Tag Archives: USDA

WASHINGTON (June 14, 2019) – House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota and Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Chairman Jim Costa of California issued the following statements in response to today’s announcement of open signup for the 2018 Farm Bill’s Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program.

“The purpose of the Dairy Margin Coverage program is to ensure dairy farmers have an adequate safety net when they need it,” said Peterson. “We put this program together in the farm bill to enable farmers to get their revenue from the market in those years when the milk price is up, but still provide a backstop in the event that milk prices come down or feed costs go up. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: dairies should sign up their first 5 million pounds of production history the $9.50 coverage level. I know times are tough, but this program is going to provide some real help.”

“Dairy farmers were on our minds throughout the entirety of the farm bill process,” said Costa. “Now that the program is being implemented, it is my goal to get information out to producers on Dairy Margin Coverage, as well as the other risk management tools available as soon as possible. DMC improves on the old Margin Protection Program in a number of ways including making it clear that all operations can enroll up to 5 million pounds of production history in tier one, regardless of their overall farm size. DMC also effectively improves catastrophic coverage by setting $5 margin protection at only half a cent per hundredweight, no matter how much production history is enrolled. As Chairman of the Subcommittee overseeing implementation of the dairy provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill, I appreciate USDA’s recognition of the issues confronting dairy farmers in all corners of the country right now, and I look forward to working with USDA as they continue their implementation of this program.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to relocate the headquarters of two research agencies to the Kansas City area, intensifying concerns that research will suffer.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced the move Thursday and said it will bring the Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture closer to farmers and agribusinesses. He also said it would save about $20 million a year.

But the Union of Concerned Scientists predicted the move will drive off researchers and called it “a blatant attack on science.”

A union representing Economic Research Service employees said the move is “coldhearted” and called for keeping workers in Washington.

Members of the Kansas and Missouri congressional delegations and the state’s governors applauded the decision. It’s expected to bring 550 jobs to the area.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) today applauded U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue’s selection of the Kansas City area as the new location for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

“After months of advocating to Secretary Perdue that NIFA and ERS ought to be relocated to the Kansas City area, I’m thrilled that USDA has selected Kansas City to house these critical research agencies,” said Sen. Moran. “The animal health corridor, stretching from Manhattan, Kansas to Columbia, Missouri, is the largest concentration of animal health companies in the world, and Kansas is also the home of the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility – and today’s decision further bolsters Kansas City’s status as a national leader in the ag industry. It is always positive when our government can operate outside of Washington and closer to the people it serves, and I am certain that the decision to relocate NIFA and ERS to Kansas City is a good one. I look forward to helping welcome these USDA agencies and employees to Kansas City.”

“Today’s announcement is great news for the Kansas City region and our state,” said Sen. Blunt. “These agencies will bring hundreds of good-paying jobs to the area and enhance Missouri’s role as a national leader in ag research. Secretary Perdue made the right choice in selecting Kansas City, which is a great place to live and work. The challenges and opportunities have never been greater than they will be in the next 25 years. These research agencies do great work, and will be at the cutting edge of agriculture and well located for assistance and examples as they do their job.”

“I am excited to hear USDA selected Kansas City as the new location for the Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Agricultural research is a critical function of USDA, and I am committed to ensuring we continue to support and strengthen the research mission that our US producers rely on. Kansas City is an obvious choice, as many other USDA agencies in the area partner closely with stakeholders,” said Sen. Roberts. “The vital research that will occur at the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF) and already occurs throughout the KC Animal Health Corridor makes Kansas City a natural fit. I am pleased that USDA recognizes the rich resources the heartland provides.”

“This is outstanding news for the Kansas City region. We’re home to some of the hardest working farmers in the country, so this is a fantastic decision by the USDA,” said Sen. Hawley. “As the new home of the Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Missouri and Kansas will continue to lead in the research and development of American agricultural policy for the 21st century. We are grateful for the job opportunities and renewed partnership this move creates for our state.”

