I wanted to extend a special thank you today, to the folks at P&K Equipment who hosted us yesterday in Enid for our special Ron Hays Howdy Neighbor Tour, where I had the chance to get out of the studio for the day and come meet and interact with listeners in the area. Special thanks to all of you who came out and took part in the event as well.

One of those in attendance, was Roland Pederson, a state senator from rural Oklahoma who also farms. I had the chance to catch up with him during the event and reflect on this past year, which was his first, serving the state of Oklahoma as one of its state senators.

"It's been a rewarding experience and hopefully with a year under my belt, that'll help the process move forward a little quicker for me," he said. "Trying to make decisions on the information you have - and all the information you get is not necessarily exactly right. You've got to sort out what's right and do the best you can as far as your discernment and making those decisions."

Right now, Pederson is waiting along with his fellow senate members for word from party leaders on news of deal to fix the state's budget crisis, which is being addressed currently at the State Capital. While no concrete decisions have been made at this point, he is hopeful some more definite news will arise over the course of next week.

Looking ahead to the next regular legislative session coming up in 2018, Pederson, who holds a background as an educator here in Oklahoma, says repairing the state's education system ranks high on his list of priorities. He feels this issue is just as prevalent in rural areas of the state as they are in its urban areas.

You can listen to our complete conversation from yesterday, by clicking or tapping here.

National livestock groups are hailing the Department of Agriculture's withdraw of a GIPSA rule a victory. USDA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing it would withdraw the interim final rule under the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, known as GIPSA.

Through submitted comments, USDA said a common theme of those opposed to the interim final rule was that it would lead to increased litigation.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association called the withdraw a victory for beef producers and consumers.

"The proposed rule would have crippled cattle producers' ability to market their products through the value-added programs that help make American-produced beef the most delicious and nutritious in the world," said Colin Woodall, NCBA's senior vice president of government affairs. "This is a decision worthy of celebrating this evening with a top-quality steak."

Click here to read his full remarks on the announcement.

The National Pork Producers Council, which says it led the opposition effort against the interim final rule, said the organization is happy with the move. 

"We're very pleased that the secretary will withdraw these bad regulations, which would have had a devastating impact on America's pork producers," said NPPC President Ken Maschhoff, a pork producer from Carlyle, Ill. "The regulations would have restricted the buying and selling of livestock, led to consolidation of the livestock industry - putting farmers out of business - and increased consumer prices for meat."

NPPC says an Informa Economics study found that the 2010 GIPSA Rule would have cost the U.S. pork industry more than $420 million annually, more than $4 per hog, in added litigation costs. Click here to read more from the NPPC.

Even Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Ag Committee, applauded the decisive action of Secretary Sonny Perdue, sharing sentiments in his remarks from farmers across the country.

"Today, rural America has received long-awaited good news," said Chairman Roberts. "In the heartland, farmers and ranchers applaud the rollback of the 'GIPSA' rules."

Click here to view the statement released from his office on this matter.

One group, though, the United States Cattlemen's Association, expressed disappointment over the USDA's decision to withdraw from the rule. In a statement, the group's president, Kenny Graner, defended the intended effects of the now scrapped regulation.

"USCA is disappointed in today's announcement.," he said. "The proposed and interim rules sought to maintain competition in the marketplace; withdrawing the rule is a win for multi-national packers and fails to put U.S. cattle producers first."

He went on to state that USCA will continue to work
with Congress in finding solutions to their perceived loopholes in the market through which the industry unfairly takes advantage of. You can read his complete statement, here.

Today more than ever before, consumers are reaching levels of affluence that allow them to be picky when it comes to choosing the food they eat. According to retired ag industry expert Dr. Lowell Catlett, who spoke recently with me at the Texas Cattle Feeders Association Convention, the fact that consumers are picky in their decisions presents producers with an opportunity to market their cattle into some very profitable niches.


"We've got a bunch of consumers with money and the wise thing to do is figure out what they want and are will to spend their money on," Catlett said. "If they truly want animals that you can identify their mother and father and certify their source - and they're willing to pay for that - my message is, 'harvest them!'"


