Beef - General

It’s Time to Break Up with the Bad Employee

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 20:37:32 GMT

Having the right employees on your team is essential to keeping the farm running smoothly. Yet in many cases, workers are hired to fill an urgent labor gap and aren’t given the training or resources they need to succeed. When that happens, even well‑intentioned employees may struggle to fit the role or the team—ultimately leading to a labor “breakup.”

Jorge Delgado, a training and talent development specialist with Alltech, says the reluctance to address these situations is often emotional and more costly than managers realize. In a recent conversation, he compared it to staying in a romantic relationship long after it is clear it is not working.

Why Do Farms Struggle to Let Go?

For many farm owners, the biggest barrier to firing a poor-fit employee is fear.

“One fear that many farmers have is that they are not going to be able to find another employee to replace the person they are letting go,” Delgado explains.

This fear intensifies in specialized roles where skills are harder to find.

“This can especially be true for middle management positions,” Delgado adds. “These are more technical positions, and it can be really hard to find people to fill that role. Sometimes, that makes management hesitate to get rid of that person, even though it’s hurting production and numbers at the farm.”

Family and social ties on the farm add another complication. Delgado says it’s not uncommon for employees to be related, or tightly connected, to others on the crew.

“Sometimes these guys, they have family involved,” he adds. “The owners or managers are afraid that if they let go of oner person, these guys will take their family or friends with them.”

The result is a kind of emotional hostage situation. Even when the employee clearly doesn’t fit the culture or role, management feels stuck, hoping the situation will somehow improve on its own.

Have Clear Expectations

Many employee challenges on farms can be traced back to what did or did not happen on the first day of work. Delgado says problems often begin long before performance issues show up, simply because expectations were never clearly laid out.

“You have to have rules and regulations really clear and established on a far,” Delgado says. “Most of the farmers hire people on the spot, get them trained and get them going. These people don’t necessarily go through a formal onboarding process where they go through the expectations, the rules and regulations, and so they don’t know anything about it.”

When those expectations are never clearly explained, performance conversations and eventual terminations can feel unfair on both sides. Employees feel blindsided, and managers feel frustrated. In many cases, the breakdown started on the first day the employee walked onto the farm.

He also stresses the value of doing basic reference checks before hiring, an often-skipped step in agriculture.

“Sometimes we just hire the individual that is right at the door, and we don’t do any research,” Delgado says. “But that research can be an early sign that this individual is not the right fit for my culture.”

The Three-Strike Approach

Before any tough decision is made, farmers need a clear framework for addressing performance issues. Delgado recommends a structured, professional process—one that gives employees fair warning while protecting the farm.

He suggests a simple three-strike policy:

Verbal warning - Delgado stresses that this first step should be a clear, calm and deliberate conversation. The manager needs to sit down with the employee and explain exactly what behavior or performance issue needs to change, why it matters to the operation and what improvement looks like.

He encourages farmers to avoid vague statements like “you need to do better” and instead focus on specific, measurable expectations. The employee should leave the conversation knowing precisely what needs to change and the timeframe to correct it.

Written warning - If the issue continues after the verbal warning, Delgado says it is time to move to formal documentation. This step should be more structured and intentional, signaling to the employee that the concern is serious and must be addressed.

“You need to sit down with the person and explain what’s going on,” Delgado says. “It becomes more structuralized, because the person and both parties should sign a document saying, ‘Look, this is the second time you did this, and these are going to be the consequences if you do it for the third time.’”

Termination -If the behavior does not change after verbal and written warnings, Delgado says it is time to part ways. By this point, the employee has been given clear expectations, opportunities to improve, and formal notice that the issue is serious.

Delgado encourages farmers to handle this step professionally and directly. The conversation should be private, respectful and brief. The manager should clearly state that the employee is being let go, reference the previous warnings, and avoid turning the meeting into a debate or long explanation.

Watch for Red Flags

Every farm has its own internal culture. Employees work closely together, talk with one another and often recognize problems long before management does.

“In this small circle, things travel fast, especially trouble,” Delgado says. “When there is a person who is not behaving properly or doing something wrong, the team will try to get rid of this person. And the first sign is they will communicate with management.”

Delgado adds that the mistake many managers make is brushing off those early comments or complaints. When multiple employees start raising concerns about the same person, it is often an early warning sign that something is not working and needs attention before it affects the whole crew.

“Many times, the managers avoid these signs,” Delgado say. “They think, ‘Just let it go. Everything’s fine. We’ll take care of this later’ and they totally avoid the problem. By the time they realize it is a big issue, it’s too late.”

Common red flags include chronic lateness, cutting corners, skipping protocols and poor communication. These patterns aren’t only unprofessional, but they can create extra work and frustration for the dependable employees.

“At some point you have to say, ‘What’s going on here?’” Delgado notes. “Don’t ignore the red flags and sweep them under the rug.”

When You Have to Fire on the Spot

Not every situation needs to follow a step-by-step process. Sometimes, inappropriate behavior or actions require immediate dismissal.

“Sometimes you have to get rid of somebody on the spot,” Delgado says. “For example, someone mistreating animals, damaging equipment, mistreating coworkers, stealing or causing serious disruption needs to be let go of immediately. When behavior like drugs, alcohol, sexual harassment or anything else begins to change the culture and environment of the farm, there are no second chances.”

In these cases, keeping the wrong person sends the wrong message to the rest of the team. It makes it look like serious issues can be overlooked or tolerated. It creates frustration for employees who follow the rules, do their jobs well and expect the same standards from others.

Check In, Listen and Make Employees Feel Valued

Preventing tough breakups with employees starts well before any termination talk. Regular check-ins—both formal and informal—can catch small issues before they grow into major problems.

“Formal reviews need to be mandatory,” Delgado says. “But they often aren’t regular. Also, survey your culture. Anonymous surveys usually get people to speak up, and you’ll learn a lot about the reality of your team and the culture.”

One simple question he likes to ask employees is: Would you recommend a friend or family member to work here?

