|
RUSSIA'S GRAIN CROP BETTER THAN EXPECTED
Russia will harvest more than the 65 million tonnes of grain initially forecast for this year, Deputy Prime
Minister and Agriculture Minister Aleksei Gordeyev said on Thursday.
"We planned to produce around 65 million tonnes but data collected by yesterday at the ministry showed that the harvest will be somewhat higher," he
told a news briefing.
"I won't give you an exact figure so as to be on the safe side," he added. The ministry's most recent estimate of the grain harvest has been 65 to 67
million tonnes.
He said the harvest would be high enough to ensure Russia would not face a deficit of food grain for human consumption, but he added that quality was average.
Russia had harvested 25.3 million tonnes of all grains by August 10, up 1.2 million on the same date in 1999, Gordeyev said. The total included 15.9 million
tonnes of wheat, of which 56 percent was of food quality. The average grain yield was 2.3 tonnes per hectare, up from 1.91 tonnes in 1999.
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUR WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN
At harvest is a good time to evaluate the effectiveness of your weed
management plan. Evaluation is a critical component of an integrated weed management system (IWM). The components of IWM include prevention, scouting, implementing a weed management plan, preparing rescue treatments
in case the plan fails and evaluating the effectiveness of the weed management plan.
Evaluation should be done at least twice during the growing season. At harvest evaluation is especially important for two reasons. First, it allows for
determination of new weed species that may have invaded fields. It is easier to identify weed species after harvest when the weeds are larger and in flower versus earlier in the season when they are seedlings.
Second, evaluation at harvest can determine which weeds are escaping management. This allows corrections to be made to management plans thereby preventing further escapes.
An evaluation should be done earlier in the season, as well, at four weeks after herbicide application. This initial evaluation should both rate phytotoxicity
(crop injury) and determine which weeds are showing injury or susceptibility to herbicides. This can help assess if weeds present at harvest were treated with herbicide or emerged after herbicides were applied.
Weeds might escape management for several reasons.
Selecting herbicides with low to marginal activity on the weeds present is the first potential problem. Herbicide resistance may also cause weeds to escape control. Repetitive use of herbicides with the same mode of action increases the risk of herbicide resistant weeds developing on your farm. Do not use herbicides with the same mode of action every cropping year to control the same weed species.
Lastly, environmental conditions can cause weed escapes. For example, a hailstorm could damage crops, decreasing competition with weeds. Rain at the wrong time
after a herbicide application or drought stress can help weeds escape management.
Rating the effectiveness of an integrated weed management system at harvest allows you to determine which weeds are producing seed. This serves as a summation of the effectiveness of your system.
Secondly, rating at harvest will help determine which weed species are having the highest impact on crop yield. For example, are the impacts of wild oat on
spring wheat greater or less than the impacts of pennycress on spring wheat? This should help prioritize which weed species need to be targeted and help prepare for potential future weed problems. This relates
back to the importance of scouting. Walking or scouting fields for weeds will help determine if pre- or post-harvest weed management is needed for weeds, to either aid harvest or prevent seed set.
Scouting and evaluation are two critical components of your integrated weed management system. Continuing to remain watchful of your weed problems will help prevent future weed escapes and yield loss.
For more information regarding integrated weed management systems and preventing weed invasion, see the MSU Weed Science web site at http://weedeco.msu.montana.edu/weedgroup/home.htm
USDA ISSUES A REMINDER ON 2000 CROPS & LDP'S
After two crop years where the $75,000 combined payment limit on marketing loan
gains (MLGs) and loan deficiency payments (LDPs) was doubled to $150,000, USDA has sent out a reminder to state and county Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices for the 2000 crop year, the payment limitation reverts
back to $75,000 per person.
USDA notes that the "average LDP rates for 2000 crops have been higher than in recent years and producers may reach the $75,000 payment limitation for the
first time or earlier than in recent years. Producers may be eligible for a nonrecourse marketing assistance loan if LDP has been denied because payment limitation was reached and producers maintain beneficial
interest in a commodity."
County FSA offices are directed to publicize the following points to their farmers:
1. The $75,000 payment limit is applicable for the 2000 crop.
2. Beneficial interest requirements.
3. Eligibility requirements for marketing assistance
loans, regardless as to whether the $75,000 payment limitation has been reached or not.
4. That commodity certificate exchanges are only applicable to outstanding commodity assistance loans.
5. Remind them
of maintaining loan and LDP eligibility when the $75,000 payment limitation is reached and maintaining beneficial interest.
