Newspaper Archive of
The Superior Express
Superior, Nebraska
January 15, 2015     The Superior Express
PAGE 8     (8 of 16 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
PAGE 8     (8 of 16 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
January 15, 2015

Newspaper Archive of The Superior Express produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2019. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information.     Terms Of Use.     Request Content Removal.

8A THE SUPERIOR EXPRESS Thursday, January 15, 2015 Computer program may assist with farm bill decisions By Jenny Rees Agricultural Extension Agent Last week was enjoyable working with farmers on Farm Bill decisions. I've decided to work with producers on an individual basis. If you are inter- ested in help looking at your potential options using the Texas A&M model or would like another set of eyes to make sure the data was inputted cor- rectly, please call (402) 762-3644 and Deanna or Holli will get you scheduled for a time. One caveat is that this model is only as good as the data you input into it and your decisions are based on where you feel potential prices the next five years will be. You need your CC yields and base acres from FSA as well as production history since at least 2008 (2003 if you wish to run crop insurance tool). The Texas A&M simulation at "'t dif- ficult to run, but it can be confusing as to what number to input where. First, it is important for you to de- cide what you want the tool to analyze for you. It can analyze: yield update, base reallocation, ARC vs. PLC, and crop insurance. If you want to analyze crop insurance decisions, Each crop insurance tract needs to be entered as a new farm unit under each FSA farm number. It takes a lot of time and it can be done, but that's the only way to use this tool to also look at crop insurance including supplemental coverage op- tion (SCO) Second, if you do not want to look at crop insurance decision but wish to consider the first three decisions, then for counties such as Clay County with combined irrigated and dryland county yields, completing the Price Loss Cov- erage (PLC) Yield Worksheet (CCC- 859) from FSA with your combined irrigated and dryland yields for each FSA number will greatly aid you in inputting the data. For counties with any splits in irrigated and dryland yields, you will need to list those crops separately on the form. If for a com- bined county, you still entered your yields separately as dryland and irri- gated, it' s okas the tool recognizes that based on the county and combines them for you as long as you entered every- thing correctly. Third, for entering separate crop insurance tracts, the CC yield should remain the same for all dryland tracts under one FSA farm number (same for irrigated). However, you will have to split out base acres amongst the tracts and you need to make sure the acres inputted add up; please double check this! Fourth, I will have a blog post on with screenshots for inputting data. Some people are having a hard time finding rate yield on crop insurance forms. In those cases, we have been inputting the approved yield for both the rate yield and APH yield. The rate yield is not critical unless you are de- siring to utilize the crop insurance tool. Fifth, for your yield update and base reallocation information: For some of you, the base reallocation acres in the tool have been slightly different than what you received from FSA of- rice. That may be because risk man- agement agency (RMA) acres were used and were different than the pro- duction acres FSA had on file. You need to use the FSA acres for planted acres when using this model if they differ from the RMA ones. Sixth, when running this model, on many farms PLC + SCO looks favor- able for some crops. A word of cau- tion, you can consider PLC but should not consider SCO in your decision if you have not broken everything out into crop insurance tracts and included 10 years of production history into the tool. So in the decision of reallocating base acres or not, in the final summary section that gives you total numbers, anytime PLC+SCO is shown for a par- ticular crop and you have not included the proper crop insurance info, you need to re-calculate the final total by hand using PLC ONLY from the table above that area. It normally doesn't change the outcome that the decision tool provides, but it can. I' m not saying that SCO shouldn'tbe considered, what I'm saying is that the numbers pro- vided in the tool are not accurate if you have not inputted the data in the way needed to look at crop insurance deci- sions. Seventh, some of you have ques- tioned why PLC even lists a payment when prices are inputted higher than the benchmark price of $3.70 for corn, etc. The Texas A&M tool is giving you