Morris Sun Tribune Farm Progress 2013

Farm Progress 2013 A Special Supplement to the March 9, 2013 Morris Sun Tribune

Page 2C - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Development of the organic dairy industry B rad Heins West Central Reasearch and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Morris The number of organic dairy producers in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest continues to grow.

Over an eight-year period from 2000 to 2008, the number of organic farms in Minnesota grew by 42 percent. Currently, there are over 150 organic dairy farms in Minnesota; ranking Minnesota number 9 for organic dairy production in the United States.

Despite the slow-moving economy over the past several years, consumers continue to purchase organic dairy products. According to the Organic Trade Association, organic food encompassed 4 percent of the food market during 2011.

The organic dairy segment has been one of the fastest growing segments of the organic food industry. However, this growth has been fraught with organic milk shortages, such as those experienced in 2005 and 2006 and more recently in 2011 and 2012.

During 2012, the organic milk shortage was caused by increasing consumer demand coupled with lower organic dairy cow

production. High organic grain prices triggered dairy producers to lower grain consumption and thus lowering milk production of organic dairy cattle.

Organic milk can cost considerably more than conventional milk; the national price premium for organic milk averages $2.50 per gallon. However, consumer demand continues to grow at an annual rate approaching 10 to 20 percent. According to the Hartmann Group, 75 percent of consumers are choosing organic products, at least occasionally, and 35 percent of those consumers purchase organic products monthly. Most consumers purchase organic products because of concerns associated with pesticide, growth hormone, and antibiotic use.

Only 22 percent of consumers buy organic because they support family farms and 18 percent buy organic because organic means better treatment of animals.

Furthermore, consumers purchase organic products because of the perception that they are more nutritional, safer, and taste better than conventionally raised agricultural products.

Most (73 percent) consumers purchase

organic products at a grocery store. Farmers markets, natural foods stores, and discount retailers (Wal-Mart, Target, etc.) are also outlets for consumers to purchase organic products. In a study conducted in 2011 by the Organic Trade Association, 41 percent of parents are buying more organic food than one year ago. These parents are choosing to buy

organic food because they believe organic products are safer, more nutritious, better for the environment, and support rural communities. The main reason for people not to purchase organic products is because of the perception that they are too expensive.

Organic milk price is the biggest incentive for producers to transition

from conventional to organic production. Based on spring 2012 prices, conventional milk base price was about $16 versus $26/cwt. for organic milk.

Therefore, organic dairy production is very attractive to producers when the milk price spread is high.

During the summer of 2011, the milk price spread between conventional and organic ranged from $3 to

$5/cwt. making organic production not that attractive.

Finally, organic processors incorporate a seasonal pay price premium to provide an incentive for persistent milk production across the year.

Typically, most organic producers calve animals in the spring, and, therefore, this incentive is in place for more production during the winter months.

Increase profitability with soil type zones

By P a u l G ro n eb e rg and Jo h n M a h o n ey Centrol Crop Consulting Did your yield monitor bounce around going across your fields? This year really showed the different soil types within a field. The technologies available will help you distinguish these different areas of the field separate-

ly. Zones by soil type will enable you to manage the productivity of each zone.

The key is to create zones that are accurately defined and represent the different areas in a field properly. A poorly zoned field can be worse than doing nothing at all. Keep this in mind as some companies will be marketing zone management to you

with a final intent to sell your seed or other products. It is a great tool, but it needs to be done right and managed properly.

Your objectives and yield goals are important in helping implement zones properly and ground truth the soil types.

An increasingly popular tool we have been using to map the soil differences

within a field is the Veris Cart. It is pulled over the field in 40’ swaths and uses electro conductivity (EC) to measure the varying soil characteristics, down to a 3-foot depth.

EC reflects important soil properties that affect crop productivity including soil texture (percent sand-siltclay), cation exchange capacity (CEC), drainage

conditions, organic matter (O.M.), salinity and subsoil characteristics.

Once collected, soil EC data is used to identify areas of contrasting soil properties as well as generate finely detailed and highly accurate soil maps that show management zones in your field. The zones created can be used for variable rate seeding, variable rate fertilizing based on productivity

potential, liming, soil testing, etc‌. It is a great base layer to have for all fields when you are implementing precision ag to get the most out of every acre.

Zoning by soil type with the Veris is an excellent layer to help other precision practices be more profitable. This is a great investment for increasing profits and managing yield zones.

Morris, Minnesota 56267

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - NEWS

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 3C

From the field to the sky: New alternative crops aren't just weeds any more U S DA-Ag ricultura l Research Service, Morris, Minn.

The Soils Lab in Morris will see if its research can fly, literally. The Soils Lab is exploring new and alternative crops as sources for renewable jet fuel.

The Soils Lab's efforts are part of a larger multiinstitutional, multi-disciplinary $7 million project funded jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy.

The focus will be on accelerating the development of commercial renewable jet fuel for the U.S. military.

Currently, jet fuel can be manufactured from several types of crop oils using a patented process developed by Honeywell UOP. However, one of the biggest hurdles is making a product that is affordable, a factor almost entirely linked to feedstock costs.

The price of jet fuel produced using UOP’s process is almost 90 percent dependent on feedstock costs. Therefore, keeping feedstock costs low while making the crop economically attractive to farmers will be necessary to produce an affordable jet fuel.

"It's all about profit margins," said Russ Gesch, plant physiologist at the Soils Lab. "To make this economically attractive to farmers we need to explore crops that are high yielding but that do not require input costs as high as corn and soybean. We are also experimenting with ways to integrate these new oilseed feedstocks into cur-

rent cropping practices.

One of the ways we are doing this is to double-crop winter annual oilseeds like camelina (seeded in early autumn) followed with a short-season soybean variety the following summer.

Initial studies have shown that the combined revenues of both crops can exceed that of a single fullseason soybean crop."

The Soils Lab, along with eight other research teams spread out across the U.S. from Minnesota to the Pacific coast, will be experimenting with about 20 different oilseed crop species and varieties. The researchers selected candidates that show good potential as feedstock for renewable jet fuel and that require relatively low agricultural inputs for production.

The primary research focus of this large team effort is to measure crop responses such as growth, yield, and seed oil characteristics to environmental stresses such as heat and drought. This includes documenting disease and pest issues and determining the species and varieties best suited for production in a given region. "We fully expect that the best oilseed crop choice will differ from region to region depending on environmental conditions and cropping practices," said Gesch.

Morris researchers will be working with canola, industrial rapeseed (used for industrial lubricants, etc.), brown mustard, white mustard, Ethiopian mustard (which grows well under drought conditions)

and camelina. "Many producers are probably not familiar with most of these new and alternative oilseed crops. Therefore, an important part of this research will be to develop best management practices for production in a given region. The goal will be keeping agricultural inputs as low as possible, while gaining a better understanding of the environmental limitations for production of these crops," said Gesch.

Researchers at the Soils Lab planted six different winter-annual oilseed species/varieties last fall at the Swan Lake Research Farm. Another 14 springtype lines will be planted in the spring. The information gained from these experiments will be given to a collaborating group of crop breeders and geneticists who will use the data to develop new varieties with improved environmental stress and disease resistance, increased yield potential, and improved seed oil characteristics for high quality jet fuel.

In the meantime, Morris researchers keep an eye on the sky, but their research on the ground.

The Soils Lab is part of the Agricultural Research Service, which is USDA’s chief scientific research agency.

The Soils Lab in Morris is conducting research on making alternative oilseed crop production profitable. This is part of a larger research effort to accelerate the development of commercial renewable jet fuel for the U.S. military.

Dean Peterson/submitted photo

Page 4C - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Fly management for organic dairies B rad Heins West Central Reasearch and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Morris The spring grazing season is off to a quick start this year. Many cows were out grazing in late March/early April. Here in Morris, the organic cows went to pasture May 3. The grass grew quickly in March; however, grass growth came to a halt with the cold weather in early April.

During the last week of April one could hear the grass grow. We will all need to manage the pastures properly so grass doesn’t get out of control and so we provide the maximum intake from pasture for cattle.

Along with the wonderful grazing weather and hot summer, come flies!

One issue that is consistent across the farmers who I talk to is control of fly problems under organic conditions. Therefore, let us discuss some of the flies that affect dairy cattle and some potential control methods.

Horn flies, face flies, stable flies and house flies are all pests of dairy cattle.

These flies can decrease

milk production, reduce pasture feed intake, cause pinkeye and may spread disease from one animal to another. A large number of flies are associated with increased somatic cell counts in milk, and abundance of stable flies may reduce milk production by 10 to 30 percent, and horn flies may reduce milk production by 10 to 20 percent.

A recent study by a collaborator of mine estimated that stable flies may cause $1.3 million in annual losses for pastured cattle.

Two important bloodsucking flies on grazing cattle in the Upper Midwest are the stable fly and the horn fly. The picture from a recent trip to the North Carolina State University grazing dairy shows an abundance of horn flies on the belly and stable flies on the leg of a dairy cow.

Stable flies develop as maggots in a wide array of decomposing organic matter, including animal bedding and feed debris that accumulates wherever cattle are confined. Dairy farm surveys indicate calf hutch bedding is a prominent source of stable flies around dairies, and choice of bedding material can

minimize (pine shavings and sawdust contained fewer flies than straw) stable fly production. More recently, it has also become apparent that feed debris and manure that accumulate during winter are also important sources of stable flies, especially where overwintered debris piles remain intact into the following summer.

The horn fly is a second kind of biting fly that attacks cattle. They develop in intact, fresh cattle dung pats and nowhere else, so they are troublesome to organic herds when pastured. Horn fly control leads to increased milk production and calf growth. Unlike other kinds of flies that just visit cattle for brief moments, adult horn flies reside on their host animals, which makes then especially vulnerable to control. Organic dairy farmers rely on essential oil repellents to alleviate horn fly problems, but success of these products is limited.

To combat horn flies, W. G. Bruce, a USDA entomologist in 1938, built a box with one-way fly-screen baffles on its otherwise transparent sides, and walked fly infested cattle

through it to remove and capture their flies. Bruce’s simple design is now known as the Bruce walkthru fly trap, and different versions have been studied for horn fly control in various parts of the country.

Those studies showed that walk-thru traps can reduce horn fly burdens by 50–90 percent.

Most recently, North Carolina State University replaced the side baffles with a system of blowers and vacuums, and this vacuum trap design will soon be manufactured and marketed by Spalding Labs as the CowVac. Bruce traps and the newer vacuum traps are compatible with organic dairying, because a trap can be positioned at the entrance to a milking par-

lor, where cows come and go twice per day. Efficacy of any kind of trap will depend on the balance between the rate at which the flies are removed and killed by a trap and the rate at which the population naturally increases in the cows’ pastures.

Sanitation should be the primary control option on any dairy. Because synthetic pesticides are not allowed on organic dairies, proper sanitation is of the utmost importance.

Manure and feed provide the ideal habitat for house and stable fly production.

Manure and old feed should be removed daily, or at least twice a week, from calf pens, holding areas, feed areas and milking areas. To ensure success

on your dairy, producers need to properly identify key pests, understand their biology and habitat, monitor their populations and then reduce the fly population through mechanical or biological management techniques.

Ultimately, there are many tactics that you can try out on your own farm. Take notes and evaluate how well things worked, what didn’t work and where you can find additional answers to improve the well-being of cattle and reduce pests. In the future, my colleagues and I will be looking at research to develop new strategies to alleviate pest problems.

Deadline is April 1 for the 2013 Century Farms Program

Minnesota families who have owned their farms for 100 years or more may apply for the 2013 Century Farms Program. Produced by the Minnesota State Fair in conjunction with the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, the program was created to promote agriculture and honor historic family farms in the state.

Family farms are recognized as Century Farms when they meet three requirements. The farm must be: 1) at least 100

years old according to authentic land records; 2) in continuous family ownership for at least 100 years (continuous residence on the farm is not required); and 3) at least 50 acres.

Applications are available online at mnstatefair.org (click the “Recognition Programs” link at the bottom; at fbmn.org; by calling the State Fair at (651) 288-4400; or at statewide county extension and county Farm Bureau offices. The submission deadline is

April 1. Recipients will be announced in May. S e s q u i c e n t e n n i a l Fa r m s Minnesota Farm Bureau also honors Minnesota families that have owned their farms for at least 150 years, are at least 50 acres in size and are currently involved in agricultural production.

A commemorative certificate signed by the governor of Minnesota, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation will be awarded to qualifying families, along with an outdoor sign signifying Sesquicentennial Farm recognition. The deadline for applications is April 1.

Visit fbmn.org for an application.

Morris, Minnesota 56267

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 5C

Costs for health care of Holstein cows selected for large or small body size Je n n i f e r B e ck e r, B r a d H e i n s a n d L e s H a n s e n Dairy Star, November 9, 2012

Ta b l e 2 . Ave r a g e o f t o t a l c o s t fo r h e a l t h c a re fo r l a r g e a n d s m a l l b o dy s i z e c ow s a n d l a c t at i o n nu m b e r

Diseases such as mastitis, displaced abomasum (DA), ketosis, cystic ovaries, metritis and lameness can severely affect the profitability of dairying through veterinary treatments, additional labor, lost milk sales and involuntary culling. A study we published in the September 2012 issue of the Journal of Dairy Science compared health care costs of Holstein cows selected for large versus small body size in a long-term selection project at the University of Minnesota Northwest Research and Outreach Center in Crookston.

The Holstein cows were selected for large versus small body size beginning in 1966.

During 1966, 60 Holstein cows were paired by sire and were randomly assigned to one of two genetic groups (large or small) for body size. Except for service sire selection, both heifers and cows were managed together and identically in a tie-stall barn. The long-term selection project using divergent sire selection continued for more than 40 years. Throughout the years of the study, service sires were required to be in the top 50 percent of bulls for production among the active AI bulls available in the United States at the time of selection. Other than production levels, AI bulls were selected solely based on a body size index [0.5 (stature) + 0.25 (strength) + 0.25 (body depth)]. The three most extreme bulls for transmitting large and small body size were selected once each year from the summer genetic evaluations of the USDA for production and from Holstein Association USA, Inc. for body size.

Health care was recorded on an incidence basis from March 28, 1985, to June 17, 2002.

Health treatments were recorded by category, and actual cost for 188 different types of veterinary treatments, health supplies and drugs were assigned at 2010 values. Also, the amount of labor in minutes required by farm workers for each health treatment was recorded. Fixed costs for veterinary supplies and drugs were the means from seven vendors serving Minnesota during the summer of 2010. Costs of veterinary procedures were the means of costs across three veterinary clinics in Minnesota. The study included 486 daughters of 84 Holstein AI bulls.

