Hog Prices-Markets

Pseudorabies (PRV) Confirmed in Iowa and Texas Commercial Swine Herds

Fri, 01 May 2026 13:06:43 GMT

For the first time since being eradicated in the U.S. commercial swine herd in 2004, pseudorabies (PRV) has been confirmed in herds in Iowa and Texas.

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) confirmed the detection of PRV antibodies in a small commercial swine facility in Iowa. The discovery was made through routine testing rather than pre-movement surveillance.

Traceback Confirms Texas Connection

Initial traceback efforts reveal that five affected boars in the Iowa facility originated from an outdoor production site in Texas. Subsequent testing of the Texas herd also returned positive results for the virus.

APHIS is currently collaborating with the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) and the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) to expand traceback efforts and identify any further exposures.

The Feral Swine Risk

Although the commercial industry has been free of the disease for more than 20 years, PRV remains prevalent in feral swine populations across the U.S. Officials believe this detection is a result of “spillover” from wild populations.

“Pseudorabies is still found in wild or feral swine populations, which remain a potential threat of exposure for domestic pigs,” an APHIS release stated. The Texas herd involved was housed outdoors, where contact with feral swine is possible.

Impact and Symptoms

PRV is a contagious viral disease that serves as a significant threat to herd productivity:

Adult Pigs: Causes abortions, stillbirths, and respiratory issues.
Newborn Pigs: Attacks the respiratory and central nervous systems, leading to sneezing, incoordination, and high mortality rates.

While pigs are the only natural hosts, PRV can infect most other mammals—though humans, horses, and birds are considered resistant.

Official Response and Market Safety

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig emphasized that the state is moving decisively to eliminate the disease.

“The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship has spent years preparing for these types of animal health events,” Naig said. “It’s important for people to know that pseudorabies is not a food safety concern, and this virus does not pose a risk to consumers. The United States’ pork supply remains safe and secure.”

Export Implications

Despite the lack of risk to food safety, the detection could have economic repercussions. APHIS warns there may be limited, short-term impacts on the exports of U.S. swine and swine genetics as trading partners evaluate the new health status.

“Established protocols were implemented immediately in response to the incident and remain in place to safeguard the commercial swine industry,” the National Pork Producers Council said in a statement. “These steps were successfully deployed through swift action and close coordination with USDA and the IDALS. The National Pork Producers Council and Iowa Pork Producers Association support these efforts and remain committed to a coordinated response to prioritize biosecurity and prevent further occurrences.”

No One is 'Winning' in a Prop 12 World: 6 Witnesses Testify Before House Ag Committee

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:44:46 GMT

U.S. pork producers and American consumers are facing significant cost increases due to Proposition 12. And the data keeps proving it. In a House Committee on Agriculture hearing, “An Examination of the Implications of Proposition 12,” Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) said Congress must provide a fix for Prop12.

“It begs the question – if producers are paying more, and consumers are paying more, who is winning?” Thompson said during the hearing on July 23. “Thankfully, the complexity and unfairness of Prop 12 has been realized by both sides of the aisle.”

Six witnesses testified before the full House Agriculture Committee on the implications of California’s Proposition 12 for farmers and food prices.

Overregulation Hurts Farmers
Pat Hord, an Ohio pork producer and vice president of the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), shared his family farm’s story with the Committee. He said, “Despite producing Prop 12-compliant pork, I am here to say Prop 12, and an unmitigated regulatory patchwork, threatens our farm.”

Prop 12, a California ballot initiative, bans the sale of pork that does not comply with the state’s prescriptive and arbitrary production standards. Though enacted in a single state, Prop 12 has created sweeping consequences nationwide by fueling market volatility, imposing costly new mandates on producers, and paving the way for a patchwork of inconsistent state regulations.

“Spending my entire life raising pigs in a variety of ways, I’m convinced it’s best to allow production methods and consumption demands to take shape in the open market, as opposed to arbitrarily shaping them through poorly worded and short-sighted ballot initiatives,” testified Matt Schuiteman, a farmer and Iowa Farm Bureau board member.

The data shows Prop 12 is creating economic hardship. As of the first quarter of 2025, 12% of small pork operations have exited the market or shifted production away from breeding, citing regulatory uncertainty and high transition costs.

“Prop 12 opens a Pandora’s box of state regulatory overreach that threatens family farms across the country,” NPPC shared in a statement. “This overregulation hurts farmers, increases prices for consumers, and compromises our nation’s food security.”

Unjustified Price Increases
But it wasn’t just pork producers voicing their concern at the hearing over the obstacles caused by Prop 12.

“Harm is what Prop 12 has caused, smashing like a wrecking ball the livelihoods of small restaurants and the communities we serve by disrupting supply chains and dragging up the cost of culturally vital foods like pork,” said Lily Rocha, executive director for the Latino Restaurant Association. “It’s brought economic devastation to families already stretched thin.”

Rocha said Prop 12 is a death sentence for small businesses operating on razor-thin margins.

NPPC economist Holly Cook testified that USDA research and recent scanner data confirm the impact on consumer costs.

“A study released in 2024 by economists at USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist compared retail pork prices and volumes in California and the rest of the U.S. for a period preceding Proposition 12 (October 2019-June 2023) and for 8 months after its partial implementation date (July 2023-February 2024),” Cook said. “After subtracting any price increases that were also observed in the rest of the U.S., the study attributed the following prices increases in California to the impact of Prop 12: 41% increase in pork loin prices, 17% increase in pork rib prices, 17% increase in pork shoulder prices, 16% in bacon prices, and 20% increase in fresh ham prices. Overall, the report suggests a 20% average increase in the sales prices for pork products covered by Proposition 12 and minimal impacts on products not covered by the law, such as sausage.”

Recent retail data also revealed a decline in pork volume sales in California and a 2% to 3% decline in California’s share of national fresh pork sales. Retail scanner data compiled by Circana confirms that these trends have held up over subsequent periods, Cook added.

“From July 2024 to June 2025, the second year of Proposition 12’s partial implementation, prices for popular covered pork products in California were 24% higher on average, with a range of 12% to 33% higher across covered products, than they were in the year leading up to implementation (July 2022 to June 2023),” Cook said. “This compares to an average 3.6% increase for the entire U.S. over the same period.”

In short, Californians are spending more but consuming less pork than they were before Prop 12.

A Contentious Issue
Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, professor and Extension specialist at Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, noted the importance of recognizing that there are agricultural interests on all sides of the Prop 12 debate.

“Certainly, there are agricultural producers, groups and businesses in favor of congressional action to overturn Prop 12,” she said. “Similarly, there are agricultural producers, groups and businesses strongly against Congress taking such action, many of whom have already gone to the expense to comply after Prop 12 was passed and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Ranking Member Angie Craig (MN-02) pointed out during her comments that Prop 12 is clearly a contentious issue, and merits thoughtful, bipartisan discussion.