“If the answer is no, something is off,” he adds. “You need to fix that now rather than dealing with the fallout later and having to let too many people go.”

Beyond systems and surveys, many farm employees simply don’t feel valued.

“Ask an employee what their role is, and they often say, ‘I just do ‘fill in the blank’” Delgado says. “They don’t see the big picture, and it’s our job to make them feel relevant.”

That means communicating mission, purpose and appreciation—much like in a healthy marriage.

“If you aren’t telling your spouse you appreciate them, you can’t be surprised when the relationship fails if you only point out the negatives,” he adds

Breaking Up the Right Way

Running a farm isn’t just about managing equipment, crops and livestock. It also means managing people. And while you can’t control every employee’s choice, you can:

Set clear expectations from day one
Document verbal and written warnings
Pay attention to the “inner community” of employees
Use reviews and surveys to monitor morale and culture
Communicate how valuable and relevant your team members are

And when it becomes clear that someone isn’t a fit, you owe it to your business and your team to act.

White House Drops Reciprocal Tariffs on Fertilizer, Other Ag Products Not Produced in the U.S.

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 23:50:06 GMT

President Trump signed an Executive Order Friday afternoon that modifies the scope of the reciprocal tariffs he first announced on April 2, 2025. The Executive Order now exempts several agricultural products from tariffs, including fruit, coffee and fertilizer.

In a fact sheet released Nov. 14, 2025, the administration says President Trump has determined that “certain qualifying agricultural products will no longer be subject to those tariffs, such as certain food not grown in the United States.”

This is good news for farmers, as certain qualifying agricultural products will no longer be subject to those tariffs, including fertilizer. However, the announcement could open the door for more beef imports, as the move also gets rid of reciprocal tariffs on beef.

The document goes on to spell out examples of products that are now exempt from the reciprocal tariffs. According to the fact sheet, “The President has thus determined that certain agricultural products shall no longer be subject to the reciprocal tariffs.”

Some of these products include:

coffee and tea
tropical fruits and fruit juices
cocoa and spices
bananas, oranges and tomatoes
beef
additional fertilizers (some fertilizers have never been subject to the reciprocal tariffs).

“I have received additional information and recommendations from various officials who, pursuant to my direction, have been monitoring the circumstances involving the emergency declared in Executive Order 14257,” stated the Executive Order. “After considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me, the status of negotiations with various trading partners, current domestic demand for certain products, and current domestic capacity to produce certain products, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to further modify the scope of products subject to the reciprocal tariff imposed under Executive Order 14257, as amended.”

President Defends Tariff Strategy, Says It’s Working

In the fact sheet, the White House went on to defend the reciprocal tariffs.

“In less than one year into his second term, President Trump has strengthened the international economic position of the United States by delivering a series of historic wins for the American people,” the fact sheet states.

The White House says through these tariffs, “President Trump is bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, revitalizing communities, and strengthening supply chains.The Administration will continue to use all available tools to protect our national security, advance our economic interests, and uphold a system of trade based in fairness and reciprocity.”

You can read the entire fact sheet here.

Rural America is Facing a Mounting Labor Crisis

Fri, 11 Jul 2025 21:02:49 GMT

The American labor market is reaching a critical turning point that could tighten labor availability in rural industries and slow growth across the U.S. economy. A new quarterly report from CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange warns that demographic shifts and recent policy changes may start impacting businesses as soon as late 2025.

From livestock and crop operations to food processors and rural cooperatives, this labor shortage is becoming especially noticeable in the heart of America’s farmland. Many producers are already struggling to fill roles, and the challenge is expected to intensify in the coming months.

“Barring an unforeseen change in labor force participation rates or immigration policies, the pool of available workers is set to shrink sharply in the next few years,” says Rob Fox, director of CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange. “The problem will be even more serious in states with slower population growth in the Upper Midwest, Corn Belt and Central Plains.”

Demographic Pressures Mount

Fox says the warning signs have been building for years. Labor force participation has steadily declined, birth rates have dropped and immigration policy has become more restrictive.

Between 2022 and 2024, nearly 9 million immigrants arrived in the U.S., driven by global humanitarian crises and relaxed federal rules. While that influx temporarily eased labor constraints, Fox says it only masked deeper, long-term trends.

U.S. fertility rates have fallen from 2.12 children per woman in 2007 to 1.62 in 2023, meaning fewer young people are entering the workforce just as the last of the baby boomers retire. In addition, labor force participation has slipped from a peak of 67% in 2000 to 62% today. Nearly 2.5 million working-age Americans have left the labor force in the past eight months alone.

“There is no single reason people are stepping away,” Fox explains. “It’s a combination of rising caregiving responsibilities, job skill mismatches, mental health challenges and higher disability rates. These are complex issues that won’t be resolved overnight.”

Shrinking Workforce Hits Agriculture Hard

The effects are already being felt across rural America. Farms, food processors, equipment dealers and cooperatives are struggling to find and keep the workers they need to maintain daily operations. Seasonal labor has become harder to find and full-time positions, especially those requiring specialized skills or long hours, are increasingly difficult to fill.

In regions with slower population growth, such as the upper Midwest and central Plains, the challenge is even more acute. These areas often lack the population inflows that help offset workforce losses elsewhere in the country.

While labor has been tight for several years, Fox warns that conditions are poised to deteriorate further.

“What we are facing is not just a cyclical labor issue; it’s a structural one,” he says.

Border encounters have dropped sharply since August 2024, signaling a steep decline in immigration. Combined with rising political pressure to increase deportations, the agricultural labor pool could shrink even more in the months ahead.

“Immigration has long been a key pillar supporting the rural workforce,” Fox notes. “Without a steady flow of new workers, farms and agribusinesses will have to get creative, either by increasing wages, automating tasks or changing how they manage production.”

Technology Offers a Path Forward

In response, more agricultural businesses are turning to technology to help offset the labor gap.

“The key to addressing labor scarcity always lies in innovation,” Fox says. “AI and robotics are no longer limited to the factory floor. They are increasingly being used in fields, dairies and food plants.”