“We have been proud to represent the KC region and we remain committed to partnering with USDA throughout the entire relocation process. We are ready to welcome the ERS and NIFA teams and introduce them to KC’s incredible culture, robust scientific community and unprecedented access to the farm, agribusiness, research and financial customers they serve,” said Kansas City Area Development Council President and CEO Tim Cowden.

Both ERS and NIFA are key research arms of USDA, currently located in the Washington, D.C. area. Secretary Perdue launched an effort to relocate these agencies outside of the Washington, D.C., region.

Item to note:

· On May 21, 2019, Sen. Moran led a bipartisan, bicameral delegation of federal lawmakers from Kansas and Missouri in urging Sec. Perdue to select Kansas City area as headquarters for ERS and NIFA.

Acting Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Joel Baxley today announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is awarding 58 grants for projects in 17 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PDF, 146 KB) to reduce energy costs for farmers, ag producers and rural-based businesses and institutions.

“Lowering energy costs helps businesses improve their bottom line and create jobs,” Baxley said. “Under the leadership of President Trump and Agriculture Secretary Perdue, USDA is committed to increasing economic development in rural communities across the country through strong partnerships with rural businesses.”

USDA is providing the grants through the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). Congress appropriated $50 million for REAP grants and loan guarantees in fiscal year 2019. Under today’s announcement, USDA is investing $1 million in renewable energy projects. USDA will make additional funding announcements in coming weeks.

Recipients can use REAP funding for energy audits and renewable energy systems such as biomass, geothermal, hydropower and solar. They also can be used to make energy efficiency improvements to heating, ventilation and cooling systems; insulation; and lighting and refrigeration, for example.

Here are examples of how some of the recipients will use their grants:

In Utah, Kent Kelly & Associates LC will use a $19,920 grant to replace three refrigeration unit compressors and computer controls with more energy-efficient models. This project is expected to save the company $3,467 per year and lower consumption by 53,280 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. The company leases retail space to a grocery store in Brigham City, Utah.
Treat’s Squire Shop in Plymouth, Ind., is receiving a $1,500 grant to install LED lighting throughout the building. The firm sells men’s clothing and bridal attire. This project will lower energy costs by $4,081 and reduce energy use by 54,911 kWh (76 percent) per year, which is enough electricity to power five homes.
The University of Oregon will use a $100,000 grant to help rural agritourism operations and small businesses implement renewable energy systems. Working under a contract with the nonprofit Spark Northwest, the university will help install solar photovoltaic, wind, small hydro, biodigester and solar thermal renewable energy systems. Overall, this project will help approximately 40 rural businesses, primarily in the ag sector, reduce their monthly utility bills.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue issued the following statement on disaster and trade-related assistance:

“Whether it’s because of natural disasters or unfair retaliatory tariffs, farmers across the country are facing significant challenges and tough decisions on their farms and ranches. Last month, immediately upon China reneging on commitments made during the trade talks, President Trump committed USDA to provide up to $16 billion to support farmers as they absorb some of the negative impact of unjustified retaliation and trade disruption. In addition, President Trump immediately signed into law the long-awaited disaster legislation that provides a lifeline to farmers, ranchers, and producers dealing with extensive damage to their operations caused by natural disasters in 2018 and 2019.

“Given the size and scope of these many disasters, as well as the uncertainty of the final size and scope of this year’s prevented planting acreage, we will use up to $16 billion in support for farmers and the $3 billion in disaster aid to provide as much help as possible to all our affected producers.

“I have been out in the country this spring and visited with many farmers. I know they’re discouraged, and many are facing difficult decisions about what to do this planting season or if they’ve got the capital to stay in business, but they shouldn’t wait for an announcement to make their decisions. I urge farmers to plant for the market and plant what works best on their farm, regardless of what type of assistance programs USDA is able to provide.

“In the coming weeks, USDA will provide information on the Market Facilitation Program payment rates and details of the various components of the disaster relief legislation. USDA is not legally authorized to make Market Facilitation Program payments to producers for acreage that is not planted. However, we are exploring legal flexibilities to provide a minimal per acre market facilitation payment to folks who filed prevent plant and chose to plant an MFP-eligible cover crop, with the potential to be harvested and for subsequent use of those cover crops for forage.”

