U.S. Agriculture Outlook 2017 Edition

2017 EDITION

THE BIG PICTURE

UAVs’ POTENTIAL TO CAPTURE IN-DEPTH AG DATA

Wasting Away The Food Waste Problem and What’s Being Done to Fix It

PLUS: The FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT and a Century of Support for American Farmers INTERVIEW with Rep. MIKE CONAWAY, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture

“

All across California, there are communities grounded in agriculture that share our values.

That’s where you’ll find us.

”

— Joel Arnold Food & Ag Relationship Manager Yuba City, CA

We roll up our sleeves for our communities.

Meet us: RabobankAmerica.com/WeAreRabobank Fresno/Madera Food & Agribusiness Center Fresno, CA

North Coast Food & Agribusiness Center Santa Rosa, CA

Kern Food & Agribusiness Center Bakersfield, CA

Mid Valley Food & Agribusiness Center Modesto, CA

Northern California Food & Agribusiness Center Yuba City, CA

Mid Central Coast Food & Agribusiness Center Santa Maria, CA

North Central Coast Food & Agribusiness Center Salinas, CA

Tulare/Kings Food & Agribusiness Center Visalia, CA

Inland/Imperial Food & Agribusiness Center Brawley, CA

Personal and Business banking products are offered by Rabobank, N.A. Agricultural products are offered by Rabobank, N.A., Rabo AgriFinance, and Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. Rabobank, N.A. is a Member FDIC and an Equal Housing Lender. Rabo AgriFinance is an Equal Housing Lender. Member FDIC and is not applicable to Rabo AgriFinance or Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. Online account opening available to residents of California only. © Rabobank 2016. NMLS#64977

Connect with us

Founded by farmers, committted to agriculture.

Measurement and control systems as flexible and varied as your projects. Our equipment can be used in applications ranging from soil moisture to canal control to general weather monitoring.

Systems can provide long-term monitoring in addition to real-time monitoring and control that can include visual and audio alarm notification.

With over 43 years of experience and data confidence, trust us when your measurements matter.

435.227.9120

campbellsci.com/ag2017

43 Years

Telecommunications

26

samoabizdirectories.com

Table of Contents 2 THE BIG PICTURE UAVs’ potential to capture in-depth ag data

By J.R. Wilson

9 HYDROPONIC FODDER SYSTEMS Benefits and challenges of this innovative approach to feed

2017 EDITION

Published by Faircount Media Group 701 N. West Shore Blvd.

Tampa, FL 33609 Tel: 813.639.1900 www.faircount.com

By David A. Brown

14 MAKING THE MOST OF EVERY DROP Research and technology for smarter irrigation

By Eric Seeger

18 DAIRY TODAY What changing structure, government policies, trade, and tech mean for U.S. dairy farms

By J.R. Wilson

24 GEAR GUIDE: 10 Products to Make Running Your Farm a Little Easier

By Eric Seeger 26 THE BUSINESS OF GROWTH Spotlight on seeds

By J.R. Wilson

28 INTERVIEW: Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service, and Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator for Technology Transfer

By Ana E. Lopez

36 USDA AND AGRICULTURE UPDATE

By J.R. Wilson

42 INTERVIEW: Rep. Mike Conaway, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture

By Ana E. Lopez

46 WASTING AWAY The food waste problem and what’s being done to fix it

EDITORIAL Editor in Chief: Chuck Oldham Managing Editor: Ana E. Lopez Editor: Rhonda Carpenter Contributing Writers: David A. Brown, Craig Collins, Eric Seeger, Eric Tegler, Jan Tegler, J.R. Wilson DESIGN AND PRODUCTION Art Director: Robin K. McDowall Designers: Daniel Mrgan, Kenia Perez-Ayala Ad Traffic Manager: Rebecca Laborde ADVERTISING Ad Sales Manager: Patrick Pruitt Account Executives: John Caianiello, Steve Chidel, Sean Darby OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION Chief Operating Officer: Lawrence Roberts VP, Business Development: Robin Jobson Business Development: Damion Harte Financial Controller: Robert John Thorne Chief Information Officer: John Madden Business Analytics Manager: Colin Davidson FAIRCOUNT MEDIA GROUP Publisher: Ross Jobson

By Craig Collins

53 FOOD SCIENCE MEETS FOOD POLITICS A history of USDA’s nutrition guidelines

By Craig Collins

60 INTERVIEW: Dr. Barbara P. Glenn Reflects on 100 Years of NASDA and the Work Ahead

By Ana E. Lopez

64 CREDITWORTHY The Federal Farm Loan Act and a century of support for American farmers

By Jan Tegler

70 ABANDONING THE CUT AND DRIED The Smith-Hughes Act and agricultural education

By Eric Tegler

76 PRODUCT SHOWCASE

©Copyright Faircount LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction of editorial content in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited.

Faircount LLC does not assume responsibility for the advertisements, nor any representation made therein, nor the quality or deliverability of the products themselves. Reproduction of articles and photos, in whole or in part contained herein, is prohibited without express written consent of the publisher, with the exception of reprinting for news media use. Printed in the United States of America. None of the advertising contained herein implies U.S. Department of Agriculture endorsement of any private entity. This is not a publication of the U.S. government.

UAVs IN AGRICULTURE

THE BIG PICTURE UAVs’ POTENTIAL TO CAPTURE IN-DEPTH AG DATA

The modern unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) first entered into military service in Israel and was not adopted by the U.S. military for more than a decade. Since then, the United States has become the world leader in UAV development and use as a military platform, but only recently have small civilian versions begun flying as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and manufacturers work on rules and safety regulations.

In Japan, however, small UAVs have been in use for several years – not surveilling enemy forces, but helping Japanese farmers with their crops, where roughly half the country’s cultivated land has UAV coverage. But only now are agricultural UAVs beginning to see use in the United States, although primarily still in a test mode.

“It’s a promising technology, although I don’t see it showing up in USDA surveys as being regularly used right now,” noted David Schimmelpfennig, a senior agricultural economist with the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS). “UAVs possibly could take over some monitoring and evaluation that are done on the ground right now, and people are excited about the potential for them. But we haven’t yet seen real must-have applications for crop production involving UAVs.” As with many new technologies that were slow to be adopted in agriculture but now are considered commonplace, it is that promise – that farmers potentially may benefit from information

“

2

on their fields gathered by UAV sensors and cameras – that is beginning to capture the attention of USDA, agricultural academia, UAV manufacturers, and farmers themselves. At this stage, the questions outweigh the answers, beginning with whether UAV services are for everyone and will they be privately owned and operated, parked alongDrones will side the farm’s tractors, or become a allow farming service, similar to crop dusters.

USDA’s Agricultural Research to become Service (ARS) has been working a highly on those and other agricultural UAV issues for at least a decade, data-driven including at the Soils Management industry, which Research (SMR) unit in Morris, Minnesota, and the Jornada eventually Experimental Range (JER) in Las will lead to Cruces, New Mexico. And USDA researchers say the pace of their an increase in work is accelerating. productivity “Our research took a positive turn in the last two years by using more and yields. instrumentation on UAVs when they became available to optimize the use

ALL PHOTOS COURTESY OF USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

BY J.R. WILSON

Left: A Lockheed Martin Indago™ AG quadcopter used by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to capture as much information as possible on the characteristics of soils and plants at the ARS Swan Lake Research Farm in Morris, Minnesota.

Below: A Lockheed Martin Indago™ AG quadcopter equipped with multiple sensors flies over a USDA experimental test field in Morris, Minnesota.

“Agriculture’s main concern is not [a] drone’s speed or flexibility, but the type and quality of data it can obtain,” according to a May 2016 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

of our resources, train our workforce/support staff, and capture as much as possible of, not data, but characteristics of the soils and plants that then can be turned into data and, at the end of the day, into information and knowledge,” SMR research lead Abdullah Jaradat said. “We need more instantaneous answers to new questions, especially with precision agriculture, when it comes to the use of chemicals or monitoring droughts, temperatures, etc.

“This cannot be done easily at an experimental or farm-field scale without UAVs, monitoring crops at different stages of growth and development. The largest part of the work we’ve been doing has been to select new crops or varieties for development trades, land cover, maturity differences – measuring everything using UAVs, then verifying with handheld instruments so we know the UAVs are capturing, with certainty, the information coming from the plants.”

Predictions for the potential size of the UAV agricultural market vary from an October 2016 report by 3

UAVS IN AGRICULTURE

Grand View Research of $3.77 billion by 2024 to a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report in May 2016 titled “Clarity From Above” predicting ag sales will be nearly 10 times that level by 2050, when a higher income global population of up to 9 billion will require a greater than 50 percent increase in food production.

“Drones will allow farming to become a highly data-driven industry, which eventually will lead to an increase in productivity and yields. Due to their ease of use and low cost, drones can be used for producing time series animations showing the precise development of a crop. Such analysis could reveal production inefficiencies and lead to better crop management,” according to PwC. “With those possibilities in mind, it can be assumed this technology will transform agriculture into a high-tech industry for the first time, with decisions being based on real gathering and processing of data. Thus, agriculture’s prime concern is not the drone’s speed or flexibility, but the type and quality of data it can obtain. So the industry will primarily push for more sophisticated sensors and cameras.

Another objective will be to obtain drones that will require a minimal level of training and be highly automated,” the PwC report stated.

While late to market, North America is expected to be the future’s key revenue-generating region, with a prevalent share of the industry due to the increasing adoption of drones for spraying, seeding, and livestock farming.

“The increasing technological advancements in equipment and for enhancing the quality of the farming techniques have led to the increased implementation of agriculture drones in the market,” according to a Grand View Research press release about its study. “Increasing automation in the agriculture process, owing to the labor crisis, such as lack of skilled farmers [and] aging farmers, is also expected to positively impact market growth. A favorable shift in regulatory policy is also expected to allow start-ups to operate in small and large farming operations and aid in disease and water management.

“Innovations in the GPS mapping field, coupled with advancements in precision agriculture, are expected to propel industry growth over the forecast period. Drones have the potential to implement better plantation with crop rotation strategies and

An RGB image taken by the Indago UAV (pictured on page 2) using the Sentera Quad camera, looking for indicators of nutrient- or climatestressed plants that are not visible to the naked eye, shows a difference (left of the red line compared to the right of the line) in population density, and therefore variability, in plant cover at USDA’s Swan Lake Research Farm, Morris, Minnesota.

give crucial inputs related to the daily progress of crops, which is further contributing to the growth.

The scarcity of trained pilots for operating drones may impact market growth, although the market is expecting to overcome the scarcity, gradually, with increasing applications of the drone.”

In the United States, larger farms have been adopting other information technologies in precision agriculture at twice the rate of smaller farms and UAV use is expected to follow a similar path.

Quadcopters have been the most commonly used to date, but are fairly small and slow moving, carrying relatively unsophisticated sensors that also are slow.

On a large farm, it takes several such UAVs a long time to cover areas of interest and acquire a complete set of data. UAV popularity is expected to increase significantly as they become faster and equipped with better sensors.

“Certain types of farms in some parts of the country already are using UAVs quite a bit, such as fairly large [unmanned] helicopters that can carry a large load

of insecticide to spray crops. But there’s a big difference between a platform that can carry a couple of hundred gallons of product and most of the UAVs available now,” Schimmelpfennig said.

“The latest and greatest things often come from ag retailers and service providers, who have economies of scale far greater than an independent farmer.

And private farmers are using consultants and service providers today in their fields a lot more than they did 10 years ago, whether they are doing precision agriculture or not,” he said.

That need for increased speed and better payload capability already is being demonstrated at the Minnesota research center.

“Right now, we are using technology developed by engineers who once worked for NASA and now have a new company [Sentera, LLC] in Minneapolis. The machine we have [Indago] has four prop motors and 5

UAVS IN AGRICULTURE

they provided us with easy-to-use software to map the field, fed it into the computer, and that connects to the UAV, which then flies over the correct route and returns,” Jaradat said.

“But the technology has developed very quickly since we began two years ago. I recently met a developer from a company in Iowa that has a singleengine, fixed-wing UAV that is much lighter than I ever imagined. It can cover larger areas in less time with a heavier load of sensors and cameras, enabling the capture of more and more information generated by the crops themselves, as well as livestock and habitats,” Jaradat said.

A similar evolution has been underway at USDA’s 278-square-mile JER, where ARS has been conducting ongoing research into rangeland mapping and monitoring for more than a decade, developing a workflow for acquisition, processing, and analysis of UAV imagery and relating remotely sensed information to ground-based measurements.

The range began using two MLB BAT 3 UAVs, fully autonomous GPS-guided aircraft with 6-foot wingspans, in 2006. In 2013, it upgraded to the larger BAT 4, with a 13-foot wingspan, greater range and endurance, and a heavier payload capacity.

6

A chart summarizing 18,360 data points derived from RGB/near infrared images taken by a USDA quadcopter flying over a Minnesota field. It reflects the changes in NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) for the same crop variety over approximately three months.

At the speed with which modern technology is evolving, a lot can happen in the years leading up to the market forecasts. That includes commercial adaptation of the continuing evolution of military UAV applications, such as cooperative work between UAVs and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) – from next-generation combat platforms to the new generation of driverless tractors and other farm equipment.

“Military UAV technologies are very sophisticated compared to what is out there today for agricultural use, and there is interest in leveraging what they have developed for civilian applications,” Schimmelpfennig said. “Custom farm service providers, which are being used much more heavily than even 10 years ago, are faster at adopting new tech. I suspect their use of UAVs to collect data to support crop services will proceed faster than their adoption and ownership by family farmers.

“But there isn’t yet a clear consensus on which UAV technologies work best and how to best implement them. For example, [GPS] guidance has been very popular and ease of use of UAVs for guidance will make them more popular. In terms of sensors, farmers are collecting yield data from combines and collecting maps that can be very hard to interpret.

“

That is not as useful as soil mapping and taking cores to determine the levels of nitrogen and such in the soil, which is not something easily done by automated equipment. If drone sensors can fly over an area and determine all that, it would really attract farmer interest.”

With the growing use of precision agriculture technologies and rising competition, today’s farmers, from small family operations to corporate-owned megafarms, are becoming increasingly concerned about privacy and operational secrets used to give them an edge. With their heritage of surveillance and repeated “Peeping Tom” incidents among early civilian hobbyists, farmers also are concerned about the potential for UAV misuse by their competitors. That also extends to what UAV service providers might do with the data they collect.

“That’s a major issue, in my opinion – how concerned farmers are about the privacy of their data,” Schimmelpfennig added. “They don’t want their data shared or even co-mingled for use by companies or government agencies. The results so far show farmers want to control their own data and not share it unless they get something valuable in return. So what role UAVs will play in precision agriculture in the next decade is a combination of sensor technologies and what the drones themselves can do.

“Mapping, auto-guidance, variable rate technology, and how quickly those are being adopted vary today and will depend on the ease of use and what is learned from them. Farmers expected to get a lot out of yield mapping and became frustrated with the amount of work involved. But as the technology became easier to use, with more wireless applications and laptop compatibility, they have become happier with it. But UAVs will have to prove themselves, then word will spread. And as the tech gets easier to use, UAVs probably will make it easier for small farmers to survive.”

How and when – although almost certainly not “if” – UAVs become a major part of agriculture’s future remains to be seen. But USDA and academic researchers and early adopter farmers have few doubts, given the increasingly high-tech nature of modern farming.

“Agriculture advancement in the last 50 years or so was based on major discoveries at the plant, soil, water levels, using mostly chemical inputs without looking at the bigger picture, the position of agriculture within the larger environmental context. We need a bird’s-eye picture to look at the overall system and that is being and will be provided more and more at a

Looking to the future, it’s not necessarily gadgets or new types of machinery, but the ability to understand the overall system and how its complex components interact.

”

larger scale and deeper depth by UAVs, in association with other technologies than have been developed in the past few decades,” Jaradat said.

“Looking to the future, it’s not necessarily gadgets or new types of machinery, but the ability to understand the overall system and how its complex components interact,” he continued. “ We don’t know enough about the complex nature of soil, which performs a very valuable service to humanity without us realizing it. When we can capture how the biological system within the soil environment works, we may have the next big lead into improving production and the environment. There are billions of bugs in our soil and we really don’t know how what we are doing impacts them – and what impact that, in turn, has on us.

“Whether it will be possible to look into the soil strata and see how things are interacting remains to be seen. We know there are instruments that can look below the surface to find archaeological remains, but we’re looking at something else – the biological status of the soil. Crop and natural plants reflect not only the environment surrounding them above ground, but even more the environment they experience through their root systems. So if we can model what we see above the surface, using UAVs, with what can be gleaned from how the root system interacts with the biological and physical components of the soil, that will be a big step forward,” Jaradat said. n 7

SMARTEST.

STRONGEST. LEADING THE WAY.

Your future depends on the decisions you make today. We deliver

industry-leading technology to help you maximize resources, proven reliability to reduce downtime, and the strength and durability needed to grow your operation for years to come.

Talk to your local Zimmatic ® by Lindsay dealer to see how today’s innovations will lead to tomorrow’s success.

© 2017 Lindsay. All rights reserved. Zimmatic and FieldNET are registered trademarks of the Lindsay Corporation.

FODDER

HYDROPONIC FODDER SYSTEMS BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF THIS INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO FEED

KCHITTOCK0511

BY DAVID A. BROWN

The grow decks of a commercial hydroponic fodder system are illuminated with grow lights.

Horses, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, cattle – different creatures, but all bound by a common thread: They gotta eat. That won’t surprise anyone in the ag business; but the way we feed livestock – meaning the what and the how – is rapidly changing.

At the epicenter is the term “fodder,” and, while we’ll shortly review some of the advancements that are shaping the scene, let’s look at the actual term.

Notably, the concept of fodder dates back to the ancient Egyptians, who found ways of integrating various dietary enhancers with the grass their animals ate.

Today, the broad definition of fodder comprises any feed given to domesticated livestock, beyond what they’re able to find on their own. This could cover a broad range of items like hay, grasses, sprouts, legumes, grains, and certain trees, but contemporary discussions of new fodder systems most commonly revolve around hydroponically sprouted grains.

Essentially, hydroponic systems create synthetic environments by controlling light, water, and temperature to grow fodder feed from seeds. Such systems may use a variety of seeds such as alfalfa, oats, millets, rye, sunflower seeds, lentils, or the most common selection: barley.

As Texas-based Fodder Consultants notes, barley is the fifth-largest cereal grain crop in the world, and the most nutritious. Half of the barley grown today is used to feed livestock, and that fits the grain’s historical use, which dates as far back as 3000 BC. For this and any hydroponically sprouted grain, “just add water” may be a little understated, but this process is unquestionably the most vibrant area of development and opportunity for those that produce and those that consume fodder. Generally, a hydroponic fodder system follows this process: Seeds are soaked in aerated water for about eight to 12 hours to soften the outer shell and accelerate germination.

9

WE’RE PUTTING

PREPAYMENT PENALTIES OUT TO

PASTURE APPLY FOR OUR 10-YEAR LINE OF CREDIT

855.596.6679

AGAMERICA.COM/SUCCESS-STORIES

AgAmerica Lending, LLC is a licensed Florida mortgage lender. NMLS ID#372267

Hydroponic fodder systems can be small, backyard operations or can be scaled up to meet the needs of large farms.

“

KCHITTOCK0511

Next, they’re placed in trays and grown under a constant temperature (typically between 60 degrees Fahrenheit and 70 degrees Fahrenheit) with or without artificial light for a period of six to eight days. The resulting sprouts form a mat of shoots and roots similar to a strip of shag carpet that is then cut to appropriate sizes and fed fresh to cattle and other livestock.

Chris “The Straw Hat Farmer” Anthony of Grow Dinner Aquaponics promotes the concept of hydroponic fodder by offering instructional videos that describe the process. (For clarity, aquaponics is a subset of hydroponics in which live fish are raised in the same system that provides water for plant growth.

Fish waste, cleaned by the system’s bacteria, provides nutrients for the plants through recirculated water.)

“This is a cheap, economic way to have winter food for your livestock that’s very nutritional – much better than hay and most commercial feeds,” Anthony said. “The nutrients are not only going to come from the grass; the nutrients will also come from the root matter.”

SELLING POINTS Indeed, the nutritional value of hydroponic fodder is one of its most appealing attributes. As Fodder Consultants explains, the sprouting process bolsters

FODDER

This is a cheap, economic way to have winter food for your livestock that’s very nutritional – much better than hay and most commercial feeds.

”

a seed’s nutritional content by releasing what’s stored within the outer shell. An unaltered seed is a carbohydrate that passes through the animal without providing much protein.

Barley fodder is 84 percent digestible protein, the molecules of which easily pass through the animal’s intestinal wall, into the blood stream and then on to the muscles.

And because the seeds from which fodder is sprouted are easily mixed with other grains, producers can grow specialized blends. Pricing and availability are the key drivers, but within the workable parameters, producers can blend various seeds to create the ideal formula for particular animals.

Other benefits include: Clean eating: Fully organic, hydroponic fodder is produced without pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizer. Moreover, because the sprouts are grown without soil, the animal can eat the entire plant all the way down to the root mass with no dirt consumed.

And because the fresh, green hydroponically sprouted fodder most closely resembles a farm animal’s natural forage, these meals actually promote better digestion and reduce the likelihood of acidosis and other digestive issues.

Resource friendly: Much more efficient than sprinklers or misters, hydroponic systems use far less water, and because hydroponic fodder is often grown in vertical rack systems, it alleviates the challenges of acquiring and maintaining sufficient growing space. The ag world is no longer necessarily a flat plane; it’s often a multi-level model of space efficiency.

Climate control: Strong, drying winds; extreme high or low temperatures; too little or too much rainfall – no worries for these indoor operations. With hydroponically grown fodder, ranchers can provide their animals with fresh, green, nutritious feed year-round, regardless of meteorological/atmospheric conditions.

Seasonal advantage: Commercially raised feed presents not only a cost factor, but also storage considerations to keep the feed dry and properly preserved until feeding. As Anthony alluded, livestock managers needn’t worry about how to feed their animals during winter when using hydroponic fodder systems.

11

FODDER

Business opportunities: Considering the increasing interest in no-grain feeding programs, it’s not surprising to see a burgeoning trend in the production of green fodder from the seeds of small grains.

This has created an economic driver for many local communities that have foreseen the future need for healthy food supplies to feed a growing population.

Moreover, hydroponic fodder systems will continue to positively impact modest family-owned ag businesses, organic farms, and those committed to producing “grass-fed” meat. For them, access to fresh, green fodder throughout the year is a benefit that cannot be overstated.

Dollars and sense: When grain and forage prices present economic challenges, hydroponic fodder can offer a workable solution. Upfront costs and certain maintenance considerations must be taken into consideration, but as we’ll see next, a hydroponic system can provide a viable option.

MAKING IT WORK Another fan of this innovative process, Jeff Severson of Hope Springs Dairy in Tumalo, Oregon, exemplifies the supplemental and economic benefits of raising hydroponic fodder. In a 2015 video describing his operation, Severson makes a compelling case for a labor-intensive yet worthwhile process.

“We grow fresh sprouts (so) our cows and goats can eat fresh greens throughout the winter; when we’re normally feeding them hay, we’ll also supplement with fodder to provide the nutritional value to the milk,” Severson said. “It’s also a cost-effective measure of feeding our animals.

“One pound of barley seed will yield about 12 pounds of feed. So you’re looking at about $80 a ton to grow your own fodder. Grass hay is about $260 a ton. So, for a little bit of work – a lot of work – it’s a good option.”

