By Pat Melgares K-State Research and Extension In rural America, talk about horsetails in a field conjures thoughts of farmhands in saddles, working cattle or checking on emerging crops.

When Kansas State University weed management specialist Sarah Lancaster gets questions about horsetails, however, the inquiry is probably not about four-legged farm animals.

“I like to call horsetails the dinosaurs of the plant world,” Lancaster said. “They’re a weed species that has literally been around since the times of the dinosaurs. That, in and of itself, should tell us why I get questions about it. They’re pretty tough and they’re very difficult to manage.”

Horsetail, also called mare’s tail, is a deep-rooted, invasive weed that spreads quickly, forming a dense carpet of foliage that crowds out more desirable plants, such as pasture grass.

“They look a lot like asparagus, actually,” Lancaster said. “They reproduce by spores, not seeds; they’re just a very different sort of plant. Many of the go-to herbicides don’t work on them.”

Lancaster said some past research studies indicate that 2,4-D or MCPA – a phenoxy herbicide similar to 2,4-D – can be effective in suppressing horsetail weeds. Newer studies report that picloram and metsulfuron may be helpful in reducing horsetail.

“But,” Lancaster said, “they’re going to come back, and so it’s going to take repeated herbicide applications in order to fully control them with chemistry.”

Research from Canada is uncovering other potential herbicide options, Lancaster said, “but there are not a lot of great herbicide options out there.”

Horsetails belong to the genus known as Equisetum, which means “living fossil.” Plants in that category tend to be found in wet areas, “so if you’re struggling with them in a cropping situation, one thing to think about is water management,” Lancaster said.

“Fortunately, we don’t find horsetail in production fields a lot,” she said. “Usually they are found in areas where drainage is poor and water stands for large parts of the year.”

For questions or to confirm whether a plant is horsetail or not, Lancaster is available by email,&nbsp;<a href="mailto:slancaster@ksu.edu">slancaster@ksu.edu</a>.

Lancaster said she also routinely receives questions about poison hemlock and goatgrass this time of year.

Poison hemlock is – at its name suggests – highly poisonous. It is highly toxic to sheep, cattle, swine, horses and many other domestic animals, as well as humans. Hemlock “looks a lot like wild carrots,” Lancaster said, including a basal rosette and “lacy-looking leaves.”

“Poison hemlock will have red speckles on the stem once it starts to bolt,” Lancaster said. “If it’s in a pasture, you need to take care of it.”

Instinctively, she adds, cattle know to avoid poison hemlock based on having been around it: “So generally speaking, we don’t panic too much if we see poison hemlock, but if you’re someone who brings in cattle from another state or desirable forage is not available, it is more important to get rid of it or prevent cattle grazing in those areas.”

2,4-D and glyphosate products are effective on poison hemlock, Lancaster said.

Goatgrass is an ancestor of the red winter wheat varieties grown in Kansas, which means it’s particularly challenging to control in wheat fields and even in pastures, according to Lancaster.

Healthy wheat stands often out-compete jointed goatgrass, but drought through much of Kansas has provided an opportunity for jointed goatgrass to win some of those battles.

Lancaster said CoAXium wheat varieties – a production system that capitalizes on herbicide tolerant wheat -- are best for controlling jointed goatgrass.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1687611074755.jpeg" alt="Horsetail has been around since the time of the dinosaurs, says K-State weed management specialist Sarah Lancaster. | Photo courtesy of Sarah Lancaster" />
 <figcaption>Horsetail has been around since the time of the dinosaurs, says K-State weed management specialist Sarah Lancaster. | Photo courtesy of Sarah Lancaster</figcaption>
 </figure>By Pat Melgares K-State Research and Extension In rural America, talk about horsetails in a field conjures thoughts of farmhands in saddles, working cattle or checking on emerging crops.When Kansas State University weed management specialist Sarah Lancaster gets questions about horsetails, however, the inquiry is probably not about four-legged farm animals.“I like to call horsetails the dinosaurs of the plant world,” Lancaster said. “They’re a weed species that has literally been around since the times of the dinosaurs. That, in and of itself, should tell us why I get questions about it. They’re pretty tough and they’re very difficult to manage.”Horsetail, also called mare’s tail, is a deep-rooted, invasive weed that spreads quickly, forming a dense carpet of foliage that crowds out more desirable plants, such as pasture grass.“They look a lot like asparagus, actually,” Lancaster said. “They reproduce by spores, not seeds; they’re just a very different sort of plant. Many of the go-to herbicides don’t work on them.”Lancaster said some past research studies indicate that 2,4-D or MCPA – a phenoxy herbicide similar to 2,4-D – can be effective in suppressing horsetail weeds. Newer studies report that picloram and metsulfuron may be helpful in reducing horsetail.“But,” Lancaster said, “they’re going to come back, and so it’s going to take repeated herbicide applications in order to fully control them with chemistry.”Research from Canada is uncovering other potential herbicide options, Lancaster said, “but there are not a lot of great herbicide options out there.”Horsetails belong to the genus known as Equisetum, which means “living fossil.” Plants in that category tend to be found in wet areas, “so if you’re struggling with them in a cropping situation, one thing to think about is water management,” Lancaster said.“Fortunately, we don’t find horsetail in production fields a lot,” she said. “Usually they are found in areas where drainage is poor and water stands for large parts of the year.”For questions or to confirm whether a plant is horsetail or not, Lancaster is available by email,&nbsp;<a href="mailto:slancaster@ksu.edu">slancaster@ksu.edu</a>.Poison Hemlock and GoatgrassLancaster said she also routinely receives questions about poison hemlock and goatgrass this time of year.Poison hemlock is – at its name suggests – highly poisonous. It is highly toxic to sheep, cattle, swine, horses and many other domestic animals, as well as humans. Hemlock “looks a lot like wild carrots,” Lancaster said, including a basal rosette and “lacy-looking leaves.”“Poison hemlock will have red speckles on the stem once it starts to bolt,” Lancaster said. “If it’s in a pasture, you need to take care of it.”Instinctively, she adds, cattle know to avoid poison hemlock based on having been around it: “So generally speaking, we don’t panic too much if we see poison hemlock, but if you’re someone who brings in cattle from another state or desirable forage is not available, it is more important to get rid of it or prevent cattle grazing in those areas.”2,4-D and glyphosate products are effective on poison hemlock, Lancaster said.Goatgrass is an ancestor of the red winter wheat varieties grown in Kansas, which means it’s particularly challenging to control in wheat fields and even in pastures, according to Lancaster.Healthy wheat stands often out-compete jointed goatgrass, but drought through much of Kansas has provided an opportunity for jointed goatgrass to win some of those battles.Lancaster said CoAXium wheat varieties – a production system that capitalizes on herbicide tolerant wheat -- are best for controlling jointed goatgrass.

K-State weed expert shares tips for common pasture problems

WASHINGTON (AP) —For the first time, U.S. regulators on Wednesday approved the sale of chicken made from animal cells, allowing two California companies to offer “lab-grown” meat to the nation's restaurant tables and eventually, supermarket shelves.

The Agriculture Department gave the green light to Upside Foods and Good Meat, firms that had been racing to be the first in the U.S. to sell meat that doesn't come from slaughtered animals — what's now being referred to as “cell-cultivated" or “cultured” meat as it emerges from the laboratory and arrives on dinner plates.

The move launches a new era of meat production aimed at eliminating harm to animals and drastically reducing the environmental impacts of grazing, growing feed for animals and animal waste.

“Instead of all of that land and all of that water that's used to feed all of these animals that are slaughtered, we can do it in a different way," said Josh Tetrick, co-founder and chief executive of Eat Just, which operates Good Meat.

The companies received approvals for federal inspections required to sell meat and poultry in the U.S. The action came months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration deemed that products from both companies are safe to eat. A manufacturing company called Joinn Biologics, which works with Good Meat, was also cleared to make the products.

Cultivated meat is grown in steel tanks, using cells that come from a living animal, a fertilized egg or a special bank of stored cells. In Upside's case, it comes out in large sheets that are then formed into shapes like chicken cutlets and sausages. Good Meat, which already sells cultivated meat in Singapore, the first country to allow it, turns masses of chicken cells into cutlets, nuggets, shredded meat and satays.

But don’t look for this novel meat in U.S. grocery stores anytime soon. Cultivated chicken is much more expensive than meat from whole, farmed birds and cannot yet be produced on the scale of traditional meat, said Ricardo San Martin, director of the Alt:Meat Lab at University of California Berkeley.

The companies plan to serve the new food first in exclusive restaurants: Upside has partnered with a San Francisco restaurant called Bar Crenn, while Good Meat dishes will be served at a Washington, D.C., restaurant run by chef and owner Jose Andrés.

Company officials are quick to note the products are meat, not substitutes like the Impossible Burger or offerings from Beyond Meat, which are made from plant proteins and other ingredients.

Globally, more than 150 companies are focusing on meat from cells, not only chicken but pork, lamb, fish and beef, which scientists say has the biggest impact on the environment.

Upside, based in Berkeley, operates a 70,000-square-foot building in nearby Emeryville. On a recent Tuesday, visitors entered a gleaming commercial kitchen where chef Jess Weaver was sauteeing a cultivated chicken filet in a white wine butter sauce with tomatoes, capers and green onions.

