Why another food commodity
price spike? pg 6
Wheat head armyworm
in eastern Oregon pg 16
An Official Publication of the Oregon Wheat Industry
DECEMBER 2011
OREGON WHEAT GROWERS LEAGUE
115 SE 8th St., Pendleton, OR 97801
Address Service Requested
NON-PROFIT
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
PONTIAC, IL 61764
PERMIT 125
At Commodity Classic, you’ll fill up both of these.
Sure, your goodie bag will get stuffed full at the amazing trade show.
But it’s the ideas, innovation and energy that make Commodity Classic
the one-of-a-kind, can’t-miss event for America’s farmers.
•
•
•
•
Get the inside scoop on what’s new from the people creating it.
Go one-on-one with leaders from industry and ag organizations.
Be among the first to see new technology, products and equipment.
Network with other talented growers from across the nation.
When it comes to increasing the brainpower of America’s farmers,
Commodity Classic has it in the bag.
Join us in Nashville, March 1-3, 2012
OPEN TO ALL FRIENDS OF CORN, SOYBEANS, WHEAT & SORGHUM!
High-Powered Presentations • Thought-Provoking Discussions • Expert
Speakers • Top National Talent • New Technology & Ideas • Incredible
Trade Show • Opportunities to Meet Other Growers from Across the Nation
www.CommodityClassic.com
America’s largest farmer-led, farmer-focused convention & trade show.
A December 2011
• Volume 63 • Number 6
An Official Publication Of The Oregon Wheat Industry
Cover photo by Ron Lanai, Umatilla County
IN THIS ISSUE
SU BSCRI PTIONS
U.S.
Single Copies: $1.50
1-Year Subscription: $15.00
2-Year Subscription: $28.00
5 President’s half acre
6 Why another food commodity
Canadian & Foreign:
1-Year Subscription: $30.00
2-Year Subscription: $56.00
price spike?
Send Subscription Requests To:
Oregon Wheat Growers League
115 SE 8th Street, Pendleton, Oregon 97801
analyzer for in-line measurement
A D V E RT I S I N G I N F O R M AT I O N
14 Base price contracts and the
Publication Office
115 SE 8th Street
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
Phone: 541-276-7330
FAX: 541-276-1723
Web Site: www.owgl.org
long-only index funds
—Tom McCoy, OWC Chairman
16 Oregon Wheat Commission Report
Advertising & Production Office
Sandy Creighton,
Ad Sales Manager
966 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Fresno, CA 93720
Phone: 559-433-9343
FAX: 559-433-9343
[email protected]
Farm Progress
Companies
255 38th Avenue, Suite P
St. Charles, IL 60174
Judy Brent,
Production Manager
Phone: 630-462-2919
FAX: 630-462-2924
[email protected]
Carol Salzmann
Ad Sales Representative
255 38th Avenue, Suite P
St. Charles, IL 60174
Lisa Lynd, Design
Ph: 630-462-2940
Phone: 630-462-2942
Fax: 630-462-2961
[email protected]
[email protected]
ADV E RT I S I N G R AT E S
Rates 11 Homely home remedies
12 Testing a new NIR reflectance grain
B/W 2/C W
heat head armyworm on the wheat
growing region of eastern Oregon
18 U.S. Wheat Associates Annual Report
2010/11
19 T
ax-deferred exchanges of farmland
provide valuable savings to some
farmers
21 Call to membership and application
23 Chocolate melt-away cookies
4/C
Page..................................... $690........ $860.......$1025
2/3 Page Vertical................ 540...........700........... 875
1/2 Page Vert/Horiz...........410.......... 580........... 750
1/3 Page Square/Vert...... 285.......... 455...........620
1/4 Page............................... 200 .........370...........540
1/6 Page Vertical.................140...........310...........480
1/8 Page Horizontal...........140...........310...........480
*Frequency discounts: 2X–5%, 3X–7%, 4X–10%
Above rates are gross; 15% discount to recognized
agencies.
Oregon Wheat is published bi-monthly by Oregon Wheat Growers League, 115 SE 8th Street,
Pendleton, Oregon 97801. Oregon Wheat is sent to all Oregon wheat producers courtesy of
the Oregon Wheat Commission and the Oregon Wheat Growers League. If you are currently
receiving multiple copies, or would like to make a change in your Oregon Wheat subscription,
please contact the publication office (above, left). Receipt of Oregon Wheat does not indicate
membership in the Oregon Wheat Growers League.
Every effort is made to ensure accuracy in articles published by Oregon Wheat; however,
the publishers assume no responsibility for losses sustained, allegedly resulting from following
recommendations in this magazine. Consult your local authorities.
The Oregon Wheat Growers League has not tested any of the products advertised in this
publication, nor has it verified any of the statements made in any of the advertisements. The
League does not warrant, expressly or implicitly, the fitness of any product advertised or the
suitability of any advice or statements contained herein.
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 3
OWC
Blake Rowe
Chief Executive Officer
OREGON WHEAT GROWERS LEAGUE
Craig Reeder
President
Tyson Raymond
Vice President
Committee Chairs
Tanner Hawkins, Environment & Regulations
Paul Bracher, Farm Policy
Suzi Frederickson, Research & Technology
Darren Padget
Immediate
Past President
Walter Powell
Secretary/Treasurer
County Presidents
Jack Osterlund, Gilliam County
Brent Cheyne, Klamath County
Shannon Rust, Morrow County
Bob Martin, Sherman County
Tanner Hawkins, Umatilla County
Rob Lane, Union/Baker Counties
Kurt Bowman, Union/Baker Counties VP
Kurt Melville, Wallowa County
Charles Remington, Wasco County
Tom Duyck, N. Willamette Valley Counties
Jerry Marguth, S. Willamette Valley Counties
Ex-Officio Board Member
Dan Steiner, PGG/MCGG
Staff
Sally Christensen, Member Services Director
Marilyn Blagg, Office Manager
OREGON WHEAT COMMISSION
Members
Bryan Cranston, Moro
Tom Duyck, Forest Grove
Robert Newtson, Helix
Elmer “Bud” Riedner,
Export Handler, Beaverton
Randy Ward,
Upcountry Handler, Pendleton
Timothy Galvin, Public Member, Bend
Staff
Tana Simpson, Associate Administrator
Diana Thompson, Administrative Assistant
Tom McCoy
Chair
4 OREGON WHEAT DecembeR 2011
Dale Case
Vice Chair
President’s Half Acre
C
leaning out the drills is usually my subconscious trigger for the anxiety of yearend office work and budgets. To start the process and loosen the fingers for the
keyboard, I like to thumb through equipment brochures and construct the capital
plan. A very important internal technical term we use in reference to the first draft of the
capital plan is the “Depreciation Offering Needed Tools Necessary to Enhance Efficiency Daily”
LIST — or as we like to shorten to, the “DON’T NEED” LIST (a surprisingly ironic acronym,
eh?). Anyway, this list is very effective in drawing my attention to how effortless it seems to spend
a half a million dollars (a large sum of money in my book but roughly what it costs for a new tractor
and air drill or some harvest equipment). After contemplating the list, I start analyzing things to
provide justification, understand expectations, manage risk, and measure the results. I find this a
necessary process and, accordingly, would like to take a few lines to discuss equipment and apply
some of these thoughts to our wheat industry organizations.
If you are like me, the struggle to manage wants versus needs is a tough one. We need a tracBy Craig Reeder
tor. But do we need to own it or can we share with a neighbor, or rent, or even own something a
little less than ideal? It easy to get caught up in justifying iron with stuff like the depreciation/tax
argument, or increasing efficiency, less inputs, etc. The discipline I fall short on sometimes is to put
critical thought and numbers to it. How much fuel do we really save, do fewer hours in the tractor
The discipline
really mean more profitable hours elsewhere? For instance I like to use the famous “you would
be putting more money in rebuilding it than what it’s worth” line. That was one of my favorites
I fall short on
until I was challenged by the reply one day “yes, but I bet the numbers show it will still do what
sometimes is to put you need it to do for half the cost of new”. I was then told, if you just want it and you can afford
it, that’s OK — just include three things in your decision making:
critical thought
1. Do the numbers on the need versus the want — understand the true cost of the emotional
and numbers to it. component of any decision.
