America Celebrates Agriculture March 8

Today — Thursday, March 8 — is the 39th anniversary of National Ag Day, appropriately the same day that I post my weekly blog dedicated to the agriculture industry.

Deservedly, agriculture has its own day in recognition of what it provides to our country and its residents.

National Ag Day is organized by the Agriculture Council of America (ACA). ACA is a nonprofit organization of leaders in the agricultural, food and fiber community, dedicating its efforts to increasing the public's awareness of agriculture's role in modern society. ACA developed a video to promote its important mission.

The National Ag Day program encourages every American to:

• Understand how food and fiber products are produced

• Appreciate the role agriculture plays in providing safe, abundant and affordable products

• Value the essential role of agriculture in maintaining a strong economy

• Acknowledge and consider career opportunities in the agriculture, food and fiber industry

According to Dean Bev Durgan of the Minnesota University Extension:

“We are living in a time of record land prices and good profits from agriculture. Today, agriculture employs 14 percent of the U.S. workforce and agricultural graduates have multiple job offers. There is an increased recognition of the importance of farmers and food. Even Bill Gates, the second-richest person in the world, is now devoting his wealth toward improving agricultural productivity.”

Though those of us active with the industry understand its significance, there is still much work to be done to educate consumers about the role of ranching and farming to sustaining and supporting American people and the U.S. economy.

“Not only do we need to teach consumers about farming, but those of us who work in agriculture need to continually upgrade our knowledge,” said Durgan.

Diane Gress from Shreve, Ohio, won the 2012 Ag Day Video Essay Contest and importantly noted during her video, “Most consumers do not realize the importance of agriculture to their everyday lives. In reality, from tomatoes to T-shirts, agriculture provides a myriad of products that consumers never connect to agricultural production.”

The consumer education process beings with American youth. Countrywide programs are essential to increase awareness of the necessity of the industry and range from state Future Farmers of America (FFA) and 4-H groups, to national efforts such as the “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” campaign.

It’s been widely reported that farmers and ranchers will be responsible for feeding more than 9 billion people by 2050, more than the current 144 people each farmer is currently responsible for feeding.

ACA describes American agriculture best — “abundant, affordable, amazing.” So today, I urge you to honor a member of the industry.

Are you doing your part to educate friends, family and acquaintances about the role of agriculture?

<!-- AddThis Button END

What experts, advisers need to know about farmers

This week, I’m featuring a guest author. Dr. Val Farmer, a clinical psychologist specializing in family business consultation and mediation with farm families authored the following piece, which is a great reflection of the mindset of the American farmer.

*As originally printed in Farm & Ranch Guide, May 4, 2011
Author: Dr. Val Farmer


Which occupational group rivals physicians in receiving unsolicited mail? Which occupational group consumes a substantial portion of our nation’s industrial output and is the focus of persuasion from scientists, economists, financiers, legal and tax advisors, policymakers, extension agents and representatives of agribusiness?

If you are a regular reader of this column, you probably guessed it. Farmers and ranchers are the targets of intensive efforts of persuasion and education. But how well do people trying to influence them understand their motivations and needs? What do they need to know about farmers to be successful?

Long-term view. Farmers love their profession. Curiosity about life and growth, internal standards of excellence and a continued commitment to improvement offer a creative challenge. Farmers are applied biologists trying to manage the forces of nature and fashion a livelihood for their families.

Experience on the land gives them an understanding and appreciation of its productive capacity. Farming is never done. Tomorrow and the children’s tomorrows depend on wise stewardship of natural resources.

Farmers are committed to the continuity of their operations and take a long-range perspective on innovations. They can’t afford serious mistakes. Farmers gather information from many sources and are conservative in risk-taking. The vagaries of weather, cost of production and market conditions add to their reluctance to expose themselves to high-risk situations.

No cushion. Agriculture as a whole is an industry under stress. The farmer operates in one of the freest segments of a global market economy. There is no fixed or guaranteed income. There is no employer to take the risks or smooth over the shortfalls. Living with uncertainty and stress is the price they pay for freedom.

