15 spring lo

CONTENTS

6 Proposed State Budget: Huge Topic of Discussion and Debate

8 Update on the Implements of Husbandry Legisla on - Permits

13 Safety Zone - OSHA Issuing Swing Gate Cita ons

16 Safeguarding Access to Seed Treatments Through Stewardship

18 The 2014 Agricultural Year in Review

23 Millenial Recrui ng Challenges

26 New Guidance Clarifi es Reimbursement of Employee Health Costs

27 Fer lizer Record

32 Overview of the Wisconsin Crop Manage- ment Conference

36 Overview of the 2nd Annual Bowling Tournament

37 USDA: U.S. Farmers in 2016 to Plant Fewer Corn and Soybeans

38 USDA Na onal Sta s cs

41 “R-E-S-P-E-C-T” Workers on Roadways!

43 Who Controls Frac Sand Mining?

45 Ac on Ads

By Tom Bressner, WABA Execu ve Director

Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2015

(Con nued on Page 4)

Gree ngs to you all! As we approach the begin-ning of Spring (it might not feel like it yet, but it really is coming), I hope you are all gearing up for another exci ng year. With the ho-hums of winter

including snow, ice, and frigid cold temperatures about to give way to sunshine, green grass, and another crop growing season, how can anyone not be excited about the days ahead?

It seems like I have talked to many more of you than usual over the past six to ten weeks. For many of you, it is because I got a chance to talk to you at the Crop Management Conference in January. And for many of the rest of you, it is because you called into the offi ce with ques ons on either feed tonnage repor ng, implements of husband-ry permits, or any of the other items that has challenged our indus-try over the winter months. I wish I could tell you that the frustra- on of ge ng permits to operate overweight fer lizer and pes cide

applicators is about over. However, this will be one of those issues we will have to work with for some me to come. I can assure you that your associa on will con nue to work with the legislature and WisDOT to make the permi ng process as palatable as possible.

In addi on to implements of husbandry permi ng, there are several other proposed pieces of legisla on and regula on that WABA is tracking. Here is a lis ng of a few of these items and a short descrip- on of what is happening on each.

DATCP Agricultural Producers Security Fund

Due to the bankruptcy of a licensed vegetable processor, the DATCP Agricultural Producers Security Fund has taken a $6.1 million hit over the past year, dropping the total fund balance from $13 million to under $7 million. The signifi cance of this fi gure is that the fund was originally set up to trigger assessments from all segments of the fund if the balance ever falls under $11 million. Based on this, because of this bankruptcy that has nothing to do with grain dealers, grain companies would have to begin making assessments into the fund beginning September 2015.

Advertisers

3Wisconsin Agri-Business News Quarterly - Vol. 4 Issue 1 - Spring 2015

A & L Great Lakes Laboratories, Inc.Advanced Biological MarketingAgra Liners, LLCAg Systems, Inc.Agrium US, Inc.CHSCoBankContree Sprayer & Equipment Co. CP FeedsEdgewell Ag Products, LLCFEI-EastFertilizer Dealer SupplyGreat Salt Lake MineralsJay-Mar Inc.Michael Best & Friedrich LLPMonsantoPest ProsSCS EngineersTrue North ConsultingSyngenta United Suppliers

Follow us on facebook and Twi er

2801 International LaneSuite 105

Madison, WI 53704Phone: 608-223-1111Fax: 608-223-1147

[email protected]

Wisconsin Agri-Business Assoc.Board of Directors & Staff

The mission of the Wisconsin Agri-Business Association is to represent, provide pro-grams and services, educate, train, manage regulatory and legislative affairs, and to be a strong unifying voice for the agribusiness industries of Wisconsin.

Our Mission

President

Sco Firlus, Allied Coopera ve, Adams

Vice President

Joey Kennicker - Greg’s Feed & Seed, Inc., South Wayne

Treasurer

Doug Cropp, Landmark Services Coopera ve, Co age Grove

Secretary

Kathy Dummer - Buck Country Grain, Arcadia

Directors

Jon Accola - Premier Coopera ve, Mineral PointBruce Andersen, Bio-Gro Inc., Cedar GroveMike Christenson, Countryside Coopera ve, DurandThomas Hoff man - Central Wisconsin Coopera ve, Stra ordErik Huschi - Badger State Ethanol, MonroeGuy Mathias - AG Systems, Inc., DeForestMarc Powell - Hanna Ag, LLC, Verona

Advisors

Shawn Conley - UW Dept. of Agronomy, MadisonDavid Crass - Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, MadisonMa Ruark - UW Dept. of Soil Science, Madison

Staff

Tom Bressner - Execu ve DirectorJim Nolte - Safety DirectorDenise Poindexter - Director of Member ServicesJoan Viney - Director of Member Communica ons

4

(Con nued from Page 1)

A er lots of mee ngs and discussion on this topic, DATCP Secretary Ben Bancel recently wrote a Scoping Statement asking to open up the Wisconsin Adminis-tra ve Code, chapter ATCP 99, to address the issue. Permission to open the code was granted. In his proposed changes to the code, Secretary Brancel has proposed changing the minimum requirement for triggering new assessments from $11 million down to $5 million. If passed, which currently has no orga-niza ons opposing the move, assessments to grain dealers will not be required. This is very good news to the grain industry. We will track the progress of this measure and keep you informed. At this point, it appears that it will be approved.

Proposed Legisla on to Create a Central Filing Sys-tem for Agricultural Liens

The Wisconsin Bankers Associa on has proposed a new piece of legisla on that would require the Wisconsin Department of Financial Ins tu ons to create an internet based computer system that will be used to track agricultural liens from all across the state. With the crea on of this computerized system, lien holders would no longer be required to no fy li-censed grain dealers if they want grain checks wri en jointly to producers and the lien holder. If the lien holder enters the lien into the government system, it would now become the responsibility of the grain buyer to go into the computer system, fi nd out what liens require joint names, and see that checks get wri en accordingly. As wri en, the bill eliminates the two way communica on that currently happens between lien holders and grain buyers, and transfers the liability of collec ng lien funds to the grain buyer.

At this point, the Wisconsin Bankers Associa on has not sought sponsors for their proposed legisla- on nor does it have a bill number. WABA has met

with the Wisconsin Bankers Associa on to voice our concerns with the bill, and has submi ed comments on what needs to be changed in order for the bill to be acceptable to our industry. WABA will con nue to work extremely hard on this issue, making the bank-ers associa on and legislators aware of our concerns, and will oppose the bill if it can’t be made more workable to our industry.

Governor’s Proposed State Budget

On February 3rd, Governor Walker introduced his 2015-17 execu ve budget to the legislature. There are several items in the proposed budget that are quite alarming to agriculture and agribusiness. Items such as a $1 million transfer from the agricultural

chemical cleanup fund to the DNR environmental fund, elimina ng the Fer lizer Research Council, elimina ng grant funding to Discovery Farms, elimi-na ng the policy se ng powers of the DATCP Board, and no new funds being granted to local jurisdic- ons for rural road maintenance, are all issues that

will require the agricultural community to step up and protect our interests. Later in this magazine, we provide a much more detailed list of concerns pre-sented in the Governor’s proposed budget. In the mean me, WABA will meet individually with several key legislators to help them understand the signifi -cance of these issues. Tradi onally, the legislature makes many changes while transforming the Gover-nor’s proposed budget into the fi nal budget. We will work to see that issues important to our industry are addressed.

Fer lizer Combined Nutrient Index

In 2015, DATCP had 170 fer lizer samples collected from the industry that did not meet compliance with the Combined Nutrient Index. Almost one-third of these (55) were directly due to the formula used to determine the total economic value of the fer lizer, which was established in 1971. WABA, the Coopera- ve Network, and DATCP have held several mee ngs

over the last 24 months looking at and addressing some of the problems due to outdated informa on in the statutes.

Currently, to determine the total economic value of a fer lizer blend, DATCP uses the equa on of:Economic Value = (Total N guarantee X 2) + (Total P2O5 guarantee X 2) + K2O guarantee.The problem is that this 2:2:1 ra on of key nutrients is not realis c any more since potash prices are more in line with nitrogen and phosphate prices.

As a result of our discussions, it has been agreed to begin the process of changing two major pieces of the Wisconsin Administra ve Code Chapter ATCP 40.14. First, the code will be changed so that the economic value of a fer lizer mix will be determined by the formula of 1:1:1 on N,P and K. Second, Cur-rent language requires that the economic value of the primary nutrients actually present must be at least 98% of the amounts guaranteed. This will be changed to 97%. With these two changes, the 55 samples collected that were non-compliant because of the old formula would have been reduced to just 12.

Unfortunately, when you change the administra ve code, it takes me to accomplish. Do not expect to


• Short turn-around, usually one week.

• In-season test provides for superior results.

• One test on soybeans for SCN and other nematodes.

• Assesses hybrid SCN performance and rotational risks.

• Risk assessment for ALL crops in the rotations.

• Sampling services and follow-up. Advisory Available.

For more information, call Randy at 608.572.0248 or email: [email protected]

UNIVERSAL ROW CROP NEMATODE ASSAY:

see these changes in place un l some me in 2016. However, the good news is that DATCP has recog-nized the issue and is taking ac on to correct it.

Feed Tonnage Repor ng

Even though the deadline for fi ling tonnage reports for 2014 has passed, DATCP understands the confu-sion that has surfaced over the past weeks and wants to address these concerns for the future. Recently, you should have received a mee ng no ce from WABA about a couple of Regional Feed Mee ngs to be held on April 7th in the WI Dells and April 8th in Appleton. At those mee ngs, DATCP representa ves will be present to discuss the feed tonnage process in detail, including going line by line on a few example forms they have developed. While this presenta on will be too late to help for 2014 repor ng, it should be very valuable in helping to prepare for future repor ng. In addi on to DATCP, the regional meet-ings will feature Jerome Leis from Cli on Larson Allen accoun ng fi rm talking about what feed manufac-turing equipment is exempt from sales and use tax. Jim Nolte will talk on safety and OSHA items. And I will talk about the upcoming Food Safety and Mod-erniza on Act regula ons, and plans WABA has to help inform and educate the industry on these new standards once the fi nal rule is issued.


As you can easily see, there is a lot going on in the legisla ve and regulatory world that pertains to agri-business. WABA is honored to represent you in these fronts, and will do all we can to represent your best interests. As always, we appreciate having you as a member of WABA. Bring on Spring!

Tom Bressner

6

On February 3rd, Governor Sco Walker introduced his 2015-17 ex-ecu ve budget to the legislature, calling for a $35.9 billion opera ng

budget for fi scal year 2016 and $32.2 billion for 2017. As it seems with all budget proposals, there are numerous items included in the Governor’s proposed budget that caught many off guard. The one thing we can be assured of is that by the me the state leg-islature is fi nished tweaking, massaging, and outright changing some of the Governor’s proposals, the fi nal package will not look like the one he presented in the fi rst place. However with that said, I do think we should all be aware of the proposed items that were included in his proposal.

