Perspective: A Declaration of Interdependence

This week, I’m featuring a guest author, John Phipps, a farmer from Chrisman, Ill., TV host of "U.S. Farm Report" and Farm Journal columnist.

*Originally published July 27, 2011 in Top Producer


With our economy struggling to provide employment for all who want to work, references to "jobs" carry powerful overtones. Defenders of agriculture recognize this. They have manufactured a statistic that begs for verification: the number of jobs that "depend on" agriculture. This is usually asserted to be in the vicinity of 20 million.

Nailing down this factoid is tricky. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics is often cited as a source, it does not count "dependent jobs." According to econometricians at the Bureau of Economic Analysis who actually tabulate such numbers, employment in agriculture is about 740,000. So where do the rest come from?

Answer: Anywhere you want. Since farms link to food, for example, you can add any occupation that links to food in any way. It’s the ag equivalent of the "Six Degrees of Separation" game. But what exactly does "depend on" mean? Apparently, you can count occupations on both sides of the value chain.

Do you sell to farmers? You’re dependent. Do you buy from farmers? Ditto. I wonder why they stopped at 20 million.

Conveniently left unexplored is any comparison with other industries. Using the same methodology, how many jobs depend on the petroleum industry? On mining? Until both the definition and context of this number are made plain, it can fairly be seen as arbitrary.

But, setting aside the quality of this claim, there is, I believe, a larger and more hazardous aspect to flogging dependence on agriculture: It is exactly the wrong way to garner support.

Farmers have never been adept at empathizing with other ways of life. The many unique aspects of our work tend to make us think others don’t think and feel the way we do. But our feeling of dependence is a universal human sentiment.

Take our relationship to landowners. Most farmers share my unease with our dependence on the goodwill of someone else just to be able to farm land. Farmer "jobs" clearly depend on landowners. It is one reason we consistently pay "too much" for land—we are buying a chance to escape from that feeling of dependence.

So why do we imagine the rest of America enjoys being reminded that they are dependent on us? Gen. George Marshall said it best: "If you want a man to be for you, never let him feel he is dependent on you. Make him feel you are in some way dependent on him."

Wrong Approach. If I can spot this communication blunder, I am sure the media experts who include it in every "agvocacy" message are aware of it as well. This raises my suspicion that it is not meant as a message to others; it is meant to persuade farmers themselves.

We love to be the ones others are dependent on, and we love even more to hear it. So my rule of thumb is to assume the agvocates are looking to get into my mind/heart/pocket.

Like the misguided self-esteem-parenting scheme of a few years ago, this "bragvocacy" nugget is unhelpful to both our industry and those we serve. It hinders collaborative progress and better understanding of customer needs.

Economic transactions are basically exchanges of dependency. It is why they occur in the first place. My customers depend on me for corn; I depend on them for money. In a willing transaction, those accounts cancel each other out, not accrue in one direction.

Acknowledging our dependence on others does not diminish us. Those who refuse to recognize their reliance cannot prepare themselves for link failures and risk a rude economic shock.

Egocentric "job dependence" sloganeering taints our industry’s business connections with an insinuation of subservience. I prefer to see the interdependence of my farm within the global economy as a network of hard-won, high-value trust.









Farms — trendy tourism?

Family vacation spots run the gamut from resorts, amusement parks, national landmarks and now … farms? Agritourism, as defined by Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, is "the practice of touring agricultural areas to see farms and often to participate in farm activities." It’s a unique intermix of culinary, ecotourism and educational experiences. “It’s a sensational option for families with children of all ages, as it offers a true hands-on opportunity to explore working farms and ranches,” said Julie Bielenberg in her SheKnows article. Agritourism Examples

• Seasonal attractions: pumpkin farms, tree farms
• Food-processing facilities: honey, jam making
• Ranch operations: milk a cow, lasso a bull
• Vineyards

Agritourism is a beneficial concept for the agriculture industry, as noted in a BusinessWorld online story: “Farming today isn’t just about growing and harvesting crops. For an increasing number of farm entrepreneurs, it is also about cultivating and harvesting urban visitors, schools and other groups and tourists (local and foreign) all wanting unique rural and agricultural lifestyle experiences for which they will gladly pay.” Agritourism Benefits

• Generates additional revenue for local businesses and services
• Upgrades/revitalizes community facilities for residents and visitors
• Increases protection of rural landscapes and natural environments
• Preserves/revitalizes local traditions; promoting inter-regional, inter-cultural communication and understanding
• Promotes the ongoing use of local agricultural products and services
• Diversifies and strengthens the rural economy via job and income creation Provides a more energetic business environment for attracting other businesses and small industries to a community

The overarching benefit? Increasing awareness of agricultural issues and values among the public. Have you experienced an ag-related getaway? If you own a farm or a ranch, have people asked to experience your property? Photo obtained from: sheknows.com

Government doling out $20 mil to save wildlife in the Gulf

On April 20, an oil spill stemming from a sea-floor oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico caused extensive damage to wildlife habitats. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf has made acres of wetlands inhabitable for wildlife and the government is taking action to help protect those creatures affected.

