Despite a 30 percent population increase during the past 25 years, overall water use has remained fairly stable, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey report.

Assistant Secretary of the Interior Anne Castle released the report, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005, as part of her keynote speech at the Atlantic Water Summit in the National Press Club.

The report shows that in 2005, Americans used 410 billion gallons per day, slightly less than in 2000. The declines are attributed to the increased use of more efficient irrigation systems and alternative technologies at power plants.

Water withdrawals increased

Water withdrawals for public supply have increased steadily since 1950 — when U.S. Geological Society began the series of five-year trend reports — along with the population that depends on these supplies.

“The importance of this type of data to the American public cannot be exaggerated,” said Castle. “The Department of the Interior provides the nation with the best source of information about national and regional trends in water withdrawals. This information is invaluable in ensuring future water supplies and finding new technologies and efficiencies to conserve water.”

Nearly half (49 percent) of the 410 billion gallons per day used by Americans was for producing electricity at thermoelectric power plants.

Irrigation accounted for 31 percent and public supply 11 percent of the total. The remaining 9 percent of the water was for self-supplied industrial, livestock, aquaculture, mining and rural domestic uses.

“Because electricity generation and irrigation together accounted for a massive 80 percent of our water use in 2005, the improvements in efficiency and technology give us hope for the future,” Castle said.

“The report also underscores the importance of recognizing the limits of the drinking water supplies on which our growing population depends. While public-supply withdrawals have continued to increase overall, per capita use has decreased in many states during recent decades.

“These are just a few examples of why, if we want to understand and address the nation’s current water issues and prepare to answer future water questions, we need the data provided in this report,” Castle noted.

Estimates broken down

The series of reports provides information valuable to states and water suppliers because the water-use estimates are broken down by state, source and category of water use.

California, for example, is one of four states — joining Texas, Idaho and Florida — that accounted for more than one-fourth of all fresh and saline water withdrawn in the U.S. in 2005.

More than half (53 percent) of the total withdrawals of 45,700 Mgal/d in California were for irrigation, and 28 percent were for thermoelectric power.

The largest uses of fresh surface water were power generation and irrigation, and the states with the largest fresh surface-water uses were California, Texas, Idaho and Illinois.

The largest use of fresh groundwater was irrigation, and the states with the largest fresh groundwater uses were California, Texas, Nebraska and Arkansas.

Western states

The majority of irrigation withdrawals and irrigated acres are in the Western states, but significant increases in irrigation have occurred in some Southeastern states.

Irrigation application rates have decreased steadily from 1950 to 2005. This decline is attributable to the increased use of more efficient irrigation systems.

The average amount of water withdrawn to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity in the U.S. has decreased steadily from 1950 to 2005.

This change is attributable to an increase in the number of power plants that use alternatives to once-through cooling. Since 1950, the U.S. Geological Society has compiled water use information by state in cooperation with state, local and other federal agencies and organizations.

The information reflects withdrawals from the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries and aquifers for major uses.

Full report

The full report is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344. Additional water use information is available at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/.

The USDA has published a proposed decision in the Federal Register to cap the production of farmers who bottle their own milk, known as “producer-handlers,” to no more than 3 million pounds of milk per month.

Any producer-handler who exceeds this amount will be required to participate in the federal pooling and pricing provisions.

The entity will be treated the same as other bottling operations not owned by farmers, being made to share Class I proceeds with farmers in their respective federal order regions.

What the limit will do

The National Milk Producers Federation, in a released statement, said the bottling limit will help control the price advantage enjoyed by the largest farms that bottle their own milk outside of the federal marketing program.

The limit will help control about a half-dozen large producer-handlers from “cherry-picking Class I milk sales at the expense of other producers in federal order pools,” said Jerry Kozak, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation.

“These largest operations should no longer enjoy a regulatory loophole intended for smaller players. Once you’re bottling 3 million pounds of milk monthly, you’re a large plant, and should contribute to the marketing pools just like any other large Class I handler,” Kozak continued.

Comments on the decision are due by Dec. 21. A final decision is expected in February.

Milk producers will then be asked to vote on the issue through USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service.

