USDA Announces More Than $160 Million Available in Funding for Food and Agriculture Research, Education, and Extension

By

-

February 21, 2015

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2015 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) today announced the availability of more than $160 million in funding for research, education, and extension projects that address key challenges affecting U.S. agriculture production. NIFA will fund the awards through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).

“The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative was created to find innovative solutions to the challenges we face as a society, such as hunger and food security, health, climate, food safety, and bioenergy,” said Sonny Ramaswamy, NIFA director. “We are now in AFRI’s sixth year, and already the program has made strides in advancing agricultural science. I am extremely proud of the work NIFA has funded thus far, and excited to see what groundbreaking research, education, and extension projects will result from this year’s funding. These projects provide funding for the critical research, training, and assistance that ultimately strengthens rural America and our economy.”

NIFA released six separate requests for applications (RFA) through the AFRI program. Five RFAs will support AFRI’s challenge areas: food security, water, childhood obesity prevention, food safety, and climate. The challenge areas fund integrated, applied science that seek to find solutions to societal challenges that impact our ability to feed, clothe, and shelter a rising global population. An additional RFA for the AFRI Foundational program will addresses the six Farm Bill priority areas: 1) plant health and production and plant products; 2) animal health and production and animal products; 3) food safety, nutrition and health; 4) bioenergy, natural resources and environment; 5) agriculture systems and technology; and 6) agriculture economics and rural communities.

Fiscal Year 2015 AFRI RFAs include:

Foundational Program	This program builds a foundation of knowledge in fundamental and applied food and agricultural sciences that are critical for solving current and future societal challenges. The program funds work across all six Farm Bill priority areas.	$116 million
Water	The Water challenge area focuses on developing solutions for water management that link food, water, climate, energy, and environmental issues. Funding will be used to develop management practices, technologies, and tools for farmers, ranchers, forest owners, and citizens to improve water resource quantity and quality.	$9 million
Food Safety	The goal of this program is to further develop and promote the use of innovative and sustainable food processing technologies and better understand, characterize, and mitigate antimicrobial resistance across the food chain, from farm-to-fork.	$6 million
Agricultural and Natural Resources Science for Climate Variability and Change	In fiscal year 2015, NIFA will accept applications that support research to facilitate the adaptation of agroecosystems and natural resource systems to climate variability and the implementation of mitigation strategies in those systems. NIFA is soliciting proposals in three program areas: 1) climate and microbial processes in agroecosystems, 2) climate resilient land use for agriculture and forestry, and 3) synthesis and assessment of NIFA’s climate investments.	$5 million
Childhood Obesity Prevention	Fiscal year 2015 funding is focused on generating new knowledge of behavioral, social, and environmental factors that influence childhood obesity. This knowledge should be used to develop and implement effective interventions for preventing overweight and obesity and promoting healthy behaviors in children and adolescents. The program focuses on prevention of weight gain and does not fund projects to promote weight loss.	$6 million
Food Security	This program’s goal is to develop more sustainable, productive, and economically viable plant and animal production systems. It will also develop regionally-adapted crop cultivars and livestock breeds that contribute to rural economic development and prosperity while enhancing food security.	$16 million

Application deadlines vary by program area. See the request for application for more details. NIFA released the AFRI Food Security Challenge Area RFA on January 30, 2015 in a separate announcement.

The purpose of AFRI is to support research, education, and extension work by awarding grants that address key problems of national, regional, and multi-state importance in sustaining all components of food and agriculture. AFRI is NIFA’s flagship competitive grant program authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill and supports work in six priority areas: 1) plant health and production and plant products; 2) animal health and production and animal products; 3) food safety, nutrition and health; 4) bioenergy, natural resources and environment; 5) agriculture systems and technology; and 6) agriculture economics and rural communities.

The 2014 Farm Bill requires NIFA to establish Centers of Excellence for food and agricultural research, education, and extension. Applicants who meet the requirements of this funding opportunity are also eligible to apply for Center of Excellence designation as part of their grant application, which gives them priority consideration during the external peer review process. Information on applying for this designation can be found in the RFA.

Through federal funding and leadership for research, education and extension programs, NIFA focuses on investing in science and solving critical issues impacting people’s daily lives and the nation’s future. More information is at: www.nifa.usda.gov.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users).

Milk Production

By

Editor

-

February 21, 2015

0

ISSN: 1949-1557

Released February 20, 2015, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA).

January Milk Production up 2.1 percent

Milk production in the 23 major States during January totaled 16.5 billion

pounds, up 2.1 percent from January 2014. December revised production at 16.3

billion pounds, was up 3.4 percent from December 2013. The December revision

represented an increase of 14 million pounds or 0.1 percent from last month’s

preliminary production estimate.

Production per cow in the 23 major States averaged 1,918 pounds for January,

17 pounds above January 2014. This is the highest production per cow for the

month of January since the 23 State series began in 2003.

The number of milk cows on farms in the 23 major States was 8.62 million

head, 103,000 head more than January 2014, and 8,000 head more than December

2014.

2014 Annual Milk Production up 2.4 Percent from 2013

The annual production of milk for the United States during 2014 was 206

billion pounds, 2.4 percent above 2013. Revisions to 2013 production

increased the annual total 13 million pounds. Revised 2014 production was up

52 million pounds from last month’s publication.

Production per cow in the United States averaged 22,258 pounds for 2014,

442 pounds above 2013. The average annual rate of milk production per cow has

increased 13.9 percent from 2005.

The average number of milk cows on farms in the United States during 2014 was

9.26 million head, up 0.4 percent from 2013. The average number of milk cows

was revised up 2,000 head for 2014.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Milk Cows and Production by Quarter – United States: 2014-2015………………………….. 4

Milk Cows and Production By Month – 23 Selected States: 2014-2015……………………….. 4

Estimated Milk Cows and Production By Month – United States: 2014-2015…………………… 4

Milk Cows and Production – 23 Selected States: January 2014 and 2015…………………….. 5

Monthly Milk Production – 23 Selected States………………………………………. 5

Milk Cows and Production – 23 Selected States: December 2013 and 2014……………………. 6

Monthly Milk Cows – 23 Selected States……………………………………………….. 6

Milk Cows and Production – United States: 2005-2014……………………………………. 7

Milk Production – United States: 2005-2014……………………………………………. 7

Milk Cows and Production – States and United States: 2013 and 2014………………………. 8

Milk Cows – United States: 2005-2014…………………………………………………. 9

Rate per Cow – United States: 2005-2014………………………………………………. 9

Milk Cows by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2013………….. 10

Milk Cows by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2014………….. 11

Milk Produced per Cow by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2013.. 12

Milk Produced per Cow by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2014.. 13

Milk Production by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2013…….. 14

Milk Production by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2014…….. 15

Milk Cows and Production by Quarter – States and United States: 2013…………………….. 16

Milk Cows and Production by Quarter – States and United States: 2014…………………….. 17

Licensed Dairy Herds – States and United States: 2013 and 2014………………………….. 18

Statistical Methodology…………………………………………………………….. 19

Reliability of Monthly Milk Production Estimates………………………………………. 19

Information Contacts……………………………………………………………….. 20

Milk Cows and Production by Quarter – United States: 2014-2015

[May not add due to rounding]

—————————————————————————————

: Milk Cows 1/ : Milk Per Cow 2/ : Milk Production 2/

:———————————————————————

Quarter : : : : : : : Change

: 2014 : 2015 : 2014 : 2015 : 2014 : 2015 : From

: : : : : : : 2014

—————————————————————————————

: 1,000 Head — Pounds — Million Pounds Percent

:

January-March …: 9,216 5,536 51,020

April-June ……: 9,253 5,717 52,897

July-September ..: 9,270 5,520 51,173

October-December : 9,287 5,487 50,956

:

Annual ……….: 9,257 22,258 206,046

—————————————————————————————

1/ Includes dry cows. Excludes heifers not yet fresh.

2/ Excludes milk sucked by calves.

Milk Cows and Production By Month – 23 Selected States: 2014-2015

————————————————————————————————————————

: Milk cows1/ : Milk per cow2/ : Milk production2/

:——————————————————————————————————–

: : : : : : : Change

Month : 2014 : 2015 : 2014 : 2015 : 2014 : 2015 : from

: : : : : : : 2014

:——————————————————————————————————–

: 1,000 head 1,000 head pounds pounds million pounds million pounds percent

:

January …….: 8,516 8,619 1,901 1,918 16,186 16,527 2.1

February ……: 8,516 1,749 14,892

March ………: 8,530 1,957 16,690

April ………: 8,547 1,912 16,344

May ………..: 8,558 1,979 16,934

June ……….: 8,572 1,895 16,241

July ……….: 8,583 1,909 16,381

August ……..: 8,585 1,885 16,184

September …..: 8,593 1,806 15,519

October …….: 8,594 1,864 16,017

November ……: 8,598 1,806 15,527

December ……: 8,611 1,888 16,256

:

Annual ……..: 8,567 22,551 193,171

————————————————————————————————————————

1/ Includes dry cows. Excludes heifers not yet fresh.

2/ Excludes milk sucked by calves.