The finished chicken breast product was slightly paler than the grocery store version. Otherwise it looked, cooked, smelled and tasted like any other pan-fried poultry.

“The most common response we get is, ‘Oh, it tastes like chicken,’” said Amy Chen, Upside’s chief operating officer.

Good Meat, based in Alameda, operates a 100,000-square-foot plant, where chef Zach Tyndall dished up a smoked chicken salad on a sunny June afternoon. He followed it with a chicken “thigh” served on a bed of potato puree with a mushroom-vegetable demi-glace and tiny purple cauliflower florets. The Good Meat chicken product will come pre-cooked, requiring only heating to use in a range of dishes.

Chen acknowledged that many consumers are skeptical, even squeamish, about the thought of eating chicken grown from cells.

“We call it the ‘ick factor,’” she said.

The sentiment was echoed in a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Half of U.S. adults said that they are unlikely to try meat grown using cells from animals. When asked to choose from a list of reasons for their reluctance, most who said they'd be unlikely to try it said “it just sounds weird.” About half said they don’t think it would be safe.

But once people understand how the meat is made, they’re more accepting, Chen said. And once they taste it, they're usually sold.

“It is the meat that you’ve always known and loved," she said.

Cultivated meat begins with cells. Upside experts take cells from live animals, choosing those most likely to taste good and to reproduce quickly and consistently, forming high-quality meat, Chen said. Good Meat products are&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/166346/download">created from</a>&nbsp;a master cell bank formed from a commercially available chicken cell line.

Once the cell lines are selected, they’re combined with a broth-like mixture that includes the amino acids, fatty acids, sugars, salts, vitamins and other elements cells need to grow. Inside the tanks, called cultivators, the cells grow, proliferating quickly. At Upside, muscle and connective tissue cells grow together, forming large sheets. After about three weeks, the sheets of poultry cells are removed from the tanks and formed into cutlets, sausages or other foods. Good Meat cells grow into large masses, which are shaped into a range of meat products.

Both firms emphasized that initial production will be limited. The Emeryville facility can produce up to 50,000 pounds of cultivated meat products a year, though the goal is to expand to 400,000 pounds per year, Upside officials said. Good Meat officials wouldn't estimate a production goal.

By comparison, the U.S. produces about 50 billion pounds of chicken per year.

It could take a few years before consumers see the products in more restaurants and seven to 10 years before they hit the wider market, said Sebastian Bohn, who specializes in cell-based foods at CRB, a Missouri firm that designs and builds facilities for pharmaceutical, biotech and food companies.

Cost will be another sticking point. Neither Upside nor Good Meat officials would reveal the price of a single chicken cutlet, saying only that it’s been reduced by orders of magnitude since the firms began offering demonstrations. Eventually, the price is expected to mirror high-end organic chicken, which sells for up to $20 per pound.

San Martin said he’s concerned that cultivated meat may wind up being an alternative to traditional meat for rich people, but will do little for the environment if it remains a niche product.

“If some high-end or affluent people want to eat this instead of a chicken, it's good,” he said. "Will that mean you will feed chicken to poor people? I honestly don't see it."

Tetrick said he shares critics' concerns about the challenges of producing an affordable, novel meat product for the world. But he emphasized that traditional meat production is so damaging to the planet it requires an alternative — preferably one that doesn't require giving up meat all together.

“I miss meat," said Tetrick, who grew up in Alabama eating chicken wings and barbecue. “There should be a different way that people can enjoy chicken and beef and pork with their families."

WASHINGTON (AP) —For the first time, U.S. regulators on Wednesday approved the sale of chicken made from animal cells, allowing two California companies to offer “lab-grown” meat to the nation's restaurant tables and eventually, supermarket shelves.<div><iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgoodmeat%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0114d5rGCnk48cEZR848wMs58K9WnD55tTqPXEmghghAiDg2eY758Jwfd7eHqJpidl&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="732" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe></div>The Agriculture Department gave the green light to Upside Foods and Good Meat, firms that had been racing to be the first in the U.S. to sell meat that doesn't come from slaughtered animals — what's now being referred to as “cell-cultivated" or “cultured” meat as it emerges from the laboratory and arrives on dinner plates.The move launches a new era of meat production aimed at eliminating harm to animals and drastically reducing the environmental impacts of grazing, growing feed for animals and animal waste.“Instead of all of that land and all of that water that's used to feed all of these animals that are slaughtered, we can do it in a different way," said Josh Tetrick, co-founder and chief executive of Eat Just, which operates Good Meat.The companies received approvals for federal inspections required to sell meat and poultry in the U.S. The action came months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration deemed that products from both companies are safe to eat. A manufacturing company called Joinn Biologics, which works with Good Meat, was also cleared to make the products.Cultivated meat is grown in steel tanks, using cells that come from a living animal, a fertilized egg or a special bank of stored cells. In Upside's case, it comes out in large sheets that are then formed into shapes like chicken cutlets and sausages. Good Meat, which already sells cultivated meat in Singapore, the first country to allow it, turns masses of chicken cells into cutlets, nuggets, shredded meat and satays.But don’t look for this novel meat in U.S. grocery stores anytime soon. Cultivated chicken is much more expensive than meat from whole, farmed birds and cannot yet be produced on the scale of traditional meat, said Ricardo San Martin, director of the Alt:Meat Lab at University of California Berkeley.The companies plan to serve the new food first in exclusive restaurants: Upside has partnered with a San Francisco restaurant called Bar Crenn, while Good Meat dishes will be served at a Washington, D.C., restaurant run by chef and owner Jose Andrés.Company officials are quick to note the products are meat, not substitutes like the Impossible Burger or offerings from Beyond Meat, which are made from plant proteins and other ingredients.Globally, more than 150 companies are focusing on meat from cells, not only chicken but pork, lamb, fish and beef, which scientists say has the biggest impact on the environment.Upside, based in Berkeley, operates a 70,000-square-foot building in nearby Emeryville. On a recent Tuesday, visitors entered a gleaming commercial kitchen where chef Jess Weaver was sauteeing a cultivated chicken filet in a white wine butter sauce with tomatoes, capers and green onions.The finished chicken breast product was slightly paler than the grocery store version. Otherwise it looked, cooked, smelled and tasted like any other pan-fried poultry.“The most common response we get is, ‘Oh, it tastes like chicken,’” said Amy Chen, Upside’s chief operating officer.Good Meat, based in Alameda, operates a 100,000-square-foot plant, where chef Zach Tyndall dished up a smoked chicken salad on a sunny June afternoon. He followed it with a chicken “thigh” served on a bed of potato puree with a mushroom-vegetable demi-glace and tiny purple cauliflower florets. The Good Meat chicken product will come pre-cooked, requiring only heating to use in a range of dishes.Chen acknowledged that many consumers are skeptical, even squeamish, about the thought of eating chicken grown from cells.“We call it the ‘ick factor,’” she said.The sentiment was echoed in a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Half of U.S. adults said that they are unlikely to try meat grown using cells from animals. When asked to choose from a list of reasons for their reluctance, most who said they'd be unlikely to try it said “it just sounds weird.” About half said they don’t think it would be safe.But once people understand how the meat is made, they’re more accepting, Chen said. And once they taste it, they're usually sold.“It is the meat that you’ve always known and loved," she said.Cultivated meat begins with cells. Upside experts take cells from live animals, choosing those most likely to taste good and to reproduce quickly and consistently, forming high-quality meat, Chen said. Good Meat products are&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/166346/download">created from</a>&nbsp;a master cell bank formed from a commercially available chicken cell line.Once the cell lines are selected, they’re combined with a broth-like mixture that includes the amino acids, fatty acids, sugars, salts, vitamins and other elements cells need to grow. Inside the tanks, called cultivators, the cells grow, proliferating quickly. At Upside, muscle and connective tissue cells grow together, forming large sheets. After about three weeks, the sheets of poultry cells are removed from the tanks and formed into cutlets, sausages or other foods. Good Meat cells grow into large masses, which are shaped into a range of meat products.Both firms emphasized that initial production will be limited. The Emeryville facility can produce up to 50,000 pounds of cultivated meat products a year, though the goal is to expand to 400,000 pounds per year, Upside officials said. Good Meat officials wouldn't estimate a production goal.By comparison, the U.S. produces about 50 billion pounds of chicken per year.It could take a few years before consumers see the products in more restaurants and seven to 10 years before they hit the wider market, said Sebastian Bohn, who specializes in cell-based foods at CRB, a Missouri firm that designs and builds facilities for pharmaceutical, biotech and food companies.Cost will be another sticking point. Neither Upside nor Good Meat officials would reveal the price of a single chicken cutlet, saying only that it’s been reduced by orders of magnitude since the firms began offering demonstrations. Eventually, the price is expected to mirror high-end organic chicken, which sells for up to $20 per pound.San Martin said he’s concerned that cultivated meat may wind up being an alternative to traditional meat for rich people, but will do little for the environment if it remains a niche product.“If some high-end or affluent people want to eat this instead of a chicken, it's good,” he said. "Will that mean you will feed chicken to poor people? I honestly don't see it."Tetrick said he shares critics' concerns about the challenges of producing an affordable, novel meat product for the world. But he emphasized that traditional meat production is so damaging to the planet it requires an alternative — preferably one that doesn't require giving up meat all together.“I miss meat," said Tetrick, who grew up in Alabama eating chicken wings and barbecue. “There should be a different way that people can enjoy chicken and beef and pork with their families."