Background:

For frequently asked questions regarding the USDA Risk Management Agency’s prevented planting policy and losses resulting from floods, please visit, here. For several frequently asked questions regarding how USDA will treat prevented planting acres with regard to the recently announced 2019 Market Facilitation Program and 2018/2019 disaster relief legislation, see below.

1. What is the purpose of the Market Facilitation Program? What is the legal authority?

The Market Facilitation Program (MFP) assists farmers with the additional costs of adjusting to disrupted markets, dealing with surplus commodities, and expanding and developing new markets at home and abroad, consistent with the authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act.

2. Last year, soybeans had the highest MFP payment per bushel, should I plant soybeans this year to get the highest payment if I have the opportunity?

You should plant what works best for your operation and what you would plant in any other year, absent any assistance from USDA. 2019 MFP assistance is based on a single county payment rate multiplied by a farm’s total plantings to the MFP-eligible crops (outlined below) in aggregate in 2019. Those per acre payments are not dependent on which of those crops are planted in 2019, and therefore will not distort planting decisions. Your total payment-eligible plantings cannot exceed your total 2018 plantings.

2019 MFP-eligible non-specialty crops: alfalfa hay, barley, canola, corn, crambe, dry peas, extra-long staple cotton, flaxseed, lentils, long grain and medium grain rice, millet, mustard seed, dried beans, oats, peanuts, rapeseed, rye, safflower, sesame seed, small and large chickpeas, sorghum, soybeans, sunflower seed, temperate japonica rice, triticale, upland cotton, and wheat.

2019 MFP-eligible specialty crops: tree nuts, fresh sweet cherries, cranberries, and fresh grapes.

3. My fields never dried out enough to get any crop in, do I get a 2019 Market Facilitation Program payment?

No, USDA does not have the legal authority to make MFP payments to producers for acreage that is not planted. To qualify for a 2019 MFP payment, you must have planted a 2019 MFP-eligible crop. Producers unable to plant their crop should work with their crop insurance agent to file a claim.

4. I filed a prevented planting claim and I am going to plant a cover crop to prevent erosion, does that count for 2019 MFP if it’s on the 2019 MFP-eligible list you announced in May?

If you choose to plant a cover crop with the potential to be harvested, because of this year’s adverse weather conditions, you may qualify for a minimal amount of 2019 MFP assistance. You must still comply with your crop insurance requirements to remain eligible for any indemnities received.

5. I heard that I could get 90% of my crop insurance guarantee as a prevented planting payment through the disaster bill, is that true?

The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 gives the USDA the authority to compensate losses caused by prevented planting in 2019 up to 90%. While the authority exists, USDA must operate within finite appropriations limits. It is highly unlikely that the supplemental appropriation will support that level of coverage in addition to crop insurance. Congress appropriated $3.005 billion in assistance for a wide array of losses resulting from disasters throughout 2018 and 2019, requiring USDA to prioritize how it is allocated. The Department plans to provide assistance on prevented planting losses within the confines of our authority.

6. If I plant a second crop or cover crop, can I still get my full prevented planting payment? What about an MFP payment?

You must comply with crop insurance requirements to remain eligible for a full prevented planting indemnity. USDA encourages you to visit with your crop insurance agent to ensure you are aware of those various options for your operation. If you choose to plant a cover crop with the potential to be harvested, because of this year’s adverse weather conditions, you may qualify for a minimal amount of 2019 MFP assistance.

7. I have heard that only acreage in a declared disaster area will qualify for prevented planting under the Disaster Relief Act. Is that true?

USDA is currently evaluating the new authority provided under the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019. However, it is generally true that producers with qualifying losses in a Secretarial or Presidentially-declared disaster area will be eligible for Disaster Relief Act assistance. Producers with qualifying losses outside of those areas will have eligibility determined on a case-by-case basis.

8. I have a revenue protection policy with a ‘harvest price option’, do I get the higher of the projected price or harvest price for my prevented planting payment?

The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 gives the USDA the authority to compensate losses caused by prevented planting in 2019 and also provides additional authority to compensate producers on the higher of the projected price or harvest price. USDA is currently exploring legal flexibility to provide assistance that better utilizes the harvest price in conjunction with revenue and prevent planting policies.