Because hydroponic fodder is not grown in soil, it does not absorb terrestrial minerals. Severson accounts for this by supplementing his sprouts with diatomaceous earth, a natural de-wormer and a good source of dietary minerals.

Another helpful additive comes on the front end of the process. Mold is a constant threat in hydroponic fodder production, but Severson finds that adding a dash of bleach to his seed soaking trays nixes this problem.

Severson also uses “grow lights” over his hydroponic system to bring out the attractive green coloration, noting that without it, the sprouts grow with a pasty yellow complexion.

The methods by which fodder growers light their systems continue to evolve, but light emitting diodes (LEDs) currently lead the way, with a great range of flexibility for matching the desired light spectrum to particular plants. Maximum Yield Modern Growing Magazine predicts that high intensity discharge (HID) lighting systems, particularly doubleended HIDs, along with sulfur plasma lighting will likely gain popularity.

ELSEWHERE ON THE FODDER FRONTIER Clearly, the ag industry has shaken the limiting notion that plants are grown only in the ground, one level at a time. Growing fodder on vertical racks creates tremendous production potential, but with great gain often come great requirements – often by way of labor.

For backyard farms and small independent ranches, the burden is often manageable. However, automation has become the necessary bridge for connecting large-scale operations with the benefits of hydroponic fodder production.

“If you’re going to feed (a sizeable group of livestock), the system has to be automated,” said White, who helped design one of the earliest automated fodder systems.

Automated hydroponic systems can plant seeds at predetermined amounts, provide optimal growing conditions, harvest sprouted seeds at the appropriate time, and then clean the trays for subsequent uses.

And talk about “smart” technology: An automated fodder system can not only regulate the crop’s watering and nutrient levels, it will collect data on the entire process and provide a comprehensive picture for administrative decisions. If any part of the process runs askew, the system alerts the administrator so corrective action can be taken.

Automated systems track all elements of the growing process and also keep track of how much fodder is available on a daily basis. No scrambling to count trays and check for readiness. If the machine says you got fodder, you got fodder.

When it’s time to harvest, an elevated arm rises to the appropriate rack. No ladders, no risk of slips and falls; just a dependable process that eliminates labor cost.

CHALLENGES AND CONSIDERATIONS Despite the irrefutable benefits, hydroponic fodder is simply not the one-stop-shopping of livestock feeding. Whether it’s cattle, pigs, or alpaca, livestock need a balanced diet that includes other types of feeds; fodder comprises an important supplemental role.

This can make the investment of time, labor, and resources a difficult decision. Moreover, the overall nutritive value of hydroponic fodder leaves room for questions about the dry matter animals need and the balance between the two types of feed.

A panacea this is not, but nothing that sprouted green fodder lacks should overshadow the legitimate benefits it brings to the table. And considering the current dwindling supply of grazing land and water, and demands for increased productivity, the developing world of hydroponic fodder production is likely to play an increasingly important role in the future of American agriculture. n 13

SMARTER IRRIGATION

MAKING THE MOST OF EVERY DROP RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY FOR SMARTER IRRIGATION

BY ERIC SEEGER Last year will be remembered by a lot of growers as a time when more water came from below their feet than above their heads. It was an El Niño year, which always promises extreme and erratic weather patterns – and 2016 did not disappoint.

According to USDA data, drought touched almost 1,000 counties across the country in 2016. The entire states of California, Nevada, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Alabama fell under drought. And the majority lands of Oregon, Hawaii, Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, and all of New England went dry.

Some interesting quick takeaways from 2016: California farmers took losses but they did better than in some previous years of its ongoing drought. And many states in the Southeast showed their vulnerability when the regular summer rains stop showing up. This all serves as a reminder that water is a finite resource, and security in farming means being careful with every single drop.

A recent report on the economic impacts of the 2016 drought, released by the Center for Watershed Sciences of the University of California, Davis, found that agriculture remains strong in the state even though this was its fourth straight dry season.

Irrigation has always been a critical issue in the state, and now California’s complex piping and water distribution system has many farming districts at odds over who should get how much water from a dwindling reservoir system. Pumping groundwater for irrigation has helped fill the void.

California has been a leader in the use of subsurface drip irrigation for decades now. Water is valued here probably more than anywhere else in the country. To put the state’s growers’ intense need for water into perspective: If using only irrigated water, it takes .75 gallons to produce a single pistachio, 3.3 gallons for a tomato, 1.1 gallons for an almond, and 4.9 gallons of water for one walnut. California grows 90 percent of each of those crops for the entire U.S. market. The state’s exclusivity in these (and many other crops in which it holds the national majority stake) is its economic strength, but water supply is its vulnerability.

14

“When the spillover effects to other sectors of the economy are considered, we estimate total output value losses of $600 million and 4,700 full and part time jobs statewide due to drought in agriculture,” the U.C. Davis report states. “Despite the drought, overall agricultural value and employment grew statewide during recent drought years due to several factors including favorable global prices for some crops.”

The loss equates to more than 1 percent of the state’s annual agricultural output. Still, with four years of drawdown in reservoirs and groundwater for irrigation, a possible fifth year of drought could prove problematic, the report states.

With rainfall down in so many places, research agencies are testing how crop returns look under varying levels of irrigation. For instance, in the Texas panhandle, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) hosted the 3,4,5 Project. It was a trial/demonstration to see how corn crops fared if they were irrigated at 3, 4, or 5 gallons per hour from a center-pivot irrigation system with supplemental rain.

The project was aimed at seeing if farmers in the Ogallala Aquifer could still turn a respectable profit while drawing less water. The Ogallala is the nation’s largest aquifer, but it is also being pumped at an unsustainable rate.

At the end of the season, the corn was With rainfall harvested and costs were tallied. The down in so 3-gallons-per-minute field netted $463 per acre, the 4-gallons-per-hour field many places, netted $483 per acre, and the 5-gallonsresearch per-acre field netted $513. So yes, more water equals more money per acre. But agencies are by those numbers, it required 66 percent testing how more water to increase the return by just 11 percent. The demonstration also crop returns showed some other results. look under “It’s interesting to know that the crops with less water, applied at 3 gallons per varying levels of minute per acre, had the deepest root irrigation. systems,” said Mike Caldwell, NRCS resource team leader in Dumas, Texas, in an NRCS blog post. “This shows that the

USDA PHOTO

Demand for food products is increasing much more rapidly overseas than at home. Lower trade barriers and increasing purchasing power have driven a surge in overseas demand. According to USDA, exports of American consumer food products are growing three times faster than sales in the United States.

Technician Luke Britten (left) and agricultural engineer Susan O’Shaughnessy (right) adjust wireless infrared thermometers while technician Brice Ruthardt (center) uses a neutron gauge to measure soil water content in a field in Bushland, Texas, which features a variable rate center-pivot irrigation system that can deliver exactly the right amount of water precisely where it should go. Scientists use high-resolution data such as those collected in this field to optimize crop performance in specific environmental conditions.

15

crop’s roots were using water in the entire soil profile with no water waste. It’s important to know this at a time when water levels are continuing to decline.”

Drought also struck hard in the Southeast. The region usually enjoys reliable rainfall across the calendar. For instance, Georgia averages about 3.3 to 5.3 inches of rainfall per month throughout the year. In 2016, most parts of the state saw deficits of at least 25 percent in annual rainfall. In Alabama, the governor held a November press conference on the barren bed of Lake Purdy, the city of Birmingham’s reservoir. The lake had reached its lowest level in decades. And farther south, Florida finally started getting litigious with Georgia as decreased flows from the Flint and Chattahoochee rivers have hurt salinity levels in coastal estuaries and affected oyster populations.

This new Southern outbreak of the water wars has been decades in the making, but the growing problem actually had a role in helping to further regional research on smart irrigation. The lower Flint River Basin hosts about 8,900 center-pivot irrigation systems to irrigate peanut and cotton crops.

They draw from a shallow aquifer, which has had a dramatic effect on local waterways. In past years, some tributaries to the Flint would run dry if there wasn’t enough rain. A multiagency partnership formed to study and try to curb water usage. The 16

A U.S. Drought Monitor drought assessment map.

In 2016, areas already hard hit – like California – continued to face drought conditions, and other areas of the country that typically experience relatively reliable rainfall saw deficits.

Agricultural producers are looking to more precise irrigation methods to help deal with the scarcity of water.

University of Georgia set up a research program in the area, and soon practical solutions, like dropping nozzles on center-pivot systems to minimize evaporation loss, were being rolled out to local farms.

The water disputes also led to some of the early testing and development of new smart variable rate irrigation technology. In 2004, the University of Georgia released its first stab at the technology to be tested in other areas.

Today, Neil Douglas, market manager for Trimble’s Irrigate IQ suite of products, says that a good number of the company’s U.S. customers are located in the Southeast. The technology that conservationists hoped would keep more water underground and in rivers, it turns out, is being adopted by farmers who want better harvests and lower operating costs.

When it comes to irrigating your fields, variable rate technology “is the difference between a paint roller and an inkjet printer,” said Douglas. With each nozzle head controlled separately, farmers can put exactly as much water as they need precisely where it belongs. They can also completely shut off water as the pivot passes over field infrastructure like access roads or ponds.

The way these systems work is that the nozzles don’t actually adjust the water pressure. Rather they open and close at varying rates, like the fuel injectors on a car’s engine, to deliver the right amount of water.

THE U.S. DROUGHT MONITOR IS JOINTLY PRODUCED BY THE NATIONAL DROUGHT MITIGATION CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION. MAP COURTESY OF NDMC-UNL

SMARTER IRRIGATION

In areas that need to be wetter, the nozzles stay open longer – and vice versa. With the proper prescription programmed into the controller, the irrigation system accounts for areas of a field that are naturally drier or wetter and applies just the correct amount of water.

This technology is improving previously tricky corner-arm irrigation. As a center-pivot swings its corner arm outward to increase the amount of field being irrigated, it would typically drop an uneven amount of water throughout the zone. Trimble’s Uniform Corner system offers a variable rate irrigation package that adjusts the center pivot’s movement and delivery to the corner arm. Douglas describes a center-pivot system operating a 100 percent flow throughout its normal rotation. But when its arm begins to swing, the center pivot knows to slow down so that it can divert water to the extension arm. By moving slowly, the center section will still achieve the desired saturation even though the flow rate has dropped. Meanwhile, the smart nozzles over the corner are applying the same amount of water there, too.

Farmers can control the variable rate systems remotely, eliminating the need to handle each pump manually. They can monitor and control dozens of fields without leaving their house, though one limiting factor, Douglas noted, is cellular service; Irrigate IQ products need a cellular data connection to communicate, so some farms are still just too remote.

Variable rate irrigation equipment is added to existing center pivots, so the expense is fairly reasonable. A few studies have shown that a system

can usually cost anywhere from about $15,000 to more than $30,000 per center pivot, with much of the price potentially being offset by state and federal grants. After that, users can expect to see anywhere from 7 percent to about 25 percent water savings.

Beyond the water savings, Douglas also noted that some of his customers are reporting other benefits.

Potato farmers in Idaho that have switched to variable rate irrigation mentioned that they are seeing their products last longer in storage. The theory, anecdotal as it is, is that potatoes watered precisely may have better moisture levels and therefore don’t spoil as quickly.

Whatever the reason, meteorologists are suggesting that future weather patterns may be less even and unpredictable. And many farmers pumping groundwater are seeing the water levels under their feet continue to decline. If we are going to keep our water systems viable for production, we must make smarter use of the resource. Luckily, the technology exists to accomplish that. The question is how soon farmers will come around to adopting it in numbers large enough to make a difference. n

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OUR ENGINEERS HAVE

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR FOREIGN MATERIAL. We have developed a technology to separate rocks, clods, vines, corn trash, and grass from potatoes. We simply call it the AirSep. An innovation based on an airstream where rocks and clods can fall through, lighter trash will be blown out, and clean potatoes will be the result.

Explore the innovation at www.Spudnik.com

DAIRY

DAIRY TODAY

WHAT CHANGING STRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT POLICIES, TRADE, AND TECH MEAN FOR U.S. DAIRY FARMS

BY J.R. WILSON

Dairy farming and dairy product creation and distribution have undergone massive changes in the last 25 years, including a wide-swinging public perception pendulum on the nutritional value and safety of milk and milk products. Every such change, whether technological or economic, has an impact on dairy industry investment in new equipment, livestock, land use, expanded or contracted acreage, research and development, hiring, training, etc.

The future of dairy farming is a national issue, with dairy farms found in all 50 states, led by California, Wisconsin, Idaho, New York, and Pennsylvania. And unlike most other farms, the vast majority of U.S. dairy farms remain family-owned and operated.

According to “Changing Structure, Financial Risks, and Government Policy for the U.S. Dairy Industry,” a March 2016 report by USDA’s Economic Research Service, the shift in U.S. dairy farming from small to larger, still family-owned, farms has reduced industry-average production costs and contributed to growing dairy product exports. At the same time, increased international exposure has created new price risks for U.S. farmers.

The report found median herd size in the United States grew from 80 or fewer cows in 1987 to 900 by 2012. As herd sizes increased, average milk production costs fell sharply, with the largest farms (2,000 or more cows) reporting costs 16 percent below farms with 1,000 to 1,999 head and 24 percent below farms with 500 to 999 cows. Changes in farm size also reduced national average milk production costs by nearly 19 percent between 1998 and 2012.

All that helped make the United States a major world supplier, with dairy exports growing from $1 billion in 2003 to $7.2 billion in 2014.

“Dairy farming, in general, is changing rapidly, becoming more and more professional. Herd sizes are increasing, automation is a reality, and in the next decade, we expect to see a lot more data gathered that will enable us to take the dairy industry to a new place,” João Dürr, CEO of the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding (CDCB), told U.S. Agriculture Outlook.

“And consumers, I think, are beginning to realize a lot of what has been said about milk and beef is not 18

true – animal protein is an essential part of human nutrition and we are committed to provide that to our consumers. We are a service operation, focused on the interest of the farmers, but the principle that drives us is feeding a world population with healthy products from healthy animals.

So we are part of the machinery, providing tools to help farmers maintain better operations,” he said The nonprofit CDCB is a collaboration involving several elements of the dairy industry, representing four major operations: Data Herd Information Services, Data Record Processing Centers, Breeder Association, and the National Association of Animal Breeders, which represents the semen sales industry.

“We also receive information on animal genotypes to help predict how they will perform or if they might develop some condition or even have a longer-than-average life expectancy. That can be determined as soon as the animal is born,” Dürr explained. “A good part of our database also is dedicated to pedigrees, because knowledge about relationships is valuable in Producers are studying inheritance of traits. always looking “Our role is to be a cooperative database, gathering informato improve their tion from all these segments into operations a central location to support the through better National Genetic Evaluation System, which ranks animals according to technologies, their potential. We also provide genetics, seeds, benchmarks for different organifarm management zations and farmers, so they can compare their own operations with techniques, and others across the country and estabrobotics. lish their own goals.”

With millions of genotypes on file, the CDCB database is the largest of its kind in the world. The database also contains information on each cow’s life and performance, a valuable asset when applying models to determine what a genotype represents.

“The genotype itself isn’t very useful unless it can be matched with specific information about the animal involved,” Dürr added. “From our perspective, the genomic method [sequencing, analysis, and mapping of an organism’s genome] has had the most significant effect on productivity at the farm level in the past decade.

“ ”

USDA PHOTO BY BOB NICHOLS

Farm manager Courtney Biggs prepares cows to be milked at Chapel’s Country Creamery, a dairy that produces artisan cheeses in Easton, Maryland. Although the United States is becoming a bigger player in world dairy markets, it still produces primarily for domestic consumption.

19

Got Grain?

Customized Grain Monitoring Systems Grain Storage Made Better

46°

46°

80°

52°

For a FREE quote call 800-438-8367

73°

60°

60°

72°

Tri-States Grain Conditioning, Inc.

Spirit Lake, Iowa

www.TSGCinc.com

Protection.

From the Field to Food Safety a Crop Protection Bactericides, Fungicides, Foliar, Soil, Insecticides, Herbicides, Nutrients

a Water Treatment Microbicides, Algaecides, Irrigation Treatments

a Food Safety Sanitizers, Cleaners, Bactericides, Floor Applications, Storage Applications

a Equipment Monitoring and Dosing, Test Strips, Fogging, Foaming

BEE FRIENDLY

1.888.273.3088 | biosafesystems.com

Scan here to learn more

USDA PHOTO BY BOB NICHOLS

DAIRY

“What we do has nothing to do with genetic engineering. We just read the animal’s DNA, then predict what the percent of protein in its milk [will be]. So we can tell a farmer one cow has more potential than another or which bull will provide better protein production capability to his daughters. We aren’t trying to create super cows or super bulls, but to improve productivity at the farm level by gathering information on herds and individual cows.”

Within USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist, the World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) provides information and forecasts about the agriculture market each month in its World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates Report. The chief economist then uses that information on what the markets are doing and what WAOB predicts they will do going forward to look at existing or proposed government policies and how they may affect dairy and other markets.

There have been a number of changes in government support programs in agriculture in recent years, especially under the Agricultural Act of 2014 and the Dairy Margin Protection Program (DMPP), which replaced previous support programs, at least through the end of 2018.

Under the DMPP, producers have the option to buy insurance from the federal government to protect themselves if the price of milk falls below a certain part of costs, with premium payments based on how

Cows wait to be milked. The Agricultural Act of 2014, otherwise known as the 2014 Farm Bill, made some changes to government support programs for dairy producers, including the implementation of the Dairy Margin Protection Program and the Dairy Product Donation Program, and the eradication of the Dairy Export Incentive Program.

much milk is to be covered and related costs. DMPP replaced the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, which enabled the government to compensate dairy producers when domestic prices fell below a specified level.

However, the 2014 Farm Bill created the Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP), which now addresses low margins for dairy operations by using Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds to buy dairy products for donation to public and private nonprofit organizations that provide nutrition assistance to low-income populations. Such purchases are only made by USDA during periods of low margins and dairy operators do not need to enroll to benefit from the DPDP, which, if ever triggered, will be administered jointly by USDA’s Farm Service Agency and Food and Nutrition Service.

“The Dairy Export Incentive Program, which provided payments to dairy exporters to bring U.S. prices closer to world prices, making it more competitive, also was ended under the 2014 Act,” said Shayle Shagam, a WAOB dairy analyst. “By supporting prices through product purchases, the government was setting prices and removing product from the market without any real relationship to what was happening in the world market.”

“So now, U.S. export prices have to compete on their own against prices in the rest of the world, such as competitors from Australia, New Zealand, and the EU. If there is a strong U.S. dollar and large global supplies, U.S. dairy may not be as competitive as we might like, as has been the case in the past couple of years.”

As those changes went into effect and dairy farmers and product producers scrambled to adjust, they also were faced by market changes stemming from import bans from some nations – as Russia did with U.S. and Australian dairy – forcing them to compete for replacement markets. Those efforts included a greater focus on new technologies, from UAVs for herd and field management to automated milking machines to converting waste products into useable energy.

“Producers are always looking to improve their operations through better technologies, genetics, seeds, farm management techniques, and robotics,” Shagam added. “The results will depend on each individual producer, but as attempts are made to reduce cost structures, improve their product, and expand production, all those will come into play.”

Further complicating where the dairy industry makes new investments are societal changes and consumer perspectives on dairy products – and their non-dairy alternatives – both in the United States and abroad.

“Changes in dietary habits are affecting consumption of dairy products, which cuts both ways – a decline in fluid milk consumption in the U.S., but an increase in cheese-containing foods, such as pizza.

21

And a new view of fats, such as butter, which is now seen as not as unhealthy as previously thought.

Alternate beverage products, such as soy milk, also provide competition. Internationally, the main competition comes from other exporting nations,” Shagam said, adding all those variables are tracked and reported on by various USDA components.

“We have programs partnering with groups such as the U.S. Dairy Export Council to encourage U.S. sales overseas. We also maintain agriculture attachés in our embassies, who report on market conditions in other countries. The WAOB then uses that information to determine the potential for U.S. exports, what the world supply will look like, and what the U.S. will be facing globally in terms of supply and demand.”

Twice a year, through USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), WAOB publishes a forecast for global supply and demand, similar to its monthly domestic reports. Those reports then may be used by U.S. dairy producers and organizations to determine market potential, university researchers to see how things are changing, and policymakers to determine where the United States stands relative to other nations and the impact of both U.S. and foreign policies.

22

An Astronaut automatic milking system (AMS)

by Lely. Such systems went into use in Europe in 1992; the first AMS in the United States was installed in 2009.

“We are becoming a larger player in the world dairy markets and so more internationally focused, although we still produce primarily for domestic consumption. Right now, we’re working through a situation of large global supplies, making it more difficult to compete, although possible improvements in the EU and Oceania may, in the long term, see some benefit to our ability to export product,” Shagam said.

In terms of production, the EU leads the world, especially thanks to high dairy production in The Netherlands and Ireland, with the United States in second place. Late year USDA/FAS estimates for 2016 show about 152 million metric tons (mt) of cow’s milk production in the EU and 96.4 million mt in the United States; India is third with about 68 million mt.

On the export side, looking at individual products, not milk itself, the EU also dominates. In cheese exports, for example, the EU’s 820,000 mt is nearly triple that of No. 2 America’s 280,000 mt and far surpasses Australia’s 166,000 mt. New Zealand, however, leads the world in butter exports at 565,000 mt, more than double the EU’s 235,000 mt and dwarfing America’s estimated 34,000 mt in 2016. Non-fat dry milk total exports for the year

PHOTO BY ANOEK2012

DAIRY

“

show 560,000 mt from the EU, 569,000 mt from the United States, and 450,000 mt for New Zealand.

According to USDA/FAS numbers, almost every category of U.S. dairy product exports showed significant increases between 2009 and 2016, led in percentage jumps by cheese (roughly triple) and ice cream (up 234 percent).

“So we are a major player, but others, especially New Zealand and Australia, produce a lot of milk with a small domestic consumption. Consumption in the EU is high, but they are very export oriented,” Shagam said. “In the past 10 to 20 years, the U.S. world market share has grown, especially with milk prices no longer set by government policy, but by the market, which allows us to be more flexible. And as other nations grow in income, their demand for dairy products increases. So the change in U.S. policy and the growth in overseas markets have both contributed to the growth in U.S. sales.”

Showing just how complex modern agriculture has become, even far more accurate and timely reports on global supply and demand, changing consumer trends, uncontrollable factors such as weather, and purely political domestic and foreign policy changes may be moot if the industry, from the farm to the factory, does not recognize, understand, and properly implement new technologies.

“If we only talk about genetic improvements in the past 15 years, using information supplied by USDA, you can see how much the industry has depended on and gained from WAOB’s efforts to provide a clear, palpable competitive advantage to U.S. dairy internationally,” Dürr said. “Today we have more automated tools and computers used by farmers, facilitating the flow of information, and, as dairy farms grow in size and become even more automated, all aspects of those operations have been evolving.

“What we do is very desirable from a consumer point of view. There is no concern about genetic engineering; instead, our reports allow decisions to be balanced, not just based on production, but also the health of the animals. And no one is more concerned about the well-being of cattle than farmers. The genomic method is a technology that provides opportunities to select future generations of animals that are healthier, less prone to disease, and produce more and better quality food.”

