Mother nature is farmers’ economic opportunity

Recently, our country’s first offshore wind farm was created six miles from Hyannis Port, Mass., which has renewed interest in the wind-power industry.

Wind power is the fastest-growing energy source in the world and farmers could take advantage of the weather opportunity.

An article in Distributed Energy cleverly titled, “Wind: The easiest crop to harvest,” outlines the benefits of wind farming for our country’s farmers and ranchers.

“Farming is all about maximizing profits and reducing risk. Wind energy does both,” said Patrick Pelstring, National Wind co-chair, the nation's leading utility-scale community wind developer.

For example, farmers can lease land to wind developers, use wind generated from wind turbines located on their farms to power their own farms and/or become wind-power producers to capitalize their land.

“Now we grow corn on the ground and generate power in the air—all on the same piece of property," said Delbert Watson, a farmer in Clear Lake, Iowa, in a Christian Science Monitor article.

Windustry.org outlines the land-lease process for farmers at its Web site.

According to a blog posted at the Union of Concerned Scientists:

“The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) "Wind Powering America" initiative has set a goal of producing five percent of the nation's electricity from wind by 2020. DOE projects meant to achieve this goal will provide $60 billion in capital investment to rural America, $1.2 billion in new income to farmers and rural landowners and 80,000 new jobs during the next 20 years.”

Wind farm facts (National Wind)

• Wind turbines are much quieter than most people think
• Each turbine needs a plot of about 100 acres to separate it from other turbines (the actual footprint of each turbine is less than one acre).
• Typical lease arrangements for placement of a 1.5-megawatt turbine on property run between $6,000 and $9,000 a year.

Not only can farmers use wind turbines to supplement their income, but in an industry dependent on the weather, wind farms can also serve as a buffer against unfavorable conditions.

“This allows the farmer to diversify his income and reduce risk,” said Pelstring. “After construction is complete, the practice of farming continues as it has for generations, with the bonus of added financial security.”

Farmers used to diversify their income by adding new commodity crops to their rotation. But now, depending on their wind-assessment results, they could look to wind farming as lucrative earning potential.

*Photo obtained from http://www.ucsusa.org/

Carbon – An Agricultural Commodity?

Much of America’s farm community is opposed to proposed cap-and-trade legislation that could have severe repercussions for the agriculture sector.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454), aimed to address global warming, was recently approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently being considered by the Senate. It places greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions limits on and offers a cap-and-trade system for affected businesses.

“This is not a vision for American agriculture, it's a death sentence,” said U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns, R – Neb.

The agriculture industry, responsible for 8 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions, is feeling pressure to be on-board with Congress’ attempts to limit industries’ carbon footprint.

Increased energy prices will result from the legislation’s potential passage as industries raise prices to maintain production costs, in turn, elevating farm-production costs at all levels.
In a Corn & Soybean Digest article, Johanns states:

“USDA testified that the costs of fuel, oil and electricity will increase by about 22 percent. And here's a staggering estimate: The bill drives 59 million acres of cropland and pasture out of production by 2050. With millions of acres coming out of production and energy prices going through the roof, it’s not surprising that USDA also predicts significant declines in farm production. USDA’s testimony shows that corn production will decrease by 22 percent, soybean production will drop by 29 percent, beef production will decline by 10 percent and pork production will sink by 23 percent. This decline in production will threaten our nation’s food supply and is estimated to drive up food prices by as much as 5 percent.”

A blog posted at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis calls farmers “victims” of the proposed legislation. Foundation analysts found that it would adversely affect farmers:

• Farm income is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and more than $50 billion in 2035.
• The average net income lost throughout the 2010-2035 timeline is $23 billion – a 57-percent decrease from the baseline.
• Construction costs of farm buildings will increase 5.5 percent in 2025 and increase 10 percent by 2034 (from the baseline).
• By 2035, gasoline and diesel costs are expected to be 58 percent more and electric rates 90 percent more.

But not everyone in agriculture is aggressively opposed to cap-and-trade legislation. For example, some groups have remained neutral about the issue, claiming it’s better to have a spot at the table when negotiating legislation rather than to be outright opposed.

USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack believes farmers should view the legislation as an opportunity rather than as economically damaging. Farmers would receive credits (payment) for using farming techniques that don’t emit carbon dioxide.

Production agriculture is not included in the current legislation as one of the industries that is required to cap their GHG emissions, but it can provide emission-reduction offsets to companies in industries that are required to cap their emissions.

According to ecomii, an environment resource, “The government issues credits, which allow companies to pollute a certain amount, as long as the aggregate pollution equals less than the set cap.” Regulated industries, such as fuel refineries and energy suppliers, either take it upon themselves to develop cleaner facilities to maintain compliance, or they can purchase emissions credits from other businesses that have credits available when they need to exceed their allotted emissions.

Farmers can limit their carbon footprint by practicing no-till and reduced-till techniques and can also convert cropland to grass.

In a Rapid City Journal article, Vilsack is reported as saying that conservation measures such as carbon credits contain the potential for billions of dollars in income for farm families. He said he is convinced that climate change is a fact and that changes in farming practices can help.

But with legislation stalled in Congress, “there's an almost-complete collapse of the market for carbon credits,” states Sarah McCammon of Iowa Public Radio. “That means profits are drying up for people who are paid to create those carbon credits — like farmers who manage their land in ways that capture carbon dioxide in the soil.”

In a segment titled, “Farmers Hurt By Collapse Of Carbon Credits Market” available at WBUR Radio online, the reporter talks about the economics of carbon offsets bought and sold via contracts, a scenario of paying someone to reduce emissions for you. For example, farmers that engage in no-till farming receive monetary payback for their “green” efforts. The reporter states that the global carbon market is valued at $125 million.

“It is important to set up an offset system to reward American farmers for doing the right thing, whether they’re raising crops or raising livestock,” Vilsack said. “Various studies show it’s (cap and trade) a net plus for agriculture.”

The failure to pass climate-change legislation could lead to regulation of emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If legislation dies in the Senate, the EPA has publicly declared its intentions to regulate carbon. Many believe that the EPA would include more industries for regulation and impose stricter policies.

Several ag-industry figureheads have voiced their discontent for EPA oversight.

“We believe the EPA’s greenhouse gas requirements will lead to costly and ineffective regulations on America’s farmers and ranchers,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. “We vehemently oppose regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act because we believe it will require livestock producers and other agricultural operations to obtain costly and time-consuming permits as conditions to continue farming.”

Do you feel farmers are unfairly regulated or not regulated enough? In what other ways can farmers contribute to an improved environment? Are other industry sectors being ignored that should be mandated?

*Photo from The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute

Going green, it’s easier than it looks

Consumers and businesses now have an easier way to “go green." Thanks to the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills, the BioPreferred program was created, which helps to increase the purchase and use of environmentally friendly, biobased products.

Biobased products are commercial or industrial products that are composed mainly of biological resources including agriculturally derived, renewable resources such as corn or soybeans.

Managed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the BioPreferred program includes a preferred-procurement program for federal agencies and their contractors, as well as a voluntary labeling program for the broad-scale consumer marketing of biobased products.

This program designates biobased products that are required for purchase by federal agencies and their contractors. This allows companies to purchase biopreferred versions of the items that they already use. Soon, biobased products that meet the BioPreferred program requirements will be given a label to make it easily identifiable for businesses and consumers to select these items.

There is a software tool available to help federal procurement officers choose what products are both good for the environment and affordable, BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability). The BEES tool used by the USDA also helps biobased manufacturers learn about the impact that their products have on the environment and on their costs.

In an article by CM Magazine, Ron Buckhalt, program manager for BioPreferred discussed the labeling program. He stated that the labeling program would have green-eligible products stamped with an approved USDA label, much like the Energy Star system for electronics. The eligibility hasn’t been determined at this point. Buckhalt said that whatever the product’s bio-component level is it should be the industry standard.

“Companies don’t have the capability to go too high (regarding the product’s bio-component), but we could be looking at 30 percent,” he said.

Each month, BioPreferred features an item to promote. For March, the BioLink™ General Purpose Cleaner is highlighted for being “tough on grime, not the environment.” Working as effective as traditional cleaners, BioLink exchanges alcohol and petroleum-based solvents for non-toxic biobased materials.