Estimated Milk Cows and Production By Month – United States: 2014-2015

————————————————————————————————————————

: Milk cows1/ : Milk per cow2/ : Milk production2/

:——————————————————————————————————–

: : : : : : : Change

Month : 2014 : 2015 : 2014 : 2015 : 2014 : 2015 : from

: : : : : : : 2014

:——————————————————————————————————–

: 1,000 head 1,000 head pounds pounds million pounds million pounds percent

:

January …….: 9,212 9,308 1,876 1,895 17,284 17,640 2.1

February ……: 9,212 1,727 15,907

March ………: 9,223 1,933 17,829

April ………: 9,240 1,892 17,480

May ………..: 9,252 1,956 18,094

June ……….: 9,267 1,869 17,323

July ……….: 9,268 1,881 17,435

August ……..: 9,268 1,858 17,224

September …..: 9,274 1,781 16,514

October …….: 9,277 1,840 17,071

November ……: 9,284 1,783 16,551

December ……: 9,299 1,864 17,334

:

Annual ……..: 9,257 22,258 206,046

————————————————————————————————————————

1/ Includes dry cows. Excludes heifers not yet fresh.

2/ Excludes milk sucked by calves.

Milk Cows and Production – 23 Selected States: January 2014 and 2015

[May not add due to rounding]

———————————————————————————————————

: Milk cows1/ : Milk per cow2/ : Milk Production 2/

:—————————————————————————————–

: : : : : : : Change

: 2014 : 2015 : 2014 : 2015 : 2014 : 2015 : from

: : : : : : : 2014

:—————————————————————————————–

:1,000 head 1,000 head pounds pounds million pounds million pounds percent

:

Arizona …….: 192 195 2,070 2,095 397 409 3.0

California ….: 1,781 1,779 2,035 1,985 3,624 3,531 -2.6

Colorado ……: 140 145 2,085 2,140 292 310 6.2

Florida …….: 123 124 1,810 1,825 223 226 1.3

Idaho ………: 566 580 2,005 1,985 1,135 1,151 1.4

Illinois ……: 95 94 1,675 1,700 159 160 0.6

Indiana …….: 178 181 1,810 1,890 322 342 6.2

Iowa ……….: 205 210 1,905 1,950 391 410 4.9

Kansas ……..: 137 143 1,870 1,880 256 269 5.1

Michigan ……: 381 403 2,045 2,120 779 854 9.6

:

Minnesota …..: 460 460 1,690 1,740 777 800 3.0

New Mexico ….: 323 323 2,110 2,070 682 669 -1.9

New York ……: 615 616 1,845 1,910 1,135 1,177 3.7

Ohio ……….: 267 268 1,700 1,770 454 474 4.4

Oregon ……..: 124 125 1,735 1,720 215 215 –

Pennsylvania ..: 531 530 1,700 1,755 903 930 3.0

South Dakota ..: 95 100 1,820 1,880 173 188 8.7

Texas ………: 445 470 1,925 1,905 857 895 4.4

Utah ……….: 95 96 1,840 1,950 175 187 6.9

Vermont …….: 132 132 1,690 1,710 223 226 1.3

:

Virginia ……: 93 93 1,650 1,650 153 153 –

Washington ….: 268 277 2,025 2,000 543 554 2.0

Wisconsin …..: 1,270 1,275 1,825 1,880 2,318 2,397 3.4

:

23-State Total : 8,516 8,619 1,901 1,918 16,186 16,527 2.1

———————————————————————————————————

– Represents zero.

1/ Includes dry cows. Excludes heifers not yet fresh.

2/ Excludes milk sucked by calves.

Milk Cows and Production – 23 Selected States: December 2013 and 2014

—————————————————————————————

: Milk cows 1/ : Milk per cow 2/ : Milk production 2/

:———————————————————————–

State : : : : : : : Change

: 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : from

: : : : : : : 2013

—————————————————————————————

: — 1,000 head — —- pounds — million pounds percent

:

Arizona …….: 191 194 1,985 2,055 379 399 5.3

California ….: 1,781 1,780 1,950 1,950 3,473 3,471 -0.1

Colorado ……: 140 145 2,060 2,115 288 307 6.6

Florida …….: 123 124 1,600 1,675 197 208 5.6

Idaho ………: 565 579 1,960 1,995 1,107 1,155 4.3

Illinois ……: 95 94 1,630 1,680 155 158 1.9

Indiana …….: 178 180 1,820 1,865 324 336 3.7

Iowa ……….: 206 209 1,875 1,930 386 403 4.4

Kansas ……..: 136 143 1,845 1,870 251 267 6.4

Michigan ……: 380 402 2,020 2,080 768 836 8.9

:

Minnesota …..: 460 460 1,660 1,705 764 784 2.6

New Mexico ….: 323 323 2,050 2,060 662 665 0.5

New York ……: 613 615 1,820 1,890 1,116 1,162 4.1

Ohio ……….: 267 268 1,680 1,710 449 458 2.0

Oregon ……..: 124 125 1,675 1,655 208 207 -0.5

Pennsylvania ..: 530 530 1,645 1,705 872 904 3.7

South Dakota ..: 95 98 1,815 1,890 172 185 7.6

Texas ………: 440 470 1,820 1,870 801 879 9.7

Utah ……….: 95 96 1,830 1,940 174 186 6.9

Vermont …….: 132 132 1,650 1,705 218 225 3.2

:

Virginia ……: 94 93 1,600 1,630 150 152 1.3

Washington ….: 266 277 1,955 1,970 520 546 5.0

Wisconsin …..: 1,270 1,274 1,805 1,855 2,292 2,363 3.1

:

23-State Total : 8,504 8,611 1,849 1,888 15,726 16,256 3.4

—————————————————————————————

1/ Includes dry cows; excludes heifers not yet fresh.

2/ Excludes milk sucked by calves.

Milk Cows and Production – United States: 2005-2014

[May not add due to rounding]

——————————————————————————–

: : Production per cow : Milk production

: : 2/ : 2/

Year : Milk cows 1/ :———————————————-

: : Milk : Total

——————————————————————————–

: 1,000 head pounds million pounds

:

2005 ……..: 9,050 19,550 176,931

2006 ……..: 9,137 19,895 181,782

2007 ……..: 9,189 20,204 185,654

2008 ……..: 9,314 20,397 189,978

2009 ……..: 9,202 20,561 189,202

2010 ……..: 9,123 21,142 192,877

2011 ……..: 9,199 21,334 196,255

2012 ……..: 9,237 21,722 200,642

2013 ……..: 9,224 21,816 201,231

2014 ……..: 9,257 22,258 206,046

——————————————————————————–

1/ Average number during year, excluding heifers not yet fresh.

2/ Excludes milk sucked by calves.

Milk Cows and Production – States and United States: 2013 and 2014

[May not add due to rounding.]

————————————————————————————————————————————

: Milk cows 1/ : Milk per cow 2/ : Milk production 2/

:——————————————————————————————————————-

: : : : : : : Change

: 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : from

: : : : : : : 2013

————————————————————————————————————————————

: 1,000 head 1,000 head pounds pounds million pounds million pounds percent

:

Alabama ……..: 9.0 8.0 13,000 13,625 117.0 109.0 -6.8

Alaska ………: 0.3 0.3 10,667 11,667 3.2 3.5 9.4

Arizona ……..: 190.0 193.0 23,626 24,347 4,489.0 4,699.0 4.7

Arkansas …….: 9.0 7.0 11,667 13,714 105.0 96.0 -8.6

California …..: 1,780.0 1,780.0 23,178 23,785 41,256.0 42,337.0 2.6

Colorado …….: 137.0 144.0 24,292 24,951 3,328.0 3,593.0 8.0

Connecticut ….: 18.0 19.0 20,556 20,158 370.0 383.0 3.5

Delaware …….: 4.8 4.8 19,521 20,146 93.7 96.7 3.2

Florida ……..: 123.0 123.0 19,374 20,382 2,383.0 2,507.0 5.2

Georgia ……..: 80.0 81.0 19,600 20,790 1,568.0 1,684.0 7.4

:

Hawaii ………: 2.2 2.2 13,409 13,591 29.5 29.9 1.4

Idaho ……….: 573.0 575.0 23,440 24,127 13,431.0 13,873.0 3.3

Illinois …….: 96.0 94.0 19,063 19,681 1,830.0 1,850.0 1.1

Indiana ……..: 176.0 178.0 21,761 21,865 3,830.0 3,892.0 1.6

Iowa ………..: 208.0 207.0 22,149 22,444 4,607.0 4,646.0 0.8

Kansas ………: 134.0 141.0 21,881 22,064 2,932.0 3,111.0 6.1

Kentucky …….: 71.0 63.0 15,070 15,905 1,070.0 1,002.0 -6.4

Louisiana ……: 16.0 15.0 12,875 13,600 206.0 204.0 -1.0

Maine ……….: 31.0 30.0 19,548 20,000 606.0 600.0 -1.0

Maryland …….: 50.0 50.0 19,440 19,740 972.0 987.0 1.5

:

Massachusetts ..: 13.0 13.0 17,692 17,923 230.0 233.0 1.3

Michigan …….: 380.0 390.0 24,116 24,638 9,164.0 9,609.0 4.9

Minnesota ……: 464.0 460.0 19,694 19,841 9,138.0 9,127.0 -0.1

Mississippi ….: 14.0 13.0 13,286 14,462 186.0 188.0 1.1

Missouri …….: 92.0 89.0 14,663 15,539 1,349.0 1,383.0 2.5

Montana ……..: 14.0 14.0 21,286 21,500 298.0 301.0 1.0

Nebraska …….: 54.0 54.0 21,574 22,130 1,165.0 1,195.0 2.6

Nevada ………: 29.0 29.0 22,034 23,793 639.0 690.0 8.0

New Hampshire ..: 13.0 14.0 20,923 20,143 272.0 282.0 3.7

New Jersey …..: 7.0 7.0 18,143 18,143 127.0 127.0 –

:

New Mexico …..: 323.0 323.0 24,944 25,093 8,057.0 8,105.0 0.6

New York …….: 610.0 615.0 22,070 22,330 13,463.0 13,733.0 2.0

North Carolina .: 46.0 46.0 20,326 20,891 935.0 961.0 2.8

North Dakota …: 18.0 16.0 18,944 20,250 341.0 324.0 -5.0

Ohio ………..: 270.0 267.0 20,178 20,318 5,448.0 5,425.0 -0.4

Oklahoma …….: 45.0 40.0 17,311 17,425 779.0 697.0 -10.5

Oregon ………: 123.0 124.0 20,439 20,605 2,514.0 2,555.0 1.6

Pennsylvania …: 533.0 530.0 19,797 20,157 10,552.0 10,683.0 1.2

Rhode Island …: 0.9 0.9 19,000 19,000 17.1 17.1 –

South Carolina .: 16.0 16.0 16,500 16,375 264.0 262.0 -0.8

:

South Dakota …: 94.0 97.0 21,521 21,742 2,023.0 2,109.0 4.3

Tennessee ……: 48.0 46.0 15,938 16,304 765.0 750.0 -2.0

Texas ……….: 437.0 463.0 21,991 22,268 9,610.0 10,310.0 7.3

Utah ………..: 95.0 95.0 22,432 22,968 2,131.0 2,182.0 2.4

Vermont ……..: 134.0 132.0 19,448 20,197 2,606.0 2,666.0 2.3

Virginia …….: 95.0 93.0 18,337 19,140 1,742.0 1,780.0 2.2

Washington …..: 266.0 273.0 23,820 24,117 6,336.0 6,584.0 3.9

West Virginia ..: 10.0 9.0 15,200 15,556 152.0 140.0 -7.9

Wisconsin ……: 1,271.0 1,271.0 21,693 21,869 27,572.0 27,795.0 0.8

Wyoming ……..: 6.0 6.0 21,367 21,583 128.2 129.5 1.0

:

United States ..: 9,224.0 9,257.0 21,816 22,258 201,231.0 206,046.0 2.4

————————————————————————————————————————————

– Represents zero.

1/ Average number during year, excluding heifers not yet fresh.

2/ Excludes milk sucked by calves.

Milk Cows by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2013

[Includes dry cows, excludes heifers not yet fresh]

———————————————————————————————-

State : January : February : March 3/ : April 3/ : May 3/ : June 3/

———————————————————————————————-

: 1,000 head

:

Arizona ………: 190 190

California ……: 1,780 1,780

Colorado ……..: 135 135

Florida ………: 122 122

Idaho ………..: 579 577

Illinois ……..: 97 96

Indiana ………: 175 174

Iowa …………: 206 208

Kansas ……….: 132 132

Michigan ……..: 378 378

:

Minnesota …….: 465 465

New Mexico ……: 320 322

New York ……..: 610 610

Ohio …………: 271 271

Oregon ……….: 123 123

Pennsylvania ….: 535 534

South Dakota ….: 92 92

Texas ………..: 435 435

Utah …………: 95 95

Vermont ………: 134 134

:

Virginia ……..: 94 94

Washington ……: 264 264

Wisconsin …….: 1,270 1,270

:

23-State total ..: 8,502 8,501

:

United States 2/ : 9,226 9,226

———————————————————————————————-

See footnote(s) at end of table. –continued

:—————————————————————————-

: : : : : : : Annual

: July : August :September : October : November : December :average 1/

:—————————————————————————-

:

Arizona ………: 188 188 188 190 190 191 190

California ……: 1,780 1,780 1,781 1,780 1,780 1,781 1,780

Colorado ……..: 137 137 137 137 138 140 137

Florida ………: 123 123 123 123 123 123 123

Idaho ………..: 574 573 571 569 567 565 573

Illinois ……..: 95 95 95 95 95 95 96

Indiana ………: 177 177 177 178 178 178 176

Iowa …………: 210 208 206 206 206 206 208

Kansas ……….: 136 135 134 135 135 136 134

Michigan ……..: 381 381 381 380 380 380 380

:

Minnesota …….: 465 465 463 463 461 460 464

New Mexico ……: 324 324 322 322 322 323 323

New York ……..: 610 610 610 610 611 613 610

Ohio …………: 271 271 270 269 268 267 270

Oregon ……….: 123 123 123 123 123 124 123

Pennsylvania ….: 534 533 532 530 530 530 533

South Dakota ….: 95 95 95 95 95 95 94

Texas ………..: 435 440 440 440 440 440 437

Utah …………: 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

Vermont ………: 135 135 133 132 132 132 134

:

Virginia ……..: 95 95 95 94 94 94 95

Washington ……: 268 268 266 266 266 266 266

Wisconsin …….: 1,272 1,272 1,272 1,272 1,271 1,270 1,271

:

23-State Total ..: 8,523 8,523 8,509 8,504 8,500 8,504 8,509

:

United States 2/ : 9,238 9,232 9,211 9,204 9,200 9,204 9,224

———————————————————————————————-

1/ Average based on monthly totals.

2/ United States monthly estimates are derived by proportionally allocating the quarterly

estimates using the 23-state monthly total.

3/ Survey was not conducted in April and July resulting in no milk cow data for March through

June.

Milk Cows by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2014

[Includes dry cows, excludes heifers not yet fresh]

———————————————————————————————-

State : January : February : March : April : May : June

———————————————————————————————-

: 1,000 head

:

Arizona ………: 192 192 192 192 192 193

California ……: 1,781 1,780 1,781 1,780 1,779 1,779

Colorado ……..: 140 140 141 143 144 145

Florida ………: 123 123 123 123 123 123

Idaho ………..: 566 567 570 572 574 577

Illinois ……..: 95 95 94 94 94 94

Indiana ………: 178 176 176 176 177 178

Iowa …………: 205 205 205 206 207 207

Kansas ……….: 137 137 138 140 141 142

Michigan ……..: 381 381 381 383 384 387

:

Minnesota …….: 460 460 459 460 460 460

New Mexico ……: 323 323 323 323 323 323

New York ……..: 615 615 615 615 615 615

Ohio …………: 267 266 266 267 266 266

Oregon ……….: 124 124 125 125 125 125

Pennsylvania ….: 531 531 531 531 530 530

South Dakota ….: 95 95 96 97 97 97

Texas ………..: 445 447 455 460 465 468

Utah …………: 95 95 95 95 95 95

Vermont ………: 132 132 131 131 131 131

:

Virginia ……..: 93 93 93 93 93 93

Washington ……: 268 269 270 272 274 274

Wisconsin …….: 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,269 1,269 1,270

:

23-State total ..: 8,516 8,516 8,530 8,547 8,558 8,572

:

United States 2/ : 9,212 9,212 9,223 9,240 9,252 9,267

———————————————————————————————-

See footnote(s) at end of table. –continued

———————————————————————————————-

: : : : : : : Annual

: July : August :September : October : November : December :average 1/

:—————————————————————————-

:

Arizona ………: 193 193 193 195 193 194 193

California ……: 1,779 1,779 1,779 1,779 1,780 1,780 1,780

Colorado ……..: 145 145 145 145 145 145 144

Florida ………: 123 123 123 123 123 124 123

Idaho ………..: 579 579 579 579 579 579 575

Illinois ……..: 94 94 94 93 93 94 94

Indiana ………: 179 179 179 179 179 180 178

Iowa …………: 208 208 208 208 208 209 207

Kansas ……….: 142 143 143 143 143 143 141

Michigan ……..: 394 394 396 397 399 402 390

:

Minnesota …….: 460 460 460 460 460 460 460

New Mexico ……: 323 323 323 323 323 323 323

New York ……..: 615 615 615 615 615 615 615

Ohio …………: 266 266 267 267 267 268 267

Oregon ……….: 123 123 124 124 124 125 124

Pennsylvania ….: 530 530 530 530 530 530 530

South Dakota ….: 97 97 97 97 98 98 97

Texas ………..: 470 470 470 470 470 470 463

Utah …………: 95 96 96 96 96 96 95

Vermont ………: 132 132 132 132 132 132 132

:

Virginia ……..: 93 93 93 92 92 93 93

Washington ……: 272 272 275 275 276 277 273

Wisconsin …….: 1,271 1,271 1,272 1,272 1,273 1,274 1,271

:

23-State total ..: 8,583 8,585 8,593 8,594 8,598 8,611 8,567

:

United States 2/ : 9,268 9,268 9,274 9,277 9,284 9,299 9,257

———————————————————————————————-

1/ Average based on monthly totals.