Other changes in dairy farming would astound previous generations of farmers – perhaps especially the growing provision of waterbeds to improve the quality of dairy cow sleep and, subsequently, milk production and quality. Farmers whose lives were controlled by the need to get their cows into barn stalls at specific times each day and hook them up to milking machines – also once considered a technological marvel – would, at the very least, be impressed by robotic milking machines.

“U.S. dairy farming faces two major and ongoing changes. One is a structural change toward fewer but larger dairy farms, while the second is a change in dairy product consumption away from fluid milk products and toward manufactured products for domestic and international markets.”

Automatic milking systems (AMS) – robotic milkers – were developed in Europe, where they went into use in 1992. The United States was introduced to AMS in 2000, but it was another nine years before the first robotic milker was installed on a Michigan dairy farm.

Since then, automated milkers have been installed on a rapidly growing number of U.S. dairy farms – nearly all with fewer than 350 cows – and there are more than 35,000 AMS units worldwide.

An AMS comprises a milking machine, a teat position sensor (usually a laser), a robotic arm for automatic teat-cup application and removal, and a gate system to control cows entering and leaving. As a cow enters the controlled area, enticed by highly desirable feed, a sensor reads her RFID tag; if she had been milked too recently, the automatic gate system sends her out of the unit. For those that are milked, an automated system of teat cleaning, milking cup application, milking, and teat spraying commences. When milking is completed, the cow is guided out – all with no human intervention.

An AMS can handle up to 70 cows per unit each day.

Another major change in farm operations involves a new use for manure, long used to fertilize fields. Most common on large farms, anaerobic digester systems allow farmers to capture the methane gas contained in manure and convert it into electricity. More recently, farmers have been adding out-of-date food, otherwise bound for a landfill, from local groceries. Combined, even the manure from a herd of only 100 cows can generate enough electricity to power more than 100 homes.

“U.S. dairy farming faces two major and ongoing changes. One is a structural change toward fewer but larger dairy farms, while the second is a change in dairy product consumption away from fluid milk products and toward manufactured products for domestic and international markets,” the USDA/ERS report concluded.“The two changes interact with one another: structural change toward larger farms reduced industry average production costs and made U.S. dairy products more competitive in international markets, while change in product composition favors larger operations located away from population centers.”

Dramatic changes in U.S. dairy farm structure, production levels, domestic consumption, international market presence, domestic and international government policies, currency rate fluctuations, and, to a growing degree, major advances in technology indicate even greater future complexity.

A senior executive at John Deere described U.S. agriculture as being second only to the military in its use of technology. Increasingly, that also now includes what the Department of Defense calls C4I – command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence. That is nowhere more certain than on a 21st century dairy farm. n

”

23

Gear Guide:

DEERE & COMPANY PHOTO

10 PRODUCTS TO MAKE RUNNING YOUR FARM A LITTLE EASIER

BY ERIC SEEGER

PORTABLE WELDER: MILLERMATIC 211 SERIES Farming is hard on equipment. Things break, and sometimes things need to be built. Either case, it’s helpful to have a versatile welder. The Millermatic 211 MIG welder is strong enough to live in a fabrication or repair shop, but it’s portable enough to leave the shop to do fixes in the field.

The unit can weld down to 24-gauge steel and all the way up to 3/8-inch steel. It can run on either 120-volt or 240-volt current, and it can operate on pre-programmed or manual settings for gas, gasless, and fluxcored wires. And it can be upgraded to run an aluminum spool gun, too. There’s nothing this welder can’t fix.

GOT YOUR GOAT?: EASYKEEPER HERD MANAGER Managing a goat herd got a little easier in 2009, when EasyKeeper first launched. The web-based herd tracker/manager is designed to help many different types of goat stock: meat goats, milkers, fiber goats, and hobby/specialty goats. Today, the service costs either $19 or $27 per month, depending on how many types of data are being tracked. And while it might take some effort in the beginning to input data from every animal in the herd, the long-term benefit is always having the entire herd’s status readily available: track medical history and productivity of individual goats. Get a census of the current herd. Determine how many animals are on the farm and which ones are on lease.

24

MECHANICAL MULE: JOHN DEERE GATOR 6X4 Not every job around a working farm is right for a full-sized pickup. That’s where the trusty Gator 6x4 shines. Sure, it’s not new, but it just works so well and has yet to see any real competition in the marketplace (sorry, side-by-sides, you’re fun for trail riding and hunting, but you’re just not the same as a six-by.) The Gator’s conga line of moon-buggy tires means that it refuses to get stuck. And starting at about $10,000 (gasoline) and about $11,400 (diesel), it is still a tremendous value for the amount of work it can easily perform around the farm.

PROTECT YOUR DATA: GRIFFIN SURVIVOR SERIES ALL-TERRAIN 15 years ago, if someone said that farmers would be carrying tiny touchscreen computers all day, you probably would have laughed.

But smartphones and tablets have worked their way into the fields.

Griffin’s Survivor All-terrain series of proactive covers stands out in a pretty crowded marketplace. The case is designed to military specifications for survivability. It can save an iPad Pro® from a 4-foot drop onto concrete, and it keeps all ports sealed to protect against dust and rain.

GRIFFIN TECHONOLOGY PHOTO

MILLER ELECTRIC MFG. CO. PHOTO

TOOLBOX MUST-HAVE: RESCUE TAPE Let’s get one thing out of the way: Duct tape is an amazing product and half of America would still be sitting on the side of the road somewhere if it weren’t for that resourceful friend and his trusty roll of silver tape. But if you work around hoses and pipe all day, say, on an irrigation system or vehicles, you should probably invest in a roll of Rescue Tape. It’s a self-fusing silicone tape that, when wrapped around broken pipe and given time to settle, adheres to itself and tightens up to create a lasting leak-proof repair that’s good from minus 60 to 200 degrees Celsius and 700 PSI. The internet is already loaded with hero stories of Rescue Tape being used to repair radiator hoses, fix water pipes, and even patch leaking hydraulic lines. Duct tape may have finally met its match.

TWO-FOR-ONE: GREAT PLAINS 45-FOOT CULTIVATOR/AIR DRILL This is a huge piece of equipment, designed to make planting massive swaths of land go a lot faster. Introduced in 2016, Great Plains’ new combined 45-foot-wide cultivator and air drill is aimed at farmers in the High Plains who plant large wheat fields. In a single pass, this twoin-one unit performs finish tilling, plants seeds, and applies fertilizer or chemicals. The cultivator/air drill carries two massive seed bins to make the job go even faster. Because if there are two things farmers could stand to save, it’s time and fuel.

GREAT PLAINS MANUFACTURING INC. PHOTO

FARM TRUCK OF THE YEAR: ANY BASE-MODEL AMERICAN HEAVY DUTY WORK TRUCK WITH A VINYL INTERIOR There’s a common gripe that pickups have gone too far upscale for their own good. And if your work takes you around any kind of field – be it crop or livestock – on a rainy day, that plush carpet and leather interior become a liability. But if you dig around the major truck manufacture websites, there are still some trucks out there that are as tough and durable as a good set of work boots. Ford F250, Ram 2500 Tradesman, and GMC Sierra 2500 HD are still being sold the way your granddad bought his trucks: long bed, single cab, fourwheel drive, and a vinyl interior that you can practically clean out with a firehose. The difference is that Pop’s old truck couldn’t tow half as much as the modern diesels. Say no to all the optional extras and you can buy a beastly oil-burning workhorse for just over $40,000.

DIY MOTORPOOL: TRACTORPAL APP TractorPal is a simple tool for tracking the maintenance history of farm equipment: tractors, machinery, and vehicles. This is another simple digital tool that can put a file cabinet’s worth of receipts and log entries into a smartphone. Each piece of equipment is added into the app by the user (including serial number, photo, model, year, etc). The app makes it easy to record when maintenance is performed on each one. As the user updates the number of miles (or hours) each item has been used, the app sends reminders about upcoming maintenance needs. And when it comes time to sell a tractor or piece of equipment, the app can assemble and email entire detailed maintenance history to prospective buyers.

PHOTO COURTESY OF TRACTORPAL LLC

WATER FROM THE SUN: ADVANCED POWER SOLAR WATER PUMPS Livestock or crops, farms just don’t work without water. Pumps powered by renewable energy have been around for some time, and now that solar photovoltaic panels are becoming more affordable, these systems are getting easier to install. Advanced Power Systems sells a wide range of complete solar pumping kits that start at $1,700 for a 500-gallonper-day unit that would be perfect for watering livestock in a pasture to multi-panel systems that produce more than 5,000 gallons per day. They also can create custom packages that pull 20,000 gallons per day.

RIDE-ALONG: LEATHERMAN CRUNCH This tool is not new, but it’s a must-have. When Leatherman knives first showed up, working folks rejoiced. Finally someone took the multi-tool concept of the classic Swiss Army knife and reimagined it full of tools that were useful beyond a day picnicking in the country. Most important, Leatherman gave you a set of usable pliers, too. Well, they took it a step further with the Crunch tool. It is basically a set of foldable locking pliers with 14 tools built into the handle, including wire strippers, screwdrivers, ¼-inch hex bit driver, knife, and, of course, bottle opener.

25

SEEDS

SPOTLIGHT ON SEEDS

BY J.R WILSON

The seeds of human civilization were, in fact, seeds.

Some 12,000 years ago, a member of what had, for tens of thousands of years, been a nomadic hunter-gatherer species realized discarded seeds from previous meal preparations had taken root and were growing. Deliberately repeating that process enabled humans to settle in one place, build permanent homes, and, with less demand on everyone to find food, diversify their individual and collective activities.

From that first planting, the treatment of seeds has been a history of genetic experimentation through selection of seeds from the best plants, cross-pollination of plants with different strengths, grafting, and, in the 21st century, careful manipulation of the plant’s DNA. As world population growth boomed in the 19th and 20th centuries – with predictions it will hit 10 billion by 2050 – the development and sale of seeds, both in the United States and internationally, grew from hundreds of small, mostly local and regional companies into a multibillion-dollar global business. Mass consolidations in the 1980s were followed by an even more intensive wave of acquisitions in the mid-1990s, when biotechnology revolutionized agriculture in general and seeds in particular.

More than 7,000 seed companies, most family owned, were in business in 1981, with none controlling more than 1 percent of the market. By 2010, only some 150 remained, a number nearly halved by 2015 as six transnational corporations – Monsanto, Dow,

For farmers, seeds have become one of the most expensive elements in farming.

26

Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer, and BASF – bought their way into 63 percent of the global seed market and 75 percent of the agrochemical market.

As those companies went into mega-merger mode in 2016, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “Consolidation and Competition in the U.S. Seed and Agrochemical Industry,” with testimony from five of the “Big 6.” The hearing was sparked by four major new merger announcements, three of those involving five of the Big 6: • December 2015 – No. 2 Dow and No. 3 DuPont announced plans for a $59 billion merger • February 2016 – No. 4 Syngenta announced it had agreed to a $43 billion takeover by ChemChina, the world’s seventh-largest agrochemical company • Sept. 12, 2016 – Agrium, the world’s second-largest fertilizer company, and Potash, No. 4 in fertilizer, announced a $36 billion merger that would create the world’s largest fertilizer company, but also a new major player in seeds and crop chemicals • Sept. 14, 2016 – in the largest move yet, an announcement that German-based Bayer, No. 5 in seeds, planned to buy out U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, the largest of the Big Six, for $66 billion The Monsanto-Bayer, Dow-DuPont, and SyngentaChemChina mergers, if completed, would create a new Big 3 dominating world seed production and sales with an estimated 70 percent of the market.

Telling senators it takes 13 years and $136 million to bring a new biotech product to market, Dow AgroSciences President and CEO Tim Hassinger said the Dow-DuPont

USDA PHOTO BY NEIL PALMER

THE BUSINESS OF GROWTH

USDA PHOTO

merger was “pro-competitive” by combining the different capabilities of the two companies to provide better and faster new products to farmers.

Robb Fraley, Monsanto executive vice president and chief technology officer, told the hearing the mergers would enable greater innovation in agriculture through increased research and development by the new companies, enabling them to better improve sustainability and increase farm productivity to meet the food needs of a planet of 10 billion people by 2050.

“That’s why you are seeing the latest round of mergers right now,” he said. “Fortunately, the pace of innovation is accelerating and new tools and applications are creating a healthy disruption in agriculture [that] can and should similarly embrace these revolutionary technologies.”

For farmers, seeds have become one of the most expensive elements in farming. In the last two decades, the per acre cost of seed corn has jumped 164 percent, according to a University of Illinois study, although the higher price also reflects major biotech enhancements.

The U.S. government began oversight of the seed industry with passage of the Federal Seed Act in 1939, creating rules and regulations for interstate and foreign commerce in seeds, setting label requirements, and creating standards for imported seeds and provisions for seed testing and evaluation.

The Seed Regulatory and Testing Division (SRTD) of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service “tests agricultural and vegetable seeds to ensure the efficient, orderly marketing of seeds and to assist in the development of new or expanding markets.” Test results are reported in a Federal Seed Analysis Certificate, which is required by many nations that import seed and grain from the United States. The SRTD is accredited by the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA).

A scientist in the Seed Regulatory and Testing Division, part of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, conducts a test to detect the presence of harmful pathogens in grass seed.

Farmers rely on USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) to provide regular data and analyses on domestic and global production, consumption, and trade in corn, soybeans, and wheat, the three largest U.S. feed and seed crops, among others.

In addition to the ERS reports, seed production and distribution companies use the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), founded in 1883, to monitor state, national, and international regulations, new technologies and science, and policy issues affecting the seed industry.

“ASTA is an organization formed and directed by its members as an effective voice of action in all matters concerning the development, marketing and movement of seed, associated products and services throughout the world. This mission is supported by the association’s advocacy efforts regarding intellectual property rights, regulatory and phytosanitary reform and regulatory harmonization worldwide in the seed sector,” according to its statement on strategic goals.

One emerging technology that could shorten the cost and time to market of new seeds is CRISPR-Cas, a new genome-editing tool, although first the public and government regulatory agencies, especially in Europe, must be convinced an “edited” plant – and its seeds – is not a genetically modified organism, which many nations have banned.

The German Genetic Engineering Act, representing the standard definition, says: “A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination.”

CRISPR-Cas proponents claim it is impossible to tell any new properties resulting from the editing process from naturally occurring changes. If that argument is accepted, plant and seed scientists believe geneedited products may help combat environmental, insect, and disease problems. For farmers, it could mean lower production costs, higher yields, and expanded markets. n

27

interview

Dr. CHAVONDA JACOBS-YOUNG, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service, and MOJDEH BAHAR, Assistant Administrator for Technology Transfer

BY ANA E. LOPEZ Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young has served as administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientific in-house research agency, since February 2014.

Previously, Jacobs-Young had served as ARS Associate Administrator for National Programs, where she led the Office of National Programs, which manages the research objectives of the agency, and the Office of International Research Programs, which is responsible for ARS’ liaison with its international partners. Prior to moving into her roles at ARS, Jacobs-Young served as the director of the Office of the Chief Scientist at USDA, where she was responsible for facilitating the coordination of scientific leadership across the department to ensure that research supported by, and scientific advice provided to, the department and external stakeholders were held to the highest standards of intellectual rigor and scientific integrity. She also served as the acting director for USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Jacobs-Young has also served as a senior policy analyst for agriculture in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, where she supported the president’s science adviser and others within the Executive Office of the President on a variety of agricultural scientific activities and worked across the federal government to improve interagency cooperation and collaboration on high-priority scientific issues.

Jacobs-Young is a native of Georgia. She holds Master of Science and doctoral degrees in wood and paper science and a Bachelor of Science degree in pulp and paper science and technology from North Carolina State University. She also is a graduate of American University’s Executive Leadership in Public Policy Implementation Program.

Mojdeh Bahar serves as the assistant administrator for technology transfer at ARS. She has broad responsibility for managing the intellectual property that evolves from the research program of the agency and serves as a resource for management of intellectual property and technology transfer across the USDA. She leads ARS’s interactions with government agencies, industries, commodity groups, and universities on matters dealing with intellectual property and technology transfer. Previously, Bahar served as the chief of the cancer branch at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Technology Transfer, where she led a team responsible for marketing, patenting, and licensing NIH and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inventions in the areas of cancer, gene therapy, and biological response modifiers. Prior to that, Bahar was an examiner with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). A patent attorney registered to practice before the USPTO, the State of Maryland, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and the United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, Bahar is also a Certified Licensing Professional (CLP).

28

Bahar has spoken nationally and internationally on a wide spectrum of topics ranging from restriction practice, double patenting, and claim drafting to technology transfer and commercialization, business development, and licensing, and she is the recipient of numerous professional awards, among them an NIH Director’s Award and three Excellence in Technology Transfer Awards. She is a graduate of the University of Maryland School of Law. She also received a Master of Arts degree from New York University and a Bachelor of Science degree with honors in chemistry and french from Dickinson College.

Jacobs-Young and Bahar took time recently to speak with U.S. Agriculture Outlook about the research ARS conducts to tackle pressing issues in agriculture and how they work to take their findings “ beyond the laboratory bench” to make a difference in people’s lives.

U.S. Agriculture Outlook: ARS’s mission statement reads in part that ARS conducts research to develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high national priority.

What kinds of research does ARS conduct and what are those agricultural problems that you’re looking to address?

Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young: Thank you for asking. We’re fortunate that our mission and our goals are to transfer the solutions. In ARS, we really pride ourselves on going beyond the laboratory bench and making sure that our discoveries and our innovations are put into the hands of the people who need them, whether they are ag producers or consumers of agricultural goods.

And as you most likely know, we work a lot with our international colleagues as we take on these national and international challenges that we

Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young

face in agriculture. In ARS, we have a very broad scope with our 8,000 employees and 2,000 scientists. We are the largest intramural scientific agency for the Department of Agriculture. And as such, we have a critical role in ensuring that a lot of the long-term research is in place, and that includes long-term infrastructure.

We’re addressing issues like food security. A lot of times people hear food security and they think about international issues. And certainly there is a huge, huge role for food security efforts internationally. But there are also issues of food security

“ PHOTOS COURTESY OF USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

In ARS, we really pride ourselves on going beyond the laboratory bench and making sure that our discoveries and our innovations are put into the hands of the people who need them, whether they are ag producers or consumers of agricultural goods.

”

Mojdeh Bahar

right here in the United States of America. How do we help the production of agricultural products, plants and animals, and then how do we help protect those products once they are being grown by dealing with disease management, pest management, and certainly addressing the issues that are concerned with weather-related variability, climate change, and other weather instances? We do research on food safety, which each year we know that there are a number of illnesses still related to food safety. There is much work to be done in that area. We really do bring our workforce to bear on looking at how do we minimize food safety incidences. And that includes looking at alternatives to antibiotics that includes a lot of work on looking at alternatives in production management with animals – how do we reduce enteric diseases and pathogens through using phytochemicals, for example.

29

1 Ag school Nation in the

#

FOR AG MAJORS

– CampusExplorer.com

72 DEGREES OFFERED

#1 In the WEST for

LOWEST TUITION – Forbes

CAAS.USU.EDU

interview

We have a huge role in helping to identify the best science for evidence-based decisions around diet and nutrition. We have six nutrition centers across the country. We deal with nutrition issues from birth.

And more recently, it’s been more and more prevalent in how do we help our baby boomers and our aging population make healthy choices for their lifestyles? We’re really happy about the work that we do in collecting data around nutrition: what people eat, the caloric intake, what should be the caloric intake, and looking at some of the products that are available on the market. We’ve been very involved in the bio-based economy – producing products from renewable resources, helping with some of our energy needs in this country by helping to identify plants and products that can help create economic attractiveness about energy production.

We’re very happy to be involved in that area, [as well as with] our natural resources – helping the country be very good stewards of our natural resources. We’ve been doing a lot of work around environmental and natural resources. I could go on. We’re doing a lot.

It sounds like it. It runs the gamut.

Jacobs-Young: It runs the gamut. It’s a fairly large agency – 90 locations, four locations overseas. So if it’s a high priority in agriculture, there is a high probability that we’re doing some research on that area.

How do you go about translating your research findings in all these different areas into practical use outside the lab? How does that process work?

Jacobs-Young: [With] each one of our programs in ARS, we have a five-year process. And that process starts with stakeholder involvement.

So we maintain close, close relationships with our stakeholders. When we start our programs, we start with their highest priorities and their highest needs in mind. We know that the projects that we’re working with are ones that are critically important to producers and to consumers.

That helps. We know we’re working on something where there is a challenge and we need a solution. Just starting a project that way makes [for] a higher probability for transfer. And then what Mojdeh and her team have been doing in the Office of Technology Transfer [OTT] within ARS, which has been just so helpful for us over the last couple of years, is ensuring that our scientists have their transfer mechanisms or their transfer strategies in mind when they start the projects. In the past, it would be an afterthought. And now they start with, in mind, “How am I going to disseminate this information?”

In ARS, our dissemination of information doesn’t always include a patent or some sort of license. I’ll let Mojdeh talk a little bit more about when those specific mechanisms are needed. But often, it could be a publication. It could be an extension workshop – that information could be transferred through some sort of extension effort. Our idea is we want it to be disseminated. The mechanism we use to disseminate it is one that depends on the circumstances. But we have basic research in ARS and we have applied research in ARS. That basic research feeds into our application. I’ll use dairy cows for example. We did a lot of genetic evaluation of dairy cows, and collected large amounts of genomic information through genetic research. We were able to take that information and create tools that have been transferred to the dairy cow industry so that they could do their own genetic evaluations in order to be able to

breed better dairy cows. And that has resulted in a significant increase in the milk produced in the United States and a reduction in the number of cows needed to produce the amount of milk that we consume – if you can imagine, also some sort of a minimization or a mitigation of the environmental footprint of using dairy cows. That’s just an example. I can let Mojdeh tell you just a little bit more about how we identify partners and how we’ve been training our scientists.

Mojdeh Bahar: Thank you, Dr. Jacobs-Young.

I think one of the important points for us is that we have certain principles, if you will, for our partnerships in that we want to identify and solve agricultural problems in a collaborative manner. And that’s where the stakeholder and the listening sessions come into play. We also want to leverage resources and synergize outcomes. And what is important for us is efficient and appropriate adoption of ARS’s research outcomes and making sure that we can somehow help accelerate the pace of taking agricultural innovations from lab to market. In order for us to be able to do all of that, the earlier technology transfer gets on the scene in the research cycle, the more helpful we can be to our scientists in thinking about their end goal, thinking about what is the widget that is going to go in a box, or what is the publication that will inform the consumer, or what is the Field Day that will inform the farmer on how to better do certain things.

So technology transfer, while defined very broadly, basically for us technology transfer means adoption of our research outcomes in whatever form that takes. And as Dr. Jacobs-Young mentioned, it is not always through a license or a patent. We use patents, basically – we use intellectual property rights – as a mechanism to attract commercial partners. So if we can put something in the hands of the consumer without having to attract a commercial partner, then we do that. If we can do something through publication, chances are we’ll go that route and disseminate the information as widely as we can through that route. Now, for example in the animal vaccine area, where it’s a long development cycle and lots of money and regulatory considerations, then chances are we would need a commercial partner to come to the table to make sure that our research outcomes are adopted. So the paradigm includes intellectual property rights as well as things like Field Days and publications.