Under a new program offered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), farmers, ranchers and other landowners are being given a chance to help save the wildlife affected by the oil spill.

In a recent article in the Paragould Daily Press, Nelson Childers, a biologist with the NCRS in Jonesboro, Ark., said the intent is to provide enough water, food and shelter so that migratory birds won’t have as much need to stop in the gulf region.

“[We’re] flooding fields that haven’t been flooded in the past, giving them more opportunities to have places to go to make them healthy for the journey,” said Childers. “Some of these birds are going down to South America. They’re not going to stay here; they’re going to keep going. We want to make sure they’re healthy enough to skip over that leg (gulf region) of the journey.”

The Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative (MBHI), introduced June 28, will provide $20 million in incentives to farmers, ranchers and landowners in eight states, (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas) to help improve habitat conditions and food sources for migratory birds that have been impacted by the oil spill. They are being paid to keep their rice and soybeans fields as well as crawfish and other aquaculture farms flooded for months longer than usual in hopes that the birds will visit the farms to find food and rest.

MBHI aims to utilize as much as 150,000 acres of private land to maximize migratory bird habitat and food resources. The acreage will provide critical wintering habitat for a significant number of waterfowl, wading birds and other birds.

Eligible lands include wetlands farmed under natural conditions, existing farmed wetlands and prior converted croplands. Rice fields are particularly suited for this initiative, as are aquaculture farms (catfish and crayfish) no longer in production, since they can easily be flooded to provide immediate habitat conditions.

Landowners can contact the nearest NRCS office for more information about the MBHI or visit www.nrcs.usda.gov/.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. “Endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

"It's an opportunity for Louisiana farmers, foresters and ranchers to help create habitat for migratory birds," said Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Mike Strain, D.V.M. "So far, our landowners have responded in record numbers."

MBHI will be delivered through two components:

• Component 1: Agriculture lands - NRCS is offering payment incentives to farmers willing to flood their existing farmed wetlands, prior converted cropland, or other lands that can provide immediate habitat for these species.
• Component 2: Habitat priority areas - this applies to private agricultural lands within and adjacent to the Flyways that enter the Gulf of Mexico.

“This is an urgent situation,” said Keith Jackson, private land programs supervisor for the Missouri Department of Conservation. “Some of the affected birds arrive in Missouri as early as mid-July. Birds ranging from mallards and herons to songbirds are going to find their traditional wintering areas along the Gulf Coast severely impaired by the ongoing oil spill. One important way to help them is to make sure they come through their southward migration in good condition. Enhancing the availability of natural foods and resting areas in Missouri can help them get through the coming winter.”

However, some are not as optimistic that this initiative will work.

In a recent article in Dultuth News Tribune, Dr. Frank Rohwer, scientific director for Delta Waterfowl, based in Bismarck, N.D., questions the initiative. He claims that the program doesn’t address species that use the costal bays and the Gulf.

“In my opinion, it stands very little chance of working,” said Rohwer, who also is a professor at Louisiana State University’s School of Renewable Natural Resources in Baton Rouge, La. “It’s conceivable that it will work for a small fraction of ducks.”

Steve Cordts, waterfowl specialist for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources agrees with Rohwer, stating that he doesn’t believe the initiative would shortstop ducks or even redistribute them to the flooded fields on their way south to the Gulf of Mexico.

Do you feel this initiative will work? Are there any alternative measures the government could take to save the wildlife in the Gulf?

*Photo obtained from: http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/99536019.html

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

Tree producers getting disaster relief

Crop farmers aren’t the only agricultural producers who are eligible for agricultural assistance.

Because of the Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund, the 2008 Farm Bill opened the door to possible support not just to crop farmers but also to tree farmers across the country.