Across the first three lactations of cows, the body size lines tended to differ significantly for health care cost (Table 1). Averages for total cost of health care across lactations were $54.15 and $38.09, respectively, for the large-line and small-line cows, and the health costs were 30 percent higher (difference of $16.06 divided by the average for the large line) for large-line cows than the small-line cows. Most of the difference (83 percent) of total health cost for the body size lines across the lactations was because of the significant difference for displaced abomasum (DA). Also, locomotion (8 percent) contributed significantly to the difference for total health cost across the lactations.

Averages of total health cost by lactation number are in Table 2. Health care costs decreased for both large-line and small-line cows from first lactation to second lactation, but then increased during third lactation for small-line cows. The difference for health care cost was statistically significant during first lactation and second lactation for large-line cows compared to small-line cows. However, the body size lines did not differ significantly for health care cost during third lactation.

Ta b l e 1 . To t a l h e a l t h c o s t s a n d p e r c e n t a g e o f t o t a l h e a l t h c o s t s by h e a l t h c at e g o r y fo r b o d y s i z e l i n e s .

Difference of percentages

Greater cost for health care was incurred for cows selected for large versus small body size in this study. T h e d i f f e r e n c e o f t h e b o dy s i z e l i n e s fo r t o t a l h e a l t h c o s t w a s m o s t l y at t r i b u t e d t o a n i n c r e a s e i n c o s t o f t r e at m e n t fo r d i s p l a c e d a b o m a s u m ( DA ) . Consequently, the Holstein cows in the large-line were economically disadvantaged compared to those in the small-line for health care cost, which is an important contributor to profitability of dairying. Cows that require less health care are also preferable from an animal welfare point of view. Therefore, continued selection for larger body size of cows may not be justifiable.

Holsteins in North American have been selected for increased body size for many years. Final type scores from the Holstein Association USA continue to place more favorable ratings on cows with larger body size through the use of body size composite.

The Net Merit index of the USDA places a negative weight on body size composite but the TPI index of the Holstein Association USA does not. Minimizing health care needs of dairy cows is important from both economic and animal welfare points of view.

Feedlot air emissions treatment cost calculator available University of Minnesota Extension Owners and operators of livestock and poultry operations have a new tool to calculate the costs and benefits of installing technologies to treat odors and gases emitted from the facilities: a feedlot air emissions treatment cost calculator. The calculator comes with three how-to videos.

Animal feeding operator owners and managers can use several techniques to manage odors and gas emissions; each has different costs and benefits. The feedlot air emissions treatment cost calculator can be used to compare alternative technologies and designs with different costs and benefits. The calculator has information on biofilters, covers, scrubbers, manure belts, vegetative buffer and anaerobic digesters.

The calculator was developed by University of Minnesota Extension economist Bill Lazarus, who is also a professor in the University's applied economics department. It was part of a multi-state, USDA-funded research project. The calculator was suggested by stakeholders for the project led by Kevin Janni, professor and Extension engineer. The group included producers and managers of swine, poultry and dairy operations, equipment manufacturers and suppliers, human medicine, veterinary medicine, local and state regulators, local and county elected officials, Extension and Natural Resource Conservation Service.

The videos build on an earlier project through which fact sheets described several practices for mitigating airborne emissions. One goal of the

project was to provide information to help animal feeding operations manage odors and gas emissions.

"Bill's calculator is a great way for livestock owners and managers to compare techniques they are considering to manage odors and reduce gas emissions," Janni said. "They need to fit into the overall operation and management of the operation; they all cost money."

The calculator and videos are available online at www.extension.org /67055.

The website includes links to factsheets, archived webinars and additional videos about good neighbor relations, odor policy considerations, odor setback tools, biofilters and covers.

For more information on manure management and air quality, visit www.extension.umn.edu/g o/1134/.

Page 6C - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Food security: only with conservation agriculture

By D o n Re i c o s k y Soil Scientist Emeritus, don.reicosky@gmail.com A looming collision: g l o b a l p o p u l at i o n a n d food security Increasing human population and resulting consumption place extreme pressures on natural resources and the environment. The human race is "sandwiched" in a very fragile system; between a very thin, fragile atmosphere and a very thin, fragile soil that is the source of our food production. A big problem facing the planet is a world population predicted to increase from about seven billion people today to about nine million people in 2050, and wide spread pollution and overuse of water from agriculture systems that feeds us all. Future generations may be at risk of losing this vast source of economic security, quality of life and environmental stability if we don't find sustainable food production methods. Thus, there is an immediate need to think and act differently to understand food security while protecting our soil resources for future generations.

Climate change can be thought of as a run of “worse-than-usual” weather. Weather patterns show more frequent tornadoes, stronger straight line winds and hailstorms.

Wild surges in climate that result in an increased

amount and intensity of rain events and increased number of severe drought events make soil protection even more critical.

Climate change is causing both droughts and floods in the same region.

Intensive tillage used in conventional agriculture sets the soil up for wind, water, and tillage erosion and subsequent degradation at a rate faster than nature can renew the lost soil. As a result, climate change will only exacerbate environmental damage caused by intensive conventional agriculture.

Soil blowing in the wind, soil flowing in the water and soil out of place is a catastrophe. Combined water and wind erosion estimates for U.S. cropland, soils in 2007 averaged 4.8 tons per acre per year according to USDA-NRCS. Soil erosion can be considered the most important factor causing soil degradation and will be further exacerbated by climate change. Under the concept of sustainability, the first negative factor in relation to productivity and profitability, and the major aggressor of the environment is soil erosion.

Consequently, sustainability can only be achieved if soil erosion is stopped completely.

We can achieve a new level of soil conservation by focusing on building soil organic matter or soil carbon (C). Now, more conservation experts suggest

that national policies aimed at improving soil organic matter/carbon and more generally, policies that enhance soil health, should be the top priority for the decades ahead. Managing for soil carbon can enhance productivity and environmental quality and can reduce the severity and costs of natural phenomena, such as erosion, drought, flood and disease. In addition, increasing soil organic matter levels can reduce atmospheric CO2 levels that contribute to climate change.

Soils are essential for food, fuel and fiber production, regulating production of greenhouse gases, and protecting and regulating water resources. Soils also provide a habitat for biota, can safeguard our cultural heritage and archaeology, are the foundation for the built environment and supply us with raw materials for a variety of industries.

However, a significant threat to soil and its functionality is soil degradation, whether by erosion, salinity or compaction.

Jon Foley — head of the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment — said "We need to freeze the footprint of agriculture and we need to farm the land we do farm better." The solution is embedded in evolving technology and practices that point to the principles and concepts of conservation agriculture (CA).

W h a t i s c o n s e r va t i o n a g r i c u l t u re ?

Conservation agriculture is a broad term coined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2011 CA website: h t t p : / / w w w. f a o .

org/ag/ca/6c.html) to describe a comprehensive system with permanence of minimum tillage, crop residue management and planting systems. The term CA is sometimes used interchangeably with no till, zero-till and direct seed, implying minimum soil disturbance from any tillage or planting operation. Conservation agriculture is an approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment. This system’s approach is based on three key factors: 1.

Minimum Soil Disturbance: Minimum soil disturbance refers to low disturbance no-tillage and direct seeding. The disturbed area must be less than six inch wide or less than 25 percent of the cropped area (whichever is lower). There should be no periodic tillage that disturbs a greater area than the aforementioned limits.

Strip tillage is allowed if the disturbed area is less than the set limits.

2. Organic soil cover: Three categories are distinguished: 30-60 percent, >60-90 percent and >90 percent groundcover, measured immediately after the direct seeding operation.

Area with less than 30 percent cover is not considered as CA. 3. Crop rotation/association: Rotations/associations should involve at least three different crops.

However, repetitive wheat or maize cropping is not an exclusion factor for the purpose of this data collection, but rotation/association is recorded where practiced. The use of a

diverse “cocktail of cover crops” is showing multiple benefits in addition to carbon input that protects the soil during the non-cropping season. Cover crops replenish soil fertility with nitrogen-fixing legumes and enables crops to use the nutrients in the soil more effectively. Cover crops help to control weeds, diseases and pests by breaking their life cycles through the introduction of a new crop.

The primary emphasis for the concepts in CA is broader than tillage alone and directly related to carbon management and carbon cycling. Conservation agriculture is conceptually more complex than simple tillage phenomenon emphasized in factor one.

The CA concept endorses minimum soil tillage disturbance important in soil carbon loss following tillage that is proportional to the volume of soil disturbed. The elements of CA in factor two consider that the plant residue is 45 to 50 percent carbon and relates to continuous crop residue cover for protection of the soil surface from raindrop impact. The emphasis is on maximizing carbon input to the soil system. The location of the carbon on the soil surface forms a “blanket” that protects the soil from erosion, enhances water infiltration, decreases evaporation, moderates soil and water temperature conditions near the surface, and provides a slow natural form of nutrient cycling as the soil biology energy source as well as contribute to many other ecosystem services.

Factor three also includes aspects of maximizing soil carbon input plus diversification by

encouraging diverse crop rotations and the use of cover crops that sequester carbon from the atmosphere into long-lived soil organic matter pools while promoting a healthy environment and enhancing economically sustainable production conditions.

Diversity within and across crop systems is critical for insect and disease control, sometimes exacerbated by crop residue on the surface. The primary emphasis is on capturing carbon as input for the soil system as long as it is biologically possible to have photosynthesis and subsequent carbon capture. Soil, soil organic carbon and soil quality are the foundations of human inhabitation of our earth. We must focus on getting carbon back into the soil, by reversing bad farming practices like intensive tillage, nutrient mismanagement, removing stubble and over-grazing.

Soil is the base of the terrestrial food chain, directly or indirectly providing over 97 percent of the calories that now nourish more than seven billion people on our planet. It is an extremely complex physical, chemical and biological environment, supporting levels of diversity far greater than any ecosystem above ground.

As such, our food security rests on our soils. In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt stated "The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."

That statement rings true today and for future generations. We must demand soil conservation without compromise in our agricultural production systems. We must understand that “C”arbon is the "C" that starts “C”onservation, implying improved plant residue and carbon management as in conservation agriculture, our first step towards true food security.

Conservation agriculture is climate-smart agriculture and is helping to stabilize yields and reduce the negative effects of erosion, floods, drought and irregular rainfall patterns, rising temperatures and soil degradation. We as scientists, farmers, and general public have a responsibility to all of humanity and to all posterity to protect and maintain our food security. Do your small share to protect our food security and preserve our small planet.

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 7C

Feeding dairy steers on pasture, grain or no grain?

B r a d H e i n s and E l i z a b e t h B j o rk l u n d West Central Reasearch and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Morris With the extreme drought conditions in the Upper Midwest during 2012, many dairy producers continue to be worried about high grain and hay prices. Therefore, producers are reducing the amount of grain fed to cattle to reduce feed costs and maintain profitability. At the West Central Research and Outreach Center’s organic dairy, we have recently completed a study where we evaluated the effects of growth, meat quality and profitability of conventionally raised dairy steers compared to organically raised dairy steers. This project was funded by a North Central SARE graduate student grant.

There is an increase in global demand for organic products, especially grassfed and finished.

Bull calves may represent a potential additional source of revenue for organic dairy producers.

Currently, with the high price of organic grains in the United States, the male offspring of organic Holstein and crossbred dairy cattle represent a potential resource for pasture-raised beef in the Midwest.

The research study used bull calves born from March to May 2011 from the WCROC dairy, and they were subsequently evaluated for growth, meat quality, consumer acceptability, and profitability over the next 14 to 20 months.

The bull calves were assigned to one of three groups at birth: conventional, organic (pasture plus concentrate), and organic-grass only (100 percent pasture). The con-

ventional steers were fed a diet of 80 percent concentrate and 20 percent roughage and received Component E-S implants.

The organic steers were fed a diet of organic corn, organic corn silage, and at least 30 percent of their diet consisted of organic pasture during the grazing season. The grass-only steers grazed pasture during the grazing season and were fed high quality hay or hay silage during the non-grazing season. The conventional steers were sent to slaughter July 24, 2012 to the Tyson Fresh Meats plant in Dakota City, Neb. and the organic and grass-only steers were sent to Lorentz Meats, Cannon Falls, Minn. on Sept. 19, 2012 and Nov. 13, 2012, respectively. Strip loins were collected for a consumer taste panel, which allowed 100 beef consumers to rate the beef for overall liking and flavor.

Profit was defined to include revenues and expenses for beef value, feed cost, pasture cost, health cost and yardage.

The table has results for conventional dairy steers compared to organic and grass-only dairy steers.

The grass-only dairy steers had greater days to slaughter, lower slaughter weights, and had lower average daily gains than conventional steers.

Average daily gains from birth (lb/day) were 2.52 (conventional), 1.79 (organic), and 1.35 (grass-only).

As expected, steers fed higher amounts of grain and concentrate had carcasses with greater fat thickness, larger rib-eye area, and higher yield grades than steers fed higher amounts of pasture.

The fat from the grassonly steers was higher in Omega-3 fatty acid and lower in monounsaturated and saturated fat, which

may indicate potential health benefits of grassfed beef. Consumers who rated the beef found no significant difference for overall liking for the conventional and organic beef.

The organic beef had significantly higher flavor liking than the conventional beef. However, consumers rated the grass-only beef the lowest in overall liking and flavor.

For profitability, grain costs were substantially higher for the organic steers, and therefore, resulted in a net loss per steer (-$644/steer). The higher cost of production for the organic steers is due to the extremely high value of organic corn ($15.90/bushel, January 2013).

The grass-only steers had the highest prof-

it per steer ($593 vs. $442) compared to conventional steers because of lower feed costs, mainly pasture.

Therefore, a low grain ration may reduce feed costs without sacrificing profit in an organic dairy system, assuming the grass-fed steers can be marketed at a premium price based on the production system.

The conventional steers had some advantage over the grass-only steers, and the conventional dairy steers grew much faster and required less time to slaughter. However, grassonly steers required fewer resources than conventional steers. Organic dairy producers trying to seek relief from high grain prices, with a little “extra� pasture may be able to

make a profit from feeding organic dairy steers versus selling them to conventional markets. The most important point for reducing inputs and increasing profits in organic dairy systems is to produce high quality forages and maximize dry matter intake on pasture.