6. The chance they may risk losing eligibility for marketing assistance loans.
County offices have also been directed to continue to accept all loan and LDP requests in the normal manner, regardless of whether or not a producer is believed
to have hit the $75,000 payment limitation.
USDA has also offered up some examples of when producers would be eligible or ineligible for a nonrecourse loan once the $75,000 payment limit is hit on LDPs:
When producers are eligible:
Example 1. Producer requests the LDP via CCC-709 for "all" production and delivers the commodity
to a buyer. During delivery, the producer realizes the $75,000 payment limit was hit and the producer immediately stops delivering the commodity to a buyer and delivers the commodity to the farm.
Example 2. The producer requests the LDP via CCC-709 for any quantity delivered for immediate sale and delivers the commodity to a buyer. During delivery, the producer realizes the payment limit is hit. The producer continues to deliver and places the commodity in an approved UGRSA storage facility. The producer maintains beneficial interest in the commodity placed in storage.
NOTE: The producer is eligible for LDP on the quantity delivered up to the $75,000 payment limit and may request a nonrecourse for the quantity delivered to the
farm as long as the producer maintains beneficial interest.
When producers are ineligible:
Example 1: The producer requests the LDP via CCC-709 for any quantity delivered for immediate sale and delivers
the commodity to a buyer. During delivery, the producer realizes the payment limit is hit. The producer continues to deliver and places the commodity in a storage facility that is not a UGRSA-approved storage
facility. The producer maintains beneficial interest in the commodity placed in storage.
The producer is not eligible because the commodity is delivered to a storage facility that is not UGRSA approved and an
eligible warehouse receipt cannot be issued.
Example 2. The producer requests the LDP via CCC-709 for any quantity delivered for immediate sale and delivers the commodity to a buyer. During
delivery, the producer realizes the payment limit is hit. The producer continues to deliver and does not maintain beneficial interest because the commodity is under contract to the buyer and beneficial interest is
lost when the commodity is delivered.
The producer is ineligible for a nonrecourse marketing loan because beneficial interest was lost at the time of delivery.
Keep in mind, legislation has been introduced in Congress that would boost the LDP limit to $150,000 for both the 2000 crop year and for the remaining crop
years covered by the 1996 Farm Act. The outcome of that legislation is not certain as of yet and there are a limited number of legislative days left for Congress to act on such a provision.
USDA has to issues reminders like this to the county and state FSA offices because they cannot assume that pending legislation will become law. So if the above
changes are enacted into law, then it will ease some of the pressure on producers hitting the $75,000 payment limit. But for now, that's not the case.
RELIEF ON THE WAY FOR SOME USDA FARM LOAN BORROWERS
The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced changes in regulations
that could bring relief to farmers who are facing repayment of a portion of their debt that was forgiven by the Government a decade ago.
As a condition of debt write-down made available since the late 1980s, Federal farm borrowers were required to sign a Shared Appreciation Agreement (SAA), under
which the Government could recapture a portion of the debt forgiven if the farm appreciated in value during the 10-year term of the agreement. This program has made it possible for thousands of borrowers who were
unable to pay their debts to avoid foreclosure and continue their farming operations.
The SAA commits the borrower to repay 70 percent during the first 4 years and 50 percent of any positive appreciation in the farm's value, up to the amount
written off, from the 5th year to the 10th year of the agreement if certain actions occurred.
The revised regulation, which will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register within the next two weeks, makes three key changes in the SAA:
(1) It provides a deduction for certain capital improvements to the farm in determining appreciation, possibly reducing the amount of recapture due
(2) Allows recapture to be paid off over a 25-year period in most instances at a special low interest rate
(3) Reduces the terms of new SAAs from 10 years to 5.
Regulatory changes made last year allowed SAA borrowers with agreements maturing in 1999 and 2000 to suspend payment of recapture for up to three years if they
could not pay. The benefits of the latest changes will be available to all borrowers whose SAA accounts are currently in suspension, as well as those whose agreements mature in this and succeeding years.
DURUM MONEY ON HOLD UNTIL OCTOBER 1
Bismarck, ND attorney Sarah Vogel said she has received telephone calls from farmers asking
if she'll call their banker to confirm that money from a durum insurance lawsuit victory will actually be paid. In other words, most producers need the money now. Read more at the Bismarck Tribune
USDA RELEASES EXPORT SALES REPORT 08/10/00
http://www.fas.usda.gov/export-sales/
USDA RELEASES WEEKLY WEATHER AND CROP BULLETIN 08/08/00
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/weather/2000/weth3300.
txt
|