Decision process

In May, USDA held a hearing on the matter in Cincinnati, where several bottling producer-handlers attended and voiced concern over the proposed limit.

The proposals initially submitted called for complete elimination of producer-handlers’ exemption to the federal program, said Gino Tosi, a senior marketing specialist with USDA.

“They thought the time had come to eliminate the provision from the orders,” Tosi said of those who wanted to dissolve the exemptions altogether.

Following the hearing, however, a proposal was put together by USDA to continue allowing producer-handlers exemption, up to 3 million pounds a month.

Federal milk orders

The federal order pool system was created in 1937, as a means of establishing an orderly marketing system for producers and those who buy milk from them — the handlers.

It ensures a minimum payment to dairy farmers for their product, determined by USDA.

Other side

But some milk producers say requiring participation could affect their ability to sell a product consumers demand, and could tap into their own ability to be profitable in the marketplace.

“The decision won’t affect our dairy, specifically, because we’re under the limit,” said Jeff Brunton, of his family’s 100-cow dairy farm in Beaver County, Pa.

He’s more concerned about the “principal” of the decision, and whether it punishes business growth and effective marketing.

“It messes with the market by interfering with an efficient business model,” he said. “I think you earn what you get. If you’re able to put together a large producer-handler operation that can deliver quality milk at a fair, affordable price, I think you should be rewarded for it, not punished for what you do.”

Only about a half dozen operations in the country are believed to be directly affected by the 3 million-pound cap.

“Almost everybody is below 3 million (pounds), and almost everybody that’s over 3 million, they’re way over 3 million,” Tosi said.

Conclusions

The Agricultural Marketing Service concluded most federal milk marketing areas would benefit by the 3 million pound cap, because more producers would be made to pool their prices.

Ohio is located in the Mideast Marketing Area, which has more than 7,200 dairy farmers, about 93 percent that are considered small businesses, with the other 7 percent considered large businesses.

Producers “large and small could benefit by receiving a higher blend price, if the recommended 3 million pound monthly Class I route disposition limitation for producer-handlers is adopted,” AMS officials wrote.

Looking for answers

Farmers gathered Oct. 27 in Harrisburg for one of two dairy forums and then a second event was held Oct. 28 in Clarks Mills, Pa. The topic on the table was the same among the men and women: How do we make it through this turbulent milk market without losing everything?

All ears were on the speakers as they listened to how milk markets are affected by what is going on in supply and demand, and how to manage production costs through monthly cash flow budgeting.

And a group of veterinarians and feed suppliers shared ideas for no- or low-cost profit enhancers. Attendees were given several ideas they could go home and use on their farm that night.

Milk markets

Phil Plourd, of Blimling and Associates, talked about the volatile dairy market and why it hit farmers so hard in 2009.

Plourd said one problem is the federal disorder in the dairy markets. He suggested the market needs to be trimmed, and instead of multiple classes of milk, federal orders should be cut down to one or two classes. It would allow a large portion of processors and end users to bid on the milk they need.

He added the export market remains a problem because of the gap between what is coming into the United States and what is going out. However, the U.S. is positioned to fill gaps in the global market as demand grows and traditional suppliers are not able to keep pace.

Packaging shrinks

Plourd also said there is a silent killer hurting the public demand — the diminishing size of products on grocery store shelves.

For example, he said, in 2004, consumers were purchasing half-gallon size ice cream containers, which were then reduced to 1.75 quart size containers. In 2008, many ice cream producers reduced the container size again. Currently, most ice cream producers are selling their products in 1.5 quart size containers.

Dairy farm futures?

The forum did provide a ray of hope for dairy farms wanting to include another generation in the operation.

David Galton, a professor at Cornell University and investor in two Pennsylvania dairy farms, said a future on a dairy farm is possible.

One of the keys is cost control. This has to be found in family living expenses, replacement costs, feed and debt service.

Galton said the best way for dairy farmers to figure out if they can afford something or how much something is impacting their bottom line is by using the hundredweight figure on their checks.

Balancing act

He advised farmers to figure out how many hundredweight they sell a year and then determine costs from that point.

For example, a family living on $40,000 a year, milking 50 cows needs $4.44 per hundredweight for family living costs to maintain that standard of living.