Thanks to financing provided by the fund, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) created the Tree Assistance Program (TAP). This program provides financial assistance to those orchard and nursery tree growers that must replant or rehabilitate eligible trees, bushes and vines damaged by natural disasters. To be eligible the damage had to occur on or after Jan. 1, 2008 and before Oct. 1, 2011.

"This program helps our orchardists and nursery tree growers replant and get back on their feet after natural disasters," said Tom Vilsack, agriculture secretary.

The tree industry is commonly overlooked. What most people don’t realize is that the fruit and tree-nut industry alone adds an average of $18 billion to the nation’s economy. According to the USDA, the average person consumes about 270.9 pounds of tree-bearing fruit each year.

Recently, the 2008 Farm Bill extended the program to include Christmas tree growers who were previously ineligible under prior legislation.

The Christmas tree industry is larger than most give it credit for. Here are a few facts about Christmas trees that many people do not realize:

• There are roughly 40 million trees sold during the Christmas season in the United States.
• There are about 1 million acres in production for growing Christmas trees.
• The industry is valued at approximately $506 million.
• Christmas tree growing contributes to the economies of all 50 states.
• For every tree harvested two to three seedlings are planted in its place.
• Each acre of trees grown provides daily oxygen for 18 people.

In an executive summary by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Agriculture Disaster Relief Trust Fund was created with the intent to compensate farmers who have experienced weather-related losses.

According to Vilsack, orchardists and nursery tree growers were eligible to start applying for benefits under the TAP in May of this year.

To be eligible for TAP, producers must have suffered more than a 15 percent death loss because of the natural disaster after adjustment for normal mortality. TAP is a cost-reimbursement program, with payments covering up to 70 percent of replant costs and 50 percent of pruning, removal and other salvaging costs for replacing or salvaging damaged trees.

Eligibility:

• Trees, bushes and vines from which an annual crop is produced for commercial purposes
• Nursery trees include ornamental, fruit, nut and Christmas trees produced for commercial sale
• Trees used for pulp or timber are ineligible

What are your thoughts about the program? Should the USDA offer more relief programs to other areas of agriculture? Should the program include trees used for timber and pulp?

*Photo obtained from: http://www.texaschristmastrees.com/

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/

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










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

Ag event delivers industry development

“Cruising to success” was the theme of the 2010 Commodity Classic – America’s most-celebrated annual agricultural event. Held March 4 – 6, in Anaheim, Calif., the Golden State welcomed thousands of farmers to appreciate and advance the commodity sector of the agriculture industry.

Agriculture commodities are in-demand goods that are produced without fixed quantities. The balance of demand/supply of a commodity’s market dictates its price. Corn, wheat and soybeans are the U.S.’s main commodity crops, but in recent years, sorghum has established a presence in the commodity market.

Nearly 4,300 attendees attended the 15th Classic this year, including 1,363 growers from all over the country and more than 130 media outlets. According to the show’s Web site, it has more than doubled in size since the first Commodity Classic was held in 1996.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, addressed the convention during its opening ceremony. He highlighted agriculture’s significance to America’s economic health and prosperity, citing that every billion dollars of ag trade generates 9,000 jobs. Vilsack stated that he also believes that the USDA should be spearheading efforts to help the public realize the importance of agriculture.

“If you were Olympic downhill skiers you would be getting a gold medal or if you were professional athletes you would be going in the Hall of Fame. If you were CEOs, you would be getting big bonuses, but you’re not.”

Vilsack said he believes that the value system of the country is rooted in rural communities, which are faring poorly economically. Providing opportunities and alliances for farmers is important to help people invest and understand and to safeguard industry success, he said.

Top agriculture companies and organizations showcased new products, technologies and services that promise to enhance commodity growth. Numerous education sessions and briefings about ag issues were held concerning a variety of topics:

• Farming Your Online Community: Social Media & Beyond
• Marketing Strategies Your Lender Will Love
• What Capturing Carbon Means for Ag
• Take Technology to a Higher Level on Your Farm – and Make It Pay
• What's Next For Ag-Based Biofuels?

Event buzz surrounded discussions about potential in cellulosic ethanol, particularly regarding the use of forage sorghum as a feed stock, the extension of the biodiesel tax credit and the magnitude of trade/exports to the agricultural commodity community, among others.

For a glimpse into the event, visit AgWired’s photo album.

This year’s convention introduced and reiterated vital issues, products and technologies to the progression of the national agriculture sector. Industry members and consumers alike have much to look forward to as the months unfold.










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.

