Monday, October 15, 2018

Family Cattle Drive





Blackfoot--The Kelly family out of Moore are rounding up cattle of the summer range. They moved a hundred head from Wolverine Canyon along the Blackfoot River to winter pasture outside of Moore.

Jake Putnam reports:

Livestock groups petition Department of Transportation for hours of service flexibility



Washington--Today organizations representing livestock, bee, and fish haulers across the country submitted a petition to the Department of Transportation (DOT) requesting additional flexibility on Hours of Service (HOS) requirements. The petition asks for a five-year exemption from certain HOS requirements for livestock haulers and encourages DOT to work with the livestock industry to implement additional fatigue-management practices.

“When livestock and other live animals are transported, it’s important to get them to their destination safely and without delay or disruption. Safety for the driver and others on the road is a priority. That is why we are petitioning DOT to adopt modern fatigue-management practices that provide the same or greater level of safety while avoiding unintended and unnecessary stress on the animals entrusted to our care,” said Zippy Duvall, American Farm Bureau Federation President

Current rules limit drive time to 11 hours and limit on-duty hours to 14. Instead, the organizations request that livestock haulers be granted approval to drive up to 15 hours with a 16-hour on-duty period, following a 10-hour consecutive rest period. Any livestock hauler wishing to operate under the extended drive time would be required to complete pre-trip planning and increased fatigue-management training.

“Livestock haulers are highly-trained professionals who take careful steps to ensure the safety of everyone on the road. Through this petition, we hope to work with DOT to build on our industry’s strong safety record and provide haulers with some additional relief from overly-restrictive Hours of Service requirements,” said Kevin Kester, fifth-generation California rancher and president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

“We are concerned that the 11- and 14-hour rules were not drafted with livestock haulers in mind and thus do not accommodate the unique character of their loads and nature of their trips,” the organizations wrote. The current requirements “place the well-being of livestock at risk during transport and impose significant burdens on livestock haulers, particularly in rural communities across the country.”

The strong safety record of livestock haulers demonstrates their ability to ensure the well-being of both live animals and other drivers on the road. A 2014 analysis by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration found that livestock haulers were underrepresented in truck-involved fatal crashes. Data cited in the petition also shows that, between 2013 and 2015, livestock haulers accounted for 6.6 percent of all commercial drivers but less than one percent of crashes involving large trucks.

Australia already implements rules for livestock haulers that focus on safety outcomes, not prescriptive limits. The petition encourages DOT to work with industry to develop and implement similar measures.

“Livestock auction markets are particularly impacted by livestock transportation. Animals are hauled into and out of markets every day. It is one of LMA’s primary goals that such movement be accomplished in a safe manner for livestock and motorists alike. We feel this petition is yet another step toward necessary flexibilities for our haulers while taking proactive measures to preserve safety,” said Tom Frey, Livestock Marketing Association President and owner of the Creston Livestock Auction of Creston, Iowa

The petition was signed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Livestock Marketing Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Beekeeping Federation, American Honey Producers Association, and the National Aquaculture Association.

Friday, October 12, 2018

Farm Bureau Warns Proposed IRS Rule would keep farmers from conserving land



Washington--The American Farm Bureau Federation is recommending the IRS change a proposed amendment to the tax code because it threatens the viability of key programs that work to preserve farmland and open space. The proposed changes, under section 170 of the tax code, would reduce the federal charitable deduction for a donated conservation easement by the amount of a state tax credit.

“Protecting and conserving farmland, pasture, ranchland, and woodlots is a priority for American farmers and ranchers. One way to do so is to permanently separate the right to develop property from the remaining property rights by entering into a conservation easement agreement with a third party such as a conservation organization,” Farm Bureau explained in comments to the agency.

Conservation easements are valued at the difference between the market value of a property before the easement and the market value of the property after the easement. The difference can be significant, and when donated, the conservation easement value may be eligible for state tax credits, in addition to a federal charitable deduction.

Based on Farm Bureau’s belief that there should be a federal tax deduction for the full and fair value of a donated development right, the organization is recommending the IRS change its proposed rule so that a federal charitable deduction is not reduced by the amount of state tax credits for donated conservation easements.