For more information, contact Brad Heins, Assistant Professor, Organic Dairy Management, 320-589-1711 or hein0106@umn.edu

Page 8C - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Nutrition for grazing dairy cattle in Minnesota B rad Heins University of Minnesota, West Central Research and Outreach Center, Morris The challenge of managing a grazing system for dairy cattle is quite different than managing a confinement dairy. The manager of a grazing system must be flexible and constantly adjusting to changing environments. Managers of confinement systems are usually very production oriented, seeking profit from high levels of output. Grazing systems are characterized by lower production per cow than conventional confinement systems. Instead, the focus is on high production per acre at reduced costs. A startupgrazing dairy can be established at a far lower cost than a startup confinement dairy.

Most graziers are focused on cost control and make creative use of the unique features of their farm.

P a s t u re s p e c i e s a n d g r a z i n g m a n a g e m e n t Pasture is the primary source of forage for grazing and organic dairies. For organic livestock production, regulations require a minimum of 120 days grazing per animal. In the northern U.S., this requirement is typically met by a May–September grazing season, and profitability depends on pastures that provide a uniform, season-long supply of high quality forage. However, in the northern U.S., seasonal variation in temperature and precipitation creates a challenge, as the predominant forage plants, which include perennial grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass, quackgrass and smooth bromegrass and legumes such as white clover, undergo a “summer slump� in production, and do not actively grow in late fall. Extending the grazing season late into fall would reduce the high costs of harvested feed. Each forage species has a distinct seasonal growth pattern. The height at which forage is grazed determines the rate of regrowth. The higher the residual in the pasture, the more rapidly the plant will regrow. Most legumes and grasses should be grazed down to two to four inch stubble, followed by a four week rest period.

S u p p l e m e n t i n g d i e t s o n p a s t u re Feed costs are a high proportion of the total production costs on dairy farms. With grain prices expected to increase in the future, dairy farms will feel pressure to increase the feeding of high quality but low cost forages. Pastures and perennial forages that can be preserved for winter feeding will be a good source of high-quality forage on many farms.

Supplementation of feeds is designed to complement pasture forage at a reasonable cost. Table 1 shows that grasses and legumes benefit from different supplement formulations. Neither grass nor legume pasture will meet the energy requirement of the high-producing dairy cow. Levels of Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF), especially in grasses, will limit the ability of the cow to maximize dry matter intake. High-quality legumes or grasses provide adequate levels of protein, although requirements for rumen undegradable protein (RUP) may not be met.

There remain unanswered questions on appropriate supplementation for grazing T a b l e 1 . N u t r i e n t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r c o w s i n e a rl y l a c t a t i o n a n d n u t r i e n t c o m p o s i t i o n o f p a s t u re s.

cows. Cows on all forage diets should respond to supplementation with high-energy feeds. Unfortunately grains replace forage in the diet. A typical energy supplement consists of 10 to 16 lb. of finely-ground shelled corn with salt and minerals. That works out to 1 lb. of supplement for every four to five pounds of milk produced each day (Hoffman, 2000). Stored forage or additional grain may be provided to adjust for seasonal changes in pasture performance.

M a x i m i z i n g d r y m a t t e r a n d p a s t u r e i n t a ke Why worry about pasture intake? Pasture-based dairy cows will have lower milk production due to reduced dry matter intake and not forage quality (Hoffman, 2000). A producer should be concerned about dry matter intake from pasture because it allows us to determine the appropriate supplementation strategy.

Dry matter intake can be very difficult to measure directly on pasture. There are many plant and animal factors that can influence pasture intake and include plant density, plant maturity, breed of cattle, body weight, and milk production. There are three factors that determine pasture intake: grazing time (the amount of time spent grazing), bite rate (the rate at which pasture is taken into the mouth and bite size (the amount of pasture eaten with each bite). Simply, pasture intake = grazing time x bite rate x bite size. Dairy producers have very little control over grazing time and bite rate. Bite size and pasture yield are influenced by grazing height and density of the pasture. Grazing time will increase as the density of the pasture decreases; therefore, it is essential for dairy producers to provide cows with at least 8 to 12 inches of pasture height.

C o n cl u s i o n s Pasture can be a cost effective source of feed and housing for dairy animals. The pastures should utilize productive and high-quality legumes and grazes organized in paddocks that are intensively grazed with rest periods of three to four weeks before being grazed again. Animals should be monitored regularly to determine the need for supplementation and general health.

Maximizing dry matter intake from pasture can be a difficult task. Develop a pasture checklist to determine whether intake is being limited by pasture or animal factors. From there, a management plan can be developed to improve the grazing outcome.

Grazing may not be the best way to dairy for all producers. However, when you have forage shortages, determine what kind of pasture management system that a producer could develop that would best suit their needs and goals.

Sustainable Farming Association announces 2012 award recipients The Sustainable Farming Association announced its 2012 award recipients Feb. 16 during its 22nd Annual Conference at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum in Chaska.

Joel Rosen of Mahtowa was honored with the SFA Farmer Emeritus Award, and Linda Meschke of Fairmont and Sue Wika of Ashby each was presented with the SFA Distinguished Service Award. The awards are presented yearly at the Leaders Breakfast during the SFA Annual Conference.

John Mesko, SFA executive director, said the awards were implemented as a way for SFA's board of directors to recognize the efforts of Minnesotans committed to sustainable agriculture.

"Our organization is committed to providing a vision and a direction for the sustainable agriculture movement," Mesko said. "Our award winners have made a consistent long-term impact on the sustainability of our food and farming system. We are proud of our members'

Winners for Connect hail from Mahtowa, Fairmont and Ashby (L to R) Linda Meschke of Fairmont, Joel Rosen of Mahtowa, and Sue Wika of Ashby. efforts and accomplishments."

Rosen, now retired, raised vegetables and livestock for many years at his farm. He spent more than a decade on the state SFA board of directors and has been a stalwart supporter of the SFA Lake Superior Chapter. His nominator, Kelly Smith of Esko, said Rosen had been very generous in sharing wisdom about market gardening as well as preparing meals for events and organizing the Lake Superior chapter's annual Harvest Festival, which annually draws thousands to Duluth.

Meschke is the president and founder of Rural Advantage, a nonprofit interested in capitalizing on the interconnections between agriculture, environment and community.

Nominator Kelly Firkins of Delavan said Meschke was a longtime supporter of sustainable agriculture, rural communities and the environment and is forward-thinking and actionoriented.

"Minnesota would not be where it is now in the sustainable community without Linda's leadership and passion for change," Firkins wrote.

Wika was instrumental in developing and coordinating the Sustainable Food Production Program at M State Fergus Falls, a one-of-a-kind program designed to equip and train the next generation of regenerative farm stewards, and has served on the SFA Central Chapter board. Her nominator, Kent Solberg, praised Wika for practicing what she preaches. "Sue has implemented high-density grazing, permaculture and local food production on her own farm, Paradox," Solberg said.

The Sustainable Farming Association supports the development and enhancement of sustainable farming systems through farmer-to-farmer networking, innovation, demonstration, and education. For more information, visit www.sfa-mn.org; for media inquiries or additional photos of the award winners, contact Communications Coordinator Jason Walker at jason@sfa-mn.org or 612-605-9269.

Morris, Minnesota 56267

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 9C

Value-added grants help Minnesota pork farm meet growing demand

A d a m C z e ch Minnesota USDA Public Information Officer

“We think that fresh air and sunshine are the best health guarantee.” That’s the quote you’ll see after opening a brochure from Pastures A Plenty Farm.

Spend an hour with the VanDerPol family and you quickly understand that those words are much more than just a marketing slogan. It’s the family’s philosophy.

Pastures A Plenty’s pork products can be found in many co-ops, retail outlets, restaurants and local stores throughout Minnesota.

The VanDerPols feed their hogs on grass and straw

and use a holistic veterinary approach featuring probiotics and spices instead of drugs.

The result is some great-tasting locally-raised pork and a growing business that helps boost the rural economy.

The VanDerPols also have free-range chickens and a cattle-grazing operation, but it’s the pork business that has been picking up steam since 1999.

“Keeping up with demand is a big problem right now,” said LeAnn VanDerPol, who runs Pastures A Plenty with her husband Jim, son Josh and daughter-in-law Cindy.

Josh and Cindy’s three children also pitch in.

High demand for a prod-

uct is usually a good problem to have. But it can also be challenging for a small business. To help the growing operation, USDA Rural Development selected Pastures A Plenty to receive two separate Value-Added Producer Grants, one in 2009 for business planning and another in 2012 for working capital and marketing efforts to introduce different retailers and restaurants to its high-quality pork products.

The grants are helping Pastures A Plenty grow from 70 sows to 90, build a new barn, upgrade equipment and improve existing facilities.

All of this is in response to what the VanDerPols see

as a growing demand for more locally-grown foods.

“A lot of what’s on Facebook right now, it’s ‘go buy local.’” Cindy said.

“We’re always trying to connect with current and potential customers. It might be online, it might be with people from church, or it might be a chef in the Twin Cities.

There are more markets for our type of product than ever before.”

And new markets continue opening. Cindy and LeAnn said they have seen increased interest in ordering lard, pork liver and kidneys thanks to celebrities using these products on cable television.

Since 2009, USDA has

Jim VanDerPol get his pigs ready for market on his Pastures A Plenty farm in Kerkhoven, Minn. used the Value-Added program to help 12 agricultural producers in Minnesota reach new markets and

access valuable working capital.

Farm transition and succession planning: the ingredients for success are not always financial Ru s s Tw e i t e n Ag Country Farm Credit Services Farm transition and succession planning is an experience rife with financial reports, legal documents and tax returns. It’s a flurry of paper that can be overwhelming.

Financial, tax and legal information is important, but a sound transition plan should include three additional ingredients: time, patience and communication.

Time Have you ever felt rushed or pushed when pondering a big decision?

How did the pressure influence you? Were you comfortable with your decision? In most cases rushing transition must be avoided. Many transition plans span five to 10 years.

Time is your friend. It allows you the necessary space between a new idea and a final outcome to understand and digest the ramifications of decisions that can affect your farm for generations. A steady rhythm is important to keep things moving along.

Speed is not your friend.

Decisions made in haste are often undone, modified or never implemented, delaying the transition,

adding to the cost of the transition and introducing the possibility of misunderstandings and disagreements.

As planners and advisors we have a number of tools that need time to unfold. There are generous gifting rules, interesting leasing plans, installment sales to spread out taxes and creative ways to ensure assets left to family in a will or trust are handled fairly. We need time to show you the options and allow you time to understand and apply the ideas to your farm or ranch.

Patience Patience can go a long way to ensure the transition is efficiently executed.

Pushing a senior farmer with debt into a hasty transition is dangerous and makes for an uncomfortable retirement.

Conversely, if a senior farmer delegates work to a junior farmer and then later meddles in the delegated work, self-confidence is jeopardized, relationships are strained, trust is diminished and communication will probably come to a screeching halt. Step back and walk in your parents or child’s shoes for a minute. See what they are seeing from you. Check for understanding and make

sure you are on the same page with the plan or task at hand. There are generational differences in a family farm that are often best managed by being patient.

Remember, the transition plan is often five to 10 years in the making.

C o m mu n i c at i o n Like the words “service” or “quality,” communication can be a rather subjective term. If there is one area that can make or break a farm, and especially a farm transition plan, it is poor communication.

What are your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats?

Are you addressing these by talking to one another?

Consider for a moment the following actual situations where there was a communication breakdown between family members.

“I saw your brother at the game, how come you had to stay back and work?”

Or more confounding, “Yes, we have a plan and there’s nothing to worry about.”

Both are examples of poor communication. If one does not understand a situation, human nature is to make assumptions about the situation based on facts that may not be

true. Over time, when one assumption is piled on top of the other, perceptions of reality are blurred and conclusions are drawn that are inaccurate. What often comes next is disagreement and maybe a family fight.

In the game example, when we met with the partners, it was okay with the farmer who stayed back as he and his brother had communicated. He understood the importance of his brother attending the game. However, neither of their spouses knew about the conversation between the brothers—a symptom of the poor communication between the partners and their families. Over time, the spouses grew to dislike one another since one brother “did all the work.” It was difficult and expensive to keep the partnership together.

In the case of “nothing to worry about,” no one really knew what the farming parents had for an estate plan. The children, especially the farming son, were left to guess. The farming son was reluctant to spend money and expand on land owned by his parents so he erected bin sites on his land vs. adding to the parent’s farm site where there was already a bin site. Because

of the lack of communication, the senior farmer openly stated his son’s expansion was an inefficient use of assets and capital! Over time the son disengaged and did not talk to his father. The “family” portion of the family farm disappeared.

Each case above could have been avoided if the family talked to each other.

Set times to meet and have something in place to force communication, such as a meeting scheduled at the same time on the same day each week. Talk about your documents with family (wills or trusts, entity governing documents).

Communication is something that needs constant

attention. The benefits are not only measured in terms of our relationship with each other, but could well be financial as well.

Time, patience and communication are not financial topics. However, failure to bring all three into your transition and business plan can have very real and lasting financial impacts. Take some time today to see if your plan includes these ingredients.

Russ Tweiten, CTFA, CRPC, Agribusiness consultant who specializes in succession and retirement planning for AgCountry Farm Credit Services

Page 10C - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Track difficult calving to gain profit A my H a z e l a n d B r a d H e i n s, University of Minnesota, West Central Research and Outreach Center, Morris Data that reveal the expected calving difficulty for specific bulls within breeds can generate huge cost savings in the long run for all producers in the industry. Producers who have a handle on their herd's calving difficulty can make decisions that reduce financial loss.

H a rd c a l v i n g s b r i n g f i n a n c i a l l o s s l at e r o n The cost of difficult calving in individual herds can be large depending on the degree of difficult births. In a study conducted in three Colorado dairies with over 7,000 observed calvings, more than one half of the births by first-calf heifers required some assistance.

Calves born with difficulty were 15 times more likely to be stillborn than calves born without assistance, and also were 1.7 times more likely to experience a respiratory disease, 1.3 times more likely to have a digestive disease, and more than six times more

likely to die within the first 120 days.

Difficult calving, especially of first-calf heifers, increases veterinary costs and farm labor, and reduces reproductive efficiency and milk production during the subsequent lactation. A study of more than 50,000 Holstein births in Spain revealed that first-calf heifers were 17 percent more likely to be culled after a difficult calving. Additionally, cows that experienced calving difficulty incurred replacement costs that were more than $100 per cow greater than herdmates.

C a l v i n g e a s e eva l u a t i o n s i n t h e U. S .

USDA analyzes DHI records and then reports calving ease as the expected percentage of difficult births for heifers calving for the first time. Two distinct traits are analyzed that deal with calving ease: 1) Sire calving ease is the expected influence of the service sire, and 2) Daughter calving ease is the expected influence of sires on the calving ease of their daughters when they deliver their first calf.