2. Be honest with yourself and others you have responsibility for when asked to justify your
How much fuel
actions — if “because I want it” is part of the answer and you can’t say it without getting red in
do we really save, the face, perhaps it needs reconsideration.
3. When you make a decision based only on the numbers make sure you set your expectations
do fewer hours
and verify the results. If they don’t materialize, then sell it, don’t do it again, or acknowledge there
was a little more emotion in the decision than you initially thought.
in the tractor
Not to get too philosophical with the above, but the temptation of new iron has really been
really mean more eating at me lately (WOW, do they have some cool stuff out there and with the past couple of
years having been solid, some of it even seems within reach). So in the process of reviewing the
profitable hours
above disciplines to myself the other day, I pondered their application to a few of the other eleelsewhere.
ments of our industry including the farm bill, our Wheat Industry organizations and affiliations,
our research institutions, etc. I am challenging myself over the few weeks to take these items and
other elements of the business and ask:
1. Does the operation NEED them?
2. What are my expectations — what do I need or want them to do for the operation?
3. What do they cost and offer in tangible return?
4. How do I make sure my expectations are met?
In closing, let me help classify a few needs and wants, as I see them. With the farm bill and research funding in budget peril and with buffer zones and pesticides front and center on the political
agendas, you NEED to have an effective industry organization to help you run the gauntlet and
make informed decisions. I WANT (very bad) to see you at the convention and annual meeting,
where we NEED input on the above items to effectively manage these organizations, the League and Commission. Finally,
The OWGL welcomes the following
I NEED to get back to work, as I WANT a new tractor.
This month’s article concludes my 15 minutes of literary
growers and associate businesses:
fame — I’ve enjoyed writing the Half Acre. Thanks to those of
you who have read and provided feedback. I’ve also enjoyed
■■ Simply Benefits LLC, Prosser, WA
the opportunity to work with and represent you this past year.
■■ Teeter Farm LLC, Imbler
Thanks for the opportunity to serve and best wishes for
the Holidays. ◆
Thank you for your support
December 2011 OREGON WHEAT 5
FEATURE
Why another food commodity price spike?
Ronald Trostle,
[email protected]
■■ Large and rapid increases
have occurred for many food
commodity prices during 2010-11.
■■ Long-term production and
consumption trends underlay
rising food commodity prices, but
worldwide production shortfalls
and changes in trade policies and
practices in a number of countries
sparked the sharp surge in prices
after June 2010.
■■ Many of the long-term trends and
short-run shocks contributing to
the current price surge also played
a role in previous price spikes.
W
ith the 2008 food commodity
price spike still on the minds
of consumers, livestock producers, agribusinesses, and governments,
prices began increasing again in January
2009, and by February 2011, many food
commodity prices had climbed above
2008 peaks. Sharp increases in agricultural prices are not uncommon, but it is
rare for two price spikes to occur within
3 years.
The short period between the last two
price surges raises concerns and questions. Higher food commodity prices
increased food insecurity among lower
income consumers and in food-deficit
countries. What are the causes of the
increase in world agricultural prices,
and what are the prospects for future
price movements? Will the current
period of high prices end with a sharp
reversal as in previous price spikes, or
have there been fundamental changes in
global agricultural supply and demand
relationships that may bring about a
different outcome?
6 OREGON WHEAT DECEMBER 2011
Scott Bauer, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Bugwood.org
A decade of large price swings
In 2002, world food commodity prices
began increasing, reversing a 20-year
downward trend. In early 2007, price
increases accelerated, and by June 2008,
the monthly food commodity price
index compiled by the International
Monetary Fund was up 130 percent
from January 2002. Over the following
6 months, the index dropped by a third.
A similar price pattern emerged in
early 2009 when the food commodity price index slowly began to climb.
After June 2010, prices shot up, and by
January 2011, the index exceeded the
previous 2008 price peak. By April 2011,
the monthly index had risen 60 percent
over the preceding 2 years. Although
there have been wide swings in food
commodity prices in the past, they usually occurred 6-8 years apart.
For four basic crops (wheat, rice,
corn, and soybeans), however, price
fluctuations were greater than for the
total food commodity index. Between
January 2002 and June 2008, an index of
monthly-average world prices for these
crops rose 226 percent, compared with
130 percent for the overall food commodity index. During the next 6 months,
the four-crop index declined 40 percent,
while the food commodity index fell 33
percent. By June 2010, the four-crop
index had fallen another 11 percent,
while the food commodity index rose.
During this latter period of December
2008 to June 2010, lower prices for the
four crops were offset by increasing
prices for sugar, vegetable oils, meats,
and other commodities.
Between June 2010 and March 2011,
the four-crop index rose 70 percent,
compared with 39 percent for the food
commodity index. Bread-quality wheat,
corn, sugar, and vegetable oils saw the
largest price increases. Rice prices rose
very little, whereas in 2007-08, rice prices
rose more than prices for any other
World food commodit y price i n dex rose 60 p ercent
b et ween Decemb er 2008 an d April 2011
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using International
Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics
Basic crops had bigger price swi ngs
than total food commoditi es
* Index of monthly wheat, rice, corn, and soybean
prices weighted by global trade shares
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using International
Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics
commodity.
Nonagricultural prices increased
even more than food commodity prices.
Energy, metals, beverages, and agricultural raw materials prices rose during
2002-08 and then declined sharply
after peaking in mid-2008. Since the
low points, prices for these nonfood
commodities have risen more than the
food commodity index, and all commodities but crude oil surpassed their
2008 peaks. The simultaneous swings in
agricultural and nonagricultural prices
suggest that global, economy-wide factors contributed to the surge in prices
in both periods.
The 2010 -11 price surge:
Sixth spike in four decades
While the current price surge is still
evolving, in each of the first five price
spikes since 1970, large increases in
agricultural prices were followed by
sharp declines. Sometimes, prices rose
to record highs before dropping. Usually, prices fell as much as they had risen
after the conditions that prompted the
increase were reversed. In the 1975 and
2008 spikes, prices only declined to a
new plateau above historical average
levels.
Most price spikes resulted from
unusually large changes in supply and/
or demand. In some cases, unexpected
production shortfalls reduced available
supplies; in others, production simply
stagnated while demand rose. Based on
the five historical price spikes, prices
rose more than typical variations until
supply and demand adjusted and prices
subsequently declined. It may have
taken several months or several years
for the markets to adjust, but eventually
they did so. Historical patterns suggest
that the current surge in prices will also
eventually reverse directions.
A number of common factors contributed to each of the six price spikes.
The relative importance of each factor,
however, as well as the magnitude and
duration of price movements, generally
differed.
Longer term trends create
conditions for a price spike
A number of long-term trends in agricultural production and consumption laid
the groundwork for a gradual upward
trend in food commodity prices between
2002 and 2006, setting the stage for the
sharp 2007-08 spike. Most of these same
long-term factors underlie the 2010-11
price surge, including global population
and per capita income growth, declining
value of the U.S. dollar, increasing world
per capita consumption of animal products, slower growth in world crop yields,
rising energy prices, and growing global
biofuel production.
Over the past decade, the world’s
population increased by more than 77
million people a year. A large portion
of this increase occurred in developing
countries, which also have seen a rapid
growth in per capita incomes. As their
incomes increase, consumers in developing countries increase per capita consumption of staple foods and diversify
their diets to include more meats and
dairy products, increasing the demand
for grains and oilseeds used for feed.
The U.S. dollar’s depreciation in
2002-08 facilitated growth in U.S. exports and put upward pressure on world
commodity prices. Then, the dollar’s
appreciation, combined with the world
economic recession, coincided with declining world prices in 2008-09, followed
by renewed depreciation, economic
growth, and rising prices after 2009.
The increase in biofuel production —
ethanol in the United States and Brazil
and biodiesel production in the EU, Argentina, and Brazil — has played a role
in raising prices for corn, sugar, rapeseeds, and soybeans, as well as for other
crops. Attributing most of the 2002-08
rise in food commodity prices to biofuel
production, however, seems unrealistic.