U.S. approves the nation's first 'lab-grown' meat

BY PAT MELGARES K-State Research and Extension

MANHATTAN, Kan. – Changes in how cattle are raised -- including genetic improvements and matching animals to the environment in which they’re raised – has likely led to changes in consumer’s perceptions of what makes a good beef product, according to two Kansas State University animal scientists.

“If we look at the last 30 years in the beef industry, when we talk about eating quality, tenderness for a long time was viewed as the No. 1 driver of customer satisfaction,” said K-State meat scientist Travis O’Quinn.

“But we’ve made massive improvements in beef tenderness and right now we can go to the grocery store and less than 10% of that beef will be considered tough by today’s consumers. What that has done is it’s changed how consumers view beef. Today, when we feed consumers in our studies and you ask them what they consider the most important palatability trait, flavor consistently comes up by about 70% of consumers as the reason they choose beef.”

A.J. Tarpoff, a beef extension veterinarian at K-State, said genetic improvements in the beef industry have led to producers being able to select and raise cattle that provide desired traits.

“So we can choose what we want our animals to be with better accuracy than we ever have had in history,” Tarpoff said. “That being said, we have answered the call of consumers for what their preferences are, what a profitable animal can be within all stages of production, and match that to their environment. We raise cattle in all 50 states, so we have to be able to match the animal to whatever environment they’re raised in, while maintaining the high quality, palatability traits that our consumers demand.”

O’Quinn said the changes have led to a higher percentage of beef meeting USDA’s standard for ‘Prime’ and ‘Choice,’ and less receiving the lower grading of ‘Select.’

“Cattle in the United States are grading better today than they ever have in history,” O’Quinn said. “That’s a direct result of a lot of things, including genetic improvement, feeding changes, selection management and programs that give economic incentives for producers to produce higher eating quality beef. That resonates throughout the beef chain, and ultimately to consumers in restaurants and in retail.”

“It’s a great time to be a beef consumer in the United States when we talk about the quality of product that we’re putting on the plate.”

Tarpoff noted that improvements in the consumer product have paralleled improvements in animal comfort and care.

“Beef Quality Assurance is a nationally coordinated, state implemented program that is voluntary for cattle producers,” he said. (Since its inception in the 1980s) “BQA has become the standardized best management practice certification in the beef industry. Up to 85% of U.S. beef comes from BQA certified, independent producers.”

Tarpoff called BQA a “critical piece” of caring for cattle, assuring a quality product and that producers are implementing best management practices backed by science.

“We want to care for these animals the right way,” he said, “and we’re always looking for better ways to be able to do that.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1686778336293.jpeg" alt="Nearly 70% of consumers say flavor is their top consideration when choosing beef products, according to K-State meat scientist Travis O'Quinn. Improvements in how cattle are raised has contributed to consumer satisfaction. Photo Courtesy K-State Research and Extension" />
 <figcaption>Nearly 70% of consumers say flavor is their top consideration when choosing beef products, according to K-State meat scientist Travis O'Quinn. Improvements in how cattle are raised has contributed to consumer satisfaction. Photo Courtesy K-State Research and Extension</figcaption>
 </figure>BY PAT MELGARES K-State Research and ExtensionMANHATTAN, Kan. – Changes in how cattle are raised -- including genetic improvements and matching animals to the environment in which they’re raised – has likely led to changes in consumer’s perceptions of what makes a good beef product, according to two Kansas State University animal scientists.“If we look at the last 30 years in the beef industry, when we talk about eating quality, tenderness for a long time was viewed as the No. 1 driver of customer satisfaction,” said K-State meat scientist Travis O’Quinn.“But we’ve made massive improvements in beef tenderness and right now we can go to the grocery store and less than 10% of that beef will be considered tough by today’s consumers. What that has done is it’s changed how consumers view beef. Today, when we feed consumers in our studies and you ask them what they consider the most important palatability trait, flavor consistently comes up by about 70% of consumers as the reason they choose beef.”A.J. Tarpoff, a beef extension veterinarian at K-State, said genetic improvements in the beef industry have led to producers being able to select and raise cattle that provide desired traits.“So we can choose what we want our animals to be with better accuracy than we ever have had in history,” Tarpoff said. “That being said, we have answered the call of consumers for what their preferences are, what a profitable animal can be within all stages of production, and match that to their environment. We raise cattle in all 50 states, so we have to be able to match the animal to whatever environment they’re raised in, while maintaining the high quality, palatability traits that our consumers demand.”O’Quinn said the changes have led to a higher percentage of beef meeting USDA’s standard for ‘Prime’ and ‘Choice,’ and less receiving the lower grading of ‘Select.’“Cattle in the United States are grading better today than they ever have in history,” O’Quinn said. “That’s a direct result of a lot of things, including genetic improvement, feeding changes, selection management and programs that give economic incentives for producers to produce higher eating quality beef. That resonates throughout the beef chain, and ultimately to consumers in restaurants and in retail.”“It’s a great time to be a beef consumer in the United States when we talk about the quality of product that we’re putting on the plate.”Tarpoff noted that improvements in the consumer product have paralleled improvements in animal comfort and care.“Beef Quality Assurance is a nationally coordinated, state implemented program that is voluntary for cattle producers,” he said. (Since its inception in the 1980s) “BQA has become the standardized best management practice certification in the beef industry. Up to 85% of U.S. beef comes from BQA certified, independent producers.”Tarpoff called BQA a “critical piece” of caring for cattle, assuring a quality product and that producers are implementing best management practices backed by science.“We want to care for these animals the right way,” he said, “and we’re always looking for better ways to be able to do that.”

K-State beef experts say industry continues to improve animal care

By TIM CARPENTER <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/04/06/grieving-moms-plea-to-kansas-lawmakers-do-something-this-epidemic-is-killing-our-kids/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — The two Republican U.S. senators from Kansas and a pair of Democratic U.S. senators from Wisconsin and Colorado endorsed legislation offering an alternative route for U.S. Food and Drug Administration review of new feed additives for livestock.

The bipartisan measure introduced by U.S. Sens. Roger Marshall and Jerry Moran of Kansas, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado would offer a pathway for manufacturers to seek FDA approval of additives tied to improving efficiency of meat and dairy production but don’t fit neatly into the federal agency’s regulated-as-drugs or regulated-as-foods categories.

“This legislation will help bolster the animal feed industry and make certain producers in Kansas and across the country have access to feed additives that will support animal nutrition,” Moran said. “By expanding research and reducing bureaucratic hurdles at the FDA, more of these products will be available to farmers, encouraging a stronger food supply chain.”

The objective would be to modernize the FDA pipeline for feed additives associated with production efficiency as well as waste management. Manufacturers have created additives responsive to heat stress in animals or to deal with presence of food-borne pathogens harmful to humans. Other products curtail nitrogen and phosphorus in cattle manure to help feedlot operators or reduce ammonia in swine waste to address odor problems.

The senators said the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/TAM23923.pdf">Innovative Feed Enhancement and Economic Development (FEED) Act</a>&nbsp;would set guardrails to ensure qualifying products were safe.

Marshall, a member of the Senate’s agriculture committee, said Kansas livestock producers were keen to take advantage of feed additives to “make more with less and leave the world safer, cleaner and healthier than they found it.”

“Since the feed industry doesn’t have a pathway to bring certain feed products to market, innovation that could be happening here is instead happening with our competitors abroad,” Marshall said.

U.S. beef and dairy competitors in South America, Europe and Asia have benefit of updated policies for introduction of feed additives.

Baldwin, a Democrat from the dairy state of Wisconsin, said new feed mixtures could assist producers striving to keep up with market demand while dealing with emissions associated with climate change.

“We know that there are innovative feed products that can help farmers reduce their environmental impact, but onerous bureaucratic processes are getting in the way of these products making it to our agriculture community in a timely way,” Baldwin said.

Bennet, the Colorado Democrat, said red tape at FDA left U.S. cattlemen and dairy farmers without feed options available to peers in exporting countries.