A recent Gallup poll found that nearly one in five workers already uses artificial intelligence in some form each week. At the same time, the cost of robotics has dropped by nearly half in the past decade, making automation more accessible for a broader range of farms and agribusinesses.

CoBank’s report notes that many farm supply customers are using new tools to increase efficiency, improve decision-making and free up time for employees to focus on higher-value responsibilities.

Planning for What Comes Next

As producers look toward 2026, a combination of labor constraints, volatile input costs and shifting policy landscapes will continue to shape decision-making. Fox thinks adaptability will be essential.

“Technology will be critical to agriculture’s future,” he says. “AI and robotics can help farmers do more with fewer workers, boosting efficiency and margins. But investment decisions must be made carefully, especially in this uncertain economic environment.”

Until clearer policies emerge on trade, labor and energy, rural America will need to prepare for continued pressure.

“This is a pivotal moment,” Fox concludes. “Farms that plan ahead, embrace innovation and stay flexible will be best positioned to succeed.”

Overcome the No. 1 Challenge in Passing Down Your Family Farm

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 21:16:05 GMT

Between now and 2048, about $124 trillion is expected to exchange hands from older to younger generations in the U.S., according to Cerulli Associates, a Boston-based market research firm.

For perspective, that dollar amount is approximately five times the size of the 2023 U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which totaled $27.72 trillion.

How will farmers fit into what many people are calling the “Great Wealth Exchange” over the next two decades? Much of it is specific to land, according to the American Farmland Trust (AFT). It predicts 300 million acres of U.S. agricultural land will change hands in the next 20 years.

Based on $5,000 an acre for farm ground, Paul Neiffer, the Farm CPA, estimates that would be a transfer of between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in land from older farmers to younger generations.

“If you throw in rangeland, that’s another trillion, so $3 to $4 trillion at most is where I think we’re at,” Neiffer says.

The Reason Succession Often Fails

A common issue is that while 69% of farmers plan to transfer their operation to a younger family member, only 23% have a plan , according to AgAmerica Lending LLC.

But the No. 1 issue that trips up people in the succession planning process is most people – farmers included – focus more on the mechanics involved in transferring assets than on keeping their family relationships intact.

That’s according to Amy Castoro, CEO and president of The Williams Group, a family coaching and consulting organization. Her firm does relationship planning to help family members make sure they’re still speaking to each other after the wealth transfers.

Many times, she says, the friction in the transfer of wealth has little to do with money and material goods and a whole lot more to do with whether the family members involved felt loved.

A Formula For Success

The Williams Group did a 20-year field study and from that developed a formula for how people need to focus their time and energy in the succession process.

The company recommends spending:
60% of your time on building family trust and developing good communication practices;

25% preparing your heirs to take over the operation, laying the business and fiscal groundwork for the farm to continue under their leadership;

10% of your time getting on the same page about your family’s values and having a family mission;

5% of your time on the estate planning mechanics, the nuts and bolts of how the assets will transfer.

In addition, The Williams Group advises that you work with your heirs to:

Strike a balance between control and collaboration.
Embrace the next generation’s perspectives.
Bolster intergenerational solidarity.
Embed high-trust behaviors.
Co-design standards for readiness.

Start The Plan Sooner, Not Later

If you want to see your farm succeed with the next generation of family members, make sure you have the right structure in place – and set it up sooner than later. Don’t put it off, Neiffer advises.

Once you have a plan in place, you have a tool you can modify to fit what your family and farm need over time.

“Having a plan in place can help alleviate stress, even if things change down the road,” Neiffer says. “Keep in mind that farming is a dynamic business and your plan needs to be, too.”

Your next read: Big Questions Remain For Next Gen Farmers

5 Options to Consider During Farmland Transitions

Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:40:34 GMT

Transitions are hard. It doesn’t matter what the transition involves, the nature of moving from one thing to the next is complicated. Farmland may be one of the toughest, says Steve Bohr of Farm Financial Strategies in Lisbon, Iowa.

“Farmers often believe that what differentiates him or her is their ability to own the land,” Bohr explains. “And by God, you’re not taking it away from them. A lot of times, land ownership doesn’t transfer until death, and I’m OK with that. But we’ve got to drill down and figure out how that land is going to transition from one generation to the next.”

Over the years, he’s discovered there are three fundamental areas of concern in an estate and farm transition plan that each family should independently address — cost of administration, creditor protection, and transition plans for land and operating assets.

He shares five options to consider for the transition of land assets.

1. Give the land to the farmer.
The first option is to get the land transitioned to those who are farming it or have an affinity to own it, Bohr says. Each generation cannot afford to take a step back in equity and expect to compete in today’s marketplace.

“The clear problem with that is, how are we fair to the ones who aren’t interested in farming? Every family is different,” he says.

If your family is expecting to farm the same (or more) acres with a land base that has been divided across siblings, each generation will be in a weaker position to complete. How many times will your family have to pay for the same land? Which generation will eventually lose it due to no fault of their own (other than choosing to carry on the legacy)?

2. Divide the land equally.
An undivided ownership in real estate can cause great anxiety for the owners of the land who want to farm it or who want to continue to own it, he explains. There is a greater chance of peace if you divide the land, but also a greater chance it gets away from the family.

“Most people believe this is the answer,” Bohr says. “I don’t believe that, because the problem with dividing the land is that it’s a recipe for the land to get away from us. Whether it’s divorce, bankruptcy or poor planning.”

At some point in time, the more people involved, and the more independence those people have, the land’s going to get away from you. If it doesn’t, then it has to be divided again at the next generation. By the time you divide a farm two generations, the grandkids don’t have enough to be able to farm.

“We are dividing ourselves right out of the plat book,” Bohr says.

3. Deed land into a family trust.
Leaving the land in trust after death may be a wise option for families who cannot afford to get the land to one heir and who do not want to divide their land. There are solid reasons to leave the land in trust for management, including if one or more children have marital, money or addiction issues or if one or more children are independently wealthy.