essentially a bell curve of 500 random outputs with the distribution of that curve around the particular price you input for each crop. So with every given price you input, there's a certain probability that the price will be at, above, or below that particular price. That's essentially what the red, green, yellow bars are showing you on the analysis. So you're assessing where you feel prices will be, what decision will allow you to best sleep at night, the potential of spreading out risk with several farm numbers by choosing dif- ferent options, etc. You can also view the YouTube videos from Texas A&M with more information at: https:// UC3AO 1 iVZMvOStCUJz-ShLzw. Straight from the Horse's Mouth By Duane A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Education December was an active month for Congress when it passed a fiscal 2015 omnibus bill that affects agriculture and animal agriculture in particular. I will highlight three areas that were of interest to me and then comment fur- ther on what we may have to continue vigilance concerning WOTUS. It may interest cattlemen that Congress passed language that provides a clear direc- tive that USDA Secretary Vilsack should not proceed with formalizing a new beef check-off program under the Commodity, Research, Promotion and Information Act of 1996 that would via the concerns of most cattlemen I have talked to directly compete and undermine the current beef check-off program. It was almost immediately that he announced he will not move forward with plans to start a second national beef check-off program. As I understand it, Congress also voted to continue prohibiting funding to the EPA to require the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from feedlots and other confined ani- mal feeding operations (CAFOs) and restricts CAFOs from being defined as Title V sources under the federal Clean Air Act. That has been an ongoing struggle and I think this is good news concerning our confined livestock pro- ducers. You might remember the "dust rule" and of course the continued at- tack on the animal agriculture industry concerning global warming (climate change) and greenhouse gas emissions, mostly pushed by extreme environ- mentalists and animal rights groups blaming the ills of the world on farm animals. Another stipulation of the Congres- sional omnibus bill is it requires the EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engi- neers to rescind a regulation known as the Interpretative Rule which is the first step in promulgating new regula- tions to govern waters of the United States (WOTUS). I thought first we had some good news with this an- nouncement, but in looking through the verbiage, I am not so sure. Here is the rest of the story on that: Both houses of Congress did pass language regarding the Clean Water Act, which on the surface appears to bring EPA under some control regard- ing certain agricultural practices. In particular Section 111 says "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to require a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act...for the activities identi- fied in subparagraphs (A) normal farm- ing practices and (C) building and maintaining farm ponds of Section 404 (f)(1) of the Act." Now that sounds pretty impressive but I have read some critiques of this action and it does give one pause for thought concerning one omission. Of concern to individuals who are a lot smarter than me is they think the EPA will no doubt say the bill does not override paragraph (2) of Section 111, which says a permit is needed if you build a pond in a wetland. Now wait a minute; isn't that one of the problems most of us were suspicious of with the EPA proposal of April 21,2014, Defi- nition of"Waters of the United States" under the CWA? That EPA proposal now defines such terms as adjacent, neighboring, flood plain, tributary, and of course defines "Significant Nexus," which could give EPAjurisdiction over virtually all waters in the U.S. This proposed rule is not mentioned! I think we need to keep vigilant on this and keep in touch with your senator and congressman and keep pressure on the EPA as this saga continues. Court calls cow manure a pollutant: Just so we have something else to worry about, I took interest in a court decision that could eventually work its way across the country and could have unbelievable consequences to our live- stock producers down the road. Are you ready for this? Manure is now considered a pollutant under farm in- surance policies in Wisconsin, the state's supreme court ruled. Accord- ingly, if pollutants are excluded from general liability insurance policies. farmers could be held liable for any damages that occur from manure run- off. Specifically, the Wisconsin Su- preme Court ruled cow manure is a pollutant when it enters