Here are some of the items par cularly of interest to agribusiness and rural Wisconsin:

• Change the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protec on (DATCP) board from a policy se ng board to an advisory council that would no longer approve administra ve rules. He has also proposed the same thing for the Depart-ment of Natural Resources (DNR) board.

• Consolidate all food safety, recrea onal facility, lodging and food protec on ac vi es into DATCP, resul ng in transfers of func ons and posi ons from the Department of Health Services.

• Transfer the State Lab of Hygiene and Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnos c Lab from the University of Wisconsin System to DATCP beginning in fi scal year 2017.

• Transfer the Veterinary Examining Board from the Department of Safety and Professional Services to DATCP.

• Transfer $1 million from the agricultural chemi-cal cleanup fund to the DNR environmental fund each year of the biennium to provide funding for non-point source abatement eff orts.

• Eliminate funding from fer lizer licensing fees to the UW System and the Fer lizer Research Coun-cil. The proposal would also eliminate the Fer l-izer Research Council.

• Delete the grants to Discovery Farms that are currently funded from the Agrichemical Manage-ment Fund.

• Reduce UW System funding by $300 million over the biennium, while restructuring the UW System as an independent private authority.

• Phase out the Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Program and transfer $21 million per year out of the fund into the Transporta on Fund.

• Eliminate the requirement for a bulk milk truck operator to hold a state permit as a Grade A hauler and allow the use of federal Food and Drug Administra on permi ng for that purpose.

Transporta on Issues:

• Of his total budget, the Governor proposes spending $6.5 billion over the two years on transporta on.

• In November, Department of Transporta on (DOT) Secretary Mark Go lieb asked for $751 mil-lion of new revenue created through new taxes and fees, and asked for an addi onal $574 million in general purpose revenue to be given to DOT to support the transporta on budget. However, the Governor did not include any of these sugges- ons in his proposal. Instead, he proposed $1.3

billion in bonding, up from $991 million in the last biennium.

• The proposal keeps the Milwaukee Zoo Inter-change on schedule for comple on in 2018. It also keeps the Hoan Bridge project on schedule, but delays the I-94 North/South project by one year from 2021 to 2022.

• Aid to local government jurisdic ons is held at current levels with no new funds for maintenance or bridge projects.

• Provide $43 million in bonding for the Freight Rail Preserva on Program.

Proposed State Budget: Huge Topic of Discussion and Debate



Other Issues of Interest:

• Merge the Department of Financial Ins tu ons and the Department of Safety and Professional Services into a new Department of Financial Ins -tu ons and Professional Standards. This merger is expected to result in the elimina on of 46 full me salaried posi ons.

• Merge the func ons of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority and the Wisconsin Economic Development Corpora on into a newly created Forward Wisconsin Develop-ment Authority.

Tradi onally, the fi nal budget package is not com-pleted and ready for the legislature to vote on it un l early June. While there is some talk of the meline being pushed up some this year, we don’t expect that to happen.


Update on the Implemplements of Husbandry Legislation - Permits


Before reading what our industry members need to do to comply with the permi ng sec on of the Implements of Husbandry law, I think it is fi rst important that we

understand the Wisconsin defi ni on of “Implement of Husbandry”. It is quite lengthy and somewhat dif-fi cult to understand. Here it is:

Important Defi ni ons

An Implement of Husbandry (IoH) is defi ned as “a self-propelled or towed vehicle that is manufactured, designed, or reconstructed to be used and that is exclusively used in the conduct of agricultural op-era ons.” An IoH may include any of the following categories:

(a) Farm tractors (Referred to as a “Category A” ve-hicle.)

(b) A self-propelled combine, a self-propelled forage harvester, or pes cide applica on equipment (but not including manure applica on equipment), towed llage, plan ng, and cul va on equipment and its

towing power unit: or another self-propelled vehicle that directly engages in harves ng farm products, directly applies fer lizer, spray, or seeds (but not manure) or distributes feed to livestock. (Referred to as” Category B” vehicles)

(c) A farm wagon, farm trailer, manure trailer, or trail-er adapted to be towed by, or to tow or pull, another implement of husbandry. (Referred to as “Category C” vehicles.)

The new act goes on to say that a combina on of vehicles in which each vehicle in the vehicle combi-na on is an implement of husbandry as described above or in which an implement of husbandry de-scribed as a Category C above is towed by a farm truck, farm truck tractor, or motor truck.

The new act goes on to say specifi cally that an IoH does not include any of the following: 1) An agricul-tural commercial motor vehicle (which has its own defi ni on below), and 2) a vehicle that is a commer-cial motor vehicle under federal code 49CFR 390.5.

The new defi ni on in the act for Agricultural Com-mercial Motor Vehicle (Ag CMV) means a commercial motor vehicle to which all the following apply:

(a) The vehicle is substan ally designed or equipped or materially altered from its original construc on, for the purpose of agricultural use.

(b) The vehicle was designed and manufactured pri-marily for highway use.

(c) Unless manufactured prior to 1970, the vehicle was manufactured to meet federal motor vehicles safety standard cer fi ca on label requirements as specifi ed in 40 CFR 567.

(d) The vehicle is directly engaged in harves ng farm products, directly applies fer lizer, spray, or seeds to a farm fi eld, or distributes feed to livestock

** Interpreta on for the fer lizer industry - Float-ers, Big A units, etc.. will be classifi ed as IoH Category B. Truck mounted fer lizer spreaders and pes cide sprayers are classifi ed as Ag CMVs.

Permi ng Requirement

When the Implements of Husbandry legisla on was signed into law last Summer by Governor Sco Walker, it contained phase in dates for certain parts of the law. Perhaps the biggest phase in date for our industry occurred on January 15, 2015. On that date, a couple of things happened. The fi rst importance of this date is that it is the deadline for local juris-dic ons (towns, townships, and coun es) to decide how they are going to implement the new law in their jurisdic on. Second, a er this date, based on the decisions of the local jurisdic ons, permits may be required for opera ng over weight or over sized implements of husbandry and Ag CMVs.

First, let’s talk about the local jurisdic ons. A er analyzing the new law, each and every local jurisdic- on in the state was given the right to decide how

they would administer the new law on their roads. If they were going to pass a resolu on or ordinance administering the new legisla on (or parts of it), they were given to January 15, 2015 to pass that resolu- on or ordinance and no fy the Wisconsin Depart-

ment of Transporta on (WisDOT) of their decision.


8


A er being no fi ed of the decisions being made by the locals, WisDOT was then required to post those decisions on their website.

All agribusiness companies should go to the WisDOT website to see what (if any) decisions have been made by the local jurisdic ons that you operate in with your overweight fer lizer and pes cide applica-tors, lime loaders and spreaders, etc... This webpage can be found at: www.dot.state.wi.us/business/ag/index.htm. Then click on “Local Government Reso-lu ons and Ordinances” to see the list of jurisdic- ons that have taken some form of ac on, and what

that ac on might have been. As you scan the list of jurisdic ons, as of this wri ng, you will only fi nd 232 jurisdic ons that have reported. Of those 232, 187 of them have decided to “opt in” to the new law, 42 have decided to “totally opt out”, and 3 have decided to “par ally opt out”. Also, since only 232 jurisdic- ons have reported, that means that the majority of

the local jurisdic ons in the state have done nothing.

So what does it mean when a local jurisdic on “opts in”, “totally opts out”, “par ally opt out” or does not report?

Opts In - Since the IoH legisla on only allows Cat-egory B IoH an exemp on from axle weights if their local jurisdic on does not pass a resolu on or ordi-nance requiring you to do so, and in this case, the local jurisdic on has passed a resolu on or ordinance “op ng in” to the requirements, then these juris-dic ons will require you to comply with the 23,000 pounds per axle requirements and the total gross weight as established in the new IoH/Ag CMV table. If any of your IoH or Ag CMV units will travel on roads over weight or over sized, then you will need to get a permit from this jurisdic on. Also remember that if you ask for a permit to operate your over weight / over sized IoH on certain roads and the permit is denied, the jurisdic on is obligated by law to give you an approved alternate route. Unfortunately, at this point in me, they are not required to give you an alternate route for Ag CMVs.

Totally Opts Out - Local jurisdic ons that totally opt out of the law will not impose any of the weight limits established by state statute under the new IoH/Ag CMV table or limits on length under the new act on that jurisdic on’s roads. This is a total opt out of these requirements and means that any IoH or Ag CMV can operate at any unlimited weight or length. You do not need to apply for permits to operate over weight or over sized IoH or Ag CMVs in jurisdic ons that totally opt out of the law.

Par ally Opts Out - Currently, the only jurisdic on that has selected a par al opt out of the law is the small town of Meteor in Sawyer County. So for most of you, this is not anything for you to be concerned about. However, the par al opt out means that the town is se ng higher length and/or weight limits than the state weight limits under the new IoH/Ag CMV table on “designated” roads. It allows them to retain the state weight limits under the new table for other roads. This op on may require you to fi le for fewer permits than if all roads were “opted in”, but in most cases, you will s ll need to fi le for permits for over weight or over sized IoH and Ag CMVs.

No Ac on Taken by the Jurisdic on - And now for the majority of the jurisdic ons in the state that ap-pear to have not taken any ac on. This means that the 23,000 pounds per axle limit applies to IoH and Ag CMVs and that the new IoH/Ag CMV table applies, except for Category B IoH. If your jurisdic on has taken no ac on, then Category B IoH are exempt from the 23,000 pound per axle weight but are not exempt from the total gross weight of up to 92,000. Ag CMVs, or any other category of IoH are not ex-empt from the 23,000 pound axle weight restric on. In most cases, unless you have one big fer lizer ap-plicator (that is an IoH) with an extraordinarily huge holding capacity, you will not need to apply for over weight permits. You will need to apply for a permit if your Ag CMV will be over weight. You will need to apply for permits if your IoH/ Ag CMV is over sized in length.

Permit Applica ons - The applica on forms to be used for fi ling for over weight / over sized permits can be found at: www.dot.state.wi.us/business/ag/permits.htm

Where To From Here?

