Energy Farming

Though the traditional forms of agriculture, crop and animal farming aren’t the only farm sectors anymore.

Feedstock farming – growing varying cellulosic, non-food material such as miscanthus and switchgrass, which is then fermented for conversion to biomass pellets and fuel – is emerging as a new industry market.

Biomass comprises several types of herbaceous grasses that are converted into fuel using special processing equipment. Pellets are a byproduct of the conversion and can be used as livestock feed and to generate electricity.

Farmers receive a price based upon each feedstock’s net-energy value and moisture content. According to FarmEnergy.org, 1 ton of pellets contains as much energy as 190 gallons of propane.

The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), instituted in the 2008 Farm Bill, was designed to stimulate new crops for renewable energy feedstocks. It demonstrates the importance of this emerging ag market.

“Farmers are the foundation to drive [the new biomass energy] technology — not technology driving farmers,” said Steve Flick, president of Show Me Energy’s (the first U.S. producer-owned biomass cooperative) board of directors.

The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), administered by the Farm Service Agency, provides financial assistance to owners and operators of agricultural and non-industrial private forest land who wish to establish, produce, and deliver biomass feedstocks. BCAP provides two categories of assistance:

• Matching payments may be available for the delivery of eligible material to qualified biomass conversion facilities by eligible material owners. Qualified biomass conversion facilities produce heat, power, biobased products, or advanced biofuels from biomass feedstocks.

• Establishment and annual payments may be available to certain producers who enter into contracts with the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to produce eligible biomass crops on contract acres within BCAP project areas.

BCAP-qualified producers are eligible to receive up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing and planting biomass crops within a BCAP project area. The USDA provides annual payments to compensate for lost opportunity costs until these crops are established and provides financial assistance for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of biomass crops by matching the amounts paid to producers by the biomass conversion facility, up to $45/dry ton.

Not only does feedstock farming impact the farmer, it significantly impacts the entire economics of the business supply chain. Biomass conversions creates hundreds of direct and ancillary jobs in rural economies.


“Hauling massive amounts of feedstock long distances has a tremendous effect on the economy,” said Steve Carter, director of Iowa State University’s Research Park in Ames.

Some farmers are participating in feedstock farming to power their own equipment. This may become an increasing trend as oil prices continue to escalate.

A farmer interviewed for a recent Herald-Review story, said that he’s found using 1 ton of biomass pellets to cost $165, compared to 149 gallons of propane for $387.40 and 101 gallons of fuel oil for $383.80.

In Ohio, Aloterra Energy develops biomass conversion facilities by handling both feedstock development and its conversion to fuel using advanced biofuel production. One biomass conversion facility is currently in operation in Conneaut, Ohio, and the company is in the process of expanding its network of farmers for energy-crop production.

As fuel and other energy costs continue to increase, so too will the interest in feedstock farming. It will be interesting to witness how farmers react to this emerging new-income opportunity.

Photo obtained from: farmenergy.org

Vino, Vino Ohio

Ohio grape production is fast becoming a lucrative industry in Ohio, adding to the state’s robust agriculture roots.

As a result, wineries throughout the state have blossomed in recent years to supplement the emerging ag sector.

Approximately 65 percent of Ohio’s wineries have been established in the past 10 years. The number of Ohio wineries increased from 75 in 1999 to 124 wineries in 2008, according to the Ohio Grape Industries Committee (OGIC).

OGIC “creates viable, income-producing grape enterprises in the state of Ohio by providing marketing and promotion efforts to generate and expand new markets for grapes and grape products and research to improve the quality of grapes and profitability of grape growing as an agri-business.”

While not claiming to be at the same rank as Napa Valley, Ohio is home to national and international award-winning wines.

