Biological research advances American agriculture

Industries large and small utilize research and technology to develop and provide goods and services to society. Now, the U.S. agriculture sector can reap more technological benefits resulting from biological research under the direction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Agriculture research has produced disease testing for livestock, specialty-crop varieties and GPS technology for farm equipment to name a few.

The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), sponsored by USDA and created within the 2008 Farm Bill, established a competitive grant program to provide funding for fundamental and applied research, extension and education in food and agricultural sciences with a focus in six development areas. Grants that emphasize sustainable agriculture are preferred.

Priority Issues for Grant Applications

1. Plant health and production and plant products
2. Animal health and production and animal products
3. Food safety, nutrition and health
4. Renewable energy, natural resources and environment
5. Agriculture systems and technology
6. Agriculture economics and rural communities

"By focusing our resources on achievable and measurable outcomes, USDA's investment in science will help address some of America's – and the world's – intractable problems," said USDA chief scientist and director of USDA's Nation Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Robert Beachy.

"Today's announcement demonstrates USDA's commitment to supporting research, education and extension to bring about true change in areas like climate change, obesity and bioenergy."

In addition to the six priority issues for grant funding, the 2008 Farm Bill added conventional (classical) plant breeding, conventional (classical) animal breeding, renewable energy, domestic-marketing strategies and rural entrepreneurship as grant focal points.

There are also five designated primary challenge areas around which AFRI is structuring the grant program.

Challenge Areas

1. Keep American agriculture competitive while ending world hunger
2. Improve nutrition and end child obesity
3. Improve food safety for all Americans
4. Secure America’s energy future
5. Mitigate and adapt to climate change

Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack allotted $262 million to this effort. State agricultural experiment stations, colleges and universities, university-research foundations, other research institutions and organizations, Federal agencies, national laboratories, private organizations or corporations and individuals are eligible to apply for grants. Grants are awarded on a 10-year basis and some grants are eligible for renewal upon conclusion of the term.

The benefits of research and technology to society cannot be quantified. The USDA has stepped to the plate to motivate the sustainability, efficiency, profitability and development of one of the nation’s most economically providing sectors.

Do you agree that the selected issues and challenge areas should be addressed, or are there other issues? Should more or less money be awarded for research grants? Do you think the research will result in significant technological gains?

*Photo obtained from http://ucommphoto.nmsu.edu/newsphoto/anderson_john.jpg

Workshops to stimulate American Agriculture

A series of workshops throughout the coming months will feature discussions about competition and regulatory issues in agriculture.

These all-day forums, sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Justice (DOJ), were first announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack Aug. 5, 2009.

"In my travels across the country, I hear a consistent theme: producers are worried whether there is a future for them or their children in agriculture, and a viable market is an important factor in what that future looks like," said Vilsack. "These issues are difficult and complex, which is why this is so important and long overdue."

According to a USDA-issued news release, five workshops will promote dialogue among interested parties and foster learning with respect to the appropriate legal and economic analyses of these issues, as well as to listen to and learn from parties with experience in the agriculture sector.

Workshops involve farmers, ranchers, processors, consumer groups, agribusinesses, government officials and academics. This collection of stakeholders will create a forum for discussion and will ensure various industry perspectives.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock spoke about the scope of the workshops.

"Agriculture ranks as one of the top sectors of most state economies. And while the agricultural heritage of each of our states differs—sometimes dramatically—the concerns about market concentration, transparency and effective regulation cross geographical boundaries, and are shared concerns irrespective of the crops we produce and the animals we raise."

The first workshop, held March 21 in Ankeny, Iowa, focused on “issues of concern to farmers,” including seed technology, vertical integration, market transparency and buyer power.

Brownfield posted audio from the first workshop featuring its opening commentators.

All meetings are free and open to the public. There is time allotted for public testimony at the conclusion of the workshops.

Upcoming workshops:

• Poultry industry – May 2, in Normal, Ala. – Attention will be given to production contracts in the poultry industry, concentration and buyer power.
• Dairy industry: June 7, in Madison, Wis. – Specific areas of focus may include concentration, marketplace transparency and vertical integration in the dairy industry.
• Livestock industry: August 26, in Fort Collins, Colo. – Specific areas of focus will address beef, hog and other animal sectors and may include enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and concentration.
• Margins: December 8, in Washington, D.C. – Discussions may be about discrepancies between the prices received by farmers and the prices paid by consumers; discussions from previous workshops will be incorporated into the analysis of agriculture markets nationally.
• Each workshop is designed to highlight the management issues facing a particular agriculture sector.