“We cannot ignore the questions and challenges Prop 12 raises,” Craig said. “Even the Biden administration’s ag secretary said we need to treat this issue seriously to ensure stability in the marketplace. I agree that we cannot have 50 states with 50 different regulatory frameworks because of the significant challenges it would present to producers, but I believe that there are ways to avoid that situation.”

She also shared that many pork producers have made significant financial investments to make their operations Prop 12-compliant and that Congress needs to be mindful of the voters in California who exercised their rights under their state constitution to adopt this policy.

Thompson reminded the room that Justice Gorsuch noted several times in the majority opinion that Congress would be well within its power to act. Although Thompson doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Prop 12, he agrees that Congress can and must act to rectify the burdens Prop 12 has imposed on interstate commerce.

Travis Cushman, deputy general counsel, litigation and public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said in his testimony, “When a single state can condition access to its market on compliance with production mandates that override the judgment of veterinarians, farmers and experts nationwide, Congress must act. This is not a theoretical concern. It is already harming farmers, confusing the courts and threatening the viability of a national food system.”

Cushman believes the language that the Committee passed in the 2024 Farm Bill restores clarity, restores congressional authority and interstate commerce, and protects both producers and consumers from a patchwork of conflicting amenities.

The Patchwork Problem
“When we talk about any premiums that do exist in the market today, the prospect of a patchwork threatens the certainty and the sufficiency of those premiums in the long run,” Cook said following the hearing. “NPPC is seeking to provide certainty to all producers about the environment in which we’re going to be making these decisions and investing in the future of the industry.”

Cook said it was a long day on Capitol Hill, but it was encouraging to hear producers share just how much they care about the animals they raise.

In fact, Hord spoke to misconceptions that Prop 12 enhances animal welfare, citing American Veterinary Medical Association and American Association of Swine Veterinarians opposition to the law and how those pen requirements can “unintentionally cause harm” to animal welfare.

“There were some good discussions around producers caring for their animals and maximizing animal welfare, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because they have every economic incentive to do everything they can to maximize animal welfare,” Cook reflected.

She noted there were productive discussions on the impacts of Prop 12 from the farm level through the supply chain and all the way to the consumer.

“Producer voices are so strong,” Cook said. “Being able to deliver their stories to their representatives and members of Congress on the impact these issues are having on their farms is always the strongest message lawmakers can receive.”

Millennials and Protein Craze Boost Meat Sales to Record High

Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:42:11 GMT

Despite the extreme inflationary pressure on income now, consumers continue to lean into their love for meat in 2024.

“2024 was the strongest year on record for meat, with growth for beef and chicken, pork, lamb had a really good year, bison, veal, you name it,” says Anne-Marie Roerink, owner of 210 Analytics, who conducted the 2024 Power of Meat study . “It was just an all-around fantastic year, and it really underscored that despite consumers having that pressure on income and being in the non-stop balancing act on what to spend their money on, meat won one big.”

How Did Meat Win?
When times are tough, people start to cook at home more often, Roerink says. A part of the dollar that came out of food service restaurants went into the retail grocery store space. She says part of the dollar might end up back at restaurants. But, that’s not a bad thing for the meat industry. The balance between retail and restaurants tends to be a good thing.

“For years, we worried about whether millennials were going to be meat and poultry consumers like the generations before them. The answer is a resounding yes,” Roerink says.

Millennials, especially the older half of this age group, are starting to come into their income potential.

“Many millennials now have children,” she adds. “And those children are starting to be the age where you think you go to the grocery store for the entire week, and about two days later, your pantry, fridge and freezer are empty.”

The retail meat industry sold 500 million more packages in 2024 than they did in 2023. Roerink says 62% of that 500 million-package growth was driven by millennials.

“That’s been a key finding for all of us,” she says. “Millennials do approach meat and poultry a little bit differently, so that’s going to mean more change in years to come.”

Another reason why the meat industry is doing so well is Americans’ massive focus on protein.

“If you walk around the store, from your mac and cheese to your Skippy peanut butter, protein call-outs are everywhere,” Roerink explains. “But at the same time, this is going hand in hand with some people saying, ‘I want fewer ingredients in the things that I buy. I want a more natural form of food.’ That combined focus on protein with more wholesome foods has really put meat and poultry back into driver’s seats as well.”

What Do Millennials Really Want?
Roerink says millennials are focused on convenience more than ever. This is largely attributed to their life stage – running around and balancing time between family and work like generations before them.

“They have more focus on sustainability and animal welfare,” she adds. “With their approach and values relative to meat and poultry, I think we’re going to see some different needs in terms of transparency. They truly do want to hear from the producers. They want to understand what kind of life the animal had, how you approach water management and everything else.”

She says it may sound crazy, but consumers do want to know how their food is produced. And if they don’t hear it from the producer, they may dream up their own descriptions, she points out.

“Often times when we think about our meat category, we use industry terms. We approach it from a scientific angle,” Roerink says. “This means nothing to consumers. They want to know more, but we need to speak in a language that makes sense to those consumers.”

Your Next Read: Consumer Meat Sales Are Higher Than Ever

10 Understated Things Economists Say Could Impact Agriculture in the New Year

Tue, 31 Dec 2024 12:47:56 GMT

This past year was definitely full of surprises, but there were also happenings in agriculture that economists warned about at the end of 2023.

The bleak outlook for commodity prices, along with elevated interest rates, created a downturn in the ag economy, which is something many economists warned would happen. It’s the speed of which margins crumbled that might have been the bigger surprise.

The latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists if the U.S. was either in a recession or on the brink of one. The majority of ag economists say U.S. agriculture is ending the year in a recession.

56% of ag economists responded by saying agriculture is currently in a recession, which is up from the 53% who responded that way in October.
81% of economists surveyed said the U.S ag economy is on the brink of a recession, which is a significant jump from the 56% of economists who responded that way in the October survey.

One occurrence that wasn’t on anyone’s radar in 2023: H5N1. What was first thought to be a mystery illness impacting dairy herds in Texas was later confirmed as Highly Pathogenic Avian Flu, the first time the disease was detected in mammals.

At the end of 2024, what are economists watching in 2025? In Farm Journal’s latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, we asked economists: “What’s the one factor impacting the ag economy that’s not being talked about or covered by the media enough right now?”

From trade to deregulation plus numerous unknowns in a new administration, economists have no shortage of issues they’re watching in the new year.