a well. But the justices were not simply stating the obvious in an opinion written by one of the justices for the majority, he stated that "Because manure applied to farm fields is no longer a crop fertilizer when it seeps into private wells and contaminates the water supply, there- fore the general farm liability policy for the farmers excluded coverage for damage to their neighbor's water sup- plies. The ruling arises from a Washing- ton County, Wis., case in which the state department of natural resources Office Supplies Superior Publishing Co. 148 E. Third St. Superior 402-879-3291 IN We ma/00 quah'ty and service happen! /Competitive Prices /Experience Merchandisers /Next Business Day Payment /Deferred Payments Available /On Farm Pickup /Open Storage Program /Extended Harvest Hours Superior: Eric Krotzinger, Bruce Tinkham, Brian Flaata, Dave Healey, Steve Elledge, Pat Utecht, Glenda Kermoade, Chris Hiatt and Sandy Nelson Superior, Neb. 402-879-4702 1-800-228-1004 7 Focus ( Moving cattle along the country roads sometimes is an easy task. As this picture was taken, those watching wondered what might happen next. Would an Express photographer kneeling beside a parked car spook these cows through the one wire electric fence and into a neighbors field? After stopping, stalling a few moments and standing in the field entrance drive, the cows moved on down the road without incident. alleged that manure from a farm con- taminated an aquifer and neighboring wells. The farmer's insurance com- pany refused to pay damages because ithad a pollutantexclusion in its policy. Attorneys note that none of the parties to the suit raised the issue of whether the cow manure spread on the farmer' s land actually contaminated the aquifer or the wells. As you can probably as- sume from the content of this lawsuit, how many people who do not like animal agriculture or especially the practice of spreading manure or inject- ing manure into farm fields, could use this law suit to their advantage? Don't think for a minute this suit has not been watched and scrutinized towards that means. Interestilig enough, the Wisconsin Supreme Court actually decided two cases in which the central issue was whether the substance responsible for the alleged property damage consti- tutes a "pollutant" sufficient to invoke pollution exclusions in relevant insur- ance policies. The court held that both septage and cow manure, respectively, are "pollutants," as defined in com- mercial general liability policies and that, accordingly, property damage re- suiting from those substances is ex- cluded from coverage. So at least hu- man waste is in the same category as animal waste. There was a caveat in that the problem was actually nitrates which came from the decomposition of the waste. Somehow that doesn't make me feel any better. You must take responsibility for 'our own development. Schedule your Farm auctions of 1915 were different A century ago, January and Feb- ruary were popular months for farm auctions. Many of the farms were oc- cupied by tenant farms and March 1 was the traditional date for changing tenants. That was often the date many farmers retired or took on new lines of work. Before moving, it was common to hold a public auction to dispose of animals and things that weren't being moved. Unlike now when a retired farmer may let his machinery set for months before selling, the farms of a century ago were powered by horses and mules and the animals were needed until the end but not one day longer. One of the busiest auctioneers was Col. Denny of Superior. On Jan. 14, 1915, he had listed 22 sales between then and March 3. The last on the list was for J. Warren Keifer, Jr., to be held two miles south of Bostwick. Communities represented included Ruskin, Guide Rock, Nelson, Mt. Clare, Superior, Nora, Bostwick, Oak, and Rosemont. One of the larger sales was held three miles north and one and a half miles east of Superior on Jan. 26 for Hugh Allison. The terms were stated as all sums under $10 cash. More than $ l 0 the buyers had l 0 months to pay at eight percent interest. Because of the size of the sale, the auction began at 11 a.m. However, a free lunch was provided. The sellers had agreed to meet all forenoon trains in Superior and to furnish free trans- portation to and from Superior. ANNUAL D.O.T. INSPECTION The items to be sold were described as follows: Horses: One gray span of mares, 6 and 7 years old, weight 3,100 pounds and in foal; one span mares, bay and black, six years old, weight 3,000 pounds, bay in foal; span bay mares, 5 and 11 years old, weight 2,300 pounds, the five year old a good single driver; black mare, 12 years old, weight 1,600, in foal, good work mare, slightly blem- ished; black gelding, 5 years old, good work horse, blemished; one span black