“We need to create a level playing field for Colorado’s livestock industry by giving them every available tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the sustainability of their farms and ranches,” he said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1686344582214.png" alt=" U.S. Sens. Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall of Kansas are part of a bipartisan group urging passage of legislation creating a new avenue for review of feed additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption> U.S. Sens. Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall of Kansas are part of a bipartisan group urging passage of legislation creating a new avenue for review of feed additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure>By TIM CARPENTER <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/04/06/grieving-moms-plea-to-kansas-lawmakers-do-something-this-epidemic-is-killing-our-kids/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — The two Republican U.S. senators from Kansas and a pair of Democratic U.S. senators from Wisconsin and Colorado endorsed legislation offering an alternative route for U.S. Food and Drug Administration review of new feed additives for livestock.The bipartisan measure introduced by U.S. Sens. Roger Marshall and Jerry Moran of Kansas, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado would offer a pathway for manufacturers to seek FDA approval of additives tied to improving efficiency of meat and dairy production but don’t fit neatly into the federal agency’s regulated-as-drugs or regulated-as-foods categories.“This legislation will help bolster the animal feed industry and make certain producers in Kansas and across the country have access to feed additives that will support animal nutrition,” Moran said. “By expanding research and reducing bureaucratic hurdles at the FDA, more of these products will be available to farmers, encouraging a stronger food supply chain.”The objective would be to modernize the FDA pipeline for feed additives associated with production efficiency as well as waste management. Manufacturers have created additives responsive to heat stress in animals or to deal with presence of food-borne pathogens harmful to humans. Other products curtail nitrogen and phosphorus in cattle manure to help feedlot operators or reduce ammonia in swine waste to address odor problems.The senators said the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/TAM23923.pdf">Innovative Feed Enhancement and Economic Development (FEED) Act</a>&nbsp;would set guardrails to ensure qualifying products were safe.Marshall, a member of the Senate’s agriculture committee, said Kansas livestock producers were keen to take advantage of feed additives to “make more with less and leave the world safer, cleaner and healthier than they found it.”“Since the feed industry doesn’t have a pathway to bring certain feed products to market, innovation that could be happening here is instead happening with our competitors abroad,” Marshall said.U.S. beef and dairy competitors in South America, Europe and Asia have benefit of updated policies for introduction of feed additives.Baldwin, a Democrat from the dairy state of Wisconsin, said new feed mixtures could assist producers striving to keep up with market demand while dealing with emissions associated with climate change.“We know that there are innovative feed products that can help farmers reduce their environmental impact, but onerous bureaucratic processes are getting in the way of these products making it to our agriculture community in a timely way,” Baldwin said.Bennet, the Colorado Democrat, said red tape at FDA left U.S. cattlemen and dairy farmers without feed options available to peers in exporting countries.“We need to create a level playing field for Colorado’s livestock industry by giving them every available tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the sustainability of their farms and ranches,” he said.

Moran, Marshall urge creation of new review process to vet livestock feed additives

WASHINGTON (AP) — Global prices for wheat and corn soared Tuesday after a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kakhovka-dam-flood-evacuation-eecc9952c2d9f500c38b0a873f69438c">major dam in Ukraine collapsed</a>, renewing market fears about the fragility of the country's ability to ship food to Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia as it fights a war with Russia.

Wheat prices gained 2.4% in early trading Tuesday on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, to $6.39 a bushel. The cost of corn rose more than 1%, to $6.04 a bushel, and oats gained 0.73%, to $3.46 per unit. Prices were higher earlier in the day but faded.

The destruction of the Kakhovka dam and hydroelectric power station, which sits in a Russian-controlled area on the Dnieper River, raised concerns about disruption to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-africa-lifestyle-middle-east-1b41faaa7ac0984d0673023b68d39a70">Ukraine's affordable supplies of wheat</a>, barley, corn and sunflower oil getting to developing nations where&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hunger-africa-sahel-jihadi-violence-7c9e54def06b88d0e60b9e53a814301f">people are struggling with hunger</a>&nbsp;and high food prices.

“Anytime this war shows signs of getting further escalated, there’s a lot of concern,” said Joseph Glauber, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. “Markets react to that.”

Ukraine and Russia are both major agricultural suppliers and the war's disruption to their exports&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-covid-politics-health-middle-east-58bb99da6bf9fc6af5a5a645022bc4d7">worsened a global food crisis</a>&nbsp;tied to droughts and other factors. Breakthrough agreements brokered by the U.N. and Turkey last year got food moving again through the Black Sea, but it's faced setbacks.

Russia briefly pulled out of the deal last year, has threatened to leave again, is&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-grain-ships-fertilizer-limit-e683cfb5e79559b39d0c983aea563291">accused of slowing shipments from Ukraine</a>&nbsp;and has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-grain-food-security-67e9fd1b5ee8b46fdd9c28955dbcb465">only agreed to renew the deal for two months</a>&nbsp;at a time.

“People are going to be watching to see what happens with the agreement,” said Glauber, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “This reminds everyone that it’s not just pro forma, that this could be a very serious development if indeed the agreement is broken.”

There are massive agricultural fields in southern Ukraine where the dam burst, and while the collapse has endangered crops in the path of the floodwaters, Glauber says&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-grain-farmers-food-a9df0827d8009c3fef347378061f9dd7">less wheat has been planted</a>&nbsp;in that area because it's near the fighting and a lot is growing elsewhere.

The collapse has threatened drinking water supplies, with officials also warning of a looming environmental disaster — pointing to oil escaping from the dam machinery and significant flooding.

Andrey Sizov, managing director of Black Sea agricultural markets research firm SovEcon, said the dam collapse looked "like a big escalation with dire consequences and huge headline risk.”

“This could be just the start of the bull run,” Sizov&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/sizov_andre/status/1665938993769316354?cxt=HHwWhIC80YaszZ4uAAAA">wrote on Twitter</a>&nbsp;early Tuesday.

The wheat futures rally overnight and early Tuesday lost steam as the day progressed. As of around 3 p.m. ET, for example, the price of wheat was down to $6.27 a bushel.

Wheat, vegetable oil and other&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-inflation-health-business-climate-and-environment-00539505ec5db37de5877137b9febeb8">food commodity prices have fallen from record highs</a>&nbsp;last year after Russia's invasion of Ukraine — thanks in part to the Black Sea grain deal — but the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/food-prices-inflation-ukraine-war-economy-8daa7e3d92666d290d87932dc8f25a94">relief in prices has not made it to markets</a>, grocery stores and kitchen tables.

Citi commodities analysts called the dam breach a “reminder of lingering inflationary risk in the goods market.”

It's possible temporary jumps in prices follow significant news events, like the dam collapse, analysts say.

But circumstances are key — and expectations for food exports from Ukraine will likely “continue to diminish as we recognize that Ukrainian production will continue to be severely impaired because of the war,” said Joe Janzen, assistant professor at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’s College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences.

The supply of grain Ukraine is able to export is 40% lower than it was two years ago, Glauber said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1686057672800.png" alt="Image made from video provided by Ukraine's Presidential Office&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Image made from video provided by Ukraine's Presidential Office&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Global prices for wheat and corn soared Tuesday after a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kakhovka-dam-flood-evacuation-eecc9952c2d9f500c38b0a873f69438c">major dam in Ukraine collapsed</a>, renewing market fears about the fragility of the country's ability to ship food to Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia as it fights a war with Russia.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RussiaIsATerroristState?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RussiaIsATerroristState</a> and the only way to stop it, is to kick it out of Ukraine. Blowing up the Kakhovska HPP will have devastating consequences,incl drowning in the region, long term water shortage, irreparable damages to thousands of lives of innocent civilians and ecosystem <a href="https://t.co/Cj2lTaoVZd">pic.twitter.com/Cj2lTaoVZd</a>&mdash; MFA of Ukraine 🇺🇦 (@MFA_Ukraine) <a href="https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1665964127477481473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 6, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Wheat prices gained 2.4% in early trading Tuesday on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, to $6.39 a bushel. The cost of corn rose more than 1%, to $6.04 a bushel, and oats gained 0.73%, to $3.46 per unit. Prices were higher earlier in the day but faded.The destruction of the Kakhovka dam and hydroelectric power station, which sits in a Russian-controlled area on the Dnieper River, raised concerns about disruption to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-africa-lifestyle-middle-east-1b41faaa7ac0984d0673023b68d39a70">Ukraine's affordable supplies of wheat</a>, barley, corn and sunflower oil getting to developing nations where&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hunger-africa-sahel-jihadi-violence-7c9e54def06b88d0e60b9e53a814301f">people are struggling with hunger</a>&nbsp;and high food prices.“Anytime this war shows signs of getting further escalated, there’s a lot of concern,” said Joseph Glauber, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. “Markets react to that.”Ukraine and Russia are both major agricultural suppliers and the war's disruption to their exports&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-covid-politics-health-middle-east-58bb99da6bf9fc6af5a5a645022bc4d7">worsened a global food crisis</a>&nbsp;tied to droughts and other factors. Breakthrough agreements brokered by the U.N. and Turkey last year got food moving again through the Black Sea, but it's faced setbacks.Russia briefly pulled out of the deal last year, has threatened to leave again, is&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-grain-ships-fertilizer-limit-e683cfb5e79559b39d0c983aea563291">accused of slowing shipments from Ukraine</a>&nbsp;and has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-grain-food-security-67e9fd1b5ee8b46fdd9c28955dbcb465">only agreed to renew the deal for two months</a>&nbsp;at a time.“People are going to be watching to see what happens with the agreement,” said Glauber, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “This reminds everyone that it’s not just pro forma, that this could be a very serious development if indeed the agreement is broken.”There are massive agricultural fields in southern Ukraine where the dam burst, and while the collapse has endangered crops in the path of the floodwaters, Glauber says&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-grain-farmers-food-a9df0827d8009c3fef347378061f9dd7">less wheat has been planted</a>&nbsp;in that area because it's near the fighting and a lot is growing elsewhere.The collapse has threatened drinking water supplies, with officials also warning of a looming environmental disaster — pointing to oil escaping from the dam machinery and significant flooding.Andrey Sizov, managing director of Black Sea agricultural markets research firm SovEcon, said the dam collapse looked "like a big escalation with dire consequences and huge headline risk.”“This could be just the start of the bull run,” Sizov&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/sizov_andre/status/1665938993769316354?cxt=HHwWhIC80YaszZ4uAAAA">wrote on Twitter</a>&nbsp;early Tuesday.The wheat futures rally overnight and early Tuesday lost steam as the day progressed. As of around 3 p.m. ET, for example, the price of wheat was down to $6.27 a bushel.Wheat, vegetable oil and other&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-inflation-health-business-climate-and-environment-00539505ec5db37de5877137b9febeb8">food commodity prices have fallen from record highs</a>&nbsp;last year after Russia's invasion of Ukraine — thanks in part to the Black Sea grain deal — but the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/food-prices-inflation-ukraine-war-economy-8daa7e3d92666d290d87932dc8f25a94">relief in prices has not made it to markets</a>, grocery stores and kitchen tables.Citi commodities analysts called the dam breach a “reminder of lingering inflationary risk in the goods market.”It's possible temporary jumps in prices follow significant news events, like the dam collapse, analysts say.But circumstances are key — and expectations for food exports from Ukraine will likely “continue to diminish as we recognize that Ukrainian production will continue to be severely impaired because of the war,” said Joe Janzen, assistant professor at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’s College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences.The supply of grain Ukraine is able to export is 40% lower than it was two years ago, Glauber said.