He said a family with off-farm income may be in a better position because the off-farm job may provide the health insurance and other benefits the farm would have to pay out if it didn’t have off-farm income.

Daily operating costs

A second piece of advice Galton gave is to know the daily dairy operating expenses. He said the best way is to determine it by the hundredweight and not by the cow or gross income.

Galton reminded the crowd to be aware of capital investments.

“Remember, not everything has to be now,” Galton said, as he pointed out that sometimes the capital investments appear as good ideas but don’t always look as good on paper.

He said one example could be robotic milkers. They may appear as good ideas, but considerations have to be made about labor costs and what the employees can be doing to create income for the farm if the robotic milkers are installed.

But he reminded the crowd to ask one last question: “Do you have enough hundredweights to pay for the robotic milkers,” Galton said.

Survival is possible

Galton tried to stress to the dairy farmers that surviving this latest dairy crisis is just another step toward turning a profit when milk prices do rebound in the future.

]]> http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/pa-dairymen-gain-hope-at-profitability-forum/13462.html/feed http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/pa-dairymen-gain-hope-at-profitability-forum/13462.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/farmanddairy-top-stories/~3/BgmAg1qzmeI/13459.html http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/mixed-results-from-osu-extension-levies/13459.html#comments Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:19:31 +0000 Chris Kick http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/mixed-results-from-osu-extension-levies/13459.html WOOSTER, Ohio — The future of Ohio State University Extension in at least three Ohio counties could change significantly or be eliminated following levy failures on Nov. 3.

Paulding, Jackson and Coshocton counties each went to their voters for operating funds for the Extension service and were denied.

Paulding County

In Paulding County, a .67 mill levy was defeated by a vote of 4,009 to 2,340.

County Director Jim Lopshire said the Extension office was able to remain open this year because of an anonymous donor. However, funding from the commissioners has stopped and he’s concerned whether there will be any funding for next year.

“We’re going to have to find funding somewhere in order to remain open in 2010 and beyond,” he said.

“Without an Extension program in our county, our youth can’t participate in 4-H or 4-H camp.”

Coshocton County

Coshocton County faces similar challenges, where a .6 mill levy failed 6,163 to 4,720.

“At this point, we will have to meet with the county commissioners and OSU Extension administration to determine what the outcome (will be),” said County Director Sarah Jane Lindsey.

“The commissioners had told us they did not know what funds, if any, they would have for 2010.”

Lindsey said her county was hopeful new funds could help it overcome the nearly $60,000 in cuts it experienced this year, restore hours for personnel and hire an agriculture educator.

Although disappointed, she expressed appreciation for the work of the levy committee and said some 4-H exhibitors even donated money at the fair to support the levy.

“We had many, many people work, adults and youth,” she said.

Jackson County

In Jackson County, a .5 mill levy was voted down 4,656 to 4,258.

Extension officials said they appreciated the closeness of the vote, with only 378 votes from approval, but are concerned for their program’s future.

“We’ve been operating on an extremely reduced budget for the last four years,” said County Director Erin Dailey.

The county saw a 67 percent budget cut in 2005, which has significantly impacted its staffing. Currently, the office is only staffed by its director, and a program assistant, whose pay does not come from the county.

What’s next?

Most of the counties where levies failed said they would meet with staff and commissioners, to explore their options for staying open and to decide what services they can afford to offer.

Hardin County

Hardin County was the only county to approve a new levy, a .4 mill levy that received nearly 60 percent of votes in favor.

“It was more than a squeaker, and right from the get-go,” said Linda Ferguson, support staff with the county office.

Ferguson expects the levy will generate a little more than $180,000, from which deductions will be made for county collections fees. However, it should still be enough to keep the office and its diversified programming open, she said.

“It really feels good to be supported by the public in this way and realize that they value what we do here,” said County Director Gene McCluer. “It looks like our 4-H program is going to continue on and they will be able to maintain all of the 4-H activities they’ve come to love and enjoy.”

Monroe County

In Monroe County, voters approved a renewal levy with 2,613 votes in favor, and 1,980 against.

That’s good for an approval of about 57 percent, the highest percentage by which an Extension levy has been approved, said County Director Bruce Zimmer.