So it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach. As Dr. Jacobs-Young mentioned [regarding] the breadth of our research, we do anything from pesticides to nutrition. So, for example, the pesticides are regulated

by EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency]. So 31

OVER A CENTURY OF DESIGN AND FABRICATION EXPERIENCE GRAIN HANDLING

TILLAGE EQUIPMENT

TANK MOUNTS

P. O. Box 542 • York, NE 68467 402-362-5500 • 800-288-1117 • Fax 402-362-5478 E-mail: agriproducts@agriproductsinc.com • Web: www.agriproductsinc.com

“

interview

There is absolutely a place for small businesses. Just to give you some numbers to provide a framework, we have about 156 active licenses and 70 active collaborative research and development agreements with small businesses, which is approximately 45 percent of the active CRADAs [cooperative research and development agreements].

”

chances are you would need a patent to justify the cost of the regulatory filings and the long development cycle, whereas nutritional information, we have a nutrition database that is available freely online. So both of them disseminate the information, both of them result in the adoption of our research outcomes. But they use different paradigms to give access to the public to our research outcomes.

Is there a place for small businesses to take part in technology transfer?

Bahar: There is absolutely a place for small businesses. Just to give you some numbers to provide a framework, we have about 156 active licenses and 70 active collaborative research and development agreements with small businesses, which is approximately 45 percent of the active CRADAs [cooperative research and development agreements]. And 30 percent of the active licenses are with small businesses. In addition, we do things to enhance small business participation in agricultural innovation.

We have, for example, partnered with our sister agency, the National Institute for Food and Agriculture [NIFA], which is the granting arm of our department. And in 2014, we started a Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] grant Technology Transfer program (SBIR-TT), which basically gives our CRADA partners or licensees a leg up when seeking funding from NIFA. And just in the last year, we helped 11 small businesses that were also our CRADA partners to write NIFA grants and to basically have their research plan reviewed by us. From that 11, nine won and received the funding, which is a much higher percentage than the average for our granting agency. We also educate the small business. For example, in the past year, we have had a webinar called “Partnership Pays: Building a Relationship with ARS to Enhance Your USDA SBIR Proposal” to disseminate that information and make sure we have more participation in it. There was another webinar on “How to Partner with ARS to Move Technologies Out of the Lab and into the Marketplace,” talking about our pilot plans and how small business can participate in that.

What do you find makes for the best kind of partnerships?

Bahar: That’s a great question. Dr. JacobsYoung, should I take this?

Jacobs-Young: Let me just quickly say that one of the things that has been really encouraging for me is to see the interest in partnering that we’ve had. And that’s because of our outreach around technology transfer. I’ll let Mojdeh tell you a little bit more about what has led to our best successful partnerships, but I will just insert that it leverages our resources and all of us working together around our missionrelated goals, like I shared with you earlier. It’s just they’re really, really important to our success.

Bahar: I think, to be honest, like any partnership, you need four things to make a successful partnership. The first one is probably same or similar goals and time lines – you know, that we both want to solve the same agricultural problem. And that’s what our goal is, and we have the same or similar time line in wanting to achieve that goal. So I think that’s probably the first factor. The second one is clearly articulated expectations. And I think this is a pitch for technology transfer officers in that it’s important to put those expectations in writing. Even if they’re not put in writing, just talking about them and making sure that both partners, both the federal agency, in this case ARS, and the industry collaborator or the academic collaborator have the same articulated expectation. And I think, given that we are talking about a science environment, the third one that is important is flexibility, because science doesn’t always work with the same time lines and parameters that a scientist may hope. Last but not least, transparent, open, and timely communication so that everybody knows where you are in the research project and what the goals are.

Can you give a couple of examples of some major technology transfer successes that the public might not even realize originated with ARS research?

Jacobs-Young: Oh, absolutely. I will start and I’ll let Mojdeh chime in if she has more to add.

One of the products that I like to share with a lot of our audiences is about the Apple Dippers. I am a fan of the Happy Meal® – it’s my go-to meal at the airport. And one of the things that’s enjoyable, not just for kids, which certainly it was designed to provide a more nutritious opportunity for children, but for all of us [is] to have an opportunity to have 33

The World Food Prize invites nominations of innovators in feeding the world

HC2500 Deluxe Hydraulic Chute

The World Food Prize has been presented to Laureates from Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Cape Verde, China, Cuba, Denmark, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Israel, Mexico, Sierra Leone, Switzerland, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, and United Nations.

The $250,000 World Food Prize was established in 1986 by famed plant scientist and humanitarian Dr. Norman E. Borlaug to recognize and inspire breakthrough achievements in increasing the quality, quantity, or availability of food in the world.

Nominations Due May 1, 2017 www.worldfoodprize.org/nominate

The scientific community is learning the tremendous impact the human gut microbiome exerts upon us as individuals as well as communities. We are what we eat. At Microbe Inotech Laboratories, Inc. we research, in like manner, similar impacts brought about by the phyllosphere and rhizosphere microbiomes. Whether it be glyphosate determinations, food safety issues, or microbiological analyses, we are the analytical environmental microbiology laboratory of first choice. Contact us: 1-800-688-9144 info@microbeinotech.com www.microbeinotech.com

Powder River is the leader in livestock working equipment. Since 1938 our focus has been on safe, efficient, and durable livestock handling products. From the latest innovations in squeeze chutes to the toughest production gates on the market, Powder River has a long tradition of leadership in Livestock Handling Equimpment.

www.powderriver.com 800-453-5318

Welcome Home.

Explore mortgage options at agfed.org.

interview apples as a part of our fast-food meal – but apples that have the right mouthfeel. They feel crisp, they are tasty, and most importantly, they are still fresh. That technology was developed with one of our utilization centers in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, and working with one of our companies – we had a CRADA with a company. So they were able to help us enhance the delivery, the dissemination of that technology. So that’s one product.

Just two weeks ago, ARS lost one of our Hall of Famers – a scientist.

He was 96 years old. Once again in our utilization center in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, he was the lead scientist for the development of instant potatoes. So if you can imagine that during the time when the potato industry was meeting a lot of challenges, the opportunity to create a product that enhanced the economic attractiveness of being a potato producer and also creating products for citizens, he was able to produce that product.

Since then, lots of products have been borne from those instant potatoes – the process of flaked potatoes. We’re looking at products like Pringles® and some of the other potato products that have been produced based on that finding.

One that I’m really excited about, because I really like eggs, is one where we’re going to be able to enhance the amount of eggs that can be found commercially that are pasteurized and being able to work with one of our small companies to develop a process where we can pasteurize eggs on a large scale – and that’s being able to do that in a way that protects the taste, because it’s important to keep the mouthfeel, the taste, and the enjoyment of the product. I’m very excited about that upcoming commercialization.

Bahar: [There is] another one that is a great tech transfer story because a lot of the players in the ecosystem have had a part in it, in the ag ecosystem.

In 2005, USDA researchers at the Southern Regional Research Center in New Orleans developed and patented a new rice flour batter. Basically the goal was to have, if you will, fried food, fried chicken, that didn’t necessarily have a lot of oil – that didn’t absorb as much oil. What was interesting is that we had assigned a particular use to it, which was deep frying with batter that didn’t absorb that much oil. But in 2005, we worked with a community college. The community college basically had an entrepreneur in the class, and a company got started. The company is called CrispTek. They found that the technology, because it was rice based, could be really good for people that were gluten intolerant.

So they built a company around it. And in Maryland, there is an economic development arm … called the Maryland Technology Development Corporation, or TEDCO. TEDCO gave them some money. So there was TEDCO involved, there was a community college involved, its ARS research. And basically a company was built around this. And CrispTek’s goal is to help consumers reduce the amount of fat and oil they consume.

But also, with Choice Batter®, which is what they called their primary product, they can use it for folks that suffer from celiac disease or, even if they don’t suffer from celiac disease, that can’t tolerate gluten or that are gluten sensitive. Since then the product line has developed, and they now make brownie mixes and they make cookie mixes, and they have entered into agreements with two major food distributors to expand the product line. In 2012, CrispTek had approximately $4.7 million in sales and had created 95 jobs in four states: Maryland, Iowa, Illinois, and Texas. So the reason I like this story is, as I mentioned, you have the many players along the technology development continuum, if you will, and I think it’s a really good STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] story

or entrepreneurial story because it was vetted at a community college.

Is there a way that someone, after research has been done, can look through ARS’s findings and find “Oh, ok, I see that this particular finding can help me with my business” or “I have an idea based on this research”? Does that happen?

Bahar: Yes, it does. We actually have a website that lists all of our technologies that are available for licensing. So anybody can go to our website and look at what we have to offer. We have found partners that way in addition to partners that we have through our Agricultural Research Partnership Network that also help us disseminate this information. So we have the website [www.ars.usda.gov/office-of-technology-transfer/]. We do target marketing. We have our former or current licensees and CRADA partners that use this website. But, yes, it is available, and it’s available at two different places. One is on the ARS OTT website and the other one is through the Federal Laboratory Consortium resource, which has the technologies across the federal government in one place.

Is there a current research project and partnership that you feel is poised to make a significant impact on the public?

Jacobs-Young: From my perspective, I think I would focus on this pasteurization one. You know, we talked about the beauty of the partnership.

We also were talking about food safety. So a lot of points are touched with that project.

Bahar: I think there is the one that Dr. JacobsYoung mentioned that is probably paradigm changing. And it’s also done with the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, which is part of the Department of Energy as well. So it has the interagency flavor and the academic partnership flavor to it as well, which would probably make a significant difference. We’re also working on a lot of animal vaccines that hopefully will be very, very impactful as well as what Dr. Jacobs-Young mentioned – the biofuels and biolubricants. We have a biolubricant that hopefully will come to market soon that we have with a partner as well.

Jacobs-Young: I just want to quickly add the one that is my absolute favorite is lactose-free milk. I didn’t say a whole lot about that, but when Mojdeh said paradigm changing. … The [invention] of lactose-free products was transformational for large portions of the population, and that was also developed inside of ARS. So it’s just a huge, huge game changer for people like myself who are lactose intolerant. n 35

USDA AND AG UPDATE

USDA AND AGRICULTURE UPDATE

BY J.R. WILSON

36

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, questioned then-Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on Feb. 24, 2015, in Washington, D.C., during a hearing on the 2014 Farm Bill one year after its implementation.

2017 is likely to see preliminary action on the 2018 Farm Bill.

History can provide some perspective and precedent, but the current political landscape and the process will be the biggest determinants. Both tend to indicate that reforming programs and reducing Federal expenditures will remain leading drivers for the next farm bill debate. The bigger questions remain how these matters will shape programs and policies,” they wrote.

A wide range of domestic and international factors play significant roles in both the short- and long-term future of U.S. agriculture, including significant fluctuations in world currency exchanges; good or bad annual production – often weather related – primarily in the United States, Latin America, and Europe; increasing global demand (led by China) for higher protein and more varied diets; political policies unrelated to world markets, such as Russia’s ban on U.S. and Australian imports; the adoption of new technologies in agriculture; and concerns about finding new young farmers to replace the current aging generation (the average age of U.S. farmers is 58).

The last was the subject of a NSAC blog post from Oct. 20, 2016, which warned that while the 2018 Farm Bill will involve a number of high priority issues – including crop insurance reform, nutrition programs, and commodity price supports – “one issue could be key to resolving many of the others: supports for beginning farmers and ranchers.” “[The] 2018 Farm Bill could become a ‘farm bill of the future’ by adopting an ambitious agenda to support the next generation of farmers. The tools provided in previous farm bills have made a dent in

USDA PHOTO BY BOB NICHOLS

The omnibus five-year 2014 Agriculture Act (Farm Bill) will continue to govern federal agriculture policy through 2018, but American farms and industry remain uncertain about what the new Trump administration’s trade policies will mean to agriculture exports or what the change in government will mean to the continuing rapid technological reformation of farming.

The current farm bill brought significant changes in farm supports, especially dairy (see page 18).

At the same time, advancing research on livestock genomes, new strains of feed and food grains, and precision agriculture are having a major impact on not only U.S. farm productivity, food quality, and workforce, but on global agriculture, as well.

Debate and lobbying on the 2018 Farm Bill already is well underway in Congress, although lawmakers and the farming and food production industries are still waiting for concrete policy objectives from the executive branch.

“How the Trump administration approaches the farm bill remains to be seen, with very few hints offered during the campaign. ... Preliminary action on the next farm bill is likely to take place in 2017, even if the final bill does not materialize until 2018,” a Nov. 11, 2016 post by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) on its blog predicted.

“It has often been said that farm bill politics is more regional than partisan, however, and there is good reason to believe that will continue to be the case for the 2018 Farm Bill negotiations.

“NSAC, like many other agricultural groups, will be submitting recommendations to the new transition team on our priority issues, including new and beginning farmers, food safety regulations, immigration, agricultural research and conservation.”

Analysts from the University of Illinois Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics and the Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics looked at the potential impact of the election on the 2018 Farm Bill, the first since 1954 to be written with both houses of Congress and the White House controlled by the same party.

“The next farm bill will undoubtedly be shaped by the election results, but exactly how is unclear.

USDA PHOTO BY LANCE CHEUNG

slowing the aging of U.S. agriculture, but it is very clear that greater investment and a more coordinated national strategy are needed to buck the trend and ensure that beginning farmers have the necessary support to successfully pursue a farming career.

This next farm bill ... represents an opportunity to dismantle barriers for beginning farmers, leaving a legacy that will reshape the future of U.S. agriculture.”

One such barrier facing beginning farmers was discussed in a recent article by NSAC senior policy specialist Juli Obudzinski in Choices, a publication of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association.

“Nearly 100 million acres of U.S. farmland are set to change hands over the next five years, according to the latest data released by USDA’s National Agriculture Statistics Service [NASS]. Of this, just 21 million acres is expected to be sold to a non-relative, meaning that only a very small portion of our nation’s farmland will be available for new, non-heir farmers,” Obudzinski wrote.

“According to a recent report released by the [USDA] Economic Research Service, landowners not actively engaged in farming currently own 30 percent of U.S. farmland. Some of these non-farming

Philip Marek has been a farm owner since 2010 and started with 210 acres. He and his cousin were able to use USDA small and new farmer and rancher loan programs, which provided them the ability to handle initial business start-up and equipment purchase. Support for beginning farmers is key to bringing new people into agriculture to replace aging farmers.

landowners are retired farmers, farmers’ widows or non-farming relatives, the majority of whom choose to hold onto their inherited farmland and rent it out instead of selling the land to an aspiring or beginning farmer.”

That is the latest reflection in a trend that has taken the United States from a rural, farm-based economy 200 years ago, when 90 percent of the nation’s population lived on farms, to half the citizenry by 1900.

Slightly more than a century later, only 2 percent of America’s urban, industrial society is involved in farming. But improved productivity since 1940 has increased by nearly tenfold the number of people a single farmer can feed.

One growing phenomenon is having a – so far – small but positive impact on both gross farm incomes and a new and active interest in agriculture on the part of younger generations. Going under a number of names, based on methodology – including organic, vertical, cubic, greenhouse, backyard, home garden farming, development supported agriculture (DSA) – it falls into the general category of urban farming.

USDA, recognizing this trend, has developed a number of support and guidance programs, as well 37

as rules and regulations, the latter by the National Organic Program (NOP), with input from the National Organic Standards Board (a federal advisory committee made up of 15 members of the public).

The NOP also maintains a handbook that includes guidance, instructions, policy memos, and other documents on organic standards.

Urban farming can be done anywhere, even in an apartment, although those small efforts typically are for the growers’ consumption only. But a growing number of what began as hobbyists are finding income-producing markets with local restaurants and groceries, which can obtain fresh-picked produce, for example, without the added costs of shipping or the possible use of preservatives and a greatly reduced shelf time.

Because USDA now defines a farm as “any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the year,” a well-crafted plot of only a few square feet can produce that level of local sales. While that increases the number of “farms” in the United States, introduces a new generation to the process of growing food, and increases the sources (and decreases the cost) of small quantities of 38

Amanda Barker, director and farm manager of Nuestro Huerto (Spanish for “Our Garden”) Community Farm, and a corps of volunteers raise vegetables, fruit, herbs, and greens on a third-ofan-acre of land behind a church in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Such urban farming introduces a new generation of people to the process of growing food and simultaneously increases the number of local sources of fresh produce.

produce for local eateries and retailers, urban farming has little effect on overall U.S. farming statistics.

While others deal with politics and future policy, the World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) tracks actual numbers in U.S. and world agriculture on a daily basis. A component of USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist, WAOB is an interagency coordinating group that produces a monthly report on agriculture supply and demand for key commodities.

Looking at world production, current market conditions, etc., the reports provide a quick look at global market conditions that farmers and food product producers use to adjust their operations.

“The chief economist handles potential policies and the WAOB handles the impact of policies already in place, with a neutral assessment of what their impact will be on the market. That applies to foreign as well as domestic policies and markets. We don’t incorporate any policies [in WAOB reports] that have not actually been put into place,” Board Chair Seth Meyer explained.

“We’re trying to reduce market uncertainty and help it reach an equilibrium price through universal information. Other organizations might have good information on specific areas, but not the broad

USDA PHOTO

USDA AND AG UPDATE

USDA PHOTO

Aerial cover crop seeding at Whittier Farms in Sutton, Massachusetts. Implementing new technologies into agricultural practices – in this case, GPS technology that tracked the helicopter’s flight path and mapped precisely where the seed was distributed – can make those practices more efficient and effective and less labor intensive.

USDA PHOTO

view WAOB provides. Some countries will use our information rather than their own because they see it as the best unbiased view of what is happening. So the rest of the world also benefits from our reports.”

Meyer said a major impetus for creation of the WAOB was large-scale Soviet purchases of wheat in the 1970s – when no central market information was available – enabling the USSR to take a leading position in the market and causing prices to jump before the rest of the world recognized what was happening. WAOB’s charter was to make the market and each nation’s actions in it as transparent as possible.

“There are no changes coming in how we go about doing this,” Meyer said, noting technology is always changing for WAOB’s meteorologists, for example, but that is only a change in the tools they use, not what they do. “What is unique about the USDA compared to other countries is how we use data

Overall, the news for farmers in 2016 was mixed.

New technologies were proving to be valuable tools for cost reduction, yield and crop quality improvement, easier management of dairy farms, and an unprecedented look at what is actually happening in the fields, down to a plant-by-plant level.

around the world, collected on the ground by our embassies and NASS. It’s all about market transparency, which is why we participate in international organizations to explain to folks how we do business and the benefits of doing it that way.

“That can be complicated by some countries reporting incomplete data or data that is not timely. USDA has the benefit of NASS and not all others have a solid domestic statistical service.

A lot of nations will produce numbers for their own country, but for us, trade is so important we need a global look. Not every country considers production reporting to be unbiased; sometimes it is influenced by policy-makers. The WAOB puts out what we believe to be the best numbers, without regard to government policies – unless those, domestic or international, may influence demand.”

Overall, the news for farmers in 2016 was mixed. New technologies were proving to be valuable tools for cost reduction, yield and crop quality improvement, easier management of dairy farms, and an unprecedented look at what is actually happening in the fields, down to a plant-by-plant level. Bad weather and resulting lower production of some crops in Latin America also provided some U.S. farmers with expanded markets beyond the typical harvest season.

And despite recent setbacks in income and farm asset values, a December 2016 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on U.S. farm income said average farm household incomes continue to be well ahead of average U.S. household incomes, as has been the case since the late 1990s. In 2015, the last year for which comparable data were available, the average farm household income (including off-farm income sources) of $119,880 was about 51 percent higher than the average U.S. household income of $79,263.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Northeastern Regional Field Office Director King Whetstone, right, meets with attendees on Jan. 15, 2016, at the 2016 Pennsylvania Farm Show, the largest indoor agricultural exposition in the United States.

NASS’ data, some of which is collected from farmers who respond to the agency’s requests for information or censuses, provide an unbiased look at virtually every aspect of U.S. agricultural production.

39

Watch our video to learn more

Mobilizing science, innovation and collaboration for a food-secure future that benefits all

Photo: N. Palmer/CIAT

CGIAR:

Sharifa Juma, a farmer in Lushoto, Tanzania shows a bean plant she is planting to refresh soil and bring climate-smart agriculture to her farm.

CGIAR works in over 100 countries to generate new technologies and knowledge, and bridge discovery science with delivery of results to millions for development impact at scale. Every dollar invested in CGIAR yields $17 worth of benefits.

www.cgiar.org

USDA PHOTO BY LANCE CHEUNG

Nevertheless, continued declines in farm income remain a concern, especially for a sector trying to attract a new generation of young farmers, as well as the negative effect on total U.S. exports and the gross national product.

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimated final national net farm income for the year would be $66.9 billion in 2016, down 17 percent from 2015 – the third consecutive year of decline and the lowest since 2009 in both nominal and inflationadjusted dollars. ERS calculates net farm income on an accrual basis; net cash income (calculated on a cash-flow basis) also was projected to be 15 percent lower in 2016 at $90.1 billion.

The lower numbers stemmed primarily from lower livestock receipts, down $23 billion (-12 percent) as the year drew to a close. Total crop revenues were largely unchanged in 2016 as lower crop prices were offset by record yields. The fall in total cash receipts reflected continued declines in most commodities prices compared to 2011-2013, when prices for many major commodities hit record or near-record highs.

The earlier period was significantly helped by strong exports, which have become an increasing focus for U.S. agriculture. But 2016, with exports accounting for more than 30 percent of gross farm earnings, was forecast to end down 7 percent from the previous year and well below 2014’s record $152.3 billion.

Those numbers were partially offset by a 3 percent decline in farm cash costs and a 19 percent increase (about $12.9 billion) in government payments. While the 2014 Farm Bill eliminated nearly $5 billion in direct federal support, the new Price Loss Coverage and Agricultural Risk Coverage programs triggered payments of nearly $8 billion in 2016.

Another piece of bad economic news for farmers was a year-end farm wealth projection of $2.846 trillion, down about 2 percent from 2015, which also had seen a decline. Farmland values had been on the rise, but forecasts for lower commodity prices and an expected decline from the strong outlook for the general farm economy during the decade’s first four

Economist Daniel Prager, of USDA’s Economic Research Service, discusses the outlook for farm income and well-being at the household level, including on- and off-farm income and an overview of the rural economy, during the 2016 Agricultural Outlook Forum “Transforming Agriculture: Blending Technology and Tradition” in Crystal City, Virginia, on Feb. 25, 2016.

Estimated final net farm income for 2016 was $66.9 billion, a 17 percent drop from 2015.

years caused investors and lenders to lower expectation for long-term profitability for farm sector investments, thus reducing farm asset values.

“Because they comprise such a significant portion of the U.S. farm sector’s asset base, change in farmland values is a critical barometer of the farm sector’s financial performance,” according to the CRS report.

“The outlook for a third year of lower net farm income, coupled with a second year of lower farm wealth, suggests a weakening financial picture for the agricultural sector as a whole heading into 2017, with substantial regional variation.

“Relatively weak prices for most major program crops signal tougher times ahead. Low prices are expected to trigger substantial payments under the new safety net programs of the 2014 Farm Bill; however, eventual 2017 agricultural economic well-being will hinge on crop prospects and prices, as well as both domestic and international macroeconomic factors, including economic growth and consumer demand.”

There has been a modest decline in the eight crops followed in the WAOB report, although future increases in prices may see production levels and planted acreage rise, as well.

“We also see a change in the mix of crops – expectations from this report show soybean crops and area will be up next year, driven by global trade, especially for soybean meal to feed animals in China. In other crops, we will see production run lower than the past couple of years, which had high demand,” Meyer said.