Ohio Grape Industry Facts (2008 study)

• The impact of wine and grapes on the Ohio economy is $582.8 million
• There are 124 wineries in Ohio
• There are 1,900 grape-bearing acres in Ohio
• 1,134,000 gallons of wine were produced
• Provided 4,108 full-time jobs
• The retail value of Ohio wine was $51.9 million
• Wine-related tourism expenditures was $73.4 million

Of course, OGIC is leveraging the Internet to raise awareness about Ohio’s grape and wine industries.

The association features “Ohio Wine TV” at its website – a free service that offers monthly subscribers access to expert-led tours of several of the state’s more than 150 wineries. Each month, subscribers receive an e-mail directing him or her to the newest program highlighting a different winery or wine region. The subscriber also receives a recommended shopping list and educational materials about the winery and/or region and Ohio’s grape and wine industry.

The Ohio Grape Web, a website managed by The Ohio State University Extension is another industry resource. The Extension is a service of OSU that interprets knowledge and research developed by university and other OSU-affiliated faculty and staff to share with the public. Ohio Grape Web assists producers interested in cultivating grapes and becoming involved in the wine business. It also produces the Ohio Grape-Wine Electronic Newsletter.

OGIC’s tagline is, “Ohio Wines – Love at first sip.” Have you tried an Ohio wine? Were you aware of the extent of the state’s grape industry?

Photo obtained from: tasteohiowines.com

Farm industry feeds communities

With Thanksgiving a mere week away, most of us are anxiously waiting for a day of feasting, though many Americans aren’t fortunate enough to look forward to such food gluttony.

According to the USDA, more than 49 million Americans, one in six people, are food insecure. To help support our country’s food needs, Halex GT, a corn herbicide from agribusiness company Syngenta, partnered with Feeding America, the leading domestic hunger-relief charity, earlier this year.

“Syngenta is helping to weed out hunger one row at a time,” states the company, with the clever campaign tagline of, “Good for communities, good for corn.”
A portion of each sale of Halex GT benefited some of the organization’s 200 food banks dispersed throughout each of the fifty states.

For being a significantly developed country, our country’s hunger prevalence is alarming.

American Hunger Facts (FarmAssist.com)
• More than 2 million rural households are food insecure
• One in eight Americans doesn’t have access to enough food
• There are 16.7 million children who live in food insecure households
• In 2009, 46 percent more people visited a hunger-relief charity than in 2005

Hunger facts are even more distressing when they hit close to home.

The Columbus Dispatch reported recently that Ohio has broken into the top 10 states for hunger, as about one in every seven households struggled or did not have enough money to buy food in 2009. Nearly 680,000 Ohio families – 14.8 percent – were found to be "food insecure" at some point in 2009. More than 1.9 million Ohioans visited a food pantry during the last quarter. Since 2007, demand at Buckeye State pantries has increased by nearly 69 percent.

The agriculture industry is vital to addressing food scarcity. U.S. farmers take on the huge responsibility of feeding not only the American population, but also contribute to feeding people on a global scale. The average American farmer feeds 144 people and uses one acre of land to support 11 people.

An example of the agriculture industry extending its humanitarian scope is the charitable work of The World Soy Foundation (WSF). WSF is a organization dedicated to helping relieve hunger and malnutrition in the world by funding, supporting and helping to coordinate programs that recognize the importance of the use of soybeans in developing sustainable food solutions.

The WSF was awarded funds from The Monsanto Fund, the philanthropic arm of the Monsanto Company – a U.S.-based multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation – to pilot the use of SoyCow Soybean Processing Technology to improve nutrition for a community in South Africa.

SoyCow makes soymilk and yogurt, as well as tofu, soya nuts and soya chips to create sustainable solutions for the protein needs of the people in this South African region.

The corporate giving initiatives of Syngenta and Monsanto are just two examples of the abundant contributions of our nation’s agricultural community to the food supply. Each year, our farmers continue to grow more food using fewer resources. Our farmer’s sustainability and philanthropy is a pillar of our agriculture industry that we all can be proud of.

As we near the holidays, we should each think about how we can mirror this example of giving.