There are numerous biobased products, from cleaning supplies to office supplies that consumers and businesses can use to better their environment. For the complete catalog, please visit: http://www.catalog.biopreferred.gov.

Ohio recently became the first and only state to initiate this program.

Recently, Gov. Ted Strickland signed Senate Bill 131, which establishes a bioproducts-preferred purchasing program. Modeled after the federal program, it will allow the state to use considerable purchasing power to support the growth of businesses that create bioproducts, as well as expand the market for other innovative products made from Ohio crops.

S.B. 131 will rely on the federal bioproducts list to determine what products should get preference in Ohio. Several Ohio companies are already developing plastics, paints, polymer foam and other innovative products from corn, soybeans and other renewable materials.

In a recent Marion Star article, Karen Gillmor, R-Tiffin, who sponsored S.B. 131, talked about how this bill would help stimulate investment and jobs, as well as enhance research opportunities at Ohio colleges and universities. This would help Ohio farmers and agriculture production in Ohio.

“Thanks to recent advances in research and technology, acres of soybeans, corn and other agriculture resources growing across Ohio have the tremendous potential to transform our state into a center for bioproducts development in this country, breathe much-needed life into our economy and create a market for good-paying jobs in our local communities,” said Gillmor, who is also a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

What are your thoughts about the BioPreferred program? Should more states be following in Ohio’s footsteps? How can the agriculture industry use this legislation to its advantage?







Going Green Could Boost the U.S. Economy, Create Jobs and Benefit Agriculture

Now that a new administration is in place, things are going to change. One of the things President Barack Obama plans to do is request congressional approval to invest $150 billion over 10 years on clean energy initiatives.

Some of these initiatives include expanding the biofuels and fuel infrastructure, advancing commercialization of hybrids, developing renewable energy and making the transition to a new digital electricity grid. This investment in clean energy reportedly could help Americans reduce greenhouse gas consumption by roughly 10 percent each year. If this proposal passes, it could create or sustain more than 3 million jobs across the nation.

Groups like the Environment America have made plans and recommendations for Obama’s green investment in addition to 29 other environmental groups that released a comprehensive report stating a list of actions and policies they would like to see implemented after Obama takes office.

The full report, which can be found here, was developed by 29 environmental advocacy groups including Center for International Environmental Law, League of Conservation Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Population Action International. The report discusses the need for investment in the creation of jobs in the renewable energy sector, building weatherization, a retooled auto industry, investment in infrastructure and major improvements to the electrical grid. The report also outlined what every federal branch agency, department and office can do on a number of other environmental issues.

Agriculture issues are also very important to these 29 environmental groups. The five issues listed for the Department of Agriculture are animal and plant health inspection service, farm service agency, forest service, natural resources conservation service and research, education and economics. Some of their goals include reinvigorating the conservation reserve program, halting policies that promote native grassland conversion and improving conservation compliance.

Environment America, a non-profit advocacy group with offices in 27 states and Washington, D.C., released a report, which can be found here on Jan. 13 that describes the benefits and recommendations regarding Obama’s $150 billion investment including weatherizing U.S. homes and businesses, training workers for new clean energy industries and increasing public transportation capacity to meet growing demand.

“Our nation can no longer afford the toll dirty energy is exacting on our environment and economy,” said Amy Gomberg, program director with Environment Ohio, a chapter of Environment America. “Clean energy can protect our environment and rev our economic engine to generate a brighter future for Ohio.”

According to Environment Ohio, Ohio is one of the most energy-dependent states in America. Each year, Ohio sends billions of dollars out of state to support our addiction to those fossil fuels.

In Ohio, several companies such as Jennings Heating are eager and ready to contribute to the economy’s green efforts.

“I’m just so excited by this plan,” said Mike Foraker, chief executive officer of Jennings Heating. “I’m extremely impressed and believe this plan does the job.”

Besides Ohio, numerous states across the nation have already begun planning how they will utilize the $150 billion.

In Maryland, some of the projects planned are a $5.5 million energy-efficient overhaul to all the state’s police barracks and funding for solar and geothermal systems.

Michigan officials have set a goal of increasing its use of renewable energy by 15 percent by the year 2015 and overall working to use less energy.

