Last week, Wall Street Journal writers Jacob Bunge and Heather Haddon reported that, “On a rainy September morning, a pair of cattle ranchers browsed the refrigerated meat cases at a Walmart Inc. store in Mandan, N.D., snapping cellphone photos of an unwelcome invader among the shrink-wrapped ground beef: Beyond Meat Inc. patties, made from pea protein and coconut oil. After a separate check at a nearby local supermarket, the ranchers headed to the North Dakota Department of Health. They showed officials the photos and warned of food-safety risks from mixing plant burgers with the traditional beef kind.

“Their message: Meatless burgers don’t belong on beef’s turf.

“The impromptu inspection by the ranchers—one of whom was Kenny Graner, president of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association—is just one front in a growing war against their plant-based rivals. Cattle ranchers and their allies are pushing regulators to scrutinize alternative meat-makers, recruiting food scientists to test plant-based products for potential health risks, and ramping up countercampaigns to highlight beef’s nutritional benefits while comparing their rivals to dog food.”

The Journal article stated that, “Over the past two years, the beef industry has pushed legislation that restricts terms like ‘beef’ and ‘meat’ to the kind raised on the hoof, not products derived from plants or future ones developed using animal cells in labs. Various labeling laws are now on the books in 12 states and were considered this year in 15 others, with a federal bill introduced in October.”

“America’s Cattle Ranchers Are Fighting Back Against Fake Meat,” by Jacob Bunge and Heather Haddon. The Wall Street Journal (November 27, 2019).

Bunge and Haddon added that, “Plant-based alternatives amount to the equivalent of just 1% of the total volume of meat sold in the U.S., according to Nielsen. But some beef producers see an existential threat in the growth of meat-alternative makers like Beyond and Impossible Foods Inc.

“For a hint at the threat they face, they point to dairy farmers’ years-long losing battle against almond, soy and other imitation milks that have captured about 10% of sales, while consumption of traditional cows’ milk has declined.”

A news release Wednesday from USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) stated that, “[USDA] today announced changes to crop insurance for coarse grains in 2020. [RMA] made changes to the policy, which take effect in 2020. The changes allow producers more flexibility to choose enterprise units (EU) or optional units (OU) by Following Another Crop (FAC) or Not Following Another Crop (NFAC) cropping practice in select grain sorghum and soybean counties.

“‘We continually listen to producers and other stakeholders in developing our crop insurance policies, and we make adjustments to these policies when necessary,’ said RMA Administrator Martin Barbre. ‘With these changes, we believe grain sorghum and soybean producers will have more flexibility.’

“These changes are important because they:

• Allow producers to better manage the unique risks of each practice by having separate FAC and NFAC units.
• Producers may now be indemnified independently by FAC and NFAC units. A gain on one of the cropping practices will not be offset by the loss on the other cropping practice.”

The RMA update added that, “Over 75 million acres of grain sorghum and soybeans worth a total of over $25 billion (liabilities) are covered by crop insurance in 48 states.”

A news release yesterday from the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) stated that, “Securing zero-tariff access to China for U.S. pork would be an economic boon for American agriculture and the country, according to the [NPPC]. Based on an analysis by Iowa State University (ISU) Economist Dermot Hayes, NPPC says unrestricted access to the Chinese chilled and frozen market would reduce the overall trade deficit with China by nearly six percent and generate 184,000 new U.S. jobs in the next decade. NPPC today launched a digital campaign to spotlight the importance of opening the Chinese market to U.S. pork as trade negotiations continue.

“‘Were it not for China’s tariffs that are severely limiting access to American goods and other restrictions, including customs clearance delays, U.S. pork could be an economic powerhouse, creating thousands of new jobs, expanding sales and dramatically slashing our nation’s trade deficit. China’s actions would unleash tremendous benefits to U.S. pork producers, our nation and Chinese consumers who rely on this essential protein,’ said Hayes.