WABA has met numerous mes this winter with Senator Petrowski and Representa ve Ripp, trying to propose amendments to this legisla on. It was our hopes that these poten al amendments could be addressed early in the 2015 Legisla ve Session. However, due to this being a State Budget year, the Senate and Assembly leadership did not priori ze these issues high enough to be addressed early in the session. I would not be surprised if our pro-posed amendments don’t even make it to commit-tee un l at least April. Amendments that we have proposed would allow commercial fer lizer, pes cide and lime applicators to be able to fi le for one mul -jurisdic onal state wide permit rather than having to apply to each jurisdic on that you will operate in,



and would allow Ag CMV fer lizer, pes cide and lime applica on equipment eligible for the same exemp- ons as IoH Category B equipment. Proposed amend-

ments will also require local jurisdic ons to be much more mely in repor ng to the state Department of Transporta on and ge ng their “opt in / opt out” de-cisions posted to the DOT website. We are also being told that these proposed changes will be addressed with two legisla ve amendments; one with the less controversial items and one that contains the issues that will have more opposi on.

IoH Training Videos

On the DOT website at: www.dot.state.wi.us/busi-ness/ag/index.htm, there are nine training videos that are very well worth your me viewing. We en-courage you to take the me to look at them.


Implement of Husbandry/Ag CMV Maximum Weight Limita ons

Chart is on the next page.

10

A - Distance in feet between foremost and rearmost axles of a group*

B - 2 axles of a vehicle or combination of vehicles

C - 3 axles of a vehicle or combination of vehicles

D - 4 axles of a vehicle or combination of vehicles

E - 5 axles of a vehicle or combination of vehicles

F - 6 axles of a vehicle or combination of vehicles

G - 7 Axles of a vehicle or combination of vehicles

H - 8 Axles of a vehicle or combination of vehicles

4 39,5005 40,5006 41,5007 43,000 47,5008 44,000 48,5009 45,000 49,500

10 46,000 50,500 56,00011 51,000 57,00012 52,000 57,50013 53,000 58,50014 53,500 59,500 65,50015 54,500 60,000 66,00016 55,500 61,000 67,00017 56,500 61,500 67,500 74,00018 57,000 62,500 68,500 75,00019 58,000 63,000 69,000 75,50020 59,000 64,000 70,000 76,00021 60,000 64,500 70,500 77,000 83,50022 60,500 65,500 71,500 77,500 84,00023 61,500 66,000 72,000 78,000 84,50024 62,500 67,000 72,500 79,000 85,500 92,00025 63,000 67,500 73,500 79,500 86,00026 64,000 68,500 74,000 80,500 86,50027 65,000 69,000 75,000 81,000 87,50028 66,000 70,000 75,500 81,500 88,00029 66,700 71,000 76,500 82,500 88,50030 67,275 71,500 77,000 83,000 89,50031 68,425 72,500 77,500 83,500 90,00032 69,000 73,000 78,500 84,500 90,50033 74,000 79,000 85,000 91,50034 74,500 80,000 86,000 92,00035 75,500 80,500 86,50036 76,000 81,500 87,00037 77,000 82,000 88,00038 77,500 83,000 88,50039 78,000 83,500 89,50040 79,000 84,000 90,00041 80,000 85,000 90,50042 80,500 85,500 91,50043 81,500 86,500 92,00044 82,500 87,00045 83,000 88,00046 84,000 88,50047 84,500 89,00048 85,500 90,00049 86,000 90,50050 87,000 91,50051 87,500 92,00052 88,50053 89,00054 90,00055 90,50056 91,50057 92,000

Axles must be at least 42 inches apart to qualify as a separate axle and must bear at least 8% of the GVW.

Implement of Husbandry/Ag CMV Maximum Weight Limitations Chart[§348.15(3)(g)]

*Measuring: [348.15 (5m)] The distances between the foremost and rearmost of a group of axles shall be measured between axle CENTERS to the nearest even foot, and when a fraction is exactly one-half foot, the nearest larger whole number shall be used. Example: 50 feet 5 inches = 50 feet; 50 feet 6 inches = 51 feet


© 2014 All rights reserved. All products are trademarks or registered trademarks of Advanced Biological Marketing™

Proven yield benefits

Increased plant stands

and seedling vigor

Better nutrient and

water efficiency

Create more robust

root systems

Get ready to grow more.Biological Enhancements for Corn and Soybeans

An American Company Producing Global Results for Agriculture

for Soybeans

for Soybeans

Net Contents: 10 Oz. (284 grams)

Treats up to 200 x 140K units soybean seedNe

TM

Shake well before measurement and use. Measuring cup provided.

ontents: 10 Oz. (284 gramms)

to 200 x 140K unnits soybeean seeeedet Co

asurement and uuse. Meaasuring g cup prprovided.ed.

PATENT PENDING

ssss in seed treatment aatmtmin seed treain seed trea menent

The NEXT generation

An average of

8.23 bu/a

increaseover 5 years

An average of

4.51 bu/a

increaseover 4 years

Advanced Biological Marketing | PO Box 222 | Van Wert, OH 45891 | Office (877) 617-2461 @ abm1st

Vince Wertman Regional Sales Manager

www.ABM1st.com

ViViViViViVincncncee WWeWe trtrtmamann

For more information contact your local ABM dealer or:

OSHA Issuing Swing Gate Citations

By Jim Nolte,WABA Safety Director

As part of the fall hazard emphasis program, OSHA in Wisconsin has begun to issue cita ons for lack of self-closing swing gates when unguarded ladderway access openings are observed on pla orms. As a ma er of fact, one of our safety program members informed us of this cita on and asked WABA for help in assessing the cita on. They wanted to know if there was a chance that the cita on could be chal-lenged and possibly withdrawn.

This member has 10 facility loca ons. In order to avoid a poten al repeat or willful cita on from OSHA, the member would be required to install self-closing swing gates for all similar instances at all 10 facility loca ons. A study was conducted at just two facility loca ons and it was determined that it could cost as much as $200,000 to $250,000 to install these gates at every ladderway pla orm opening. A er mee ng with the member the decision was made to hold an informal conference with OSHA and ask that the cita- on be withdrawn.

The unguarded ladderway openings that the Com-pliance Offi cer from the Madison OSHA Offi ce cited were specifi cally aimed at the fi xed ladder landing pla orms on various legs and bins that are required in OSHA’s fi xed ladder standard (1910.27). The lad-der standard does not allow an employee to climb greater than 30 feet without a ladder landing plat-form being installed and the next ladder sec on be-ing off set from the previous sec on. In other words the ladder sec ons are staggered as you climb up the specifi c piece of equipment with the landing pla orm separa ng the ladder sec ons. The ladder standard also provides minimum size requirements for landing pla orms and also requires the installa on of hand-rails and toeboards but does not require the ladder-way opening to be guarded by a self-closing swing gate or any other safeguarding means.

The Compliance Offi cer, when issuing this par cular cita on, did not specifi cally cite a paragraph from

the fi xed ladder standard because such a paragraph does not exist. What he cited instead was a para-graph from a diff erent standard that addresses work pla orms, fl oor and wall openings, handrails, etc. (1910.23). He was trying to issue a cita on using a completely diff erent standard and applying it to a piece of equipment, a fi xed ladder, which has its own specifi c standard and requirements.

Without ge ng into all the specifi cs, the cita on was dropped because the Compliance Offi cer only addressed ladder landing pla orms in his notes and pictures. He did not address any other instances where a fi xed ladder was used to access a work pla orm. OSHA agreed to drop the cita on based on the fact that the ladder landing pla orms the Compli-ance Offi cer noted served no other purpose than to transi on from one ladder sec on to the next and the person climbing the ladder is fully aware of where the ladderway openings are when ascending and descending ladders. They also agreed that the ladder standard took precedence and it currently does not require self-closing swing gates.

However, OSHA also stated that when a fi xed ladder is used to access a pla orm where employees are expected to perform work tasks (i.e. a work pla orm) other than simply transi oning from one ladder sec- on to another, the unguarded ladderway opening

would require protec on and would be cited using the standard referenced by the Compliance Offi cer. WABA agreed with OSHA and stated that is why the swinging gate requirement is in standard 1910.23 and not 1910.27 for fi xed ladders. Once an employee ex-its the ladder onto a work pla orm, they are focused on the task at hand and may lose sight of where the ladderway opening is and inadvertently step back-wards and fall through the unprotected opening.

Since it appears that OSHA is focusing on this issue during their inspec ons, WABA recommends that members assess their en re facility and determine which pla orms are work pla orms and which are strictly ladder landing pla orms. Those pla orms iden fi ed as work pla orms should have self-closing swing gates installed. If the unguarded ladderway opening is from a ladder to a walkway as opposed to a pla orm, this opening also requires the installa on of a gate. Refer to Figures #1 through #4 at the end of this ar cle to assist with your evalua on.



out there.

Staying relevant in today’s marketplace means working with a cooperative whose business is being relevant.

So that what you do in here makes sense

Everything we do at CHS, f r o m e n e r g y r e f i n i n g and grain marketing to crop nutrients and risk management, serves a single purpose: to help our owners grow—all 600,000 of them. We do this in three important ways: by invest-ing for growth on your behalf; by staying strongfinancially and returning pro ts back to you; and by providing local expertise and global connections. As a member-owner of this cooperative, you can be sure that we are laser-focused on helping you succeed, no matter whathappens on the other sideof that door. Learn more atour website: chsinc.com.

©2014 CHS Inc.


Figure 1: This is the actual pla orm cited by OSHA. Note there is no gate protec ng the ladderway opening.


If you receive a cita on from OSHA for failure to install a self-closing swing gate on an unprotected ladderway opening, no fy WABA immediately upon receiving the cita on so we can determine if the cita on is being properly applied. The OSHA offi ces in Wisconsin do not communicate internally regarding each and every cita- on that is dropped or amended so it is possible the other three Wisconsin offi ces may try to issue a cita on in

the same manner as the Madison offi ce did. One thing that contributed signifi cantly to the decision to sched-ule an informal conference and ask OSHA to drop the cita on was due to the notes taken by the member and the pictures the member took during the OSHA inspec on. Without this informa on it would have been much more diffi cult to arrive at a decision and develop a strong case to present before OSHA. If a Compliance Offi -cer shows up at your facility, please contact the WABA offi ce immediately so we can be involved in the process from the start. If the WABA Safety Director cannot get to the facility to par cipate in the inspec on process, he will provide guidance and recommenda ons for you to follow that will help in the event cita ons are issued.

Figure 2: Based on set-tlement agreement with OSHA, the bo om and middle ladder landing pla orms do not require self-closing swing gates. The top pla orm would require a gate as this is a work pla orm instead of a landing pla orm because other work tasks are performed from this pla orm.

Figure 3: This pla orm is a work plat-form because other work ac vity (i.e. bin entry) occurs from this pla orm. A self-closing swing gate is required.

Figure 4: This is also a work plat-form and requires a self-closing swing gate. Employees use side draw to load trucks.