Wheat prices jump following collapse of major dam in Ukraine

U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates wheat production will fall 20% compared with last year

By ALLISON KITE <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/04/06/epa-estimates-more-than-54000-lead-pipes-remain-in-kansas/">Kansas Reflector</a>

Month after month without enough rain has made Kansas the epicenter of a stubborn drought covering parts of the Great Plains.&nbsp;

While the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://kansasreflector.com/2022/10/17/severe-drought-triggers-assistance-in-nearly-all-of-kansas-half-of-missouri/">drought that plagued almost the entire western half of the U.S. last year</a>&nbsp;has relented, it has only gotten worse in Kansas. The state is experiencing the most severe drought in the country and its worst in a decade.&nbsp;

If rains don’t come soon, more than one-quarter of the state’s wheat fields could be in such dismal conditions farmers don’t even harvest them, according to Kansas Wheat.

“I never like to say too little too late,” said Steve McCloud, who lives in Harvey County and serves on the Kansas Farm Bureau board, “but we’re about there.”

Almost 60% of Kansas is experiencing “extreme” or “exceptional” drought conditions, according to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx">U.S. Drought Monitor</a>. Only 13% of the state, concentrated in the northeast, is completely without drought.&nbsp;

There’s reason to be hopeful. Matthew Sittel, an assistant climatologist for Kansas, noted parts of the state are expected to get a couple of inches of rain in the next few days. But it will take awhile to recover from months on end of startlingly dry conditions.&nbsp;

“We can safely say it’s the worst drought situation in a decade,” Sittel said.

Drought started creeping into Kansas in the fall of 2021. First, a few isolated counties had mild drought. It started to build in the southwest, and by spring, 10% of the state was in extreme or exceptional drought.

The drought hit its peak earlier this month, with more than two-thirds of the state in the most severe levels of drought. It has since relented slightly.

Marsha Boswell, a spokeswoman for Kansas Wheat, was well aware of the damage from this drought before&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://kswheat.com/news/abandoned-fields-and-low-yields-underscore-wheat-tour-2023">touring wheat fields across the state last week</a>. She was in southwest Kansas a few weeks ago and said some wheat never emerged from the ground.&nbsp;

But as she drove around the state with the Wheat Quality Council to look at how winter wheat was faring, she was struck by how far into eastern Kansas, which typically gets more rain, the drought reached and the number of fields being abandoned.&nbsp;

Tour participants took measurements to estimate this year’s wheat production. They projected Kansas farmers would wind up with 178 million bushels of wheat.

The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://release.nass.usda.gov/reports/crop0523.pdf">U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated</a>&nbsp;Kansas would produce closer to 191 million bushels, still a far cry from last year’s harvest of 244 million bushels.&nbsp;

While the number of winter wheat bushels harvested nationally this year is expected to grow 2% compared with last year, Kansas’ production could drop by close to 20%, according to the USDA.

Kansas wheat tour participants anticipated close to one-quarter of wheat crops could be abandoned, Boswell said.&nbsp;

“You also have to remember there’s still three to six weeks before harvest gets going … so this is pretty much the best-case scenario,” Boswell said.&nbsp;

In addition to wheat, the drought has taken its toll on grazing lands, food supplies and drinking water for livestock.&nbsp;

McCloud said he’ll consider himself fortunate if harvests one-third of the brome grass he normally feeds his cattle.&nbsp;

McCloud said he thinks he’ll be able to get enough feed to get by without selling off cattle.&nbsp;

“But if we are continuing in these severe drought conditions by early to mid fall, I’m gonna have to scratch my head a little bit,” he said.&nbsp;

Shawn Tiffany, president of the Kansas Livestock Association, farms and raises cattle in Morris, McPherson and Lyon counties.&nbsp;

He said unless rains come soon, some of his stock ponds may run out of water. His wheat crop is poor enough that it will be more valuable as roughage for his cattle than waiting for the grain harvest.&nbsp;

The drought means cattle ranchers are more reliant on hay because they don’t have enough grazing crops for their cows. But at the same time, he said, the hay supply is constrained.&nbsp;&nbsp;

“I’ve paid the highest prices for hay in my career for the last nine months,” he said.&nbsp;

Tiffany operates a finishing feedyard, meaning other ranchers bring their cattle to him for the final few months before the animals are killed and taken to meatpackers.&nbsp;

He said he hasn’t been forced to reduce his supply, but some ranchers he works with have, so there is less business coming his way.&nbsp;

Tiffany said it will take ranchers awhile to build back their herds, even after the drought breaks. But agriculture is always a risky business.

“There’s an old joke in Kansas — you’re never more than 30 days away from a flood or a drought,” Tiffany said. “It’s just that that flood continues to be 30 days out on the horizon.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/5/1684861752582.png" alt="A severe drought plaguing Kansas spells trouble for the winter wheat harvest. (Kansas Wheat/submitted)" />
 <figcaption>A severe drought plaguing Kansas spells trouble for the winter wheat harvest. (Kansas Wheat/submitted)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates wheat production will fall 20% compared with last year</h2>By ALLISON KITE <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/04/06/epa-estimates-more-than-54000-lead-pipes-remain-in-kansas/">Kansas Reflector</a>Month after month without enough rain has made Kansas the epicenter of a stubborn drought covering parts of the Great Plains.&nbsp;While the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://kansasreflector.com/2022/10/17/severe-drought-triggers-assistance-in-nearly-all-of-kansas-half-of-missouri/">drought that plagued almost the entire western half of the U.S. last year</a>&nbsp;has relented, it has only gotten worse in Kansas. The state is experiencing the most severe drought in the country and its worst in a decade.&nbsp;If rains don’t come soon, more than one-quarter of the state’s wheat fields could be in such dismal conditions farmers don’t even harvest them, according to Kansas Wheat.“I never like to say too little too late,” said Steve McCloud, who lives in Harvey County and serves on the Kansas Farm Bureau board, “but we’re about there.”Almost 60% of Kansas is experiencing “extreme” or “exceptional” drought conditions, according to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx">U.S. Drought Monitor</a>. Only 13% of the state, concentrated in the northeast, is completely without drought.&nbsp;There’s reason to be hopeful. Matthew Sittel, an assistant climatologist for Kansas, noted parts of the state are expected to get a couple of inches of rain in the next few days. But it will take awhile to recover from months on end of startlingly dry conditions.&nbsp;“We can safely say it’s the worst drought situation in a decade,” Sittel said.Drought started creeping into Kansas in the fall of 2021. First, a few isolated counties had mild drought. It started to build in the southwest, and by spring, 10% of the state was in extreme or exceptional drought.The drought hit its peak earlier this month, with more than two-thirds of the state in the most severe levels of drought. It has since relented slightly.<h2>Crop failures&nbsp;</h2>Marsha Boswell, a spokeswoman for Kansas Wheat, was well aware of the damage from this drought before&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://kswheat.com/news/abandoned-fields-and-low-yields-underscore-wheat-tour-2023">touring wheat fields across the state last week</a>. She was in southwest Kansas a few weeks ago and said some wheat never emerged from the ground.&nbsp;But as she drove around the state with the Wheat Quality Council to look at how winter wheat was faring, she was struck by how far into eastern Kansas, which typically gets more rain, the drought reached and the number of fields being abandoned.&nbsp;Tour participants took measurements to estimate this year’s wheat production. They projected Kansas farmers would wind up with 178 million bushels of wheat.The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://release.nass.usda.gov/reports/crop0523.pdf">U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated</a>&nbsp;Kansas would produce closer to 191 million bushels, still a far cry from last year’s harvest of 244 million bushels.&nbsp;While the number of winter wheat bushels harvested nationally this year is expected to grow 2% compared with last year, Kansas’ production could drop by close to 20%, according to the USDA.Kansas wheat tour participants anticipated close to one-quarter of wheat crops could be abandoned, Boswell said.&nbsp;“You also have to remember there’s still three to six weeks before harvest gets going … so this is pretty much the best-case scenario,” Boswell said.&nbsp;<h2>Raising cattle in a drought&nbsp;</h2>In addition to wheat, the drought has taken its toll on grazing lands, food supplies and drinking water for livestock.&nbsp;McCloud said he’ll consider himself fortunate if harvests one-third of the brome grass he normally feeds his cattle.&nbsp;McCloud said he thinks he’ll be able to get enough feed to get by without selling off cattle.&nbsp;“But if we are continuing in these severe drought conditions by early to mid fall, I’m gonna have to scratch my head a little bit,” he said.&nbsp;Shawn Tiffany, president of the Kansas Livestock Association, farms and raises cattle in Morris, McPherson and Lyon counties.&nbsp;He said unless rains come soon, some of his stock ponds may run out of water. His wheat crop is poor enough that it will be more valuable as roughage for his cattle than waiting for the grain harvest.&nbsp;The drought means cattle ranchers are more reliant on hay because they don’t have enough grazing crops for their cows. But at the same time, he said, the hay supply is constrained.&nbsp;&nbsp;“I’ve paid the highest prices for hay in my career for the last nine months,” he said.&nbsp;Tiffany operates a finishing feedyard, meaning other ranchers bring their cattle to him for the final few months before the animals are killed and taken to meatpackers.&nbsp;He said he hasn’t been forced to reduce his supply, but some ranchers he works with have, so there is less business coming his way.&nbsp;Tiffany said it will take ranchers awhile to build back their herds, even after the drought breaks. But agriculture is always a risky business.“There’s an old joke in Kansas — you’re never more than 30 days away from a flood or a drought,” Tiffany said. “It’s just that that flood continues to be 30 days out on the horizon.”