“According to many farmers and ranchers, the DOJ and USDA workshops are long overdue as an essential step to address concentration of ownership within agriculture,” stated the Kansas Rural Center.

Many in the industry consider the workshops the government’s renewed commitment to strengthening one of its premier industries, while others think that they are the first steps to moderating “Big Ag.” Holder noted that some farmers are “suffering from a lack of free and fair competition in the marketplace.”

Vilsack commented that insights gleaned from the workshops would be used in consideration of the 2012 Farm Bill. Lessons learned will be used to structure broad policies rather than develop a massive oversight system. Government officials were quick to note that potential anti-competitive practices are being studied and antitrust regulations will continually be further enforced.

“‘This is not just about farmers and ranchers,” Vilsack said. “It’s really about the survival of rural America.”

Is the format of the meetings conducive to change? Should other topics be addressed and discussed?

*Photo obtained from farmamerica.org










Idaho follows Ohio’s animal-care initiative

Gov. Ted Strickland recently announced the appointments to Ohio’s Livestock Care Standards Board, and now legislators in the Gem State are attempting to follow suit.

The Idaho Senate has approved S.B. 1330 (24-11), which establishes the Idaho Livestock Care Standards Board. Much like in Ohio, this board will set standards for the care and welfare of farm animals in Idaho. It would be similar in structure to Ohio’s 13-member board comprising the Ohio director of agriculture, a family farmer appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a family farmer appointed by the President of the Senate and other members knowledgeable about livestock animals.

The legislation was introduced as a pre-emptive measure to safeguard the state’s ag sector because of recent actions by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in other farm states.

“When the extreme activists come against the state of Idaho – when, not if – we will be prepared for them. We’re using the right measurements to come up with standards. This board will use science and not emotions or television,” said state Sen. Tim Corder, the bill’s sponsor.

If Idaho is looking to Ohio for guidance and direction, it should take note of Ohio’s decisive actions leading to the institution of its livestock care standards board.

Ohio’s ag-industry members raised awareness for and provided education about the accuracies of livestock and poultry-care practices using grassroots and social-media efforts. Members took advantage of speaking opportunities and were responsive without being domineering.

According to 2009 reports from the National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS), Idaho has 25,500 farms with 11.4 million acres of its land invested in farm production. It ranks 17th in the nation for the market value of its agricultural products. The value of its livestock and poultry was almost $3.4 million, with cattle being the state’s leading livestock commodity.

On March 1, the Idaho legislature deemed cockfighting operation punishable with up to five years in prison and $50,000 in fines. It would also boost fines for misdemeanor animal cruelty and torture to a maximum of one year in jail and $9,000 in fines. On the coattails of this legislation came the issue of animal-care oversight.

In a Feedstuff’s article, Corder said the board is needed in anticipation of egg producers relocating their operations from California, where conventional egg production will become illegal because of a 2008 HSUS ballot measure. Idaho has promoted the state to California egg producers, and Corder said Idaho needs to set standards before HSUS attempts to influence animal-welfare laws on the state.

"We'll see Idaho agriculture on the television at six o'clock," said Corder. "It's a lot more comfortable if we have this in place than six months from now when we have 10 million chickens and HSUS on television."

Lisa Kauffman, the Idaho director for the Humane Society, voiced her opposition to the proposed board in The Oregonian, "A livestock board is basically the fox watching the hen house," Kauffman said. "The bottom line is, the hens are the ones that are suffering."

According to Idaho Reporter, state Rep. Tom Loertscher is opposed to the bill because a portion of the money collected from offenders is allocated to the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) and local law enforcement.

“Loertscher said he agreed that fines for animal abuse should go up, but wanted to change what would be an incentive program to go after animal abusers. Loertscher said the livestock industry raised objects to parts of the changes to state law that might require animals to be tagged with radio frequency ID tags. Many ranchers prefer branding their animals. Loertscher also said some objected to language that would label not providing adequate medical care for animals as abuse. ‘That’s way too broad of a term to use in the livestock industry,’ he said.”

The bill still needs to be approved by the Idaho House to take effect. Other states with pending animal-care board legislation include Indiana, Kentucky and Missouri.

Do you think Idaho is thinking strategically for the best interests of its ag community, or is Idaho “jumping on an ag-legislation bandwagon?” Do you think Idaho’s House of Representatives will approve the bill?

*Photo obtained from NASS.