The renewal will help keep the county’s Extension running through December of 2015.

Current levies

Four counties are currently being funded by levies. Vinton, Noble, Morgan, and Harrison all receive money generated from property tax levies.

Morrow County’s extension office is to begin receiving funding Jan. 1, 2010, from a levy passed in May.

By Farm and Dairy Staff

SALEM, Ohio — In the Nov. 3 election, Ohio voters gave their approval to Issue 2, the ballot measure to amend the state constitution and create a livestock care standards board.

Ohio voters convincingly supported Issue 2, as 63.66% (or 1,959,669 people) voted to pass the measure, while 36.34% or 1,118,805 individuals, voted “no.”

Athens County was the lone county with a majority of voters opposing Issue 2.

The constitutional amendment will create a state Livestock Care Standards Board. The 13-member board, comprised mostly of farmers, veterinarians and agricultural industry leaders, will create and implement livestock care guidelines. (Click here for a .pdf of the constitutional amendment.)

The next step is for the Ohio General Assembly to create enabling legislation and the board appointments to be made.

Don’t count them out

Following the election, the Humane Society of the United States indicated it wants to move from Issue 2 to “real reform.”

“Now that the Issue 2 campaign is over, we can get on with such real reform — a measure to phase out the extreme confinement of animals in veal crates, gestation crates, and battery cages,” Wayne Pacelle, HSUS president and CEO, said in a statement released after polls closed.

In his blog Nov. 4, Pacelle said the animal rights group would launch a ballot initiative in Ohio and will be starting its efforts to gather the necessary 400,000 signatures. He did not say what the initiative would seek, other than declaring the need to “reach voters in Ohio with our message of sound science and basic values.”

The recommended signature filing deadline for a statute on the November 2010 ballot is Dec. 23, 2009.

Paul Shapiro, senior director of HSUS’ factory farming campaign, also would not elaborate further, but said, “Issue 2 does not guarantee humane treatment of animals. It is more likely to codify the status quo, rather than to see continuous improvement in animal welfare.”

“What was happening yesterday before Issue 2 passed is happening today to animals,” Shapiro said.

Background

The ballot measure was triggered by conversations between the Humane Society of the United States and Ohio ag leaders last February, in which the HSUS hoped to carve out a working relationship to develop livestock care standards like those negotiated in Colorado (and most recently in Michigan this fall). More specifically, HSUS said it wanted to ban the use of poultry cages, veal crates and gestation stalls in the Buckeye State.

If Ohio ag groups chose not to work with the HSUS, the activist group leaders said they would take the battle to legislators or work to pass a ballot initiative in 2010.

Ohio ag leaders, however, quickly moved to push the idea of a constitutional amendment to create the livestock care standards board, feeling the proactive approach would have a stronger ag foundation than that pushed by the Humane Society of the United States.

Ohio has spoken

Ohio Sen. Bob Gibbs, R-Lakeville, said he was excited about the margin of approval, calling it a sign that Ohioans believe in what the board will provide.

“I think the people of Ohio want to support family farms and agriculture and that’s great.”

Gibbs was the Senate’s lead sponsor of the bill, when the ballot initiative was moving through the legislature.

“As strong as this thing passed yesterday, I think consumers are showing they want to make sure we have locally grown food and the animals are cared for.”

Don’t count them out

Following the election, the Humane Society of the United States indicated it wants to move from Issue 2 to “real reform,” but did not specify what it’s next action will be.

“Now that the Issue 2 campaign is over, we can get on with such real reform — a measure to phase out the extreme confinement of animals in veal crates, gestation crates, and battery cages,” Wayne Pacelle, HSUS president and CEO, said in the statement released Tuesday night.

Paul Shapiro, senior director of HSUS’ factory farming campaign, said the organization is keeping all of its options open and would not elaborate as to what the next plan of action is for the group.

“Issue 2 does not guarantee humane treatment of animals. It is more likely to codify the status quo, rather than to see continuous improvement in animal welfare,” Shapiro said.

“What was happening yesterday before Issue 2 passed is happening today to animals.”

