Last week, DTN's Katie Micik reported on Tyson Foods' efforts to collect a $15,881.38 legal tab from South Dakota rancher Herman Schumacher. The meatpacker, which had $26.8 billion in revenue last year, noted to Micik and others that the court determined Tyson was duly owed those legal fees, so the company chose to collect.

Schumacher and two other plaintiffs sued the major meatpackers in 2006 because they thought the packers manipulated a USDA error in order to pay producers less for their cattle. They won the jury trial, but like other cases involving the Packers and Stockyards Act, it was overturned in appellate court.

Well, apparently some spotlight brought to the situation by R-CALF has required Tyson to clarify the situation. First, Tyson stated that the company doesn't intend to take Schumacher's home. Those U.S. Marshall notices posted on the door, like "No Trespassing" are just one of those legal misunderstandings. They had the U.S. Marshall's office post notices and slap liens on what they thought was Schumacher's old ranch home, not where he lives. Tyson doesn't want Herman's home and they want to work with him on whatever is an acceptable means to him to pay them the $15,881.38. Tyson also wants to let it be known that the Marshall's office did not "seize" Schumacher's home. There was no actual eviction and Tyson noted that Schumacher is still free to enter his own property.

"Although Tyson has never heard from your or your attorneys on this matter, we have been informed by the Marshall's office that you intend to pay the amount by July 1, 2009," the letter stated. "This would be a very positive development. However, if this creates difficulties for you, we are willing to discuss a reasonable resolution for payment. In any event, Tyson hopes the other plaintiffs and any associations that encouraged you to file this litigation in your home state will help you pay for their fair share of the court-amount."

I love that paragraph. It was written exquisitely well. It says what we all know to be true. Look, little man, you chose to jack with the biggest meatpacker in the world, got all riled up about pricing fairness and the Packers & Stockyards Act at your R-CALF pow-wows, was pushed by all your buddies who didn't sign their name to the lawsuit, probably drank a beer after you beat Tyson at trial, but in the end the packers' attorneys and the ambiguity of the law won out. So this is Tyson's way to letting you and any other ranchers to understand what happens when you screw with a major corporation in court. How many cattle do you have to sell to pony up $15,881.38?

Tyson also is going to be altruistic about this. It's not just making sure the lawyers are paid by the plaintiff. Tyson wrote that "Because of our long-standing commitment to hunger relief, Tyson's current intent is to donate the process to local food banks in South Dakota, where we know the money will be put to good use."

Isn't that nice? So rather than waste any extra time trying to mess with a major packer in the future, you might be better off just donating those expected legal fees to charity and avoid the legal grief later on.

Land-use and acreage.

How is it supposed to go again, according to the believers of indirect land use change? Land-use shifts in the U.S. due to ethanol production, causes more corn, lower soybeans, causes more soybean acres to Brazil, leading to deforestation in that country. Well, we've seen that soybean acreage in Brazil has actually stagnated in recent years.

Now comes today's crop report. This year's corn planting is projected at 87.04 million acres, the second-largest corn acreage since 1946, DTN's Pat Hill reports. But USDA also projects soybean acreage at 77.48 million acres, the largest soybean crop in history.