2/ United States monthly estimates are derived by proportionally allocating the quarterly

estimates using the 23-state monthly total.

Milk Produced per Cow by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2013

[Excludes milk sucked by calves]

———————————————————————————————-

State : January : February : March 2/ : April 2/ : May 2/ : June 2/

———————————————————————————————-

: pounds

:

Arizona ………: 2,075 1,940

California ……: 1,945 1,815

Colorado ……..: 2,045 1,865

Florida ………: 1,730 1,670

Idaho ………..: 1,910 1,740

Illinois ……..: 1,690 1,585

Indiana ………: 1,850 1,710

Iowa …………: 1,940 1,750

Kansas ……….: 1,855 1,705

Michigan ……..: 2,060 1,880

:

Minnesota …….: 1,715 1,565

New Mexico ……: 2,150 1,985

New York ……..: 1,855 1,695

Ohio …………: 1,725 1,590

Oregon ……….: 1,675 1,555

Pennsylvania ….: 1,690 1,560

South Dakota ….: 1,860 1,665

Texas ………..: 1,880 1,740

Utah …………: 1,855 1,665

Vermont ………: 1,650 1,505

:

Virginia ……..: 1,600 1,460

Washington ……: 1,985 1,825

Wisconsin …….: 1,870 1,705

:

23-State total ..: 1,881 1,732

:

United States 1/ : 1,855 1,708

———————————————————————————————-

See footnote(s) at end of table. –continued

:—————————————————————————-

: : : : : : : Annual

: July : August :September : October : November : December : average

:—————————————————————————-

:

Arizona ………: 1,845 1,830 1,720 1,880 1,860 1,985 23,626

California ……: 1,895 1,910 1,795 1,875 1,840 1,950 23,178

Colorado ……..: 2,100 2,095 1,965 2,045 1,990 2,060 24,292

Florida ………: 1,630 1,450 1,325 1,400 1,495 1,600 19,374

Idaho ………..: 2,045 2,060 1,925 1,950 1,885 1,960 23,440

Illinois ……..: 1,535 1,525 1,420 1,525 1,515 1,630 19,063

Indiana ………: 1,785 1,810 1,710 1,790 1,730 1,820 21,761

Iowa …………: 1,835 1,850 1,735 1,820 1,775 1,875 22,149

Kansas ……….: 1,820 1,790 1,710 1,835 1,800 1,845 21,881

Michigan ……..: 2,010 2,050 1,940 2,000 1,930 2,020 24,116

:

Minnesota …….: 1,645 1,635 1,565 1,610 1,565 1,660 19,694

New Mexico ……: 2,125 2,015 1,940 2,025 1,990 2,050 24,944

New York ……..: 1,860 1,885 1,775 1,825 1,750 1,820 22,070

Ohio …………: 1,650 1,680 1,575 1,650 1,600 1,680 20,178

Oregon ……….: 1,765 1,750 1,650 1,690 1,625 1,675 20,439

Pennsylvania ….: 1,630 1,660 1,570 1,620 1,585 1,645 19,797

South Dakota ….: 1,830 1,835 1,765 1,830 1,735 1,815 21,521

Texas ………..: 1,885 1,795 1,700 1,820 1,770 1,820 21,991

Utah …………: 1,960 1,960 1,830 1,865 1,780 1,830 22,432

Vermont ………: 1,620 1,630 1,560 1,620 1,570 1,650 19,448

:

Virginia ……..: 1,480 1,490 1,430 1,510 1,490 1,600 18,337

Washington ……: 2,040 2,040 1,930 1,975 1,885 1,955 23,820

Wisconsin …….: 1,820 1,835 1,745 1,795 1,725 1,805 21,693

:

23-State total ..: 1,850 1,851 1,748 1,816 1,765 1,849 22,145

:

United States 1/ : 1,818 1,819 1,719 1,788 1,739 1,822 21,816

———————————————————————————————-

1/ United States monthly estimates are derived by proportionally allocating the quarterly

estimates using the 23-state monthly total.

2/ Survey was not conducted in April and July resulting in no milk per cow data for March

through June.

Milk Produced per Cow by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2014

[Excludes milk sucked by calves]

———————————————————————————————-

State : January : February : March : April : May : June

———————————————————————————————-

: pounds

:

Arizona ………: 2,070 1,965 2,230 2,210 2,225 2,065

California ……: 2,035 1,910 2,140 2,065 2,110 1,995

Colorado ……..: 2,085 1,885 2,100 2,080 2,165 2,105

Florida ………: 1,810 1,715 1,925 1,870 1,885 1,770

Idaho ………..: 2,005 1,820 2,030 1,995 2,090 2,065

Illinois ……..: 1,675 1,545 1,755 1,725 1,765 1,640

Indiana ………: 1,810 1,660 1,875 1,845 1,935 1,840

Iowa …………: 1,905 1,725 1,920 1,880 1,965 1,860

Kansas ……….: 1,870 1,695 1,895 1,885 1,950 1,830

Michigan ……..: 2,045 1,880 2,090 2,060 2,145 2,085

:

Minnesota …….: 1,690 1,530 1,700 1,660 1,715 1,645

New Mexico ……: 2,110 1,950 2,210 2,135 2,240 2,130

New York ……..: 1,845 1,690 1,885 1,845 1,935 1,885

Ohio …………: 1,700 1,545 1,730 1,720 1,800 1,720

Oregon ……….: 1,735 1,595 1,800 1,770 1,825 1,735

Pennsylvania ….: 1,700 1,565 1,750 1,705 1,760 1,665

South Dakota ….: 1,820 1,650 1,845 1,785 1,855 1,805

Texas ………..: 1,925 1,745 1,965 1,930 1,990 1,850

Utah …………: 1,840 1,685 1,905 1,895 1,990 1,945

Vermont ………: 1,690 1,545 1,730 1,695 1,755 1,720

:

Virginia ……..: 1,650 1,500 1,680 1,660 1,700 1,570

Washington ……: 2,025 1,850 2,080 2,040 2,110 2,050

Wisconsin …….: 1,825 1,665 1,850 1,815 1,885 1,830

:

23-State total ..: 1,901 1,749 1,957 1,912 1,979 1,895

:

United States 1/ : 1,876 1,727 1,933 1,892 1,956 1,869

:—————————————————————————-

: : : : : : : Annual

: July : August :September : October : November : December : average

:—————————————————————————-

:

Arizona ………: 1,960 1,915 1,780 1,955 1,945 2,055 24,347

California ……: 1,980 1,940 1,850 1,930 1,885 1,950 23,785

Colorado ……..: 2,150 2,135 2,055 2,105 2,035 2,115 24,951

Florida ………: 1,715 1,565 1,420 1,470 1,535 1,675 20,382

Idaho ………..: 2,115 2,095 1,975 2,010 1,925 1,995 24,127

Illinois ……..: 1,640 1,565 1,510 1,600 1,580 1,680 19,681

Indiana ………: 1,830 1,830 1,770 1,820 1,775 1,865 21,865

Iowa …………: 1,885 1,855 1,805 1,875 1,835 1,930 22,444

Kansas ……….: 1,845 1,810 1,770 1,855 1,790 1,870 22,064

Michigan ……..: 2,120 2,115 2,000 2,055 1,970 2,080 24,638

:

Minnesota …….: 1,670 1,660 1,605 1,655 1,610 1,705 19,841

New Mexico ……: 2,130 2,100 2,000 2,050 1,975 2,060 25,093

New York ……..: 1,920 1,915 1,835 1,880 1,805 1,890 22,330

Ohio …………: 1,745 1,720 1,650 1,685 1,620 1,710 20,318

Oregon ……….: 1,755 1,725 1,670 1,685 1,615 1,655 20,605

Pennsylvania ….: 1,690 1,680 1,630 1,680 1,615 1,705 20,157

South Dakota ….: 1,845 1,855 1,795 1,860 1,795 1,890 21,742

Texas ………..: 1,840 1,785 1,745 1,825 1,785 1,870 22,268

Utah …………: 2,000 1,990 1,885 1,925 1,865 1,940 22,968

Vermont ………: 1,730 1,725 1,645 1,680 1,630 1,705 20,197

:

Virginia ……..: 1,580 1,580 1,495 1,580 1,550 1,630 19,140

Washington ……: 2,070 2,060 1,970 1,995 1,905 1,970 24,117

Wisconsin …….: 1,870 1,865 1,800 1,840 1,770 1,855 21,869

:

23-State total ..: 1,909 1,885 1,806 1,864 1,806 1,888 22,551

:

United States 1/ : 1,881 1,858 1,781 1,840 1,783 1,864 22,258

———————————————————————————————-

1/ United States monthly estimates are derived by proportionally allocating the quarterly

estimates using the 23-state monthly total.