With only weeks until wheat harvest, drought still plagues Kansas

DETROIT (AP) — Owners of new Ford vehicles will be able to tune in to AM radio in their cars, trucks and SUVs after all.

CEO Jim Farley wrote in social media postings Tuesday that the company is reversing a decision to scrub the band after speaking with government policy leaders who are concerned about keeping emergency alerts that often are sounded on AM stations.

“We've decided to include it on all 2024 Ford and Lincoln vehicles," Farley wrote on Twitter. "For any owners of Ford's EVs without AM broadcast capability, we'll offer a software update” to restore it, Farley wrote.

The move comes after a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday calling on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require AM in new vehicles at no additional cost.

Sponsors of the “AM for Every Vehicle Act” cited public safety concerns, noting AM's historic role in transmitting vital information during emergencies, such as natural disasters, especially to rural areas.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., one of the bill’s sponsors, said eight of 20 major automakers including Ford, BMW and Tesla have pulled the band from new vehicles.

Ford removed AM from the 2023 Mustang Mach-e and F-150 Lightning electric pickups after data collected from vehicles showed that less than 5% of customers listened to it, spokesman Alan Hall said. Electrical interference and reducing cost and manufacturing complexity also played a role.

The company also took it out of the 2024 gasoline-powered Mustang, but will add it back in before any of the muscle cars are delivered, Hall said.

The EVs will get an online software update to put AM back into the vehicles, and Ford will keep including it in future vehicles as it looks at innovative ways to deliver emergency alerts, Hall said.

Ford and others also suggested that internet radio or other communication tools could replace AM radio. But Markey and others pointed to situations where drivers might not have internet access.

The Federal Communications Commission and National Association of Broadcasters praised the legislation, which is also backed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., Rep. Tom Kean, Jr., R-N.J., Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., among others.

But the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a U.S. trade group that represents major automakers including Ford and BMW, criticized the bill, calling the AM radio mandate unnecessary.

The trade group pointed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Integrated Public Alerts and Warning System, which can distribute safety warnings across AM, FM, internet-based and satellite radios — as well as over cellular networks.

The alliance said the bill gives preference to a technology that's competing with other communications options.

Messages were left Tuesday seeking comment from BMW and Tesla.

According to the National Association of Broadcasters and Nielsen data, more than 80 million people in the U.S. listen to AM radio every month.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/5/1684855234628.png" alt="The move comes after a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday calling on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require AM in new vehicles at no additional cost.-courtesy photo" />
 <figcaption>The move comes after a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday calling on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require AM in new vehicles at no additional cost.-courtesy photo</figcaption>
 </figure>DETROIT (AP) — Owners of new Ford vehicles will be able to tune in to AM radio in their cars, trucks and SUVs after all.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">After speaking with policy leaders about the importance of AM broadcast radio as a part of the emergency alert system, we&#39;ve decided to include it on all 2024 <a href="https://twitter.com/Ford?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Ford</a> &amp; <a href="https://twitter.com/LincolnMotorCo?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LincolnMotorCo</a> vehicles. For any owners of Ford EVs without AM broadcast capability, we’ll offer a software…&mdash; Jim Farley (@jimfarley98) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimfarley98/status/1661024295110463491?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 23, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>CEO Jim Farley wrote in social media postings Tuesday that the company is reversing a decision to scrub the band after speaking with government policy leaders who are concerned about keeping emergency alerts that often are sounded on AM stations.“We've decided to include it on all 2024 Ford and Lincoln vehicles," Farley wrote on Twitter. "For any owners of Ford's EVs without AM broadcast capability, we'll offer a software update” to restore it, Farley wrote.The move comes after a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday calling on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require AM in new vehicles at no additional cost.Sponsors of the “AM for Every Vehicle Act” cited public safety concerns, noting AM's historic role in transmitting vital information during emergencies, such as natural disasters, especially to rural areas.Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., one of the bill’s sponsors, said eight of 20 major automakers including Ford, BMW and Tesla have pulled the band from new vehicles.Ford removed AM from the 2023 Mustang Mach-e and F-150 Lightning electric pickups after data collected from vehicles showed that less than 5% of customers listened to it, spokesman Alan Hall said. Electrical interference and reducing cost and manufacturing complexity also played a role.The company also took it out of the 2024 gasoline-powered Mustang, but will add it back in before any of the muscle cars are delivered, Hall said.The EVs will get an online software update to put AM back into the vehicles, and Ford will keep including it in future vehicles as it looks at innovative ways to deliver emergency alerts, Hall said.Ford and others also suggested that internet radio or other communication tools could replace AM radio. But Markey and others pointed to situations where drivers might not have internet access.The Federal Communications Commission and National Association of Broadcasters praised the legislation, which is also backed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., Rep. Tom Kean, Jr., R-N.J., Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., among others.But the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a U.S. trade group that represents major automakers including Ford and BMW, criticized the bill, calling the AM radio mandate unnecessary.The trade group pointed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Integrated Public Alerts and Warning System, which can distribute safety warnings across AM, FM, internet-based and satellite radios — as well as over cellular networks.The alliance said the bill gives preference to a technology that's competing with other communications options.Messages were left Tuesday seeking comment from BMW and Tesla.According to the National Association of Broadcasters and Nielsen data, more than 80 million people in the U.S. listen to AM radio every month.

Ford decides to keep AM radio on 2024 models

By ADAM GOLDSTEIN <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/02/17/state-ag-officials-push-for-on-time-farm-bill-to-fund-slew-of-programs/">States Newsroom</a>

WASHINGTON — The deadliest outbreak of bird flu in U.S. history is prompting growing concern in Congress, and Department of Agriculture researchers are awaiting the preliminary results of four trials of vaccines for poultry.

Some lawmakers are warming to the idea of a vaccination campaign, long considered a fringe idea because of the cost and potential consequences. Trade groups warn that vaccinated poultry would not be accepted in many overseas markets, disrupting exports.

While bird flu likely poses little health danger to humans, it’s contributed to spikes in U.S. egg prices and decimated poultry flocks.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://extension.umn.edu/poultry-health/avian-influenza-basics-noncommercial-poultry-flock-owners">Among the domestic poultry affected</a>&nbsp;are chickens, turkeys, pheasants, quail, ducks and geese — in both big commercial operations and increasingly popular backyard flocks.

Since the current strain of highly-pathogenic avian influenza — H5N1 — began circulating in the country in February 2022, farmers across the country have lost or had to cull&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-commercial-backyard-flocks">more than 58 million poultry birds.</a>

The USDA estimates it has already spent&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/downloads/animal_diseases/ai/epi-analyses-hpai-poultry-july2022.pdf">more than $670 million</a>&nbsp;in insurance indemnities and sanitation services to combat the ongoing bird flu outbreak.

And with many wild birds starting their spring migration, roughly&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-commercial-backyard-flocks">140,000 poultry birds</a>&nbsp;were infected with the virus nationwide in April.

While food costs are stabilizing, members of Congress from both parties are asking how the U.S. can do better at controlling bird flu.

“We’ve all seen first-hand how high pathogenic avian flu has devastated domestic poultry populations, where depopulations have had to take place,” said Rep. Jim Costa, a California Democrat, at an April 18 House Agriculture Committee hearing.

“We’ve got to continue to refine and improve our approach to address animal disease, and USDA needs all the tools to guarantee a robust response.”

The USDA is testing two proprietary vaccines developed through its Agricultural Research Service, as well as bird flu vaccines from pharmaceutical companies Merck Animal Health and Zoetis Inc.

But animal health experts note that a bird flu vaccine is not the immediate solution that some believe it to be.

Jenny Lester Moffitt, undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs at the USDA, said at an April 24 press event that it will take a minimum of 18 to 24 months to produce a viable vaccine, which is not guaranteed to be effective against infection.

Yuko Sato, a poultry veterinarian and associate professor at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, said at an April 26 media event that “the vaccine is not a silver bullet” for an end to the outbreak.

“You would have to make sure that if you vaccinate — but still have positive birds — you can stamp out the virus,” Sato said. “Otherwise, we’ll never be looking at eradicating the virus from the United States.”