Oftentimes, leaving land in trust gives a false sense of security that may be deferring the problem to the future.

“When we leave it in trust, we’re asking for big problems. Whenever that land comes out of trust, it can be very inflexible,” Bohr says.

4. Create a family land entity.
A land entity like a Limited Liability Company (LLC) or Family Limited Partnership (FLP) has become popular for a family where the first three options do not fit.

“I call this the boomerang plan because the rules in the operating agreement of the entity always bring the land back to the family,” he says.

Those entities will have rules, and within the entities, those rules will talk about lease options and purchase options at family pricing and terms, whatever that looks like. A vast majority of them are special use paid over a 30 -year contract so they can guarantee opportunity and affordability for family members.

5. Develop a hybrid plan.
There is not one plan that fits all families. That’s why a combination of multiple options sometimes works best for most families. A hybrid plan gives everybody an opportunity.

“Right now in succession planning, I think we have to give a huge amount of understanding to what will or won’t cash flow,” Bohr says. “What are the tax ramifications? What is the timing of the transition? And are we going to give an adequate opportunity to those who are going to be that next generation in our communities, paying taxes, going to churches, going to schools?”

Your Next Read: How an Iowa Family is Passing on the Farm from One Generation to the Next

It's Time To Lead: Strong Succession Won't Happen By Accident

Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:14:58 GMT

Succession planning isn’t just a checklist item — it’s a defining leadership moment. As a farm or ranch owner, it’s time to stop waiting for the “right moment” and start leading with purpose. You’re not just passing on assets; you’re shaping the future of your operation. That means stepping into the role of leader with clarity, courage and commitment.

First, take a hard look at what kind of leader your farm needs. Are you focused on daily operations or vision and growth? Are you modeling strong financial discipline and decision-making? Are you addressing conflicts head-on and keeping your family aligned? Leadership requires more than technical skill; it demands the courage to tackle tough conversations, whether with partners, successors or family members. Great leaders don’t shy away from discomfort; they lean into it with the goal of building stronger relationships and a more resilient operation.

Communication is foundational. If your team doesn’t know what’s happening, how can they help move forward? Hold regular family meetings, define decision-making roles and ensure everyone understands their responsibilities. Avoiding conflict only leads to confusion. Structured, transparent communication builds trust and keeps succession planning on track. Communication is also how you build buy-in from the people who will carry your operation forward.

Leadership Isn’t Handed Over

Next, you must actively develop your future leaders. Don’t wait until you’re ready to retire to begin mentoring. Give your successors meaningful responsibilities now. Let them learn by managing projects, participating in financial discussions and handling day-to-day operations. Leadership isn’t handed over — it’s earned through real-world experience and demonstrated commitment. Every season serves as an opportunity to develop those skills and test readiness.

Set clear standards for advancement. Define what success looks like: required experience, education and financial knowledge. Make sure successors understand what it takes to lead and hold those leaders accountable. If someone isn’t ready or is unwilling to step up, be honest. Your farm’s legacy deserves strong, prepared leadership.

Succession planning is hard. Many families stall out due to fear, conflict or lack of clarity. But real leaders don’t quit when times get tough, they face challenges head on. If your planning has gone off track, reset. Re-engage your family, bring in outside support if necessary and commit to consistent action.

The future of your farm depends on your leadership today. Will you linger in uncertainty, or will you lead with confidence? Strong succession isn’t going to happen by accident. It’s driven by leaders who are willing to plan boldly, act decisively and invest in their next generation. Your family and your operation are counting on you. Be the leader they need.

Your Next Read — Quiet Crisis, Unfolding Rapidly: Big Questions Remain For Next Gen Farmers

Ag on WOTUS: We need predictability, dependability and consistency

Thu, 01 May 2025 19:48:59 GMT

It was a full virtual house during the Waters of the U.S. listening session for industry and agriculture. The May 1 morning session was part of an ongoing outreach effort by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers in reworking WOTUS to bring it into alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision .

Over 40 speakers gave public comments and dozens more on the waiting list were left when the almost three-hour listening session ended.

The message from speakers — agricultural and industrial alike — was resounding: ‘We need clear, consistent, predictable and dependable definitions on WOTUS that everyday people can understand.’

Clear, consistent, predictable, dependable and understandable

“Agriculture bears the brunt of expansive and ambiguous WOTUS definitions,” said Norm Semanko, an environmental lawyer speaking for Family Farm Alliance. This perspective was echoed in dozens of ways by almost every agricultural voice at the hearing.

Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, put a fine point on the issue.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” he said, “and farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

“This uncertainty forces us to hire experts just to get guidance on whether we can use common agricultural practices on our farms,” he continued. Other speakers pointed out that getting it wrong is not an option for those in agriculture.

“The costs associated with non-compliance of the Clean Water Act are just simply too high for farmers,” said Jay Bragg, commodity and regulatory activities associate director for the Texas Farm Bureau. Instead, farmers “should be able to make these determinations without consultants or engineers.”

This was a theme repeated by speaker after speaker. Many quoted the direct text of the original Clean Water Act and its focus on “ordinary parlance” related to definitions of a water of the U.S.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature, and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” said Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Ditches, converted crop land and other categories

The hosts of the listening session called the issue of jurisdictional determinations on ditches one of critical importance. Agricultural commenters agreed and called for wide, if not complete, exemption of agricultural ditches under the WOTUS definition.

“No farm ditches should ever be included as a WOTUS. They should be excluded because they are neither streams, oceans, rivers or lakes,” said Michael Formica, chief legal strategist for the National Pork Producers Council, effectively summarizing the arguments of dozens of commenters.

Those who commented from outside the agricultural industry also stressed the importance of excluding most if not all ditches from jurisdictional waters definitions. Several representatives from building organizations cited concerns related to especially road-side ditches being considered jurisdictional.

Though fewer commenters spoke on the issue of prior converted cropland and its place in WOTUS, those who did made similar arguments appealing to common sense.