Crop prices dropped more than 30 percent during the last half of 2008, even
though biofuel production continued to
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 7
World crop prices have spi ked six tim es si nce 1970*
* Index of monthly
wheat, rice, corn,
and soybean prices
weighted by global
trade shares
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using International
Monetary Fund nominal prices and weights
increase. Further, nonagricultural prices
rose more than agricultural prices, and
the price of corn (an ethanol feedstock)
rose less than the prices of rice and
wheat (not biofuel feedstocks).
Growth in global biofuel production
has slowed considerably from rates exceeding 30 percent per year in 2005-08.
Nevertheless, production continues to
increase, and the shares of grain used
for ethanol and vegetable oils used for
biodiesel, relative to total use, continue
to climb. While the expansion of biofuels
was an important factor underlying the
general rise of food commodity prices
in 2002-08 and their movement to a
higher plane, it is less clear how much
impact biofuels production have had in
the 2010-11 surge in prices.
Short-term shocks exacerbate
already tight world market
conditions
Probably the most significant factor
contributing to the increase in staple
food prices in 2010 and 2011 was a series
of adverse weather events. A severe
drought in Russia and parts of Ukraine
and Kazakhstan reduced production
of all 2010 crops, particularly wheat. In
late summer 2010, dryness and high temperatures during the grain-filling period
reduced yield prospects for U.S. corn.
About the same time, rain on nearly
mature wheat crops in Canada and
northwestern Europe reduced the quality of much of the crop to feed grade.
Adverse weather conditions continued, threatening 2011 production.
Drought in Russia significantly reduced
winter wheat plantings for the 2011
crop. In November 2010, drought and
8 OREGON WHEAT DECEMBER 2011
high temperatures associated with a
La Niña weather pattern spread across
Argentina, reducing prospects for corn
and soybean crops. Dry fall, winter, and
spring weather for the U.S. hard red winter wheat crop lowered 2011 production
expectations in the southwestern Great
Plains. Additionally, rains in Australia in
late 2010/early 2011 downgraded much
of eastern Australia’s wheat crop to feed
quality, further reducing global supplies
of food-quality wheat. In early February 2011, a rare freeze destroyed some
of Mexico’s standing corn crop. Heavy
and persistent spring rains in the U.S.
Corn Belt and the Northern Plains in
the United States and Canada delayed
planting of 2011 corn and wheat crops,
reducing expected production. By April
2011, estimated global aggregate grain
and oilseed stocks had fallen and the
stocks-to-use ratio was almost down
to the 2007-08 level and close to the
40-year low.
ERS has found that the ratio of
global ending stocks to total use can
be a reliable indicator of market prices
(the lower the ratio, the tighter the
market and the higher the price). Currently, the stocks-to-use ratios for corn
and soybeans are near record lows. The
stocks-to-use ratios for wheat and rice
suggest reasonably comfortable stock
levels, but the shortage of milling-quality
wheat has put strong upward pressure
on wheat prices. Stock-to-use ratios for
cotton, total oilseeds, total coarse grains,
and sugar are also low. These low ratios
suggest strong worldwide competition
among crops for acreage in the 2011
planting season.
Meat prices, which did not contribute
to higher 2002-08 food prices, did play
a role in the recent increase. When feed
costs increased in 2002-08, livestock
producers responded by slowing production. As world economic growth
rebounded in 2009 and 2010, consumers
demanded more meat and prices began
to rise. Beef and pork production could
not respond in the short run because
of multiyear cattle and hog production
cycles. Thus, meat prices began to increase nearly a year before crop prices
renewed their upward trend.
Just as in 2008, a number of countries
imposed export restrictions or relaxed
import controls in an attempt to shield
their consumers from higher world
food commodity prices. In August 2010,
Russia imposed a wheat export ban
Adverse weath er events wer e a major factor contrib uti ng to crop price i ncr eases
Notes: LDC = Least developed country. HRW = Hard red winter wheat. * = Four-crop price index: Monthly wheat, rice, corn, and soybean prices,
weighted by global trade shares.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics
after realizing the extent of its wheat
shortfall. Some countries also restricted
crop exports. A number of importing
countries reduced or suspended import
tariffs. A few countries increased subsidies to reduce consumers’ food costs. By
restricting or relaxing controls, countries
reduced exportable supplies and increased import demand at a time when
world markets were already tightening
because of production shortfalls and
expanded demand arising from renewed
income growth.
In late 2010, after world stocks of
food commodities declined and prices
increased, some importers began to
contract aggressively for additional
imports — first for wheat, then later for
other food commodities. Countries that
usually import sufficient quantities of
grain to meet their needs for 2-3 months
began to contract with suppliers for imports to meet their needs for 4-6 months.
because donors’ fixed budgets purchase
smaller quantities. Government trade
and domestic food policies can affect
how much of an increase in world prices
gets passed on to consumers.
This time, however, the short-term
impact of higher 2010-11 prices on fooddeficit, developing countries may be
limited. Some countries in Sub-Saharan
Africa, such as Nigeria and Ethiopia,
harvested large crops in 2010 and actually have more domestically produced
food available than they did in 2008. As
a result, local prices have remained low.
Also, imports contribute a small share of
overall food supplies for many of these
countries, so factors affecting domestic
production, such as weather, play a more
critical role in food security. There is
little price transmission from the international market to many of these local
Impacts of high food prices
are extensive
Rising food prices can cause food insecurity rates to rise. Higher prices tend to
negatively affect lower income consumers more than those with higher incomes.
Lower income consumers spend a larger
share of their income on food, and staple
food commodities, such as corn, wheat,
rice, and vegetable oils, account for a
larger share of food expenditures for
low-income families. Consumers in some
low-income, food-deficit countries also
tend to rely on imported food, usually
purchased at higher world prices, making them more vulnerable to rising world
prices. Compounding the situation, food
aid donations shrink as prices increase
WANT TO PURCHASE
Minerals and other
oil/gas interests.
Send details to:
P.O. Box 13557
Denver, CO 80201
MAKERS OF
BAKING MIXES
Pendleton, Oregon
(541) 966-5901
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 9
markets, as a result of limited integration into global markets, poor market
infrastructure, and subsidies provided
by these governments.
The 2007-08 price spike gave rise to
public demonstrations in several dozen
countries protesting the higher cost of
food. Many were peaceful, some were
violent. Public protests and demonstrations in at least a half dozen countries
can be indirectly associated with rising
food prices.
Where will prices go?
Periods of rising and falling prices for
agricultural products are not uncommon. Historically, during each price
spike period, rising commodity prices
constrained demand and increased
production, which in turn, led to declining prices.
High 2011 crop prices are expected
to stimulate increased plantings and
more intensive use of other production
inputs. Farmers around the world will
have incentives to increase area planted
to all crops, and, assuming average
weather over the next year or so, world
Stocks-to-use ratio for total world grai ns
an d oilseeds n ear r ecord lows i n 2011
Note: Oilseeds include annual crops
of soybeans, rapeseed, and sunflowers
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using USDA’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand
Estimates and Production, Supply, and Distribution database, February 2011.
food production would be expected to
increase. High prices will also limit grain
and oilseed use by consumers, livestock
producers, and industrial users.