geldings, 3 years old; black gelding, 2 years old; black horse mule, 2 years old; one span sorrel driving ponies; 5 horse colts, coming l years old. Cattle: 19 head yearling steers; 20 head yearling heifers; 4 milk cows, one will be fresh by sale day, other three just fresh; one Shorthorn bull coming 2; nine head of caves from one week to eight months old. Twenty head of immune hogs. Farm Machinery: two farm wag- ons; one wagon and rack, nearly new; one Moon Brothers carriage; two riding listers, one nearly new; two riding cul- tivators, one nearly new; one 2-row cultivator; one gang plow, 14 inch; sulky plow, 16 inch; walking plow, 16 inch; two standard mowers, one new; one hay rake; one spring wagon; one Deering mower; one low down Great Western Spreader; one Dain combine; hay stacker and two bucks; one Buck- eye press drill; one 8-foot Deering binder; one Deering corn binder; one The law requires annual D. O. T. inspection on anything over 13-ton gross. Semi and Farm Truck Repair Service Eggers Motor Service 1200 E. 3rd, Superior, Neb. 402-879-4747 Don't lose any sleep over your crops Friday, March 13 Crop Insurance Deadline See Natalie, Jason, Chad or Rich for all your hail and multi-peril insurance needs. Central Insurance An Equal Opportunity Employer '.,, .... -,-, 411 N. National Superior, Neb. 68978 o .............. 402-879-7704 Sattley 2-row corn disc; 2 disc har- rows. Miscellaneous: eight sets of good farm harness; one set of carriage har- ness; 15 good collars of all sizes; 30 tons of alfalfa hay in stack; 20 tons of prairie hay in stack; 500 bushels corn in crib; 700 bushels of oats in bin; Sharpless cream separator; eight dozen chickens; five good Plymouth Rock Cockerels; some household goods and about 1,001 other articles too numer- ous to mention. Crops: two-thirds interest in 70 acres of wheat on the Johnson eighty. Cols. Denny, Henderson and Roe were the auctioneers. Guy O. Seaton was the clerk. About a week earlier Col. Denny was the auctioneer for a sale held four miles south and three miles east of Deweese. F. E. Bottenfield was the clerk. J. B. Wroughton was the seller. For this auction it was stipulated those purchasing more than $10 were of the items could have 10 months to pay on approved notes bearing eight percent interest. Sale started at 10 and free lunch was provided, however there was no mention of free transportation. The list of items to be sold included: Horses and Mules: One team brown horses, 10 and 12 years old, weight 2,600 pounds;.black horse, 5 years old, weight 1,300 pounds; black mare, 10 years old, weight 1,450 pounds, in foal; bay driving horse, 4 years old, weight 1,000 pounds; bay mare, 10 years old, in foal by jack; black driving mare, six years old, weight 1,000 pounds; four coming two-year-old mules; coming three-year-old mule; team of mule colts; black team of mules, coming-eight, sound, weight 2,200 pounds. Cattle: Brindle cow, 10 years old, will be fresh soon; red cow, 8 years old, fresh in January; Guernsey cow, 3 years old, fresh in January; spotted cow, three years old, calf at side; heifer, 3 years old, fresh; heifer, 2 years old, fresh; steer coming 2-years-old; six spring calves; red cow, 5 years old, fresh; good Shorthorn bull, 3 years old; red cow, 4 years old. Farm Machinery: Birdsell wagon; rack and wagon; two Deering mowers; hay rack; John Deere lister; John Deere disc; three section harrow; two John Deere stag sulkies; John Deere riding cultivator; Superior wheat drill; seven- shovel garden plow; 50-gallon kero- sene barrel; three sets of work harness; power feed grinder; 7-foot Acme binder; 12-disc Kentucky drill; 2-row John Deere go-dig; set of l 1/4 inch harness. Most of the machinery was nearly new. Hay and Corn: About l0 tons al- falfa hay; 15 tons prairie hay; and 500 bushels shelled corn. DANA E COLE & COMPANY, L.L.P CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Accounting & Auditing Tax Planning & Preparation Payroll & Bookkeeping Services Estates, Gifts & Trusts Business & Personal Consulting Business Is Great...and We're Looking for More! STOP BY OR CALL FOR ALL YOUR WIRELESS NEEDS Monday- Friday 9 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. ft'veiz,O_wireless Authocfzed Retailer 402-879-5777 308 N. Central Superior, Neb. Protect Your Ownership With Title Insurance e Jennifer Jensen, owner 354 N. Commercial Superior, Neb. 402-879-4341 CLINIC Dr. Darrell Kile 402-879-4060 "We appreciate the opportunity to provide quality healthcare for all your pet and livestock needs. Small and Large Animals Services Grooming & Boarding Available House Calls Country Calls After-Hour Emergencies Clinic Hours: Monday- Fdday." 8 a.m.-Noon, and 1-5p.m. Saturday." .9 a.m. - Noon Located 2 1/2 miles east of stoplight on Highway 8 in Superior, north side of road. ;, '., t