Milk Production by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2013

[Excludes milk sucked by calves]

———————————————————————————————-

State : January : February : March : April : May : June

———————————————————————————————-

: million pounds

:

Arizona ………: 394 369 423 411 411 378

California ……: 3,462 3,231 3,676 3,622 3,720 3,489

Colorado ……..: 276 252 279 271 284 279

Florida ………: 211 204 227 220 225 202

Idaho ………..: 1,106 1,004 1,131 1,117 1,178 1,156

Illinois ……..: 164 152 168 162 164 150

Indiana ………: 324 298 331 328 340 319

Iowa …………: 400 364 407 394 405 383

Kansas ……….: 245 225 252 247 258 244

Michigan ……..: 779 711 794 765 798 770

:

Minnesota …….: 797 728 811 774 788 760

New Mexico ……: 688 639 715 700 714 679

New York ……..: 1,132 1,034 1,159 1,132 1,193 1,147

Ohio …………: 467 431 481 473 489 458

Oregon ……….: 206 191 216 213 222 215

Pennsylvania ….: 904 833 926 907 941 880

South Dakota ….: 171 153 171 163 170 168

Texas ………..: 818 757 840 816 840 800

Utah …………: 176 158 181 180 187 183

Vermont ………: 221 202 226 220 231 221

:

Virginia ……..: 150 137 153 153 155 143

Washington ……: 524 482 541 537 558 541

Wisconsin …….: 2,375 2,165 2,400 2,309 2,385 2,302

:

23-State total ..: 15,990 14,720 16,508 16,114 16,656 15,867

:

United States 2/ : 17,114 15,762 17,681 17,257 17,822 16,943

:—————————————————————————-

: : : : : : : Annual

: July : August :September : October : November : December : total 1/

:—————————————————————————-

:

Arizona ………: 347 344 323 357 353 379 4,489

California ……: 3,373 3,400 3,197 3,338 3,275 3,473 41,256

Colorado ……..: 288 287 269 280 275 288 3,328

Florida ………: 200 178 163 172 184 197 2,383

Idaho ………..: 1,174 1,180 1,099 1,110 1,069 1,107 13,431

Illinois ……..: 146 145 135 145 144 155 1,830

Indiana ………: 316 320 303 319 308 324 3,830

Iowa …………: 385 385 357 375 366 386 4,607

Kansas ……….: 248 242 229 248 243 251 2,932

Michigan ……..: 766 781 739 760 733 768 9,164

:

Minnesota …….: 765 760 725 745 721 764 9,138

New Mexico ……: 689 653 625 652 641 662 8,057

New York ……..: 1,135 1,150 1,083 1,113 1,069 1,116 13,463

Ohio …………: 447 455 425 444 429 449 5,448

Oregon ……….: 217 215 203 208 200 208 2,514

Pennsylvania ….: 870 885 835 859 840 872 10,552

South Dakota ….: 174 174 168 174 165 172 2,023

Texas ………..: 820 790 748 801 779 801 9,610

Utah …………: 186 186 174 177 169 174 2,131

Vermont ………: 219 220 207 214 207 218 2,606

:

Virginia ……..: 141 142 136 142 140 150 1,742

Washington ……: 547 547 513 525 501 520 6,336

Wisconsin …….: 2,315 2,334 2,220 2,283 2,192 2,292 27,572

:

23-State total ..: 15,768 15,773 14,876 15,441 15,003 15,726 188,442

:

United States 2/ : 16,791 16,793 15,837 16,461 15,998 16,772 201,231

———————————————————————————————-

1/ Total milk production for year.

2/ United States monthly estimates are derived by proportionally allocating the quarterly

estimates using the 23-state monthly total.

Milk Production by Month – 23 Selected States, 23 State Total, and United States: 2014

[[Excludes milk sucked by calves]]

———————————————————————————————-

State : January : February : March : April : May : June

———————————————————————————————-

: million pounds

:

Arizona ………: 397 377 428 424 427 399

California ……: 3,624 3,400 3,811 3,676 3,754 3,549

Colorado ……..: 292 264 296 297 312 305

Florida ………: 223 211 237 230 232 218

Idaho ………..: 1,135 1,032 1,157 1,141 1,200 1,192

Illinois ……..: 159 147 165 162 166 154

Indiana ………: 322 292 330 325 342 328

Iowa …………: 391 354 394 387 407 385

Kansas ……….: 256 232 262 264 275 260

Michigan ……..: 779 716 796 789 824 807

:

Minnesota …….: 777 704 780 764 789 757

New Mexico ……: 682 630 714 690 724 688

New York ……..: 1,135 1,039 1,159 1,135 1,190 1,159

Ohio …………: 454 411 460 459 479 458

Oregon ……….: 215 198 225 221 228 217

Pennsylvania ….: 903 831 929 905 933 882

South Dakota ….: 173 157 177 173 180 175

Texas ………..: 857 780 894 888 925 866

Utah …………: 175 160 181 180 189 185

Vermont ………: 223 204 227 222 230 225

:

Virginia ……..: 153 140 156 154 158 146

Washington ……: 543 498 562 555 578 562

Wisconsin …….: 2,318 2,115 2,350 2,303 2,392 2,324

:

23-State total ..: 16,186 14,892 16,690 16,344 16,934 16,241

:

United States 2/ : 17,284 15,907 17,829 17,480 18,094 17,323

:—————————————————————————-

: : : : : : : Annual

: July : August :September : October : November : December : total 1/

:—————————————————————————-

:

Arizona ………: 378 370 344 381 375 399 4,699

California ……: 3,522 3,451 3,291 3,433 3,355 3,471 42,337

Colorado ……..: 312 310 298 305 295 307 3,593

Florida ………: 211 192 175 181 189 208 2,507

Idaho ………..: 1,225 1,213 1,144 1,164 1,115 1,155 13,873

Illinois ……..: 154 147 142 149 147 158 1,850

Indiana ………: 328 328 317 326 318 336 3,892

Iowa …………: 392 386 375 390 382 403 4,646

Kansas ……….: 262 259 253 265 256 267 3,111

Michigan ……..: 835 833 792 816 786 836 9,609

:

Minnesota …….: 768 764 738 761 741 784 9,127

New Mexico ……: 688 678 646 662 638 665 8,105

New York ……..: 1,181 1,178 1,129 1,156 1,110 1,162 13,733

Ohio …………: 464 458 441 450 433 458 5,425

Oregon ……….: 216 212 207 209 200 207 2,555

Pennsylvania ….: 896 890 864 890 856 904 10,683

South Dakota ….: 179 180 174 180 176 185 2,109

Texas ………..: 865 839 820 858 839 879 10,310

Utah …………: 190 191 181 185 179 186 2,182

Vermont ………: 228 228 217 222 215 225 2,666

:

Virginia ……..: 147 147 139 145 143 152 1,780

Washington ……: 563 560 542 549 526 546 6,584

Wisconsin …….: 2,377 2,370 2,290 2,340 2,253 2,363 27,795

:

23-State total ..: 16,381 16,184 15,519 16,017 15,527 16,256 193,171

:

United States 2/ : 17,435 17,224 16,514 17,071 16,551 17,334 206,046

———————————————————————————————-

1/ Total milk production for year.

2/ United States monthly estimates are derived by proportionally allocating the quarterly

estimates using the 23-state monthly total.

Milk Cows and Production by Quarter – States and United States: 2013

[May not add due to rounding]

—————————————————————————————————————

: Milk cows 1/ : Milk production 2/

State :———————————————————————————————–

:Jan-Mar 3/ :Apr-Jun 3/ : Jul-Sep : Oct-Dec : Jan-Mar : Apr-Jun : Jul-Sep : Oct-Dec

—————————————————————————————————————

: ————– 1,000 head ————– ————– million pounds ————–

:

Alabama …….: 9.0 9.0 33.0 34.0 25.0 25.0

Alaska ……..: 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Arizona …….: 188.0 190.0 1,186.0 1,200.0 1,014.0 1,089.0

Arkansas ……: 8.0 8.0 31.0 30.0 22.0 22.0

California ….: 1,780.0 1,780.0 10,369.0 10,831.0 9,970.0 10,086.0

Colorado ……: 137.0 138.0 807.0 834.0 844.0 843.0

Connecticut …: 18.0 18.0 92.0 99.0 89.0 90.0

Delaware ……: 4.7 4.7 24.7 24.7 21.6 22.7

Florida …….: 123.0 123.0 642.0 647.0 541.0 553.0

Georgia …….: 80.0 80.0 414.0 421.0 357.0 376.0

:

Hawaii ……..: 2.2 2.2 7.0 7.9 7.4 7.2

Idaho ………: 573.0 567.0 3,241.0 3,451.0 3,453.0 3,286.0

Illinois ……: 95.0 95.0 484.0 476.0 426.0 444.0

Indiana …….: 177.0 178.0 953.0 987.0 939.0 951.0

Iowa ……….: 208.0 206.0 1,171.0 1,182.0 1,127.0 1,127.0

Kansas ……..: 135.0 135.0 722.0 749.0 719.0 742.0

Kentucky ……: 70.0 69.0 289.0 283.0 244.0 254.0

Louisiana …..: 15.0 15.0 60.0 58.0 42.0 46.0

Maine ………: 31.0 30.0 151.0 157.0 152.0 146.0

Maryland ……: 50.0 50.0 250.0 249.0 232.0 241.0

:

Massachusetts .: 12.5 12.0 59.0 61.0 56.0 54.0

Michigan ……: 381.0 380.0 2,284.0 2,333.0 2,286.0 2,261.0

Minnesota …..: 464.0 461.0 2,336.0 2,322.0 2,250.0 2,230.0

Mississippi …: 13.0 13.0 52.0 51.0 39.0 44.0

Missouri ……: 92.0 90.0 346.0 369.0 316.0 318.0

Montana …….: 14.0 14.0 73.0 76.0 74.0 75.0

Nebraska ……: 54.0 53.0 298.0 299.0 283.0 285.0

Nevada ……..: 29.0 29.0 156.0 167.0 158.0 158.0

New Hampshire .: 13.0 13.5 69.0 68.0 68.0 67.0

New Jersey ….: 7.0 7.0 32.0 33.0 31.0 31.0

:

New Mexico ….: 323.0 322.0 2,042.0 2,093.0 1,967.0 1,955.0

New York ……: 610.0 611.0 3,325.0 3,472.0 3,368.0 3,298.0

North Carolina : 46.0 45.0 244.0 245.0 219.0 227.0

North Dakota ..: 17.5 17.0 88.0 89.0 84.0 80.0

Ohio ……….: 271.0 268.0 1,379.0 1,420.0 1,327.0 1,322.0

Oklahoma ……: 45.0 45.0 217.0 210.0 175.0 177.0

Oregon ……..: 123.0 123.0 613.0 650.0 635.0 616.0

Pennsylvania ..: 533.0 530.0 2,663.0 2,728.0 2,590.0 2,571.0

Rhode Island ..: 0.9 0.9 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.0

South Carolina : 15.0 15.5 72.0 72.0 57.0 63.0

:

South Dakota ..: 95.0 95.0 495.0 501.0 516.0 511.0

Tennessee …..: 47.0 47.0 205.0 202.0 176.0 182.0

Texas ………: 438.0 440.0 2,415.0 2,456.0 2,358.0 2,381.0

Utah ……….: 95.0 95.0 515.0 550.0 546.0 520.0

Vermont …….: 134.0 132.0 649.0 672.0 646.0 639.0

Virginia ……: 95.0 94.0 440.0 451.0 419.0 432.0

Washington ….: 267.0 266.0 1,547.0 1,636.0 1,607.0 1,546.0

West Virginia .: 9.5 9.0 39.0 41.0 38.0 34.0

Wisconsin …..: 1,272.0 1,271.0 6,940.0 6,996.0 6,869.0 6,767.0

Wyoming …….: 6.0 6.0 32.0 32.7 32.5 31.0

:

United States .: 9,227.0 9,203.0 50,557.0 52,022.0 49,421.0 49,231.0

—————————————————————————————————————

1/ Quarterly average includes dry cows, excludes heifers not yet fresh.

2/ Excludes milk sucked by calves.

3/ Survey was not conducted in April and July resulting in no milk cow data for March through June.

Milk Cows and Production by Quarter – States and United States: 2014

[[May not add due to rounding]

—————————————————————————————————————

: Milk cows 1/ : Milk production 2/

State :———————————————————————————————–

: Jan-Mar : Apr-Jun : Jul-Sep : Oct-Dec : Jan-Mar : Apr-Jun : Jul-Sep : Oct-Dec

—————————————————————————————————————

: —————- 1,000 head ————— ————– million pounds ————–

:

Alabama …….: 9.0 8.5 8.0 8.0 30.0 31.0 23.0 25.0

Alaska ……..: 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Arizona …….: 192.0 192.0 193.0 194.0 1,202.0 1,250.0 1,092.0 1,155.0

Arkansas ……: 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.0 24.0 28.0 22.0 22.0

California ….: 1,781.0 1,779.0 1,779.0 1,780.0 10,835.0 10,979.0 10,264.0 10,259.0

Colorado ……: 140.0 144.0 145.0 145.0 852.0 914.0 920.0 907.0

Connecticut …: 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 96.0 97.0 95.0 95.0

Delaware ……: 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.9 24.5 24.9 23.0 24.3

Florida …….: 123.0 123.0 123.0 123.0 671.0 680.0 578.0 578.0

Georgia …….: 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 443.0 452.0 392.0 397.0

:

Hawaii ……..: 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 7.4 7.8 7.5 7.2

Idaho ………: 568.0 574.0 579.0 579.0 3,324.0 3,533.0 3,582.0 3,434.0

Illinois ……: 95.0 94.0 94.0 93.0 471.0 482.0 443.0 454.0

Indiana …….: 177.0 177.0 179.0 179.0 944.0 995.0 973.0 980.0

Iowa ……….: 205.0 207.0 208.0 208.0 1,139.0 1,179.0 1,153.0 1,175.0

Kansas ……..: 137.0 141.0 143.0 143.0 750.0 799.0 774.0 788.0

Kentucky ……: 64.0 64.0 60.0 62.0 257.0 268.0 229.0 248.0

Louisiana …..: 15.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 58.0 57.0 42.0 47.0

Maine ………: 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 145.0 152.0 154.0 149.0

Maryland ……: 50.0 50.0 49.0 49.0 252.0 254.0 238.0 243.0

:

Massachusetts .: 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 59.0 61.0 58.0 55.0

Michigan ……: 381.0 385.0 395.0 399.0 2,291.0 2,420.0 2,460.0 2,438.0

Minnesota …..: 460.0 460.0 460.0 460.0 2,261.0 2,310.0 2,270.0 2,286.0

Mississippi …: 13.0 13.0 12.5 12.0 52.0 51.0 40.0 45.0

Missouri ……: 90.0 91.0 88.0 88.0 336.0 373.0 337.0 337.0

Montana …….: 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 75.0 76.0 76.0 74.0

Nebraska ……: 53.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 292.0 302.0 297.0 304.0

Nevada ……..: 29.0 29.0 28.0 28.0 164.0 176.0 176.0 174.0

New Hampshire .: 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 71.0 72.0 70.0 69.0

New Jersey ….: 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 32.0 33.0 31.0 31.0

:

New Mexico ….: 323.0 323.0 323.0 323.0 2,026.0 2,102.0 2,012.0 1,965.0

New York ……: 615.0 615.0 615.0 615.0 3,333.0 3,484.0 3,488.0 3,428.0

North Carolina : 45.0 45.0 45.0 47.0 245.0 249.0 228.0 239.0

North Dakota ..: 17.0 16.5 16.0 16.0 81.0 84.0 80.0 79.0

Ohio ……….: 266.0 266.0 266.0 267.0 1,325.0 1,396.0 1,363.0 1,341.0

Oklahoma ……: 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 178.0 186.0 163.0 170.0

Oregon ……..: 124.0 125.0 123.0 124.0 638.0 666.0 635.0 616.0

Pennsylvania ..: 531.0 530.0 530.0 530.0 2,663.0 2,720.0 2,650.0 2,650.0

Rhode Island ..: 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.1

South Carolina : 16.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 71.0 71.0 59.0 61.0

:

South Dakota ..: 95.0 97.0 97.0 98.0 507.0 528.0 533.0 541.0

Tennessee …..: 46.0 46.0 45.0 47.0 188.0 197.0 176.0 189.0

Texas ………: 449.0 464.0 470.0 470.0 2,531.0 2,679.0 2,524.0 2,576.0

Utah ……….: 95.0 95.0 96.0 96.0 516.0 554.0 562.0 550.0

Vermont …….: 132.0 131.0 132.0 132.0 654.0 677.0 673.0 662.0

Virginia ……: 93.0 93.0 93.0 92.0 449.0 458.0 433.0 440.0

Washington ….: 269.0 273.0 273.0 276.0 1,603.0 1,695.0 1,665.0 1,621.0

West Virginia .: 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 35.0 37.0 34.0 34.0

Wisconsin …..: 1,270.0 1,269.0 1,271.0 1,273.0 6,783.0 7,019.0 7,037.0 6,956.0

Wyoming …….: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 31.5 33.0 33.0 32.0

:

United States .: 9,216.0 9,253.0 9,270.0 9,287.0 51,020.0 52,897.0 51,173.0 50,956.0

—————————————————————————————————————

1/ Quarterly average includes dry cows, excludes heifers not yet fresh.

2/ Excludes milk sucked by calves.