Closing farm-city gap

With what could be the Ohio Farm Bureau’s largest political campaign now a part of history, OFB Director of Communications Joe Cornely figures it has helped increase public awareness of what farmers do, and why.

“It has made the public aware that farmers are passionate about their industry and that it’s not just a job, it’s a calling,” he said. “They want the public to understand how they approach the business of feeding the world.”

Those are some of the goals that went into Ohio Farm Bureau’s decision to form the Center for Food and Animal Issues, which was launched in the spring to help farmers and consumers reach conclusions about animals’ role in society and food production.

Regaining trust

Mike Bumgarner, vice president of the center, said the center is actually bigger than just Issue 2, but “Issue 2 is really the first step in trying to regain the public confidence” in production agriculture.

“Our hope is that it’s made people more aware of what production agriculture is all about and what we do,” he said.

Issue divided farmers

The Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, which also opposed Issue 2, is disappointed, but not surprised by the passage of Issue 2.

However, Carol Goland, executive director for OEFFA, said the organization was mainly against the issue because it amends the state constitution.

“Our hope is that we (Ohio voters) didn’t establish a precedent where agriculture is regulated by popular vote and constitutional amendments,” Goland said.

She’s also concerned that the issue has divided Ohio agriculture.

“We have heard from a lot of farmers about questions they have about the board,” Goland said.

Checks and balances

Although the bill progressed strategically and met the November election deadlines, Sen. Bob Gibbs said it improved along the way, including the addition of some checks and balances. For example, board appointees will need the state Senate’s confirmation, and actions of the board will still be subject to the authority of the Ohio General Assembly, he said.

It upsets him that some have called the board a bureaucracy.

“This board is not bureaucrats. Their stake is in the industry; their livelihoods are on the line,” he said.

Ohio Farm Bureau’s Cornely said he’d like to think animal rights organizations, such as Humane Society of the United States, will be satisfied with the reform the board brings about. But he’s prepared for the possibility they may not.

Cornely said it’s probable there will be some who try to “tear the board apart” for whatever it does.

“The facts are not going to get in the way of the opposition’s approach to this,” he said.

(Editor Susan Crowell, and reporters Chris Kick and Kristy Foster, all contributed to this report.)

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Recent news reports about the novel H1N1 virus being discovered in Minnesota and Indiana pigs left a lot of people scratching their heads, wondering why — with a frightening flu pandemic spreading in humans around the world — it is important that the virus that causes it has been found in Land of Lakes swine.

The answer is, according to an expert in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, “it really depends.”

Complicated

It’s a complicated question, explained extension veterinarian David Wolfgang, who said the novel H1N1 virus already has been found in pigs in Mexico, Norway, and Alberta, Canada.

“The Minnesota situation is the first time the particular H1N1 virus that is causing the flu pandemic has been found in pigs in (the United States),” he said. “That’s why it made headlines and received so much attention.”

Often referred to as the swine flu, the H1N1 virus causing the flu pandemic is mostly a swine virus, Wolfgang said, “with a smidgen of bird flu material and a smidgen of human flu virus material.”

It doesn’t make pigs very sick, and people can’t contract it by eating pork products.

Potential threat

“H1N1-type viruses have been in pig populations for a long time, and this one seems to make pigs sniffly for a few days and then they get over it,” he said, “but the fear is that if this particular virus gets into commercial pig herds of many thousands of animals, and it recombines with more swine or avian genetic material, it might come out as a new virus that could prove deadly to humans because we would have no immunity to it.”

It is that threat of recombination of the virus that concerns scientists, Wolfgang said.

“Pigs can get the virus from birds and from people, and the infections go both ways. We share some influenza viruses with pigs. Plus pigs can share some influenza viruses with birds, especially waterfowl.

“As the virus goes back and forth and spreads around, a resorted virus has the potential to make more animals or people ill.”

So the USDA and other government and private entities are trying to prevent the novel H1N1 virus from entering and spreading in animal populations.

From humans to pigs

Fortunately, the pigs in the Minnesota case were not part of a commercial herd. (The samples in Indiana, confirmed Nov. 2, were from a commercial herd.)