The freedom and control farmers experience is greatest when it comes to decisions about the use of the human, financial and natural resources at their disposal. Farmers resist control from outside but are usually amenable to influence. Within their span of control, the fabled independence of farmers is real.

Making a profit is crucial. Why should a farmer adopt a new idea or product? Experts often lose sight of the fact that their primary objective ought to be the economic success of the farmer. Convince a farmer that he or she can materially benefit from an innovation and that the costs of implementation are affordable, and it is likely they will do it.

Technical experts such as scientists and economists have to bridge the gap from theory to practical application. The expert with the security of a fixed income may forget about the bottom line.

There is no shortage of creative ideas or potential improvements, but there is a shortage of resources. If resources were abundant, action-oriented farmers would look hard at changes they would like to make.

Communication and relationships. As much energy needs to be put into presentation and communication as is put into basic research. Technical experts often neglect communication and persuasion and then are mystified why their work isn’t appreciated or adopted. Purists enamored with the technicalities and the ideal quickly lose their audience. They can’t see the prairie because of the grass.

Many excellent ideas are developed in another context. They have to be adapted to specific conditions. A good idea for one particular operator may not be a good idea for everybody.
Part of being an expert is to know a lot about a small part of the total system. A technical expert would do well to read and study broadly in related fields so that the information fits a context. The race they are running may be in their own bathtub.

Some of the experts are also inclined to be parochial to their institution or their school of thought instead of championing an idea because of its merit. What makes people persuasive is the honesty they bring to the entire discussion rather than selling a particular product.
The expert who comes on too strong forgets that his job is to influence, not control. The farmer doesn’t forget who actually makes the decisions and who has to live with the consequences.

Farmers respect results. They respect their peers. If four or five esteemed operators from a given community try an innovation and make it work, then it won’t be long before the rest will want to try it. Educational efforts can be directed at those farmers who are progressive and in an economic position to experiment.

Helping someone else succeed is a tremendously satisfying experience. The people supporting the farmer will succeed in their effort when they, along with the farmer, are able to look at the prairie instead of the grass.

Some people have too much pride to accept an idea if they don’t have it first. They prefer to hang back and criticize the others. They are not secure enough in themselves to entertain an outside idea on the basis of its value instead of judging its source.

Timing is everything. The timing of a new idea may be poor. A person under intense pressure may not be objective about new ideas. Similarly, a person who has already decided on a course of action or just mastered a skill will not want to change horses in midstream, no matter how good the other horses might be.

Photo obtained from: projectwordpress.org

Removing roadblocks to ag markets

Historic controversy between the U.S. and Cuba has limited the potential for American agriculture to experience optimum economic trade opportunities.

Proposed legislation currently residing in the Senate would remove crucial U.S.-imposed restrictions on trade with Cuba to provide an increased market outlet for significant trade with the island country that is only 100 miles from the Florida keys.

The Travel Reform and Export Enhancement Act (H.R. 4645) would:

• End impeding trade requirements, such as the requirement that payment processes from Cuba to U.S. farmers must use a third-country bank and abide by its policies
• End the requirement that transactions be cash only
• Require that exports meet the same payment requirements as exports to other countries (payment required when the title of the shipment changes hands, not in advance)
• Permit U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba (allows for ag-sale facilitation)

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama announced his plans to double America’s exports throughout the next five years to strengthen the economy. H.R. 4645’s passage would help the country meet the administration’s goal.

“Cuba used to be one of our big markets,” said Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and the bill’s sponsor. “The bill “would help us get those markets back.”

According to a Bloomberg article that cites The U.S. International Trade Commission, the U.S. has the potential to supply two-thirds of Cuba’s agricultural imports if legislation is passed. This number increases its current 30-percent import volume to the country.

The U.S. exported $528.5 million in food and agricultural products to Cuba in 2009, according to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council. The U.S. has exported almost $52 million in food and agricultural products so far this year. The U.S. supplied 27 percent of the Republic of Cuba’s food and agricultural product imports in 2008.

The American Soybean Association, the U.S.A. Rice Federation, the National Corn Growers Association and other agricultural groups are referring to the legislation as “renewing normalized trade.”