On balance, higher production and
lower use would raise global stocks of
grains and oilseeds. Prices would be
expected to peak and then to begin to
decline, following the historical pat-
Howard F. Schwartz,
Colorado State University, Bugwood.org
Lexington, Oregon
1-800-452-7396
Wasco, Oregon
1-800-824-7185
tern of price movements. How quickly
and how far prices fall will depend on
many factors, including weather and its
impact on production and stocks and
future changes in trade policies and
practices. ◆
www.mcgg.net
Serving Ag Since1930
SUPPORTING YOUR COMMUNITY
AND PROVIDING:
Propane Sales and Service
Farm Equipment Sales, Parts and Service
ATV Sales, Parts and Service
Fertilizer and Farm Chemical Service
Farm Supplies and Livestock Equipment
Diesel and Gas Sales
10 OREGON WHEAT DECEMBER 2011
This article is drawn from …
Why Have Food Commodity Prices
Risen Again? by Ronald Trostle, Daniel
Marti, Stacey Rosen, and Paul Westcott,
WRS-1103, USDA, Economic Research
Service, June 2011, available at: www.ers.
usda.gov/publications/wrs1103/
Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors Contributing to the Recent
Increase in Food Commodity Prices,
by Ronald Trostle, WRS-0801, USDA,
Economic Research Service, July 2008,
available at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs0801/
Guest Feature
Homely home remedies
Wade V. Lewis
O
ften times some seemingly incidental or unimportant item in
an article suddenly strikes one
as vitally important. The fifth paragraph
of the Collier’s editorial of February
18th, 1933 is an example:
“Meanwhile, the eating habits of the
American people were changing. The
average American now consumes 45
pounds less wheat annually than he did
in 1900. This, too, affected the farmer.”
While dozens of panaceas are being
suggested by economic experts, while
committees are delving into the intricacies of exports, imports, tariffs, overproduction, underconsumption, domestic
subsidies and analyzing abstract matters,
I have to offer a bread-and-butter suggestion for aid to agriculture, aid to the
farmer, aid to the city consumer.
I suggest Mr. Average Citizen today
adopt the slogan “Eat More Wheat” and
practice its meaning. Not to help the
farmer, not to save on the grocery bill,
not to improve the health, not to help the
gums and the teeth, not to save dental
bills, not as an emergency measure, but
for the simple reason that he’ll like it. It
is only incidental that he’ll save money
and be healthier and happier.
Did you ever get into your uncles
granary and eat wheat kernels, and
notice how good they tasted? I still do
it every chance I get and actually envy
the chickens and turkeys at feeding time.
The other day I dropped into a grocery store and after looking over the
shelves for breakfast foods asked the
grocer if he had any cracked wheat.
“Yes.” he said. “a farmer left 19 pounds
here yesterday and asked me to sell it.
It’s behind the counter.” I asked him
how much he wanted for the lot and he
said he didn’t know what price to ask
for it. I said “Well, sell me 6 pounds”
and he finally charged me 35 cents for
it. I brought the wheat home expecting
to eat it myself. My wife cooked some
and gave me a dish of it with cream and
sugar for supper. Soon my children were
crying for it, possibly at first because it
was something different and because
they thought dad was being extending a
special privilege. They ate the first dish
and called for more. Can you beat it?
The chemistry of their little bodies was
actually crying for the fresh grain and
attendant vitamins.
To be sure it took half an hour to
prepare the cereal but how good it was.
The nuttiest, meatiest, liveliest taste
imaginable. Now, our seven children
want it every meal. They do not eat it
as a duty but because they enjoy it. And
one may count on children at least being
brutally frank when it comes to likes and
dislikes at meal time. The eating habits
of my family have changed over night
and every one is feeling better for it.
Think what would happen to the
price of wheat over night should the
people of the United States change their
eating habits suddenly as have members
of my own family which includes nine.
We are eating approximately 1½ pounds
more wheat daily or approximately 547
pounds more wheat per year. That is at
the rate of 9 bushels a year or 60 pounds
of wheat per year per individual. Considering all factors it will be seen that
the Collier’s statement that the average
American now consumes 45 pounds less
wheat annually than he did in 1900 is
undoubtedly true.
Now analyze my purchase of 6 pounds
of ground wheat for 35 cents. That is at
the rate of 5.83 cents per pound for wheat
or $3.50 per 60 pound bushel. Before me
the newspaper quotes wheat at 47 cents
per bushel. There you are: $3.01 per
bushel for grinding and selling it through
the local grocer.
Where, therefore, is a crying need for
artificial stimulation of wheat prices and
subsidies for the farmer. Every community can go into the business of grinding
and selling wheat. It will boost prices for
the wheat farmer, make individual businesses for people in each community. We
can have “Dated Wheat” the same as
we have “Dated Coffee”. In fact wheat
must be ground freshly or keep well and
avoid the development of germ life. That
is one reason why it is not as a rule sold
from the grocer’s shelves today. Further
business can be developed in deliveries
of freshly ground wheat to the housewife’s door.
Moreover, what can be done with
wheat can be done to a certain extent
with other grains. Corn is quoted at 27
cents, oats at 17 cents, rye at 34 cents,
barley at 27 cents. These also make excellent whole grain cereals. Talk about
possibilities, they are unlimited.
Increase by 45 pounds annually
the individual wheat consumption of
100,000,000 American people, bringing back consumption of 4,500,000,000
pounds or 75,000,000 bushels of wheat
annually and see what this factor alone
will do to the prosperity, health and happiness of the American People. ◆
Wade V. Lewis was born in Portland, Oregon
to a pioneer family in 1893. Lewis attended
a year at Oregon State School of Mining
and Agriculture. World War I took him to
France. Upon his return he completed his
degree in Mining Engineering and Geology.
He wrote clever articles on particular topics
that piqued his interest and, if published,
it was a way to earn some extra dollars to
support his family. Recently, my aunt, Mary
Lewis, found this article among some of his
old letters. We saw the slogan “ Eat More
Wheat” and wondered if readers of Oregon
Wheat might find this article written around
1933 interesting.
—Dan Long
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 11
Research
Testing a new NIR reflectance grain
analyzer for in-line measurement
Dan Long and John McCallum
F igu r e 1
Ongoing agronomic research projects in dryland wheat
production focused on applications of near infrared (NIR)
spectroscopy conducted by USDA-ARS are highlighted
in this article. Applications include field mapping, grain
segregation, and process control.
[email protected], USDA-ARS, PO Box 370,
Pendleton, OR 97801
F
or more than 30 years, near infrared (NIR) reflectance
spectroscopy has proved its value as a rapid, nondestructive technique for measuring protein, moisture,
and oil levels in whole grain. This technology has advanced
by becoming more accurate and easier to use. New applications continue to appear for compositional analyses of food,
feed, and fiber. One of the latest developments is in-line NIR
sensors that can be installed “in the production line” for early
detection of problems affecting food quality and safety, and
assessment of production processes at any desired time. Today,
a new generation of in-line NIR sensors is available that can
break the visible and near infrared portions of electromagnetic
radiation into hundreds of narrow bands between 800 and
2500 nanometers (one nanometer = one-billionth of a meter).
To put this into perspective, it is visible portion between 390
and 750 nanometers that can be detected by the human eye.
Performance tests
Recently, we tested the performance of the new Polytec, Inc.
(Irvine, CA) in-line NIR sensor having 400 channels and NIR
sensitivity from 850 to 1650 nanometers. In this study, 90 grain
samples were obtained from a 2010 fertility trial with Dark
Northern Spring Wheat (Jefferson). The wheat was grown
under varying nitrogen and watering levels to obtain a wide
range in protein (11% to 18%). Grain samples flowed down
a rectangular chute to the sensor (Fig. 1) similar to use of an
auger, belt, or pipe used to convey the grain in a stream. Reflectance spectra were recorded as each grain sample flowed
over the sensor head. The optical data were then combined
with known reference protein values. A mathematical model
was built using special statistical software that related the
amount of light absorbed at each wavelength to the protein
12 OREGON WHEAT DECEMBER 2011
Figure 1. Bench apparatus used to create grain flow over
the in-line NIR instrument. Grain samples flowed down
a rectangular chute over the sensor head of the Polytec
spectrometer mounted at the bottom.
content values. In a second study, we tested the sensor with a
total of 226 samples of canola that represented 14 site-years of
data from Montana, Washington, and Oregon. Oil concentration of those samples ranged from 30% to 46%.
Scatter plots between predicted and measured grain
protein concentration (Fig. 2), and predicted and measured
seed oil concentration (Fig. 3) reveal excellent relationships.
Measurements with this device were consistent with standard
laboratory analyses performed by dry combustion for grain
nitrogen (and protein), and nuclear magnetic resonance for
seed oil concentration. This device was able to predict the
protein concentration of grain within 0.3%, which compares
with the level of precision expected of a bench instrument
used for testing grain at an elevator. For seed oil content, the
prediction error of 0.43% also revealed good performance.