16

Neonico noids – some of the most popular insec -cide seed treatments – are drawing scru ny for po-ten al impact on bees in the press and social media. The European Union has already put a temporary ban in place on their use and they are under review at the Environmental Protec on Agency (EPA) and in Canada. However, these seed treatments, along with improved gene cs and innova ve traits, are an im-portant part of modern crop produc on. That is why the American Seed Trade Associa on and CropLife America created The Guide to Seed Treatment Stew-ardship. Media Cri cism Leaves Out Important Facts

Media portrayal of declining pollinator health o en incorrectly blames neonico noids as the cause of colony collapse disorder. In reality, EPA and USDA have jointly determined that bee losses are due to a “complex set of stressors and pathogens,” including pollinator nutri on, forage availability, pes cides, dis-eases and pests. That includes the varroa mite, o en called the number one killer of bees. Interes ngly, in Australia where they use neonico noids but do not have the varroa mite, bee popula ons are not under threat.

Furthermore, cri cism of neonico noids does not take into account that these insec -cides were introduced because of lower toxicity to mammals and the environment than previously used agrochemi-cal sprays. Nor does it factor in that seed treatments use a very low applica on rate of just milligrams of ac ve ingredient per seed.

Why Safeguard Access to Seed Treatments?

Seed treatments are a precise applica on that shields seeds from insects and diseases that exist in the soil during early developmental stages. This protec on ensures that the plant has a greater opportunity to grow a strong root system, the founda on of a healthy, produc ve plant. Nearly 100 percent of modern seed varie es, combined with eff ec ve seed treatments, produce a mature plant, according to CropLife America.

Addi onally, seed treatments reduce the number of spray applica ons of agrichemical products, which decreases exposure to non-target species. Accord-ing to GfK Kynetec data analyzed by AgInforma cs, if neonico noids weren’t available, 77 percent of neo-nico noid treated acres would switch to other insec- cides. This means 4.0 million pounds of neonico -

noids would be replaced with 19.1 million pounds of alterna ves, or each pound of neonico noids would be replaced with nearly 5 pounds.

In contrast, a recently published comprehensive economic analysis by AgInfoma cs of more than 1,500 fi eld studies conducted over 20 years outlined the benefi ts of neonico noid seed treatments, fi nd-ing signifi cant yield increases in eight major crops across North America – corn, soybeans, wheat, cot-ton, canola, sorghum, potatoes and tomatoes. This research also indicated the value placed on neonic-o noids seed treatments by farmers outweighs the cost. An AgInforma cs survey of 500 soybean farm-

ers showed soybean growers derive an average $11.93 per acre from neonico noid-treat-ed seeds rela ve to their next best alterna ve. When totaled over all soybean acres using neonico noids, this value totals more than $400 million. Farmers also listed non-mone-tary benefi ts of neonico noid-seed treatments to farmers, including eff ec ve insect control, improved risk man-agement, and me savings.


Safeguarding Access to Seed Treatments Through Stewardship

Working Together as Environmental Stewards

The Guide to Seed Treatment Stewardship is the re-sult of a collabora on between seed companies, seed treatment providers and universi es, supported by the American Farm Bureau Federa on, Na onal Corn Grower’s Associa on, American Soybean Associa on, Ag Retailers Associa on and Na onal Co on Council.

The Guide to Seed Treatment Stewardship contains informa on and up-to-date guidelines for managing treated seeds eff ec vely. To tailor these recommen-da ons, we have divided resources for two versions: one for seed treatment applicators and another for farmers. Cri cal factors for seed treatment applica-tors include complying with all regula ons, minimiz-ing dust off , full life cycle documenta on, properly disposing of le over product and waste and convey-ing all required and per nent informa on to cus-tomers. Stewardship guidelines for farmers include following seed tag and label instruc ons for proper handling, storage and disposal prac ces, minimizing dust-off and keeping treated seed out of commodity grain channels.

The Guide to Seed Treatment Stewardship website includes the full Guide and instruc ve videos as well as links to label review manuals, pes cide labeling ques ons and answers and federal regula ons on waste disposal. The website also includes links to the Growing Ma ers and AgVoice4Choice websites, pro-viding opportuni es to weigh in with EPA regulators, members of Congress and USDA on why seed treat-ment technologies are so important. Bans and restric ons on neonico noids are not the answer to the complex issue of pollinator health. Replacing targeted seed treatment applica ons will undermine the goal of integrated pest management. Furthermore, restric ng neonico noids will force growers and landscape professionals to apply more insec cides, more foliar sprays and less selec ve products.

Help spread the world on the importance of fol-lowing best prac ces by sharing The Guide to Seed Treatment Stewardship with neighbors and friends. Together, if we are careful stewards of treated seeds, we can protect pollinator health while safeguarding access to an eff ec ve plant protec on tool.



2014 was an even ul year for agriculture. Here are 20 of the top highlights as we saw them.

Farm Economics

Farmers Start the Year Flush. The year began as many recent years, with farmers riding on a wave of very high profi ts. The fi nancial condi on of the U.S. farm sector was as strong as it has been in decades. A common bellwether of the farm sector profi tabil-ity, farmland values, stood at all- me highs in almost every region of the country. Final es mates of 2013 reported producers were coming off the 3rd year in a row where net farm income topped $98 billion and a general trend of strong income that started in 2005.

USDA Outlook Points to Lower Incomes in 2014. I remember speaking at the USDA Outlook Forum and the news was about the call for a decline of 25% in net farm income in 2014. Soon a er this, many reports began to suggest that the great farm boom was over and that mes were changing rapidly. Some talked of a bubble that might soon burst. While the percentage decline in income was notable, we and others noted that the farm sector remained in rela vely good fi nancial condi on and that we were coming off of several years of record profi ts. This also reminded us of an ar cle that Mike Boehlje and Chris Hurt wrote in 2008 poin ng out some of the diff er-ences between the 80’s and this farm boom.

Farmland Values and Cash Rents Stop Rising. 2014 may be recalled as the year when farmland values and cash rents stopped shoo ng higher. Confl ic ng informa on began to come in on the level of farm-land prices, with USDA and a few others repor ng that prices were going up, and many other surveys observing that prices were fl at to trending down-ward. In our opinion much of this confusion was due to the ming of the surveys and the values/rents being measured.At the end of the day, it appears that farmland values did level off and in many markets are down from their highs. Some are sugges ng that a substan al correc on may be in the works. It will be interes ng to see how cash rents adjust. Unfor-tunately, the USDA/NASS also announced that they will no longer be conduc ng the county level surveys on cash rents. One must really wonder why such an important survey would be dropped when so many others remain (we won’t start a list of all the other

The 2014 Agricultural Year In Review

reports that could be dropped, but you might take a look down this list and draw your own conclusions). Come on USDA, don’t drop that report.Renewable Fuels

RFS Sent to Purgatory. Ethanol demand mandated by the renewable fuel standard (RFS) has been a big driver of the great agricultural boom. The RFS has come under repeated scru ny since its implementa- on, but the EPA’s late 2013 decision to reconsider

aspects of the RFS was big news in 2014. A er ini al-ly proposing to reduce the amount of ethanol blend-ed into gasoline, the EPA postponed their decision to 2015. Many analysts are sugges ng that big changes in the RFS are now unlikely. Keep watch in 2015 as big changes would be a surprise to the market.

Ethanol Profi ts High. The U.S. ethanol industry also experienced a strong year in 2014. With lower corn prices and strong domes c and export demand, 2014 was a great year for ethanol producers. As oil prices have begun to fall it will be interes ng to see how this situa on evolves in 2015.

From Agricultural Economic Insights


18

Weather

Ideal Weather Leads to Gigan c Crops in the Mid-west. The old saying is that rain makes grain. Well, it’s obviously a li le more complicated than that. Tim-ing of rainfalls, temperatures, and many other things play key roles in crop development, but 2014 appar-ently had it all about right. As the growing season unfolded, specula on began to mount that the U.S. was on the verge of producing a very large corn crop. While the actual totals were a bit lower than some of the mid-season prognos cator es mates, the crop was substan al. The last USDA es mates put corn at 173.4 bpa and soybeans at 47.5 bpa. As a result, stockpiles of most row crops are now comfortable. During this period we examined just how large the stockpiles were and concluded that while they are indeed large, we are not quite to the point of being ridiculously oversupplied.

California Drought. This summer California felt the grip of a powerful drought. The impacts have been staggering and documented in the drama c pictures circula ng on the internet. Some es mates placed the losses to California in excess of $2 billion. Even today, the drought is in full force with 99% of the state in drought and 55% in the most severe catego-ry. When will relief come? That brings us to our next weather story…

The El Nino that Never Came. In early June, the forecasts were for an El Nino to occur. The es mates were at 70% for a summer arrival and 80% by fall. Today, no El Nino and the forecast now places the chances at 65%. And even if El Nino arrives, there is no guarantee there will be relief, as not all El Nino’s behave the same.Woes in the Grains

Crop Prices Experience Mid-Season Free Fall. As expecta ons about yields revved up, crop prices began a rapid descent. From June 30th to October 1st, the December 2014 corn contract lost $1.23 per bushel. This rapid decline easily pushed prices below the cost of produc on for most farmers. The sudden free-fall got people’s a en on and the tone in the ag marketplace changed quickly. Farm magazines began running headlines with stories about the 80’s and encouraging farmers to carefully manage costs.

Transport and Basis Issues in the Northern Plains and Cornbelt Create Challenges. There were lots of headlines this summer and fall about the extremely wide basis levels in the Northern Great Plains. There’s no ques on that the development of the shale oil resources in that region have contributed to trans-porta on challenges, but David pointed out in this post that the amount of grain produced in this region has grown substan ally in recent years. We also ex-


(Con nued from Page18)

Wisconsin’s distributor of superior product lines for all NH3, dry or liquid fertilizer application equipment.

FEI-East Proudly carries the following Parts Product Lines

FEI EAST

amined how corn plan ng pa erns have changed in recent years. Given the margin pressures that exist, one might suspect that corn plan ngs in this region will be under pressure next year.

Concern Over the Margin Squeeze. As prices fell, farmers and agribusinesses began to wonder how farmers would behave in the midst of the margin squeeze. We wrote several ar cles on the topic and have recently put out some ideas for how farmers can manage in this environment. The bo om line in our opinion is that the squeeze won’t be alleviated un l fi xed costs such as land prices, land rents, equip-ment costs, labor costs, and family living expenses adjust, 2) prices rebound, or 3) some combina on of 1 and 2 occur.

Early 2015 Budgets Show Big Poten al Losses. In late Fall universi es start to put out crop budgets for 2015 and the early numbers weren’t pre y. In fact, many showed budgeted 2015 losses in excess of $100 per acre. As a result, people began asking the ques- on of what would change for next year. We argued

that land rents weren’t likely to go down too much in 2015 and also looked at how equipment spend-ing and seed expenses have changed over me. Our predic on at the me was that equipment spend-ing would likely be slower this year-end than in the recent past and that 2015 would be tough for many equipment dealers. We also suspected that corn plan ng on the periphery of the Cornbelt may be down next year.