Photo obtained from: examiner.com









Strickland shapes fate of ag sector

On June 30, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and Jack Fisher, executive vice president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF), announced a compromise affecting Ohio’s agricultural groups.

This agreement terminates HSUS’ initial plan to advocate for an amendment inclusion of animal-care practices in the Ohio Constitution.

HSUS began rallying support for a constitutional amendment to be included on the November ballot about a year ago. HSUS wanted the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to adopt minimum standards that would, “end confinement of animals in cages so small they can't turn around or extend their limbs,” as well as “cruel methods of killing sick or injured animals—to prevent the inhumane treatment of farm animals, enhance food safety, protect the environment and strengthen Ohio family farms.”

This agreement was made a day prior to the planned presentation of 500,000 signatures representing opposition to stop factory farming, to the Ohio secretary of state by an advocacy group, Ohioans for Humane Farms.

Some believe this agreement is good for Ohio agriculture.

“This agreement represents a joint effort to find common ground. As a result, Ohio agriculture will remain strong and animals will be treated better,” Strickland said. “Instead of expending tens of millions of dollars and unproductive energy fighting an acrimonious campaign during the fall, both sides will be able to continue investing in our agricultural base and taking care of animals.”

The actual agreement includes:

• A ban on veal crates by 2017, which is the same timing as the ballot measure.
• A ban on new gestation crates in the state after Dec. 31, 2010. Existing facilities are grandfathered, but must cease use of these crates within 15 years.
• A moratorium about permits for new battery-cage confinement facilities for laying hens.
• A ban on strangulation of farm animals and mandatory humane euthanasia methods for sick or injured animals.
• A ban on the transport of downer cows for slaughter.
• Enactment of legislation establishing felony-level penalties for cockfighters.
• Enactment of legislation cracking down on puppy mills.
• Enactment of a ban on the acquisition of dangerous exotic animals as pets, such as primates, bears, lions, tigers, large constricting and venomous snakes, crocodiles and alligators.

In a news release distributed by HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS stated:

"I'm grateful to Governor Strickland and his administration for their outstanding leadership on these issues. This agreement moves us forward on all of the components of the proposed ballot measure as well as other important advances for animals, too. I look forward to working with the legislature and the Livestock Care Board to see these reforms adopted."

OFBF supports the agreement as well. According to Fisher, this agreement helps farmers live up to the promises they made during the November 2009 Issue 2 campaign.

“One of animal agriculture’s most vocal critics has agreed that the Livestock Care Standards Board is the proper authority to handle difficult questions about farm-animal care,” said Fisher. “This is truly a milestone and confirms Ohio’s position as a national leader in farm-animal care.”

Others however, do not have the same enthusiasm as HSUS and OFBF about the agreement. A blog authored by Butch Hash in the Zanesville Times Recorder, mentions his disappointment — a “dark day” in agriculture is how Hash referred to it.

The Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) states that “Ohio's agricultural leadership has succumbed to pressures from HSUS — and the only group to benefit from this agreement is HSUS,” claiming that Ohio family farms will suffer greatly because they do not have the capital to make the move to alternative systems required in the agreement.

The AAA contends that because of the cost of the new compliance, such as new gestation stalls for hogs and new conventional cages for chicken housing, Ohio consumers will face increased prices for local produce or will rely on conventionally produced foods imported from nearby states or elsewhere.

A part of the agreement includes a ban on veal crates — all veal calves in Ohio must be raised in group housing by the end of 2017. Robert Cochrell, president of Beth El Veal, Inc., isn’t sure about the new rules that were put in place by the agreement.

“One of the intended or unintended consequences for the independent veal farmers in Ohio is that they will have two choices: Either cease production and go out of business because of an unsustainable, unproven method of production, or turn to an integrator that will own the calves, pay or finance the conversion and pay the farmer for his investment in labor and facilities,” said Cochrell.