“According to Dr. Hayes’ analysis, U.S. pork sales would generate $24.5 billion in sales if U.S. pork gained unrestricted access to the world’s largest pork-producing nation over 10 years.”

Yesterday’s update added that, “Pork is a staple of the Chinese diet and a major element of the country’s consumer price index. China’s swine herd has been devastated by African swine fever, a disease affecting only pigs with no human health or food safety risks, reducing domestic production by more than 50 percent and resulting in a mounting food price inflation challenge for the country.”

Earlier this month, Associated Press writer Steve Karnowski reported that, “President Donald Trump’s $16 billion bailout package for farmers hurt by the trade war with China unfairly benefits the South at the expense of the North and wealthy producers over smaller farms, Democratic senators concluded in a report released [on November 12th].

“The report, one of the sharpest congressional critiques yet of the Market Facilitation Program [MFP], said five southern states receive the highest average payments per acre under the program — Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas. The analysis by Democratic committee staffers concluded that farmers in the Midwest and Northern Plains have been hurt the most.

“It also asserted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has done nothing to target the assistance to vulnerable small, medium and beginning farmers. Instead, it said the agency doubled the payment limits, directing even more money to large, wealthy farming partnerships.”

The AP article noted that, “The USDA said in a statement that payments are based on trade damage, not regions or farm size.

“‘While we appreciate feedback on this program, the fact of the matter is that USDA has provided necessary funding to help farmers who have been impacted by unjustified retaliatory tariffs,’ the statement said. ‘While criticism is easy to come up with, we welcome constructive feedback from any member of Congress with recommendations as to how the program could be better administered.'”

Mr. Karnowski added that, “The agency has set aside nearly $16 billion under MFP for the current crop year, up from the $12 billion inaugural edition for 2018 crops. The agency has paid farmers over $6.8 billion so far in first installments. According to the USDA, the states collecting the highest overall totals as of Tuesday — more than 60% of the total funds — are Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Texas, and Kansas.

“A separate analysis by the American Farm Bureau Federation released later [on November 12th] backed up the USDA’s assertion the dollars have flowed mostly to the Midwest, even though the per-acre rates are higher in parts of the South. The Farm Bureau report said that’s because most of the acres planted in crops that are eligible for MFP payments are planted in the Midwest. The group did not address the Democratic senators’ claim that the formula is unfair.”

Bloomberg writers Lydia Mulvany and Isis Almeida reported yesterday that, “The American beef industry, wary of the vegan-burger craze that’s sweeping the nation, is trying to scrub its image as a greenhouse-gas-emitting machine.

“With big retailers and investors pressing companies to improve their footprints, giants like Tyson Foods Inc. and Cargill Inc. are promising ambitious reductions in emissions, including in supply chains. Chief sustainability officers are popping up all over meat C-suites, and social media ads are touting beef’s misunderstood health benefits.”

“Beef Industry Battles to Scrub Polluter Image as Vegan Burgers Boom,” by Lydia Mulvany and Isis Almeida. Bloomberg News (November 24, 2019).

The article pointed out that, “It’s an uphill battle. For more than a decade, studies have piled on exhorting people to eat less beef for environmental and health reasons. By some measures, agriculture accounts for more global greenhouse gas emissions than transport, thanks in part to livestock production.”

Mulvany and Almeida noted that, “But the industry is pointing to new numbers that show how efficient American production is compared with the rest of the world. A recent government study funded by the industry pinpointed U.S. beef’s footprint at about 3% of man-made greenhouse gases, paltry compared with the 14.5% global number that’s often cited.”

The Bloomberg article added that, “Ermias Kebreab, a professor of animal science at University of California-Davis, said that major reductions in emissions are achievable over the next five years given the promise of imminent feed additives that reduce the amount of methane cattle produce.”