Licensed Dairy Herds – States and

United States: 2013 and 2014

———————————————

: Licensed dairy herds 1/

:—————————–

: 2013 : 2014

———————————————

: number

:

Alabama …….: 45 40

Alaska ……..: 3 2

Arizona …….: 110 100

Arkansas ……: 85 75

California ….: 1,535 1,485

Colorado ……: 130 120

Connecticut …: 130 130

Delaware ……: 40 40

Florida …….: 130 130

Georgia …….: 240 230

:

Hawaii ……..: 2 2

Idaho ………: 550 530

Illinois ……: 745 690

Indiana …….: 1,315 1,265

Iowa ……….: 1,425 1,370

Kansas ……..: 325 315

Kentucky ……: 780 720

Louisiana …..: 130 120

Maine ………: 300 280

Maryland ……: 470 450

:

Massachusetts .: 155 150

Michigan ……: 2,030 1,950

Minnesota …..: 3,865 3,605

Mississippi …: 100 85

Missouri ……: 1,290 1,230

Montana …….: 70 70

Nebraska ……: 200 190

Nevada ……..: 20 20

New Hampshire .: 120 120

New Jersey ….: 75 65

:

New Mexico ….: 140 130

New York ……: 5,040 4,950

North Carolina : 250 250

North Dakota ..: 110 100

Ohio ……….: 2,930 2,810

Oklahoma ……: 180 170

Oregon ……..: 260 250

Pennsylvania ..: 7,200 7,370

Rhode Island ..: 15 15

South Carolina : 80 80

:

South Dakota ..: 275 255

Tennessee …..: 390 370

Texas ………: 460 440

Utah ……….: 220 210

Vermont …….: 930 880

Virginia ……: 640 630

Washington ….: 480 480

West Virginia .: 80 75

Wisconsin …..: 10,860 10,290

Wyoming …….: 20 10

:

United States .: 46,975 45,344

———————————————

1/ Average number of dairy farms licensed to

sell milk, based on counts collected from

State and other regulatory agencies.

Statistical Methodology

Survey Procedures: Primary data used to determine these estimates were

obtained from a sample of producers. Individual States maintain a list of all

known milk producers and information on the size of their herd. States use

all known sources of producers to ensure that their lists are as complete as

possible. Generally, all large producers and a sample of small producers are

included in the survey. Questionnaires are mailed to producers near the end

of the month to obtain data for the first day of the month. Additional

reports are obtained by telephone, as needed, to supplement the mail

response. Where feasible, States utilize state and federal administrative

data to estimate milk production. This eliminates duplication of data

gathering by different government agencies. Indications of milk cow

inventory are also obtained in the January Cattle Surveys.

Estimation Procedures: State offices prepare these estimates by using a

combination of survey indications, historic trends, and any available

administrative data. Individual State estimates are reviewed by the

Agricultural Statistics Board for reasonableness.

Revision Policy: Milk production, milk per cow, and number of milk cows are

subject to revision the following month after initial publication for monthly

States or the following quarter for the quarterly States. Normally,

administrative data from Federal Market Orders, State Departments of

Agriculture, or other sources are the main basis for revisions. However,

administrative data for all States may not be available in time for these

revisions. Estimates are again subject to revisions in February each year

based on additional administrative data. In the event that additional changes

are necessary, a third revision is possible in February the following year.

Estimates are again reviewed after data from the five-year Census of

Agriculture are available. No revisions are made after that date.

Reliability: Since all operations with dairy animals are not included in the

sample, survey estimates are subject to sampling variability. Survey results

are also subject to non-sampling errors such as omissions, duplications, and

mistakes in reporting, recording, and processing the data. The effects of

these errors cannot be measured directly. They are minimized through rigid

quality controls in the data collection process and through a careful review

of all reported data for consistency and reasonableness.

To assist users in evaluating the reliability of the estimates in this

report, the “Root Mean Square Error” is shown for selected items in the table

below. The “Root Mean Square Error” is a statistical measure based on past

performance and is computed using the differences between first and final

estimates. The “Root Mean Square Error” for the 23 State milk production

estimates over the past 24 months is 0.2 percent. This means that chances are

2 out of 3 that the final estimate will not be above or below the current

estimate of 16.5 billion pounds by more than 0.2 percent. Chances are 9 out

of 10 that the difference will not exceed 0.4 percent.

Reliability of Monthly Milk Production Estimates

[Based on data for the past 24 months]

————————————————————————————————————————–

: Root mean : 90 percent : Difference between first and latest estimate

: square error : confidence : : : : :

: : level :————————————————————-

Item : : : : : : Months

: : : : : :——————————-

: : : Average :Smallest : Largest : Below latest : Above latest

————————————————————————————————————————–

: percent percent ——– 1,000 ——- —– number —–

:

Milk production …………..: 0.2 0.4 27 0 89 16 6

:

All Milk cows …………….: 0.1 0.1 5 0 16 14 7

————————————————————————————————————————–

Information Contacts

Listed below are the commodity specialists in the Livestock

Branch of the National Agricultural Statistics Service to

contact for additional information. E-mail inquiries may be sent

to [email protected].

Dan Kerestes, Chief, Livestock Branch ……….. (202) 720-3570

Scott Hollis, Head, Livestock Section ……….. (202) 690-2424

Travis Averill – Cattle, Cattle on Feed …… (202) 720-3040

Sherry Bertramsen – Livestock Slaughter …… (202) 720-3240

Doug Bounds – Hogs and Pigs ……………… (202) 720-3106

Donnie Fike – Dairy Products …………….. (202) 690-3236

Mike Miller – Milk Production and Milk Cows .. (202) 720-3278

Evan Schulz – Sheep and Goats ……………. (202) 720-6147

Access to NASS Reports

For your convenience, you may access NASS reports and products the following

ways:

All reports are available electronically, at no cost, on the NASS web

site: http://www.nass.usda.gov

Both national and state specific reports are available via a free e-

mail subscription. To set-up this free subscription, visit

http://www.nass.usda.gov and in the “Follow NASS” box under “Receive

reports by Email,” click on “National” or “State” to select the reports

you would like to receive.

For more information on NASS surveys and reports, call the NASS Agricultural

Statistics Hotline at (800) 727-9540, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET, or e-mail:

[email protected].

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against

its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the basis of race,

color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion,

reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial

or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s

income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic

information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded

by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs

and/or employment activities.)

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination,

complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online

at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA

office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a

letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your

completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-

The Citizens’ Collective for Creative Placemaking

By

Editor

-

February 21, 2015

0

Hutchinson, Kan. (2-20-2015) – The Citizens’ Collective for Creative Placemaking will ask the

Hutchinson City Council to establish a public art program at the council’s upcoming meeting on

March 3rd, 2015.

The Citizens’ Collective for Creative Placemaking (CCFCP) was established in the fall of 2014 with

the intent to develop a strategy to gather support and create a proposal for the establishment of

a public art program in the city of Hutchinson. CCFCP’s membership is composed of artists,

business owners, community leaders and other members of the arts community in Hutchinson.

The CCFCP is advised by Justin Combs, Meryl Dye, Jana McCarron and Jim Seitnater, all

employees of the City of Hutchinson.

The proposal before the city council will call for adoption of a percent-for-art ordinance

instituting the program. Highlights of the proposal include the establishment of a seven-

member Public Art Design Council as well as a Public Art Trust Fund. The fund, administered by

the council, will be supported by monies gathered from capital improvement projects involving

public buildings, parks and streetscapes which will set aside one percent of their budgets for

public art.

CCFCP defines public art as art that is in the public realm for the enjoyment and inspiration of

diverse populations. Similar art programs around the region have contributed to the economic,

social and cultural vitality of communities through the enhancement of public spaces to build

awareness of community history, identity and geography. Public art programs have been

attributed to building capacity for artists and art-related industries as well as fostering

cooperation between the public and private sectors.

CCFCP believes that the establishment of Public Art Trust Fund (and Public Art Design Council to

administer it) will create and integrate diverse artworks into Hutchinson’s landscape with

expectations that it will result in a vibrant visual environment that provides public places with

civic distinction as well as fostering meaningful connections between people and the places they

reside.

Artists and their supporters are encouraged to attend the 9:00 am City Council meeting at City Hall, located at Avenue B

between Poplar and Walnut Streets, on March 3rd, 2015 to provide the council to show their support of public art in Hutchinson.

Information about CCFCP’s proposal, public art in Hutchinson and or the potential impact of a public art program in

Hutchinson can be provided upon request or by visiting hutchpublicart.wordpress.com. To inquire about additional

information, schedule interviews with members of the CCFCP or voice your organization’s support, you may contact

Charles Johnston at [email protected]. He will forward your requests to the appropriate member of the

CCFCP for the most accurate information and perspectives possible.

Cougars bounce back to split doubleheader with No. 20 Des Moines

By

Editor

-

February 21, 2015

0

The Barton Community College baseball team split another doubleheader during this early portion of the season Friday at Lawson-Biggs Field battling Division II No. 20 Des Moines Area Community College. The Cougars nearly pulled off a four-run deficit comeback in the first game rallying for three runs in the sixth but fell just short 5-4. Behind solid pitching and three first inning runs, the Cougars defeated the Bears in the nightcap 5-1. Splitting all four of their season’s doubleheaders, Barton stands at 4-3 on the season while DMACC moves to 2-3. Weather permitting the teams will wrap up their three-game series on Saturday with a nine inning game set for 12:00 p.m.

Despite striking out three batters in the first inning, Barton starter Blaine Hill couldn’t escape the first inning unscathed. A one-out hit batsman of the Bears’ Edwin Collazo set up Brad Mathiowetz double down the left field line giving DMACC their first run. An Anthony Mrosla two-out single to left drove home Mathiowetz in building a two run early lead. An infield error to open up the second allowing Robert Hansen to reach base cost the Cougars as one batter later Edwin Gonzalez doubled deep to left center pushing the lead out to three. Barton chipped away at the deficit in the home half as Grant Watkins led off with a walk scoring three pitches later on the one-out Lance White double to center drawing Barton to within one.