As an industry, Catlett says it is up to the ranchers to take advantage of this opportunity and must produce specifically to the needs of that market, where before, ranchers simply produced for a one-size fits all, mass audience. The interesting thing is, this type of consumer is not limited to just the US or other developed nations. We are seeing these consumers throughout the entire world. And the cattle needed to meet the growing demand for high-quality or specially produced beef, can all be raised right here in the US - efficiently and cost effectively.


"We can prove and have proven that the amount of inputs to get a given output is so much less in an intensive operation. We know and can measure that," he said. "You just don't use as much feed and other things to get a pound of protein out of these animals versus being in an open system. And, because you can concentrate it, we have a smaller negative impact on the environment. And, we can prove that animals' physical health, because they are monitored, is far superior. So, it's a win-win-win."


Listen to Catlett explain to me why consumers' pickiness, as a result of affluence, is actually a good thing for producers and how they can turn a profit from it, on today's Beef Buzz - click here.

Johnston Seed Company, an Oklahoma-based leader in seed and grass products, recently rebranded and unveiled a new website crafted to better serve its customers. The new branding includes a new logo, color palette and messaging.

The relaunch of its brand also features a rejuvenated website, 

with a consumer-friendly design, an interactive product finder, 

detailed product information and resource articles and allows customers the ability to order products online.

"The new Johnston Seed website was crafted with the consumer in mind and designed to simplify the complexities of grass and seed buying," said Joey Meibergen, president and CEO of Johnston Seed Company. "Our employees have always been there for our customers, so our website builds upon that momentum and dedication."

Johnston's mission is to provide unmatched industry expertise, the highest quality, most innovative products and a tireless commitment to the success of its customers and employees. The company's leadership hopes this rebranding effort will reflect the company's continued commitment to customers and increase the ease of conducting business with Johnston for the customers as well.

Learn more about Johnston's rebranding campaign and sneak a peek at their new website, too, by clicking here.

Seventy-nine members of the House of Representatives, led by Congressmen Neal Dunn of Florida and Jimmy Panetta of California, signed a letter sent to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, calling for the agencies to collaborate in the interest of biotechnology's advancement as it relates to agriculture.

The bipartisan group appealed specifically to these agencies as they are responsible for the regulation of biotechnology. They hope that increased coordination among the agencies will spur advanced innovation-inducing policies and strategies, both domestically and internationally.

The letter urges the President's Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity to take an active role in this effort.

Dana O'Brien, Executive Vice President for Food & Agriculture, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, says the letter demonstrates the strong bipartisan support for managing tough societal challenges with innovative biology-based solutions.

Click here to learn more about this request from leaders on Capitol Hill, in the interest of growing biotech's influence in the industry.

 

Oklahoma State University's Agricultural Economics Department released the summary report of the October 2017 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) this week. According to it, willingness-to-pay (WTP) decreased for all meat products except pork chops and deli ham. WTP for chicken breasts saw the largest percent decrease compared to one month ago. WTP for pork chops remains virtually unchanged from one month ago. WTP for all products, though, is lower than one year ago.

Among the new ad hoc questions that were a part of this month's survey- the amount of time elementary students have to eat lunch.

Participants were then asked a series of questions related to school lunch programs. Initially in this segment of questioning, participants were asked whether or not they had children in a lunch program, to which 21.3% stated they did.

Those who answered yes were asked several questions relating to the amount of time provided for lunch at their child's school. Participants were then asked: "At elementary school, how much time is your child given for lunch?" On average, elementary students are given about 32 minutes to each lunch. About 39% of respondents stated that their child was given 26 - 30 minutes to eat lunch.

73% of participants stated their child has adequate time to eat lunch in elementary school. About 20% of participants stated their child does not have adequate time to eat lunch. About 7% of participants were unsure if their child has enough time to eat lunch.

To read more about the AdHoc questions asked- and to review the complete October report- click or tap here.