“Absent such a change, the proposed rule will diminish incentives for preserving farmland and make it financially impossible for some landowners to participate in farmland preservation programs that benefit all persons,” Farm Bureau wrote.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Reviewing Trends and Capacity of Cold Storage



Washington--The monthly Cold Storage Report, released by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, shows the end-of-month volume of commodities in freezer storage throughout the U.S. As an important market-moving report, it covers most commodities that require cold transport, ranging from nuts, to fruits and vegetables, to dairy and meat. This report offers insight into how commodity stocks are piling up in storage, and adds another piece of information to help us glean how much of these products are moving through the supply chain versus ending up in freezers.

Frozen vegetables make up the largest share of the most recent cold storage report, followed by dairy (cheese and butter), poultry and fruit. Total commodities kept in cold storage increased 1 percent from a year ago, and 4 percent over last month’s report. 




Since the cold storage report is a monthly report, one can see the change in stocks over time, and compare to previous periods (Figure 2). For instance, turkey supplies tend to exhibit the most seasonality of the meat and poultry products, due in large part to holiday preferences of consumers. Chicken supplies in storage have been trending upwards more than the other meat and poultry products, with the most recent report revealing sharp increases year-over-year for many chicken products kept in storage. One may look at the growing chicken supplies and surmise that demand has been somewhat weak, but one of the stories not quite being captured in this data is growth in both production and consumption of these meat and poultry products. For instance, even with significant growth in beef supplies, the relatively modest growth in beef in cold storage would suggest that beef demand is largely keeping up with large beef supplies. Chicken supplies in storage may be growing, but this country continues to consume massive amounts of chicken.




Of the top 10 products in terms of year-over-year percentage growth, poultry products account for half of them, with chicken making up the bulk of that. It should be noted that export markets can play a critical role in what is reflected in these supplies. Due to consumer preferences, people in the U.S. tend to be selective in which parts of the chicken they consume. Americans love their white meat when it comes to chicken, and so we tend to consume cuts like chicken breast and export larger shares of the remainder of the bird. Our poultry exports tend to be dominated by dark meat cuts, such as drumsticks, thighs and quarters, as well as specialty cuts such as chicken paws and feet. The same goes for other animals, we tend to export cuts such as variety meats and offal as American consumers do not particularly desire these cuts.

The largest year-over-year increase in stocks is in frozen grapes, with over 100 percent growth from 2017. While frozen grapes are not currently part of the tit-for-tat in trade disputes (that distinction goes to fresh grapes which do face import tariffs from China), a decrease in the market for fresh grapes could potentially push more grapes to be frozen and pushed into cold storage and thus may be contributing to the increase.

Cold storage in the U.S. also tends to be regionally focused (Figure 3), with the top 10 states accounting for approximately 65 percent of the nation’s useable cold storage capacity. As one would imagine, the states with the largest shares of cold storage (states with over 150 million cubic feet have labels) tend to be located where the products that are frozen are produced and where they are exported.




Tuesday, October 9, 2018

How much will Dairy Revenue Protection Cost?



Washington--Dairy Revenue Protection is an area-based quarterly revenue insurance product designed to protect against quarterly declines in revenue from milk sales. Recognizing that every farmer in the U.S. is paid a different price for their milk, Dairy-RP is unique in its ability to closely match farm-level milk price risk by providing milk pricing options based on either classified milk prices or the value of the components in the milk, i.e., butterfat and protein.

Several articles have been written reviewing how Dairy-RP was developed and how it is designed to operate: What is Dairy Revenue Protection? and Dairy Revenue Protection is Here. One of the few remaining unanswered questions about the product is how much will Dairy-RP plans cost? Today’s article provides example Dairy-RP premium rates for a variety of coverage options based on CME futures and options as of Oct. 4. Premiums will be slightly different when Dairy-RP launches Oct. 9.
Class Pricing Option

Under the Class Pricing Option, Dairy-RP provides revenue protection based on a combination of Class III and Class IV milk futures prices. The producer can choose the weight on Class III used to establish their price guarantee per hundredweight. The weighting factor ranges from 0 to 100 percent on Class III. This weighting factor allows Dairy-RP to better align with the utilization of milk in a farmer’s marketing area and tailors the risk management coverage to business risk exposure.

For example, assuming Dairy-RP were available for sale as of Oct.5-- based on Oct. 4 futures settlement prices for Class III and Class IV milk, a dairy farmer could choose to protect revenue from $15.19 per hundredweight to $15.80 per hundredweight during the first quarter of 2019. For the fourth quarter of 2019, prices are available from $16.11 to $16.32 per hundredweight. Figure 1 identifies the range of class prices available assuming Dairy-RP were available today.