Calving ease is traditionally recorded on a scale from one (no difficulty) to five (extreme difficulty). These definitions may vary slightly from herd to herd, but the important thing is that there is a clear break between calvings considered one to three versus the more difficult ones that are the fours and fives. The table accompanying this article reviews specific definitions used by several dairies enrolled in studies with the University of Minnesota.

ing ease is 7.8 percent, which means that about 8 of every 100 first calvings are expected to have substantial difficulty (4 or 5).

However, other studies have estimated the Holstein breed at higher rates between 11 and 29 percent! Why do some field studies report more calving difficulty than USDA? Remember, the data available to USDA includes only herds enrolled in DHI, and these herds tend to have a higher average plane of management and are more likely to use AI.

D e f i n i t i o n s fo r c a l v ing ease Calving Ease Score Definition 1. No problem (unobserved or less than 2 hours) 2.

Slight problem (greater than two hours, but no assistance provided) 3. Needed assistance (hand pull) 4. Difficult pull (obstetrical chains with considerable force) 5. Extreme difficulty (mechanical puller or cesarean section) Currently, the Holstein breed average for sire calv-

C a l v i n g e a s e o f c ro s sb re d s Crossbreeds combining Jersey, Brown Swiss and Holstein have been evaluated in the U.S. in recent years, and calving ease is improved when Jersey is used as the breed of sire.

However, Jersey crossbred cows have negative attributes for confinement dairying, so it is important to thoroughly evaluate breeds before selecting breeds for a crossbreeding program.

Several European dairy breeds are widely used in the U.S. for crossbreeding, and the Swedish Red breed

looks promising for calving ease. Calving ease for calves resulting from the use of Montbeliarde sires on Holstein dams were evaluated in two University of Minnesota dairies. Calving ease for the Montbeliarde x Holstein calves was not significantly different from pure Holstein calves, despite a heavier birth weight of the Montbeliarde x Holstein calves when born to Holstein cows in second and later lactation. In the same dairies, Montbeliarde sires were also used on Jersey x Holstein crossbred cows, and the Montbeliardesired calves were similar to pure Holstein calves for both birth weight and calving ease in all lactations of dams.

Additional research is underway to learn more about total profitability of crossbreeding, in general, and the impact on calving ease, specifically. Calving ease, stillbirth, calf weight, and gestation length are all interrelated traits. For pure Holsteins and several beef breeds, lower birth weight of calves tends to reduce calv-

ing difficulty and stillbirth. The relationships of these traits for crossbred dairy cattle are still under investigation; however, relationships of birth traits in crossbreds could be different than pure Holstein calves because of the shape of the calves, especially in the shoulder region.

Calving ease is an economically important trait.

The Net Merit index now places breed-wide emphasis on calving ease of Holsteins. Dairy producers should consider sire calving ease and daughter calving ease when selecting AI bulls, and keep individual animal records to track calving difficulty.

Feeling more optimistic that we will be able to resolve our differences and find a way forward U. S . R e p r e s e n t a t ive C o l l i n C. P e t e r s o n Lately, Congress seems to prefer to put off tough choices rather than take necessary action to get our fiscal house in order.

The Agriculture Committees seem to be the only ones that are taking our jobs seriously – put-

ting together legislation as part of the Super Committee process, passing bipartisan farm bills in committee and working together to draft a simple extension as part of the “fiscal cliff" —but the will of the committees' has repeatedly been ignored by congressional leadership.

Because of this refusal

to act, these leaders failed to give farmers the certainty of a five-year farm bill, choosing instead to pass a one-year extension of the 2008 law. The 2008 Farm Bill, written during my time as chairman, was a good bill, however, the extension does not include the significant reforms made by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, leaving dairy producers without a safety net, an unworkable cotton program and little to no funding for many renewable energy, conservation and rural development programs.

I’ve written to and met with Speaker Boehner, and after a few brief conversations on the House floor, I’m feeling more optimistic that we will be able to resolve our differences and find a way forward this year.

Part of the reason I don’t think Republican

leaders brought the Farm Bill to the floor in the House last time was because they didn’t feel any pressure to do so.

Farmers weren’t making phone calls or sending emails to their representatives urging them to act.

It’s my hope that this attitude has changed, especially given the uncertainty that now surrounds Farm Bill programs under the one-year extension. I worry that without a strong call to action, leaders will again choose to ignore those in farm country.

As I've said before, the House Agriculture Committee is committed to being part of the solution to our country’s financial crisis. We have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to work together and find real budget savings; we’re the only congressional committee that seems to take this task

seriously.

At the same time, our programs have become a frequent target by those outside of the committee who, frankly, don’t understand agriculture, don’t understand the programs under our jurisdiction and don’t understand the need for a safety net during tough economic times.

As it was last year, the budget situation is going to be a huge challenge, which is why Chairman Lucas and I agree that Congress needs to address these budgetary issues before we can begin our farm bill work.

The first budgetary issue we face is the sequester. As I write this, neither the speaker nor the senate majority leader has proposed a balanced or serious plan to replace the sequester with regard to programs under the committee’s jurisdiction. One cuts only nutrition pro-

grams while the other targets only direct payments.

I'm hopeful that this new Congress will be an opportunity, particularly for those new to the Agriculture Committee, to again make improvements and necessary changes to current farm bill programs.

Collin Peterson was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the Seventh Congressional District of Minnesota in 1990. Peterson is Ranking Member of the House Committee on Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over a wide range of agriculture and rural development issues, including the Farm Bill, renewable energy, disaster assistance, nutrition, crop insurance, conservation, rural development, international trade, future market regulation, animal and plant health, agricultural research, bioterrorism, forestry and others.

Morris, Minnesota 56267

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 11C

A conversion to French drains C h r i s We n t e, R u s s G e s ch and G a ry Fe ye re i s e n U S DA-Ag ricultura l Research Service, Morris, Minn.

In the fall of 2009, one of the Soils Lab's on-farm research sites had the majority of its tile inlets converted to French drains. This provided an excellent opportunity to evaluate how French drains affect sediment loss as compared to a conventional drain system.

Measurements began at this site, which has two 160-acre fields with independent drainages of 67 and 104 acres, in the fall of 2006.

A French drain differs from an open tile inlet, which is a vertical tile to the surface that is usually protected by a mesh basket. A French drain is a section of seepage tile surrounded by pea gravel.

Both structures allow water from low-lying areas to enter the drain tile, but the pea gravel filters the water entering the French drain, which reduces the amount of sediment loss.

We used an area velocity (AV) sensor to measure drainage volume, which allowed us to evaluate sediment loss. This instrument works on the same principle as a depth finder by using sound waves to measure water depth and

velocity. We mounted the AV sensor on the bottom of the drain tile facing up.

Using the cross sectional area of the tile along with the AV measurements, we calculated the volume of water flowing through the tile.

Next we measured sediment concentrations from periodic water samples taken from the tile. We used an automated water sampler to pump water from the tile into sample bottles, which is networked to the AV sensor.

As the AV sensor calculates drainage volume, it signals to the water sampler when to take a sample.

All of this equipment is networked to a cell phone modem and can be monitored and controlled remotely via the internet.

It will also send a text message if a problem occurs.

We determined sediment loss by multiplying drainage volume by sediment concentration and then dividing by drainage area in units of lbs/acre.

Most sediment loss occurs during spring snow melt, but another source of sediment loss is intense rain storms. In both these situations sediment loss occurs when water moves across the soil surface and picks up soil particles before it enters the drainage system.

Comparisons between sediment concentrations

in the tile water for the years with open inlets (2007-2009) and the years after French drain installation (2010-2012) show a reduction in sediment concentration after the French drain installation.

The reductions occur both in peak sediment concentration – the high spikes after heavy rainfall – and the average concentration.

The results have been most striking during the late spring through fall. The difference during snowmelt has been less

Water sampling sites. The Soils Lab set up equipment to collect water samples from a French drain as part of an on-farm research project.

A my

From the food on our table to the fuel in our cars, agriculture is as central to our state’s economy as it is to our heritage. We do right by ourselves when we work to support our farmers and rural communities that are so important to Minnesota and to America. Our prosperity depends on it.

As the fifth largest agproducing state in the country, agriculture is our state’s ultimate “Made in America” product.

Generating more than $18 billion each year, Minnesota’s 80,000 farms truly are the backbone of our economy.

When we look at the reasons our state’s economy is doing better than the rest of the country, we know agriculture is at the top of the list. And as we continue down the road to economic recovery,

Minnesota’s farmers will lead the way.

Last year the Senate came together and passed a strong, long-term Farm Bill with bipartisan support. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I reached across the aisle and worked hard to craft a bill that would give our farmers the support they need and deserve. The legislation strengthened crop insurance programs, reauthorized critical disaster programs to help farmers and producers get through drought and other tough times, and cut the deficit by $23 billion.

Unfortunately, the Senate five-year Farm Bill was not included in the final fiscal package in January and a shorter extension of many farm programs was passed instead.

As we renew our efforts to pass a Farm Bill in the new Congress, my priority will be to pass strong, long-

Water samples after an intense rain storm. After an intense rainfall, sediment concentrations in tile water increase. Research conducted at the Soils Lab demonstrates that French drains reduce sediment both in peak (especially after intense rainfall) and average concentrations.

Differences are shown in the water samples above.

Water samples from snow melt after French drain installation.

The Soils Lab compared sediment loss in tile water between open tile inlets and French drains in one of their on-farm research sites. After French drain tile installation, water samples are much clearer after snow melt.

Chris Wente/submitted photos

Smart farm policies are the seeds to success U. S . S e n a t o r K l o b u ch a r

pronounced.

Our research demonstrates that French drains dramatically lowered the amount of sediment in drainage water as compared to a conventional tile draining system. The French drains provided an adequate structure for water to enter tile in this system while keeping the drainage system closed.

Farmers are also able to farm over French drains, which allow them to keep more cropland in production.

term legislation to strengthen Minnesota’s rural economy and ensure that our farmers continue to have the support they need to thrive and succeed.

With farmers facing volatile markets and a wide range of natural disasters, we need to maintain a strong farm safety net. Farmers make large capital investments in their crops, livestock, buildings, and equipment, and sometimes are subjected to heavy losses due to circumstances beyond their control. That’s why we need a strong crop insurance program, improved dairy program, support for beginning farmer and rancher, continuation of the sugar program and disaster assistance.

Page 12C - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Progress made on Renewable Hydrogen and Ammonia Pilot Plant and related research M i ch a e l Re e s e , Renewable Energy Director, University of Minnesota West Central Research and Outreach Center After considerable delay, the long-awaited ammonia production skid arrived on July 2, 2012 and was installed in the West Central Research and Outreach Center’s Renewable Hydrogen and Ammonia Pilot Plant near the wind turbines.

Anhydrous ammonia was produced from the system for the first time on Jan. 9, 2013, achieving a significant milestone. The project team is working through commissioning activities with a goal to be continuously operating and performing research trials within two months.

Several research projects are already in progress gearing up to collect production data from the pilot plant. The Renewable Hydrogen and Ammonia Pilot Plant utilizes energy from the colocated wind turbine to produce nitrogen fertilizer.

Although much work is required to reach commercial viability, it is an elegant concept to use wind energy generated from farm fields to produce nitrogen fertilizer which can then be used to nourish corn and small grain growing in the same fields.

The pilot plant is believed

to be the first wind to ammonia system in the world. The ultimate goal is that information generated and advancements in technology from the pilot plant will support the development of farmerowned, commercial nitrogen fertilizer production plants across the Midwest.

The pilot plant is designed for research and is anticipated to produce about 6.6 lbs of anhydrous ammonia per hour. A commercial plant is anticipated to be much larger perhaps producing over a ton per hour. The pilot plant utilizes wind, water, and air to produce anhydrous ammonia through a traditional method called the Haber Bosch Process.

Hydrogen gas is first produced through electrolyzing water and then nitrogen gas is produced by separating nitrogen from air.

Hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas have been in production since fall 2010 within the pilot plant.

The ammonia production skid is the final component required to make the conversion to nitrogen fertilizer. The hydrogen and nitrogen gases are piped into the ammonia production skid at high pressure (~2200 psi). The gases are mixed, pre-heated to 800 degrees F, and then sent into a reactor vessel passing through an iron-based catalyst. The

process is exothermic meaning heat is generated in the chemical conversion.

The resulting heated gases are passed through heat exchangers which in turn, heat incoming gases. The product gases including hydrogen, nitrogen, and anhydrous ammonia are then chilled resulting in ammonia being shifted to a liquid state.

The liquid ammonia is then separated and sent to storage while the remaining hydrogen and nitrogen gases are re-circulated and mixed with new incoming gas.

The traditional Haber Bosch Process is energyintensive due to the high temperature and pressure required. In an attempt to improve the production process, Minneapolis and Saint Paul campus faculty are collaborating with WCROC researchers to develop novel technologies which are being developed in Twin Cities labs and soon may be tested at the pilot plant. The first technology is believed to improve the conversion of hydrogen and nitrogen gases to ammonia by adding an absorbent into the reactor, thus quickly removing ammonia from the gas mix and allowing

more to be produced.

The second technology is anticipated to make production more efficient and adaptable to wind by utilizing a low temperature and low pressure non-thermal plasma process. Non-thermal plasma can be compared to the electric “fluid” seen in a neon light. Since wind energy is variable, the non-thermal plasma production process being developed at the University of Minnesota may follow wind production by quickly ramping up or down depending upon the availability of electricity.

Two other research projects are also underway to compare the economics and life cycle analysis of producing nitrogen fertilizer from wind rather than the conventional process

Picture 1.

Renewable Hydrogen and Ammonia Pilot Plant at WCROC Picture 2.

Ammonia production skid being lowered into position at the WCROC using natural gas. Life cycle analysis is the study of inputs and resulting outputs from the system.

Simply stated, life cycle analysis attempts to answer questions such as “how much energy is used” and “what is the carbon footprint of the process.” In response to consumer demand, large processors and retailers such as General Mills, Coca Cola and Walmart are evaluating options to lower the carbon footprint of food and beverages.

Conventional nitrogen fertilizer, now produced primarily from natural gas, is a large contributor to the carbon footprint of grain production and consequently food and beverages. As seen in the swine industry with consumers

driving the change from gestation crates to group housing of sows, consumers may drive crop production towards alternative sources of nitrogen fertilizer.

The research conducted at the Renewable Hydrogen and Ammonia Pilot Plant may provide the necessary tools for producers to respond to changing markets and consumer influences.