According to Environment Iowa, in Iowa alone, this investment by the year 2020 will create an average of 3,000 jobs annually, increase wages up to $42 million per year and save consumers over $1 billion on energy costs.

What do you think? Will President Obama get this initiative passed in Congress? Do you think green initiatives will help pull the nation out of this economic downturn? How will initiatives affect the agriculture industry? Let me know your thoughts.

EPA Deregulations: Good or bad for the environment, farmers?

The Bush Administration is pushing to pass a set of rules that could relax EPA restrictions on several industries including agriculture and environmental groups, and industry leaders are adamantly expressing their thoughts on this issue.

Environmental advocates say passage of this proposal could eliminate important safeguards that protect the environment from harmful pollution of several industries including agriculture.

Industry leaders say that the proposals would free business from unnecessary government involvement.

There are more than 170 livestock farms in Ohio, and the Ohio Department of Agriculture is reviewing applications from companies that want to build 18 more livestock farms.

Currently, farms are required to apply for permits with the EPA if they’re going to release anything into nearby steams. If the proposal passes, farms will no longer need a permit as long as they file plans that indicate what they’re doing. They also won’t need to report hazardous air pollutants released from animal waste. However, according to environmental groups this can actually cause more pollution and problems for the farms itself as well as the environment.

“Many farms store millions of gallons of liquefied manure in lagoons, which can leak or overflow into streams.” said Eric Schaeffer, director of Washington D.C.-based Environmental Integrity Project. “If the farms don’t have to obtain permits and tell the state how they are doing, officials will have a difficult time punishing farms that do pollute streams.”

The proposal would also require power companies to install scrubbers and pollution filters on coal-fired power plants that are being renovated or repaired based on a plant’s hourly pollution rate instead of its annual production. These coal-fueled generators provide 89 percent of Ohio’s electricity.

“The plan would allow a refurbished plant to increase its pollution without adding scrubbers,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “A plant operating more hours at the old hourly rate could increase emissions of pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, by hundreds if not thousands of tons a year.”

Others believe these deregulations will help.

“Repairs that help a plant burn coal more efficiently could actually help lower its annual and hourly pollution emissions,” said John McManus, vice president of environmental services for American Electric Power. “The number of hours a plant operates doesn’t automatically increase after repairs.”

An EPA spokesperson said that the farm-rule changes would protect the environment and public health.

Do you think the passage of these proposals will hurt the environment? Or do you think they will minimize unnecessary government involvement? Please comment below.

Local Food Important to Consumers

Safety, quality and the environment seem to be on the minds of American consumers lately. In light of recent food scares and the push for greener lifestyles, many are opting to buy local foods or get their produce directly from the farmer. This cuts down on the amount of energy and emissions associated with transporting food from different areas of the country.

A recent study by Ohio State professor Dr. Marvin Batte found that grocery shoppers are willing to shell out more money for locally grown foods. Deemed fresher, more environmentally friendly and a boost to local farmers, consumers say they were willing to pay more for quality produce.

On the heels of this study, Wal-Mart announced that it is beginning an initiative to purchase and sell more than $400 million worth of produce grown by local farmers this year. This move will cut 672,000 “food miles” and add up to about $1.4 million in annual savings for the company. Wal-Mart is now the nation’s leading purchaser of community produce.

Local farmers’ markets are also thriving. The number of markets in the U.S. has increased 21 percent in the past four years. According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, farmers’ market revenue will top $1 billion this year. What used to be a rural phenomenon has turned into a hip trend.

Some consumers are taking their environmental convictions and love of local food one step further. A growing group of Americans has passed over grocery stores and markets completely by purchasing shares of community farms. According to a July 10 article in The New York Times entitled “Cutting Out the Middlemen, Shoppers Buy Slices of Farms,” this new brand of sharecropping has increased in popularity since its inception in the 1990s. Shareholders in these farms pay a fee and are entitled to a certain percentage of crops and livestock. This movement has supported small local farmers and allowed the community to take an active role in food production.

These trends are already making an impact on how farmers operate. In addition, the push for local food and environmentally friendly practices seem likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

The question now is: How will this affect the American agricultural industry?