Here are the answers to some common questions about the ongoing bird flu outbreak and potential vaccines.

What is highly-pathogenic avian influenza?

<a target="_blank" href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/influenza-a-virus-subtypes.htm">Highly-pathogenic avian influenza,</a>&nbsp;commonly known as HPAI, bird flu, or “high-path,” is a deadly respiratory virus that affects wild birds and poultry.

The contagious disease comes from the Influenza A family, and is characterized by the H5 or H7 categories of hemagglutinin — or spike protein — structures on its surface, which it uses to infect cells. The virus is spread via airborne transmission, or exposure to the byproducts of an infected bird, like saliva, mucus or feces.

Poultry and other domesticated birds with the disease will often exhibit a lack of energy, produce soft-shelled or misshapen eggs, and have swollen heads.

The highly-pathogenic version of the disease was first identified in China in 1996, and has mutated several times over the last three decades through swapping genetic material with low-pathogenic avian influenza strains within wild birds.

David Swayne, former director of the Agricultural Research Service’s Southeast Poultry Research Lab in Athens, Georgia, said at an April 26 media briefing that 87% of avian influenza strains are made up of blended genetic material from other strains. He said that this natural mutation process can make a vaccine less effective against the virus year over year.

Wild migratory birds are the primary transmission vector in the current outbreak, accounting for roughly 85% of disease spread,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/pest-disease/defend-flock/webinar-prevention-to-recovery-sept2022-qas.pdf">according to the USDA.</a>&nbsp;These animals, including terns, ducks, and geese, can contract and pass along the disease without obvious physical symptoms.

Yet an HPAI infection spreads quickly among a flock of poultry, with infections leading to mortality at a rate of 90% to 100% in chickens and turkeys, often within 48 hours, according to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/bro-protect-poultry-from-ai.pdf">Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.</a>

When a farmer detects the disease in a commercial flock, the only USDA-recommended option is to kill the remaining birds, dispose of the carcasses, and decontaminate the facility to mitigate spread.

Who is getting infected? Should I be worried?

Despite the threat H5N1 presents to poultry, experts with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that people do not need to brood over getting sick.

The agency reports that&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/inhumans.htm#:~:text=Since%20December%202021%2C%2011%20human,reported%20since%201997%20are%20available.">11 cases of bird flu</a>&nbsp;have been reported among humans since 2021, with only one “mild” case occurring in the United States. And as of 2023, there have been no reported cases of human-to-human transmission of HPAI, according to t<a target="_blank" href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2023-DON453">he World Health Organization.</a>

Swayne said at the media event that only 875 human cases of H5 bird flu have been reported since 1996. About 40% were fatal. He noted these infections have occurred largely among humans handling domesticated poultry, and not from encounters with wild birds.

The USDA has documented&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-mammals">176 mammals in the United States&nbsp; infected with the disease&nbsp;</a>since 2022, including skunks, foxes, seals, and mountain lions, among other species. Wildlife experts from the U.S. Geological Survey published&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.03.10.532068v1">a study in April&nbsp;</a>finding much of this disease spillover can be traced back to predation on wild birds.

Still both Swayne and Hill pointed to a recent event in which&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/americas/bird-flu-sea-lion-deaths-peru-intl-latam/index.html">3,500 sea lions became infected with the virus in Peru</a>&nbsp;as one worth monitoring for mutations that could affect mammals.

How does the current outbreak compare to past bird flu outbreaks?

The current iteration of the highly-pathogenic avian influenza virus was&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/10510-DHA-01-20-2022-HPAI_Final.pdf">first detected domestically</a>&nbsp;on January 13, 2022, in a wild bird in Colleton County, South Carolina. The first domesticated animal case of the disease was found on a turkey farm in Dubois County, Indiana on February 8, 2022.

Since then, the disease has spread across 47 states, affecting more than 833 commercial and backyard poultry flocks.

Still, this is not the first outbreak of HPAI that the federal government has responded to. And despite the scope of these numbers, many animal health experts say current USDA efforts represent a significant improvement over earlier outbreaks of the disease.

Sato recalled that a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/hpai/2015-hpai-final-report.pdf">2015 outbreak of HPAI,</a>&nbsp;previously considered the worst outbreak on record, required the culling of 50.4 million birds on Midwestern poultry operations.

She added that 70% of the cause of new infections from that outbreak was farm-to-farm lateral spread from workers in 21 states, including Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

In contrast to that outbreak, Sato said that now “we’ve done a really good job with biosecurity.” Biosecurity refers to preventive measures producers can take to limit spread of the disease, like disinfecting farm machinery and providing clean clothing and protective equipment to farmworkers.

Sato said that with producers embracing these practices, the lateral spread of avian influenza decreased from&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/downloads/animal_diseases/ai/epi-analyses-hpai-poultry-july2022.pdf">70% of reported cases in 2015 to roughly 16% of reported cases in 2023.</a>

Moffitt added that efforts to control the virus are projected to cost the country less than 50% of its 2015 expenditures of $1.6 billion.

However, animal disease experts caution that the U.S. is dealing with a more widely dispersed and distinct disease than that of the 2015 HPAI outbreak.

Nichola Hill, an&nbsp;assistant professor of biology at&nbsp;the University of Massachusetts, said at the April 26 media event that researchers have detected the virus in 150 of the approximately 1,000 wild bird species found in the U.S., and the disease has affected&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-wild-birds">more than 6,000 wild birds.</a>

Greg Tyler, the president and CEO of USA Poultry and Egg Export Council, said that this version of the disease has also gotten into&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fws.gov/media/migratory-bird-flyways-north-america">all four major migratory flyways&nbsp;</a>for wild birds in the U.S.

Sato said that more backyard flocks of poultry are being affected by the spread of bird flu from migratory populations — a total of 507 small to mid-sized flocks — in contrast to the 21 backyard flocks affected in 2015.

There are also new concerns emerging among experts that this deadly disease could become endemic to North America without significant public-private collaboration to reduce spread, according to&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320723001428?via%3Dihub">an April study</a>&nbsp;from researchers at the University of Maryland.

“Federal agencies, state agencies, the agriculture sector and wildlife management — we are all going to have to deal with this together, because we can’t afford not to,” said Jennifer Mullinax, an assistant professor in the University of Maryland Department of Environmental Science and Technology,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agnr.umd.edu/news/why-bird-flu-different-scientists-say-new-avian-influenza-requires-urgent-coordinated-response">in a release.</a>

While some animal health experts say developing a vaccine for the current bird flu strain could be a valuable tool, trade experts caution that a national vaccination strategy would not come quickly, or without tradeoffs for the nation’s&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/poultry-meat-prods-ex-eggs">$6 billion poultry export industry.</a>

Sato said that a national vaccination strategy for the roughly 10 billion commercial-purpose birds in the United States could be time-intensive, and cost billions of taxpayer dollars.

Tom Super, senior vice president of communications at the National Chicken Council, said that&nbsp;his organization does not support the use of a vaccine for HPAI right now, as&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023aof-Padilla.pdf">most countries do not accept exports</a>&nbsp;from countries that vaccinate for the virus.