Based on our experience, the prediction error has been
halved, due to greater spectral resolution and extended NIR
sensitivity of the new sensor, over that of older generation
in-line instruments.
Practical applications
Studies in eastern Oregon are currently underway to determine whether segregating grain by protein concentration can
enhance profit opportunities for growers. An on-combine,
mechanical-optical system has been constructed for this pur-
R2 = 0.985
SEP = 0.27
Measured Protein Content (%)
F igu r e 3
Predicted Oil Content (%)
Predicted Protein Content (%)
F igu r e 2
R2 = 0.983
SEP = 0.427
Measured Oil Content (%)
Figure 2. Relationship between predicted and measured grain
protein concentration of Jefferson spring wheat.
Figure 3. Relationship between predicted and measured seed
oil concentration of canola.
pose (Fig. 4). The system consists of an in-line NIR sensor,
mechanical segregator valve, and an elevating auger. The bulk
tank of the combine is divided into a bin for ordinary grain
and one for high quality grain. The NIR sensor measures the
protein content of the grain in the grain bin filling auger. Grain
is diverted by the mechanical segregator valve to the ordinary
bin if protein is below a certain cutoff value and to the high
quality bin if above this value. Grain that is diverted to the
high quality bin flows down an inclined tube into the elevating
auger, which lifts the grain so that it falls into the high quality
bin. The mechanical valve is powered by a hydraulic cylinder
that is controlled by a relay that opens or closes with the binary
input-output from the computer interface to the optical sensor. Preliminary results from a cooperative research project
with OSU economist Susan Capalbo and graduate student
Charles Martin indicate that segregation of soft white winter
wheat may add as much as $1 to the gross value of each bushel
when premiums are offered at strong price spreads. Currently,
we are working to determine if this added value is enough to
offset the cost of the technology.
Information from in-line NIR reflectance sensing also has
practical application in an oilseed crushing plant. Seed oil
concentration is used to estimate extraction efficiency, or the
percentage of oil recovered in relation to the amount of oil in
seed. Installed between the plant’s seed cleaner and expeller,
an in-line NIR sensor could rapidly and continuously measure
the oil content of clean seed flowing into the expeller. Ability
to monitor extraction efficiency would enhance profitability
and maximize the efficiency of harvested acres of oilseed
crops. Conceptually, the number of acres required to grow
biofuel oilseed crops could be reduced if crushing plant extraction rates can be maximized. Plus, the technology might
aid in segregating seed entering the plant into lots of low,
intermediate, or high oil content with each being processed
at different times depending upon market demand. This approach could provide an opportunity for plant managers to
plan and implement production strategies that increase the use
efficiency of storage space, and match output in accordance
with quantity specifications of various customers.
Some crushing plants pay a premium to growers for maximizing the oil concentration of their oilseed crops. An in-line
NIR instrument mounted on a GPS-equipped combine would
give growers the ability to map the oil concentration and dollar
value of their crops across fields. This information could then
be used to identify harvesting zones for segregating parts of
the crop during harvest and selling them at a greater price.
An important consideration of this approach is that it would
need to cover costs of the technologies to be economically
profitable.
F igu r e 4
Figure 4. Mechanical-optical system that was built for a Case
IH 1470 combine for segregating grain into two bins.
Looking ahead
Society places great importance on the quality and safety
of food products and production processes. Consequently,
markets are becoming increasingly standardized so that customers can expect consistency in every product. With in-line
NIR sensing, the quality of food, fiber, and feed can be rapidly
assessed and monitored on a continuous basis. This technology can potentially help all members of the supply chain,
from growers upstream where sourcing occurs to managers
downstream where dispersal takes place. ◆
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 13
Base price contracts and the
long-only index funds
Tom McCoy, OWC Chairman
F
or the first 30 years of my farming
career, I never used the futures
market. I sold all my wheat using
cash sales to my local cooperative —
usually during the fall after my wheat
was harvested. Opportunities to price
future crops were limited because the
exporters’ cash bids never extended
past the next harvest period. Although
the Minneapolis Grain Exchange made
several attempts to develop a white
wheat (WW) futures market, they could
never attract enough volume. Hedging
future crops using the soft red wheat
contract in Chicago was possible, but
usually not attractive. Futures prices for
the next crop years were rarely much
higher than existing cash prices and the
risk of margin calls or a drop in the basis
(the “basis” is the cash WW price minus
Chicago futures price) discouraged most
of us from hedging.
In the mid-2000’s, two big changes
occurred and hedging WW became
much more attractive. First, the Eastern
Oregon grain cooperatives — MCP,
MCGG, and PGG — began offering
“base price contracts.” Base price contracts simplify hedging because, for a fee,
the cooperative handles the purchase
and sale of the Chicago futures contracts
and any margin calls. The farmer doesn’t
need to set up a hedging account with
a broker. Second and more important,
the Chicago futures market started to
be dominated by a new player — the
long-only index funds — whose huge
new demand for long contracts raised
futures prices, increased spreads, lowered our basis, and made hedging much
more profitable.
Until the early 1990’s, long and short
hedgers were the main participants
in the Chicago wheat futures market.
Speculators were subject to strict limits
14 OREGON WHEAT DECEMBER 2011
on the number of commodity futures
contracts they could own. This situation
began to change in 1991 when Goldman
Sachs and other big banks convinced the
CFTC to exempt them from speculative
position limits. Once they obtained their
waivers, the banks started aggressively
marketing their “long-only index” funds
— funds whose return tracks a basket of
commodity futures contracts including
wheat. About the same time, financial
experts began touting the advantages
of adding commodities to better “diversify” an investment portfolio and
many big institutional investors, including most pension funds, began shifting
part of their assets into the long-only
index funds.
required a corresponding increase in
short sellers. The average production of
soft red wheat is only slightly over 400
million bushels and the amount of short
contracts sold by farmers and other
short hedgers has historically been much
less than the index funds wanted to buy.
The funds needed to attract many more
short hedgers into the market.
The long-only funds purchase futures
contracts so their clients benefit if the
wheat prices rise. They plan to maintain their positions and aren’t much
concerned with short-run changes in
the wheat price or with changes in the
supply and demand for wheat. They are
willing to bid up the price until they buy
all the contracts they need. As the index
I believe most of us have benefited from the long-only index
funds’ new dominant position in the futures market — primarily
because it has provided us with opportunities to sell future crops
at good prices (with base price contracts) and because it has
made our grain handlers more profitable.
The index funds took over the Chicago wheat futures market between
early 2004 and 2006 when they bought
an additional 900 million bushels of
contracts and expanded their holdings
of Chicago wheat futures contracts by
more than 500%. The index funds have
maintained their dominant position in
the market ever since — consistently
holding over a billion bushels in long
contracts.
Since every long position in the futures market must be matched by a short
position (the shorts are the ones who sell
their contracts to the long-only funds),
this huge new demand for long positions
funds’ demand for contracts grew during the 2000’s, futures prices were bid
up above cash prices and this lowered
the basis (if you graph our WW basis,
you’ll see a dramatic decline in the
average level starting around 2008).
The abnormally low basis levels make
hedging look much more attractive to
holders of physical wheat. Many farmers began hedging for the first time and
helped supply contracts for the index
funds. Our coops also often found storing wheat and hedging more profitable
than selling and shipping wheat to the
exporters. Because of increased hedging, the carryover of U.S. wheat has
averaged over 800 million bushels during the last three years — even as high
wheat prices were signaling that world
stocks were tight.
I believe most of us have benefited
from the long-only index funds’ new
dominant position in the futures market
— primarily because it has provided us
with opportunities to sell future crops at
good prices (with base price contracts)
and because it has made our grain handlers more profitable. If you’re a car
dealer in Pendleton and someone from
outside the area comes in, buys 200 cars
from you, and puts them in storage, your
profits are going to be good (at least
until he dumps the cars).
The funds have not only had a dramatic impact the futures market, they’ve
also changed our cash market by causing more WW to be hedged and kept in
storage. With more upcountry hedging, a
Portland exporter wanting to buy wheat
now must create a positive basis just to
induce farmers and coops to lift their
hedges and sell.