The cost of Dairy-RP will vary daily based on the state and policy declarations, e.g., coverage level or class price weighting factor, as well as on the futures market prices and option-implied risk, and finally, the expected yield deviation for state-level or pooled production region milk production per cow.

Based on CME futures prices as of Oct. 4, and assuming a 95 percent coverage level and 50 percent class price weighting factor, producer premium rates in Wisconsin range from a low of 11 cents per hundredweight for January to March 2019 to 26 cents per hundredweight for the October to December 2019 insurance period. In California, premiums for a similar policy and coverage periods range from 13 cents per hundredweight to 36 cents per hundredweight.

In general, premiums under Dairy-RP will be more affordable for lower coverage levels and for more nearby quarters. Premiums will get more expensive for deferred insurance policies such as the fourth or fifth nearby quarter because the uncertainty in the market is higher. In each of the examples of Dairy-RP premiums, a 44 percent premium subsidy associated with the 95 percent coverage level is included. Figure 2 highlights Dairy-RP premium rates for several states for the next four nearby quarters.



Why Different Premiums by State?

The regression models used to determine state-level or pooled production region expected milk yields use publicly available information and appropriate statistical methods.

Differences in premiums between states are due to two factors: different yield standard deviations from the regression models; and the different degree to which yield shocks are correlated to shocks in prices.

States with higher yield uncertainty will have higher Dairy-RP premium rates. Additionally, states that have negative yield shocks closely correlated to price declines will see higher premium rates under Dairy-RP as the joint co-movement in prices and yield would result in a higher indemnity.
Component Pricing Option

The Component Pricing Option is revenue protection based on the components in the milk, including butterfat, protein and other solids. The producer can select the desired butterfat percentage and protein percentage. Butterfat options range from 3.5 percent to 5 percent. Protein options range from 3 percent to 4 percent. The other solids percentage is fixed at 5.7 percent. The minimum component levels closely match the Class III milk price that is based on 3.5 percent butterfat, 2.99 percent protein and 5.69 other solids.

By electing the component pricing option, a producer can increase the value of milk insured under the policy to reflect the higher-valued high-component milk. For example, the January to March average Class III milk price was $15.80 per hundredweight (and assumes a minimum 3.5 percent butterfat and 2.99 percent protein). The minimum component value for this same period would be $15.84 per hundredweight – close to the Class III value – but the maximum component value would be $21.53 per hundredweight. This $5.69 per hundredweight difference in milk value reflects the higher butterfat and protein content, and thus a higher value per hundredweight of the milk produced by the farmer.


 


The component option will match the minimum regulated Federal Milk Marketing Order price for dairy farmers pooling in a component pricing order. Dairy farmers pooling in a component and skim-fat order could use a combination of Dairy-RP policies in a month to try to capture their risk exposure.

Since the component pricing option is designed to ensure a higher value of milk, the total policy liability and policy premium will be higher. For a Wisconsin-based policy with a 95 percent coverage level, subsidized Dairy-RP premiums ranged from 16 cents per hundredweight to 39 cents per hundredweight for the maximum component level policy. For a lower component level option of 4 percent butterfat and 3.2 percent protein, premiums ranged from 14 cents per hundredweight to 32 cents per hundredweight.

Figure 4 highlights examples of Dairy-RP premium rates for a component pricing option policy based on current market price and risk expectations.


 

Summary

One of the most frequently asked questions during the development of Dairy-RP has been: How much will it cost? The answer is: It depends. While premiums will change based on the risk environment, the most important aspect of the policy is that both coverage and premiums are actuarially appropriate. Prices will change daily based on the market, and premiums will change daily based on the farmer’s insurance declarations and expected risk around milk and dairy commodity prices. Importantly, all dairy farmers electing similar coverage options will have the same per hundredweight premium rate and there is no limit on how much milk can be insured.

Early indications are that higher levels of Dairy-RP coverage are indeed affordable and could range from 10 cents to 30 cents per hundredweight depending on the quarter insured. More nearby quarters will be more affordable than distant quarters, and policies with higher deductibles or lower values of milk insured will be more affordable – albeit at the expense of less risk management protection. When combined with USDA Farm Service Agency’s improved Margin Protection Program, dairy farmers will have a robust USDA-sponsored safety net.

While the premiums presented here are for demonstration purposes only, getting a real-time quote is easy with American Farm Bureau Insurance Services, Inc. Beginning Oct. 9, farmer-customers with AFBIS-affiliated Farm Bureau insurance companies will have access to a real-time mobile application dedicated to Dairy-RP.