However, not everyone promotes H.R. 4645. In a letter published at Forbes.com, Roger Noriega, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said:

“So what do agriculture sales and tourism to Cuba have in common, anyway? Not much. But hard-left Castro apologists are offering a quid pro quo to well-meaning farm state legislators, hoping that they will ignore the brutality of the Cuban regime and vote to loosen sanctions in exchange for meager sales to a bankrupt economy. The argument they make is that the 50-year-old embargo is only hurting U.S. farmers.”

AgriMedia Publications offered its stance about the legislation in an editorial posted at the Web sites of its numerous publications, “Restrictions and stipulations have made trade with Cuba very difficult, practically pushing Cuba to look for products elsewhere. If we're not the supplier, there are many who would like to step in, like the European Union, Canada, Brazil or Argentina.”

The bill has significant bi-partisan support (more than 30 co-sponsors) and farm-organization support, which promises to help its transition to the Senate for further deliberation.

Activating direct banking, the elimination of the cash-in-advance rule and unrestricted travel will improve access to this foreign market; creating an opportunity that benefits ag-industry members and the national economy.

*Photo obtained from The Center for International Policy’s Cuba Program










Food Inc. – Stirring the Pot

“You’ll never look at dinner the same way again” is “Food Inc.’s” tagline, a documentary with strong thoughts about corporate farming and the mechanics of the U.S. food system.

Director Robert Kenner created an aggressive film to offer Americans a detailed peek into food production from farm to plate. “Food Inc.” tackles several controversial issues related to our society’s food industry and unsubtly encourages vegetarianism and large-scale commercial organic production.

The documentary faults a food system dedicated to efficiency by highlighting divisive topics.

“Corn has conquered our world,” the film declares, citing that 90 percent of grocery-store goods contain corn or soybean ingredients, or both. The film contends that subsidizing such commodity crops is making the U.S. overweight. Consumers pay less for foods created from these food bases, which are higher in fat and calories, than they do for healthier options that are more costly to produce, preserve and store for farmers and companies.

“Food Inc.” also targets Monsanto, an agriculture company that sells seeds and other agricultural products, as monopolizing the seed industry. The company has patented multiple seed varieties that are staples within the industry. Monsanto is portrayed as an evil bully forcing farmers to purchase its seed to remain in business. The company is accused of wrongfully suing those that save and replant its year-to-year contracted seed instead of buying a new supply as legally obligated.

Of course Kenner showcases graphic scenes of animals in slaughterhouses and images of animals that are seemingly suffering on farms to lecture on the animal-cruelty angle.

Reactions have been mixed. Film critic Elizabeth Oppriecht wrote, “Personally? I left ‘Food, Inc.’, went straight to lunch and had a big ole’ fried-chicken salad. Much more reliable research should be and needs to be done to support or refute many of the insinuations made by the film. There are many obvious holes in the information presented.”

Advocates of the film include restaurant chain Chipotle, which is advertising the film throughout its nationwide locations, as well as cooking gurus Martha Stewart and Alice Walters and other celebrities.

Monsanto counteracted the “one-sided, biased” film with a Web site dedicated to presenting facts about misinformation presented by movie producers at (http://www.monsanto.com/foodinc/), where consumers can also e-mail the company with their questions. The company refutes an allegation that it declined to be interviewed and says that it actually invited the film crew to a trade show of which they chose not to attend.

“‘Food Inc.’ is counter-productive to the serious dialogue surrounding the critical topic of our nation’s food supply,” states the company’s Web site.

The documentary ends with a call-to-action for consumers, inciting them to practice animal-rights and environmentally conscious food purchasing with the motive, “You can change the world with every bite.”

Agriculture provides millions of industry-related jobs to Americans and is responsible for feeding not only our nation, but foreign countries as well. Corporate farming is designed to produce a low-cost, convenient and abundant food supply in a way that organic farming cannot compete with.

Will “Food Inc.” jeopardize the success of meatpacking companies and commodity crops? Will the U.S. witness an influx of organic spending at the supermarket? Will the federal government attempt to modify food-production laws?