Here’s What Economists Are Saying:

“The media seems consumed with the negatives of a Trump administration/Republican trifecta. It’s certainly good to be aware of the challenges with any political transition, but more forward thinking on what is positive, would be helpful: the outlook for taxes, biofuels policy, trade deals with agriculture included, deregulation all seem to be potential positives we could be talking about more.”
“Prospective tariff war is being downplayed, despite published research measuring expected range of damage.”
“Farmer attitudes toward alternative land use: CRP, solar and other forms to help diversify incomes.”
“Policy uncertainty is high right now. Will tariffs be imposed and if so, what will be the reaction of other countries? Will the new Administration take regulatory actions that favor or hurt the biofuel industry? What will be the outcome of debates over tax and budgetary policy? Will economic assistance to the farm sector be approved during the lame duck session or in early 2025? What about a new farm bill? Many people are making assumptions about how these questions will be answered, but we don’t know.”
“Farm income varies greatly by region. While we often focus on the Midwest and the financial health of that region, it is also important to notice that regions in the southern U.S. are really struggling.” It is also important to watch what production adjustments producers make to cope with today’s tighter operating margins?
“Could federal budget cuts/austerity dramatically change/reduce the federal farm income safety net?”
“Cash rent prices staying constant during a downturn in crop prices.”
“Let’s be clear — the clean fuels tax credit goes to the fuel producer, not the farmer. It enables market access into the biofuels market for the farm economy, but the ability for the farm economy to capitalize upon it is hamstrung by credit levels that have incentivized large inflows of foreign feedstocks at the expense of literally homegrown feedstocks like SBO.”
“The Brazil real is depreciating, which eventually leads to more U.S. competition.”
“China, Europe, Mexico and others know what to expect out of Trump. They’ve seen it before. Everyone is discounting the possibility that Trump’s tariff threat could result in some pre-emptive trade agreements that benefit us here in the states. The U.S. is the biggest buyer of consumer goods in the world. They can’t afford to cut us off. Note that I said consumer goods, not commodities.”

Your Next Read — Economic Loss Assistance Program Payments Passed by Congress: Here’s What Farmers Need to Know

Ag Economists Turn More Positive Longer-Term On the Farm Economy

Thu, 20 Jul 2023 20:01:20 GMT

The July Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows weather extremes and wild swings in the commodity markets are the two biggest factors impacting short-term outlooks, but the economists surveyed expressed a more favorable view longer-term. The latest survey also shows the biggest wildcard for agriculture over the next year could be geopolitical risks tied to China and the war in Ukraine.

This is the second survey of the Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , a joint effort between the University of Missouri and Farm Journal. The first-of-its-kind survey collects insights from ag economists across the U.S. Nearly 60 economists are asked each month to provide their forecasts and views. They represent a wide geography with expertise in grains, livestock and policy.

This month’s survey showed several key changes from June. Economists say they believe USDA’s current corn and soybean yield projections are still too high, and they anticipate a drop in forecasted corn and soybean prices. The economists in the July survey also predict cattle and hog prices could continue to climb higher this year.

“To me, the biggest thing that sticks out in the July survey is the more positive view 12 months into the future relative to where we were in June,” says Scott Brown, University of Missouri agricultural economist who helps author the survey each month. “In the very short run, the economists are a little less positive than where they were in June. I think that has a lot to do with the weather and general market moves we’ve seen over the last few weeks.”

(Farm Journal)

The longer-term optimism revealed in the survey is despite economists’ expectations for two consecutive years of declining net farm income, falling short of the record set in 2022. The July Monthly Monitor forecasts net farm income to fall to $132.8 billion in 2023, which is below the $134.7 billion in the June survey and USDA’s current net farm income estimate of $136.9 billion. That’s still a big drop from 2022, when USDA says net farm income reached $162.7 billion.

This month’s survey also tried to peel back the layers of what commodities might be aiding the more positive long-term outlook versus weighing on the overall health of the ag economy in the short-term.

“On the crop side, it’s positive to very positive,” Brown says. “There are a few in the negative category, but a majority of economists responded the crops side of the equation looks positive. Whereas, on the livestock side, we have more negatives than we have positives.”

Economists say there are several positive developments that could shape U.S. agriculture, such as continued productivity and efficiency gains; a healthy farm economy and balance sheets; projected shifts in interest rates; new and expanded opportunities for renewable fuels; and the strength of the U.S. cattle market and meat exports as a whole. Geopolitical issues could also impact global crop production and, in turn, bring some demand back to the U.S.

Cuts to Projected U.S. Crop Yields

The survey was sent to ag economists the day after USDA released its most recent yield forecast in the July WASDE report. In what was called a rare move early in the growing season, USDA cut its corn yield forecast by 2.2% to 177.5 bu. per acre, down from 181.5 bu. per acre in the June report. The July Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor is nearly 3 bu. per acre lower than USDA, with the group of ag economists projecting a yield of 174.9 bu. per acre.

“For me, the interesting piece of this story is there’s a lot of variability in the responses from those being surveyed, which highlights how varied the weather has been as you move around the country,” Brown says. “We had yield estimates slightly below 170 bu. per acre on the low end and some above 180 bu. per acre on the high end.”

(Farm Journal)

Brown says the soybean estimate also came in lower than both USDA’s July WASDE report and the June Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor survey. USDA estimates soybean yield at 52 bu. per acre, and the average ag economists’ estimate is 50.6 bu. per acre, a 0.5 bu. cut from the June survey.

“There was a little less variability from top to bottom on those yields, but when you look at prices, even with what was a lower corn yield, their estimate of 2023/2024 corn prices went from $4.99 in June to $4.80 in the July survey,” Brown says.

(Farm Journal)

What Economists are Watching the Next Six Months for Crop Prices

When asked what factors will impact crop prices in the next six months, economists said:

Final yields
Export demand and competition
Weather domestically and abroad
Geopolitical risk in the Black Sea and China, including developments that impact ag exports in Ukraine/Russia

“I think a couple of things stick out beyond the weather discussion, and one is export demand as well as global competition, such as what’s going to happen with South America in terms of competing with U.S. corn and soybean markets.

“The economists certainly continue to talk about the geopolitical risk in the Black Sea and China, in particular, and what that means for our ability to export corn and soybeans as we look ahead,” Brown says. “Those are really the two big ones that came out of this survey.”

What Livestock Economists Are Watching the Next 6 Months for Livestock

Ag economists think the following factors will impact prices the next six months:

Changes in feed costs and impact of corn prices
Rising milk prices
Consumer meat demand and influences from macroeconomic factors, both domestically and abroad
Placements of cattle on feed

Brown says while the majority of economists are concerned about feed costs and the impact on livestock producers, the second-biggest concern revealed in the survey is demand. Economists pointed to both domestic and international demand as possible problem areas.

“2021 and 2022 were extremely positive from a demand standpoint, and we seem to be backing up a little bit in 2023,” Brown says.

Economists More Bullish on Cattle and Hogs

The July Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows economists are more positive when asked about cattle and hog prices, but they have a more negative view on dairy, which they consider the biggest weight in the livestock sector.