“A lot of the growth in soybean trade will come from demand in China, as it has for several years.

“Protein demand growth globally, both for human consumption and to feed livestock, is the real story.

We also do a 10-year report, a complete supplyand-demand balance for the U.S., which we put out in November, then we produce the global numbers in February. We’re coming off record wheat yields and stock levels we haven’t seen since the 1980s, so we expect some reductions there next year, with our prediction for 2017 being the lowest on record since 1919.” n 41

interview

Rep. MIKE CONAWAY, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture

BY ANA E. LOPEZ

Born and raised in West Texas, Mike Conaway is proud to represent Texas’ 11th Congressional District since coming to Congress in 2005. He serves as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, where he strongly advocates for farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and consumers while ensuring programs under the committee’s jurisdiction are defensible and financially responsible.

Prior to becoming Agriculture Committee chairman, Conaway served as chairman of the House Ethics Committee and held leadership roles as chairman or ranking member of two Agriculture subcommittees since the 111th Congress. In addition to his role as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, he currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Conaway was instrumental in the passage of the 2008 and 2014 farm bills, in which he focused largely on strengthening the agricultural economy. He believes the benefits of a strong rural economy are felt in every community in America. A lifelong fiscal conservative, Conaway is committed to sound farm policy, protecting taxpayer dollars, and overseeing implementation of the Agricultural Act of 2014 as well as agencies and projects at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Last Congress, the Agriculture Committee conducted a top-to-bottom review of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in efforts to strengthen the program for individuals and families in need of temporary assistance.

Conaway graduated from East Texas State University, now known as Texas A&M University-Commerce, where he studied accounting and played football. He then served two years in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood and went on to become a Certified Public Accountant. He was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, where he served as a board member and chairman. He and his wife, Suzanne, live in Midland and have four children and seven grandchildren.

U.S. AGRICULTURE OUTLOOK: It’s been two years since the United States started taking steps to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba and ease restrictions on trade, with the goal, in part, to increase commerce between the two nations. You felt at the time that this move did nothing for the Cuban people living under the oppressive Castro regime. Now, two years later, you have co-sponsored a bill, the Cuba Agricultural Exports Act, that aims to make trade transactions easier while still providing safeguards for American agricultural producers. What do the bill’s protections entail? How have you seen agricultural trade between the United States and Cuba develop or change since December 2014, and how do you see the bill’s protections working in that landscape?

REP. MIKE CONAWAY: Despite the overtures from President [Barack]

Obama, we have yet to see tangible improvements in agricultural trade with Cuba. Instead, the Castro regime continues to treat food imports as a political football. That is made possible by the fact that all import decisions are made by a regime-controlled import monopoly known as Alimport.

While the Cuba Agricultural Exports Act works to provide export opportunities for U.S. farmers and ranchers, one of the hallmarks of the legislation is the safeguards it puts in place. For example, while it would allow market promotion programs to be used in Cuba, no funds are permitted to flow to entities controlled by the Castro regime.

42

“

If we are going to continue ratcheting down support to our growers, it’s vital that other countries abide by the rules as well.

”

The Obama administration has shown a commitment to support and invest in programs to benefit rural America and to address those communities’ particular needs; as examples, the administration created the White House Rural Council to coordinate programs aimed at helping rural communities, and since 2009, the USDA’s Rural Housing Service has invested $154.9 billion to assist 1.2 million rural families in buying, refinancing, and maintaining their homes. However, in comments on past budget proposals put forth by Obama, you stated that proposed tax increases, among other things, showed that he is out of touch with rural America. Do you feel any of the Obama administration’s efforts toward supporting rural communities hit the mark? What

changes in this arena would you like to see going forward?

On numerous occasions, I have commended Secretary [Tom] Vilsack for his work at USDA, most notably for his work in implementing the 2014 Farm Bill. While I believe he was a very capable secretary, I do believe that the broader administration was completely out of touch with rural America. The president’s proposals to eliminate stepped-up tax basis would have hammered farm families at one of their most difficult times, as they transition from one generation to the next. Further, the administration’s repeated budget proposals to gut crop insurance ignored the fact that crop insurance is virtually universally supported in farm country and is the primary risk management tool underpinning the rural economy. Perhaps most egregious, however, was the administration’s regulatory assault on rural America. From WOTUS [Waters of the United States] to endangered species, this administration had an endless appetite for regulating American farmers and ranchers.

In 2015, China exceeded allowable limits on subsidies to its corn, rice, and wheat producers by $100 billion, and it’s not the first time China has veered from the parameters of trade agreements. In September 2016, the United States initiated a trade enforcement action against China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in response. What, in your view, are the next steps for dealing with China on this issue and with other trade partners who break trade commitments?

We have been sounding the alarm in the Agriculture Committee on this issue for years. The United States actively works to abide by its commitments in the WTO, and when other countries ignore their obligations, it puts our farmers and ranchers at a distinct disadvantage. While the focus is on China, it’s important to note that they are not alone. For example, India is deploying many of the same types of policies and, in some cases, they are 43

l Organic Alliance, I n c.

Globa est. 1997

Mission Statement:

3185 Township Road 179 Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311 Phone: 937-593-1232 Fax: 937-593-9507 Email: goaorg@centurylink.net Website: www.goa-online.org

• To promote integrity, quality, and trust in organic certification.

• To review each application in an objective and fair manner utilizing the applicable program standards, criteria, policies, and procedures without compromising confidentiality.

• To welcome input from GOA certified operations and supporting entities to improve policies and procedures that will enhance the organization’s efficiency.

“ ”

doing so more egregiously than China. If we are going to continue ratcheting down support to our growers, it’s vital that other countries abide by the rules as well.

With the Doha Round [a round of trade negotiations among the WTO membership] effectively over, I think it is important that future negotiations on topics like agricultural subsidies reflect the significant reforms made by the United States. I think it is equally important for future negotiations to start acknowledging the fact that some of the large, advanced developing countries can and are distorting global markets to a greater degree than their developed counterparts.

interview

Agriculture programs – particularly the farm safety net – [are] subjected to near constant scrutiny.

You expressed concerns about particulars of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal back in October 2015. Where do things currently stand with TPP? Have your concerns with the deal been addressed?

My remaining concerns with TPP dealt primarily with rice access in Japan and inequitable use of ISDS [investor-state dispute settlement] provisions. By and large, TPP was viewed very favorably by the agricultural community, but the benefits to agriculture are weighed against a litany of other concerns raised by my colleagues, with the future of TPP looking rather bleak. [Editor’s note: President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from TPP on Jan. 24, 2017, after this interview.]

we are looking at what is and isn’t working, and we will let that conversation drive any needed policy changes. If that leads to spending reductions (or not), then so be it.

What work is underway so far on the 2018 Farm Bill? What are some particular changes you’d like to see in the legislation?

We held more than 80 hearings in the 114th Congress. Many of those hearings were looking at what is and isn’t working in the current farm bill. I expect to continue farm bill hearings in the spring, as well as a series of listening sessions, with those increasingly focusing on the content of the next farm bill.

Beyond the comments on SNAP above, we must address cotton and dairy policy in the next farm bill.

Our cotton producers have been left without an effective safety net to protect against the predatory trade practices of China and India. Some dairy producers are concerned that the new dairy margin protection program has not worked as expected. These are among a host of other issues that will be addressed in the next farm bill.

The House Agriculture Committee recently finished a two-year review of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a program that accounts for nearly 80 percent of farm bill spending.

What prompted such an in-depth review? How often do such in-depth reviews of agriculture programs take place – and should they happen more often? Less often?

What is your sense so far of the Trump administration’s policy priorities in regard to agriculture?

Farm bills are typically negotiated every five years. Agriculture programs – particularly the farm safety net – [are] subjected to near constant scrutiny. In the last farm bill, it was reformed again with estimated spending on traditional farm policy reduced by 30 percent at the time.

In the case of SNAP, the last major reform was as part of the 1996 welfare reforms. Spending on SNAP has doubled under each of the last two administrations. I hear constant concerns from my colleagues and constituents about problems they see with the program and a perceived lack of accountability. Unfortunately, in the last farm bill debate, the conversation devolved largely into a fight about arbitrary spending reductions. We also heard complaints about a lack of hearings during the process.

This time around, we decided to take a very close look at what is and is not working in the program. We have intentionally avoided any conversations about arbitrary spending reduction targets. Instead,

I want to give the administration time to get its ducks in a row, but I like what I’ve seen so far. The administration will waste no time in rolling back much of the Obama administration’s regulatory assault on rural America. The [president] has signaled strong support for the farm safety net, which is obviously important in farm country. And, while there is some angst over trade, the [president] understands the vital importance of being able to export our agricultural products. As I noted above, we have been sounding the alarm for years on the fact that the United States continues to reform while we watch much of the rest of the world take advantage of the void. I think his strong stance on trade enforcement can and will bode well for American agriculture. n 45

FOOD WASTE

WASTING AWAY THE FOOD WASTE PROBLEM AND WHAT’S BEING DONE TO FIX IT

BY CRAIG COLLINS People almost everywhere – not just Americans – waste a lot of food. For much of the 21st century, it’s been discussed anecdotally, if at all, in the public sphere, but over the past few years, researchers have begun to express it in numbers – and those numbers are distressing.

In 2012, Dana Gunders, senior scientist with the Food & Agriculture Program of the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), published a 26-page report, “Wasted: How America Is Losing up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill.” Gunders documented a shocking misuse of American resources – 80 percent of the nation’s freshwater consumption, 50 percent of its land use, and 10 percent of its energy budget are spent getting food from farm to table. Squandering 40 percent of that consumption, Gunders wrote, “ ... not only means that Americans are throwing out the equivalent of $165 billion each year, but also that the uneaten food ends up rotting in landfills as the single largest component of U.S. municipal solid waste, where it accounts for a large portion of U.S. methane emissions.” Reducing these losses by just 15 percent, she pointed out, would be enough to feed more than 25 million Americans every year.

Just months before the release of “Wasted,” the European Parliament adopted a resolution to reduce food waste by 50 percent by 2020, and issued a statement that read in part: “The most important problem in the future will be to tackle increased demand for food, as it will outstrip supply. We can no longer afford to stand idly by while perfectly edible food is being wasted. This is an ethical but also an economic and social problem, with huge implications for the environment.”

Those implications were spelled out globally in 2013 by the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in a report titled “Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources.” The annual loss of about a third of the world’s food supply – 1.8 billion U.S. tons, not including fish and seafood – not only has a direct economic cost of about $750 billion annually, but also accounts for about 8.8 million cubic feet of water (more than the annual discharge of the 46

Ohio River) and 1.4 billion hectares of land (about a third of the world’s agricultural acreage). Once discarded, this food adds about 3.7 billion U.S. tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

If there’s any good news to be found in such estimates, it’s that there are plenty of places to attack the problem of food waste: on the farm, within distribution systems, at stores, and at home. Food security is one of those rare issues in which each of the Earth’s 7.5 billion people is a stakeholder, and an increasing number of these stakeholders, in both the public and private sectors, are joining forces to solve what the European Parliament has determined to be the most important problem facing humanity’s future.

THE BIG PICTURE Last year, in the release of its 17 Sustainable Development Goals aimed at ending poverty and promoting prosperity while protecting the environment, the U.N. established its own ambitious target for food waste reduction. Among its objectives was, by 2030, to “halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer level, and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.” In fall 2015, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – agencies that had already partnered on initiatives to reduce food waste on both the production and the consumer sides of the food system – adopted this 50-percent by-2030 target and announced it as the first-ever national food waste reduction goal.

It would be easy to dismiss such a target as too ambitious if it weren’t supported by concrete recommendations for achieving it. In “Wasted,” Gunders outlined steps that government, businesses, and consumers could take, at each stage in the supply chain, to reduce inefficiency and waste in the American food system, but acknowledged that much work needed to be done to translate good intentions into action.

On the heels of the U.N.’s release of its Sustainable Development Goals, USDA and EPA, along with people from organizations at every step along the food chain, convened a gathering known as the Food Recovery Summit in Charleston, South Carolina. After these stakeholders weighed in to discuss key challenges in reducing food loss and waste, they issued a collaborative Call to Action, identifying opportunities and challenges and outlining actions to be taken.

As in most high-level documents, some of the recommendations of this all-inclusive group (“Optimize distribution networks to reduce transportation and storage costs”) sound maddeningly vague.

But much of this action is already underway – some of it by government, drilling down far beyond the

Multinational, government, and nonprofit organizations are increasingly demonstrating not only that food waste loses money, but that reducing this waste can save – or even earn – money for businesses and consumers.

47

Tifton, Georgia

USDA PHOTO BY STEPHEN AUSMUS

big-picture reports and seminars and conferences and mission statements.

USDA, for example, is reaching out to consumers with information and tools, such as a mobile app called “Food Keeper,” to help with decisions about buying and storing food. According to JoAnne Berkenkamp, senior advocate for NRDC’s Food & Agriculture Program, “Many consumers don’t feel knowledgeable about storing their food properly at home, and that drives a lot of consumer-level waste. The Food Keeper app is something people can use to answer simple questions: ‘How do I properly store bananas or oranges or lettuce?’ And it includes information about storage temperatures and date labeling and expiration dates.”

The EPA depicts its priorities in preventing and diverting wasted food with an inverted pyramid, with the most desirable methods – those that create the most environmental, social, and economic benefits – at the top of what it calls the Food Recovery Hierarchy. The most preferred approach – and the only approach in the hierarchy that aims at the supply side of the food system – is to “reduce the volume of surplus food generated.” The other priorities deal with directing uneaten food away from landfills and toward hungry people or animals, or perhaps for industrial uses such as fuel conversion or rendering.

USDA scientists are already at work on solutions aimed at the supply side, developing technologies to make food processing more efficient, to extend shelf life, and to utilize food byproducts rather than have them go to waste – for example, the recent development, in a project jointly executed by USDA scientists and a northern California miller, of flour made from grapeseeds, which are typically composted or fed to cattle after wine is made. USDA scientists are currently at work on investigations of grapeseed

Researchers at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service help reduce food waste by developing new ways to extend food shelf life and by creating new food products, biobased plastics, and animal feed from food waste.

USDA’s “Food Keeper” app provides information about proper food storage and expiration dates to help consumers make informed food purchasing decisions.

flour’s potential for reducing blood cholesterol and obesity-associated diseases.

As Berkenkamp points out, USDA is also contributing through its traditional loan, grant, and technical assistance programs, targeting organizations that work to research or otherwise advance the cause of food waste reduction.

Elizabeth Royte, who began writing about food waste in National Geographic a few years ago, points out in her work that food waste priorities differ among nations; in the developing world, much food is lost after it’s harvested but before it reaches consumers, due to lack of good storage facilities, roads, and refrigeration. The United States and other developed nations tend to waste food further down the supply chain, where retailers or consumers discard leftovers or perishable food before it’s expired.

In the developed world, where more of life’s essentials are monetized, it seems likely, then, that the effort to reduce food waste will gain momentum once the problem is shown to affect bottom lines. Multinational, government, and nonprofit organizations are increasingly demonstrating not only that food waste loses money, but that reducing this waste can save – or even earn – money for businesses and consumers.

When then-Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the nation’s food waste reduction goal in September 2015, he pointed out that the average American family leaves more than 2 million calories, worth nearly $1,500, uneaten every year. Both the FAO and the NRDC have documented the economic and environmental losses associated with food waste.

More recently, a group of leaders from American businesses, nonprofits, foundations, and government began to substantiate the potential gains associated with solving the problem of food waste. A Roadmap 49

FOOD WASTE

to Reduce U.S. Food Waste by 20 Percent, or ReFED (www.refed.com), not only calculates a price tag for U.S. food waste – the nation spends more than $218 billion, or 1.3 percent of GDP, growing, processing, transporting, and disposing of uneaten food annually – but also provides hard data to detail how each of its 27 recommended solutions, applied along each link in the supply chain, can yield financial benefits.

Implementing the roadmap, say its authors, could generate 15,000 new jobs, double the amount of recovered food donated to nonprofits, and reduce up to 1.5 percent of freshwater consumption and nearly 18 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

FOOD WASTE REDUCTION: NOW A CAREER PATH

50

City Harvest volunteers glean produce and other foods from participating farmers’ markets in a process called “Greenmarket Rescue” at the City Harvest Food Rescue Facility in Long Island, New York, on Sept. 16, 2015.

Channeling food that might otherwise go to waste to people that are food insecure not only addresses hunger, but has economic and environmental benefits.

USDA PHOTO BY LANCE CHEUNG

Some of the most exciting efforts to reduce food waste are already well underway in the American private sector, where pioneers have spied opportunity in the nation’s squandered agricultural bounty.

CropMobster™, an online platform linking potential buyers with unsold produce in three markets so far – the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, and New York – began three years ago when a pair of Sonoma County farmers invoked a “flash mob” on their Facebook page to purchase organic greens that had been returned from weekend farmers’ markets.

According to Berkenkamp, about a sixth – 10 million tons – of U.S. fruits and vegetables never make it to market. This is sometimes due to price fluctuations or labor shortages, but it’s most often for aesthetic reasons – scars, dents, blemishes, or deformities that don’t meet the cosmetics standards of supermarkets or exporters.

Several entrepreneurs have had the foresight to view these 10 million pounds as an untapped secondary market. A few years ago, Ben Simon, then a student at the University of Maryland, and some friends began to notice the amount of dining hall food that ended up in the trash at the end of the day and they were About a sixth – 10 appalled. They launched a nonprofit, Food million tons – of U.S. Recovery Network, to redirect this food to food banks, soup kitchens, and other fruits and vegetables agencies. Today, it’s the nation’s largest never make it to student movement against hunger, with 198 chapters in 44 states having recovmarket. This is ered and donated more than 1.5 million sometimes due to pounds of food.

After graduating, Simon moved to price fluctuations or California – “because that’s where all labor shortages, but the food is,” he said – to launch his own company, Imperfect Produce, whose motto it’s most often for is “Ugly Produce. Delivered.” Imperfect’s aesthetic reasons. core business is the delivery of erstwhile

Introducing...

The first of its kind – is a community-based website designed and created for producers with large commercial farming operations.

EPA IMAGE

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Food Recovery Hierarchy details methods of preventing or diverting wasted food.

rejects such as lumpy potatoes, two-headed mushrooms, and wrinkled citrus to retail customers at a steep discount from the supermarket prices.

Upon its 2015 launch, Imperfect immediately established the business case for selling less attractive fruits and vegetables; within less than a year, it was selling 70,000 pounds of produce every month, to more than 10,000 customers in the San Francisco Bay Area. On the East Coast, a retailer with a similar direct-to-consumer model, Hungry Harvest, services the Baltimore, D.C., and Philadelphia areas. According to Simon, Imperfect has plans to expand into other western markets, beginning in Los Angeles.

The company has also launched a pilot program with Whole Foods Market™, selling Imperfect produce in 42 Northern California stores, making Whole Foods one of a handful of retail stores to experiment with the “uglies.”

Giant Eagle Supermarkets, which operates 420 stores in the eastern United States, recently launched its “Produce with Personality” pilot at five stores in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Simon and Hungry Harvest founder and CEO Eric Lutz are businessmen, but neither of them saw food waste as a way to make a buck. Simon’s passion was ignited when he saw so much food being dumped from the university dining hall at the end of every day, and Lutz has said he’s always considered himself a “social entrepreneur.” Every sale Hungry Harvest makes is accompanied by a donation of food to organizations that can get it to people who will be glad to have it.

This gets to the core of the argument for reducing food waste: The United States, whose world’s-largest defense budget accounts for about 4.5 percent of its GDP, is wasting 1.3 percent of its GDP – a significant amount of money – in disposing of edible food. It’s an egregious economic efficiency, but it’s not why the most passionate advocates are spending so much of their time on the issue: According to the FAO, 870 million people go hungry in the world every day, and the 2.9 trillion pounds of food wasted every year is enough to feed each of them twice over. Food insecurity isn’t just a Third World problem, either; 1 in 6 Americans lacks a secure food supply.

“We have 42 million people in the United States who are food insecure,” said Berkenkamp. “So we’re living in this very odd time of enormous waste and also enormous scarcity. We have a chance to do much better – not only to prevent food from being wasted in the first place, but also to ensure these surpluses of wholesome foods are getting to people in need.” n

features articles relevant to your operation's need, a verified forum for you to discuss and interact with other growers, plus a social community to facilitate engagement among the community.

Read Learn Discuss Interact

BRANDT SMART QUATRO®

Advanced Foliar Nutrition

™

BRANDT SMART QUATRO® is a proprietary foliar micronutrient formulation that combines zinc, manganese, boron, molybdenum and sulfur to crops efficiently and effectively. It was designed for compatibility with new seed trait herbicide systems and has been submitted for manufacturer’s approval as an approved nutrient tank mix partner.

BRANDT SMART QUATRO ADVANTAGES: n

Delivers key nutrient elements that are in high demand by row crops in one, easy-to-use formulation

n

Nutrients are highly mobile and translocate to plant growing points quickly

n

Compatible with most post-emergent herbicides

To learn more, contact BRANDT at 800 300 6559 or email info@brandt.co

Brandt Consolidated, Inc. www.brandt.co

LANDIS INTERNATIONAL OUR MISSION: To Provide the Agricultural Industry with the Highest Quality and the Most Cost-Effective Solutions to Product Development and Registration Challenges.

USDA’S NUTRITIONAL GUIDELINES

FOOD SCIENCE MEETS FOOD POLITICS

A HISTORY OF USDA’S NUTRITIONAL GUIDELINES

BY CRAIG COLLINS

OVYDYBORETS/123RF

If your profession has anything to do with food and nutrition, it might surprise you to learn there was a time when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued nutrition guidance to the public – and it wasn’t controversial at all.

The first federal funding for nutrition research was appropriated in 1894, when Congress gave USDA $10,000 for food investigations. There weren’t many nutrition studies being done at the time, and most of them were being conducted by Wilbur O. Atwater, a professor of chemistry at Wesleyan University and USDA’s first chief of nutrition.

Atwater, considered by many to be the father of modern nutrition research, advocated using science to develop dietary guidance and improve the health and well-being of Americans. He published USDA’s first nutrition guidance in 1894, in the agency’s Farmers’ Bulletin. In the 1902 Farmers’ Bulletin, he emphasized variety, proportionality, and moderation

53

1943

in healthy eating, principles that endure in today’s nutrition guidance. “ ... for the great majority of people in good health,” Atwater wrote, “the ordinary food materials ... make a fitting diet, and the main question is how to use them in the kinds and proportions fitted to the actual needs of the body.”

In 1904, Atwater published Principles of Nutrition and Nutritive Value of Food, in which he advocated an efficient and affordable diet that measured calories, focused on nutrient-rich foods, and limited fat, sugar, and starch.

The emerging field of nutrition science informed the 1916 creation, by nutritionist Caroline Hunt, of USDA’s first food guide, Food for Young Children.

The follow-up guide for adults, How to Select Food, likewise divided foods into five categories: milk and meat; cereals; vegetables and fruit; fats and fatty foods; and sugars and sugary foods. These five food groups remained the backbone of USDA’s nutrition guidance throughout the 1920s.

The economic constraints of the Great Depression became a major concern for food consumers, and in 1933, Hazel Stiebeling, a USDA food economist, developed food plans for Americans at four different cost levels, outlined in terms of 12 major food groups to purchase and prepare over a week’s time.