“Broadly speaking, land should not be classified as a jurisdictional water,” said Christina Gruenhagen, government relations counsel for the Iowa Farm Bureau. “Prior converted cropland should be considered land and not a jurisdictional water.”

Almost every speaker referenced the need for WOTUS definitions to conform with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision . Most also called for the agencies to significantly reduce the categories of jurisdictional waters.

“The Sackett decision helps us to clarify that there are three — and only three — primary categories of WOTUS waters,” said Andy Rieber, public lands consultant for Humbolt County, Nev. These are the traditional interstate navigable waters, waters with a relatively permanent flow connected to them, and wetlands which are adjacent to either of those two prior categories.

“It is important for the EPA and the Army Corps of engineers to ensure that their definition of WOTUS reflects those three —and only those three — categories.”

Future engagement opportunities on WOTUS

The agency hosts of the May 1 morning listening session for industry and ag told attendees there is another listening session planned for the public. That listening session has not yet been scheduled, however. They urged those who were unable to give testimony to keep watch on the EPA’s WOTUS site .

Your next read:

Water Problems Creep Across the U.S.

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:31:41 GMT

More than ever, water is the tension bar between agriculture and society. Urban centers desperately need more of it to satisfy an increasing population. Farmers require it to produce the food for all those people.

With the Earth’s water supply finite but demands for it ever escalating, conflicts about water are becoming commonplace. Farm Journal is committed to covering agriculture’s role in this clash. The story below about water problems on farms in eastern Colorado is the first in what will be an ongoing series that promises to touch every corner of the nation.

Caught in a devastating three-year drought, state and federal water agencies in California say they will cut deliveries to farmers in much of the San Joaquin Valley by at least 85% this year. That will idle land and result in 40,000 lost jobs and $1.5 billion in income, says Richard Howitt, chair of the Agriculture and Resource Economics Department at University of California–Davis. In addition, the nation’s food security could be compromised because that region produces half our fruits, nuts and vegetables, along with other crops, such as cotton, wheat and potatoes.

(Farm Journal)

The Ogallala Aquifer, which supports millions of acres of crops in eight Plains states, continues to decline. From the late 1940s, when farmers began irrigating in the Texas Panhandle, until 1980, portions of the aquifer dropped 100' and will fall another 100' by 2020, says Jim Goeke, University of Nebraska hydrogeologist. In Nebraska, the Department of Natural Resources recently issued a preliminary ruling that the Lower Platte River Basin appears “fully appropriated.” That could lead to a moratorium on new irrigation wells.

Texas, now in the midst of a long-term drought killing both crops and cattle, faces big problems. Nearly the entire state is in some stage of drought, according to the most recent U.S. Drought Monitor maps. A new report by Susan Combs, Texas state comptroller, projects the state’s popu-lation will double to more than 46 million by 2060, boosting water demand by about 27%. The water shortage could cost Texans about $9 billion next year and more than $98 billion by 2060, the report says. Combs calls for new water management strategies to deal with the crisis.

The Southeast, after several dry years, is no longer assured of consistent rainfall. That puts the city of Atlanta and its fast-growing suburbs in conflict with farmers as well as surrounding states. Even oystermen on Florida’s Gulf Coast complained as fresh water supply dwindled in Apalachicola Bay, which produces 90% of the state’s renowned oysters. In February, Georgia’s Gov. Sonny Perdue appointed 300 people, including farmers, to 10 regional water planning boards to monitor the situation.

Shortage of water isn’t the only difficulty facing agriculture. Quality is an issue in many watersheds and streams across the country. North Carolinians, among others, deal with ongoing battles regarding hog lagoons. Farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have had to change management practices to rehabilitate its water, long important for fishing and recreation. Florida’s farmers and ranchers are dealing with stringent environmental regulations designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat. In many other areas, farmers and ranchers are devising ways to protect watersheds and lakes with innovative fencing for livestock and conservation tillage for crops.

With our new series, we at Farm Journal will not only outline the problems but pledge to also look for answers that can help farmers and ranchers overcome this threat to their livelihoods and legacies. Technology already offers some possibilities: irrigation refinements that reduce water usage and drought-tolerant hybrids, to name just two.

Water is the overriding concern for farmers, ranchers and society as a whole. Without workable solutions, everyone loses. Share your thoughts and let us know about water
issues in your area. We want to hear from you.

Colorado’s Water War

For Darrell and Cindy Johnston, 2002 was the turning point. The worst drought in memory shattered hopes of a profit on their farm in Erie, Colo.

“We didn’t get any moisture. Snowpack was way down. We planted bone-dry. Crops sat waiting for rain. Water was allo-cated, and we had to decide which crops to irrigate. We burned our water up getting the crop up, then we were out of water. So we didn’t have a crop,” Darrell says.

The future didn’t look much better, either. Located on the Front Range just north of the Denver metropolitan area near I-25, with water supply both short and at a premium due to booming development, the Johnstons decided moving was their best option.

“When the drought hit, farms went from irrigated to dryland overnight. The problem in Erie is that the cities have control of the water and dictate how much we get. It’s been going on for 10 years now,” Darrell says.

(Farm Journal)

Though they had both grown up in the area, the Johnstons sold some of their more valuable land near the interstate. They bought land with a more assured water supply 70 miles away in Fort Morgan, Colo., using an Internal Revenue Service Section 1031 Exchange to postpone capital gains taxes. They grow corn and sugar beets on the 700 acres in Fort Morgan and wheat, barley and hay crops requiring less water on the original 2,700-acre farm, which is now managed by their 23-year-old son, Brandon.

“Buying land in Fort Morgan is the hardest decision we ever made. But if we’re going to farm, we have to have water. When the 2002 drought hit, it was eye-opening to know we did not have water to irrigate,” Cindy says.

Lots of other Colorado farmers are seeing their worlds rocked in much the same fashion. In addition to the competition for water with cities on the Front Range, eastern Colorado farmers in the Republican River Basin and the South Platte River Basin have their own serious problems.