“When you look at where pork prices have gone over the last month, it’s gotten more positive. Now, I don’t want to suggest we’re back in black ink, but we have seen recovery in things like the pork cutout value,” Brown says. “The economists continue to worry about how the general economy will affect livestock going forward, but overall, it seems we’re seeing a more positive view from the livestock perspective in this month’s survey.”

(Farm Journal)

Based on the July monitor, economists expect average milk prices to fall back to 2021 levels, but production costs will continue to be higher in 2023 versus 2021.

“No. 1, the economists continue to worry about feed costs,” Brown says. “We continue to see fairly high feed costs affecting profitability. So even in the case of beef cattle, where we’re talking record cattle prices, we’re not talking record profitability because of the feed cost side.”

(Farm Journal)

Longer-Term Look at the Health of Agriculture

Over the next 12 months, there are several things that could shape the health of the ag economy, according to the July survey:

Crop prices and production costs, including inputs, rental rates, land values and supply chain disruptions
Subsequent impact on producer margins and the protein sector from rising interest rates and inflationary pressure
Weather considerations, including drought conditions in the short run and yield impacts in longer run
Geopolitical tensions and competitiveness of U.S. ag exports
Changes in consumer demand domestically and abroad, new markets for agricultural products, including biofuels

“One thing that came pretty strongly out of the survey is the continued increases in productivity in agriculture, which makes us more efficient,” Brown says. “The farm economy is generally healthy, and when you look at balance sheets, they are still really, really strong in many cases. That’s despite a lot of the issues we’ve talked about.”

In the July survey, economists voiced more concerns about interest rates and the impact on operating loans. One economist also mentioned the industry might be underestimating the negative impact Proposition 12 could have on the entire livestock industry.

The Turbulent Relationship Between the U.S. and China

While none of the ag economists surveyed think the U.S. will enter into a trade war with China in 2023, economists continue to remain cautious about China, which could have a direct impact on U.S. agriculture.

When asked to list the top factors shaping trade relations between the U.S. and China, economists said:

POTUS and political polarization in the U.S.
Non‐agricultural geopolitical tensions, including national security concerns, support of Taiwan and limits on technological production
Changes in China’s economic growth, including population and demographics
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s relationship with China
Quality, price and availability of U.S. products compared with global competitors

Potential Events/Factors Not Getting Enough Attention Today

The July survey also asked economists to outline any factors or events that currently aren’t receiving enough attention but could shape agriculture over the next 12 months. One economist brought up impacts of geopolitical risks and fallout from the war in Ukraine, but also a potential war between the U.S. and China.

Other potential events that could cause a major shakeup in agriculture include:

Weather events, domestically and abroad, warranting a broader conversation on climate
Potential for a significant recession in China
Focus on renewable diesel obscuring importance of RFS in overall biofuel use
Workforce concerns for producing, processing and transporting agricultural products domestically and abroad
Declining EU pork production and commerce implications of Proposition 12
Strikes at shipping ports in Vancouver and potential for upward pressure on potash prices with reduced production capacity at Nutrien mines in Saskatchewan

Previous Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor Coverage

Most Ag Economists Think It’s Unlikely the 2023 Farm Bill Will Be Written in 2023

High Production Costs Could Weigh on the Ag Economy Through 2024, New Survey of Economists Finds

USDA Launches Effort to Strengthen Validity of Animal-Raising Claims

Wed, 14 Jun 2023 19:50:02 GMT

USDA announced on June 14 that it is implementing a multi-step effort aimed at strengthening the substantiation of animal-raising claims.

This action builds on the work USDA has already done to protect consumers from false and misleading labels and to implement President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American economy, USDA said in a release.

Animal-raising claims, such as “grass-fed” and “free-range,” are voluntary marketing claims that highlight certain aspects of how the source animals for meat and poultry products are raised, USDA explains. These claims must be approved by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) before they can be included on the labels of meat and poultry products sold to consumers. FSIS updated its guideline on these claims in 2019.

“Consumers should be able to trust that the label claims they see on products bearing the USDA mark of inspection are truthful and accurate,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a release. “USDA is taking action today to ensure the integrity of animal-raising claims and level the playing field for producers who are truthfully using these claims, which we know consumers value and rely on to guide their meat and poultry purchasing decisions.”

FSIS has received several petitions, comments, and letters from a wide range of stakeholders asking the agency to reevaluate its oversight of animal-raising claims, specifically, how they are substantiated. In addition, the veracity of “negative” antibiotics claims (e.g., “raised without antibiotics” or “no antibiotics ever”) has come into question, the release said.

Responding to a request for a statement, NCBA Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane said, “Labeling claims provide value back to cattle producers across the country who go the extra mile to distinguish their product for consumers. NCBA supports efforts by the Agricultural Marketing Service to continue creating producer opportunities to add value and distinguish their products in a way that consumers can trust. We will also work with FSIS to ensure the agency is meeting its separate and distinct food safety mandate.”

In partnership with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), FSIS will conduct a sampling project to assess antibiotic residues in cattle destined for the “raised without antibiotics” market. The results will help inform whether FSIS should require laboratory testing results be submitted for the “raised without antibiotics” claim or start a new verification sampling program.

FSIS will also issue a revised industry guideline to recommend that companies strengthen the documentation they submit to the agency to substantiate animal-raising claims. The agency plans to strongly encourage use of third-party certification to verify these claims, USDA said. These actions will be used to guide potential rulemaking on animal-raising claims.

Read More:

Meat Processing Plants: What Factors are Critical for Survival?

Missouri Legislators Push for Stricter Penalties to Protect Livestock Transportation

Rural Revival: Why 3 Pig Farmers’ Wives Quit Teaching and Bought a Coffee Truck

‘Girl on Fire’ Sells Pig for $111,000 in Parker County Livestock Auction

2021 Livestock Market Outlook Roundup

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

The editors at AgWeb.com are looking at experts’ projections for a variety of commodities in 2021 to help you succeed and be profitable in the coming year. Here’s a look at what analysts are expecting for the upcoming year in the protein segments.

2021 Beef Outlook: New Challenges, New Opportunities

(Farm Journal)

Disruptions to the beef industry from the COVID-19 pandemic will likely linger into 2021, but the result may not be all bad for producers, Don Close, animal protein analyst at Rabo AgriFinance told AgriTalk.

Read more.

U.S. Pork Outlook: Will 2021 Be Different?

(Farm Journal)

Five respected economists in the pork industry share their insight on what’s ahead in 2021 and ways producers can make the most of new opportunities ahead.

Read more.

2021 Milk Price Outlook: Throw the Crystal Ball Out the Window

(Farm Journal)

Government intervention creates a level of uncertainty that makes a 2021 milk price forecast nearly impossible.

Read more.

Smithfield Agrees to Implement Infectious Disease Preparedness Plan

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:54:51 GMT

Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. – the country’s largest pork processor – will assemble a team of company and third-party experts to develop an infectious disease preparedness plan that the company will implement at all of its processing facilities nationwide, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reported on Monday.