Development of localized commercial ammonia production systems using available energy resources may also provide producers a hedge to the highly volatile nitrogen fertilizer markets. A formal dedication of the pilot plant is being planned for summer 2013.

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 1D

Farm Progress 2013 Modern farming is no easy task Sue Dieter Sun Tribune Modern farming is no easy task, as the machinery and the economics of agriculture become more complex each year.

In fact, ag economist David Kohl said farm managers of today have to have the skill base of a fighter pilot if they’re going to be successful.

“They have to track the global economy, they have to track the weather, they have to track commodity prices and input costs, and they have to put it together as a system -- production system, operational risk management financial system. That’s a challenge.”

But most importantly, Kohl said farming is all about people.

“Sometimes we get so caught up in our own little world that we don’t see what’s coming,” Kohl told a group of about 200 people gathered at the Old No. 1 Southside in Morris for a seminar on Feb. 27.

“Sometimes people don’t forward think.”

Kohl is professor emeritus at Virginia Tech. He has traveled over eight million miles throughout his professional career and conducted 6,000 workshops and seminars for agricultural groups. His Morris visit was co-sponsored by

AgCountry Farm Credit Services and the Farm Business Management program at Ridgewater College.

Kohl gave participants plenty to think about, particularly the emerging national economies that farmers should watch -BRICS and KIM-T’s -- and he had a lot to say about the Federal Reserve.

In fact, his goal was to bring Federal Reserve policy to your table.

“If you really think about it, when the Federal Reserve started their accommodative action with QE1, QE2, QE3, and so on, it stimulated the emerging nations which buy our agricultural products, our oil and our gas, which indirectly stimulated Stevens County and Minnesota’s rural areas.

“If and when the Fed starts reversing this action, those countries may not be as stimulated as before. This could suppress commodity prices which invariably could suppress land values and also the other action would be a possible rise in interest rates. Typically land does not do as well when we have a rise in interest rates. So that is how the Federal Reserve’s actions stimulated the globe, but it comes right back to influence this area.”

Kohl said the BRICS and KIM-Ts, or Brazil, Russia, India, China, South America, South Korea, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey are more important than most folks think.

“You’re more linked to these emerging nations than to Washington D.C.” He added that Congress is a bunch of “drama kings and drama queens” participating in soap opera politics.

Kohl also spoke about behavioral economics, stating that 80 percent of economics is psychology.

“The old thesis is that economics is very graphand numbers-driven. But now what we’re starting to realize is that economics goes in cycles and what drives those cycles?

Behavior.

Russian Economist Nikolai Dimitrievich Kondratiev back in the Stalin era said that every 50-60 years, the economy goes through four seasons, spring, summer, fall and winter. And you need the winter, the bad times, to reboot your economies. But behavioral economics can be seen in the purchase of consumer goods, the purchase of land. Invariably, if you just look at the numbers, you just look at graphs, you’re going to be behind the curve. I’m not saying that’s not important -- it’s

the numbers behind it.

But it’s the behavior that influences the theory in the long run.”

And Kohl said there are plenty of emotions in agriculture.

“Particularly here in the upper Midwest, people react strongly to changes.

It’s hot right now and the thing is, that can cause inconsistencies in business models and that affects other businesses.

So behavioral economics is very, very important.”

Kohl said that the continued gains in agriculture could become a problem, too.

He believes that wealth will create more stress in agriculture than the farm crisis of the 1980s.

“With 85 percent of Americans two generations away from the farm, our whole industry has a real public relations challenge. All of this together, along with land values going up and cash rents going up, it puts a lot of stress on the farm family.

It’s a lot different than it was in the 1970s and even during the farm crisis during the 1980s because it’s more interconnected locally.”

That’s why Kohl wants farmers to have a global view, to give them some things to think about as they are getting ready to

Dr. David Kohl lead a lively seminar at the Old No. 1 Southside in Morris on Feb. 27.

Sue Dieter/Sun Tribune

hit the fields, so they can take appropriate action that is good for them.

In addition to his live presentation, Kohl visits with producers in a series of webcasts sponsored by the Ridgewater FBM and AgCountry. Jim Molenaar, dean of management programs at Ridgewater College, said Kohl does a series of five webcasts which are viewed by approximately 300 people at 27 locations in Minnesota and North Dakota.

“Having Dr. Kohl visit with our FBM program is a first-rate opportunity. He provides a worldwide perspective for agriculture that we can’t get anywhere

else. But his presentation is one piece of the pie that the farm business management program can provide.

Participants who attend the webcast are required to complete a series of group or individual action steps centered on the presentation.

To learn more about the local broadcast of Kohl’s webinars, contact Troy Andreason at AgCountry Farm Credit Services in Morris or Dan Perkins with the Stevens County Farm Business Management program.

Page 2D - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Kohl visits Morris in February for seminar David Kohl, agriculture economist, visited Morris on Feb. 27 at the Old No. One. Along with farmers and loan agents, twentyfive Morris Area High School students, members in Business Professionals of America (BPA) and the FFA attended the seminar.

Kohl was very entertaining and the students gained a lot of insight from his presentation.

Most of the students in attendance were seniors who are currently learning about how economies work in their Social 12 class taught by Jim Greenwaldt.

The previous knowledge was directly related to Kohl’s teaching. He spoke on opportunity cost,

a term frequently used in econ class. Kohl said, “Priortize your priorities.”

Students are just beginning to realize how important time management is.

Because of student’s memberships in BPA and FFA, they know they must set goals to manage their time wisely. Kohl reemphasized the importance of the students’ goals when he shared the shocking statistic that 80 percent of people don’t have goals, 16 percent have unwritten goals, and only 4 percent have goals written down.

During the seminar there was also time for students to converse with the other people in attendance.

In conversation students were told to ask for one

piece of life advice. Never stop learning, is what one producer shared.

By allowing students to attend the Dave Kohl presentation it has shown them that there are opportunities to learn outside of classroom, so even when their schooling is finished, their education is not.

The Morris Area High School students would like to thank AgCountry Farm Credit Services for inviting them to attend the David Kohl seminar because it was a wonderful learning experience.

Vilsack outlines sequester hits to ag D a n i e l L o o ke r Business Editor Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack shared his frustration with Washington gridlock as well as details of how spending reductions will hit agriculture when he spoke to members of corn, grain sorghum, soybean and wheat grower groups at the Commodity Classic in Kissimmee, Fla. on Friday.

"On this day in particular, it's great to be outside of Washington," Vilsack said.

March 1 was the first day of automatic reductions in spending mandated by Congress that President Obama is expect-

ed to authorize with his signature later today.

As Vilsack told commodity group members, and reporters later, letters will be going out next week to USDA employees advising them of the unpaid furloughs they'll be facing and in two or three weeks, land grant universities will be informed that they will receive about $60 million less in research funds than they expected this year.

The cuts will possibly trim the amount of money received by farmers for direct payments and USDA is trying to decide how to deal with other payments that have already gone out.

Crop insurance indemnity payments won't be affected. Meat inspectors will be

affected and being furloughed will temporarily shut down more than 6,000 USDA-inspected processing plants.

Vilsack said he's been asked to get around some of these cuts by cutting other expenses, such as travel.

"Well folks, we've been doing that the last three years," he said. And Vilsack must cut from each line of his budget, so he's unable to shift funds from one agency to another.

C u t s a l re a dy m a d e Anticipating these spending cuts, USDA has already cut its total workforce 8 percent.

In Washington it has condensed office space and is

renting less. It has reduced employee travel, cut down on supplies and sent fewer employees to conferences.

USDA workers have not gotten a pay raise in three years.

Conservatively, USDA has found $700 million in savings and the number is probably closer to $1 billion," Vilsack said.

"There's just not a lot that can be done," he said.

"Frankly, I have to apologize to all of you. This is crazy what is happening.

In a functioning democracy this shouldn't happen."

B l ow to l ive s t o c k i n d u s t ry Vilsack has drawn sharp criticism from livestock and meat packer groups for USDA's announced plan to reduce the work hours of meat inspectors. Because processing plants can't operate without USDA inspection, the White House has estimated the entire meat industry could suffer $10 billion in losses.

Earlier this week, a group of Republican senators led by Senator Chuck

Grassley of Iowa, wrote a letter to Vilsack asking whether his department has done all it can to reduce expenses before cutting the hours of inspectors and asked for the legal basis for reducing USDA's time spent enforcing laws designed to protect food safety.

“Furloughing meat inspectors may shut down meat and poultry facilities and harm workers, farmers, and consumers," Grassley said when he released the letter to the public. "I find it hard to believe that reductions can't be made elsewhere in the department that don't impact health and safety. If the department believes it needs to go to these drastic measures, the public ought to know if other areas within the department are seeing the same kinds of cost-saving measures as something as important as meat inspectors."

Vilsack said he hasn't yet sent Grassley an answer because "he's asking for a legal opinion," which isn't finished yet.

The Food Safety and

Inspection Service doesn't have money left over to cut, Vilsack told reporters.

Some 87 percent of the FSIS budget is for its staff.

Nearly all of that is for the inspectors or the support services such as laboratories that the inspectors need. And, because the law limits furloughs to 22 days, FSIS can't idle enough other workers to spare the inspectors, Vilsack told Agriculture.com "With due respect to Senator Grassley, whom I have a lot of respect for, we will answer his letter fully and completely," Vilsack said.

Vilsack said that preparing for the cuts, known at the sequester, has taken USDA "an enormous amount of time."

None if it would be necessary if Congress would pass a budget, he said.

"Honestly, instead of writing letters, it would be helpful if Congress would write a bill and get it passed," Vilsack said.

Morris, Minnesota 56267

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 3D

USDA releases report on the growing importance of food hubs in rural America Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan has announced the release of a report which provides a comprehensive look at the economic role, challenges and opportunities for food hubs in the nation's growing local food movement.

The announcement was made during a visit to Hollygrove Market and Farm, a produce market, local distributor and farm in downtown New Orleans.

In operation since 2009, Hollygrove Farm and Market sources from twenty local growers across southern Louisiana and Mississippi. Hollygrove's mission includes increasing access to fresh produce for underserved New Orleans neighborhoods.

The organization first began operations as part of the city's post-Hurricane Katrina rebuilding efforts.

"At USDA we are committed to food hubs

because we believe that they offer strong and sound infrastructure support to producers across the country which will also help build stronger regional food systems," said Merrigan. "This report is an important addition to the ongoing research in this field and Hollygrove is an example of how it is done."

The new report is titled “The Role of Food Hubs in Local Food Marketing.�

With an increasing demand for fresh, local, foods, the report finds that the success of food hubs is rapidly expanding with well over 200 food hubs now operating in the United States. They are a part of a distribution system designed to move locally-produced food into mainstream markets by supplying chains for goods to go from farms to the table efficiently.

USDA's working defini-

tion of a regional food hub is "a business or organization that actively manages the aggregation, distribution, and marketing of source-identified food products primarily from local and regional producers to strengthen their ability to satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional demand." More information about USDA's work on food hubs is available at www.ams.usda.gov/foodhubs.

The dramatic increase in the number of food hubs since President Obama took office has been supported by state and federal efforts including USDA programs like Rural Business Enterprise Grant, Rural Business Opportunity Grant, ValueAdded Producer Grant and the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program.

For example, as noted in the report, USDA Rural

Development's Cooperative grants can be used to support building local food systems infrastructure.

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ Land Assistance Fund in Alabama received a grant to establish a vegetable processing and marketing cooperative and a regional goat processing and marketing cooperative. The Federation also trains and supports members involved in direct marketing activities, such as selling at urban farmers markets, redeeming nutrition assistance coupons and selling directly to schools.

Part of the grant focused on business planning and training for community development credit unions.

Many such USDAsupported projects, as well as others which support local and regional food systems, are part of the Know Your Farmer, Know Your

Food Initiative (KYF). This initiative coordinates department-wide efforts and work on local and regional food systems.

Many food hubs and similar projects are described in the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass, a narrative about USDA's work in local and regional food systems and are on the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass Map which maps investments in local and regional food.

President Obama's plan for rural America has brought about historic investment and resulted in stronger rural communities. Under the president's leadership, these investments in housing, community facilities, businesses and infrastructure have empowered rural America to continue leading the way – strengthening America's economy, small towns and rural communi-

ties. USDA's investments in rural communities support the rural way of life that stands as the backbone of our American values. President Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are committed to a smarter use of federal resources to foster sustainable economic prosperity and ensure the government is a strong partner for businesses, entrepreneurs and working families in rural communities.

USDA, through its rural development mission area, has an active portfolio of more than $176 billion in loans and loan guarantees.

These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers and improve the quality of life in rural America.

Alfalfa-corn rotation increases yield and reduces nitrogen fertilizer needs Farmers usually enjoy a yield boost when corn is planted following an alfalfa crop. The major reasons: reduced pest and disease pressure, better soil structure that enhances root growth and water infiltration, and an altered soil microbial community, said Jeff Coulter, a corn agronomist with University of Minnesota Extension.

Alfalfa also reduces nitrogen fertilizer needs in corn. Nitrogen fertilizer for first-year corn following a good alfalfa crop can often be reduced by up to 100 percent and by about 50

percent for second-year corn. The nitrogen passed on to the corn is largely due to additions of nitrogen-rich inputs from alfalfa to soil organic matter.

These include alfalfa leaves and stems lost during harvest, alfalfa stand losses over time, turnover of thin alfalfa roots, and substances that exude out of alfalfa roots. They mineralize rapidly after alfalfa is terminated and release nitrogen for at least two years.

With funding from the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, the

Minnesota Agricultural Fertilizer Research and Education Council, and the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resource Center, Coulter and co-workers recently completed on-farm research that confirms the nitrogen credits from alfalfa to corn. From 2009 to 2011, research on first-year nitrogen credits was conducted on 31 farms across Minnesota and Wisconsin with medium- to fine-textured soils. Only three of the 31 farms had increases in grain yield from adding nitrogen fertilizer to first-

year corn after alfalfa. The three responsive farms had fine-textured soils and excessive early-season precipitation, which likely slowed mineralization. It was also found that nitrogen fertilizer rates could be reduced if the nitrogen was sidedressed rather than applied near planting.

In 2011 and 2012, research on second-year nitrogen credits was conducted on 11 farms in Minnesota with mediumto fine-textured soils.

Surprisingly, four of 11 farms required no nitro-

gen fertilizer to maximize grain and silage yield. The economically optimum nitrogen rate varied among the seven responsive farms, but was often at least half as large as that for continuous corn. As in first-year corn, sidedress applications of nitrogen allowed growers to reduce fertilizer rates without sacrificing yield.