If the long-only funds ever decide
to pull out of the wheat market, I believe we will see a sharply higher basis
and profitable opportunities to lift our
hedges. However, lots more uncertainty
exists now and every farmer should be
ready to take quick action if the new
dominant player decides to exit. ◆
The Oregon Wheat Commission was created in
1947 by the Oregon Legislature, at the request
of Oregon wheat producers. The Commission
carries out research, marketing, and public
education programs on behalf of the industry,
with funds from an assessment on all wheat
produced in the state. OWC programs are directed by a six-member board of Commissioners, appointed by the Director of Agriculture.
Bushels for Betsy
Feeding Oregon’s Hungry
Oregon continues to be one of the national leaders — in the number
of hungry individuals and families in need of emergency food supplies.
The Oregon Food Bank and local food pantries throughout Oregon and Southwest
Washington continually struggle to meet demand. Local and national economic
conditions serve to worsen the problem.
Although there is little hope that the problem of hunger ever will be overcome,
there is a significant and meaningful way for Oregon wheat producers to help
dent this ever growing need for emergency food. That method is to contribute
to the Oregon Wheat Foundation’s Bushels for Betsy Program. Created in 1995,
Bushels for Betsy contributions have resulted in the donation of over 2 million
pounds of ready to use baking mix to the Oregon Food Bank.
How it works: Wheat growers donate dollars to Bushels for Betsy. Those
dollars are used to purchase flour and ingredients to create baking mix in small
useable packages, which in turn is donated to the Oregon Food Bank for distribution to the needy. Pendleton Flour Mills and Continental Mills (Krusteaz) generously donate milling and blending capacity to make these donations possible.
Two years ago, Bushels for Betsy partnered with Farmer’s Ending Hunger
to increase the amount of baking mix donations to the Oregon Food Bank. To
date, three large donations of baking mix have been made as the result of this
partnership. More importantly, through these efforts, the knowledge that Oregon
farmers are helping to dent hunger has been recognized by the media and
Oregon legislators.
How you can help: Contribute to Bushels for Betsy. Complete and send
the form below. Contribute regularly. Contribution forms are also available in the
OWGL newsletter, and on the Oregon Wheat website (www.owgl.org — click on
Oregon Wheat Foundation).
Sincerely, Tom Winn, Chair, Oregon Wheat Foundation
Bushels for Betsy Contribution Form
 Check  MasterCard  Visa
ch eck n u mb er
Cr edit C ard N u mb erE xpirati on Dat e
Nam e on C ard
Sign atu r e
Please make checks payable to Oregon Wheat Growers League. Mail your contribution with this form
to the OWGL office, 115 SE 8th, Pendleton OR 97801, or fax to (541) 276-1723.
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 15
OREGON WHEAT COMMISSION
R E POR T
Wheat head armyworm on the wheat
growing region of eastern Oregon
Silvia I. Rondon1 and Mary Corp 2
C
aterpillars of a species of armyworm in the genus
Dargida can be a troublesome pest of cereal grains in
the Pacific Northwest (PNW). They caused crop damage in Bonneville County, Idaho, in 2005 and 2006, in Lincoln
County, Washington, in 2007 and 2008, and in Umatilla County,
Oregon, from 2007 to 2009. Washington State University
spring wheat and barley variety trials near Davenport Washington experienced a 35% yield loss due to this insect in 2007
and 2008. This insect may be the same, or closely related to
Dargida diffusa (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), a.k.a the
true Wheat Head Armyworm (WHA), that is a pest of cereal
grains throughout the Midwest and Great Plains. Information
about this pest in the PNW is incomplete at this time.
WHA has the potential to be among the most injurious
pests of small grains in the region. It feeds directly on kernels
in the wheat head. Sometimes growers are not aware of the
damage until harvest when damaged kernels are discovered
during post-harvest sampling. Little is known about the pest
or its control. Field studies are needed on its biology, field
densities, distribution, damage, and management. At present,
there are no insecticides labeled specifically for WHA.
Searching for the WHA. A region wide pheromone trapping system was used in 2009, 2010 and 2011 to determine
distribution and seasonal occurrence of adult WHA (true and
false) in eastern Oregon. Trap were set weekly from mid-May
through late September. Pheromones were provided by Dr.
Landolt (USA-ARS). At sites where WHA trap counts were
high, fields were further checked for presence of larva. At
Photo by KSU
Early instar WHA Larva
least 5 sites per field were surveyed and larvae were collected
using beating sheets. Larvae collected were brought back to
the entomology laboratory at the Hermiston Agricultural
Research and Extension Center for further studies.
Lures that attract. Sex attractant lures for season-long
monitoring were made by loading pre-extracted red rubber
septa with one mg doses of solutions produced by females.
Attractants were placed in plastic baskets provided with the
trap and positioned at the center of the underside of the trap
lid. Traps were hung from stakes that were placed <10 ft out-
Photo by OSU
Seed damage caused by WHA
16 OREGON WHEAT DECEMBER 2011
Photo by OSU
Bucket traps located in wheat field
OREGON WHEAT COMMISSION
Photo by Government of Canada
R E POR T
Photo by OSU
Dargida diffusa (left); D. terrapictalis (right). D. terrapictalis is darker in appearance, with nearly all black or dusky hind wings;
D. diffusa has much less darker marking on the forewing, and with considerable pale yellow coloration on the hind wing.
Silvia I. Rondon
Mary K. Corp
ssociate Professor, Extension Entomologist Specialist,
A
Oregon State University, Hermiston Agricultural Research
and Extension Center, Hermiston, OR;
2
Professor, Dryland Cropping Systems, Umatilla County
Extension Office, Pendleton, OR.
1
side of fields of wheat. Trap height was adjusted throughout
the season so the bottom of the trap was 3-6 inches above the
top of the crop. Traps were checked weekly, at which time all
insects were removed. Sex attractant lures were replaced at
4-week intervals. Traps were placed to determine the presence
of WHA moths and to determine the seasonality of moth
activity as indicated by their capture in traps.
True or False? The larvae of the “true” WHA feed on
wheat and various other grain and grass crops. The genus
includes Dargida terrapictalis which we have been referring to
as the “false” WHA. The genus Dargida consists of 13 species.
This species is native to the western USA, and its host range
and pest status are not known. All Dargida larvae and moths
look similar; thus there can be confusion as to which species
are found feeding on wheat, grains or grass. A preliminary
survey showed that, D. diffusa and D. terrapictalis, are present
in wheat growing areas of Oregon and Washington but we are
not certain about which species may be responsible for larval
damage to wheat. However, results from our pheromone
trapping determined that D. terrapictalis is by far the most
abundant in the region.
In eastern Oregon, first captures occur early April, reaching a peak around May. None are capture around June or later.
This is the first report of a sex attractant develop by P.
Landolt et al. for D. terrapictalis. Efforts to trap D. diffusa, or
for that matter, D. terrapictalis, might result in capture of one
or both species where they usually co-occur. Accurate determination of the identity of the moths captured is important.
If D. terrapictalis is feeding on wheat, it may be monitored by
the sex attractant developed by Landolt et al.
Based on our current results, populations of WHA while
are present, they appear to have reach a background level
that doesn’t merit active trapping. However, this situation
can change if conditions are right for the insect to develop.
Nevertheless, we recommend regular field scouting from
mid-April until June for larva and adult populations of WHA
and others lepidoptera of wheat. If specimens are found, they
can be brought to the Hermiston Agricultural Research and
Extension Center Insect lab (http://oregonstate.edu/dept/
hermiston/) for identification and study. Should WHA levels
increase in the future, our research has identified a pheromone
trapping protocol that can be used to provide information for
management decisions. ◆
Main Street Service
Where One Call Insures It All
Safeco Insurance • Allstate • Travelers • Mutual of Enumclaw • Chubb
121 S. Main, Pendleton, OR
541-276-1418 • 800-303-0419
www.bisnett.com
• Farm
• Auto • Health
• Ranch
• Home • Crop
• Business • Life
Office Locations: Pendleton • Baker City
Milton-Freewater • John Day • Hood River
Lake Oswego • Ketchum, ID
Scottsdale, AZ
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 17
world markets
U.S. Wheat Associates
Annual Report 2010/11
U
.S. Wheat Associates (USW) took advantage of
several opportunities to increase U.S. wheat exports
in Marketing Year 2010/11 (June – May) by seizing the moment and leveraging years of work with overseas
customers. The results: U.S. commercial export sales reached
35.1 million metric tons* (MMT) in 2010/11. That is 59 percent
of total U.S. wheat production for the year, 56 percent more
than in 2009/10 and the most exports since 1992/93. It is not
surprising, then, that the United States remained the world’s
leading wheat exporter in 2010/11.