In a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor, Smithfield is committed to changing its health procedures and training relating to infectious diseases. The action follows a March 2020 Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection that led OSHA to cite the company under the general duty clause for failing to protect workers from coronavirus hazards at its Sioux Falls facility. As part of the agreement, Smithfield will pay the assessed penalty of $13,494, the release said.

In addition, Smithfield will continue to use its current COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan to reduce employees’ exposure to the virus while working with third-party experts to assess plants’ operating procedures and develop the infectious disease preparedness plan, the release said. The company will consider locations in the facility where employees congregate and look for ways to minimize employees’ potential exposure to infectious diseases.

The team of third-party experts and company representatives will also:
-Review Smithfield’s existing programs and procedures.
-Evaluate plant administrative and engineering controls.
-Identify personal protective equipment and respiratory protection needs.
-Address medical management functions through the facility’s onsite clinic, and identify issues associated with continuity of operations.
-Train and implement program requirements in languages and at literacy levels that the workforce understands. Any written materials provided must also be in languages employees understand.

As well, Smithfield agreed to review the plan and revise it when needed to address potential new infectious diseases and guidance from federal, state and local public health authorities, as well as review annual union feedback on the plan and its procedures.

Smithfield’s Vice President of Corporate Affairs Jim Monroe said that the company chose to settle outside of court in order to “continue the good relations it has with the agency, as we have the shared goal of workplace safety.”

“Settling with OSHA and avoiding litigation allows Smithfield to continue the good relations it has with the agency, as we have the shared goal of workplace safety,” Monroe said. “We are happy to put this behind us and have focused our resources on efforts to vaccinate our entire workforce.”

Monroe also points out that Smithfield continues to maintain their belief that OSHA’s allegations of non-compliance were baseless. The company admits no wrongdoing.

“It is undisputed that in March 2020 the federal government was discouraging the use of face masks outside of healthcare. Regardless, at our Sioux Falls and other facilities, Smithfield moved swiftly in the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic – even before receiving direction from health officials – to implement worker safety measures,” Monroe added.

Smithfield collaborated with the CDC and OSHA to identify what the industry could do to mitigate the spread of the virus in its facilities, Monroe explained. When public health officials finally released guidance, he said the company had already implemented almost all of the recommendations.

“Based on our response and the experience we gained from the early days of the pandemic, Smithfield is well positioned to develop a comprehensive plan,” Monroe said. “We had planned to do so without prompting from OSHA.”

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

Smithfield Foods To Close Sioux Falls Plant Indefinitely Amid COVID-19

Smithfield Shutters Two Additional Meat Processing Facilities

Smithfield CEO: Processing Plants Must Keep Running

Pig Farmers: Are We Going to Produce Food in the U.S. or Not?

Pork Industry Prepares for Ripple Effects of Smithfield Plant Closing

BREAKING: U.S. To Ban Russian Oil Imports

Tue, 08 Mar 2022 21:47:15 GMT

UPDATE: WASHINGTON (AP) - Biden: US ban on Russian oil a ‘powerful blow’ to ‘Putin’s war,’ warns Americans ‘defending freedom is going to cost.’

UPDATE: NEW YORK (AP) - Average price for a gallon of gasoline in the US hits a record $4.17 as the country prepares to ban Russian oil imports.

UPDATE: President Bident to speak at 10:30am EST approx. The White House says he will “announce actions to continue to hold Russia accountable”. You can watch it here .

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Joe Biden has decided to ban Russian oil imports, toughening the toll on Russia’s economy in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine, according to a person familiar with the matter. The move follows pleas by Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelenskyy to U.S. and Western officials to cut off the imports. Energy exports have kept a steady influx of cash flowing to Russia despite otherwise severe restrictions on its financial sector. Biden was set to announce the move as soon as Tuesday, the person said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter before an announcement.

NBC News reports the ban could happen as soon as Tuesday. It’s believed the move will push energy prices even higher. The President is scheduled to deliver remarks this morning from the White House about the situation involving Russia. Oil was already starting the day up over $125 a barrel on Tuesday. Follow the markets here .

(Farm Journal)

This is a developing story. Stay with us for updates.

Russian Invasion is Bad News for U.S. Meat Consumers, Steiner Says

Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:53:42 GMT

Will the expected sanctions on Russia impact global meat trade and demand? Steiner Consulting Group posed this question in the Feb. 24 Daily Livestock Report .

“A while back, Russia was a major buyer of proteins in the world market. We still remember when prices for chicken leg quarters in the U.S., or the price of beef in Brazil, would be greatly affected by events in Russia. That is no longer the case,” Steiner Consulting Group wrote.

In the last decade, Russia has become self-sufficient in providing its own meat protein. According to USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service data, as recently as 2010, Russia relied on pork imports for about a third of its pork consumption. However, in 2021, USDA points out that Russian domestic pork consumption was 26% higher than in 2010 and the country is now a net exporter of pork.

Despite African swine fever (ASF) outbreaks during this time period, Russia increased its domestic pork output by 86% and completely eliminated its dependence on imports, Steiner Consulting Group said.

In the early 2000s, more than half of the chicken that Russian citizens consumed came from imports. By 2010, Russia’s imported share had dropped to 27% and last year imports accounted for just 5% of consumption. Meanwhile, Russia exported almost as much chicken as it imported. Since 2010, Russian domestic chicken consumption has increased 36% while domestic chicken production increased 67%.

Meanwhile, beef has been a more difficult protein to secure within Russia considering land limitations and domestic preferences. Russian beef consumption has declined 32% since 2010 and domestic production is 5% lower than it was 11 years ago.

“Russia still buys beef in the world market, but that volume is down 67% from where it was in 2010 and even smaller than it was in 2006 or 2007 (before the financial crisis). Most of the beef that Russia bought in 2021 came from two sources: Paraguay and Belarus,” Steiner Consulting Group wrote.

Russian imports from Belarus are unlikely to be affected by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Steiner Consulting Group believes the impact from a reduction in South American imports is likely to be minimal on global trade.

“Bottom line: Impact from restrictions on Russian protein purchases in the world market are likely to have no impact on global trade,” Steiner Consulting Group said. “However, Russia and Ukraine are major contributors to global grain and oil trade, and they are also major suppliers of fertilizers. High feed and energy costs are negative for U.S. livestock producers, and they will negatively impact their ability to bring more product to market. Ultimately this is bad news for U.S. meat protein consumers.”

Steiner Consulting Group said what’s even more uncertain is how a further spike in inflation could impact domestic and export demand.

“In this context, high-priced proteins, like beef, face more downside risk than pork or chicken,” Steiner Consulting Group wrote.