Her publication, Diets at Four Levels of Nutritive Content and Cost, was the first to factor affordability into federal nutrition guidance.

54

AMERICAN RED CROSS/USDA IMAGE

USDA IMAGE

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

USDA’S NUTRITIONAL GUIDELINES

1956

1984

In 1940, as U.S. involvement in World War II became imminent, the National Academy of Sciences established a Committee on Food and Nutrition to advise the government about nutrition problems that might affect national defense. The committee established daily nutrition standards for members of the armed forces and for the general population, and, at the National Nutrition Conference for Defense convened by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941, presented The 1970s its Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for calorie intake and nine essenwere a tial nutrients: protein, iron, calcium, tipping point vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin. after which These recommendations led to the providing development of the National Wartime Food Guide, published by USDA in 1943 nutrition and featuring what became known as the advice to Basic Seven food groups, designated to maintain nutritional standards under Americans wartime rationing. The Basic Seven was became the first USDA nutrition guideline to be depicted in simple graphic form; it was a increasingly wheel divided into seven wedges, one for complicated each category of food in a healthy diet.

After the war, the Basic Seven endured, for USDA. with few changes in the new National Food Guide, which contained this advice:

USDA IMAGE

USDA IMAGE

1992

“In time of emergency, you need to eat less of the scarce foods, more of the plentiful. FOOD IS NEEDED TO FEED THE HUNGRY – DON’T WASTE IT.” These categories were consolidated, in 1956, into the Basic Four: milk, meats, fruits and vegetables, and grain. These categories would remain virtually unchanged for many years, and it would be decades before USDA issued another graphic depiction of its nutrition guidelines.

“EAT MORE” BECOMES “EAT LESS” The latter 20th century began a period in which USDA was pushed and pulled by an inherent conflict between two of its missions: to promote U.S. agricultural products and to provide nutrition advice.

In her book Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, first published in 2002, Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University, argues that the USDA’s tradition of nutrition guidance can be roughly divided into two eras: the “Eat More” era of the early- to mid-20th century, and the “Eat Less” era that began to gain momentum in the 1970s, when evidence emerged that the typical American diet, high in sugar, salt, fat, and cholesterol, might be linked to the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases.

As early as 1917, with Hunt’s How to Select Food, Atwater’s prescription to limit the intake of certain

2005

foods, such as fats and sugars, was largely ignored in USDA’s public nutrition advice – an omission driven by agricultural interest groups who didn’t want the government telling people to eat less of what they produced. This wasn’t a problem, said Nestle – until it was. “At first, when the USDA was giving food advice and encouraging people to eat more of American agricultural products,” she said, “there was no problem at all. They could have a group for fat. They could have a group for sugar. And they could do all of that because Americans were generally thin and healthy.

The big issue that the USDA wanted to get across, in a word, was variety. They wanted people to eat a greater variety of foods.”

A Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by then-Sen. George McGovern, D-S.D., heard testimony off and on through the mid-1970s, and in 1977 produced the first comprehensive statement by any federal entity about the risk factors in the American diet. With guidance from the American Heart Association, the committee recommended reductions in the consumption of fats, cholesterol, and sugar, along with increased consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and poultry and fish.

The 1970s were a tipping point after which providing nutrition advice to Americans became increasingly complicated for USDA, not only because of the grievances generated by groups who now felt 55

future depends on a strong agriculture Our

Stand beside your neighbor Unite for agriculture Join FARM BUREAUÂŽ

fb.org/about/join

USDA IMAGE

USDA’S NUTRITIONAL GUIDELINES

their products – products such as beef, pork, eggs, sugar, and processed foods – were being denigrated, but because of the number of players seeking input into the process. In the private sector, groups such as the American Medical Association began to argue that USDA shouldn’t put itself in the position of specifying amounts and proportions of foods that should be included in Americans’ diets, as it inevitably put the agency in the position of discouraging production of certain food products – a direct conflict of interest for the agency.

It was nevertheless the opinion of many in the public and private spheres that Americans needed nutrition information that was more detailed and more consistent. USDA gained a federal partner after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) successfully lobbied for a seat at the table, and in 1980, the two agencies published their first consensus document, “Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans,” which advised people to “eat a variety of foods; maintain ideal weight; avoid too much fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol; eat foods with adequate starch and fiber; avoid too much sugar; avoid too much sodium; if you drink alcohol, do so in moderation.”

USDA and HHS have updated “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” every five years since, with advice and input from a committee of nutrition experts.

The early years of the “Eat Less” era identified by Nestle were messier and more contentious than the previous half-century of USDA nutrition advice; for evidence, one need only take a look at the 1984

MyPlate is the current graphic representing today’s USDA dietary guidelines.

Food Wheel, a graphic produced by USDA and the American Red Cross to reflect the advice contained within the “Dietary Guidelines.” Compared to graphics presented before it and since, the wheel seems a cluttered, indecipherable hash, a 5-pound bag containing 10 pounds of advice. It was promptly forgotten by the American public, but in less than a decade, it would be replaced by an icon that a surprising number still remember today.

THE GREAT PYRAMID OF FOOD The Food Guide Pyramid that became USDA’s icon of nutrition advice in 1992 was produced meticulously – so meticulously, in fact, that the grievances, accusations, and counterclaims that surrounded it could, and do, provide enough material for several book chapters written by Nestle and others. Research was done to determine not only its substance – which foods, and in what proportions, should be illustrated – but its style: Would the new graphic be another wheel? A bowl? A plate? Focus-group surveys found the pyramid the most helpful graphic, as its broad base clearly showed which foods should be eaten in the greatest amounts daily.

A first version of the pyramid, the Eating Right Pyramid, was abruptly withdrawn by Agriculture Secretary Edward Madigan in 1991 because, he said, it wasn’t as easily understood by children, the elderly, or minorities, but reporting in the New York Times and elsewhere suggested the secretary had bowed to pressure from commodity groups who didn’t like 57

AFG-1507 3.7x4.8.qxp_Layout 1 9/13/16 12:08 PM Page 1

SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE SYSTEM

AGRICULTURAL LAND-GRANT CAMPUS

When it comes to bypass plant proteins,

a NEW ERA of

CONSISTENCY COUNTS.

BUILDING STRONG SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES through T E A C H I N G

AminoMax ® delivers consistently high levels of bypass protein for:

RESEARCH

Come

¸ Improved feed efficiency ¸ Reduced nitrogen excretion ¸ Higher milk production

&

EXTENSION

with Us! Contact: 225.771.2242

For more information, call (800) 692-6008 or visit AminoMax.com

www.suagcenter.com

©2016 by Afgritech, LLC

Profitable Solutions

for the Toughest Problems in Ag

6200 FIRMING WHEEL

6200 PADDLE WHEEL patent pending

| CLOSING WHEEL S

6200 POLY SPIKE CLOSING WHEEL patent pending

PROFITABLE OPTIONS

5000 STALK DEVASTATOR™ Protect tires from wear and damage patented

| 9010 TRACKTILL® Eliminate tire compaction

FERTILIZER PREPARATION

MANURE APPLICATION

2995 PARALLEL LINKAGE FERTILIZER COULTER

800-447-5777

Colchester, IL www.yetterco.com

patent pending

patent pending

|

2962 UNIT-MOUNTED DOUBLE DISC FERTILIZER OPENER

|

2967-029A/097A SHORT FLOATING RESIDUE MANAGER

10,000 MAGNUM™ FOR FERTILIZER APPLICATION NH3, liquid, or dry

SEEDBED PREPAR ATION

2960/2967-007 FLOATING COMBO RESIDUE MANAGER

2968 ROW-UNIT MOUNT INBETWEEN FERTILIZER OPENER Single or dual

|

VERTIC AL TILL AGE

RE SIDUE M ANAGEMENT

patented

6200 CAST SPIKE CLOSING WHEEL

FERTILIZER APPLICATION

HARVEST AT TACHMENTS

|

Preparing students for successful careers in agriculture, veterinary technology, food and related industries, offering: • Associate degrees • Associate of Applied Science degrees • Certificates

|

2940 AIR ADJUST RESIDUE MANAGER & IN-CAB CONTROLLER

CLOSING WHEELS

TILL TOOL S

RESIDUE MANAGERS

87 years

STRIP-

ncta.unl.edu UNL does not discriminate based upon any protected status.

Please see go.unl.edu/nondiscrimination. © 2016, The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved. 1607.016

DOMESTIC FARMERS, GLOBAL REACH

to see their products ranked lower than others in the pyramid’s hierarchy.

The 1992 Food Guide Pyramid is different from its predecessor in many subtle ways – including its name, which doesn’t suggest there’s a “right” way to eat – but the substance is still rooted in research and the advice of experts who were led by Jeanne Goldberg, Ph.D., who was then and remains a professor of nutrition at Tufts University.

As memorable as the Food Guide Pyramid was, Goldberg said, it provided evidence that there’s no silver bullet for providing nutrition advice, especially by committee. If you look closely at the Pyramid, you’ll see its sections sprinkled with tiny white triangles and yellow circles, representing the amount of sugars and fats in each group. These were included at the insistence of people focused on health and prevention who, Goldberg said, “felt quite strongly that you had to tell people where the fat and sugar were. You can interpret for yourself how effective that might have been.”

Another issue with the Pyramid, Goldberg said, arose from the unresolvable conflict between thoroughness and simplicity. Some focus group members would look at the graphic symbols and take them literally: “People would say: ‘I can’t eat a whole chicken or a whole loaf of bread. If I eat a whole loaf of bread, I’ll get so fat.’” Among the advisory group were scientists who wanted the graphic to reflect as many details as possible from the “Dietary Guidelines,” Goldberg said, “but at the other extreme was the market research guy, who said: ‘You want a symbol you can understand as if it were a billboard, and if you were driving down the highway at 60 miles an hour, you could get the message.”

USDA PHOTO BY ROBERT NICHOLS

MYPLATE: A TEACHING TOOL An updated version of the Pyramid, MyPyramid, was released in 2005, with all hierarchical images of food removed and replaced by colored vertical wedges. Designed to be a personalized interactive online tool, MyPyramid individualized recommendations based on gender, age, and activity level, and laid the groundwork for more detailed explorations of people’s diet quality and physical activity, all of which could be done on the USDA’s MyPyramid website.

The concept didn’t catch on. In Goldberg’s opinion, the new graphic was simply too abstract.

Both Goldberg and Nestle were involved in the initial advisory stages of producing the USDA’s current graphic, MyPlate, released in 2011. Like the Food Pyramid before it, the image that resulted – a simple plate divided into four quadrants of different sizes to represent servings of fruits, vegetables, grains, and protein, with a smaller serving of dairy on the side – has its strengths and weaknesses.

Then-first lady Michelle Obama unveils the MyPlate graphic, the new food icon meant to serve as a reminder to help consumers make healthier food choices, on June 2, 2011.

Then-Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack accompanied the first lady at the launch.

“It’s simple,” said Goldberg. “It has high recognition. And part of that recognition is due to the fact it came out when [then-first lady] Michelle Obama had declared she was going to take child nutrition on as one of her major causes. And that really was a tremendous boost for the credibility of the graphic.”

Nestle is skeptical that as much research – or any research, for that matter – informed the production of MyPlate as did the Pyramid. The labeling of one of the four groups as “protein” – a nutrient, Nestle said, not a food – troubles her. “It’s not fact based,” she said. “The milk group has protein – a lot of protein, actually. All foods have protein. So to call a group ‘protein’ because you don’t want to call it meat, fish, or nuts – it doesn’t make any sense.”

After leading the development of the 1992 Food Guide Pyramid, Goldberg seems more able to accept such flaws in a simple graphic as inevitable. “It isn’t really the graphic that does the work,” she said. “It’s what is done in teaching what the graphic means that’s potentially effective. And that’s a long chain.

I think the idea that it’s possible to create a graphic representation of how Americans should eat is a good one. It’s hard to argue against that. What we in the nutrition community do with it is really where the rubber hits the road. I think most recently, there has been better funding for that, but we’ve got a long way to go.” n 59

interview

Dr. BARBARA P. GLENN Reflects on 100 Years of NASDA and the Work Ahead

BY ANA E. LOPEZ

U.S. AGRICULTURE OUTLOOK: 2016 was NASDA’s centennial year. So first, how did you celebrate that milestone? And second, what do you feel are NASDA’s biggest accomplishments since it’s been in existence?

DR. BARBARA P. GLENN: NASDA had a wonderful centennial celebration in 2016. It was an opportunity for the commissioners, secretaries, and directors of agriculture to really come together to think about the value and importance of what they do, from farmers to consumers. So we had an exciting year of celebration. I’ll share with you that The National Association of State Departments of we were very pleased to receive statements of commendaAgriculture (NASDA) celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2016. tion from the House Agriculture Committee leadership, the NASDA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit association that represents Senate Agriculture Committee, and also from the USDA the elected and appointed commissioners, secretaries, and secretary, Tom Vilsack. So we have an amazing triad, if you will, of formal statements that are in the record celebrating directors of the departments of agriculture in all 50 states and with NASDA in terms of our hundredth. four U.S. territories. The organization grows and enhances I think that the biggest accomplishment overall for agriculture by forging partnerships and creating consensus to NASDA is this role that we play as being closest to the achieve sound policy outcomes between state departments consumer. And for the state departments of agriculture, of agriculture, the federal government, and stakeholders. that consumer over the hundred years has grown, and food “NASDA has been advocating for American agriculture and nutrition awareness has increased. So we are allies for 100 years,” said NASDA CEO Dr. Barbara P. Glenn in a with and closely linked to our farmers and, importantly, to recent press release. “As the chief agriculture officials in consumers. I think the ability for NASDA to bring together the states, our members are keenly aware of the changing the chief agricultural negotiators in all 50 states and four dynamics of food and agriculture in our global economy. territories and to actually articulate a unified voice has been The partnerships we have with the U.S. Department of our biggest accomplishment. Fifty-four voices speaking Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other together are much louder than one state speaking individually. We’ve enhanced that over a hundred years to federal agencies and agriculture organizations are so critical include that consumer. As you know, at this point in time, to furthering agriculture’s advancement for decades to come.” the awareness that every person has in terms of their food In early December, Glenn spoke with U.S. Agriculture and nutrition and their personal health, their family’s health, Outlook about NASDA’s anniversary, the organization’s unique their children’s health, has just been enhanced so much. role in American agriculture, and how the association plans to We’re at a great time right now. The consumer has become work with partners, stakeholders, and government – including one of the biggest customers that our members now work the new presidential administration – to address challenges for, and to that extent, they advocate for programs that facing American agriculture and strengthen it going forward. are direct-to-consumer market programs, such as farmers’ markets and CSAs [community-supported agriculture] and other opportunities to bring local food to local people. Food is personal, and at the core of the American family value system.

And specifically relative to our unified voice, the opportunity to convene these members together and talk about agricultural policy – that has been very key to NASDA’s success. And we’ve most recently had the opportunity to even improve that impact and influence even more. So in a hundred years, we’ve advanced agriculture, and we’re generating that consensus in a nonpartisan manner. And I think that’s a huge accomplishment for us.

60

“

We are smart in agriculture.

We have a lot to offer. Our members should be at the table on some of these huge policy issues. We trust and respect that President Trump’s agricultural advisers understand all of this, and we’re looking forward to get the states’ leadership views into all the policy discussions.

”

I understand that the 2016 annual meeting opened with a call for “renewed commitment to a robust role for states on federal policymaking.” What does that renewed commitment entail?

President Greg Ibach from Nebraska envisioned that it was the appropriate time and opportunity for NASDA to rearticulate our specific role in the interaction we have of state departments of agriculture with the federal government and with policymaking.

That renewed commitment is for a more effective partnership between the states and the federal

government. States are really more than just stakeholders. Our members have a responsibility to implement their own state programs as well as many federal programs, and therefore the states have a very unique role. And that should be respected. So we called for a renewed commitment to what’s called cooperative federalism – an enhanced partnership.

We feel that we really need to enhance resources for states because we’re implementers of federal programs and we really cannot suffer under unfunded mandates – the tread line has been for the federal government to push regulatory responsibilities and implementation down to our state departments of ag. So we look forward to this renewed commitment. It is a call to action for the incoming administration. And we’re very excited to work with President-elect Trump and his new administration. We think there are some opportunities regarding this collaboration for regulatory reform, and specifically, we’ve got some issues that we want to work on that affect agriculture greatly with the Environmental Protection Agency, for example. So it’s a call to action on cooperative federalism and these effective partnerships that we deal with and our members lead every day.

While we’re on the subject of policymaking and working with the federal government, in your last interview with us (in the 2014-2015 edition of World Agriculture Outlook), you listed pollinator health, Waters of the United States, and the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) as top priorities. Has that changed or are those still the priorities that you’re talking about as far as dealing with the EPA and regulatory action?

Those were our Tier One policy priorities and as we rolled into 2016, our board approved the addition of international trade and harmonization to be included in those top priorities. So in 2016, we were involved in all four of those, and really enhanced our strategic issue management around those. For example, regarding pollinator health, this is an area where our members lead in over 45 states in the development and implementation of something called a Managed Pollinator Protection Plan [MP3]. So the state departments of ag have a huge role in our support for pollinator health. We’ve been very active with the agencies, applicators, beekeepers, and other ag stakeholders to actually devise plans within the state as to how we’ll communicate together and enhance not only agriculture but also enhance bee health. So it’s a unique niche where our members are playing a central role in something that is super critical for agriculture, which is the health of pollinators.

We worked on international trade and harmonization as a top priority in 2016. It was a critical year for the ag community to be vocal on the need for a new and expanded global marketplace. NASDA strongly supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] along with many of our ag partners across the country. Expanded trade opportunities for agriculture will remain a priority for us in 2017.

61

JOIN THE WORLD’S LARGEST INDUSTRY. Agriculture

semo.edu/agriculture

ALL ASPECTS OF AGRICULTURE ARE ROOTED IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF AGRIBUSINESS PRINCIPLES. As an agriculturalist, you will be EXPERTLY TRAINED IN PRODUCTION METHODS; however, you will also receive training in AGRICULTURAL FINANCE, MANAGEMENT, SALES, AND MARKETING. Collectively, this combination of skills prepares you for an exciting career and allows you the adaptability for lifelong success.

keep white space around the seal equal to 25% the size of the seal

interview We spent a lot of time on food safety. We are supporters of the Food Safety Modernization Act and our members are critical in the implementation of that in each state. So we were very active in that through a partnership with the FDA [the Food and Drug Administration]. And we actually have attained an additional agreement with FDA to work on the issues around animal food and FSMA. FDA has reinforced their commitment to the state-federal partnership by providing federal funds for states to carry out the work of these rules in a manner which farmers understand, and keeps them in business. So we are very concerned about food safety, and we judge that FSMA will be a way forward to create a culture where we’re preventing food safety outbreaks rather than always responding to a crisis. There is still a lot of work to do on FSMA. At our recent annual meeting, our board added cooperative federalism as an additional priority for NASDA. This will be a huge theme for our new president, new administration, and new Congress. The farm bill that is emerging for 2018 reauthorization is also a priority for NASDA because ag producers and communities of all sizes depend on it. And they rely on that adequate funding through the programs that are in the farm bill, so I’m sure that NASDA will establish that as a key priority as well for 2017.

Are there specific things that seem to be coming up for your members as something they’d want to see in the 2018 Farm Bill? Any big changes from what was in 2014?

Yeah, we had a series of priorities in 2014. And those included a priority around plant health and invasive species. And that’s likely to be a high consideration for the new farm bill. We were very supportive of voluntary incentive-based conservation programs. We were supportive of the Market Access Program, which expands export opportunities for our states and producers in our states, and we were supportive of research in 2014. And I think these are some of the core priorities that are likely to be carried into 2018. We recognize that NASDA’s role regarding the farm bill is important, and we can have impact on specific areas and work collegially with stakeholders and allies to advance maybe the past initiatives and build on those but also maybe to advance a couple new priorities as well. So it’s a heavy point of discussion at our winter policy conference.

You mentioned the Market Access Program and previously also TPP. Clearly, trade in a global marketplace is important for U.S. agriculture producers and state departments of agriculture. What seems to be the feeling among NASDA members of the possibility of U.S. withdrawal from TPP? Are people nervous? Are they looking for something to replace TPP? [Editor’s note: President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from TPP on Jan. 24, 2017, after this interview took place.]

Agricultural trade is a huge success story for agriculture. After all, 95 percent of our potential customers live beyond our borders. NASDA will continue to advocate for the need to advance a trans-Pacific trade agreement. The risk of permanently losing markets for U.S. products and ceding our leadership in the region to China is unacceptable for agriculture. The United States must be in the driver’s seat, leading the international trade agenda so that our producers can compete in the global food marketplace. In addition, the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] is crucial for agriculture and we are committed to continuing to foster closer relationships with our NAFTA trading partners. We will work closely with the next administration to stress the importance of multi-lateral trade agreements for agriculture – we must continue to press for increased market access and robust rules of the road for international trade.

As you are aware, immigration was a pretty big issue during the election season. I know it’s hard to say at this point what might happen, but given the general feeling of what President-elect Trump has already talked about as far as immigration goes, what might his stance so far mean for migrant workers or the farm laborer? What implications might his stance have for that and how it might affect work on farms?

American agriculture is facing a critical shortage of on-farm labor. NASDA members understand the hardship this lack of labor places on producers and processors and know that a sensible solution that allows foreign laborers to continue working is necessary. We hope the incoming administration will take concrete steps to address the issue. We’re confident the new administration and new Congress understand that timely harvest depends on foreign farm labor and will have American agriculture at the table to help streamline the H-2A program. NASDA wants to work for a modernized and efficient visa system that gives farmers certainty that they will receive the help they need, that allows for a legal agricultural workforce, and allows for workers who have been here working for years [to be able to] stay in that agricultural workforce.

It seems that, in regard to a lot of these potential changes in policy, NASDA is really concerned with just having their voices heard and their perspective taken into account.

Our members are unique in that they are a co-regulator with the federal government while also being an advocate for agriculture. And their customers, as I said before, span that farmer up to the consumer.

So we are smart in agriculture. We have a lot to offer. Our members should be at the table on some of these huge policy issues. We trust and respect that President Trump’s agricultural advisers understand all of this, and we’re looking forward to get the states’ leadership views into all the policy discussions. I think that can happen. We feel like we’re having enhanced impact and influence with regard to our policies. This is mostly because our members are unique in their role as both promoters and regulators of agriculture in their states. And that’s a unique hat to wear, but it places them in a very, very important and powerful position as being spokespersons for the future of ag in the United States.

Is there anything you’d like to add that I didn’t touch on?

This is a critical time. We’ve got a new administration. We have a new Congress. We have a few new NASDA members. So effective communication is critical. And NASDA will be meeting with all of those folks to share our views and our policy perspectives so that we can continue to grow and enhance ag on behalf of all the farmers and ranchers in the United States. n 63

FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT

CREDITWORTHY

THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT AND A CENTURY OF SUPPORT FOR AMERICAN FARMERS

BY JAN TEGLER Whenever farming is the business at hand, I’m reminded of when I was in Las Vegas some years back. I was there to address the annual Farm Bureau meeting. And on my way into the hall, a fellow, one of the regular visitors in Las Vegas, asked me what was a bunch of farmers doing in a place like Las Vegas? And I couldn’t resist. I said, “Buster, they’re in a business that makes a Las Vegas crap table look like a guaranteed annual income.” – President Ronald Reagan speaking at the signing of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987

Reagan’s words neatly describe the unpredictable world of farming, a vital American industry whose fortunes are affected daily by vagaries ranging from the weather to global economic conditions and access to credit.