Surprise Corn Rally Buoys Spirits. Something surpris-ing happened while harvest of the largest corn crop in U.S. history was underway. Grain markets began to rally. From a low of around $3.21 per bu on Oc-tober 1st 2014 to December 1st, 2014 corn prices rebounded by almost $0.54 per bu. While the rally hardly brought prices back to levels of recent years, they seemed to li the mood a bit in the sector. We encouraged everyone to keep a close eye on the crop insurance price discovery period for clues about next year.Livestock

Livestock Profi ts Surge. While row crop incomes were under pressure in 2014 and likely 2015, the livestock industry experienced outstanding levels of profi tability. For most it appears that the future remains bright for 2015.

Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus. Also known as PEDv, the virus rocked the hog and pork markets. Having no impact on human health, PEDv le the

industry with fewer hogs to market (driving-up hog prices) and producers worrying about their herd health and the signifi cant fi nancial losses associated with a barn breaking with the virus. The heat of sum-mer reduced the number of PEDv cases, but a second wave of cases is likely this winter. The size and scale of any future outbreak is unknown.Ag Manufactures and Retailers feel the Pain

Machinery Dealers Start to Feel the Pain. As com-modity prices fell, a number of people suggested that one of the fi rst things farmers would cut back on was new equipment purchases. As a result many equip-ment manufacturers and dealers began to get ready for a more diffi cult environment. Recent data sug-gests that four-wheel drive combines and self-pro-pelled combines have experienced the so est sales of recent, with November sales for both off more than 50% from a year ago.



20

Ag Manufacturers Cut Jobs. John Deere led the scale back in August announcing a cut in its workforce, mainly from its agricultural equipment division. Syn-genta announced in late November it was reducing its global workforce as well.Federal and State Government

A New Farm Bill is Passed and Farmers are S ll Scratching their Heads. Congress and the President fi nally came to terms on a new Farm Bill and guess what? It off ers more complicated choices for farm-ers than any bill in recent memory. While the op- ons to update yields and bases were pre y easily

deciphered, the choice of whether to elect PLC, ARC-Individual, or ARC-County will be the subject of many mee ngs and discussions this winter. Even the prices used to determine payments under the various programs, or the Market Year Average prices, aren’t as simple as they may ini ally seem.

Interest rates stay LOW. Low interest rates have benefi ted the farm sector for several years and they con nued to stay low in 2014. While many have been arguing that rates can’t go much lower, rates con n-ue to stay low and even on occasion dip lower. Given recent signals from the Federal Reserve, 2015 may be the year that changes, but 2014 will again be remem-bered for another year of very low rates.

GMOs on the Ballot. Ballot measures dealt inter-es ng results this year. While measures to require labeling of foods containing GMOs failed to pass in Oregon and Colorado this fall (not the only agricultur-ally interes ng ballot measure coming out of Colo-rado these days), a ban on growing GMO crops was passed by voters in one Hawaiian county. While the courts will likely see some ac on on the fi nal status of the ban, the a en on and focus on GMOs has been growing.

Well we couldn’t actually stop at 20 so here are a few more things that we found noteworthy.

Ebola Causes U.S. Scare. Unfortunately a major Ebola outbreak con nues to plague 3 African countries with absolutely horrifi c and saddening consequences. Many in the U.S. became acutely aware of the situa- on when a case emerged in the U.S. The outbreak

dominated the news coverage in the U.S. for several days and some began to wonder whether it could have a major impact in the U.S. While the situa on is s ll terrible in Africa, it appears that ini al fears of a U.S. outbreak were likely overblown. With nearly 18,000 cases and over 6,300 deaths in Sierra Leone,

(Con nued from Page 20) Guinea, and Liberia, much work on controlling the disease remains. It will be important to see how the outbreak is managed in the coming months of 2015.

Big Data and Big Ambi on. Big Data was a big story in 2014. Monsanto’s fall 2013 purchase of Climate Corp for more than $900 million le the industry re-scaling the poten al data plays in produc on agriculture. Monsanto’s President highlighted the market farm data market as a $20 billion dollar poten al and Du-Pont es mated a $500 million revenue stream from a new agronomic services off ering in the coming de-cade. It seemed that every conference and mee ng had at least one session on data this year.

Viptera Nightmare. Another prior-year event with a hangover las ng into 2014 comes from Syngenta and its Viptera corn hybrid. The GMO crop had received approval from many na ons and has been planted by farmers in the U.S. since 2011. The issues surfaced when China, who had not approved the seed traits, started rejec ng shipments of corn and dried-dis ll-ers grains. Lawsuits have been fi led by both farmers and grain traders. This story is unlikely to wrap up before the end of next year either.

Russia, Ukraine, and Now an Embargo? Due to their invasion (or incursion if you prefer) of Ukraine, Russia is probably going to make a majority of the “year in review” lists for 2014. One of the biggest agricultural trade events in 2014, that has seen li le a en on in the US, is the Russian one-year embargo on agri-cultural imports from na ons that have established sanc ons against Russia. While the U.S. is on the banned list, the impacts have been felt the most in the E.U. where fruit and vegetable markets have suf-fered from free falling prices.

Oil Prices Plummet. Most consumers got an early Christmas present when oil prices took a nosedive. West Texas Intermediate crude prices have now fallen below $60 per barrel a er having been as high as $107 per barrel. It remains to be seen how this plunge will impact the ethanol industry and what it means for (or about) the broader world economy. It is something to watch closely going forward.

Well there you have some of what we saw as high-lights this year. Of course we le out a few including the status of the European economy (not going so well) and the economic recovery in the U.S. (going pre y well) along with lots of other stories that are sure to make 2015 an exci ng year as well. We wish you the best for 2015.

Brent and David


Millenial Recruiting Challenges

The landscaping of talent acquisi on is being shaped by a group of people known as millennials. They are not the two groups the business world is familiar with: Genera on X (Born between 1965 to 1980) and Baby Boomers (Born between 1946 to 1964). Millennials are the new group born a er 1980 and entering the work force with some unique charac-teris cs. Extensive research conducted by the Pew Research Center says Millennials are defi ned by:

• Burdened by student debt (economic hardship)• High unemployment and/or underemployed• Lower levels of wealth than their predecessor

genera ons• Unable to buy homes or marry because of a lack

of savings and investments

Along with above characteris cs, they are also de-scribed as highly idealis c, liberal social values and value happiness and social good over material gains. Needless to say, recrui ng a group of individuals with such contrasts of a dis nc ve value system requires a thorough understanding of what mo vates them.

Here are some important keys for an employer searching for talent:

• Hone in on mo va on level: Millennials have grown up with much more parental support than other genera ons (helicopter parents phrase was coined because of it) and have had easy access to college fi nancing. One must ensure a person

by Mark Waschek, Vice President – Agronomy Ag 1 Source


is highly mo vated to join the company culture (the “fi t”) and will excel in the job. This is about assessing what makes the person happy and what gets them out of bed in the morning.

• Long-term commitment: Turnover is costly and disrup ve. Millennials have an en rely diff erent view of job security as they have personally seen their parents and others being aff ected by mas-sive lay-off s in recent years. A careful review of the resume and extensive interview ques ons evolving around pursuing a “career” vs. a “job” can reveal long term stability. This is about as-sessing what is important to the person.

• Ability to get along: A key characteris c of mil-lennials is independence, which can be a huge asset. However, it can also be a big liability if the person cannot get along with others. One of the best ways to assess this is to assess one’s ability to handle cri cism. In other words, is he or she coachable? Here is a ques on: “Tell me about a me you were cri cized. What was the issue involving, who made the cri cism, and how did you handle it?”

• The fi t: Given the millennials’ characteris cs described above, it is paramount to ensure that the person’s personality traits and behaviors fi t the company’s cultural values. Therefore, it is important to share company culture and more importantly ask them to respond to what they think about the fi t.

• Workplace fl exibility: Millennials, in general, value fl exibility and consider it a huge benefi t available to them to produce high quality work. To them, fl exibility includes work hours, allowing space and me to generate crea ve ideas when working on projects, and the ability to voice their opinion on a variety of business prac ces. Millen-nials are approximately 27% of today’s popula on and are maturing rapidly into adulthood. They will become a key segment of the workforce over the next decade and may determine the future of a business. Their value system is non-tradi onal as they have grown up in the most racially diverse environment and are rapid tech adopters. This means their approach to work itself and work environment is very diff erent from two other gen-era ons that occupy the adult popula on: Gen X (27%) and Baby Boomers (32%).

What this means is that recrui ng millennials needs to be approached very diff erently and companies that are strategically prepared to do so will have an edge on talent acquisi on. Strategic recrui ng prepara on ac ons for employers should include thoroughly reviewing the interview process especially ques ons being asked, focusing on assessing key at-tributes men oned above and implemen ng a formal on-boarding plan to ensure a ri on and a long term commitment. In the end, companies that acquire top talent from the younger pool of the labor force will be certain to have a bright future. We encourage you to assess your current recrui ng techniques and adjust to the new workforce reality.


Let our experts help you with:

Contact Sam Cooke, PE, CEM

608.216.7382

[email protected]

www.scsengineers.com

24

FOCUSED ON OUR CUSTOMERS, POSITIONED FOR THE FUTURE.

CoBank Minneapolis Office

Jason Lueders (952) 417-7886

Greg Line (952) 417-7922

Bob Doane (952) 417-7922

Kathleen Roberts (952) 417-7871

CoBank Farm Credit Leasing Office

Keith Schieler (320) 589-9940

Our commitment to serving rural

America has never been stronger

than it is today. We’ve been

here for over 95 years and we’re

not going anywhere. We remain

dedicated to the agribusiness

industry and proud of the strength

and spirit of our customers.


www.unitedsuppliers.comFollow us on Facebook and Twitter

Many smaller agribusinesses do not directly provide group health insurance for their workforce. Rather, they use one of two common employer-provided tax-free fringe benefi t arrangements:• A Sec on 105 medical reimbursement plan under

which employer funds reimburse an employee’s documented health care costs, such as premiums, co-pays, dental, vision, etc. These plans usually have a dollar cap, such as $4,000 per year.

• Sec on 106 employer reimbursement of some por on of the premium cost on individually-owned health insurance.

Unfortunately, the Aff ordable Care Act market reform rules have essen ally ended these arrangements. A recent Department of Labor (DOL) news release clarifi es the restric ons on employer-provided reim-bursements of health care costs under the Aff ordable Care Act. The release says these reimbursement ar-rangements, even if reported as taxable payroll to the employee, represent a viola on of the ACA market reform rules. This poten ally subjects the employer to a penalty as high as $100 per day per employee. This guidance is eff ec ve for health plan years begin-ning on or a er January 1, 2014.