9. If I am prevented from planting but manage to get a cover crop or a forage in the ground, am I able to hay or graze that prior to November 1, given the forage shortage we’re going to experience?

USDA encourages you to visit with your crop insurance agent to ensure you are aware of those various prevented planting, cover crop, and harvest options for your operation. USDA is currently reviewing the prevented planting restrictions in the Federal Crop Insurance Act to determine what options may be available to address this and other issues. Further clarity regarding this haying and grazing date will be forthcoming.

10. What if I don’t have crop insurance? How do MFP and disaster relief programs work for me if I’m prevented from planting due to natural disasters?
Crop insurance is not required to qualify for 2019 MFP assistance. However, USDA requires that a producer plant a 2019 MFP-eligible crop to qualify for the 2019 MFP assistance.

If you choose to plant a cover crop with the potential to be harvested, because of this year’s adverse weather conditions, you may qualify for a minimal amount of 2019 MFP assistance.

The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 gives the USDA the authority to compensate losses caused by prevented planting in 2019. Producers with qualifying losses in a Secretarial or Presidentially-declared disaster area will be eligible for Disaster Relief Act assistance. Producers with qualifying losses outside of those areas will have eligibility determined on a case-by-case basis.

Acting Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Joel Baxley today announced that USDA is providing $858 million in loans to upgrade rural electric systems in 17 states . The funding includes $64 million to finance smart grid technologies that improve system operations and monitor grid security.

“Investing in our nation’s electric infrastructure powers our economy, creates jobs and helps deliver services such as education, training and health care to build stronger rural communities,” Baxley said. “These loans will help rural electric cooperatives generate and distribute power to keep systems reliable and affordable for those who live and work in rural areas.”

WASHINGTON –Nine U.S. Senators, led by Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry, today raised concerns that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will continue to allow foreign companies to profit from the Trump Administration’s plan to assist American farmers affected by their trade policies.

Last week, the Administration announced it would provide up to $1.4 billion to purchase commodities targeted by retaliatory tariffs. In the previous round of aid, lucrative purchasing contracts were awarded to several foreign entities, including nearly $62.5 million in pork products from JBS USA, which is owned by Brazilian parent company JBS SA.

“…It is counterproductive and contradictory for these companies to receive assistance paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars intended to help American farmers struggling with this Administration’s trade policy,” the Senators wrote.

The USDA has indicated that foreign corporations could continue to profit from tariff aid. In a written response, the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs stated the USDA would take no action to prevent foreign companies from profiting from U.S. taxpayer-funded aid, writing that the agency “awards purchases to the lowest bidder through their procurement process and will not manipulate the integrity of the process to exclude particular companies.”

“It is unacceptable that American taxpayers have been subsidizing our competitors through trade assistance,” the Senators wrote. “We ask that you ensure these commodity purchases are carried out in a manner that most benefits the American farmer’s bottom line –not the business interests of foreign corporations.”

The letter was signed by Senators Stabenow, Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

The full text of the letter is below. A PDF of the letter is available here.

Dear Secretary Perdue:

As you know, American farmers continue to be caught in the middle of the Administration’s action on trade, and face ongoing challenges from retaliatory tariffs imposed by key trading partners. While we understand the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) desire to aid farmers impacted by this trade disruption, we urge you to stop making trade mitigation commodity purchases that benefit foreign-owned companies.

Last year, the Administration made up to $1.2 billion available for commodity purchases through a new Food Purchase and Distribution Program, which was intended to assist producers harmed by retaliatory tariffs. Under this program, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars in commodity purchases throughout the rest of calendar year 2019.

On top of that, you recently announced that the Administration is planning further trade mitigation assistance, including additional commodity purchases. As such, we are deeply concerned that the Department’s efforts to assist farmers harmed by trade disruptions may continue to benefit foreign-owned entities.

