another 20 minutes I had the new tire on the vehicle and was headed back to the hotel.

So what does my tale of good deeds have to do with economics?

Isn’t economics just the opposite; about cutthroat competition, profits at all costs and “me, me, me”?

Actually not; or at least, not always. Take the tattooed and pierced young man who put on the spare tire. He liked to do good deeds. In economics, this means good deeds gave him personal satisfaction. Everything we do doesn’t need to result in a monetary reward. Some of the best compensation comes in other ways.

The big box employees who pointed me in the direction of the tire company could also have been motivated by the personal satisfaction of helping a stranger. Yet they also created an image of good will for their company that I will remember.

The managers of the two tire franchises were practicing smart customer relations. They illustrated the principle that most economic transactions are win-win trades. I received the new tire, and they likely received a customer for life!

Economics has often been called the dismal science. I think my story gives solid evidence of a contrary view, but you decide!

— by Mike Walden, NCSU Extension.

— Compiled by Shauna Rose Hermel, editor, Angus Productions Inc.