Monday, October 8, 2018

Trade Aid Round Two: A Per Acre Perspective



Washington--In July the administration authorized up to $12 billion to fund several programs designed to assist farmers and ranchers impacted by the retaliatory tariffs imposed by some of our largest agricultural trading partners, like China, Mexico and Canada. These programs include a direct payment market facilitation program, a trade mitigation food purchase and distribution program and a trade promotion program. Recently the administration announced the details, including, most importantly, the initial payment rates for the market facilitation program (Trade Aid Round One: A State Perspective).

For field crops, the market facilitation program payment rates -- paid on 50 percent of 2018 production -- were announced at $1.65 per bushel for soybeans, 6 cents per pound for cotton, 86 cents per bushel for sorghum, 14 cents per bushel of wheat and 1 cent per bushel for corn. Initial market facilitation program payments are expected to be $3.6 billion for soybeans, $277 million for cotton, $157 million for grain sorghum, $119 million for wheat and $96,000 for corn.

Using the initial payment rate on 50 percent of production, along with the 2018/19 marketing year average price from USDA’s September World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, the market facilitation program payments as a percent of the crop price are highest for sorghum, soybeans and cotton, followed by wheat and corn:




Payments Per Acre

To determine the market facilitation program payment rates, USDA estimated the gross trade damages by modeling bilateral trade flows with and without the imposition of retaliatory tariffs. The difference in trade flows was then divided by 2017 crop year production data to determine the payment rate per bushel. The total payment rate to the grower is the product of the payment rate per bushel and 2018 production, subject to a payment limitation of $125,000.

More productive land would be expected to yield a larger crop, making those growers’ profitability more vulnerable to the impact of retaliatory tariffs. It follows then that growers with higher per-acre yields would see larger market facilitation program payments. However, one important factor that determines crop yields but is outside the control of the farmer is Mother Nature. Delivering too little rain in one region or hotter than normal temperatures in another, she can be a temperamental business partner.

Facing some of the poorest growing conditions in decades, winter wheat growers in many states are expected to have below-trend wheat yields in 2018. Similarly, drought conditions in the Southwest resulted in below-trend yields for a majority of sorghum-producing states. Finally, while corn growers in the Midwest, where a majority of the crop is grown, will likely contribute heavily to what is expected to be a record-large crop, corn growers in the South, Southwest and West experienced very poor growing conditions and will have below-trend crop yields in 2018.

Growers in these states will have lower-than-anticipated crop revenues due to smaller yields in combination with trade-related price declines and record harvests elsewhere around the country. For these growers, crop insurance and Title I farm programs may help to offset some of the revenue declines, but their situation also highlights the challenges of equitably administering the market facilitation program.

While some growers will see lower market facilitation program payments due to low crop yields, record or near-record U.S. crop yields are currently projected for corn, soybeans and cotton in 2018. In 13 out of 33 states, and 10 out of 29 states, corn and soybean yields will be record-high, respectively. Additionally, relative to a linear (unconditional) trend yield, 22 corn states, all but one cotton-producing state and all but one soybean-producing state will have 2018 yields above their long-run trend. For these growers, the market facilitation program payments, as well as more favorable crop yields, help to offset the trade-related damage to farm profitability. Lower harvest prices will also increase the probability of crop insurance indemnification – providing another benefit to these growers.

Figures 2 through 6 highlight potential average market facilitation program payments per acre based on 2018/19 crop yields and one-half of the market facilitation program payment rate for soybeans, corn,wheat,sorghum and cotton.







Summary

The administration is prepared to deliver an initial total payment of $4.7 billion to soybean, sorghum, cotton, wheat, corn, hog and dairy farmers. Producers can sign up with their Farm Service Agency office through Jan. 15, 2019 (USDA Launches Trade Mitigation Programs).

While the market facilitation program payments provide much-needed financial relief to some growers, because they are not decoupled from production, farmers with more favorable crop yields will receive higher per-acre program payments and farmers with lower yields will receive less. For growers in both categories, crop insurance and Title I commodity support programs will also work to offset crop losses and harvest-time or marketing year average revenue declines.

Importantly, for all of these producers, final crop returns will be determined not only by the market facilitation program payments, farm bill programs and crop insurance, but also on pre- and post-harvest risk management and marketing strategies.