Under the Food Purchase and Distribution Program, the USDA has awarded lucrative purchasing contracts to several entities with foreign ownership, including $240,000 in pork products from Smithfield Foods, a subsidiary of the Chinese-owned WH Group, and nearly $62.5 million in pork products from JBS USA, which is owned by Brazilian parent company JBS SA. While the USDA permitted Smithfield to terminate its purchasing contract upon the company’s request, the Department awarded numerous contracts to JBS and has not established sufficient procedures to ensure that taxpayer-funded trade assistance for American farmers is not ultimately benefiting foreign companies.

Whether it’s the WH Group, which is closely tied to the Chinese government, or JBS SA, which is benefitting from the U.S’s loss of market share in certain countries, it is counterproductive and contradictory for these companies to receive assistance paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars intended to help American farmers struggling with this Administration’s trade policy.

Following a U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee hearing on U.S. agricultural trade in September 2018, this concern was raised with Ted McKinney, USDA’s Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. He was asked how USDA would ensure that these trade mitigation commodity purchases would benefit American farmers and not benefit foreign-owned companies. In response, Under Secretary McKinney showed no concern with commodity purchases benefitting foreign companies, writing, “AMS awards purchases to the lowest bidder through their procurement process and will not manipulate the integrity of the process to exclude particular companies.”

It is unacceptable that American taxpayers have been subsidizing our competitors through trade assistance. We ask that you ensure these commodity purchases are carried out in a manner that most benefits the American farmer’s bottom line –not the business interests of foreign corporations. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced the appointment of five members to the National Pork Board. Bill Luckey of Columbus, Nebraska was among those selected and will serve a three-year term.

Other appointed members are: Russell A. Nugent III, Lowell, Ark.; Gene Noem, Ames, Iowa; Alicia Pedemonti, Hopkinton, N.H.; and Michael P. Skahill, Williamsburg, Va.

The National Pork Board is composed of 15 pork producers nominated by the National Pork Producers Delegate Body, which is made up of 132 producer and importer members.

Bill Luckey owns a wean-to-finish operation in Columbus, Nebraska where he also holds partial ownership of a sow farm. Bill is responsible for the daily care of 740 nursery pigs and 1,400 finisher pigs. In addition, his family operates a 2,000 head custom contract finisher. They market 10,000 pigs annually. Bill also raises corn, soybeans and cattle on 700 acres.

Bill is currently serving on the board of directors for the Swine Health Information Center. He has also been active on numerous National Pork Board committees and currently serves as chairman of the International Marketing Committee. In addition, has given over 50 speeches as an Operation Main Street 2.0 speaker.

Previously, Bill served on the National Pork Producers Council board of directors from 2008-2014 and on the Nebraska Pork Producers Association (NPPA) board of directors from 2001-2007 where he was president from 2006-2007. NPPA President,

Tim Chancellor offered his congratulations stating, “It gives me great pleasure to extend my warmest congratulations to Bill on his appointment to the National Pork Board. I am confident that Bill will continue his unwavering dedication to the pork industry.”

The program was created and is administered under the authority of the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1985. It became effective September 5, 1986, when the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order was implemented. Assessments began Nov. 1, 1986.

Since 1966, Congress has authorized the development of industry-funded research and promotion boards to provide a framework for agricultural industries to pool their resources and combine efforts to develop new markets, strengthen existing markets, and conduct important research and promotion activities. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides oversight of 22 boards, paid for by industry assessments, which helps ensure fiscal accountability and program integrity.

USDA Under Secretary Greg Ibach says scientists have pegged an effective vaccine for the African Swine Fever Virus is at least eight years away. The Fence Post Dot Com says he made the announcement during a hearing in front of the House Agriculture Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee hearing on animal pest disease prevention and response capabilities.

Ibach says the USDA is also working with Canada on research on how to detect the disease, as well as on biosecurity measures. In fact, the agency is working closely with both Canada and Mexico to control African Swine Fever, which hasn’t been found in North America.

If the virus does show up, USDA would consult with governments of both countries before deciding where and when to limit animal movements. Ibach was asked about importing organic animal feed from China, where the ASF virus is prevalent. He says imports of feed from China are much lower than they’ve been, but also pointed out that “shutting down imports of feed would hurt the swine industry.