Four hundred irrigation wells in the Republican River Basin were recently shut down to comply with a settlement involving a Kansas lawsuit that requires certain flow levels. In the South Platte River Basin, pumping from as many as 4,000 wells has been limited or curtailed due to a plan to recharge the river’s water and comply with the Endangered Species Act, says James Pritchett, a Colorado State University ag economist working on water issues.

“Crop acreage has gone from 3 million to 2½ million. We’re likely to lose 250,000 acres in the South Platte, where we’re at 1 million acres now,” Pritchett says. “We’ve been depleting the aquifer at an unsustainable rate. Within one generation, we’ll have to find a way to continue agriculture in that area with less water.”

So far, farmers losing wells have gotten little compensation. “On the South Platte, they are not compensated. They are literally high and dry. On the Republican, these are voluntary measures through CREP [Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program] and EQIP [Environmental Quality Incentives Program], a token compensation nowhere close to what they could make from full production,” says Mark Sponsler, executive director of the Colorado Corn Growers Association.

Those economics won’t pencil out long-term for farmers caught in the 21st century water wars. The Johnstons enjoy farming their new Fort Morgan land but warily eye what’s happening to other producers.

“I just cannot comprehend that government can say, ‘Sorry, you’re done, too bad.’ A judge held the fate of all those people’s lives,” Cindy says.

You can e-mail Charles Johnson at cjohnson@farmjournal.com .

Good Husbandry Grants Available for Farmers

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:37:02 GMT

Grants up to $5,000 are available to farmers in the Animal Welfare Approved program.

Source: Animal Welfare Approved news release

Animal Welfare Approved’s annual Good Husbandry Grants program has launched and is now accepting project proposals aimed at improving farm animal welfare.

Grants up to $5,000 are available to farmers already in the Animal Welfare Approved program and to farmers that have submitted an application. Grant applications must be submitted by Oct. 1, 2013.

The Good Husbandry Grants program is in its sixth year and has funded over 100 projects in the U.S. and Canada to improve farm animal welfare. Past projects included mobile housing, breeding stock and on-farm processing equipment. Slaughter plants working with or seeking to work with AWA farmers are also eligible for funding. The program is ideal for established farmers interested in implementing new farming practices.

“The grants program is great for that farmer who has a creative idea for improving farm viability, but might just be a few dollars short. We believe that supporting our farmers and the implementation of the latest sustainable practices is crucial to the development of agriculture,” says Program Director Andrew Gunther.

The 2013-2014 funding priorities include welfare improvements in the slaughter process, improved genetics, increased outdoor access and non-lethal predator control. A primary goal of the program is to facilitate the growth and success of high-welfare, pasture-based systems by providing nontraditional funding resources.

Gunther says, “Consumers are increasingly demanding high-welfare, sustainable products. We’re working to help our farmers meet that demand and access new markets as this sector grows.”

True and Essential Meats, a slaughter plant in Harrisonburg, Va. was awarded a Good Husbandry Grant last year. Owner Joe Cloud says, “This grant gave us just the edge we needed to improve our facility, which is dedicated to processing services for independent family farms.”

“These grants are an invaluable tool for small farmers and ranchers in improving the sustainability of their agricultural operations. Without this support it would not be possible for many of us to afford the costs to improve the welfare of our animals. By funding these grants, AWA enables the farmer to improve the conditions of his operation for the benefit of his animals,” says Anthony Koch, a previous grant winner.

For more information on past winners and the application process, click here or contact Grants Coordinator Emily Lancaster at Emily@AnimalWelfareApproved.org or 202-618-4497.

Animal Welfare Approved audits, certifies and supports farmers raising their animals according to the highest welfare standards, outdoors on pasture or range. Called a “badge of honor for farmers” and the “gold standard,” AWA is the most highly regarded food label in North America when it comes to animal welfare, pasture-based farming, and sustainability. All AWA standards, policies and procedures are available on the AWA website, making it the most transparent certification available.

Animal Welfare Approved’s Online Directory of AWA farms, restaurants and products enables the public to search for AWA farms, restaurants and products by zip code, keywords, products and type of establishment. In addition, AWA has published Food Labeling for Dummies, a regularly updated guide to commonly used food claims and terms, available free for download here .

USDA Announces REAP Awards for Farm Digesters

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:37:10 GMT

USDA is making investments of more than $21 million in energy projects nationwide.

Source: USDA

USDA has announced funding for 631 projects across the nation that will help agricultural producers and rural small businesses reduce their energy consumption and costs, use renewable energy technologies in their operations, and conduct feasibility studies for renewable energy projects.

Grant and loan funding is made available through USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which is authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill.

REAP helps producers reduce energy costs and increase production efficiency. Under the terms of REAP, up to 25% of an eligible energy production or conservation project can be funded through a grant, and additional support can be provided in the form of a loan. Since the start of the Obama Administration, REAP has helped fund nearly 7,000 renewable energy and energy efficiency projects nationwide.

With today’s announcement, USDA is making investments of more than $21 million in energy projects nationwide.

REAP offers financial assistance to farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses to purchase and install renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements. These federal funds leverage other private funding sources for businesses. REAP also helps the conservation of natural resources and the development of new forms of energy that reduces America’s dependence on fossil fuels and creates a stronger rural economy.

Four REAP grant recipients are using funds to construct or install anaerobic digesters at their sites:
• Dovetail Energy, LLC (Ohio) - Construction of an anaerobic digester
• Green Lane Energy, Inc. (Oregon) - Construction of an anaerobic digester
• Statz Brothers (Wisconsin) - Purchase and installation of an additional anaerobic digester
• Butler Farms (North Carolina) - Improvements for an anaerobic digester

Click here for the current list of recipients for REAP grants and loans or for more information about the REAP program.

Please note that some states are still in the process of finalizing their REAP awards and another message will be distributed when those awards have been announced.

For more information about AgSTAR, please visit its website .

Food Box Idea Draws Criticism

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:49:14 GMT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is pushing what it calls a “bold new approach to nutrition assistance": replacing the traditional cash-on-a-card that food stamp recipients currently get with a pre-assembled box of canned foods and other shelf-stable goods dubbed “America’s Harvest Box.”