As the industry’s export market development organization,
USW promotes all six U.S. wheat classes: hard red winter
(HRW), hard red spring (HRS), hard white (HW), soft red
winter (SRW), soft white (SW) and durum. Funding is made
possible through checkoff dollars, goods and services from
19 state wheat commissions and cost-share grants from the
USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. This report provides an
overview of USW activities in 2010/11.
Building Soft White Demand through Food Science
Global demand for spring rolls is growing rapidly, but published research on commercial production and quality is
limited. So USW Asian product baking experts developed
the first-ever scientific investigation into how flour made
with U.S. wheat performs in spring roll wrappers. The course
was part of a USW program that works with research and
educational partners to demonstrate the quality of U.S. wheat
in new markets and products, including spring roll wrappers,
instant noodles, steamed breads and more. USW and the
Wheat Marketing Center, Portland, OR, teamed with several
large Asian food companies in 2010/11 to compare U.S. soft
wheat flour blends to flour containing Australian wheat. The
team found that medium-protein SW flour and U.S. “Western
White” flour, a blend of SW and club wheat, performed best
in commercial spring roll wrapper production. The stage is
now set for more research to build demand for U.S. wheat.
Building on a More Favorable Political
Environment for Trade
With the U.S. trade agenda gaining some momentum in
2010/11, USW continued its work to remove trade barriers
that distort free and fair U.S. wheat export flows around the
world. In partnership with the National Association of Wheat
Growers, USW pushed U.S. officials for passage of pending
free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and Korea
to create equal or preferential market access policies. USW
also continued its work to: advocate for a World Trade Organization Doha Round agreement that balances reductions in
18 OREGON WHEAT DECEMBER 2011
TOP 10 CUSTOM ERS FOR U.S. WHEAT
Source: USDA/FAS, Weekly Export, Sales August 2011
domestic support with significant new market access for U.S.
wheat exports; assist several nongovernmental organizations
around the world that buy and sell U.S. wheat to fund developmental food aid projects in several countries; and collaborate
with industry partners to educate overseas customers about
the importance of advanced breeding techniques in wheat,
including biotechnology.
Looking to 2011/12, USDA’s projection is for continued
strong demand for U.S. wheat. As of September, USDA
expected 2011/12 exports to reach 27.9 MMT, just under
the 10-year average of 28.3 MMT. However, as the Black
Sea drought and supply shock of 2010/11 prove, the results
ultimately depend on weather, government actions and many
other factors, including continued farmer and federal government support for agricultural export market development.
For the full annual report, and more information about USW
activities and/or detailed financial information, please visit the
USW website at www.uswheat.org. ◆
* 1 metric ton = 36.74 bushels
ECONOMICS
Tax-deferred exchanges of farmland
provide valuable savings to some farmers
James M. Williamson, [email protected]
Ron Durst, [email protected]
Mike Brady
Most li ke-ki n d exchanges i nvolvi ng farmlan d
1999–2003 wer e for oth er farmlan d
A
tax-deferred exchange permits taxpayers to delay
paying capi­tal gains taxes on the disposition of
property traded for “like-kind” property. Known as
“1031-exchanges” after the section of the Internal Revenue
Code permitting their use, the exchanges offer landowners tax
advantages over traditional land sales. By allowing farmland
owners to defer payment of taxes on capital gains — which can
be significant on land that has been owned for many years —
farmers who sell land and use the proceeds to purchase other
property can often increase their net worth, reduce borrowing
costs, and expand the size of their operations.
However, concern has been raised, particularly among
begin­ning farmers, that like-kind exchanges may be contributing to the rapid growth in farmland values because of the
law’s strict time limits for completing such exchanges. Under
the law, a replacement prop­erty must be identified within
45 days of a land sale, and the exchange must be completed
within 180 days, encouraging those involved in like-kind exchanges to outbid other potential buyers. Furthermore, since
the definition of like-kind property is fairly broad, there is
also concern among farmers and environmentalists that likekind exchanges have encouraged residential and commercial
developers to purchase more farmland than would have been
possible without the associated tax benefits.
Using data from the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS)
Sales of Capital Assets Panel Study, ERS researchers found
that 1031-ex­changes involving farmland represent a relatively
small share of all tax-deferred exchanges — about 2 percent
between 1999 and 2003. Exchanges involving farmland ac-
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Internal
Revenue Service data
counted for roughly 6 percent of all farmland dispositions
(sales plus exchanges) reported to the IRS over the same
period.
Despite their limited use, however, 1031-exchanges can be
important for some farmland owners. Over a 5-year period,
landown­ers making like-kind exchanges of farmland for
farmland deferred $43,300, on average, in capital gains taxes.
In essence, farmland-for-farmland exchanges can be thought
of as “rollover” investments. In contrast, landowners who
sold farmland paid $5,200 in capital gains taxes, on average.
While ERS researchers found a great deal of year-to-year
vari­ability in the use of 1031-exchanges involving farmland,
for the most part, farmland was exchanged for other farmland
rather than for nonfarm property. In particular, relatively few
exchanges involved other property (such as a shopping center) being exchanged for farm­land, suggesting that like-kind
exchanges were not used extensively by investors planning
on converting farmland to nonfarm uses. ◆
This finding is drawn from …
“Tax-deferred exchanges of farmland: theory and evidence
from federal tax data,” by James M. Williamson, Michael P.
Brady, and Ron Durst, in Agricultural Finance Review, Fall
2010, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp: 214-230, available at: http://hdl.handle.
net/10113/48138/
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 19
2011 Priorities of the
Oregon Wheat Growers
League Committees
your
Farm Tire
HeadquarTerS
Environment and Regulations Committee
Tanner Hawkins, Chair
1. Climate Change & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2. Pesticide Legislation & Regulatory Enforcement
3. P
esticide & Water Quality Management Grower
Education Campaign
4. C
lean Air Act — Air Emission Standards
(Dust, Particulate Matter)
5. Clean Water Act — Navigability
Farm Policy Committee
Paul Bracher, Chair
FarMers have been a biG Part oF our 59 year history,
and that is why we suPPort FarMinG throuGhout the
west. at Les schwab, we aPPreciate your hard work!
Special payment termS on tractor tireS (oac)
no PayMents! no interest!
iF Paid in FuLL on or beFore June 15, 2012
Serving you at theSe locationS:
La Grande • 541-963-8411
MiLton-Freewater • 541-938-5507
PendLeton • 541-276-1571
1. 2012 Farm Program Development
2. Crop Insurance
3. Available Legal Workforce
4. E
ducate growers, county commissioners, FSA county
committees on SURE program and process of county
disaster determination.
5. T ransportation Issues Specific to Movement of
Wheat/Barley by Growers
6. Jetty Repair – Federal Funding Request
Research and Technology Committee
Suzi Frederickson, Chair
1. Privatization of Wheat Breeding Programs
2. R
esearch Priorities and Appropriate Funding — Public Awareness Campaigns
3. E
ducation, Research and Extension Funding — OSU Structural Changes
4. C
arbon Footprint and Climate Change Research
Priorities
5. Bio-products research — Bio Fuels Introduction;
Gluten Project Proposal
Let us help you get your
advertising message out
through the pages of …
Contact us today to be included
in future issues of Oregon Wheat!
www.leSSchwab.com
Sprayer packageS available
20 OREGON WHEAT DECEMBER 2011
Sandy Creighton: Advertising Sales Manager
Phone: 559-201-9225
E-mail: [email protected]
Cinda Hardee: Advertising Sales Representative
Phone: 402-489-9386 • Toll-free: 888-609-8787
E-mail: [email protected]
Join the Oregon Wheat Growers League today!