"Farmers are our active research partners, and help us perform the field operations," Coulter said.

To help spread the word on the results, nine on-farm field days were held over

the last three years and were attended growers and farm advisors managing over one million acres of farmland.

More details on University of Minnesota Extension corn production are available at z.umn.edu/corn.

Jeff Coulter is a University of Minnesota Extension corn agronomist.

Page 4D - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Is dairy grazing for you?

B rad Heins West Central Reasearch and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Morris The challenge of managing a grazing system for dairy cattle is quite different than managing a confinement dairy. The manager of a grazing system must be flexible and constantly adjusting to changing environments.

Managers of confinement systems are usually very production oriented, seeking profit from high levels of output. Grazing systems are characterized by lower production per cow than conventional confinement systems.

Instead, the focus is on high production per acre at reduced costs. A startup grazing dairy can be established at a far lower cost than a start-up confinement dairy. Most graziers are focused on cost control and making innovative use of the unique features of their farm.

The main nutritional influences on high milk yield from pasture are the amount of high quality pasture forage grown per land unit, the amount of pasture allocated per cow, pasture management, and amount and quality of supplement that is provided.

Questions and opinions abound concerning whether pasture management should emphasize

high utilization of pasture forage or increased pasture allocation, which can lead to increased amounts of refused forage and lower forage quality in subsequent rotations.

Grass-based dairy production involves a number of factors that producers try to manage: genetics, pasture quality, supplementation, management of pasture plants, nutrient cycling and stored feeds.

Over the years, many U.S. dairy farmers have probably grazed their dairy animals in an uncontrolled or continuous pasture system for a long time period. However, research has documented that pastures have higher quality forage and are more productive with rotational grazing management.

There are two types of grazing management: continuous or controlled.

Continuous grazing allows dairy animals to decide when and what to eat, and pastures are not divided into smaller paddocks.

Continuous grazing is a one-pasture system where livestock have unrestricted access to pastures throughout the grazing season.

Controlled grazing allows the farmer to manage and control pasture use.

Management intensive rotational grazing is a system with many paddocks where cattle move frequently from paddock to paddock based on forage

growth and use.

Managed grazing systems can maximize forage yields and animal productivity with properly developed rotational grazing systems. Table 1 compares the advantages and disadvantages of continuous grazing, management intensive rotational grazing and confinement sys-

tems.

Pasture-based dairying is not for all dairy producers. Some dairy producers have been grazing for many years, and many producers may graze heifers during the summer, only to become frustrated because pastures will not produce forage due to poorly managed pastures. Many peo-

ple will say “maybe� to the questions raised in the diagram. Grazing is a possible dairy management system for many dairy farmers, and we are very fortunate in the Upper Midwest that we have this management system available in most locations. Many people are willing to help producers transition to a sys-

tem of grazing dairy cows and heifers. If you need any help or would like to discuss grazing dairy cattle, please contact me at 320-589-1711 or hein0106 @umn.edu

Morris, Minnesota 56267

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 5D

Agricultural career opportunities abound A career in agriculture can prove richly rewarding. While it's common to envision overalls and tractors when imagining careers in agriculture, the opportunities to work in the agriculture industry stretch beyond the farm and into the corporate world. The following are a few of the paths men and women with a passion for agriculture can pursue.

• Business: Agriculture is big business, and the industry has many opportunities for those who want to pursue a career in business.

Farmers and producers of agricultural products need someone to draft contracts for their agreements with the large corporations who distribute those products.

In addition, purchasing agents and agricultural

financiers are just two of the many career opportunities that enable men and women to work on the business side of agriculture.

• S o c i a l s e r v i c e : The agricultural industry also has positions of social service. In addition to food inspector, who ensures agricultural products are safe for human consumption, social service posi-

tions within the agricultural industry include environmental consultant and conservation officer.

Men and women can also work to develop programs that encourage youngsters to pursue careers in the agricultural industry.

• Pro d u c t i o n : Of course, the agricultural industry has a host of careers for those who want to get their hands dirty.

Farms need to be plowed, seeds must be planted and fertilized and farms need to be well-maintained to continue operating efficiently and effectively.

Though technology has taken the place of many agricultural production positions, there are still many opportunities out there for those who want to work under the sun.

• E d u c a t i o n : Those

who want to share their love of agriculture with others can put their skills to work in the classroom.

Agricultural instructors can train the next generation of agriculture professionals at the university or high school level, ensuring today's farms are left in good hands tomorrow.

Challenges facing farmers today and tomorrow Though farming was once big business in the United States, by 2012 less than one percent of Americans were professional farmers. Many challenges face today's farmers, many of which are largely unknown to the general public.

Many people have an outdated view of a farm as a small, family-owned and operated parcel of land where livestock is raised in open pens and crops are hand-harvested when ripe.

The reality is that modernday farms have had to overhaul operations to meet demand and remain competitively priced while adapting to the ever-changing ways technology infiltrates all parts of life. Each of these factors present obstacles for today's farmers.

Te ch n o l o g y Rural farming communities are expected to make an effort to integrate modern technology into an industry that has been around for centuries. But such a transition in rural areas, where communica-

tions systems may not be as up-to-date as those in urban areas, is not always so easy.

According to the Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council, a shift from a resource-based to an information-based economy, compounded by the rapid introduction and expansion of new technology in the workplace, has altered farm operation and the skills in demand. Older workers who have been schooled in one way of agriculture may have a significant impact on labor supply and the vitality of farming as a career.

Younger adults who are knowledgeable in technology may no longer seek out agricultural careers.

D e c re a s e i n fa r m i n g a s a n o c c u p at i o n The United States Environmental Protection Agency said that only about 960,000 Americans claim farming as their principal occupation. As that figure has dwindled, the average age of farmers continues to rise, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics

notes that roughly 40 percent of the farmers in this country are 55 years old or older. This has led to concerns about the long-term health of family farms throughout the United States.

E nv i r o n m e n t a l c o n cer ns Many farmers have come under scrutiny for how farming impacts the environment. A growing emphasis on sustainability and conservation has led many people to protest certain farming practices.

Protesters claim that certain practices, such as raising livestock, can pollute water, while the use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides is bad for the environment. Many farmers, however, have altered their methods to be more environmentally friendly and self-sustainable in the process.

Climate change is

another environmental issue farmers must deal with. Strong storms and severe droughts have made farming even more challenging.

Financial fa l l - o u t The ongoing recession of the last half-decade has also affected farmers. In November of 2012, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that the unemployment rate within the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industries was at 13.6 percent, far higher than the national unemployment rate. As a result, many farm families have found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place, as rising costs for equipment and technology are being coupled with decreasing profits and rising unemployment.

Further complicating matters is competition from corporations and

international food producers who have made it difficult for family farmers to turn a significant profit.

Many family farmers rely on loans and lines of credit to survive, but thanks to changes in the financial sector that saw banks become less willing to extend lines of credit, some farmers are facing bankruptcy.

Though it can be easy

for those who do not work in the agricultural industry to overlook the struggles facing today's agricultural professionals, a greater understanding of those struggles and the challenges that lie ahead can benefit the industry and its employees down the road.

Page 6D - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Drought affecting corn crops prompts ethanol debate

Corn shortages are sparking debates as to whether corn should be used for fuel or food.

A drought that plagued most of the United States in the summer of 2012 decimated soybean and corn crops across America's heartland. According to Reuters, during the drought ratings for corn and soybeans fell to their lowest since the major drought of 1988 and major farm states, such as Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas, were not able to produce enough crop necessary to meet food and feed demands. To further exacerbate the shortage, the United States government still mandates that 42 percent of this year's crop be

turned into ethanol as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard adopted in 2005, angering some farmers.

Livestock producers who rely on corn for feed are angry that the mandate has not been modified in lieu of the record-breaking drought and shortages.

Corn prices already are at all-time highs, and requiring that 42 percent of the yield be relegated to fuel will considerably drive up the cost of the remaining corn. Not only will livestock farmers be affected but so will those who enjoy corn in everything from breads to cereals.

Consumers on limited

budgets may find corn is simply too expensive.

Ranchers and farmers are not the only ones hurting as a result of the corn shortage. The ethanol plants themselves are also feeling the crunch. A lack of corn means that many plants are remaining idle or not working at capacity.

Some plants are not breaking even in terms of operational costs, potentially costing individuals their jobs.

However, supporters of the ethanol requirement are concerned that removing the allotted ethanol amounts from fuel will further drive up the cost of

filling up at the pump.

Drivers have already experienced high gas prices and many are feeling the effect on their wallets. The result is a catch-22 where no one wins.

Despite the talks, some economists say that the ethanol mandate suspension may do little to lower the cost of corn.

Agricultural economist Scott Irwin from the University of Illinois said that because of the backlog of demand of corn for fuel, it would be a few months before any price change would reach the market.

Plus, the change would be nominal because it would

be hard to implement such widespread changes in corn for fuel consumption since the country has come to depend on a set amount.

High summertime temperatures combined with historically low rainfall totals this past season devastated many corn crops that would be put to use as animal feed and ethanol fuel. The debate over whether or not ethanol mandates should be temporarily ceased is bound to continue until corn supplies are replenished.

Nine trends you’ll see in agriculture G i l G u l l i ck s o n Crops Technology Editor for Successful Farming magazine/Agriculture.com A growing world population that wants (and can pay) for your products.

Non-traditional labor sources. And biological products that protect your crops from pests.

Those are just some of the agricultural trends you’ll see. Here’s a glance at these and other trends

discussed at this week’s Bayer Crop Science Ag Issues Forum that’s being held prior to the Commodity Classic in Kissimmee, Florida.

1.

There’s growing demand for what you grow.

Long-term, the world’s growing populations bodes well for products produced by farmers. “We need to increase food production by 70 percent to meet demand by 2050,” said David Hollinrake, Bayer CropScience vice president for agricultural commercial operations.

Much of this growing population will have the cash to pay for this food, too. “There is growing wealth,” said Hollinrake.

“As societies grow in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) what do they want to do?

They want to eat like us.”

2. Ag’s labor squeeze will prompt non-traditional talent searches.

“We are going to have to go to non-traditional universities rather than ag universities to look for talent,” said Hollinrake.

Later in the program, Rich Kottmeyer, senior executive and global agriculture and food production leader for Accenture,

theorized what the agricultural labor market would look like from a 2025 perspective.

“We saw movement of urban youth to the farm to supply farm labor,” he says. “They are more racially mixed, they are younger, and they come from an environment where for generations, people were away from the farm. It took some government action, foresight of some senators, but it was also really the private sector who said, ‘Wait a minute. If we can’t get labor from our sons and daughters, where do we go but to a population that is most in need of being rescued or being helped, and that was inner city youth.”

3. Biologics will be a new phase in agricultural technology.

“It will be the third leg of agricultural science, in addition to molecular biology and synthetic chemistry," said David Nicholson, who heads research and development for Bayer CropScience.

One example that Bayer has already launched is its Poncho Votivo seed treatment, which contains a natural bacterial strain that creates a living barrier around roots that prevents nematodes from causing damage.

Another bonus: Because biologics are naturally occurring products, their regulatory timeline is shorter than that of traditional chemistry.

Regulatory approval often

takes just two to three years for biologics, compared to 10 to 12 years for traditional chemistries, says Hollinrake.

4. Herbicide-resistant weeds will continue to spread.

Hollinrake said Bayer officials often field this farmer complaint: “I can’t control weeds I used to control two years ago.”

Hollinrake notes these farmers aren’t alone.

“Sixty-one million acres are infested with resistance,” said Hollinrake. “It is a trend that is here to stay.” That’s why Bayer is researching and marketing new products to help farmers deal with it, he says.

5. Traceability will increase.

“There will come a day when a consumer will walk into a grocery store, pick out a product, scan it, and be able to know where it was grown, what products were used to grow it, and if it satisfied what they are looking for,” said Hollinrake.

6. Farmers will have a CEO mentality.

“They will make decisions based on return on investment, where in the past, they might have made them based on lifestyle and relationship choice,” said Hollinrake.

7. Precision farming will switch from data collection to decision making.

Precision agricultural techniques like field mapping have farmers swimming in data. Hollinrake

sees an opportunity to take this data and transfer it into use for decision-making. “We want to be a leader in moving precision to decision,” he said.

“We are moving into the data-centric era,” added Nicholson. “There are huge amounts of data (being generated). People who will win are people who will be able to handle data best, and turn that information into knowledge.”

8. Crop technology will expand to enable plants to better endure abiotic stressors.

In the past, crop scientists have done a fantastic job of developing or helping plants kill insects, weeds or fungi, said Nicholson. “What we are now looking to do is to enhance plant health by protecting plant from nonliving stressors like heat or ultraviolet light,” he said.

9. You’ll continue to pay more for seed.

It costs seed and chemical companies big bucks and time to bring products to market. Here’s a few numbers that Hollinrake tossed out: • Average research and development costs for a crop production product to reach the market: $256 million.

• Time for one crop production product to reach the market: 10 years.

• Average research and development costs for a plant biotechnology trait that reaches the market: $136 million.

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 7D

Drought outlook improves; watching snow melt and flood risk M a rk S e e l e y , University of Minnesota Extension The area of Minnesota's landscape in severe to extreme drought diminished during February, dropping from 84 percent of the state's landscape to under 70 percent. This modest improvement was mostly due to above normal snowfall, especially across central and northern counties.

The new climate outlooks from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center suggest that, for much of March, the Great Lakes region will see abovenormal precipitation. This is welcome news in the context of improving our drought situation, especially if we can lose the soil frost as well so the ground is more receptive to moisture recharge. In some areas, frost depth ranges from 20 to 40 inches; this will take some time to thaw out.

One potential risk of a wetter-than-normal March

is the threat of flooding from snow melt. Last week, the National Weather Service updated the spring flood outlook for major Minnesota rivers. This new outlook calls for a near-normal risk of spring snow melt flooding on portions of the Upper Minnesota River, as well as the Upper Mississippi River. This is mostly due to more abundant snowfalls during February, along with deeper ground frost, which combined to elevate the risk of spring flooding from a below-normal level

to a near-normal level. You can read more about the spring flooding outlook and keep up to date here: http://1.usa.gov/VZTAQn Spring flood outlook probabilities for the Red River are also available from the Grand Forks NWS Office. These show a relatively higher risk of flooding on the lower end of the Red River Valley between Wapehton and Fargo, N.D. You can get more detail at: http://1.usa.gov/YPUb69 The higher risk of flooding along the Red

River is because the abundant snow cover already contains two to five inches of liquid water trapped on top of frozen ground there.