Congress initiates first female ag chair

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) replaces Sen. Tom Harkin as our nation’s chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

Former Ag Chairman Harkin filled the vacant Health, Labor, Education and Pension Committee chair seat, left vacant after the passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy.

This is another first for Lincoln, who became the youngest female senator at age 38 in 1998.

Since 1825, the committee has been responsible for legislative oversight of all matters relating to the nation's agriculture industry, farming programs, forestry and logging, and legislation relating to nutrition and health.

Born and raised in Arkansas, Lincoln considers herself qualified both personally and professionally for the position. Lincoln is confident that her background as a farmer’s daughter and her service in Congress have prepared her for the role.

"The American farmer and rancher could not have a better friend in Washington than Senator Blanche Lincoln,” said Mark Williams, president, Southwest Council of Agribusiness.

Lincoln’s former committee involvement:

• Served on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry since January 1999; has served as chairwoman of the subcommittee on Rural Revitalization, Conservation, Forestry and Credit
• Served as chairwoman of the subcommittee on Production, Income Protection and Price Support
• Played a role in the 2008 farm bill debate
• Served as chair of Rural Outreach since 2005
• Founded bipartisan Senate Hunger Caucus in 2004
• Served on the House Committee on Agriculture from 1993-1995

Several high-profile individuals from a variety of industry segments have publicly declared their support of Lincoln, including American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman:

"Senator Lincoln has represented the interests of agriculture and rural America since her election to the House of Representatives as a moderate Democrat in 1992 and her election to the Senate in 1998. She has deep ties to farming and hails from a seventh-generation Arkansas farm family. We know she will continue to be a strong voice for our industry and will continue as a consistent leader on key Farm Bureau issues such as those that relate to farm policy, the environment and estate-tax reform."

Progressive Farmer ag reporter Chris Clayton said, “Lincoln is also likely going to be more skeptical of climate legislation because it may offer little benefit for rice growers or producers of other southern crops. She was quoted in mid-August saying Congress should just focus on a renewable-energy bill and drop the cap-and-trade emissions plan.”

Some believe her strong sentiments will definitely affect policy, including journalist Phil Brasher of the Des Moines Register, “Lincoln is as vigorous a proponent for large farms and livestock interests (think Arkansas-based Tyson Foods) as there is in Congress. Pair her with the panel’s senior Republican, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and you have a powerful one-two punch for the southern perspective on agricultural policy.”

Interestingly, Lincoln is up for re-election in 2010, causing others to consider her new position as a self-seeking political move. Will she prove herself as the authority on a number of significant issues? Only time will tell.

Do you think having a chairwoman will impact legislation? What, if any, influence will her home state have on her decision-making process? Should other congressional members have been considered?

Farm Science Review Preview

Three days, hundreds of exhibitors, thousands of reasons.

For 47 years, Ohio has been home to the Farm Science Review, the Midwest’s three-day agriculture festival sponsored by Ohio State University, showcasing the latest and greatest in the industry.

The show, located at Molly Caren Agricultural Center in London, Ohio, provides access to industry trends and developments, which enhance the market competitiveness and consequently, the quality of life of farm-related individuals, families, businesses and communities.

“If your business is agriculture, our business is you,” is the show’s tagline, which has secured more than 4,000 product lines from more than 600 commercial exhibitors for display. In addition to exhibits, presentations and demonstrations will occur throughout the event that encompass a variety of industry themes such as technology, equipment, field demonstrations, agriculture law, production and management research and farm financial management.

"Nearly whatever service or product a farmer needs can be found at Farm Science Review," says Farm Science Review manager Chuck Gamble.

The event goes beyond farming to also feature arts and crafts, as well as booths about gardening, health safety, home improvement and landowner conservation.

Highlights include:
• Energy education tent
• National AgrAbility Project Booth: assists those with disabilities who are employed in agriculture
• Animal welfare education exhibits
• GPS field demos
• Farm pesticide collection

The complete show schedule can be viewed at http://fsr.osu.edu/schedule.html.

Individuals do not need to be associated with the farming community to enjoy the show’s offerings. Educational and entertainment opportunities abound for agri-business persons and consumers alike.

The exhibit has leveraged social media to market itself using Facebook, You Tube and Twitter, and promises to attract hundreds of thousands of people. One hundred thirty thousand visitors are forecast to attend.

Tickets cost $8 at the gate. Children ages 5 and under will be admitted free of charge.