Both teams stranded two runners in the third but a leadoff double by the number nine hitter Zac Repinski got it rolling in the fourth. Following a four-pitch walk to Kelly and a double steal, Hill came back to strike out Collazo for the first out. Three pitches later Mathiowetz pushed the lead back out to three with a single to left center driving home Repinski. The double-play trio of Dylan Kuhn, Evan McDonald, and Watkins got Hill out of the inning without further damage rolling up Jacob Adams’ ground ball into 6-4-3 inning killer.

After a quiet fourth inning for Barton, Mrosla opened up the visitor fifth lining a triple down the right field line. Eric Weisbrod wasted no time driving the first pitch down the left field line giving DMACC the last of their five runs.

Held to two hits through five innings, McDonald got the first of four hits in the inning setting the stage with a leadoff single up the middle. After a passed ball and Watkins ground out, Bryce Minor executed a ground ball to the right side of the diamond to easily score McDonald. Getting ahead in the count 2-1, White belted a towering shot over the left field wall for his first home run as a Cougar. Trevor Hughes appeared to be the third out of the inning with a towering infield pop-up but Gonzalez couldn’t make the play as Hughes hustled around first sliding into second on the two-base error. Kuhn would draw Barton to within one with a double to right field but following a Farrington single, Turner was robbed by right fielder Mrosla’s running catch to end the inning.

Barton rolled up their second double-play of the game to end the seventh but a McDonald one-out walk was all the Cougars could manage as Cody Harmon sealed the deal for winning pitcher Michael Peters.

Lance White was the lone multi-hit player in the Barton lineup with a double and home run while driving in two of the Cougars’ two runs. Minor and Kuhn produced the other two Barton runs as each drove home a run in the sixth inning. Hill took the loss pitching four innings with four hits, two walks, and a career high nine strikeouts while giving up four runs. Shane Adams had a solid relief effort giving up only one hit, walking two, and striking out four in two innings of work.

Peters earned the win for DMACC going five innings scattering three hits, four walks, and four strikeouts as Barton managed just one run under his watch. Mathiowetz, Mrosla, and Weisbrod each had two hits driving in four runs between them as the Bears finished with a 10-6 hit advantage.

Game two appeared more of the same from the Bears as Kelly greeted Jordan Plank with a triple to right field. Getting Collazo on a strikeout, Plank’s full count pitch to Mathiowetz flied out to right field giving DMACC their lone run of the game.

The Cougars responded in the home half with Turner leading off with a single to center. Barton went on to load the bases with Richardson drawing a walk and McDonald receiving a free pass taking a pitch to the body. Watkins sacrifice fly scored Turner then Minor came up with the big blow lacing a double just inside the left field foul line giving Barton a 3-1 lead.

Both Plank and the Bears’ starting hurler Christian Michener held the batters in check for the second but Barton would add an insurance run in the third. An infield error gave Richardson two bags with a passed ball getting the sophomore to third to begin the third. Getting the benefit of another Bears error, Watkins ground ball to the right side scored Richardson as Barton took a 4-1 lead.

For the second straight inning the Bears would go down in order while the Cougars would push across another run in part to more Bears misplays. Following a one-out single, Kuhn moved around the base paths on a passed ball, then following a Richardson walk, scored on McDonald reaching beating out a dropped third strike throw to first.

Plank would close out his remaining two of six innings of work only allowing a two-out single in the fifth and pitching out of a leadoff infield error and walk in the sixth.

Alexander Evans came in to pitch the final three innings getting out a two-out bases loaded jam in the eighth to earn his third save of the season.

Plank picked up the win improving to 3-0 on the season lowering his ERA to 1.59 working six innings of three-hit ball resulting in one run, a walk, and three strikeouts. Evans also struck out three going three innings with four hits and one walk.

Minor led the six-hit attack with a 3-for-4 effort driving in the two runs on his double while Watkins was 1-for-2 and two runs batted in.

Michener took the loss going five innings striking out seven while surrendering five runs, three of those earned, and limited the Barton bats to four hits but gave up three walks.

Weisbrod led the seven hit attack going 2-for-4 with Mathiowetz’ first inning sac fly being the lone RBI

Posture Perfect

By

Editor

-

February 21, 2015

0

To hold a phone properly, keep it at eye level with a neutral, relaxed neck.

Posture Perfect

Smartphone Use Affects Spinal Health

(Family Features) Despite the many benefits of having information at your fingertips, smartphones and tablets can do damage to your body and overall health in unexpected ways.

You may not realize it, but all that time spent with your head down checking email and texting may be creating more than a social gap — you may also be harming your spine. Research suggests that spinal pressure actually doubles with each inch you bend your head down.

Smartphone users spend an average of two to four hours per day hunched over, says Kenneth Hansraj, chief of spine surgery at New York Spine Surgery & Rehabilitation Medicine, in his recent report for Surgical Technology International. As a result, back and neck pain have increased among users of electronic gadgets, and the effects may linger for years.

“Poor posture is easy to spot in the hunched over forms of older adults who have carried bad habits for a lifetime,” said Stephen Gubernick, Doctor of Chiropractic at The Joint Chiropractic. “However, few people realize that there are health implications that make good posture essential for healthy living at any age.”

Dr. Gubernick explained that a misalignment of your spine can affect your overall health and well-being. Your spine protects your nervous system, which controls and coordinates all the different functions of your body. Any disruption in nerve communication to your organs and tissues may result in abnormal function. “There are countless benefits from simply improving the alignment of the spine,” he added.

Poor posture negatively impacts your muscles and ligaments, as well as your spine, which can lead to a host of health problems ranging from neck and back pain to gastrointestinal problems and even hyperkyphosis — a condition in which the spine curvature is significantly exaggerated, with increased risk of pulmonary and arterial health problems.

When posture or other factors cause a misalignment, a spinal adjustment is one way to help restore normal nerve function and communication, thereby allowing your body to work normally and naturally.

In addition to recommending exercises that strengthen your core postural muscles in an effort to sustain and improve posture, a chiropractor can also assist you with identifying proper posture techniques to use during daily activities that help reduce the risk of injury.

To learn more about how your spine affects your body’s overall health, visit http://www.thejoint.com/spine.

Why Posture Matters

There are many benefits to practicing good posture. According to the American Chiropractic Association, keeping your spine aligned properly:

Ensures bones and joints are correctly aligned. This helps the muscles to be used properly, diminishing the abnormal wear which can cause degenerative arthritis and joint pain.
Places less stress on the ligaments which link the spinal joints, decreasing the chance of injury.
Creates efficiency within the muscle groups, helping the body use less energy and avoid fatigue.
Reduces the likelihood of back and muscular pain, overuse disorders and muscle strain.

Maintaining Good Posture

Ditching your smartphone probably isn’t a practical solution for improving your posture, so instead work to keep your posture in check with these tips:

To protect your posture while using your phone and other electronic devices, avoid angling your head down for prolonged periods. Raise the device closer to eye level, or use a stand to prop the screen.
Treat back and neck pain, which may signal a posture problem or worsen poor posture habits, with regular chiropractic adjustments to keep your body balanced and flexible.
When sitting, avoid crossing your legs and keep your knees at or below hip level. Use a back pillow to support your lower and middle back. Relax your shoulders and avoid sitting in the same position for extended periods of time.
While standing, keep your feet shoulder width apart and your knees slightly bent. Stand straight with your shoulders pulled back and your stomach tucked in.

What to Expect When You Visit the Chiropractor

If you’ve never visited a chiropractor before, you may find yourself intimidated by the unknown. Take heart, you’re not alone. According to The Joint … the chiropractic place, the following are answers to some patients’ most common questions:

Do I need an appointment? You will most likely need an appointment at traditional chiropractic clinics but not at The Joint where chiropractors are available on a walk-in basis, including during evening and weekend hours.

What will happen during the visit? After a full exam and consultation, you will be adjusted on a comfortably cushioned adjustment table. You will remain fully clothed for the duration of your visit, so wear non-restrictive clothing to make it easier to rest comfortably while lying down on the table.

How long will my visit take? You should plan around 20 minutes for your first visit, though follow-up visits can take as few as five minutes or so. At the end of your visit, your doctor will determine the best treatment plan for your specific needs.

Will I experience side effects? Although chiropractic is a proven safe and effective treatment, you might experience side effects after your first visit, such as headaches, fatigue and soreness. Side effects from chiropractic care typically are mild and disappear within 24 hours.

What will it cost? Many insurance plans cover a limited number of chiropractic visits. Average appointment costs may range anywhere from $40 to $125 per session, and no-insurance clinics, such as The Joint, offer affordable plans and packages that eliminate the need for insurance.

Rural Messenger

Rural Messenger

USDA Announces More Than $160 Million Available in Funding for Food and Agriculture Research, Education, and Extension

Milk Production

The Citizens’ Collective for Creative Placemaking

Cougars bounce back to split doubleheader with No. 20 Des Moines

Posture Perfect

Rural Messenger

Lovina’s Granddaughter Abigail Pens the Column

Take Time to Protect Your Home from This Invisible Cancer Risk

Snow; Love it or hate it