Friday, October 5, 2018

Corn and soybean Harvest nearly complete



Washington--As reported in USDA’s October 1 Crop Progress report, the U.S. corn harvest pace increased by 10 percentage points from last year and is currently 26 percent complete. The pace of harvest is 9 percentage points higher than the five-year average, Figure 1. So far, U.S. corn producers have harvested 3.9 billion bushels of corn, with Illinois corn producers, who have harvested 1.1 billion of those bushels, leading the way. Kansas and Nebraska producers have harvested 314 million bushels of corn each, representing 47 percent and 17 percent of harvest completion, respectively. Figure 2 shows the percent of U.S. corn acres that have been harvested for the week ending Sept. 30.



U.S. soybean producers have harvested 1.2 billion bushels already, representing 23 percent of the soybean harvest. The current harvest rate for U.S. soybeans is slightly higher than both the five-year average and prior-year levels. Figure 3 shows the percent of U.S. soybean acres that have been harvested for the week ending Sept. 30.

.


For the week ending Sept. 30, U.S. corn crop conditions have remained the same at 69 percent in good-to-excellent condition, according to USDA. Current conditions remain improved over the five-year average of 66 percent good-to-excellent. Corn crops in poor-to-very-poor condition continue their now six-week stretch at 12 percent. USDA’s estimates are slightly improved over analysts’ predictions of no change in corn or soybean crop conditions over the last week.

The U.S. soybean crop is also holding strong at 68 percent of crops in good-to-excellent condition, unchanged from last week. Current conditions remain up 8 percentage points from last year and 4 percentage points from the five-year average of 64 percent in good-to-excellent condition. Soybean crops in poor-to-very-poor condition have also remained steady at 10 percent.

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Sweet Cherry Tariff Profile



Washington--Our Market Intel series on commodity-specific tariff profiles continues with sweet cherries.

The U.S. is the third-largest producer as well as the third-largest exporter of cherries in the world. Exporting 18.2 percent of the world’s cherries, the U.S. sold over $602 million in sweet cherries during 2017. For all free trade agreement partners, like Canada, the U.S. tariff on sweet cherries is 0 percent. For non-FTA partners, such as Chile and Argentina, the U.S. tariff is on sweet cherries is 4.4 cents per kilo.




Canada is the largest customer for U.S. sweet cherries, purchasing $137 million worth in 2017. With the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S. sweet cherry exporters are charged a 0 percent tariff on cherries into Mexico and Canada. Without NAFTA, the U.S. would be subject to a 2 percent tariff on sweet cherries to Canada and a 20 percent tariff on sweet cherries to Mexico.

China imports 40 percent of the world’s cherries and is our third-largest customer for sweet cherries, purchasing $122 million worth of U.S. sweet cherries in 2017. With the largest share of the cherry import market, China charges sweet cherries an average tariff of 10 percent. However, with retaliatory tariffs in place, the current tariff on U.S. cherries is 60 percent, while our competitors are still charged 10 percent.

Our third-largest customer, South Korea, purchased $133 million worth of U.S. sweet cherries in 2017; in total, South Korea currently imports 4 percent of the world's cherries. Due to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, U.S. sweet cherries are charged a 0 percent tariff, as opposed to our competitors, which are charged a 24 percent tariff.

To read more in the series, check out our deep-dive into soybean, wheat, corn, pork, cotton, beef and shelled almond tariffs.

.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Farm Bureau Applauds Trade Progress with Canada



WASHINGTON– The following statement regarding the announcement of trade progress with Canada can be attributed to American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall:

“Today’s announcement regarding the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is welcome news. This was a hard-fought win and we commend the administration for all the efforts to solidify the trading relationships we have with our North American neighbors.

“Farm Bureau will review the details of the new treaty as they become available, but the elimination of Canada’s Class 7 dairy pricing program is a clear victory for our farmers. We also now have access to an additional 3.6 percent of Canada’s dairy market, which is even better than what we would have achieved under TPP.

“Trade is critical to agriculture, especially trade with our two closest neighbors. The USMCA builds on the success our farmers and ranchers have seen from NAFTA.

“Mexico, meanwhile, is still an $18 billion market for U.S. ag products. The USMCA includes new provisions to provide science-based trading standards, timely review of products produced through biotechnology and gene editing and new provisions on geographic indications.

“We are grateful for the progress with Mexico and Canada, and we look forward to working with the Administration to strengthen new and existing opportunities for agricultural trade across the globe.”


Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Dairy Revenue Protection Meetings held across the State


Boise—The American Farm Bureau Federation is teaming up with Farm Bureau Insurance and Dairymen for a new risk-management insurance safety net for dairy farmers.