As a prac cal ma er, it is small employers using reim-bursement arrangements that face this risk. Larger employers with 100 or more employees are subject to a mandate to provide group health coverage to employees beginning with their 2015 health plan year, and those with 50 or more employees face this mandate beginning in 2016.

About a year ago, we issued a release explaining the new ACA market reform provisions and the adverse impact on small businesses with employer-provided medical reimbursement plans and employer reim-bursement of employee individual health insurance premiums. That guidance is generally s ll valid, but the op on of maintaining the health reimbursement arrangement as a taxable fringe benefi t is now off the table.

Exemp onsThere are three arrangements that remain exempt from these market reform rules:• A one-employee health plan

• An employer-provided group insurance plan, whether furnished alone or accompanied by an integrated medical reimbursement plan

• Reimbursement plans that cover only ancillary benefi ts such as dental, vision, or long-term care premiums.

Prior to this latest DOL guidance, it was generally understood by tax advisors that including reimbursed premiums and other medical reimbursement ar-rangements in employee taxable wages would avoid the ACA penal es; this was based on IRS “Q and A” guidance issued in May of 2014. Because of this earlier status, there should be a “reasonable cause” defense for any prior payments within 2014, assum-ing correc ve ac on is taken promptly a er receipt of this no fi ca on. Reasonable cause applies if the employer corrects the failure during the 30 day period from when the employer knew of the DOL requirements.

Accordingly, unless you meet one of the excep ons iden fi ed above, employers with health reimburse-ment arrangements should immediately take three ac ons:1. Discon nue any payments or reimbursements

of employee individual health insurance policy premiums, as well as any reimbursements un-der employer-provided medical reimbursement plans.

2. Rescind any wri en plan documents, retroac ve to the fi rst day within 2014 for which the plan was eff ec ve.

3. Recharacterize any amounts paid to employees for these reimbursements as taxable compensa- on.

By Pat Sturz, Cli onLarsonAllen

New Guidance Clarifi es Reimbursement of Employee Health Costs

26


RECORDA statistical publication released monthly by The Fertilizer Institute

Fertilizer RECORD,

RECORD2013/2014

2014/2015

28

RECORD


RECORD

30

RECORD


We would like to thank the 2015 WCMC SponsorsYour dona ons are so important to this program and appreciated!

RECEPTION SPONSORSAg Systems

CHSCoBank

MonsantoSyngenta

United SuppliersWest Central, Inc.

LUNCH SPONSORSAdvanced Biological Marke ng (ABM)

Koff mann IndustriesRosen’s Inc.

True North ConsultantsWinField

Monsanto

COFFEE & BREAKFAST SPONSORSAGRA Liners, LLCAgrium U.S. Inc.

Fer lizer Dealer Supply Inc.Koff mann Industries

GENERAL SPONSORSAgVentures, LLC

BASF Corpora onBuck Country Grain

FEI-EastFMC Corp. Ag Solu ons

Heartland Tank CompaniesHelena Chemical Co.

Koch Agronomic ServicesMichael Best & Friedrich LLP

Rich Connell AGRI-SEARCH, Inc.Skinner Tank Company (STC)

Stueve Construc on Co.Twin State, Inc.

Ziegler Ag

January 13-15, 2015Exposition Hall

Alliant Energy CenterMadison, Wisconsin

Wisconsin Crop Management Conference and

Agri-Industry Showcase

WCMC2015

32

2015 Wisconsin Crop Management and Trade Show Pictures


36

Thank you to our Bowling Sponsors who made this all possible.

Advanced Biological Marke ngCHSMonsantoPfaff Public Aff airsSyngentaTrue North Consultants

Prize Winners:

High Score - Mike McClymanTurkey Award - Mike McClyman (2 turkeys)Most Spares - Ron LehmanMost Gu ers - Denise Poindexter

We enjoyed great pizza!

WABA’s Second Annual Bowling Tournament

The Wisconsin Agri-Business Associa on Bowling Tournament had 3 teams for the Second Annual Tournament. A great me was had at Knuckleheads Bowling Alley. Alot of fun and good pizza was enjoyed. We hope this event will grow over me, it was a great cabin-fever reliever.

The opportunity to do some networking took place.

The WABA team having a great me.


Corn acreage seen at 89 million, soybeans at 83.5 million according to data released at 2015 USDA Out-look Conference.

In its fi rst crop produc on outlook for 2015 USDA on Thursday forecast U.S. farmers will plant less corn and soybeans this year, with the corn area pos ng the largest decline.

The drop in soybeans was less as low produc on costs should have farmers favoring them to corn, USDA said at it annual outlook conference.

Planted corn acreage is forecast at 89 million, down from 2014’s 90.6 million, while soybean acreage should slip to 83.5 million from 2014’s record 83.7 million. Wheat acreage will slip to 55.5 million from 56.8 million.

“Farmers are con nuing to shi ground into soy-beans to lower costs and improve crop rota ons,” said Bryce Knorr, Farm Futures senior grain analyst. “While both corn and soybeans pencil out to losses at today’s prices, farmers have had some pleasant surprises with soybeans the past couple of years, with less yield variability than corn too.”

USDA expects a decline in the value of 2015 crop exports due to lower crop prices and to other coun-tries increasing produc on. U.S. agriculture exports in fi scal 2015 (Oct-Sept) are forecast at $141.5 billion, the second highest on record, but down from 2014.

While the United States should lead the world in soy-bean exports in the 2015/2016 crop year, USDA Chief Economist Robert Johansson said on Thursday that Brazil could overtake the United States the following year and then grow its global market share to 46% by 2024, while the U.S. share slips to 33% that year.

The value of exports of China may be down in 2015, but that country should remain the largest des na- on for U.S. agriculture exports for the fi h straight

year.

USDA forecast record U.S. meat and dairy produc on, with meat produc on seen at a record 95 million lbs, mostly due to more pork and poultry. Milk produc- on is seen at a record 211.5 billion lbs. The increas-

es are in response to record high livestock, dairy and poultry prices in 2014 and to lower feed costs.

USDA Outlook Highlights:

• The average U.S. corn price for 2015/2016 is fore-cast at $3.50 a bushel, versus 2014/2015’s $3.65. The soybean price was put at $9 per bushel from 2014/2015’s $10.20.

• Average 2015/216 U.S. wheat price is forecast at $5.10, versus 2014/2015’s $6.

• Net farm income will be down in 2015 to $73.6 billion, the lowest since 2007, due to lower crop and livestock prices, but farmers’ debt-to-asset ra o will rise only slightly and be the third lowest since 1960

• The cost to ship goods by rail should returns to more normal levels in 2015 from 2014’s elevated levels.

• The U.S. drought area will shrink, but will inten-sify in the southwest

• Land values should decline less than 1% in 2015

USDA: U.S. farmers in 2015 to plant fewer corn and soybeans

From Farm Futures

38

United States Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service

Price

Clark

Dane

Grant

Polk

Vilas

Bayfield

Iron

Sawyer

Rusk

Oneida

Marathon

Douglas

Forest

Taylor

Sauk

Dunn

Iowa

Rock

Dodge

Wood

BarronLincoln

Jackson

Ashland

Burnett

Monroe

Vernon

Chippewa

Buffalo

Langlade

Green

Pierce

St. Croix

Waushara

Eau Claire

Racine

Marinette

Oconto

Juneau

Portage

Shawano

Adams

Door

Washburn

Columbia

Waupaca Brown

Lafayette

RichlandCrawford

Jefferson

Fond du Lac

Walworth

OutagamieTrempealeau

Florence

Manitowoc

Waukesha

WinnebagoLa Crosse

Calumet

SheboyganMarquette

Pepin

Washington

Green Lake

Kewaunee

Menominee

Kenosha

Ozaukee

Milwaukee

Million Bushels

Not Published

Less than 3.0

3.0 - 5.9

6.0 - 11.9

More than 12.0

CORN FOR GRAINProduction by County - 2014

CORN FOR GRAIN: Acreage, Yield, and Production, By County, Wisconsin, 2014 1County and

DistrictAll CornPlanted Harvested Yield

per acre Production County andDistrict

All CornPlanted Harvested Yield

per acre Production

Acres Bushels Acres BushelsBarron 88,000 68,800 116.9 8,040,000 Crawford 40,000 35,000 154.0 5,391,000Burnett 12,000 7,750 95.0 736,000 Grant 166,000 143,200 176.3 25,247,000Chippewa 91,900 76,900 126.8 9,750,000 Iowa 80,900 68,900 186.7 12,861,000Polk 65,400 45,400 112.7 5,115,000 Lafayette 143,500 129,000 182.4 23,525,000Rusk 23,400 15,800 99.0 1,564,000 Richland 46,500 34,300 155.1 5,321,000Sawyer 7,000 4,950 127.9 633,000 Sauk 84,400 72,400 154.5 11,184,000Washburn 11,700 8,450 96.7 817,000 Vernon 66,700 54,200 159.2 8,631,000Other counties 2,600 1,950 148.7 290,000 Southwest 628,000 537,000 171.6 92,160,000Northwest 302,000 230,000 117.2 26,945,000

Columbia 127,000 114,800 166.2 19,079,000Ashland 2,100 910 95.6 87,000 Dane 191,500 177,700 180.7 32,107,000Clark 82,700 49,400 133.6 6,602,000 Dodge 147,500 118,900 166.0 19,743,000Lincoln 8,800 3,890 119.0 463,000 Green 110,000 90,500 177.4 16,051,000Marathon 104,000 58,200 124.0 7,215,000 Jefferson 84,500 82,600 163.4 13,494,000Other Counties 48,400 22,700 119.1 2,703,000 Rock 163,500 150,500 184.1 27,701,000North Central 246,000 135,100 126.4 17,070,000 South Central 824,000 735,000 174.4 128,175,000

Marinette 35,100 24,600 112.4 2,765,000 Kenosha 33,100 27,900 174.9 4,879,000Oconto 56,800 38,000 116.2 4,415,000 Milwaukee 1,400 1,400 126.4 177,000Shawano 82,300 52,600 137.6 7,240,000 Ozaukee 17,600 10,200 143.3 1,462,000Other Counties 14,800 7,700 114.9 885,000 Racine 35,300 32,700 172.7 5,648,000Northeast 189,000 122,900 124.5 15,305,000 Walworth 108,500 102,900 187.4 19,280,000

Washington 33,000 22,000 150.6 3,313,000Buffalo 69,900 59,900 148.3 8,886,000 Waukesha 25,600 22,900 169.9 3,891,000Dunn 104,500 89,400 140.8 12,588,000 Southeast 254,500 220,000 175.7 38,650,000Eau Claire 48,200 40,800 149.2 6,086,000Jackson 52,400 45,200 149.5 6,759,000 Wisconsin 4,000,000 3,110,000 156.0 485,160,000La Crosse 33,600 29,500 167.1 4,930,000Monroe 60,700 41,000 147.2 6,035,000Pepin 30,100 20,700 147.7 3,058,000Pierce 86,300 70,100 144.5 10,128,000St Croix 99,800 76,800 135.4 10,395,000Trempealeau 93,500 75,600 158.3 11,970,000West Central 679,000 549,000 147.2 80,835,000

Adams 29,300 26,900 130.3 3,504,000Green Lake 48,700 41,700 169.7 7,075,000Juneau 42,100 38,900 147.9 5,755,000Marquette 39,000 32,500 143.2 4,655,000Portage 50,200 42,000 153.7 6,455,000Waupaca 61,300 46,900 141.6 6,640,000Waushara 34,900 29,700 182.8 5,430,000Wood 32,000 20,400 148.6 3,031,000Central 337,500 279,000 152.5 42,545,000

Brown 61,600 31,300 142.2 4,451,000Calumet 45,800 20,300 145.5 2,953,000Door 27,100 18,500 120.6 2,232,000Fond Du Lac 107,000 75,500 164.8 12,445,000Kewaunee 50,800 15,000 140.6 2,109,000Manitowoc 75,000 32,000 125.3 4,011,000Outagamie 74,800 48,300 133.7 6,458,000Sheboygan 51,400 28,800 142.6 4,107,000Winnebago 46,500 32,300 145.8 4,709,000East Central 540,000 302,000 144.0 43,475,000

1/ Unlisted counties were not published to avoid disclosure of individualoperations. Unpublished data is included in “other counties.”