Earlier this week, Bloomberg writers Deena Shanker and Matthew Boyle reported that, “Visitors to Seattle-area Kroger supermarkets next week will be able to walk out with fresh parsley, cilantro and other greens grown in the store, the latest example of grocers bringing the farm right to their aisles.

“Kroger’s deal with German startup Infarm includes two stores with plans for 13 more to come online by March of next year. It’s part of a broader push by the nation’s biggest traditional supermarket chain to improve sluggish sales by amping up its fresh-food offering, while also enhancing its environmental cred. The greens—including crystal lettuce and Nero Di Toscana kale—only need tending once or twice a week and will sell for no more than Kroger’s existing store-brand organic produce, according to Suzy Monford, Kroger’s group vice president of fresh.

“‘We’re removing touches in the supply chain, which is more economical and allows us to pass those savings along to customers,’ Monford said in an interview. ‘We know that fresh food drives shopping trips and it’s a real differentiator.'”

The Bloomberg article stated that, “In 2013, vertical farming startups received $4.5 million in venture funding, according to AgFunder, an investor in food and ag tech companies with an active media and research arm. In just the first half of 2019, they raised $140 million. Infarm, for its part, raised $100 million in a Series B round in June.

“As these new forms of farming gain steam, the companies behind them are looking for ways to appeal to major customers and, ultimately, the consumer at the store. Brooklyn-based Square Roots builds farms inside of refurbished shipping containers, and recently announced a new partnership in Grand Rapids, Michigan, putting the containers at the headquarters for food distributor Gordon Food Service. Gotham Greens, a Brooklyn-based greenhouse grower, has six locations in New York and Chicago, including on the rooftop of a Whole Foods. Indoor vertical farming company Plenty, which raised $200 million in a Series B round in 2017 from the likes of Jeff Bezos, recently announced a soccer-field sized farm planned for Compton, California.

“While farming models differ, the basic pitch remains the same: Growing food closer to the urban shopper, in computer-controlled micro-climates, means less transport, less water usage and less pesticides, fertilizer or food safety concerns, if any at all, all while delivering more shelf life, more flavor, and overall, a better eating experience.”

The Bloomberg article added that, “Kroger’s Monford admits that the company still has ‘a lot to learn’ about in-store farming, but says the venture’s environmental footprint is pretty minimal. ‘It’s just water and light.'”

Laura Reiley reported on the front page of today’s Washington Post that, “The next big thing is here, all girders and concrete pads, glass roofing and gravelly dirt. Viraj Puri, co-founder of one of the nation’s largest indoor farm companies, walks through the construction site, and even without the luminous frills of thousands of butter lettuces, it’s easy to see that the building going up where Bethlehem Steel once stood is something ambitious in the world of food.

An update Friday from USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) stated that, “U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced the second tranche of 2019 Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments aimed at assisting farmers suffering from damage due to unjustified trade retaliation by foreign nations. The payments will begin the week before Thanksgiving. Producers of MFP-eligible commodities will now be eligible to receive 25% of the total payment expected, in addition to the 50% they have already received from the 2019 MFP.

“‘This second tranche of 2019 MFP payments, along with already provided disaster assistance, will give farmers, who have had a tough year due to unfair trade retaliation and natural disasters, much needed funds in time for Thanksgiving,’ said Secretary Perdue. ‘President Trump has shown time and again that he is fighting for America’s farmers and ranchers. While we continue to have confidence in the President’s negotiations with China, this money shows President Trump following through on his promise to help and support farmers as he continues to fight for fair market access.'”

The FAS update noted that, “MFP signup at local FSA offices will run through Friday, December 6, 2019.”

“This is the second of up to three tranches of MFP payments. The third tranche will be evaluated as market conditions and trade opportunities dictate. If conditions warrant, the third tranche will be made in January 2020. The first tranche was comprised of the higher of either 50 percent of a producer’s calculated payment or $15 per acre, which may reduce potential payments to be made in tranche three. USDA will begin making the second tranche payments the week before Thanksgiving,” the release said.