A rapid thaw could cause a great volume of runoff before the soils are capable of absorbing the moisture.

If this situation develops and is further compounded by heavy March rainfalls, then indeed this area of the state could see some moderate to major flooding. Thus state and federal agencies will monitor the gauged flow volumes on the rivers, as well as the

weather very carefully during the month of March.

Visit www.extension. umn.edu/extreme-weather for related educational information on drought and winter impacts. Visit climate.umn.edu for more information from the University of Minnesota's climatology working group.

Mark Seeley is a climatologist with University of Minnesota Extension.

Maps reveal new plant hardiness zones Gardeners rely on a number of factors when deciding on what to plant in their gardens and around their properties.

One of the most important things to take into consideration is the climate.

Since 1960, the go-to source for climate and relation to agriculture has been the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Plant Hardiness Zone map.

In 1967, Agriculture Canada developed their own map that took into consideration Canadian plant survival data and a wider range of climatic variables.

The maps remained constant until now.

In January 2012, the USDA released an updated zone map. The map is now more precise and reflects microclimates, heat islands, prevailing wind, elevation and generally better data. It breaks down the country into 13 unique zones from the previous 11.

Individuals who once resided in a particular zone may find that they are now moved into another zone. This updated map has taken into consideration climate changes that have occurred between 1976 and 2005. You now may be able to try plants that you may have been skeptical about in the past.

The new map now offers

a Geographic Information System, or GIS, -based, interactive format and is specifically designed to be internet friendly. The map website also incorporates a "find your zone by ZIP code" function. Static images of national, regional and state maps have also been included to ensure the map is readily accessible to those who lack broadband internet access.

The new version of the map includes 13 zones, with the addition for the first time of zones 12 (50-60

degrees F) and 13 (60-70 degrees F). Each zone is a 10-degree Fahrenheit band, further divided into A and B 5-degree Fahrenheit zones.

A hardiness zone describes a geographically-defined area in which a specific category of plant life is capable of growing, as defined by climatic conditions, including its ability to withstand the minimum temperatures of the zone. Summer temperatures are not factored into the mix. Therefore, areas

with similar winter patterns and average lows may be in the same zone despite having drastically different highs. Hardiness zones may not take into consideration snow cover, either. Snow helps insulate the soil and hibernating plants. Therefore hardiness zones are more like guidelines instead of foolproof methods of determining viable plants.

Although a poster-sized version of this map will not be available for purchase from USDA, as in the

past, anyone may download the map free of charge from the internet onto their personal computer and print copies of the map as needed.

When shopping for plants, most will display a hardiness zone right on the container to help you determine whether this particular plant will be acceptable outdoors in your zone. To learn more about hardiness zones, visit www.usda.gov or http://planthardiness.gc.c a.

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - NEWS

Page 8D - Saturday, March 9, 2013

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Minnesota budget concerns drive ag bill topics M i k ke l P a t e s Agweek Minnesota’s budget concerns are the overarching factor in agriculture-related legislation for the 2013 session. Gov. Mark Dayton and legislators are working to eliminate a $1.1 billion budget deficit, based on November 2012 forecasts.

This year’s Legislature convened Jan. 8. Both the Minnesota Farmers Union and the Minnesota Farm Bureau have been active throughout the first six weeks.

The Legislature will work on its own budget, which will be based on the February forecast, set to be released in mid-March.

“One of the big things we’re looking at right now is the impact of the governor’s proposal to increase the sales tax base on more goods and services,” says Chris Radatz, MFB’s policy team director.

Dayton proposed cutting the state rate from 6.875 percent to 5.5 percent, but applying it to a wider number of services, including legal, accounting, environmental consulting, crop consulting and labor on farm machin-

ery repair. “Now that we have more of the details, we’re examining it to see what the impact is for Minnesota farmers and ranchers,” Radatz said.

Thom Petersen, director of government relations for the MFU, says his organization is studying the tax bill and will decide whether to support it, but likely will raise concerns about things such as new taxes on crop consulting.

“We haven’t come to a conclusion yet on the overall bill and we’re looking at the grand scheme of what we’re going to support on a tax basis,” Petersen said, noting that property tax limits likely will be accompanied by increases in other taxes.

Both the MFB and the MFU have wanted to make sure that money in the Agricultural Growth Research and Innovation Program will go toward agricultural programming. The $10 million appropriations formerly had been targeted for ethanol producer payments. The payments ran for 10 years, but expired during the past biennium.

Petersen says his organization wants the funds in next-generation biofuels,

livestock investment grants or rural development.

Among a g - re l at e d bills in Minnesota: •HF 632 — Forever green agriculture. This bill appropriates $1.4 million each for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, running through June 30 of each year. The bill allows the University of Minnesota to study the increased incorporation of perennial and winterannual crops into existing agricultural practices. It was introduced Feb. 18.

•HF 473 — Minnesota Department of Agriculture appropriation.

This bill appropriates $40.447 million each year in 2014 and 2015 for the MDA, the Board of Animal Health and the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute. It modifies provisions related to animal waste technicians and includes $10.2 million each year for grants through AGRIP. Bioenergy companies and service providers can qualify.

The bill had its first reading Feb. 11 and is in the House Agriculture Policy Committee. Radatz said his organization is pleased that key programs

in the MDA budget involving food inspection, food safety and consumer protection programs were protected. Petersen is also grateful that Dayton didn’t propose cuts to agriculture.

•HF 407 — This bill puts $2 million from AGRIP into annual appropriation. It would be split into $500,000 for the Agricultural Utilization and Research Institute; $500,000 for Minnesota Agriculture Education Leadership Council for grants to restart high school agriculture education programs; $200,000 to the Minnesota Extension Service for 4-H; $800,000 to the commissioner of agriculture to put $200,000 each into the Center for Rural Policy and Development, “Farmamerica,” a state agricultural interpretive center, Minnesota FFA and the Minnesota Agriculture and Rural Leadership Program. It was introduced Feb. 7 and is now in the Agriculture Policy Committee. This conflicts with MFU’s preference to have that money available in general categories in the MDA and under competitive grants.

•HF 349 — Biofuel

blender pump cost-share grants. The bill was introduced Feb. 4 and is in the House Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Finance Committee. It appropriates $200,000 each for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to allow the MDA to reimburse gas station owners for up to 75 percent of the cost of installing a biofuel blender pump, up to $20,000 per pump. Both MFU and MFB are in favor of it.

•HF 251 — This bill would extend the FarmerLender Mediation Act through fiscal year 2018.

The bill passed the House 124-5 on Feb. 14 and on Feb. 18, was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Senate’s Jobs, Agriculture and Rural Development Committee.

•HF 230 — Industrial hemp development. This bill provides for regulation, possession and cultivation of industrial hemp.

Radatz says the bill is a perennial effort that faces difficulties in complying with federal laws.

•HF 151 — Pesticide gross sales fee increase.

The fees would increase with a temporary .1 percent surcharge through

calendar year 2017. The money would be dedicated to updating pesticide applicator education and certification. MFU is supporting the bill, but Petersen says fees will be removed.

•HF 66 — Drainage law changes.

The House Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee passed this bill, which makes changes recommended by a drainage work group. It clarifies the transfer of drainage system records between a county and a watershed district when drainage authority is transferred and enables re-establishment of drainage system records that are lost or destroyed.

MFB has legislative visit days scheduled — March 5 for members in the northern part of the state and March 19 for members in the south-central and southwest regions, Radatz said.

Petersen expects there will be a bill to repeal wolf hunting in the state and that his organization will oppose it.

Hiring expert help Growing complexity and volatility in agriculture is causing some landowners, especially ones with limited ag knowledge, to hire a professional farm manager. Farmers have a mixed view of that.

Jo n at h a n K nu t s o n Agweek It’s been a staple of agriculture in the Upper Midwest: direct negotiations between owners of farmland and producers who want to farm it.

The practice is far from dead, but as agriculture continues to evolve, the use of professional farm managers, once confined

primarily to the Corn Belt, is expanding across the Northern Plains, officials say.

Though hard statistics are tough to come by, “There’s definitely more of it in the region,” said Brian Stockman, executive vice president of the Denver-based American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.

Two main factors are

responsible: • Agriculture is increasingly volatile and complicated, and more landlords are deciding they lack the knowledge to manage the land themselves.

• More landowners today have little, if any, direct connection with agriculture or farming.

Often, though not always, they’re the descendents of people who quit farming

decades ago. Sometimes the owners recently bought the land as an investment and have no other ties to ag.

“I think it (the use of professional farm managers) has the most appeal for people who are in the dark about agriculture,” says Andy Swenson, farm management specialist with the North Dakota State University Extension Service. “And by that, I mean people who don’t have much knowledge of farming today.”

Farmers, for their part, have mixed views on land-

lords using professional farm managers.

“That’s not a relationship most farmers would treasure,” said Brad Thykeston, a Portland, N.D., farmer and president of the North Dakota Grain Growers Association.

“We’d like the personal relationship, the one-onone relationship (between farmer and landlord).

Hopefully, that would be advantageous to both parties.”

On the other hand, “I can understand it from a landowner perspective when they get several gen-

erations (removed) from farming,” said Ryan McCormick, a Kremlin, Mont., farmer and president of the Montana Grain Growers Association.

McCormick, who rents a large amount of land himself, says he personally isn’t seeing more use of professional farm managers. He thinks that may be because much of Montana was homesteaded only a century ago, and that many landlords, even ones who no longer farm, remain close to agriculture.

Continued on page 10D

Morris, Minnesota 56267

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - NEWS

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 9D

Shortchanging ag research?

Too little money is being invested globally in agricultural research, experts say. Serious questions have been raised about whether the world can increase food production sufficiently to meet burgeoning demand.

Jo n at h a n K nu t s o n AgWeek Catherine Woteki, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientist, sees two powerful trends that both connect and conflict: • Global population and food needs are soaring, and the world will need to produce roughly as much food in the next 50 years as has been consumed since civilization began.

• U.S. public sector spending on agricultural research is flat — going backward, actually, when inflation is factored in.

“For much of the last two decades, we’ve had really a stagnant level of investment,” Woteki said.

“In the last couple of years, we’ve had a decrease that’s been very substantial.

“We are at a very critical time,” she said.

She’s not alone in that judgment.

A wide range of experts, including the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, say public spending on ag research is at worrisomely low levels.

The “nation’s agricultural research enterprise is not prepared to meet the challenges that U.S. agriculture faces in the 21st century,” according to the Presidential Council’s December 2012 report, which concluded that the federal government needs to increase ag research investments by $700 million per year. The federal government spends roughly $4 billion a year on ag research now.

Federal budget problems could torpedo any such increase and even cut into existing spending, many in agriculture worry.

“It’s a concern,” said Erik Younggren, a Hallock, Minn., farmer and president of the National Association of Wheat Growers.

Some other developed countries also are scaling back on public sector spending on ag research, when inflation is considered, says Philip Pardey.

Pardey, a professor of applied economics and director of the International Science and Technology Practice and Policy Center, both at the University of Minnesota, has studied world agricultural research and develop-

ment for 25 years.

“My sense is we’re not heading for a calamity, but there is cause for concern,” he said. Growing population — the world is expected to add 2 billion people by 2050 — is only part of it. Hundreds of millions of people globally will move into the middle class in coming years, and their food needs will grow.

The combination of more people and the growing middle class is expected to increase world food needs by 70 to 100 percent by 2050.

On the production side, water scarcity and limited ability to bring new farmland into production are huge concerns, experts say.

R e a s o n s fo r o p t i m i s m There are some encouraging developments in global spending on ag research.

One bright spot is private sector spending. It rose to $11 billion in 2010 from $5.6 billion in 1994 — an annual growth rate of 1.4 percent after inflation is factored in, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service. The most rapid growth came in crop seed and biotechnology traits.

The United States leads the world in private sector spending on ag research, accounting for more than one-third of the world total.

But some of the money spent by U.S. companies is for ag research that will be applied outside the country, Pardey said.

Also, much of the private-sector spending is for research on food processing, not food production, he and other experts note.

Another reason for optimism, at least from a global perspective, is the fact that several countries, most notably China and India, are stepping up public sector spending on ag research.

China has even surpassed the U.S. In 1960, the U.S. led the world with $1.2 billion of public spending on ag research, triple the $433 million of China, which ranked second. In 2009, China led the world with $5.8 billion, topping the $4.5 billion spent by the second-place U.S. Of course, as experts point out, America’s competitive advantage in ag lessens when other coun-

tries outspend it on ag research. Fifty years ago, America accounted for 21 percent of global public sector spending on ag research. Today, the U.S. share is only 13 percent, according to information from Pardey.

And there is a third reason for optimism about spending on research.

There are indications, not yet supported by hard data, that some of the world’s poorest countries are beginning to spend more on ag research, says Nienke Beintema, head of the Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators initiative for the International Food Policy Research Institute, based in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, such increases are coming after many years of limited spending and a great deal of catching up is needed, she said.

W h y n o t m o re s p e n ding?

A number of factors are working against spending on ag research. The biggest may be complacency, at least in the United States.

“We have the most productive agricultural system in the world,” said Ken Grafton, vice president for agricultural affairs at North Dakota State University and a former plant breeder.

“I suspect people become a little complacent,” he said.

The United States hasn’t had food shortages since the Dust Bowl (in the 1930s), and many Americans take a stable food supply for granted, Woteki says.

Spending on ag research also can be a hard sell to policymakers because the spending can take years to pay off, experts say.

By some estimates, a minimum of 10 years is needed before ag research begins to pay for itself. By other estimates, as many 50 years are required before its full benefits are achieved.

Ag research has been referred to as “slow magic,” the benefits of which don’t occur right away, then endure for many years.

But, $1 spent on ag research typically results in at least $10 of economic benefits, according to the Presidential Council’s

report on ag research.

Nonetheless, that slow payback can be daunting to policymakers, especially ones in poor countries, Beintema said.

Investing in schools, roads and clinics, rather than ag research, may seem more prudent, she said.

Public sector spending on ag research in the U.S. also is hampered because it’s not always a priority for farmers and farm groups, Pardey said.

“There’s a lot of rhetoric” about the need for spending on ag research.

But producers often place much greater emphasis on securing funding for programs such as federal crop insurance, he said.

P r iv a t e s e c t o r s p e n d ing Spending by private companies, often in collaboration with universities, is growing.

Monsanto, the agribusiness giant, in 2011 gave more than $21 million to 146 universities nationwide for research, licensing agreements, field trials and scholarships, among other things, according to the company.

Last September, Monsanto announced a partnership in wheat breeding with North Dakota State University.