In a recent editorial for The Columbus Dispatch, Cochrell mentioned that studies comparing group housing for calves with individual stalls found that in group pens there was twice the sickness, twice the mortality, increased medication use and poorer growth performance (an indication of the animals ability to thrive) than in individual stalls.

In an article by Brownfield Ag News, Ken Anderson describes farmers as being “dismayed,” and “betrayed.” According to Anderson, farmers across the country agree that HSUS’ primary goal is to abolish animal agriculture.

“I could not agree more with those people,” said Joe Cornely, spokesman for OFBF. “We at Ohio Farm Bureau fully recognize and believe that it is the ultimate goal of the Humane Society of the United States—just as our ultimate goal is to not let that happen. We haven’t given up the battle—we’ve just changed the rules of engagement.”

Do you feel that the agreement made by Ohio agriculture and HSUS is a positive action for Ohio agriculture? Do you think there was another option for Ohio?

*Photo obtained from: http://humaneeducation.org/IHEblog/confinedpigs.jpg

Ohio Farmland Preservation Summit

As the largest statewide gathering about farmland preservation in the nation, the Ohio Farmland Preservation Summit celebrated its 10th anniversary Nov. 5.

“Planting the Seeds of Future Prosperity” sought to educate nearly 300 attendees about news and issues regarding farmland preservation in the Buckeye State.

Farmland preservation is a collaborative effort among government and non-government entities to keep land strictly for agricultural use. Farmers engage in preservation to ward off commercial development, invest in future growth, enhance conservation practices and for financial security.

Ohio Agricultural Secretary Robert Boggs and Ohio State University President Gordon Gee opened the conference, while a special video address featuring USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan welcomed attendants.

OSU’s Nationwide and Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center hosted the one-day event.

Session topics included:

• The value of farmland
• 2007 Census of Agriculture
• Gauging support for farmland protection
• Reducing land-access barriers for new farmers
• Food policy and Ohio farmland
• Adapting to climate change using sustainable soil management

The summit commenced with dialogue about 2007’s Census of Agriculture.

Taken every five years, the Census of Agriculture is a complete count of U.S. farms and ranches. The summit analyzed Ohio’s results so that attendants would be aware of Ohio farmland statistics and could better gauge preservation growth.

Julia Musson, associate director of conservation funding, Western Reserve Land Conservancy, moderated a discussion about a variety of techniques farmers employ to safeguard their land from non-farm development. Testimonials were shared about farmers’ experience with using state and federal easement programs and donation tactics to acquire their land.

With data accumulated from Ohio’s agricultural easement purchase program (AEPP), Musson was able to provide information about Ohio’s participating farmers.

Attendants learned that most participants in Ohio’s AEPP are older corn and soybean farmers with at least half of their land invested in preservation. Money from AEPP is used by participating farmers to pay off debt, accumulate more land, compensate farm help and to finance equipment and buildings among others.

“The major part of this farm has been in the family since 1868, the rest was added in 1958,” said one AEPP participant. “This was a very good way of paying off debt and setting the farm up as one block so it could not be divided and sold as parcels. The possibility of this farm ground to be carried on to the fifth, sixth generation is likely.”

New Jersey is responsible for introducing the concept of farmland preservation to thwart urban expansion. The state passed The Farmland Assessment Act of 1964, which helped alleviate tax burdens on farm property so that more farmers could keep and purchase land for agricultural purchases.

Another session highlighted the growing interest about how food travels from farm to plate. Eleven existing and emerging councils throughout Ohio were discussed that are devoted to raising awareness about the value of family farms to maintaining a safe, local food supply.

Participants took away valuable information about how to personally participate in preservation efforts. As more and more farmers are made aware of our state’s assistance options, and as these programs evolve to reflect farmer needs, more Ohio land will be reserved for our state’s largest industry.

Do you feel that farms are alive and well in Ohio? What should be done to ensure that family farms maintain their presence throughout the state? How can the importance of the issues discussed at the summit be introduced to general consumers?