Supporting Agricultural Initiatives

Research is a fundamental component in the health of the American agriculture industry. Not only does it safeguard the interests of producers and processors but it also is responsible for improving farming practices that affect all consumers.

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), a segment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, studies national industry priorities to improve our country’s farming practices “from field to table,” according to its Web site. Research is financed through money secured by Congress in the annual budget. ARS partners with companies, organizations, universities and other countries to meet the following objectives:
• Ensure high-quality, safe food and other agricultural products
• Assess the nutritional needs of Americans
• Sustain a competitive agricultural economy
• Enhance the natural resource base and the environment
• Provide economic opportunities for rural citizens, communities and society

“So widespread are ARS’s crop improvements, you’re very likely to be buying a product of ARS research any time you shop for produce. While many of these improvements—like extending harvest seasons, increasing growing range and improving disease resistance and tolerance to pests—appear at first glance to benefit only the farmer and rancher, they ultimately always benefit the public by making food more affordable and more available,” states the ARS research team.

Farms across America benefit from research findings; ranging from soil resource and watershed management techniques to the evolution of disease-resistant livestock. Innovations affect the national economy and industry as well as individual states with particular business markets. President Obama signed The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 into law March 11. The act allocates federal money to cabinet departments and includes, for example, $4 million in funds to targeted programs and services that support Ohio farmers.

“By investing in agricultural research and innovation, we help foster Ohio’s strong legacy of farming and empower the next generation of leaders in Ohio’s rural communities,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-OH.

Another advocate for industry research is The Foundation for Agronomic Research (FAR). FAR helps facilitate development and implementation of science-based research and education programs in applied crop and soil management. Like ARS, FAR supports important research and education programs to help bring science to the field for farmers and their advisers. Unlike ARS, FAR programs are funded through sponsorships, grants and agribusiness companies.

A question can be raised – What is the best way to organize and manage agricultural research? An ongoing debate exists about cost-effective research with some favoring the distribution of competitive grants to specific projects in individual states, while others argue that each state should conduct research about issues that affect the entire country.

Either way, research brings “science to your shopping cart” and ensures the continued success of the American agriculture industry.

How beneficial is agricultural research to the U.S.? Should more or less money be invested in research efforts? Toward what segments of the industry should ARS/FAR devote their research efforts?

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and how it affects agriculture

On Feb. 17, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, otherwise known as the economic stimulus package. The intent of the bill is to provide a stimulus to the U.S. economy in the wake of the economic downturn. The bill includes federal tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social-welfare provisions and domestic spending in education, health care and infrastructure, including the energy sector.

This bill and Obama’s proposed budget for the upcoming year are causing agricultural associations to take notice. There are definitely mixed feelings among farmers and agricultural groups on the benefits and/or drawbacks of the two.

Obama is calling for the elimination of direct payments to large farming operations, reduced subsides for federal crop insurance programs, the elimination of storage payments on cotton and the phasing out of farm-program payments to growers with incomes of more than $500,000 over a three-year period.

“The president’s proposed limit penalizes the farms that are responsible for the majority of food, feed and fiber production in the U.S.,” said Jay Hardwick, National Cotton Council chairman, in a recent article in Southwest Farm Press. “According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, farms with sales of $500,000 or more accounted for almost three-fourths of all agricultural products sold.”

The National Cotton Council (NCC) stated that Obama’s proposed program changes “fail to recognize the work recently completed by Congress on the Food, Conservation and Energy Act (FCEA) of 2008 [otherwise known as the Farm Bill].”

According to the Southwest Farm Press article, leaders of the National Cotton Council, the National Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association state that they would oppose any attempts to change the provisions they fought to include in the 2008 Farm Bill.

“We’re very concerned about that statement. We’re not sure if he was talking about huge corporate farms or other parts of our industry,” said National Corn Growers Association President Bob Dickey when asked about the president’s proposal.

The Farm Bill is a five-year agricultural policy bill. It continues America's long history of agricultural subsidy, as well as pursuing areas such as energy, conservation, nutrition and rural development.

On the other end of the spectrum, in an article in North Platte Telegraph, the American Farm Bureau and National Farmers Union are pleased with the stimulus package’s commitment to renewable energy and broadband service for rural America.

“The tax incentives for renewable energy, particularly for new renewable fuels, will help build an industry that will provide farmers and ranchers with income and the rural economy with jobs, while contributing to a cleaner environment and reduced dependence on imported oil, ” said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

So what do you think of Obama’s stimulus package and proposed budget impact on agriculture?