“What happened in the Minnesota case was interesting because the three pigs in question were being shown at the state fair and were exposed to a group of 4-H youth,” Wolfgang explained. “Many youth in this group were sent home sick with what was diagnosed as the H1N1 flu. Officials believe that’s how the pigs got it, and after they were infected, the animals were never in contact with other pigs.”

The “take-away message” from the Minnesota case, Wolfgang said, is that the close surveillance of swine herds and poultry flocks by agricultural officials and veterinarians is vital for protecting human health.

On top of it

Scientists are not watching just for influenza, but also for other zoonotic diseases — illnesses that can infect both humans and animals.

Wolfgang pointed out that such surveillance is one of the primary functions of Penn State’s Animal Diagnostic Laboratory, which is one of three labs in the Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic Laboratory System.

Penn State’s lab tests thousands of samples for avian influenza annually and is certified to test for H1N1 in swine.

“It is important that we continue to monitor influenza viruses and other diseases in animal populations to be sure they are not changing and making animals sicker or becoming more dangerous to humans,” he said. “That way we are warned about impending crises and have time to react.”

Operation Evergreen will help to kick off the Trees for Troops. The Ohio Christmas Tree Association has been delivering trees to troops stationed over seas since 1995.

Growers have donated trees with local school children, churches and veteran’s groups donating decorations so that each military unit receiving a tree has everything needed to celebrate the holidays.

Collection

Tree collection and inspection will take place at the Ohio Department of Agriculture in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Nov. 10.

Operation Evergreen will collect, pack and ship more than 200 Christmas trees for soldiers serving in Kuwait. FedEx Express will provide international transport. The trees should arrive around Thanksgiving.

In addition to the international transport, the Trees for Troops program will collect more than 10,000 trees to be delivered to the families of military personnel. FedEx Freight will provide the transportation of the donated trees, collected from 27 states and delivered starting the end of November into early December to more than 20 military bases.

Harvest

Pioneer Trails Tree Farm will cut 15-20 Christmas trees for Operation Evergreen-Trees for Troops at 9:30 a.m. Nov. 6.

Frank and Mary Jan Perdulla, owners of Pioneer Trails Tree Farm, local veterans and friends will harvest Canaan fir Christmas trees at the farm on Route 224 in Poland, Ohio.

This is a rain or shine event. For more information, call Perdulla at 330-757-0884.

Ceremony

Kaleidoscope Farms will hold a ceremony for the selection of the trees that will be shipped to troops stationed overseas at 2 p.m. Nov. 8.

“Each year we like to work with our local veterans who come to the farm to pick out some trees to help bring a little bit of Christmas to our troops serving overseas,” said Dave Reese, owner of Kaleidoscope Farms near Mount Cory. “We want to do just a little something for those who do so much for all of us.”

This year, Kaleidoscope Farms will be sending four of the more than 300 Ohio Christmas trees to troops.

More information

For more information about the event or the Operation Evergreen program, contact Reese at 419-722-1154.

]]> http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/operation-evergreen-in-full-swing-2/13437.html/feed http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/operation-evergreen-in-full-swing-2/13437.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/farmanddairy-top-stories/~3/PWOL76KxfxY/13414.html http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/web-site-shows-how-wheat-works/13414.html#comments Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:00:23 +0000 Other News http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/web-site-shows-how-wheat-works/13414.html PARKER, Colo. — The Wheat Foods Council is launching How Wheat Works, an interactive, online multimedia program that delivers a farm-to-fork education on wheat, enabling a better understanding of its nutritional value.

At www.howwheatworks.com, participants of all ages can virtually grow, harvest and mill their own kernels to create their desired wheat food.

For each participant, the council will donate 2 pounds of flour, up to 90,000 pounds, to Operation Homefront, a nonprofit that provides assistance to needy U.S. troops and their families.

About the project

The project combines 3-D animation, still photography, video and factual information to chronicle wheat’s path from field to table.

Each of the program’s four phases — growth, harvest, milling/baking and the grocer’s aisle — takes just a few minutes to complete, while the program spans the course of four days.

Interactive opportunities include the selection of the type of wheat to be grown and wheat flour to be milled, based on the participant’s preferred wheat food creation.