SOYBEANS: Acreage, Yield, and Production, By County, Wisconsin, 2014 1County and

District Planted Harvested Yieldper acre Production County and

District Planted Harvested Yieldper acre Production

Acres Bushels Acres BushelsBarron 38,900 38,600 35.9 1,387,000 Crawford 18,700 18,600 42.1 783,000Burnett 4,100 4,090 28.1 115,000 Grant 66,300 66,200 54.3 3,594,000Chippewa 43,100 42,600 35.0 1,489,000 Iowa 38,600 38,500 54.6 2,102,000Polk 24,200 24,100 28.0 676,000 Lafayette 53,200 53,200 57.4 3,056,000Rusk 9,600 9,510 27.8 264,000 Richland 16,400 16,400 42.9 704,000Sawyer 1,900 1,890 21.8 41,200 Sauk 31,900 31,800 48.5 1,543,000Washburn 5,800 5,710 20.0 114,000 Vernon 29,900 29,800 44.2 1,317,000Other Counties 2,900 2,900 33.4 96,800 Southwest 255,000 254,500 51.5 13,099,000Northwest 130,500 129,400 32.3 4,183,000

Columbia 45,300 45,200 49.9 2,255,000Clark 31,600 31,500 39.4 1,242,000 Dane 79,000 78,800 50.0 3,937,000Lincoln 5,600 5,420 31.0 168,000 Dodge 68,700 68,600 49.1 3,367,000Marathon 46,800 46,500 36.0 1,673,000 Green 54,000 53,900 51.7 2,789,000Taylor 20,600 20,500 33.2 681,000 Jefferson 51,900 51,700 49.3 2,549,000Other Counties 1,900 1,880 30.3 57,000 Rock 92,100 91,800 52.7 4,834,000North Central 106,500 105,800 36.1 3,821,000 South Central 391,000 390,000 50.6 19,731,000

Marinette 8,500 8,010 27.5 220,000 Kenosha 24,200 24,200 48.1 1,163,000Oconto 25,400 25,200 26.7 674,000 Racine 37,200 37,100 46.7 1,732,000Shawano 26,800 26,500 36.0 953,000 Walworth 55,300 55,300 53.5 2,961,000Other Counties 8,300 7,890 27.4 216,000 Washington 20,200 20,200 46.7 944,000Northeast 69,000 67,600 30.5 2,063,000 Waukesha 19,000 19,000 43.7 831,000

Other Counties 13,100 13,000 39.5 514,000Buffalo 25,400 25,300 42.1 1,064,000 Southeast 169,000 168,800 48.3 8,145,000Dunn 52,900 52,700 40.8 2,148,000Jackson 23,300 23,200 42.5 985,000 Wisconsin 1,800,000 1,790,000 44.0 78,760,000La Crosse 12,800 12,800 47.6 609,000Monroe 20,500 20,400 42.2 860,000Pierce 37,800 37,700 44.1 1,664,000St. Croix 41,700 41,600 38.7 1,611,000Trempealeau 30,000 29,800 43.3 1,290,000Other Counties 37,600 37,500 42.0 1,575,000West Central 282,000 281,000 42.0 11,806,000

Adams 13,300 13,200 43.3 571,000Green Lake 16,200 16,100 51.0 821,000Juneau 23,400 23,300 42.1 982,000Marquette 12,900 12,800 40.4 517,000Portage 12,600 12,500 39.8 497,000Waupaca 25,100 24,600 34.8 855,000Waushara 14,000 13,900 50.0 695,000Wood 15,500 14,000 41.9 587,000Central 133,000 130,400 42.4 5,525,000

Brown 20,900 20,800 35.7 743,000Calumet 24,700 24,400 39.1 953,000Door 13,500 13,400 32.5 436,000Fond Du Lac 44,200 44,100 46.4 2,047,000Kewaunee 13,500 13,400 35.8 480,000Manitowoc 27,700 27,600 36.1 996,000Outagamie 54,800 54,300 33.9 1,841,000Sheboygan 28,300 28,200 42.7 1,205,000Winnebago 36,400 36,300 46.4 1,686,000East Central 264,000 262,500 39.6 10,387,000

1/ Unlisted counties were not published to avoid disclosure of individualoperations. Unpublished data is included in “other counties.”

Price

Clark

Dane

Grant

Polk

Vilas

Bayfield

Iron

Sawyer

Rusk

Oneida

Marathon

Douglas

Forest

Taylor

Sauk

Dunn

Iowa

Rock

Dodge

Wood

BarronLincoln

Jackson

Ashland

Burnett

Monroe

Vernon

Chippewa

Buffalo

Langlade

Green

Pierce

St. Croix

Waushara

Eau Claire

Racine

Marinette

Oconto

Juneau

Portage

Shawano

Adams

Door

Washburn

Columbia

Waupaca Brown

Lafayette

RichlandCrawford

Jefferson

Fond du Lac

Walworth

OutagamieTrempealeau

Florence

Manitowoc

Waukesha

WinnebagoLa Crosse

Calumet

SheboyganMarquette

Pepin

Washington

Green Lake

Kewaunee

Menominee

Kenosha

Ozaukee

Milwaukee

Thousand Bushels

Not Published

Less than 600

600 - 1,199

1,200 - 1,799

More than 1,800

SOYBEANSProduction by County - 2014



“R-E-S-P-E-C-T” Workers on Roadways!

Yes, it was an Aretha Franklin song from the 1960’s. The concept needs to make a comeback on our road-ways today. Drivers need to understand and respect workers who’s “offi ces” are on the ac ve roadways. Spring marks the start of road construc on, move-ment of farm implements and related vehicles in sup-port of the plan ng or fi eld ac vi es. Police, EMS and tow truck drivers are on the roadways year-round, in adverse condi ons, to support motorists in distress. Truck driving is one of the top 10 most hazardous occupa ons. We ourselves share the highway with fellow workers to perform our work du es such as mee ngs and confer-ences.

There are several media campaigns that target driver awareness. They include but are not limited to “Give ‘em a Brake” for construc on zones, “Share the Road” for farm imple-ments, “Slow Down and Move Over” for emergency and maintenance ve-hicles, and an en re government web-site (h p://www.distrac on.gov/) devoted to distracted driving along with numerous groups promo ng awareness. The current distracted driving government slogan is: “One Text or Call Could Wreck It All”.

The “Give ‘em a Brake” campaign is hoping to slow down drivers in construc on zones. The signage also threatens the driver with higher fi nes and possible jail me for speeding or killing a worker. OSHA re-quires road construc on contractors to ensure that they follow the MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffi c Control Devices) by pu ng up proper signage, hav-ing trained and protected fl aggers, using barriers and a enua ng devices, and requiring workers to wear high visibility clothing.

Motorist ps for Work Zones:• Slow down, pay a en on, and stay calm. • Eliminate distrac ons. • Merge as soon as possible. • Try an alternate route. • Expect delays, plan for them and leave early to

reach your des na on on me.

• Observe the posted signs un l you see the one that says “END ROAD WORK”.

Spring me fi eld ac vi es require agricultural imple-ments to be on the road. When approaching farm equipment, pay a en on, slow down, be pa ent and pass with cau on (when safe to do so). Farm equipment is large and heavy, making it diffi cult for operators to accelerate and/or brake quickly. The equipment may also have large “blind spot” areas, making it diffi cult to see motorists and o en make wide turns.

OSHA and DOT require Slow Moving Vehicle signs on implements. The DOT regulates the “implements of husbandry” (IOH) requirements. Some implement ps include:

Doing everything you can to an ci-pate problems and increase your vis-ibility is cri cal to the safe opera on of farm vehicles on public roads:

• Always place a slow moving vehicle refl ector on any equipment that trav-els slower than the speed limit that is clean and compliant.• Consider installing mirrors to in-crease your view of the road around you

• Make sure your load doesn’t obscure the lights, mirrors and warning signs on your tractor

• Mark the edges of your tractor and equipment with refl ec ve tape or refl ectors

• Keep all vehicle lights on and working – turn sig-nals, headlights and taillights

• Provide extra informa on to make it as obvious as possible for motorists to know you are there: warning lights, fl ashing amber lights and eye-level signals

• If possible, avoid roads during peak traffi c mes, a er dark, or during bad weather. If travelling great distances, consider using escort vehicles in front and behind you, equipped with fl ashing yel-low lights

• Be extra-aware when making le turns to ensure that nobody is trying to pass

• Don’t take chances when pulling onto a road – if your view of the road is obstructed, assume that other vehicles are travelling at the speed limit and be extra-cau ous

By Mary M. Bauer, CIH, CSPCompliance Assistance Specialist




Another push is the “Slow Down and Move Over” campaign. This helps protect the police, EMS, tow truck drivers and others that are assis ng with an emergency situa on. Hopefully we seen the last of the snow plow trucks for this season but road maintenance vehicles require the same courtesy and respect as emergency vehicles.

A tow truck driver was killed on I-94 near Osseo, WI last fall while trying to hook up a vehicle. His brother was quoted in the newspaper to say: “It seems like drivers move over for police vehicles because most of the me people don’t want to get a cket,” he added. “But tow trucks are just as important. They’re out there to help everybody. They have their lights on for a reason, and they need room to get everything hooked up and taken care of.” “We’d just like to see drivers give respect to all the emergency vehicles and make the roads safer.”