These non-tariff trade barriers are designed to protect other nations’ unvaccinated poultry flocks from immunized birds that still carry the disease.&nbsp;Super added that if the U.S. vaccinates domestic birds, the broiler industry will be cut off from exports, costing billions of dollars to the U.S. economy every year.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/4/1649945707315.jpg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>By ADAM GOLDSTEIN <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/02/17/state-ag-officials-push-for-on-time-farm-bill-to-fund-slew-of-programs/">States Newsroom</a>WASHINGTON — The deadliest outbreak of bird flu in U.S. history is prompting growing concern in Congress, and Department of Agriculture researchers are awaiting the preliminary results of four trials of vaccines for poultry.Some lawmakers are warming to the idea of a vaccination campaign, long considered a fringe idea because of the cost and potential consequences. Trade groups warn that vaccinated poultry would not be accepted in many overseas markets, disrupting exports.While bird flu likely poses little health danger to humans, it’s contributed to spikes in U.S. egg prices and decimated poultry flocks.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://extension.umn.edu/poultry-health/avian-influenza-basics-noncommercial-poultry-flock-owners">Among the domestic poultry affected</a>&nbsp;are chickens, turkeys, pheasants, quail, ducks and geese — in both big commercial operations and increasingly popular backyard flocks.Since the current strain of highly-pathogenic avian influenza — H5N1 — began circulating in the country in February 2022, farmers across the country have lost or had to cull&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-commercial-backyard-flocks">more than 58 million poultry birds.</a>The USDA estimates it has already spent&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/downloads/animal_diseases/ai/epi-analyses-hpai-poultry-july2022.pdf">more than $670 million</a>&nbsp;in insurance indemnities and sanitation services to combat the ongoing bird flu outbreak.And with many wild birds starting their spring migration, roughly&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-commercial-backyard-flocks">140,000 poultry birds</a>&nbsp;were infected with the virus nationwide in April.While food costs are stabilizing, members of Congress from both parties are asking how the U.S. can do better at controlling bird flu.“We’ve all seen first-hand how high pathogenic avian flu has devastated domestic poultry populations, where depopulations have had to take place,” said Rep. Jim Costa, a California Democrat, at an April 18 House Agriculture Committee hearing.“We’ve got to continue to refine and improve our approach to address animal disease, and USDA needs all the tools to guarantee a robust response.”The USDA is testing two proprietary vaccines developed through its Agricultural Research Service, as well as bird flu vaccines from pharmaceutical companies Merck Animal Health and Zoetis Inc.But animal health experts note that a bird flu vaccine is not the immediate solution that some believe it to be.Jenny Lester Moffitt, undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs at the USDA, said at an April 24 press event that it will take a minimum of 18 to 24 months to produce a viable vaccine, which is not guaranteed to be effective against infection.Yuko Sato, a poultry veterinarian and associate professor at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, said at an April 26 media event that “the vaccine is not a silver bullet” for an end to the outbreak.“You would have to make sure that if you vaccinate — but still have positive birds — you can stamp out the virus,” Sato said. “Otherwise, we’ll never be looking at eradicating the virus from the United States.”Here are the answers to some common questions about the ongoing bird flu outbreak and potential vaccines.<h2>What is highly-pathogenic avian influenza?</h2><a target="_blank" href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/influenza-a-virus-subtypes.htm">Highly-pathogenic avian influenza,</a>&nbsp;commonly known as HPAI, bird flu, or “high-path,” is a deadly respiratory virus that affects wild birds and poultry.The contagious disease comes from the Influenza A family, and is characterized by the H5 or H7 categories of hemagglutinin — or spike protein — structures on its surface, which it uses to infect cells. The virus is spread via airborne transmission, or exposure to the byproducts of an infected bird, like saliva, mucus or feces.Poultry and other domesticated birds with the disease will often exhibit a lack of energy, produce soft-shelled or misshapen eggs, and have swollen heads.The highly-pathogenic version of the disease was first identified in China in 1996, and has mutated several times over the last three decades through swapping genetic material with low-pathogenic avian influenza strains within wild birds.David Swayne, former director of the Agricultural Research Service’s Southeast Poultry Research Lab in Athens, Georgia, said at an April 26 media briefing that 87% of avian influenza strains are made up of blended genetic material from other strains. He said that this natural mutation process can make a vaccine less effective against the virus year over year.Wild migratory birds are the primary transmission vector in the current outbreak, accounting for roughly 85% of disease spread,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/pest-disease/defend-flock/webinar-prevention-to-recovery-sept2022-qas.pdf">according to the USDA.</a>&nbsp;These animals, including terns, ducks, and geese, can contract and pass along the disease without obvious physical symptoms.Yet an HPAI infection spreads quickly among a flock of poultry, with infections leading to mortality at a rate of 90% to 100% in chickens and turkeys, often within 48 hours, according to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/bro-protect-poultry-from-ai.pdf">Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.</a>When a farmer detects the disease in a commercial flock, the only USDA-recommended option is to kill the remaining birds, dispose of the carcasses, and decontaminate the facility to mitigate spread.<h2>Who is getting infected? Should I be worried?</h2>Despite the threat H5N1 presents to poultry, experts with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that people do not need to brood over getting sick.The agency reports that&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/inhumans.htm#:~:text=Since%20December%202021%2C%2011%20human,reported%20since%201997%20are%20available.">11 cases of bird flu</a>&nbsp;have been reported among humans since 2021, with only one “mild” case occurring in the United States. And as of 2023, there have been no reported cases of human-to-human transmission of HPAI, according to t<a target="_blank" href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2023-DON453">he World Health Organization.</a>Swayne said at the media event that only 875 human cases of H5 bird flu have been reported since 1996. About 40% were fatal. He noted these infections have occurred largely among humans handling domesticated poultry, and not from encounters with wild birds.The USDA has documented&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-mammals">176 mammals in the United States&nbsp; infected with the disease&nbsp;</a>since 2022, including skunks, foxes, seals, and mountain lions, among other species. Wildlife experts from the U.S. Geological Survey published&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.03.10.532068v1">a study in April&nbsp;</a>finding much of this disease spillover can be traced back to predation on wild birds.Still both Swayne and Hill pointed to a recent event in which&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/americas/bird-flu-sea-lion-deaths-peru-intl-latam/index.html">3,500 sea lions became infected with the virus in Peru</a>&nbsp;as one worth monitoring for mutations that could affect mammals.<h2>How does the current outbreak compare to past bird flu outbreaks?</h2>The current iteration of the highly-pathogenic avian influenza virus was&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/10510-DHA-01-20-2022-HPAI_Final.pdf">first detected domestically</a>&nbsp;on January 13, 2022, in a wild bird in Colleton County, South Carolina. The first domesticated animal case of the disease was found on a turkey farm in Dubois County, Indiana on February 8, 2022.Since then, the disease has spread across 47 states, affecting more than 833 commercial and backyard poultry flocks.Still, this is not the first outbreak of HPAI that the federal government has responded to. And despite the scope of these numbers, many animal health experts say current USDA efforts represent a significant improvement over earlier outbreaks of the disease.Sato recalled that a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/hpai/2015-hpai-final-report.pdf">2015 outbreak of HPAI,</a>&nbsp;previously considered the worst outbreak on record, required the culling of 50.4 million birds on Midwestern poultry operations.She added that 70% of the cause of new infections from that outbreak was farm-to-farm lateral spread from workers in 21 states, including Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.In contrast to that outbreak, Sato said that now “we’ve done a really good job with biosecurity.” Biosecurity refers to preventive measures producers can take to limit spread of the disease, like disinfecting farm machinery and providing clean clothing and protective equipment to farmworkers.Sato said that with producers embracing these practices, the lateral spread of avian influenza decreased from&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/downloads/animal_diseases/ai/epi-analyses-hpai-poultry-july2022.pdf">70% of reported cases in 2015 to roughly 16% of reported cases in 2023.</a>Moffitt added that efforts to control the virus are projected to cost the country less than 50% of its 2015 expenditures of $1.6 billion.However, animal disease experts caution that the U.S. is dealing with a more widely dispersed and distinct disease than that of the 2015 HPAI outbreak.Nichola Hill, an&nbsp;assistant professor of biology at&nbsp;the University of Massachusetts, said at the April 26 media event that researchers have detected the virus in 150 of the approximately 1,000 wild bird species found in the U.S., and the disease has affected&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-wild-birds">more than 6,000 wild birds.</a>Greg Tyler, the president and CEO of USA Poultry and Egg Export Council, said that this version of the disease has also gotten into&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fws.gov/media/migratory-bird-flyways-north-america">all four major migratory flyways&nbsp;</a>for wild birds in the U.S.Sato said that more backyard flocks of poultry are being affected by the spread of bird flu from migratory populations — a total of 507 small to mid-sized flocks — in contrast to the 21 backyard flocks affected in 2015.There are also new concerns emerging among experts that this deadly disease could become endemic to North America without significant public-private collaboration to reduce spread, according to&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320723001428?via%3Dihub">an April study</a>&nbsp;from researchers at the University of Maryland.“Federal agencies, state agencies, the agriculture sector and wildlife management — we are all going to have to deal with this together, because we can’t afford not to,” said Jennifer Mullinax, an assistant professor in the University of Maryland Department of Environmental Science and Technology,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agnr.umd.edu/news/why-bird-flu-different-scientists-say-new-avian-influenza-requires-urgent-coordinated-response">in a release.</a><h2>What about a vaccine?</h2>While some animal health experts say developing a vaccine for the current bird flu strain could be a valuable tool, trade experts caution that a national vaccination strategy would not come quickly, or without tradeoffs for the nation’s&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/poultry-meat-prods-ex-eggs">$6 billion poultry export industry.</a>Sato said that a national vaccination strategy for the roughly 10 billion commercial-purpose birds in the United States could be time-intensive, and cost billions of taxpayer dollars.Tom Super, senior vice president of communications at the National Chicken Council, said that&nbsp;his organization does not support the use of a vaccine for HPAI right now, as&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023aof-Padilla.pdf">most countries do not accept exports</a>&nbsp;from countries that vaccinate for the virus.These non-tariff trade barriers are designed to protect other nations’ unvaccinated poultry flocks from immunized birds that still carry the disease.&nbsp;Super added that if the U.S. vaccinates domestic birds, the broiler industry will be cut off from exports, costing billions of dollars to the U.S. economy every year.Tyler added that his organization found that if a vaccination campaign happens without adjustments to trade policy, there could be a potential loss of 200,000 farm jobs.Moffitt said that negotiations between the USDA and foreign partners are still ongoing to maintain international poultry export markets for certain states amid outbreaks in others in the country.Tyler said that the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Foreign Agricultural Service have made significant progress in developing regionalization agreements with foreign governments since 2015.He noted that the U.S. poultry industry has managed roughly $11.7 billion in exports over the last two years, despite the ongoing challenges of HPAI and bans on poultry exports by certain countries like China.Super and Tyler both advocated for continued funding for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to provide rapid-response support to farms.Moffitt urged adhering to biosecurity measures like interstate surveillance and the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/cal-defend-the-flock-2023.pdf">Defend the Flock&nbsp;</a>program at the April 18 hearing. Moffitt cited that the number of infections in commercial flocks in March 2023 decreased tenfold compared to March 2022, proof the USDA’s current strategy of rapid tests and reporting is working.“We know how to respond quickly, so producers can get back to producing food, how important biosecurity is, how to keep markets open,” she said. “We know what to do, and we are ready.”