Farmers across the country took advantage of the short period of drier weather last week to make up for lost time in getting seed in the ground. But, as of Sunday, May 19, only about the half of the nation’s corn crop and less than a quarter of the soybean crop was planted, according to USDA NASS’ weekly Crop Progress report on Monday.

An estimated 49% of U.S. corn was planted as of Sunday, a jump of 19 percentage points from 30% the previous week, but still well behind 78% at the same time last year and 31 percentage points behind the five-year average of 80%. That was a slight improvement from last week’s report when corn planting was 36 percentage points behind the average pace.

Clay Patton has more: https://post.futurimedia.com/krvnam/playlist/futures-one-crop-progress-report-nebraska-iowa-and-kansas-utilize-short-window-to-plant-6760.html

Corn emergence continued to be sluggish with an estimated 19% of the crop emerged as of Sunday, behind 47% last year and 30 percentage points behind the five-year average of 49%. In last week’s report, emergence was 19 percentage points behind the average.

Soybean planting progress fell further behind its average pace. As of Sunday, an estimated 19% of the crop was planted, up 10 percentage points from the previous week, behind last year’s 53% and 28 percentage points behind the five-year average of 47%. In last week’s report, soybean planting was 20 percentage points behind average.

Meanwhile, spring wheat growers continued to close the gap between 2019 planting progress and the five-year average. NASS estimated that 70% of spring wheat was planted as of Sunday, 10 percentage points behind the five-year average of 80%. That was closer to the average pace than the previous week when planting was 22 percentage points behind normal.

Spring wheat emerged, at 26%, was 25 percentage points behind the five-year average of 51%.

Winter wheat was 54% headed as of Sunday, behind last year’s 59% and 12 percentage points behind the five-year average of 66%. USDA estimated that 66% of winter wheat was in good-to-excellent condition, up 2 percentage points from 64% the previous week.

Sorghum was 26% planted, compared to 38% last year and a five-year average of 38%. Oats were 77% planted as of May 19, compared to 84% last year and an average of 90%. Oats emerged were at 53%, compared to 64% last year and an average of 76%.

Cotton planting was 44% complete, compared to 50% last year and an average of 45%. Rice was 73% planted, compared to 92% last year and an average of 90%. Fifty-two percent of rice was emerged, compared to 72% last year and an average of 75%.

To view weekly crop progress reports issued by National Ag Statistics Service offices in individual states, visit http://www.nass.usda.gov. Look for the U.S. map in the “Find Data and Reports by” section and choose the state you wish to view in the drop-down menu. Then look for that state’s “Crop Progress & Condition” report.

National Crop Progress Summary
	This	Last	Last	5-Year
	Week	Week	Year	Avg.
Corn Planted	49	30	78	80
Corn Emerged	19	10	47	49
Soybeans Planted	19	9	53	47
Soybeans Emerged	5	NA	24	17
Winter Wheat Headed	54	42	59	66
Spring Wheat Planted	70	45	76	80
Spring Wheat Emerged	26	10	34	51
Cotton Planted	44	26	50	45
Sorghum Planted	26	24	38	38
Barley Planted	76	59	78	84
Barley Emerged	39	25	42	57
Oats Planted	77	62	84	90
Oats Emerged	53	43	64	76
Rice Planted	73	55	92	90
Rice Emerged	52	42	72	75

National Crop Condition Summary
(VP = Very Poor; P = Poor; F = Fair; G = Good; E = Excellent)
	This Week					Last Week					Last Year
	VP	P	F	G	E	VP	P	F	G	E	VP	P	F	G	E
Winter Wheat	2	6	26	50	16	2	6	28	49	15	15	20	29	29	7

National Soil Moisture Condition – 48 States
(VS = Very Short; SH = Short; AD = Adequate; SR = Surplus)
	This Week				Last Week				Last Year
	VS	SH	AD	SR	VS	SH	AD	SR	VS	SH	AD	SR
Topsoil Moisture	1	7	61	31	1	6	59	34	8	17	64	11
Subsoil Moisture	1	6	64	29	1	6	63	30	7	21	64	8