These are exciting times for the Oregon Wheat Growers League! The League has begun a new phase in
advocacy, leadership, and grower governance, and we invite you to join the organization that may prove to serve
Oregon wheat producers better and more efficiently than ever.
Join the efforts of the OWGL today by returning this form with your check to support the ongoing efforts
of the organization that works to enhance your bottom line. Thank you!
Farm /B usi n ess Nam e
R e pr es e n tative
A ddr ess
Phone
Fa x
E - Mail
Dues Schedule
Producer/Landlord
 Member: Less than 320 acres������������������������������������������������ $100
 Member: 320 acres or more��������������������������������������������������� $150
 Member: More than 2000 acres������������������������������������������� $200
 Affiliate: Retired grower or landlord��������������������������������������� $75
Associate Member
Agribusiness companies serving producers
 Associate: 1-10 employees...................................................... $100
 Associate: 11-25 employees................................................... $150
 Associate: 26 or more employees....................................... $200
 Oregon WheatPAC: Your support helps!
Making
Every
Resource
Count
Would you prefer to receive
the OWGL bi-weekly newsletter:
 Via e-mail (also on our website)
 Via fax
 Via U.S. Postal Service
 Not at all
Please enclose a separate check made payable to Oregon WheatPAC.
Your credit card will be charged separately. Thank you.
Payment Information
 Check
ch eck n u mb e r
Please make payable to Oregon Wheat Growers League
 MasterCard  Visa
Please return this form with your payment to:
C r edit C ard N u mb erExpirati on Dat e
Nam e on C ard
S i gn atu r e
Oregon Wheat Growers League
115 SE 8th St., Pendleton, OR 97801
P: (541) 276-7330 ● F: (541) 276-1723
www.owgl.org
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 21
Oregon WheatPAC ~
Help Elect a Pro-Agriculture Oregon Legislature
The political Tax Credit is a no-cost way to support the Oregon WheatPAC, allowing you to direct a portion of your tax dollars in
a way that YOU choose. It is a tax credit, not a deduction. You can give up to $100 for joint tax filers or $50 for individuals and that
amount will be credited back to you on tax day.
As a result of our collaboration with a broad stakeholder group, the OWGL has been successful in defeating a number of proposed
laws that would have been devastating for agricultural producers. Electing able leaders is more important than ever and we strongly
encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to contribute.
To make your contribution to the Oregon WheatPAC, please complete the form below and mail it to the OWGL office at 115 SE
8th, Pendleton, OR 97801. Credit card contributions can be faxed to 541-276-1723.
Amount of donation: $25 _____ $50 _____ $100 _____ Other $ ______
Name_____________________________________________________
Address____________________________ City/State/Zip____________________
Phone______________________________Email:__________________________
Payment Information:
Check #___________ Visa_____ MasterCard_____
Card number:_______________________________________________________
Name on Card:______________________________________________________
Signature:__________________________________________________________
Thank you for your support!
OREGON
WHEAT
PAC
Oregon WheatPAC Tax ID #20-5086793
Bon voyage, wheat.
A growing amount of the wheat you grow is exported every year, and
that makes a huge difference in farm gate prices. In fact for every $1 you
contribute to export market development through your state checkoff
program, you get back $23 in net revenue. U.S. Wheat Associates
wants you to understand how we work with state commissions to
build overseas demand for all six classes of U.S. wheat.
VISIT WWW.USWH EAT.ORG /SUCCE SS TO R EAD MOR E.
And don’t forget your passport.
The world’s most reliable choice.
© 2011 U.S. Wheat Associates. All rights reserved.
The U.S. Wheat Associates logo is a registered service mark of U.S. Wheat Associates.
PA-AD0811-A
Chocolate melt-away cookies
www.owgl.org
Your homepage for Oregon Wheat News
Have you visited the Oregon
Wheat website lately?
The newly remodeled site, at www.owgl.org, features
sections for producers, buyers, and consumers.
The Producers page features daily marketing updates
from the PGG/MCGG marketing team; and will provide
crop updates, crop quality data, research, and legislative
news as they become available.
The Buyers page will host crop quality, research, and
marketing information for milling and baking teams
and other potential buyers.
The Consumers page houses the history of the
wheat industry, kids pages, recipes and other general
information.
Ingredients:
■■ 1 cup all-purpose flour
■■ ½ cup corn starch
■■ ½ cup powdered sugar
■■ 2 tbsp. cocoa powder
■■ ¾ butter softened
■■ 1 tsp. vanilla
■■ 1 cup ganache
Ganache:
■■ 1 cup semisweet chocolate chips
■■ 4 tbsp. half and half
Dough:
Preheat oven to 350F. Combine flour, corn starch,
powdered sugar and cocoa powder in a medium
bowl; set aside. Beat butter on medium speed in a
large bowl until smooth. Add flour mixture and vanilla.
Add half of ganache and beat until well blended.
Roll dough into 1 inch balls and place on ungreased
baking sheet. Bake 10 to 12 minutes or until brown.
Remove from oven; cool 2 to 3 minutes then transfer
to wire racks; cool to room temperature. Drizzle or
spoon remaining half of ganache over cookies (see
recipe tip). Store in airtight container.
Ganache:
Place ingredients in a microwave safe bowl.
Microwave on high for 30 seconds to 1 minute, or
until chocolate begins to melt. Stir together until
smooth.
Recipe Tip: Transfer ganache to
a sealable sandwich size freezer bag using a rubber
spatula. Seal bag and snip a small tip off the lower
corner of bag. Squeeze ganache through opening to
pipe onto cookies.
Holiday idea: Top ganache with colored holiday
sprinkles for a more festive look.
Source: Wheat Foods Council
The Members Only Portal will be home to all things
important to our members, such as the bi-weekly
newsletter, and links and information on OWGL affinity
programs.
Not a member? Join today! An application is included
on page 21 of this issue of Oregon Wheat.
At
Customer Service is
our Specialty!
Let us know how we can help you!
Allen Waggoner
CEO/President
Jon Sperl
Grain Director
Melanie Correa
CFO
Your Local
Farm Co-op
for 81 Years
1930-2011
Richard Meeks
Agronomy Director
Bryan Bailey
Energy Director
Robb Rea
AG Supply Director
Island City, Pendleton, Hermiston,
Athena, Milton-Freewater
1-800-422-7611
DECEMBER 2011 OREGON WHEAT 23
Spray more acres.
Burn less fuel.
THAT makes sense.
Minimum fuel consumption, maximum productivity.
You want simple, easy to operate, and
efficient to maintain equipment without
sacrificing productivity. The Condor
G-Series sprayers offer class-leading design
and innovation in a rugged, robust, and fuel
efficient package. Hour after hour, day after
day, and season after season, this efficient
mechanical drive partner in productivity will
make easy work of all your spraying - with fuel
left over for the combine.
There’s spraying...and then there’s Spray-Air™
www.millerstn.com 800-247-5557
Think
long and hard
Sold &
Serviced
Bybefore buying your next
sprayer. You choose the best seed, the best
crop protection products.
You want to grow(9378)
the
www.pioneerwestinc.com
1-877-253-WEST
at the
Come see us
very best crop you can. So, choose the best
January 3 -4;
Real Ag 2012
method of application. Spray-Air™ ensures
aho Ag Expo
the Eastern Id
rn
te
es
the spray penetrates dense canopies, all leaf
9; the W
January 17-1
;
5
-2
23
surfaces are covered, that the target pest gets
o January
Idaho Ag Exp
y
ar
u
n
Ja
w
o
g Sh
wiped out. And use the lowest amount of
Northwest A
okane
Sp
e
th
d
an
water and herbicide possible. For a superior
24 -25
ruary 7- 9.
Ag Expo Feb
return on your investment, Spray-Air™
Sold & Serviced By
www.pioneerwestinc.com 1-877-253-WEST (9378)