Read More:

Fake Meat Is Bleeding Money

Why We Need a New Partnership Between Swine Farms and Packing Plants

Cattle Outlook Optimistic for 2022

Thu, 30 Dec 2021 16:00:54 GMT

Optimism is building in cattle country that 2022 will finally deliver a long-anticipated bull market for cattle. Ranchers and cattle feeders saw markets turn higher in the final weeks of 2021, and while many of the challenges facing the industry last year will continue, most analysts suggest improving prices are a trend that will continue beyond this year.

“Demand for beef, both domestically and in our exports markets, was strong throughout 2021 and will continue,” says John Nalivka, Sterling Marketing, Vale, Ore. “With declining cattle numbers, we’re seeing things fall into place for better cattle markets the next couple of years.”

Market-ready supplies of fed cattle have tightened and packers are actively chasing cattle for the first time in many months. In general, cattle prices are higher now compared to a year ago and are expected to continue improving in 2022.

(Farm Journal)

Such sentiment is shared by industry analysts across the country who see robust demand continuing as the industry has worked through many of the pandemic-related challenges. CattleFax CEO Randy Blach said the cattle cycle should have seen a peak in 2020, but it was pushed back by pandemic-related slaughter bottlenecks.

“This has been a long, hard-fought battle,” Blach said. “Retail beef prices have gone up substantially and demand has been out of this world. Cattle prices just haven’t shared in that move up until now.”

Demand has been very strong for all proteins, including pork and poultry, he said.

“All the proteins have benefitted from this demand push that we’ve experienced.”

Demand may be good, but tightening supplies are the primary factor influencing analyst’s optimism.

“Cattle numbers are declining as low prices and drought have both led to herd liquidation over the past two years,” Nalivka says.

In fact, U.S. beef cow slaughter was 10% higher in 2021, and that followed a 3% increase from 2020.

“We saw the highest beef cow slaughter last year since the drought year of 2011,” Nalivka says. “From 2011 to 2013 the drought, beginning in the Southwest and moving to the Midwest, pushed the beef cow herd numbers in 2014 to its lowest point since 1952.”

With dairy cow slaughter up roughly 3% in 2021, total cow slaughter posted a 6% increase and the highest since 1996. With those slaughter numbers, Sterling Marketing projects the 2022 beef cow inventory to be 30.2 million, a reduction of roughly 1 million cows, or 3%.

Additionally, heifer slaughter in 2021 was the highest since 2011. Nalivka projects 2022 heifer slaughter to be 4% lower than 2021 and just marginally higher than during 2012.

“The higher beef cow and heifer slaughter numbers that we saw in 2021 mean reduced cattle numbers for 2022 and likely through 2024 are evident,” Nalivka says. My forecast for the January 1 total cattle inventory is 91.25 million, down 2% from the beginning of 2021, the lowest since 2015, and 475,000 more than the beginning 2012 cattle herd.”

A reduction of the breeding herd will translate into a reduction in cattle slaughter. Nalivka expects total slaughter to be down 2% in 2022 after the 3% increase found in 2021.

“I also expect carcass weights to decline this year as fed cattle numbers decline and feedlots are increasingly current with showlists and marketing cattle into a stronger market,” Nalivka said. “Assuming a 1% year-over-year drop in carcass weights, beef production in 2022 will be down 3%.”

Overall, Nalivka projects the total red meat and poultry supply, per capita, to decline about 0.5% to 220.7 pounds in 2022.

“Even if demand weakens somewhat, prices across the beef complex – including fed cattle, feeders and calves – will post notable gains during 2022,” Nalivka says. “That is further supported by global beef demand.”

In fact, beef export values soared last year and were expected to exceed $10 billion, according to USDA.

Beef exports reached 115,709 metric tons in October, up 7.5% from a year ago, while export value climbed 48% to $956.9 million – the second-highest total on record, behind August 2021. Through the first 10 months of the year, beef exports totaled 1.19 million metric tons, up 17% from a year ago. Export value increased 38% to $8.53 billion, surpassing the 2018 record ($8.33 billion) with two months to spare.

U.S. Meat Export Federation president and CEO Dan Halstrom acknowledged red meat exports face transportation challenges and rising input costs, yet he expected red meat exports would reach about $18 billion in 2021.

“While global demand is tremendous and we are cautiously optimistic about further growth in 2022, supply chain pressures are not easy to overcome and are a growing concern for exporters and their international customers,” Halstrom said.

It’s Unlikely the U.S. Will Escape ASF

Fri, 20 Aug 2021 19:19:33 GMT

By Dennis DiPietre and Lance Mulberry

There is a palpable feeling of concern about the emergence of African swine fever (ASF) on U.S. soil now that it has entered our hemisphere on the island nation of the Dominican Republic. While there are lots of reasons to believe its presence there is not a sure sign it will penetrate the U.S. industry, still, everyone in the past two years has become acutely focused on the disease and how slippery it is to contain.

One of the biggest “educators” for lay citizens and industry professionals has come via the COVID-19 pandemic and its surprising re-emergence this summer when most viral diseases go dormant before springing back into action around October. For pork producers, the arrival of an especially virulent form of PRRS along with ASF in Germany and now again on a large farm in South Korea, and its leap from wild boars to seemingly biosecure production systems in Poland remind us disease control and elimination is possible but always fraught with high probability of failure.

I have been to the Dominican Republic and remember the re-entry into Miami International airport. It was one of the very few times customs agents didn’t wait for us to get to the entry hall; they met the plane at the gate and at stations along the pathway to entry, pulling aside entrants who somehow failed their profiling strategy for further questions. I vividly remember the open suitcases in the agricultural inspection area with raw, bloody meat laying on top of garbage bags and people being pulled aside right and left. Three cheers for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, but they will bluntly confess they interdict under 50% of such illegal personal baggage shipments.

Usually, the meat is destined for a family meal, cut in traditional ways unavailable in U.S. supermarkets, to support the preparation of ethnic dishes. The odds tend to favor containment in those situations since we no longer have millions of small hog farms where the scraps from such a meal might be fed to other pigs.

Such is especially the case in Florida and New York, the main entry points for travel into the U.S. from the Dominican Republic, where family pig farms are rare but feral hogs abound. Once eradication begins, a new incentive arises for moving pork out of the disease zone to capture some value. This was especially a problem in several Asian countries, where early signs of the disease on a farm resulted in reports of strategic depopulation to avoid the financial loss of condemnation that would likely follow if the diseased barns became well known and attracted regulatory interest. Since ASF does not harm humans, black market shipments of condemned carcasses at big discounts tend to make containment a vexing problem for months on end and threaten to push infected pork to the export market, destined for small international broker’s warehouses all over the globe.

We know ASF came to the Dominican Republic from some area of the world where it is present in wild boar or domestic pigs. There are more than a handful of countries now that could be the origin of this outbreak. It had to arrive by ship or aircraft, and pass through the inspection process, before making it to a farm. Whether it was carried in meat or live animals, processed feed or on contaminated clothing will be the subject of a very serious inquiry.

