Rick Barrett reported in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that, “A Wisconsin-based group that represents organic farmers says it’s won a U.S. Department of Justice victory against Danone, the France-based maker of Dannon yogurt, regarding competition in the American yogurt market.

“The Cornucopia Institute says it argued that Danone should liquidate its holdings in the Stonyfield Farms organic yogurt brand as a condition of Danone’s proposed $12.5 billion acquisition of WhiteWave Foods.

“The Justice Department agreed and said it would approve the WhiteWave deal if Stonyfield were sold to an independent buyer.”

Mr. Barrett noted that, “The sale will help ensure competitive marketplaces for farmers that sell organic milk and consumers who purchase it nationwide, the Justice Department said in a statement.”

The Journal Sentinel article added that, “Danone is a global food company that had $24.3 billion in sales in fiscal 2015. Stonyfield Farms, a Danone subsidiary, is one of the nation’s largest organic yogurt makers.”

An update this week at the American Bankers Association (ABA) Journal Online stated that, “Testifying on behalf of the [ABA] today at a hearing before the House Agriculture Committee’s Commodity Exchanges, Energy and Credit Subcommittee, banker Nate Franzen outlined several changes ABA is seeking in the upcoming Farm Bill. Franzen is president of agri-business at First Dakota National Bank in Yankton, S.D., and past chairman of ABA’s Agricultural and Rural Bankers Committee.

“Highlighting the successes of the previous Farm Bill — in particular, the bill’s improvement of crop insurance, the Conservation Reserve Program and removal of borrower term limits for the Farm Service Agency’s guaranteed loan programs — Franzen noted that the new bill must make ‘substantial changes’ to keep pace with the changing agricultural landscape. Specifically, he advocated for increasing the current loan limit on FSA guaranteed loans, noting that the formula for indexing the programs has not kept up with the rising costs of agriculture. ABA has endorsed legislation introduced by Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.) that would increase the cap from $1.4 million to $3.5 million and double the size of direct operating and ownership loans from $300,000 to $600,000.”

Mr. Franzen also noted that, “The agricultural economy has been slowing, with farm sector profitability expected to decline further in 2017 for the fourth consecutive decline. However, farm and ranch incomes for the past five years have been some of the best in history. With the 2014 Farm Bill in place, farmers, ranchers, and their bankers achieved a level of certainty from Washington about future agricultural policy. Interest rates continue to be at or near record lows, and the banking industry has the people, capital and liquidity to help American farmers and ranchers sustain through any turbulence in the agricultural economy.

A news release yesterday from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated that, “[USDA], acting in response to a directive from President Donald J. Trump, today authorized emergency grazing on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands located in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas – the three states which were most heavily impacted by ongoing wildfires which began on March 6, 2017. USDA Acting Deputy Secretary Michael L. Young issued a memorandum authorizing the emergency grazing of cattle by ranchers, who are facing the ruination of their herds due to lack of sufficient grazing land. The authorization is pursuant to appropriate restrictions and conservation measures, which can be found in the Acting Deputy Secretary’s memorandum.

“‘Ranchers are facing devastating conditions and economic calamity because of these wildfires and they need some relief, or else they face the total loss of their herds in many cases,’ said Acting Deputy Secretary Young. ‘These measures will allow them to salvage what remains of their cattle and return to the important business of feeding Americans and the rest of the world. I commend and thank President Trump for acting decisively in response to this dire situation.'”

The news item added that, “Ranchers and farmers are only now able to begin to estimate losses, since the fires are still burning in some places and access to the lands to survey the damage has been limited.”

Michael Langemeier indicated in an update last week at the farmdoc daily blog (“How Should Farm Business Income be Divided?”) that, “If everyone in the farm business owned a similar amount of business assets, worked the same number of hours, and provided management expertise, the answer to the question in the title would be very straightforward. In this unlikely scenario, business income could be split equally. Unfortunately, asset ownership, hours worked, and management responsibilities vary across managers, operators, and owners of the business. This increases the importance of coming up with a conceptual framework to divide farm business income. This article describes a model that can be used to divide farm business income, and provides an illustration of how this model can be used in practice.”

The update noted that, “Hofstrand (2016) describes two methods that can be used to divide business income between parties in the business in an equitable manner. These two methods are the contributions model and the 50/50 model. With the contributions model, which is the focus of this article, an annual contribution is computed and allocated to each party before splitting net income. Annual contributions are computed using the relative value of each party’s contribution of resources to the farm business.”

Dr. Langemeier explained that, “Resources that need to be included in the contributions model include land, buildings, machinery and equipment, breeding livestock, working capital, and labor and management.”

Graph from the farmdoc daily blog, “How Should Farm Business Income be Divided?” (March 31, 2017).

The farmdoc update added that, “Table 1 contains an illustration of how the contributions model can be used to divide business income. This illustration assumes that there are two parties involved, a younger and an older generation. In this illustration, the older generation owns the vast majority of the land, buildings, machinery and equipment, and working capital…[I]t is important to note that the annual contributions reported in table 1 are distributed before net income is split between the parties.”

“The annual value of the contributions will need to be updated every year to account for changes in owned acres, building values, machinery and equipment values, and working capital. When dealing with a younger generation and an older generation, what typically happens is the annual contribution of the younger generation increases over time while the annual contribution of the older generation decreases over time. If assets were purchased together, the ownership shares would need to be divided accordingly. It is also important to note that if assets are disposed of the sales amount needs to be divided using the ownership percentages,” the farmdoc update said.

Kristen Leigh Painter reported on Saturday at the Minneapolis Star Tribune Online that, “As soon as Cargill announced that an outside group had certified more than a dozen of its ingredients as non-GMO, the agribusiness giant was publicly scourged by some of its closest allies.

“The moment should have been a good one for the world’s largest agriculture business. But a backlash came fast and furious online, pitting familiar factions against one another: those for and those against ­genetically modified foods.

“The situation highlights the tricky balance large food companies are trying to strike among competing interests. For a sprawling company like Cargill, it shows the challenge of appeasing its customers without alienating its suppliers.”

The article pointed out that, “Critics were particular vexed by Cargill’s choice of third-party ­certifier: the Non-GMO Project, which opposes genetic modification in food production. Since Minnetonka-based Cargill is one of the world’s largest producers of genetically modified foods, many of its suppliers, as well as some in the science community, felt betrayed.”

Ms. Painter explained that, “The federal government did pass a law in July requiring all food manufacturers to label products — either with a word, picture or QR code — that contain GMOs. The law provides a definition for bioengineered foods that some groups, including the Food and Drug Administration, have said may be too narrow. This leaves third-party verifiers as the most sought-after standard.”

The Star Tribune article added that, “While Cargill may be accused of supporting an organization that is trying to change its supply chain and activities, the company has never been shy about its support of farmers and GMO technology.

“‘We fully recognize that GMO technology is essential and indispensable to sustainably feed the world’s rapidly expanding population,’ [Randy Giroux, Cargill’s vice president of food safety]­ said in an e-mail. ‘We have thousands of scientists and agronomists working to enable new biotech crops. We are unshaken in our belief in the safety of GMOs and are wholly committed to our GMO ­partners.'”