Both Grafton and Connie Armentrout, Monsanto’s director of academic licensing, says the partnership, though still in its early stages, is going well for NDSU and Monsanto.

To be successful, such partnerships “have to bring value to both parties,” Armentrout said.

Grafton says the wheatbreeding partnership with Monsanto draws on the strengths of both organizations.

The number of private and public partnerships at land-grant universities probably will continue to grow as less federal money for ag research becomes

available, Grafton said.

“The underlying principle of land-grant universities is improving society.

As long as we don’t lose sight of that, I don’t think it (collaboration) is problematic. That’s my own personal opinion,” he said.

Grafton adds that state government financial support for ag research is unusually strong in North Dakota.

The public sector’s role in ag research remains vital, Woteki said.

Public spending on ag research focuses on fundamental, long-term needs, with companies building on that research, she says.

That’s true globally, too, Pardey said.

Private-sector spending is concentrated on a handful of crops, particularly corn and soybeans, Pardey and others said.

Some people wonder if private companies will cut back on spending for ag research if crop prices fall sharply.

“I hope we don’t have to find that out,” Armentrout said.

But whatever happens with crop prices, “We’re always looking for ways to meet farmers’ needs,” she said. ‘ M a i n t e n a n c e s p e n ding’ By all accounts, ag research is costly.

Ag research, particularly when it’s directed to production, “costs more dollars than it used to. It’s just like farming. Producers have to spend more money on their operations,” said Don Tanaka, a retired soil scientist who spent more than 20 years with the USDA Agricultural Research Service station in Mandan, N.D. So-called “maintenance spending” is part of the reason.

“You have to invest to maintain past gains, as well as to promote future gains,” Pardey said.

For instance, crop diseases such as stem rust in

wheat can hammer yields, reducing or even eliminating yield gains achieved from earlier research.

Unless time and money is invested to battle those crop diseases, those past gains will be lost, Pardey said.

Maintenance spending can account for as much as 40 to 60 percent of all spending on ag research, according to estimates.

B r i n g i n g i n yo u n g bl o o d Many ag researchers, both in the United States and other countries, are nearing retirement age, experts said.

Attracting talented young scientists to ag research can be difficult in poor countries, where other types of research may be more profitable and seem more exciting, Beintema said.

Bringing in a new generation of ag researchers is important in the United States, too, and funding is the key, Woteki said.

“It’s a truism in the scientific community. If there is funding for research, you’ll be able to attract good people to work on those problems,” she says.

Breakthroughs achieved by a new generation of ag researchers would help a new generation of farmers, Pardey said.

Unless spending on ag research increases, “The sons of today’s farmers will bear the brunt of these bad decisions,” he said.

Because the United States did a good job of ag research for many decades, U.S. agriculture can temporarily withstand recent spending cuts, Pardey says.

“We were doing pretty well until 10 or 15 years ago. We had a big stock of knowledge. You can nibble on that. But eventually it (not spending enough) catches up on you,” he said.

Page 10D - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - NEWS

Morris, Minnesota 56267

Expert help Continued from page 8D To be sure, there are no hard statistics to document the trend, which is stronger in some parts of the region than others.

For instance, “We may be seeing a little more of it in central Minnesota. But not much,” said Dan Martens, extension agent in Morrison County.

Landlords in his area generally live close to their land and retain close ties to ag, he said.

Fa i r t o b o t h p a r t i e s ?

Fair or not, professional farm managers don’t always have a good reputation among farmers.

Farm managers generally receive a percentage, typically 7 to 10 percent, of the deal they negotiate for farmers. For instance, a farm management firm that receives an 8 percent fee would collect $8 per acre on a parcel of farmland that rents for $100 per acre.

As a result, some farmers complain privately that professional farm managers are interested only in securing the highest possible rental rate for farmland they represent, thus maximizing their own income.

“They (farmers) think we’re trying to take advantage of them, trying to make money off them,” said Mark Nothwehr, a principal partner of Midwest Land Management and Real Estate in Spencer, Iowa.

His company operates in Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota and Illinois.

But managers at his company “have farm back-

grounds. We try to be fair to both parties,” Nothwehr said.

F i d u c i a ry d u t y Professional farm management companies have what’s called a fiduciary duty to their clients. That means the firms have a legal responsibility to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own.

That doesn’t necessarily mean taking the highest bid, said John Botsford, principal of Red River Valley Land Co. in Grand Forks, N.D. “The highest bid isn’t always the bid you want,” he said. “There’s always a range at the top that’s acceptable,” and sometimes it’s best to accept an offer within that range “from a producer you know that’s solid and will care for the land.

“The most important decision we make is who to put on the farm (as a tenant),” Botsford said.

His company asks potential clients a series of questions about their property.

“Is it tilled? Is it in CRP (Conservation Reserve Program)? Is it in a lease?

What are the terms? We do a review,” he said.

The review takes into account “overriding family considerations” such as whether the land has been rented to relatives or neighbors, and whether the landlord wants that to continue, he said.

“We take direction from our clients,” Botsford said.

“We try to put ourselves in their shoes.”

Not all farm management companies use the same approach, Nothwehr

said.

“There are different ways of doing things,” and landlords need to understand in advance the strategy that their farm management company will employ, he says.

L a n d l o rd s ’ p e rs p e ct iv e A landlord, before negotiating personally with a tenant or hiring a farm manager to do it, should do some serious thinking, Martens said.

“You need to identify your goals and objectives and values as a person or as a family,” he said.

“You need to know what kind of relationship you want to have with the farmer. You need to know what kind of relationship you’ll have with the farm management firm.”

Martens compares a professional farm manager to a car mechanic.

Some people want the mechanic to handle everything and won’t ask any questions about repairing the car. Other people prefer to ask a lot of questions about what repairs are made, and why, he said.

Whether it’s a mechanic or farm manager, “Do you just want to put yourself in this person’s hands, no questions asked?” Martens said.

He also suggests that landlords ask themselves this question about hiring a farm manager: “Will that person and that firm continue to do things the way I’d want them to be done?”

N ew vo l a t i l i t y There’s

g e n e rations, no

mystery

about why professional farm managers are becoming more popular, Stockman said.

“Part of it is just the natural evolution of society,” he says. “Part of it is the volatility (in modern agriculture).”

When a family quits farming, ownership of its land typically becomes more diffuse over time, Stockman said.

Land that once was owned by a single farmer often passes to his children and then to their children, he said.

“You have one owner, then two, then six. It becomes kind of difficult to manage. One of the best ways to do that is to hire a farm management firm,” he said.

Sometimes those descendents live far from the land they own.

Sometimes they continue to live near it, farm managers say.

Even current owners who live near the land may “not be in the loop. They’re not close to the local ag world,” Botsford said.

Landowners of all ages and educational levels can benefit from professional help, farm managers say.

Botsford says his company represents “a number of younger, astute clients.” Agriculture, however, “is outside their normal world. They need guidance from someone who’s close to the marketplace.”

Farm managers also cite volatility in agriculture as a reason their services are in growing demand.

For instance, a recent survey by North Dakota farm managers and rural

appraisers found that average land values in the state rose a whopping 46 percent from 2011 to 2012.

So much volatility persuades some landlords, especially ones with no current ties to ag, to seek professional assistance, Stockman said.

“Grandpa had this land with the same guy (farmer or tenant) for 20 years. It may be the best deal going, it may not. They just don’t know,” he said. “People want to know if they’re getting the best rate.”

‘A r m ’s - l e n g t h re l ationship’ Farm managers also say that some landlords turn to them because they don’t want the stress or hassle of negotiating directly with a tenant.

“They want to take the family stress out of it,” Stockman said.

In some cases, a landlord wants to stick with the same tenant. But they decide “we need a third party to negotiate for us so we have an arm’s-length relationship,” Botsford said.

Even some landlords who have a good relationship with the tenant want third-party help, Nothwehr said.

“Sometimes it’s hard to keep it on the business level. You want to be fair to them (the tenant), but what is the fair price? A third party can come in and make it fair to both parties,” he said.

There also are times when professional farm managers “take accounts over that are so distorted that there’s some animosity created,” Botsford said.

In some cases, a new tenant might be the best choice, he said.

S p re a d i n g o u t It’s unclear how many acres of U.S. farmland are managed by professional farm mangers. But members of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers handle more than 25 million acres of farm and ranch land for absentee landlords, bank trust departments, foundations, nonprofit organizations and investors.

Farm managers provide a wide range of duties, including selecting a tenant, recommending a specific lease and handling paperwork. They’ll also market the commodity raised on the farm or ranch, if the landowner is paid with a share of the crop rather than cash.

Typically, managers charge a higher fee when they provide more services.

At one time, professional farm managers were most common with highvalue farmland in the Corn Belt, Nothwehr said.

But the use of farm managers continues to spread to land that’s less fertile than what’s found in the Corn Belt, he and others say.

“I think it’s a business that will continue to grow,” Nothwehr said.

Morris, Minnesota 56267

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - Page 11D

Farmer participation key to creating agricultural biomass markets J o e l Ta l l a k s e n, University of Minnesota West Central Research and Outreach Center In a study commissioned by the United States Department of Agriculture, it was estimated that the U.S. could produce one billion tons of biomass (primarily corn stover and wheat straws) to replace 30 percent of our annual consumption of petroleum.

A large amount of forestry biomass is already used for heat, steam and electric power in many facilities throughout the United States. The report found that agricultural biomass is under-utilized and could provide over 700 million tons of material annually to meet this one billion ton goal. The USDA study assumed that almost all

farmers would be willing to harvest biomass and sell it to fill the needs for biomass based transportation fuels.

While there are questions about whether agricultural lands can support harvesting those quantities of biomass and the logistics of handling a large volume of biomass, a key question is whether farmers are interested in supplying this biomass.

Farmers need to carefully decide whether they want to use their time, energy and fields to produce biomass. Without farmer support, biomass will not be a viable market for agriculture.

Studies in other states have examined farmer interest in participating in biomass markets. They found interest varied regionally and that farm-

Farmers Interest in Supplying agricultural Biomass to Bioenergy Markets

ers in some areas had significantly higher interest in selling biomass than others.

Because of the interest in biomass energy in Minnesota, we felt it was important to identify whether farmers in this region wanted to sell biomass from their lands. In April of 2012, the West Central Research and Outreach Center sent surveys to farmers throughout Minnesota asking them about their intentions of selling biomass should there be a market for it. The study, conducted with support from the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute and The Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council, also looked at what factors would influence their decisions to be part of the biomass market place.

As expected, the results indicate that farmers’ interest in selling their biomass varied considerably, between being very interested and not at all interested.

Statewide, around 40 percent responded that they were interested or very interested in selling biomass versus roughly 20 percent indicating they were not interested or not at all interested.

When asked what factors influenced their level of

The Level of Importance of Several Factors in Farmers’ Decisions to Harvest Biomass

interest, the most important was maintaining soil quality. Added income was one of the least important considerations.

As with other studies, there were differences in the average levels of interest between regions of the state. Those in the northwest were slightly more interested in the possibility of selling biomass than those in the south or southeast. This information is

important for groups considering where they could locate a crop residue-based biomass energy facility in Minnesota to provide them with the largest biomass supply.

A number of additional questions were asked to help identify the types and quantities of biomass farmers might have available. We were also interested in what additional information farmers felt

they needed to assist them in making the decision whether or not to participate in biomass markets.

With this data, we target our research, outreach, and education efforts towards those areas. The final report for this work is being completed right now and should be available on the Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council and AURI website in the near future.

Page 12D - Saturday, March 9, 2013

MORRIS SUN TRIBUNE - FARM

Morris, Minnesota 56267

These area businesses support our local farmers with pride!

STEVENS SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 12 Hwy. 28 East • Suite 2 • Morris

(320) 589-4886

519 Atlantic Avenue, Morris

202 East 7th St., Morris

320-589-9060

2 6 4 0 6 4 7 0 t h Ave nu e • M o r r i s

(320) 589-2972

(320) 392-3143

HANCOCK CO-OP, INC. FERTILIZER & FEED

520 County Road 9

West Central Environmental Consultants, Inc.

14 Green River Road, Morris

Holloway

(320) 589-2039

(320) 392-5291

Gainn a sensee off security withh thee right insurancee forr yourr farm, crops,, auto,, orr home..

Juanita Staples • Lonnie Anderson

966 6th St., Hancock

320-392-5609

355 Atlantic Avenue, Hancock

Insurance and Travel

621 Pacific Avenue, Morris

(320) 589-0111

(320) 589-2442

320.324.7461 313 Main Street, Alberta

“For all of your dirt work needs.”

I N C

FLATEN SANDBLASTING & PAINT

TONY & ANDREW MESSNER

Herman

320-677-2345

Environment Control Systems 170 So. Cty. Rd. 22, Morris

(320) 589-3865

18365 490th Ave., Morris

320-392-5496 38499 County Rd. 2, Hancock, MN 56244 FAX: 320-392-6339

Hancock, MN

Your Full Service Plumbing & Heating Company

Agralite Electric Cooperative

MOHR Plumbing & Heating of Morris

320.589.1006 Owned and operated by Phil Harpstead

320-815-4468 Blake Flaten, Owner

Hwy 9. South • Morris

320 Hwy. 12 East, Benson, MN 320-843-4150

Needham Plumbing, LLC 712 ATLANTIC AVENUE, MORRIS

(320) 589-3964

STARBUCK, MN Herman • 677-2251 ~ Donnelly • 246-3239 Morris • 589-1581 ~ Chokio • 324-7451 Fergus Falls •218-736-3297

320-239-2677 www.meixeltrucksales.com

Graceville #061981-PM

(320) 748-7174

RILEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION

24 E. 7th St., Morris • 320-589-4008

46369 208th St., Morris

589-2500

www.PrairieHealth.org

23 East 6th Street, Morris • 589-3434

HERMAN • 320-677-2255

4 Atlantic Ave., Morris

(320) 585-5555

589-2331

Hwy 28 West Morris

MORRIS AREA SCHOOLS

Prairie Lakes Co-op

201 So. Columbia Ave. Morris

Cyrus, Hoffman, Lowry, Starbuck

(320) 589-4840

601 Atlantic Avenue • Morris

(320) 589-3933

800-808-1626 www.prairielakescoop.com

Locations: Elbow Lake, Morris, Ashby, Evansville & Hoffman

210 South Hwy 9, Morris (320) 589-1010 www.valuford.com

MICHAELSON SERVICES Owner: Tim Michaelson * Trees * Snow Removal * Metal Recycling 320-589-1664 • 320-808-7093 1627 State Hwy 329, Morris, MN 56267