The U.S. industry has been way ahead of the ballgame developing containment and regionalization strategies and commitments to try to keep the export markets from complete freefall if the contagion arrives. However, those firewalls might give way depending on how long it is here before it is discovered and thereby how far it has spread before it is recognized.

Based on the number of follow-on cases in Germany after the first animal tested positive, it was on German soil a long time before it was “discovered.” While it might not be more likely just because it has been discovered in the Dominican Republic, it seems increasingly unlikely the U.S. will escape it because disease organisms are especially adept at eventually moving past all containment strategies. Combine that with the assistance of human greed, carelessness and a global market and its nearly an unbeatable combination.

Opinions expressed in this column are the opinions of Dennis DiPietre and Lance Mulberry and do not represent the opinions of Farm Journal’s PORK.

Read More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

USDA to Host Webinar Series on African Swine Fever in September

Philippines Says African Swine Fever Cases Waning, Sees Pork Surplus by 2023

African Swine Fever Moves Closer to Home

CBP Casts Wide Net to Assess African Swine Fever Threats to the U.S.

Oklahoma Makes Strides to Decrease Feral Swine Population

Keeping Up Our Defenses on ASF

China’s Sow Herd Shrinks in July, First Decline in Almost 2 Years

How Will the Economic Boom Impact U.S. Agricultural Businesses?

Fri, 16 Jul 2021 15:57:30 GMT

The economic boom continues as U.S. consumers are getting out and about spending on services once again. Jobs are abundantly available, but workers are scarce as the labor market is healing slower than many economists expected, according to the latest Quarterly report from CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange.

CoBank says labor challenges felt during the pandemic and continuing still today will incentivize businesses throughout the food supply chain to rapidly increase automation within their operations.

“The most significant and lasting impact from COVID-19 will be an acceleration in automation,” says Dan Kowalski, vice president of CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange division, in the report. “And it will affect the entire supply chain from field to grocery and restaurants. It won’t be an overnight transformation, but much larger investments in technology now will lead to a much more automated supply chain over the next few years.”

Although commodity price inflation has been a boon to many ag producers over the past year, CoBank says increases in raw material and transportation costs, combined with higher wages, are causing retailers to pass those higher costs on to consumers.

Grocers and restaurants are trying to discern how this will impact consumer buying habits. CoBank adds, “The coming adjustments will look quite different for each segment of the food supply chain. But the acceleration in change will be meaningful, and strategic steps to build more resilient businesses are coming sooner than previously believed.”

Meat and Poultry Prices Hit Record Highs in May
Meat and poultry prices hit record highs in mid-May as food service and retail grocery pipelines prepared for post-COVID-19 consumer activity and summer gatherings. In April, food service sales reached pre-COVID-19 levels, hitting an all-time monthly high of $75.3 billion, the report says.

Overall retail grocery sales growth is up 7.3% from a year ago and 15.3% from 2019, providing evidence of longer-term changes in consumer behavior.

Pork has been one of the highest rising commodities in 2021, CoBank points out, with lean hog futures topping out at $122 in mid-June. Still, strong consumer demand for meat, tight supplies of competing meats and declining pork production in the second half of the year will continue to impact pork prices for the rest of 2021.

“USDA’s June 1 Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report was mildly bullish and confirmed what most of the trade expected: the U.S. hog inventory shrank again, dropping 2% year over year, continuing a contraction since mid-2019,” CoBank’s authors report.

Analysts said there were a couple of surprises, however:
• Pigs per litter shrank, breaking a strong five-year growth trend with increased disease pressure being the most logical explanation.
• June-November farrowing intentions are down 3.2% from a year ago, aligning with declining breeding sows and gilts numbers, which are down 2.8% since 2019.

CoBank cautions that Chinese pork prices have dropped 65% since the beginning of the year, signaling a significant reduction of U.S. pork exports to China in the second half of the year.

Beef prices are at or near record highs, yet cattle ranchers and feeders are currently facing limited national slaughter capacity, high feed costs and the liquidation pressures of exceptional drought hitting the western U.S., CoBank reports. The national beef herd is in contraction due to weak cow-calf profitability going back as far as 2015.

Chicken industry margins have improved significantly from the low points of 2020 and CoBank expects profitability to remain strong through the end of 2021. However, issues with chicken breeding stock changes in the past couple of years have limited short-term expansion potential.

Milk production continues to chart record highs in the U.S. despite the increase in feed costs and hot temperatures. Milk production topped 19.85 million pounds for the first time in May, with daily output up 4.6% year-over-year, CoBank reports. Exports of U.S dairy products continue to be key, though the risk of a stronger U.S. dollar could threaten the pace of exports in the next few months.

Read the full report here.

Read More:

Restaurant Recovery Continues as Consumers Resume Some Meal Habits

Gene Editing: Experts Say it’s Time to Remodel Regulatory Landscape

Booker’s Farm System Reform Act ‘Misguided’, NCBA Says

Democratic Lawmakers Introduce Bill to End Factory Farming, Livestock Groups Fight Back

Covid Aid Bill Provides Ag Funding for Sectors Left Out of CFAP

Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:53:20 GMT

By John Herath and Jim Wiesemeyer

The coronavirus aid package approved by Congress overnight Monday provides $13 billion in ag funding, much of it destined for sectors left out of previous aid packages.

The bill gives the USDA Secretary the authority to make payments to livestock producers who had to depopulate their herds due to limited processing plant capacity because of COVID-19 outbreaks. It also provides for assistance long sought by biofuel producers.

“Today’s passage of this landmark legislation is great news for America’s ethanol producers, who have struggled through the most difficult and trying year in the industry’s history,” said Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper. “More than half of the ethanol industry shut down during the extraordinary demand collapse in the spring, and producers across the country still have not fully recovered from that market shock. The pandemic has cost the industry nearly $4 billion in lost revenue to date, with losses expected to continue well into 2021. The legislation passed today provides a ray of hope for the industry and provides decisive direction to the Secretary regarding the eligibility of renewable fuel producers to receive assistance from USDA.”

The biofuel payments are left largely at the discretion of the USDA Secretary.

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) praised the bill for adding support for portions of agriculture left out of previous aid packages.

“We’re pleased that Congress understands the toll the pandemic continues to take on farmers, ranchers and rural Americans,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall. “Farmers who were left out of previous aid packages or whose losses were far more devastating than recognized in initial aid are grateful that their families will be helped, too. We recognize the need is great across our entire economy and farm families will join the rest of America in our determination to recover from the hardships caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

A summary of the ag provisions of the bill from Pro Farmer’s Jim Wiesemeyer:

AGRICULTURE ASSISTANCE ($13 billion)

Provides $11.1875 billion for COVID-related assistance to support agricultural producers, growers, processors, specialty crops, non-specialty crops, dairy, livestock, poultry, and contract livestock and poultry producers and other purposes.

