Search
Displaying 81 - 90 of 166
August 1, 2023
Breakout Sessions
Plant and animal diversity• Water filtration
https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/kansas/kansas‐wildlife/
How … burn
Geographic Region for Analysis
Stocker Operations
Cow‐Calf Operations
Agricultural Policy eXtender (APEX) Model
Source: EPIC/APEX | EPIC & APEX Models (tamu.edu)
APEX
• …
July 24, 2020
Ag Law Issues
often subjected to the rules
developed by federal government agencies … failing to provide sufficient policy reasons for ending
DACA … agencies are to go about developing regulations. It also gives …
September 15, 2016
KFMA Newsletters
Coordinator of Professional Development and Training
Congress … Coordinator of
Professional Development and Training and with the … difference has
important policy implications.
County-Farm …
December 1, 2016
KFMA Newsletters
are tough. A
new tool developed by the K-State Agricultural … marketing strategies and policies can be implemented to improve … empirical adoption model was developed to understand why farmers …
June 21, 2018
Animal Health
1
Value of Arrival Metaphylaxis in the U.S. Fed Cattle Industry
Elliott J. Dennis (grapple5@ksu.edu), Ted C. Schroeder (tcs@ksu.edu), Dustin L. Pendell (dpendell@ksu.edu)
Kansas State University Department of Agricultural Economics
David G. Renter (drenter@vet.ksu.edu) ‐ Kansas State University Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology
June 2018
Introduction:
Use of antimicrobials1 in livestock production is facing intense public scrutiny. Major restaurants, food service
companies, food processors, and supermarkets have pledged to reduce the use of antimicrobials in meat
production (Pew Trust, 2016). Federal and international organizations have expressed growing concerns that use
of shared‐class2 antimicrobials in livestock production may be linked to increased health risks and antimicrobial
resistance in humans (Center of Disease Control, 2013; World Health Organization, 2012). These concerns, in
part, have prompted state and federal legislators to increase regulation and veterinary oversight of shared‐class
antimicrobials in animal production (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2009; Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) (FDA 2012, 2013).
Metaphylaxis3 is an animal health management practice in which FDA approved antimicrobials are administered
to a group of high health‐risk animals, generally via injection, to eliminate or minimize incidence of an acute
onset of a disease outbreak. While all antimicrobials are regulated by the FDA in the U.S., current policy debates
include whether to further regulate antimicrobials used for metaphylaxis. Livestock producers are concerned
that restricting or removing such a widely used production technology would be detrimental to animal health
and result in substantial animal deaths, reduced animal welfare, increased production risk, and reduced
profitability.
1 “Antimicrobial drugs include all drugs that work against a variety of microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and
parasites. An antibiotic drug is effective against bacteria. All antibiotics are antimicrobials, but not all antimicrobials are
antibiotics.” (FDA 2018).
2 Shared‐class antimicrobials are used to treat disease in both human and animals.
3 Metaphylaxis is used in cattle to reduce the risk or impacts of an outbreak of bovine respiratory disease (BRD), the most
common cause of morbidity and mortality in beef cattle production affecting 97% of feedlots, 16% of cattle, and costing the
beef industry an estimated $6 billion annually (Griffin, 1997; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013). Metaphylaxis is used by
59% of U.S. feedlots selectively on 20.5% of cattle placed on feed across all cattle placement weights (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 2013). …
August 30, 2021
Ag Law Issues
appreciation, such as from development, with an eye toward later … Life insurance under a policy on the life of the estate … structuring the ownership of the policy and the beneficiary
designation(s …
January 13, 2023
2018 Farm Bill
before a new farm bill is developed by
September 2023, or an … https://www.agmanager.info/ag-
policy/arc-co-historical-payment-maps … https://www.agmanager.info/ag-
policy/2018-farm-bill/tradeoff-between-20232024-arc-and-plc …
January 1, 2004
Land Leasing
Forms
hazardous to hunters, and
developing habitat by planting food … investment in the property and develop the habitat for an improved … provides the incentive to develop
habitat or install semi-permanent …
August 30, 2017
Crop Insurance Papers
2
The indemnity is calculated as the margin loss times the Protection Factor. The Protection Factor
ranges in value from 0.80 to 1.20, meaning that the margin loss can be scaled up or down by as much
as 20% to calculate the final indemnity amount. The Protection Factor may be familiar to some as a
feature also available with other county‐based insurance products such as Area Risk Protection
Insurance (ARPI).
The county yields used for MP coverage are the same ones used in the ARPI insurance plans. An
Expected County Yield will be announced prior to sign‐up for purposes of calculating the expected
revenues and related parameters. The Final County Yield, used to calculate harvest revenue, is usually
not announced by USDA until early the following year, so loss determination for MP will be somewhat
delayed, compared to individual crop insurance plans.
The Expected County Yield is also used to determine input quantities. Formulas have been developed
to estimate input use as a function of yield for several inputs: diesel, urea, diammonium phosphate
(DAP), potash, and interest. Urea, DAP, and potash represent the familiar macro nutrients of N, P, and
K found in many fertilizer formulations. Table 1 shows the formulas and parameter values used to
calculate input amounts. For example, consider a non‐irrigated corn yield of 140 bu/a. Plugging this
value into the formulas results in the following input quantities: 8.1 gallons of diesel, 252.6 lbs of urea,
106.5 lbs of DAP, and 58.3 lbs of potash on a per‐acre basis. These quantities are combined with the
average futures prices of these inputs during the price discovery period to calculate this part of
expected costs.
The second component of expected costs is a fixed amount that covers all other inputs not subject to
changing prices. This component includes costs like seed, herbicides and other chemicals, machinery,
lubrication, etc. For corn in 2018, this amount is set at $206.90/acre, and for soybeans it is
$111.50/acre. These amounts are the same for all counties and practices, and they are not subject to
change during the later Harvest Price discovery period.
Interest is the third component of expected costs. Interest is calculated as 6% + the 30‐day Fed Funds
rate, applied to all the other operating costs mentioned earlier, and assumed to be outstanding for 6
months. Tables 2 and 3 show examples of expected cost calculations for corn and soybeans,
respectively.
Table 4 shows the sources of the input prices used to calculate costs, as well as the price discovery
periods. The diesel price is based on the May diesel contract at the New York Mercantile Exchange,
urea and DAP prices are based on May futures swaps contracts at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
and the potash price is based on cash prices reported by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service for
central Illinois. The interest rate is based on the CME 30‐day Fed Funds November contract.
Table 4 also shows similar information for the corn and soybean prices. The crop prices are based on
the same futures contracts used in the traditional Revenue Protection (RP) and Yield Protection (YP)
Kansas State University Department Of Agricultural Economics Extension Publication …
May 19, 2014
Agribusiness Papers
to the business of public policy to maximize the net benefits … activities. An assessment of our
policies in all industries, not only … so prevalent in our public policies that we needed special
departments …