Issue 2 Divides Ohioans

As Nov. 3 approaches, advocates and opponents of Ohio’s State Issue 2 are campaigning to promote their beliefs about the proposed constitutional amendment to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.

The 13-member board, comprising three farmers, two veterinarians (including the state veterinarian), a food-safety expert, a local humane-society expert, two statewide farm-organization members, an Ohio agricultural-college dean, two Ohio consumers and the director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, will create and regulate standards regarding:

• Agricultural best management practices
• Biosecurity
• Disease prevention
• Animal morbidity/mortality data
• Food-safety practices
• The protection of local, affordable food supplies

Gov. Ted Strickland will appoint all board members except two family farmers, who will be elected by leaders of the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate.

The amendment originated as a response to threats from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to initiate legislation in the Ohio Constitution similar to California’s Proposition 2 last November, which banned animal confinement.

According to the HSUS Web site, “Issue 2 is little more than a power grab by Ohio’s agribusiness lobby. The industry-dominated ‘animal care’ council proposed by Issue 2 is really intended to thwart meaningful improvements in how the millions of farm animals in Ohio are treated on large factory farms.”

Many farmers and agribusinesses throughout the state have rallied, using mass-media and grassroots efforts, for the amendment, angered by blanket statements that all farmers mistreat their livestock and by attempts from the out-of-state activist organization (HSUS) to establish laws within their industry.

Issue 2 is designed to accomplish three things, says an Ohio Farm Bureau spokesman in a You Tube video: safeguard family farms, provide good care for animals and supply safe, local food to consumers.

“The Livestock Care Standards Board will have the best interest of Ohio agriculture and consumers in mind, “ said Brenda Hastings, a Geauga County dairy farmer, “as opposed to special interest groups such as HSUS who are motivated by promoting their agendas of a vegetarian/vegan society.”

Gov. Strickland, Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee and many agricultural groups, including Ohio Cattlemen’s Association, Ohio Corn Growers Association, Ohio Dairy Producers Association, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Ohio Pork Producers Council, Ohio Poultry Association, Ohio Soybean Association and Ohio Wheat Growers Association, endorse its passage.

Some opponents consider the amendment a dangerous precedent because, in their opinion, it concedes to the influence of special interests in the Constitution. Others believe it is masking agribusinesses in the guise of impartial counsel.

The social-media realm is crammed with dialogue about Issue 2. Pro and con-Issue 2 groups have created Facebook pages, Web sites, Twitter accounts and participated in countless blog chat rooms.

At Columbus Underground.com, one citizen blogger wrote:

“One of the common objections is adding another layer of government control over our lives. This is valid, but the alternative of activist control from Washington DC seems worse. Issue 2 is real simple; do you want Local Control or Washington Control. Control seems inevitable. Pick the lesser of two evils. A vote Yes will establish welfare and food safety rules based on research and data; a vote No will be a YES vote to activist control next year with no research or data as backing.”

As the days draw near, editorial after editorial can be found within Ohio’s largest daily newspapers, with farmers, consumers and editorial boards giving their two cents about the subject.

“HSUS, PETA and MERCY have chased pork productions out of three states and have Ohio in their sights. That makes a campaign and a ballot issue “necessary” to spread good, accurate information,” said Ralph Dull in a Dayton Daily News letter to the editor.

Akron Beacon Journal and Youngstown Vindicator have confirmed their support of Issue 2 while Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer and Dayton Daily News have publicly opposed it.

On Election Day, voters will have the opportunity to influence the mechanics of their food system. A “yes” vote for Issue 2 gives regulatory and oversight control of Ohio’s food supply to representatives with the education and history necessary to carry out such responsibility. A “no” vote may make Ohio’s farmers vulnerable to HSUS-invoked legislation that will significantly affect their ability to produce an abundant, affordable food supply.

Be informed before casting your ballot. Ask questions and take time to learn about what’s at stake for Ohio’s largest industry.