The legislation the nation’s 40th president was signing into law could trace its lineage directly back to a bill passed in 1916 that originated the Farm Credit System (FCS) American agriculture relies on 100 years later. The Federal Farm Loan Act is the foundation upon which the FCS was built. Continually revised and updated, the FCS is the largest single provider of credit to American farmers today, holding more than 40 percent of farm business debt, according to the Farm Credit Administration.

The system owes its existence and longevity to the idea that American farmers are worthy of credit.

Though uneven in application and efficiency in certain periods of history, the public/private credit plans that Congress initiated with the Federal Farm Loan Act have been decidedly positive for farmers over time, offering a reliable alternative to commercial sources of financing.

Before the passage of the Federal Farm Loan Act, commercial lenders were the only option for farmers in need of capital. Not consistently responsive to farmers and rural communities, they were often considered …

… FAIR WEATHER FRIENDS As the 20th century got underway, farming was becoming a capital-intensive business. Advancements in farm science and technology brought with them the promise of greatly enhanced agricultural production. But they also carried a steep price tag. American farmers looking to expand from small-scale, near subsistence farming to larger, more land-intensive operations needed money.

Credit for agricultural purposes, however, was in very short supply. Farmers were facing a credit-crunch, 64

a situation known to the nation’s leaders. Proposals for a system of banks that would provide farm credit had been studied under the Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson administrations. These stemmed from a series of commissions sent to Europe to study the cooperatives of several countries, France and Germany among them, that served the credit needs of farmers.

Nevertheless, when the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913, most in government still

President Woodrow Wilson signs the Federal Farm Loan Act on July 17, 1916. The act originated the Farm Credit System on which American agriculture relies today.

USDA PHOTO BY BOB NICHOLS

believed private lending could accommodate the credit needs of farmers.

“At the time, Congress believed that commercial banks through the Federal Reserve System would provide credit for agriculture and farming,” said Richard Katz, senior counsel in the Office of General Counsel at the Farm Credit Administration (FCA).

But even in rural areas, bankers were more comfortable making loans to Main Street businesses, Katz added.

“For commercial bankers, extending loans with the uncertainty of a return on agriculture – hoping the weather wouldn’t be bad, or that crop yields would be high – was a gamble. So farmers didn’t really benefit credit-wise from the Federal Reserve System,” Katz said.

Acting on the suggestions of the aforementioned commissions, Sen. Henry F. Hollis, D-N.H., and Congressman Robert J. Bulkley, D-Ohio, presented a bill to create a public/private system for extending credit to farmers. The Hollis-Bulkley Act of 1914 didn’t pass in Congress due to opposition from President Wilson. But two years later, a revived version focused on the extension of long-term mortgage credit was enacted as the Federal Farm Loan Act. The act created a two-pronged system of credit with the establishment of Federal Land Banks (FLBs) in 12 districts across the country, along with hundreds

of National Farm Loan Associations (NFLAs) to serve as agents for the FLBs. The NFLAs, in which farmers were encouraged to buy stock (groups of 10 or more mortgage-holding farmers who together owned 5 percent or more of an FLB), were the conduit for financing, making loans directly to farmers.

“The act set up a board [Federal Farm Loan Board] that was a bureau in the Department of the Treasury.

The act required the supervisory board to establish 12 districts, modeled after the Federal Reserve, and [to] choose where the FLB was to be in those districts,” Katz said.

Provided with $9 million in capital from the U.S. government, the federally owned FLB/ The system owes NFLA structure was compleits existence mented by a private, investorowned Joint Stock Land Bank and longevity System. Joint Stock Land Banks to the idea could, like the FLBs, issue taxthat American exempt bonds to raise capital for making loans to farmers. farmers are “It was like a rival system,” worthy of credit.

Katz said. “They got the government charter but not government capital. They had to come up with their own.”

The first land banks were up and running by early summer of 1917, just after America entered World War I. The need to feed American troops and the starving European populace led to a boom for American agriculture that lasted until the war’s end in 1918. There was definite interest in the new credit system, but there were problems with the implementation of the act.

“It was an active system and there was demand, but there wasn’t a good division of territory for setting up markets,” Katz said.

In statistical terms, the Federal Land Bank system served a relatively small proportion of the total farm mortgage market. According to “Federal Lending and Loan Insurance,” a 1958 publication from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the peak lending year under the original structure of the act was 1922, when FLB loans amounted to $224 million – not quite 9 percent of all farm mortgage loans for the year.

“I think it was viewed as being generally successful, and it kept going, but there was a need for short-term credit,” said Katz.

With no means of providing short-term credit, the 1916 act couldn’t offer the financing farmers needed to maintain and run their farms – to buy such things as livestock, seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, and to purchase new farm machinery as mechanization spread in the 1920s.

65

Ambition Requires Vision

AgEquity

It's important to see things as they really are and how they could be.

Ambition is knowing the seeds I'm planting today will create lasting value. It's working alongside those who share my vision.

REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT

855-722-7766 @RaboAg

fb.com/RaboAg

MY AMBITION IS TO BUILD THE CCESS TO FINANCING BEST POSSIBLE FUTURE FOR MY PUTTING LAND EQUITY TO WORK FOR YOUR FARM AOR RANCH FAMILY AND ME.

AgEquity

@RaboAg

RaboAg.com Rabo AgriFinance

AgEquity

| KNOWLEDGE | NETWORKS © Rabo AgriFinance, LLC 2017

The AgEquity Revolving Line of Credit allows borrowers to use the equity in their agricultural real LINE estate REVOLVING OFtoCREDIT fund capital and operating purchases.

5 year year draw periods are available to better position their REVOLVING LINEorOF10CREDIT PUTTING LAND EQUITY TO WORK FOR Y operation for success. Competitve rates are variable monthly based on LIBOR with semi-annual interest The AgEquity Revolving Line of Credit allows bo payments automatically deducted each January and Conversion areRANCH available to convert line PUTTING LAND EQUITY TOJuly.

WORK FOR YOURoptions FARM OR fund capital and operating purchases. 5 year or into an amortizing term loanThe if desired.

AgEquity Revolving Line of Credit allows borrowers to use the equity in their agricultural real estate to

operation for success. Competitve rates are vari

available to better position their payments automatically deducted each January First Mortgage Terms fund capital and operating purchases. 5 year or 10 year draw periods are operation for success. Competitve rates are variable monthly based on LIBOR semi-annual interest into anwith amortizing term loan if desired.

• Loan to value: up to 50% (bare land value only) payments automatically deducted each January and July. Conversion options are available to convert line First Mortgage Terms • Minimum Credit Scoreinto 680an amortizing term loan if desired.

• Loan to value: up to 50% (bare land value

• • • • • •

Debt to Asset Ratio: 50% maximum • Minimum Credit Score 680 First Mortgage Terms • Debt to Asset Ratio: 50% maximum Current Debt Ratio: 1.25 minimum • Loan to value: up to 50% (bare land value only) • Current Debt Ratio: 1.25 minimum Credit Score 680 Total Debt Coverage Ratio:• Minimum 1.35:1 minimum • Total Debt Coverage Ratio: 1.35:1 minimum • Debt to Asset Ratio: 50% maximum Draw requests are wired directly to borrowers designated bank account • Draw requests are wired directly to borrow • Current Debt Ratio: 1.25 minimum • Limited draws per month Limited draws per month• Total Debt Coverage Ratio: 1.35:1 minimum • 10 year Draw Period requires a “5 year loo 10 year Draw Period requires a requests “5 year are look in” directly with current financial statements required at that time.

• Draw wired to borrowers designated bank account

• Limited draws per month Zions Ag Finance is a leader in both loan origina real estate lending market.

• 10 year Draw Period requires a “5 year look in” with current financial statements required at that time. For que Zions Ag Finance is a leader in both loan origination and serivcing in the secondary agricultural

contact your local regional Business Developme

agricultural real estate lending market. For questions on these products, please Zions Ag Finance is a leader in both loan origination and serivcing in the secondary contact your local regional Business Officer today. agriculturalDevelopment real estate lending market.

For questions on these products,Contact please Us Today contact your local regional Business Development Officer today.

Contact Us Today Contact Us Today

800-641-9619 | zionsag.com 800-641-9619 | zionsag.com

800-641-9619 | zionsag.com A Division of ZB, N.A. Member FDIC

1611-033 Ag Finance AgEquity Loan Flyer Refresh.indd 1

A Division of ZB, N.A. Member FDIC

A Division of ZB, N.A. Member FDIC

All loans are subject to approval. Restrictions apply. Contact Zions Ag Finance for details.

All loans are subject to approval. Restrictions apply. Contact Zions Ag Finance for details.

PHOTO BY RUSSELL LEE/LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY & MUSEUM

The solution was the Agricultural Credits Act of 1923, the first of a series of legislative measures that would build on the Farm Loan Act. The Agricultural Credits Act created new Federal Intermediate Credit Banks (FICB) in the 12 land bank districts. FICBs served as “banks of discount” to agricultural cooperatives, commercial banks, and other institutions.

“These were also wholly owned government banks,” Katz said. “They didn’t do any direct lending to farmers. Somebody else would make the loan, and then they’d discount the loan. They were basically a source of credit for small rural community banks and production/livestock corporations and didn’t have a direct connection to farmers, so they weren’t all that successful.”

As the 1920s wore on, the swoon in agricultural markets continued, with commodity prices steadily falling. Undercapitalized Joint Stock Land Banks – institutions lacking the joint liability for debt stipulation that applied to FLBs – began to fail. With the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, Joint Stock Land Banks suffered widespread defaults on loans. FLBs were under similar pressure as the national economy and agriculture spiraled downward in the 1930s.

THE FARM CREDIT ACT OF 1933 When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933, one of his first actions, aimed at reviving the nation’s farm economy, was an executive order that created the Farm Credit Administration and placed all existing federal agricultural credit entities under its supervision. The Farm Credit Act of 1933, enacted three months after the executive order, expanded the Farm Credit System by creating 12 Banks for Cooperatives (BCs) and production credit associations (PCAs).

The 12 FLBs and FICBs remained intact but were joined by the BCs, providing credit for farmers’

Left: Farm foreclosure sale in 1933 in the midst of the Great Depression.

Measures undertaken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, including the Farm Credit Act of 1933 and the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933, served to consolidate Farm Credit System entities under one agency and provide government relief to farmers in danger of mortgage default.

Right: Paul Erickson, a farmer in Yuba County, California, works on his tractor, November 1940.

With the help of a federal land bank (FLB) loan, he diversified his fruit farm, but low prices of farm products led to decreased income. Before 1933, FLBs held relatively small proportions of farm mortgage debt, but by 1936, they held 30 percent of the $7.2 billion farm mortgage debt.

cooperatives, and a Central Bank for Cooperatives to augment the district BCs in loans that exceeded their lending capacities.

Short-term credit for farmers was facilitated by a system of PCAs, with financing from the FICBs. Longterm mortgage credit relief for farmers facing foreclosure was provided by the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933 via appropriations from the Treasury; the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act also mandated the liquidation of the Joint Stock Land Banks. Between 1932 and 1934, Congress enacted legislation that recapitalized the FLBs and that also enabled the FCA to provide emergency relief to farmers and to reorganize local farm loan associations so they served viable agricultural credit markets.

These changes brought about the forerunner to the FCS we know today, but they also took the idea of farm credit in a direction not envisaged by the 1916 act.

“Originally, there was one vision that said this would be a system for farmers owned by farmers,” Katz said. “But there was a lot of government capital put into it. Various crises like the Depression and wars led to much more government involvement.”

Before 1933, FLBs accounted for relatively small proportions of total farm mortgage debt, ranging from 3.5 percent in 1920 to 13.5 percent in 1932. By the end of 1936, however, they held more than $2.1 billion, or 30 percent of the $7.2 billion farm mortgage debt, according to the 1958 National Bureau of Economic Research report. Government involvement in the FCS went further in 1939, when the FCA was made part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The measures undertaken by Roosevelt to consolidate the entities of the FCS under one agency, the FCA, and to provide widespread government relief to farmers in danger of default on their mortgages did help to stabilize the farm economy and rural communities. However, government intervention pulled FCS institutions away from the goal of becoming agricultural lending cooperatives that were owned and controlled by their farmer-borrowers.

67

FARMER-OWNED With the Farm Credit Act of 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reasserted the principle that the FCS should operate as a system for farmers owned by farmers. Direct government loan programs had been transferred from the FCA to the USDA beginning in 1946. Eisenhower’s 1953 act solidified the Farm Credit Administration as an independent agency once again – a farmer-owned cooperative lender as originally intended – and reorganized the agency’s operations.

A Federal Farm Credit Board with 13 members – one from each district and one appointed by the secretary of agriculture – was created to develop policy for the FCA. The board was designed to represent the interests of farmer-borrowers in the governance of the FCS. Devising a plan “to get government capital out” of the FCS was also a priority, according to Katz.

Statutes enacted in 1955 and 1956 directed the FCS to repay government capital and turn over ownership of the FCS to farmers, ranchers, and cooperatives.

“That took about 12 years, until 1968, when all government capital was repaid,” Katz said.

Another feature of the 1955 and 1956 acts were that they took into account the declining number of 68

President Ronald Reagan signs the 1985 Farm Bill and the Farm Credit Amendments Act of 1985 in the State Dining Room at the White House on Dec. 23, 1985.

Sen. Bob Dole, Congresswoman Virginia Smith, Agriculture Secretary John Block, Vice President George H.W. Bush, Congressman Charles Stenholm, Sen. Spark Matsunaga, and Sen. Richard Lugar are among those in attendance.

individual farmers in the United States, recognizing that many now farmed part-time while seeking other employment to bolster income. With farmers engaging in activities that weren’t strictly farm-related, the FCS was broadened to meet their needs, said Katz.

“In the early years after the act passed, you could only borrow for six purposes – all farm related. In the 1950s, they started to allow financing for other needs of farmers – housing needs, college, and businesses – as long as it could help keep people farming. The FCS worked with a lot of the middle segment of the farm economy in those years. It had a loyal following, particularly on the land bank side.”

BOOM AND BUST By the late 1960s, the FCS had firmly established itself with farmers. Many had roots in the FCS and liked the co-op system, but an increasing number chose to “graduate” to commercial banks.

“Eventually Farm Credit became a specialist,” Katz explained. “As people became more part-time farmers and needed money for other things, some of them ended up being better off at commercial banks. Those whose principal vocation was agriculture found that FCS better met their needs because it specializes in financing agriculture.”

PHOTO COURTESY OF THE RONALD REAGAN PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY

FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT

It also expanded. After government capital was repaid in 1968, the Federal Farm Credit Board embarked on a review of the FCS, setting up a Commission on Agricultural Credit to recommend changes to modernize the FCS so it could meet the credit needs of farmers. The commission’s recommendations formed the basis of the Farm Credit Act of 1971. The new act gave banks and associations more flexibility in lending to farmers, raising the limits on land bank loans and authorizing the expansion of the system’s mandate to include lending to commercial fishermen and rural homeowners.

Congress granted the FCS the authority to finance rural homes for non-farm rural residents and farm-related business because non-system lenders were not meeting the credit needs of these borrowers, who were not farmers, according to Katz.

“In many rural communities in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a gap in financing in the private sector, so they allowed the FCS to make single-family, moderately priced home loans in communities of 2,500 or less, not to exceed 15 percent of the total [outstanding loans of these banks or associations].”

Simultaneously, there was a boom in agriculture.

Drought and low agricultural productivity in the USSR and other markets led to steep increases in U.S. farm exports. American farmers benefitted and expanded operations, acquiring more farm equipment and land.

To make these investments they borrowed heavily, relying on the commercial market and the FCS. But by the early 1980s, changes in currency value, soaring interest rates, and a dramatic drop in demand for domestic agricultural exports combined with low commodity prices and sharply falling land values to create a perfect storm for American farmers.

By 1985, the FCA estimated that 200,000 to 300,000 farmers were facing financial failure. Unable to repay loans, they wrought havoc on the FCS, with system institutions reporting losses of $2.7 billion and $1.9 billion in 1985 and 1986, the largest losses in history for any U.S. financial institution.

Congress had to step in once more, first with the Farm Credit Amendments Act of 1985, which restructured the FCA to give it increased oversight, regulatory, and enforcement powers similar to those of other federal financial regulatory agencies, and established the Farm Credit System Capital Corporation to provide technical and financial assistance to

By the early 1980s, changes in currency value, soaring interest rates, and a dramatic drop in demand for domestic agricultural exports combined with low commodity prices and sharply falling land values to create a perfect storm for American farmers.

financially weak FCS institutions and their borrowers.

It wasn’t enough. In early January 1988, Reagan signed into law the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, which authorized a bailout of the FCS to the tune of up to $4 billion; of that $4 billion, only $1.261 billion was used. The act also launched the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) “to ensure timely payment of interest and principal on system-wide and consolidated bonds and other obligations issued by FCS banks,” according to the FCA website.

“This really consolidated the FCS, capitalized it, and got it back on its feet,” Katz said. “Thirty years ago there were 37 banks and probably close to 1,000 PCAs. There were hundreds of Federal Land Bank Associations [FLBAs].”

The consolidation was enabled by the 1987 act’s restructuring of the FCS, requiring that its FLBs and FICBs merge. It also encouraged the merger of the Central Bank for Cooperatives and the 12 regional banks.

“Now it’s down to four banks, 71 Agricultural Credit Associations, and two Federal Land Bank Associations. There’s a funding corporation to sell system-wide bonds on behalf of the banks – a massive reconfiguration of the FCS to become more responsive to credit needs in a different environment.”

RELIABLE CREDIT IN GOOD TIMES AND BAD TIMES Improving economic conditions in the 1990s and through the first years after 2000 allowed the U.S. farm economy to recover from the disaster of the 1980s. The streamlined system of arm’slength regulation instituted by the 1985 and 1987 acts allowed the FCS to function more efficiently. By 2005, all government financial assistance was repaid, with interest.

Today, the system functions alongside the commercial credit market much as it was originally envisioned, as a reliable source of agricultural credit available to farmers regardless of prevailing economic conditions.

“It gave farmers basic control of their credit,” Katz concluded.

“Farm Credit serves all kinds of farmers, from small, part-time farmers to very large entities. Because it competes with investorowned companies, it keeps credit flowing and interest rates lower because it’s a different kind of product, and it has a mandate to serve young, beginning, and small farmers. It’s reliable, and part of its mission is to help people get into agriculture and ensure that it continues as a big component of our economy.” n 69

SMITH-HUGHES ACT

ABANDONING THE CUT AND DRIED THE SMITH-HUGHES ACT AND AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

BY ERIC TEGLER

CULTIVATING FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Few farmers actually attended the land grant universities or “1862s,” as they were known. Those who did tended to become academics, developing the scientific literature of higher agricultural education but not spreading their research via teaching.

Though almost three-quarters of Americans lived and worked in rural areas in the early 1900s, just a handful received formal agricultural training. In 1908, the vast majority, some 93 percent, went no further than elementary school. Farmers simply received their training on the farm.

“In the early 1900s, the feeling was that most public schools were out of touch, teaching theory 70

Children ranging in age from 7 to 14 hoe on a farm near Mt. Vernon, Kentucky, in 1916. In the early 20th century, the majority of Americans in rural areas did not receive formal agricultural training.

Rather, they received training on the farm.

and liberal arts that weren’t relevant to most people,” Dr. Gary Moore said. Moore is academic team leader and director of graduate programs, Agricultural and Extension Education, at North Carolina State University.

He grew up on a livestock ranch in central Texas, and his research and published work has centered on the history and philosophy of agricultural and extension education, including the Smith-Hughes Act (SHA).

“When the Morrill Act established the agricultural colleges back in 1862, everybody just assumed, ‘all of our problems are solved.’ But the ag colleges didn’t have a very good reputation at first because some of them weren’t really trying to uphold the Morrill Act and because many of their students weren’t prepared to go to college.”

There were approximately 30 million American farmers in 1900, a population that had expanded throughout the 1800s and would soon

PHOTO BY LEWIS WICKES HINE/LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Before the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act – or National Vocational Education Act – in 1917, there was what might today be called a vocational education “lobby” in America.

It included the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Federation of Labor. From the agriculture community came support from the agricultural or “ag” colleges established by the Morrill Act of 1862. The broader farm community espoused enthusiasm and there was even a Ladies’ Hat and Garment union that came out in support.

Then as now, the media weighed in, including trade publications like Wallace’s Farmer, whose editor, Henry Wallace (later a secretary of agriculture), asserted in 1905: “We need to abandon the cut and dried formula of a period when man was ‘educated’ only when he knew Greek and Latin.”

It was a sentiment with roots in the industrial and agricultural movements of the 19th century. While the land grant universities established by the Morrill Act reflected the national desire for practical or vocational training for students in agriculture and industry, the emphasis on institutions of “higher learning” proved ineffective.

peak. Estimates vary, but in the last quarter of the 19th century, American agricultural productivity grew at an average rate of less than 1 percent.

But a growing chorus of academics and influencers thought American farmers could do better if only they received practical training while in public school. In 1905, with the support of then-Gov. William Lewis Douglas, the Massachusetts state legislature appointed the Massachusetts Commission on Industrial and Technical Education, also known as the Douglas Commission, which recommended in its final report in 1906 that the state expand technical and industrial training.

The Douglas Commission’s findings were taken up by a broad group of reformers who promoted vocational education at local, state, and national levels. Among these was Charles Allen Prosser, a public school teacher and professor whose experience with students reinforced his

belief that they should have the opportunity to learn trades and receive technical training via the public school system. In 1910, he became deputy commissioner of industrial education for Massachusetts and, subsequently, secretary of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education from 1912-1915.

Prosser consistently advocated for federal support of vocational education in concert with David Snedden, a similarly experienced public school teacher/administrator and university professor. From 1906, he was Prosser’s superior as the state commissioner of education in Massachusetts. He shared the Douglas Commission’s view that public schools did 71

72

Top: Charles Allen Prosser Above: David Snedden

Above: Hoke Smith Right: Dudley Hughes

USDA PHOTO

not furnish the skills and industrial intelligence that “students needed to participate effectively in industry and life.”

Prosser and Snedden would report to Congress several times in the years leading up to the passage of Smith-Hughes, advocating particularly for industrial vocational education. As they did so, Dudley Hughes and Hoke Smith became advocates for and instrumental in the passage of SHA for the parallel purpose of agricultural vocational education.

“One of the concerns that Dudley Hughes had was that young people were being taught agriculture the way their fathers had been taught and he knew there were better methods of pursuing agriculture,” Moore said.

Hughes was a farmer himself. Before becoming a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia’s 12th District in 1913, Hughes served as the president of the Georgia State Agricultural Society. He was an alumnus and trustee of the University of Georgia in Athens and a principal in several agribusinesses including Magnolia Orchard and the Georgia Fruit Land Company.

Smith rose to prominence in Georgia as a trial attorney and owner/publisher of the Atlanta Journal. Though he was not formally educated, a family background in education prompted an interest that led him to become president of the Atlanta Board of Education (1896-1907). Smith coupled the foregoing with a political career in progressive politics, being named U.S. secretary of the interior (1893-96) and elected governor of Georgia in 1906. He began a second term in 1911, but the General Assembly elected him to fill Georgia’s U.S. Senate seat held by Joseph M. Terrell, who had suffered a major stroke.