The Idaho Farm Bureau is holding informational meetings across Idaho this week to unveil the safety net insurance program that's included in the 2018 Farm Bill.

 "These are a usable and realistic solution to the extream volatility of the dairy market, " said Zak Miller of the Idaho Farm Bureau. "Now that the product has been approved by the US Department of Agriculture it is signing-up time and we want to start signing farmers."

Dairy Revenue Protection is an insurance plan allowing farmers to purchase risk management protection against quarterly milk market declines and unexpected declines in milk prices, milk production, or both.

"This is exciting because Farm Bureau has been working on this safety net for quite some time," said  Miller. It is a risk management tool that just about anyone can afford."

Dairy Revenue Protection insurance gives farmers the opportunity to manage risks by focusing on their profits from milk sales. The program has the endorsement of the USDA’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.

"This is customizable, whether you're a high-fluid Holstein producer or high-solid jersey producer you can get insurance protection for your herd, whatever your needs are and prices you can afford. Now is the time to start looking at a policy and you can sign up by the quarter, it's flexible and easy," said Miller.

By design, Dairy Revenue Protection provides different levels of insurance coverage based on the value of the farmer’s milk. One option uses milk futures prices while the other option is based on the value of milk components, things like milkfat, whey protein, and other milk solids. A majority of dairy farmers selling milk in the US today are paid just on the amount of milk fat and protein in their milk.

“I think this a timely and needed product for the dairy industry, we’ve seen volatility in the feed side and market side and the market side of dairy production. It's nice to see a product coming on that finally benefits dairymen,” added Miller.

Dairy-RP coverage works just like the area-based crop revenue-protection insurance policies. Crop coverage offers revenue guarantees based on three things: futures prices expected production and market-implied risk. The program has the full support of the American Farm Bureau.

“Dairy-RP allows farmers to pick a value of milk based on a component value or a mix of class-three or class-four milk. Then the farmer picks how much milk they want to cover, a dairy percentage, and that becomes a revenue guarantee for the farmer on the policy,” said John Newton, American Farm Bureau Economist who attended the informational meetings in Pocatello, Twin Falls, and Boise last summer.

Newton says the Farm Bureau started contacting Dairy farmers two years ago to see what kind of fixes they needed in the farm safety net in the Farm Bill. Newton points to the success of crop programs as an example of why dairymen need the same type of protection.

“In 2016, with declining crop prices, more than $2.2 billion in insurance indemnities were paid to corn, cotton, rice, soybean and wheat farmers. Dairy-RP would have provided similar protection in 2015 and 2016 when those milk prices fell by nearly 50 percent and the total US farm value of milk fell by nearly $15 billion,” said Newton.

Miller says that under the Dairy-RP program a big selling point is that a farmer has only four decisions to make when working on his protection policy which include: the value of milk protected, the amount of milk production to cover; the level of coverage from 70 to 90-percent of the revenue guarantee; and which quarterly contracts a farmer wishes to purchase.

Like other crop insurance policies, USDA would provide a premium discount to purchase Dairy-RP and the discount would increase as the farmer’s elected deductible increased, for instance, 70-percent coverage has a higher premium discount than 90 percent coverage. Preliminary economic studies show that a Dairy-RP policy, covering 90 percent of the milk revenue, could cost 5 to 40 cents per hundredweight, depending on the quarter of the year covered and other policy parameters.

Meetings started today and run throughout the week.

Monday, October 1
10:00 am – Preston
Farm Bureau Insurance 33 South 1st East Preston, ID 83263
Monday, October 1
6:30 pm – Pocatello
Red Lion Hotel
1555 Pocatello Creek Rd. Pocatello, ID 83201
Tuesday, October 2
10:00 am – Twin Falls Red Lion Hotel
1357 Blue Lakes Blvd N Twin Falls, ID 83301
Tuesday, October 2
6:30 pm – Burley
Best Western Convention Center 800 N Overland Ave
Burley, ID 83318

Wednesday, Oct 3
6:30 pm – Jerome Jerome Country Club 649 Golf Course Rd Jerome, ID 83338
Wednesday, Oct 3
10:00 am – Buhl
Clear Lake Country Club 403 Clear Lake Lane Buhl, ID 83316

Thursday, Oct 4
10:00 am – Boise
Oxford Suites
1426 S Entertainment Ave Boise, ID 83709


Family Cattle Drive

Blackfoot--The Kelly family out of Moore are rounding up cattle of the summer range. They moved a hundred head from Wolverine Canyon along...