More learning

Following the completion of each phase, activity suggestions allow participants to extend their learning experience through preparing wheat-based recipes, exploring wheat grown in their area and viewing harvest videos from “America’s Heartland,” a magazine-style television series focused on American agriculture.

A quiz tests the participant’s wheat knowledge at program end, at which time the Council donates 2 pounds of flour to Operation Homefront with help from their members at ADM and ConAgra, two of the world’s largest millers.

To extend the program to youth organizations and classrooms, the council developed educational guides, located at www.wheatfoods.org, that allow group leaders and educators to activate How Wheat Works with their audiences.

Activity ideas utilize program content and resources from the council’s extensive library as well as member and partner materials.

The necessity means farmers are using semi-trucks to haul the seed to the fields or move the grain after it is harvested.

However, there is a question looming. What are the laws regarding a farmer driving a semi truck they own. From what the Farm and Dairy discovered, they can be somewhat unclear.

There are differing factors for different parts of the Ohio law and it all depends on what you are doing with the truck and who you are hauling the grain for.

One thing is evident: A farmer can drive a semi truck hauling commodities or livestock within a 150-mile radius of his farm in the state of Ohio.

The law, according to the Ohio Revised Code, Section 4506.02, states that a person is exempt from a commercial driver’s license when the truck being operated is controlled and operated by a farmer.

However, according to Lt. Martin Hill, Ohio licensing and commercial standards by the Ohio State Highway Patrol for Warren District 4, the operation of the truck has to be for the farm that owns it.

“If they are doing it for hire, then they need a commercial driver’s license,” Hill said. “You are exempted if you are hauling your own grain.”

One thing the Ohio Farm Bureau is anxious about is the definition of a farmer. Its public policy department argues the farmer could be defined as someone employed by the farm and not just the owner of the farm.

“The definition needs expanded in light of current agricultural practices,” said Larry Gearhart, senior director of local affairs, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation.

Law enforcement has to consider who is driving the truck, what they are hauling in the truck and where they are going, when deciding whether or not a law has been broken.

But the law’s clear: If you intend to haul something more than 150 miles away from the farm, then a commercial driver’s license is required.

Hill said the law states clearly though that custom harvesters or livestock haulers are required to have commercial driver’s license. However, they can apply for a restricted commercial driver’s license. This license has limits that prevents farmers from hauling hazardous materials and other materials, but they would be allowed to haul grain and livestock to sales for other farmers.

The restricted commercial driver’s license requires one year of driving experience, a valid driver’s license, and certifies that in the two-year period prior to the application, the driver has not had a suspended or revoked license.

According to research into the state law by Hill, farmers and their employees can operate trucks without a commercial driver’s license in adjoining states if they have fields located there — as long as its within that 150-mile radius of the home farm.

In addition, Hill said, a farmer who is traveling within the 150-mile radius and is driving an articulated vehicle, meaning a truck and trailer, needs to have a medical card on file with the state. The forms are available at the bureau of motor vehicles.

The state does permit farm employees to drive farm trucks on roadways, as long as it’s within 150-mile radius, according to Hill’s research of the Ohio state law.

The Ohio Farm Bureau encourages producers to check with the state they are entering to find out if a reciprocal agreement is in place. There are agreements in place with Michigan and Indiana.

According to Kristina Watson, regulatory reform director for the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, said a reciprocal agreement is in place with the state of Ohio and farmers can travel across the border to their fields or other farm needs as long as its within the 150-mile radius.

However, West Virginia does not have a reciprocal agreement. Steve Butler, administrator for the West Virginia Farm Bureau, said there is no reciprocal agreement at this point, but the West Virginia Farm Bureau is working to get something introduced federally so that farmers who cross borders to farm can do so without penalty.

“If they don’t have that law, then you may be in trouble,” Gearhart said.

Gearhart said some law enforcement officers don’t understand the law regarding agriculture and commercial driver’s licenses, and that can create havoc for farmers just trying to do their job.

“This is an area in turmoil,” he said.