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney likened the box to a meal kit delivery service, and said the plan could save nearly $130 billion over 10 years. But the idea, tucked into President Donald Trump’s 2019 budget, has caused a firestorm, prompting scathing criticism from Democrats and nutrition experts who say its primary purpose is to punish the poor.

“The main goal is to alleviate food insecurity, and the reason SNAP is so successful is because it gives low-income families the autonomy and dignity to make their own food choices,” said Craig Gundersen, a professor in agricultural strategy at the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Gundersen said people will leave the program as a result of the shift.

SNAP — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — is the official name for the food stamp programs.

“All of a sudden you’re saying, ‘we don’t trust you to make the right decisions for your family.’ It’s demeaning and it’s patronizing. This is pro-hunger, because people will leave the program,” Gunderson said.

Under the proposed plan, households that receive more than $90 in SNAP benefits each month — roughly 81 percent of households in the program, or about 16.4 million — would be affected.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue called the box “a bold, innovative approach to providing nutritious food to people who need assistance feeding themselves and their families.”

But the proposal doesn’t include any concrete details about how much the program would cost or how it would be implemented, saying only that states will be given flexibility to distribute the boxes “through existing infrastructure, partnership, and/or directly to residences through commercial and/or retail delivery services.”

Lawmakers say they aren’t even sure where the idea came from.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the ranking member of the House nutrition subcommittee, called the proposal a “cruel joke” that came out of nowhere. He said despite having numerous hearings on SNAP, Monday’s budget was the first time he’d heard of the food box proposal.

“I don’t even know how to implement it. Who would distribute these boxes?” he said. “How would we do this? Do they anticipate recipients getting them at supermarkets? In addition to being a cruel and demeaning and awful idea, it’s just not practical.”

A spokeswoman for House agriculture committee Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said the committee has held 21 hearings and invited 80 experts to speak about SNAP in its preparations of the forthcoming farm bill, and the idea of a food box was not once discussed.

An Agriculture Department spokesman said the idea was developed internally, but didn’t provide further details on the brainstorming process. Mulvaney credited it to Perdue.

Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, top Democrat on the Senate agriculture committee, said the food box idea “isn’t a serious proposal and is clearly meant to be a distraction from this Administration’s proposed budget that fails our families and farmers.”

The proposal is part of a broader plan to gut the SNAP program, reducing it by roughly $213 billion — nearly 30 percent — over the next decade. The plan also proposes tightening work requirements for recipients.

Matt Knott, president of hunger relief network Feeding America, called it “an unworkable solution in search of a problem.”

“SNAP is an efficient program that already utilizes a grocery system,” Knott said. “It’s a program that expands and contracts as the economy expands and contracts as well. It’s flexible, timely and efficient, and converting a sufficient portion of it to an antiquated program where boxes are delivered is simply unworkable.”

Copyright 2018, The Associated Press

Food: A Serious Quest at Olympics

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:49:14 GMT

PYEONGCHANG, South Korea (AP) — First, U.S. snowboarding star Chloe Kim tweeted about being “down for some ice cream” while competing in Pyeongchang, then about being “hangry” because she hadn’t finished her breakfast sandwich.

Clearly, food is a big deal for Olympians, and it’s usually much more complicated than ice cream and sandwiches: the very specific, highly calibrated fuel they put in their bodies — for energy, for health, for warmth, for a psychological and physiological edge — is an important part of what makes them excel.

Korean food is some of the world’s finest — savory, salty soups with fish so tender it falls off the bone; thick slabs of grilled pork and beef backed with spicy kimchi that many Korean grandmothers swear cures the common cold. But it’s very different from what many foreign Olympians are used to.

“What I recommend for athletes right now in competition mode is to be as safe as possible. This might happen once in a lifetime; you don’t want to blow it with just having an upset stomach because you’ve eaten something that’s different to what your body’s used to,” Susie Parker-Simmons, a sports dietitian for the U.S. Olympic Committee in Colorado Springs, Colorado, said in an interview in Pyeongchang. “I say, as soon as the games is over, go at it; enjoy, be adventurous.”

FEEDING THE ATHLETES

The U.S. team has its own chefs and dietitians, as well as two “nutrition centers” here. And then there’s the food at two athletes villages, where nearly 3,000 athletes from 90 different countries — most of whom strictly follow unique food routines — get fed.

The goal is to provide lots of everything.

The two villages each have massive, 43,055-square-foot dining rooms where nearly 500 chefs and cooking assistants provide a combined 18,000 meals per day. Each dining room is open 24 hours a day and offers about 450 different types of food in buffets that include Western, Asian, Korean, Halal, Kosher, vegetarian and gluten-free dishes, David Kihyun Kwak, the director of food and beverage at the Pyeongchang Olympics, said in an interview.

To determine what to serve at Pyeongchang, Kwak’s team analyzed food data for the past five Olympics and also worked closely with other nations’ nutrition specialists.

The amount of raw ingredients used each day to feed the athletes is staggering: 1,540 pounds of beef, 992 pounds of eggs, 771 pounds of lamb, 440 pounds of bacon, 374 pounds of chicken, 220 pounds of rice, 7,495 pounds of fruits and vegetables, about 15,000 pieces of bread and 800 pizzas.

FOOD SAFETY

Most Olympic athletes don’t eat outside of the villages because of worries about the purity of ingredients, Kwak said. The United States did tests before the 2008 Beijing Olympics that found some local chicken contained enough steroids to trigger positive test results.

Experts examine ingredients closely for possible contamination that could threaten athletes’ health or disrupt doping tests. South Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety has sent more than a dozen food safety specialists to take ingredients samples to buses equipped with fast-testing laboratories to look for potential problems before the food even gets eaten.

HOME COOKING

Finland’s Riikka Valila, the oldest women’s ice hockey player in Olympic history at 44, likes the food options here but misses the “really good bread” back in Finland. She said some of her teammates on gluten-free diets have brought food from home.