And the absolute, number one way motorist can help prevent motor vehicle accidents is to stop driving distracted! Distracted driving is any ac vity that could divert a person’s at-ten on away from the primary task of driving such as tex ng, talk-ing, ea ng/drinking, tuning the radio/MP3 player, reading, and naviga ng with a map or using a GPS. All distrac ons endanger driver, passenger, and bystander safety. But, because text messaging requires visual, manual, and cogni ve a en on from the driver, it is by far the most alarming distrac on.

You can ask yourself if you are a killer. Of course not! However, when you make the decision to drive a vehicle and perform other tasks, it is like having a loaded weapon. No one wakes up in the morning thinking that they will kill someone with their vehicle today. This slogan is true: “One Text or Call Could Wreck It All”. Your cell phone leaves an “electronic footprint” and can be used against you if an accident occurs and charges are fi led.

The Na onal Safety Council warns the prevalence of motorists using cell phones while driving has made distracted drivers another threat to workers on foot. The NSC es mates 23 percent of passenger vehicle crashes—1.3 million crashes per year—can be a rib-uted to cell phone talking and tex ng while driving. Allowing employees to conduct hands-free or hand-held business on cell phones while driving represents

acceptance of a 300 percent increase in crash risk, according to the NSC. h p://www.nsc.org/Work-placeTrainingDocu-ments/workers_on_foot_in_work_zones.pdf

Since so many em-ployees work on the roadway or drive dur-ing work me, it isn’t surprising that “Trans-porta on” is the number one cause of

worker deaths. We all have a shared responsibility to get everyone home safely. Pay a en on, an cipate, slow down and respect the workers that provide a valuable service to the economy and community!

41

During the 2013-2014 legisla ve session Sen. Tom Tif-fany (R-Hazelhurst) introduced two bills, SB 349 and SB 632, that would have preempted local controlof frac sand mining.

Wisconsin Farmers Union, along with a number of other groups including the Wisconsin Towns Associa- on, Clean Wisconsin and the League of Wisconsin

Municipali es, all opposed the bills. Despite the unpopularity of the bills last session, Sen. Tiff any has once again expressed interest in pu ng forth similar legisla on. The announcement came on the heels of a release by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Com-merce in regards to sand mining that stated, “WMC will advance legisla on to promote statewide regula-tory certainty and uniformity.”

The argument goes that sand mining companies are unduly burdened by regula ons that vary from town to town, forcing companies to come to separate agreements with towns and thereby deterring them from se ng up shop in Wisconsin.

While some will argue that this variance has a chill-ing eff ect on business, the numbers say otherwise. In May of 2010 there were around 10 ac ve industrialsand mines and processing facili es. There are cur-rently 108 ac ve industrial sand mining and process-ing facili es in Wisconsin and another 87 that are currently inac ve. Hardly a chilling eff ect.

Many local communi es have already put agree-ments into place with input from sand mining com-panies that have allowed the industry to bring jobs to the area while s ll protec ng environmental, health, and economic concerns.

Local municipali es went to great lengths to reach these agreements and any a empt to preempt their regula ons ignores the careful considera on they took when cra ing their ordinances. The decisions were made with input from local ci zens and sand mining companies to take into account the unique nature and concerns of each municipality.

Local control, which Wisconsin Farmers Union sup-ports, is based on the simple premise that those who are closest to the issue and know their communi es best make the best decisions. It allows for fl exibility to adapt policy to unique areas and allows for direct

input by those who are most aff ected byan issue. A statewide framework lacks the fl exibility and input from people directly aff ected by the indus-try and goes against the core value of local control.

Some suspect a rider to preempt local control may be snuck into the budget rather than debated as a separate piece of legisla on. Any a empt to do so is an aff ront to the democra c process. A statewide regulatory framework for frac sand mining is not a fi scal item and has no business in the budget.

If legislators feel that a statewide framework is neces-sary, benefi ts the people of Wisconsin and has public support, they should have no problem introducing a bill as separate legisla on so that it can be scru nized and thoroughly debated.

Frac sand mining aff ects thousands of people across western Wisconsin, and those ci zens deserve the chance to have their voices heard. Wisconsin Farmers Union will con nue to defend the rights of local com-muni es to regulate industrial frac sand mining.

Who Controls Frac Sand Mining?

By David Wright-Race e, Wisconsin Farmers Union

Frac sand mines and processing facili es clustered in westem and northwest Wisconsin. As of May 1st, 2014, there were no sand mines or processing facili es in Senator Tiff any’s district.


5 Gallon Seed Inoculator 30 Gallon Pest Control Unit 30 Gallon Inductor

200 Gallon Standard Spray Unit 1065 Gallon Nurse Trailer 300 Gallon Turfmaster Unit

E Z ATV Sprayer 68 Gallon Skid Unit

Sprayers, Parts & Service for ALL of Your Application Needs!

Vertical Storage Tanks Transfer Pumps

W9898 Jackson Rd. Beaver Dam, WI 53916 Ph. 800 433 3579 Fax 920 356 0228www.contree.com

Trucks for Sale2004 KW C-12 Cat 10spd 412,000 miles - sale price $89,000

2005 IH ISM Cummins 10spd air ride 366,000 miles – sale price $84,000

2006 IH ISM Cummins 10spd Autoshi 383,000 miles – sale price $88,000All Walinga bodies are the sameWalinga body 26” long 102” wide- 48 cubic feet per foot 1248 c.f. totalCompartments sizes 68”-68”-68”-54”-54”30’ discharge auger length9”/12”/9” auger system24” wide drag conveyor fl oor (gates are 30”)Air operated roof cover, hand rail and blow out wand

2005 IH ISM Cummins 425hp 10spd air ride 365,000 miles with Walinga trailer 1920c.f. Chain fl oor conveyor, Flex style gates, 32” boom auger, Tractor $48K Trailer $55K

2010 Volvo 425hp I-Shi 370,000 miles with Walinga trailer 1920c.f. Flex style gates, Chain fl oor conveyor, 32” boom auger, Tractor $60K Trailer $65K

Call Jim at 920-775-9600

EmploymentRich Connell AGRI-SEARCH, Inc. is your source for agricultural staffi ng and career opportuni es. We are a job placement fi rm specializing in all facets of the agriculture industry. We recruit, screen, interview, background check, and recom-mend qualifi ed candidates for posi ons within agribusiness. Posi ons range from execu ve management to entry level. We are a client-centered company that has built our business on providing quality services in a professional and confi -den al manner. You can learn more about Rich Connell AGRI-SEARCH at www.agri-search.com or by calling 217-543-2505.

Action Ads


WI Agri-Business News Quarterly - Volume 9. Issue 1. Summer 2012 Page 23

®

DAVE TIEDEMANN, ILLINOIS FARMER

Roundup PowerMAX® gives you consistent performance and crop safety backed by Roundup Rewards®.

It’s the American-made glyphosate growers trust. And now with a new lower price, “going with Roundup PowerMAX is a no-brainer.”

“AT THE NEW LOWER PRICE, WHY USE ANYTHING ELSE?”

See your local dealer. Grower price may vary.

Roundup Rewards® applies to Roundup® branded and other agricultural herbicides specified by Monsanto. Program details referenced in this publication are subject to change and should be verified by visiting RoundupRewards.com or checking with your local Monsanto dealer.

ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup PowerMAX® and Roundup Rewards® are registered trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. ©2010 Monsanto Company.

Wisconsin Agri-Business News Quarterly

Advertising Rate Sheet

Type of Advertisement Number of Quarterly Editions for Ad Placement Submission DeadlinesOne Two Three Four Submit

Block Advertisements Edition Editions Editions Editions Issue byFull 7.5" W x Color $380 $740 $1,100 $1,460 Spring March 1

Page 9.75" H B&W $260 $500 $740 $980 Summer June 1Half 7.5" W x Color $240 $460 $680 $900 Fall Sept. 1

Page 4.75" H B&W $180 $340 $500 $660 Winter Dec. 1Quarter 3.5" W x Color $170 $320 $470 $620

Article submissions and photos should be emailed

directly to WABA by the dates listed above for consideration.

Please send to:[email protected]

Page 4.75" H B&W $140 $260 $380 $500 Eighth 3.5" W x Color $135 $250 $365 $480 Page 2" H B&W $120 $220 $320 $420

Action Ads One Two Three Four(listed in magazine & on website) Edition Editions Editions Editions

Up to 75 words $30 $45 $55 $6575 to 100 words $40 $55 $65 $75100 to 200 words $50 $65 $75 $85Banner Ad (640 pixels x 115 pixels) $100 $150 $195 $240

Please complete the following advertisement placement form and return with your remittance to WABA, 2801 International Lane, Suite 105, Madison, WI 53704. You may also fax the form if paying with a credit card to (608) 223-1147.Advertisements should be sent as attachments to [email protected], if you have questions regarding placement or formatting of advertisements, please call (608) 223-1111.

WABA News Quarterly Advertisement Placement Form‘Name ___________________________________________ Company _________________________________________

Company Address ___________________________________________________________________________________

Phone ______________________ Fax __________________ Email ___________________________________________

Check Ad Size:__________ Full Page __________ Half Page__________ Quarter Page__________ Eighth Page__________ Action Ads

(7.5”W x 9.75”H)(7.5”W x 4.75”H)(3.5”W x 4.75”H)(3.5”W x 2”H)________words

Number of Editions:__________ One__________ Two__________ Three__________ Four

Color or B/W:__________ Color__________ Black & White

Total Remittance: __________Payment Option: I have enclosed a check Please bill my credit cardCredit Card Information: Master Card Visa Card Number ___________________________________Expiration Date: ____________________ Cardholder Signature _______________________________________________

ments,

WABA - 2801 Interna onal Lane, Suite 105 - Madison, WI 53704 - (608) 223-1111

Wisconsin Agri-Business Assoc.2801 Interna onal Lane, Suite 105Madison, WI 53704

You’ve only got so much time to make the most of your acres. Fortunately, there’s the new Case IH Patriot® 4440 sprayer. Agronomically designed for optimum weight distribution and a lighter footprint, these sprayers give you earlier access to wet fi elds - and with minimal soil compaction. And with a robust suspension and technologies like the AIM Command® spray system and AutoBoom® height control. You can count on a consistent, accurate application regardless of weather or fi eld conditions. Along with new features including a powerful, more effi cient SCR-only engine, updated styling and improved lighting, the Patriot 4440 sprayer is our most complete sprayer yet. Maximize your yield potential by visiting your Case IH dealer or going to caseih.com/patriot-sprayer.

AG SYSTEMS, INC.4180 Reardon RoadDeForest, WI 535321-800-523-2350www.agsystemsonline.com

15 spring lo

Documents