]]> http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/for-farmers-driving-a-semitruck-is-harder-than-just-grinding-gears/13417.html/feed http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/for-farmers-driving-a-semitruck-is-harder-than-just-grinding-gears/13417.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/farmanddairy-top-stories/~3/7yMe1tkMdB0/13423.html http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/obama-congress-approve-350-million-for-farmers/13423.html#comments Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:00:19 +0000 Chris Kick http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/obama-congress-approve-350-million-for-farmers/13423.html WOOSTER, Ohio — Dairy farmers weathering one of the worst milk price fall-outs in recent history should soon see some relief in the form of federal payments.

On Oct. 21, President Barack Obama approved legislation to provide $350 million in emergency assistance for struggling dairy farmers.

Funding

The funds are part of the $121 billion agriculture appropriations bill for 2010 and will allocate $60 million to be spent to purchase cheese and other dairy products for food banks and nutrition programs, with an additional $290 million in direct support to dairy farmers.

Good news for now

The announcement was well-received among dairy producers in Ohio, although many in the industry say it is yet another example of temporary relief, and do not expect the funds to fix the internal woes their industry faces.

Cameron Thraen, state dairy specialist with The Ohio State University Extension, said the impact of the allocation will not be realized until U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack determines how the funds will be administered.

If the $290 million in payments is divided by every dairy farm in the country, then each farm would only receive about $2,900, figuring there are roughly 100,000 operations considered dairy farms.

“That’s a help, but if you’re under water on your dairy farm, that’s not going to get you out of it,” Thraen said.

The amount paid to recipients will likely be more if fewer farms are selected, he said. But any hopes of returning to the $20 range per hundred pounds of milk, which were realized last year, or even returning to the cost of production, will not be fulfilled in this legislation.

Federal support

Legislators are aware the funds will not solve the problem, but are trying to provide temporary assistance in the hopes dairies will be able to stay in business until markets can improve.

In a released statement following the president’s signature, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called the action “another timely lifeline for dairy farmers who are struggling just to stay afloat through this crisis.”

The legislation cleared the Senate in early October with a vote of 76-22.

“These direct payments are a fast and efficient way to deliver help right to the farm,” Leahy said following Senate approval. “Right now another day of dairy farming means another day of losses, and we need both short-term and long-term solutions to break these vicious downward price spirals.”

Thinking forward

Long-term solutions could be the most difficult to secure. Thraen said part of the problem is decreased exports of milk to other countries, citing a receding global economy as a big reason exports are down.

He’s also concerned about the influence of ethanol and the country’s push toward alternative fuels, which were linked to a spike in grain prices in 2007 and 2008, causing dairy producers’ inputs to double and triple.

The country made its food supply part of its fuel policy, which had repercussions on many levels, he said.

“This (federal payments) isn’t the solution,” Thraen said. “It’s to help them (producers) survive a little longer.”

Similar legislation was approved in July, when Vilsack and legislators approved a three-month price hike expected to increase farmers’ revenue nationwide by $243 million.

Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., co-chairman of the Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus, in a released statement said the measure will provide “much-needed temporary support to these hardworking, dedicated members of our community.”

The legislation was sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who said “dairy farmers are in desperate need. We must help them as soon as possible.”

The average price farmers received for their milk fell this year to $11.30 per hundredweight, down from $19.30 in July 2008. It costs farmers at least $18 per hundredweight to produce milk.

Bigger change

What still needs changed is the way milk is marketed, explained Fred Gingerich, a large-animal veterinarian with Country Roads Veterinary Services of Ashland County.

Although he doesn’t dairy farm himself, his business is dependent upon a successful dairy industry and he sees dairy farmers’ struggles daily.

The price farmers receive for their milk needs to be balanced more closely with what retailers are charging, and he’d also like to see a lowering of the acceptable somatic cell count in milk, which would remove poor quality milk from the market.

He’s also one of many dairy farmers and consumers who are upset over dairy imports into the United States.

“I don’t possibly see how we could let our dairy producers go bankrupt when we’re importing dairy products into this country,” he said.

Won’t help some

Gingerich said every bit of assistance helps, but does not think many of his customers will benefit, because 90 percent are Mennonite and probably will not accept the payments.

Thraen said the world market can bring quick demand and can quickly dissolve demand, which is partly what is being experienced right now.

“When you decide to become a player in world trade markets, you’ll import the instability of that world market,” he said.