Provides supplemental assistance to price trigger crops and flat rate crops of $20 per acre.
Addresses unintended inequities in the USDA’s sales commodity program for specialty crop and other producers who suffered a disaster in 2019. • Directs the Secretary to make payments to producers for losses incurred due to the depopulation of livestock and poultry due to insufficient processing access.
Provides support for cattle producers.
Provides $1 billion for contract growers of livestock and poultry to cover losses.
Provides $20 million for animal disease prevention and response capacity. • Assists domestic users of upland cotton and extra-long staple cotton and allows for support to processors for losses of crops due to insufficient processing access.
Extends the term of marketing assistance loans for any loan commodity to 12 months.
Provides $1.5 billion for the Secretary to purchase food and agriculture products, including seafood, and to purchase and distribute agriculture products including fresh dairy, produce and meat products through NGOs, and provides for grants and loans to small or midsized food processors or distributors, seafood processing facilities and processing vessels, farmers markets, producers, or other organizations to respond to COVID-19 and protect workers.
• Allows for $200 million in payments to timber harvesting and hauling. • Allows for payments to producers of advanced biofuel, biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, conventional biofuel, or renewable fuel.
• Allows USDA to carry out a dairy recourse loan program to make purchases of dairy products from processors, packagers, merchants, marketers, wholesalers, and distributors. Other assistance includes:
$100 million for Specialty Crop Block Grants, $100 million for Local Agriculture Marketing Program, $75 million for the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Assistance Program, and $75 million for Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO).
$28 million in grants to State Departments of Agriculture to expand or sustain stress assistance programs for individuals engaged in farming, ranching, and other agriculture operations.
$200 million for nutrition research.
Provides supplemental Dairy Margin Coverage support. Includes $400 million to support dairy donations to non-profit entities (food banks, feeding programs, etc.).
Establishes a livestock dealer trust to benefit unpaid sellers of livestock.
Assists meat and poultry slaughtering and processing facilities with making improvements to allow for interstate shipment. Requires a study on programs for meat and poultry processing and slaughtering facilities.

CoBank: COVID-19 Will Continue To Steer Economy In 2021

Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:52:19 GMT

A new report from CoBank details 10 key factors driving and shaping the economy in 2021. There is one big factor that weighs heaviest on the pace for economic recovery—the speed and reach of the COVID-19 vaccinations. CoBank expects that as the vaccine is distributed more broadly, the latter half of 2021 will show stronger consumer demand.

“The coming year will be a recovery year for most Americans and the businesses that make up the U.S. economy,” said Dan Kowalski, vice president of CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange division. “The early part of the year should look very different than the latter, but in total, economic growth is estimated to be about 4%, following a retreat of roughly 4% in 2020.”

We march through the final days of 2020, here are those 10 factors to watch in 2021:

1. Global Economy: Uneven Recovery Ahead

CoBank economists say COVID-10 will steer the global economy in 2021 and the pandemic will continue the trend of uneven economy recovery. It’s noted China has recovered fastest from the pandemic, and Europe has suffered the most. The pandemic’s long-tail will be the government debt around the world.

From CoBank: “Our confidence in GDP forecasts has increased since mid-2020, but uncertainties related to the dissemination and uptake of vaccines mean timing the recovery is still exceedingly difficult.”

2. U.S. Economy: COVID is Still the Economy

The next couple of months are critical in for domestic economy as fiscal policy decisions are made.

From CoBank: “Roughly 10 million Americans who lost their jobs early in the pandemic have yet to find work, and many of them are receiving some form of public support. If and how Congress chooses to fund further relief will impact the speed of the recovery.”

3. Monetary Policy: Less Dramatic but No Less Critical

CoBank cites central banks as “economic heroes” through the pandemic, giving the Federal Reserve’s quick action in the early weeks and continued stabilization as an example.

From CoBank: “With short term interest rates firmly at zero, the Federal Reserve will manage a few levers in the coming year, advocating for fiscal policy and keeping a close watch on longer-term rates and inflation, among other things.”

4. U.S. Government: Sweeping Leadership Changes

With the new Biden administration and narrow margins of power in Congress, CoBank cites managing the pandemic as the primary focus before infrastructure, trade policy, social justice or climate change can take precedence.

5. U.S. Farm Economy: A Strong 2020 Finish Boosts Potential

After more than one-third of net farm income from government payments in 2020, the new year starts with higher commodity prices and low interests, which will provide an “important financial buffer” in the year ahead. CoBank expects farmland values to remain stable in 2021.

6. Specialty Crops: Preparing for More Shifts in Consumer Demand

Less foodservice and more food being bought via retail has brought historic shifts in logistics and supply chains. This will bring further adaptation in the specialty crop industry.

From CoBank: “Some growers, packers, and processors have successfully managed to increase or reroute products into retail channels like grocery stores and home delivery of food boxes. However, steep financial losses from the loss of foodservice contracts will ultimately result in the rationalization of some processing assets and production acreage.”

7. Grain, Farm Supply and Biofuels: Recovery in Motion

From CoBank: “The outlook for grain is more favorable than a year ago, although carry has evaporated with the inversion of futures prices. The outlook for farm supply cooperatives is positive for 2021 following a very orderly harvest, rising grain prices and decent farm liquidity. The ethanol outlook is stable but guarded, with considerable growth and margin opportunities favoring ethanol co-products vs. fuel. After experiencing a near 50% reduction in demand during mid-March 2020 to mid-April 2020, fuel ethanol in the U.S. has recovered to about 90% of pre-COVID levels.”

8. Dairy and Animal Protein: Higher Feed Costs and Restaurant Reboot

The top challenge for livestock in the year ahead is shaping to be rising feed costs as corn and soybean meal prices are at multi-year highs. Domestic demand is dynamic with the changes in foodservice demand, and international demand is also in question.

From CoBank: “China’s rebuilding of the nation’s hog herd brings into question its appetite for foreign protein in 2021 as supplies climb. The U.S. dairy sector stands to benefit from the rebound in Chinese hog production with dry whey used as a protein supplement in China’s hog feeding rations.”

9. Rural Electricity: From Reactive to Adaptive

One big area of change CoBank expects in 2021 is an increase in solar. Its economists point to one report claiming solar is the cheapest form of energy in history and business leaders are pointing to the renewable source to be included in climate change mitigation efforts.

10. Rural Communications: Big Spending Not Likely, But Regulatory Change Is

From CoBank: “We expect a good bit of gridlock in Washington in 2021. It’s likely that any COVID-related stimulus will focus on near-term economic needs versus investing in projects that take years to produce results. That leaves the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as the remaining institution in Washington to enact policies that will help rural communication providers. In 2020 the FCC held its Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum auction that was much more rural friendly than any of its past auctions. And as a result, rural operators are now able to build carrier-grade fixed wireless networks at significantly reduced costs.”