As the characters above followed their individual careers, the establishment of technical/trade schools and vocational programs within public school systems in Massachusetts and elsewhere following the Douglas Commission report spurred a number of bills proposing national vocational education. Put forward between 1906 and 1917, these did not gain sufficient support in Congress, partly due to their linkage to legislation to create a national agricultural extension system, which culminated in the Smith-Lever Act of 1914.

Smith led the passage of the Smith-Lever Act, which had been the subject of debate for years, largely over the organization of agricultural extension and demonstration work; advocates saw such work as a state enterprise through the land grant colleges, but the USDA was already doing it on a limited basis. The conflict between the role of the states and the USDA would have an indirect impact on Smith-Hughes.

“Finally, in order to get the Smith-Lever Act passed, a compromise was struck,” Moore said. “If those advocating for national vocational education would support the extension bill, there would be a national commission appointed to study the need for federal funding of vocational education.”

Both Smith and Hughes were appointed to the National Commission on Aid to Vocational Education, which issued a report authored in large part by Prosser. The report recommended federal grants to the states to promote vocational education, with particular focus on training vocational teachers, and formed the basis for the legislation that became Smith-Hughes.

University Historic Photograph Collection, Colorado State University, Archives and Special Collections

SMITH-HUGHES ACT

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PHOTOS USDA PHOTO

“At that time, Dudley Hughes was chairman of the House Education Committee and Hoke Smith was chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee,” Moore said. “They were adamant supporters of federal funding of agricultural/ vocational education. They were the right people in the right place at the right time.”

The timing of world affairs also played a role. Two months after SHA was signed into law on Feb. 23, 1917, America declared war on Germany, entering World War I. The ongoing war had a direct influence on the passage of the act, Moore said.

“In World War I, we needed food, we needed agricultural products like wool, and

“

One of the concerns that Dudley Hughes had was that young people were being taught agriculture the way their fathers had been taught and he knew there were better methods of pursuing agriculture.

we needed people who could assemble tanks and guns. It all came together, the perfect storm to get Smith-Hughes across the goal line.”

THE YIELD OF SMITHHUGHES

Having crossed the goal line, the legislation had to be translated into the establishment of vocational training programs in public schools across the states and the training of vocational teachers.

The Smith-Hughes Act was one of the first federal grant-in-aid programs, providing federal aid on a matching basis to states and establishing requirements regarding how the money was to be used.

“The Congress did not trust the classically educated, liberal arts education folks in the Department of the Interior to ensure that vocational education was real, hands-on learning rather than just vocal learning,” Moore said. “So they created a separate federal board and gave it a lot of power.”

SHA set up the Federal Board for Vocational Education to oversee the distribution of funds and approve state plans. Its first executive director was Prosser.

Each participating state was required to designate or create a statelevel body that would act as a liaison between the federal board and local districts. The requirement dovetailed with the expansion of state power as individual states increased their oversight of local schools in new ways.

One might expect that SHA provisions would require years to begin implementing but that was not the case.

“This might have been the fastest the government has ever moved,” Moore said.

The newly established federal board was particularly eager that teachers be well trained enough to teach vocational education courses including agriculture. At the time, a prospective teacher could simply attend high school, complete a training course there, and become a primary school level vocational instructor. Under the SHA, states had to establish formal vocational teacher training before receiving federal funding. This stipulation proved highly motivational, as Moore can testify.

“Here at North Carolina State University, my department, which trains ag teachers, was created in May of 1917. That means the state had to accept Smith-Hughes [requirements], the university had to make provisions for training teachers, and it only took a matter of months. We graduated four ag teachers in the spring of 1918.”

Broader implementation took about a year. Woodlawn High School in Woodlawn, Virginia, became the first public secondary school in the

”

73

Continuing theContinuing Legacy... the Legacy...

Points of Distinction Continuing the Legacy...

Points of Distinction

• Ranked #1 in producing African American graduates in Ranked #1 in producing African American graduates in Agriculture, Agriculture Operations and Related Sciences • Ranked #1 in producing African American graduates in ■ Ranked #2 in producing African American graduates in Natural Resources/Conservation Agriculture, Agriculture Operations and Related Sciences Agriculture, Agriculture Operations and Related Sciences ■ Ranked among Top 50 Nutrition Degree Programs in the United States • Ranked #2 in producing African American graduates in ■ • Ranked #2 in producing African American graduates in Approximately 50% of African Americans enrolled in veterinary schools today across the country are graduates of the Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Animal and Veterinary Sciences undergraduate program Natural Resources/Conservation Natural Resources/Conservation Majors • Ranked amoung Top 50 Nutrition Degree Programs in • Ranked amoung Top 50 Nutrition Degree Programs in Agribusiness the United States the United States ■ Agricultural economics, management & marketing, farm & cooperative entrepreneurship, sustainable agriculture, animal science, food & nutrition sciences, natural Points of Distinction resources and education • Approximately 50% of African Americans enrolled • Approximately 50% of African Americans enrolled Animal & Veterinary Sciences in veterinary schools today across the country are in veterinary schools today across the country are ■ Science, Veterinary Sciences, and Business • Ranked #1 in producing African American graduates in graduates of the Department of Agricultural and graduates of the Department of Agricultural and Environmental, Natural Resources & Plant Sciences ■ Environmental Sciences, Plant & Soil Sciences, Forestry Resources, Wildlife & Fisheries, Horticulture, Natural Resources Management, and Business Environmental Sciences Animal and Veterinary Agriculture, Agriculture Operations and Related Sciences Environmental Sciences Animal and Veterinary Food & Nutritional Sciences Sciences undergraduate program ■ Didactic program in Dietetics (DPD), Nutritional Sciences, Food Science, Public Health Nutrition, Food Science/Biology and Nutrition Science/Biology Sciences undergraduate program Points of Distinction ■

Continuing the Legacy...

• Ranked #2 in producing African American graduates in Natural Resources/Conservation College of Agriculture, Environment and Nutrition Sciences • Ranked amoung Top 50 Nutrition Degree Programs in College of Agriculture, Environment and Nutrition Sciences

George Washington Carver Experiment Station • 1890 Cooperative Extension Carver Integrative Sustainability Center • Black Belt Market Innovation Center George Washington Carver Experiment Station • 1890 Cooperative Extension www.tuskegee.edu/caens Carver Integrative Sustainability Center • Black Belt Market Innovation Center

www.tuskegee.edu/caens

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

SMITH-HUGHES ACT

United States to offer agricultural education classes under the SHA in late 1917.

Enrollment in vocational education classes subsequently increased significantly, but on balance, the impact of the SHA is difficult to quantify. There are a number of reasons for this, starting with the timing of the act and macroeconomic conditions that followed it. Though World War I created great need for agricultural products, its culmination less than two years after the SHA passage saw such demand evaporate.

Moore added that while the economy of the 1920s may have been “roaring” in urban areas, the rural economy stagnated and later contracted as the Great Depression set in. The first waves of students who benefited from agricultural vocational education were applying it as the economy shrank in the early 1930s. Farmers were actively encouraged not to grow and to take government subsidies instead.

Additionally, most rural areas were not electrified until the 1950s. As a result, agricultural productivity rose little. In 1910, the average farmer could feed seven other people, a metric that did not significantly improve until World War II. Postwar, productivity skyrocketed due to advanced inputs including mechanization, agricultural chemicals, artificial insemination, and hybridization processes. But Smith-Hughes only had another decade-and-a-half to run.

Smith-Hughes has frequently been criticized for segregating vocational from broader academic education, but Moore pointed out that it’s a flawed criticism. Snedden and Prosser were in the camp that favored the project method of teaching, establishment of specialized separate schools and courses for vocational education, and a stratified “social efficiency” approach to learning and society. But other contemporary reformers like psychologist John Dewey and Eugene Davenport, dean of the College of Agriculture at the University of Illinois, thought vocational education should be integrated into the regular school system, taught as a subject in high school along with other courses as part of a broadly enriching education. Their view prevailed under Smith-Hughes.

“What happened in most of rural America was that agriculture and home economics were taught in the local high schools,” Moore said. “I graduated high school in 1965 and began it while the SmithHughes Act was still in force. Rural high schools taught agriculture and home economics as part of the regular [curriculum]. We didn’t have a ‘vocational’ or ‘academic’ track, we just took all the courses.”

It was not until the advent of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 that legislative language fostering the establishment of dedicated vocational schools was articulated. Moore pointed to America’s anxiety over the space race and Cold War following

Students read from a Modern Agriculture textbook in a high school vocational agricultural class in San Augustine, Texas, in 1939. While Charles Prosser and David Snedden favored separate schools and courses for vocational education, the view that prevailed under Smith-Hughes saw vocational education integrated into the regular school system.

the 1957 launch of Sputnik as instrumental in inspiring the establishment of separate vocational-technical high schools. In response, President John F. Kennedy appointed a panel to study education whose findings led to the 1963 act.

“But for the whole life of the Smith-Hughes Act [until 1963], there was really no separate system,” he said.

Today, awareness of Smith-Hughes is limited, Moore acknowledged.

“One of the problems we have in agriculture is that we’re very pragmatic.

We try to solve current problems and we don’t sit down and look at where we have been and what we have done.”

The centennial of the SHA is just such a reminder – not only of agricultural learning, but of the precedent the act set for federal support of standardized vocational education.

“I teach a graduate class, and tonight the topic is ‘Federal Legislation Impacting Agriculture Between 1914 and 1967.’ Across the country, colleges of agriculture, especially those with agricultural education programs, will teach about Smith-Hughes this year. There are about 14,000 high school agriculture teachers who typically teach a unit on the history of the FFA [Future Farmers of America] or careers in agriculture. Often they will mention the Smith-Hughes Act but do so briefly in one or two sentences.”

There will be national activities recognizing the 100th anniversary of Smith-Hughes in 2017. At NC State, Moore sits on a committee for agricultural education that recently launched a website that explains the SHA and includes lesson plans for teachers. The committee also plans to print 17- by 22-inch Smith-Hughes Act posters to be sent to high school ag programs across the nation.

At the 2016 FFA Convention, Moore dressed up as Dudley Hughes and a professor from Murray State University dressed as Hoke Smith, handing out Smith-Hughes Act posters, which they autographed for ag teachers and high school students. The professors were reminded that, as with all things educational, the impact of the Smith-Hughes Act is in the eye of the beholder – sometimes a mischievous eye.

“Some of the high school students weren’t really good at doing the math. They thought we were the real Smith and Hughes!” n 75

PRODUCT SHOWCASE Introducing...

The first of its kind – is a community-based website designed and created for producers with large commercial farming operations. features articles relevant to your operation's need, a verified forum for you to discuss and interact with other growers, plus a social community to facilitate engagement among the community.

Read • Learn • Discuss • Interact Visit

OVER A CENTURY OF DESIGN AND FABRICATION EXPERIENCE GRAIN HANDLING

TILLAGE EQUIPMENT

TANK MOUNTS

P. O. Box 542 • York, NE 68467 402-362-5500 • 800-288-1117 • Fax 402-362-5478 E-mail: agriproducts@agriproductsinc.com • Web: www.agriproductsinc.com

PARTNER WITH THE NATION’S

PREMIER LAND LENDER

Forget annual paperwork renewals, prepayment penalties and mandatory pay-down periods. Instead, we offer an industry-unique 10-year line of credit so you can get back to your top priority - working the land you love.

4 LENDING PROGRAMS + 1 CUSTOMIZED APPROACH: • • • •

Agricultural Farm, Ranch, & Timber Land Loans Recreational & Large Tract Land Loans Bridge & Mezzanine Land Loans Infrastructure Loans

855.596.6679

AGAMERICA.COM/SUCCESS-STORIES

AgAmerica Lending, LLC is a licensed Florida mortgage lender. NMLS ID#372267

BRANDT Smart B™

Advanced Foliar Boron Supplement BRANDT SMART B is the newest formulation in BRANDT’s top selling BRANDT Smart System® foliar micronutrient line. This revolutionary form of boron is compatible in a wide range of tank mixes, including acidic pH solutions.

BRANDT SMART B ADVANTAGES: n

One of the most efficient forms of boron

n

Compatible with inorganic compounds including calcium nitrate and zinc sulfate

n

Delivers more boron to plant tissues than 10% boron

To learn more, contact BRANDT at 800 300 6559 or email info@brandt.co

Brandt Consolidated, Inc. www.brandt.co

keep white space around the seal equal to 25% the size of the seal

*

INDUSTRIAL HEMP: CROP OF THE FUTURE Last year, hemp was planted on 4,000 acres in the United States in accordance with the Farm Bill of 2014. Now is a great time to explore the industry and learn about hemp as a commodity. As the oldest and most established national trade organization dedicated to industrial hemp, HIA offers an extensive network and resources to its members.

AgExplorer helps students discover 235 unique careers in:

Agribusiness Systems

Animal Systems

Biotechnology Systems

Environmental Service Systems

Food Products and Processing Systems

Natural Resources Systems

Plant Systems

Power, Structural and Technical Systems

Agricultural Education

Students can find their future in agriculture by visiting AgExplorer.com.

LANDIS INTERNATIONAL SMARTEST.

STRONG

OUR MISSION: To Provide the Agricultural Industry with the Highest Quality and the Most Cost-Effective Solutions to Product Development and Registration Challenges.

STRONGEST.

LEADING THE

industry-leading technology to

and durability needed to grow

Talk to your local Zimmatic ® by

LEADING THE WAY.

Your future depends on the decisions you make today. We deliver

industry-leading technology to help you maximize resources, proven reliability to reduce downtime, and the strength and durability needed to grow your operation for years to come.

Talk to your local Zimmatic ® by Lindsay dealer to see how today’s innovations will lead to tomorrow’s success.

© 2017 Lindsay. All

© 2017 Lindsay. All rights reserved. Zimmatic and FieldNET are registered trademarks of the Lindsay Corporation.

Insurance to Protect Your Business Managing risk is key to your success. With at least two dedicated and experienced agents per client, we offer an exceptional level of professional service to evaluate and deliver the right protection to meet your needs. And we'll support you throughout the entire claims process, if you experience a loss.

Some of our products include: • Revenue Protection • Crop Hail Coverage • Yield Protection • Pasture, Rangeland and Forage • Area Risk Protection • Livestock Protection

855-722-7766 RaboAg.com @RaboAg

fb.com/RaboAg

@RaboAg

Rabo AgriFinance

ACCESS TO FINANCING | KNOWLEDGE | NE T WORKS Equal Opportunity Provider.

© Rabo AgriFinance, LLC 2017

Research for a Competitive Edge Rabo AgriFinance clients have access to proprietary information from the Rabobank Food and Agribusiness Research (FAR) and Advisory Group. With our unparalleled expertise, proprietary research capabilities and established track record of meeting the needs of leading producers in every sector, we’re uniquely positioned to help your operation succeed.

2017 US AG OUTLOOK HALF PAGE PRODUCT SHOWCASE.pdf

1

4/5/2016

855-722-7766 RaboAg.com @RaboAg

fb.com/RaboAg

@RaboAg

Rabo AgriFinance

ACCESS TO FINANCING | KNOWLEDGE | NE T WORKS © Rabo AgriFinance, LLC 2017 9:47:14 AM

Wireless Grain Temperature Monitoring

PO Box 468  Spirit Lake, IA  800-438-8367  www.TSGCinc.com

AgEquity

REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT

AgEquity

PUTTING LAND EQUITY TO WORK FOR YOUR FARM OR RANCH

AgEquity

The AgEquity Revolving Line of Credit allows borrowers to use the equity in their agricultural realLINE estate REVOLVING OFtoCREDIT fund capital and operating purchases.

5 year year draw periods are available to better position their REVOLVING LINEorOF10CREDIT PUTTING LAND EQUITY TO WORK FOR YOU operation for success. Competitve rates are variable monthly based on LIBOR with semi-annual interest The AgEquity Revolving Line of Credit allows borro payments automatically deducted each January Conversion areRANCH available to convert line PUTTING LAND EQUITYand TOJuly.

WORK FOR YOURoptions FARM OR fund capital and operating purchases. 5 year or 10 into an amortizing term loanThe if desired.

AgEquity Revolving Line of Credit allows borrowers to use the equity in their agricultural real estate to

operation for success. Competitve rates are variabl

available to better position their payments automatically deducted each January an First Mortgage Terms fund capital and operating purchases. 5 year or 10 year draw periods are operation for success. Competitve rates are variable monthly based on LIBOR semi-annual interest into anwith amortizing term loan if desired.

• Loan to value: up to 50% (bare land value only) payments automatically deducted each January and July. Conversion options are available to convert line First Mortgage Terms • Minimum Credit Scoreinto 680 an amortizing term loan if desired.

• Loan to value: up to 50% (bare land value onl

• • • • • •

Debt to Asset Ratio: 50% First maximum • Minimum Credit Score 680 Mortgage Terms • Debt to Asset Ratio: 50% maximum Current Debt Ratio: 1.25 minimum • Loan to value: up to 50% (bare land value only) • Current Debt Ratio: 1.25 minimum • Minimum Credit Score 680 Total Debt Coverage Ratio: 1.35:1 minimum • Total Debt Coverage Ratio: 1.35:1 minimum • Debt to Asset Ratio: 50% maximum Draw requests are wired directly to borrowers designated bank account • Draw requests are wired directly to borrower • Current Debt Ratio: 1.25 minimum • Limited draws per month Limited draws per month• Total Debt Coverage Ratio: 1.35:1 minimum • 10 year Draw Period requires a “5 year look i 10 year Draw Period requires “5 yearare look in”directly with current financial statements required at that time.

• Drawarequests wired to borrowers designated bank account • Limited draws per month

Zions Ag Finance is a leader in both loan originatio

agricultural real estate lending market.

10 year Draw Period requires “5 year look with current financial statements required at that time. For questio Zions Ag Finance is a leader in •both loan origination and aserivcing inin” the secondary contact your local regional Business Development agricultural real estate lending market. For questions on these products, please Zions Ag Finance is a leader in both loan origination and serivcing in the secondary contact your local regional Business Officer today. agriculturalDevelopment real estate lending market.

For questions on these products,Contact please Us Today

contact your local regional Business Development Officer today.

Contact Us Today Contact Us Today

800-641-9619 | zionsag.com 800-641-9619 | zionsag.com

800-641-9619 | zionsag.com

All l

A Division of ZB, N.A. Member FDIC

1611-033 Ag Finance AgEquity Loan Flyer Refresh.indd 1

All loans are subject to approval. Restrictions apply. Contact Zions Ag Finance for details.

A Division of ZB, N.A. Member FDIC

A Division of ZB, N.A. Member FDIC

All loans are subject to approval. Restrictions apply. Contact Zions Ag Finance for details.

1611-033 Ag Finance AgEquity Loan Flyer Refresh.indd 1

12/1/16 5:10

Majors Agribusiness ■

Agricultural economics, management & marketing, farm & cooperative entrepreneurship, sustainable agriculture, animal science, food & nutrition sciences, natural resources and education

Animal & Veterinary Sciences ■

Science, Veterinary Sciences, and Business

Environmental, Natural Resources & Plant Sciences ■

Environmental Sciences, Plant & Soil Sciences, Forestry Resources, Wildlife & Fisheries, Horticulture, Natural Resources Management, and Business

Food & Nutritional Sciences ■

Didactic program in Dietetics (DPD), Nutritional Sciences, Food Science, Public Health Nutrition, Food Science/Biology and Nutrition Science/Biology

JOIN THE WORLD’S LARGEST INDUSTRY. Agriculture

semo.edu/agriculture

ALL ASPECTS OF AGRICULTURE ARE ROOTED IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF AGRIBUSINESS PRINCIPLES. As an agriculturalist, you will be EXPERTLY TRAINED IN PRODUCTION METHODS; however, you will also receive training in AGRICULTURAL FINANCE, MANAGEMENT, SALES, AND MARKETING. Collectively, this combination of skills prepares you for an exciting career and allows you the adaptability for lifelong success.

Continuing theContinuing Legacy... the Legacy...

Points of Distinction Continuing the Legacy...

Points of Distinction

• Ranked #1 in producing African American graduates in Ranked #1 in producing African American graduates in Agriculture, Agriculture Operations and Related Sciences • Ranked #1 in producing African American graduates in Ranked #2 in producing African American graduates in Natural Resources/Conservation Agriculture, Agriculture Operations and Related Sciences Agriculture, Agriculture Operations and Related Sciences ■ Ranked among Top 50 Nutrition Degree Programs in the United States • Ranked #2 in producing African American graduates in ■ • Ranked #2 in producing African American graduates in Approximately 50% of African Americans enrolled in veterinary schools today across the country are graduates of the Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Animal and Veterinary Sciences undergraduate program Natural Resources/Conservation Natural Resources/Conservation Majors • Ranked amoung Top 50 Nutrition Degree Programs in • Ranked amoung Top 50 Nutrition Degree Programs in Agribusiness the United States the United States ■ Agricultural economics, management & marketing, farm & cooperative entrepreneurship, sustainable agriculture, animal science, food & nutrition sciences, natural Points of Distinction resources and education • Approximately 50% of African Americans enrolled • Approximately 50% of African Americans enrolled Animal & Veterinary Sciences in veterinary schools today across the country are in veterinary schools today across the country are ■ Science, Veterinary Sciences, and Business • Ranked #1 in producing African American graduates in graduates of the Department of Agricultural and graduates of the Department of Agricultural and Environmental, Natural Resources & Plant Sciences ■ Environmental Sciences, Plant & Soil Sciences, Forestry Resources, Wildlife & Fisheries, Horticulture, Natural Resources Management, and Business Environmental Sciences Animal and Veterinary Agriculture, Agriculture Operations and Related Sciences Environmental Sciences Animal and Veterinary Food & Nutritional Sciences Sciences undergraduate program ■ Didactic program in Dietetics (DPD), Nutritional Sciences, Food Science, Public Health Nutrition, Food Science/Biology and Nutrition Science/Biology Sciences undergraduate program Points of Distinction ■ ■

Continuing the Legacy...

• Ranked #2 in producing African American graduates in Natural Resources/Conservation College of Agriculture, Environment and Nutrition Sciences • Ranked amoung Top 50 Nutrition Degree Programs in the United States • Approximately 50% of African Americans enrolled in veterinary schools today across the country are graduates of the Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Animal and Veterinary Sciences undergraduate program College of Agriculture, Environment and Nutrition Sciences

George Washington Carver Experiment Station • 1890 Cooperative Extension Carver Integrative Sustainability Center • Black Belt Market Innovation Center George Washington Carver Experiment Station • 1890 Cooperative Extension www.tuskegee.edu/caens Carver Integrative Sustainability Center • Black Belt Market Innovation Center

www.tuskegee.edu/caens

CAENS_lenscloth.indd 1

5/26/16 4:44 PM

CAENS_lenscloth.indd 1

5/26/16 4:44 P

College of Agriculture, Environment and Nutrition Sciences George Washington Carver Experiment Station • 1890 Cooperative Extension Carver Integrative Sustainability Center • Black Belt Market Innovation Center www.tuskegee.edu/caens

CAENS_lenscloth.indd 1

5/26/16 4:44 P

#1 AG SCHOOL

- Campus Explorer

#1 Dairy Herd

- Holstein World Magazine

#1 ICE CREAM

- KSL.com

#1 IN SCHOLARSHIPS

Given at USU

#1 AVIATION MAINTENANCE TEAM - International Aerospace Maintenence Competition

caas.usu.edu