The Americans shipped over 85 pallets, each about 6 feet tall and 3 feet deep and wide, filled with pastas, sauces, peanut butter, grains and plants like quinoa, and spices, Parker-Simmons said.

There’s food meant to help with performance and recovery, but there’s also “psychological food,” which Parker-Simmons explains like this: Say an athlete training her whole life for the Olympics fails. She takes it hard; she stops eating. This is when the dietitians will turn to something special — a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, maybe, or Cheez-Its.

Vincent Zhou, a U.S. figure skater, said he needs a lot of carbs, “before, between and after sessions,” to fend off fatigue. “It hasn’t been very difficult finding comfort food,” he said.

EATING FOR PERFORMANCE

The work to optimize nutrition can seem as thorough as the work to perfect the sports skills.

Dietitians have to regularly test cross-country skiers, for instance, who have the highest energy expenditure of any sport in the world, Parker-Simmons said. An average-sized woman will need 4,000 calories or more per day to train and compete; a typical man needs about 7,000 calories, she said. Ski jumpers, on the other hand, sometimes have to drop 10 kilograms below their natural body weight, while keeping up their muscle mass and energy.

FANS SPLIT ON KOREAN FOOD

Foreign fans, of course, have their own food worries and routines.

South Korean officials have tried to provide menus in English and other languages to thousands of local restaurants. And the Korea Tourist Organization has published a brochure, complete with a hotline in English, Japanese, Korean and Chinese, that outlines “must eat” dishes and where to find them.

Some tourists embrace the exotic.

“I was impressed with the little fish, the eyes and everything,” Julie Thibaudeau, 53, from Quebec, said as she celebrated her son’s gold medal in mogul skiing in a local Pyeongchang restaurant. “I tried, and it was salty, but it was good. And after that I had a good glass of ... beer.”

Others play it safe. Very safe.

“We found Papa John’s (pizza) today, which was literally life-changing because ... we haven’t eaten a lot for the last few days,” Rachel Basford, 31, a teacher in Shanghai who’s from Kent, England, said while drinking in a fried chicken restaurant. “I’m not that adventurous when it comes to trying local foods. I just like to eat British food in various places around the world.”

Asked if she planned to try Korean food she said, with a laugh: “No. Absolutely not. We’re going to Seoul tomorrow so there’s the McDonald’s at Seoul Station, so that should be good.”

WILLPOWER IN THE DINING HALL

For the athletes, sheer abundance can be a danger.

When U.S. figure skater Adam Rippon got to Pyeongchang a coach told him about the last Winter Games in Sochi, when one of her athletes became very excited about all the food available even as his performance in training tanked.

The coach finally understood what was happening when the athlete donned his costume for the short program: “He’d been in the cafeteria the whole time; he’d gained seven pounds before the competition,” Rippon said with a laugh. “And my coach is sitting next to me, and he was like, ‘ha, ha, ha, ha,’ and he turned to me and said, ‘You’d better not get fat while you’re here.’”

Chloe Kim, by the way, finally got her ice cream — and a gold medal. She could be seen eating her treat while being swarmed by reporters.

Copyright, The Associated Press

When the Title Match is Big Ag vs. Hobby Farms, PETA Wins, Page 2

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:49:48 GMT

On the other hand, there are those of us (cough, me) who relish the ability to eat strawberries, green beans, ice cream and bacon year-round, courtesy of the local Wal-Mart. I appreciate the availability of easy access to all foods, year-round due to our robust and complex U.S. food system, which includes trade with other agriculture-rich countries. Except rhubarb, I can never find that stuff out of season.

Incidentally, many of us are commodity producers AND hobby farmers/ranchers. How so? I’ll use my husband and myself as examples to highlight how labeling each other does no good.

We operate a seedstock Gelbvieh and Balancer ranch and our herd, according to the 2017 Ag Census, is larger than the national average. However, we are small according to other size measurements such as number of employees and acres owned, plus we both have full-time, non-ranch employment. So, technically we could be classified as hobby ranchers since it’s not our main income. However, when we have bulls that don’t make the seedstock cut (technically, they are getting “the cut”), they are marketed through the commodity beef supply via auction market, backgrounder and feedyard; which technically makes us part of “big beef.” How many labels can be thrown on one farmer or rancher before things get tedious and confusing?

The gist of the issue is that when we label things — people, food, industries, etc. — we lose focus of the main goal, which should be to produce healthy food in an ethical, profitable and sustainable way. That’s the big picture, and all farmers and ranchers — small and large — are fully capable of achieving that goal. Honestly, we’d probably all reach the goal more quickly if we’d work together instead of hurling insults at each other. The world needs all kind of farmers and ranchers, of all sizes, shapes and backgrounds, to fulfill our food needs.

Does anyone else feel like labels are further segregating us while PETA just watches, licking their vegetables? As we tear each other down, we weaken the ag sector and make ourselves tremendously vulnerable to outside perils. I can confidently say that what qualifies as a large farm or small farm should be of no consequence and we ought to be eyeballing a very real threat - one that presents itself in the shape of a hockey puck and is made of pea protein.

Brandi Buzzard Frobose is a rancher, ranch wife, mama, agriculture advocate, calf roper and the director of communications for the Red Angus Association of America.

Related articles

A Timeline of the Fair Oaks Farms Investigation

Undercover Video Shows Abuse At Fair Oaks Farms

Fair Oaks Targeted: Could It Happen to You?

It’s About Putting a Face to Agriculture and Having a Dialogue

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:43:29 GMT

“It’s about having a dialogue, not just telling a story,” said Cameron Bruett, chief sustainability officer and head of corporate affairs for JBS USA, Inc. at the 2015 Animal Agriculture Alliance Stakeholders Summit. “We have this huge modern disconnect with agriculture; most of the consumers’ interaction with agriculture is the grocery store.”

A disconnect with consumers was a common talking point for all of the first-day Summit speakers noting that the agriculture industry has a great story to tell, but there is a lack of engagement with the audience that couldn’t survive without the farmers and producers. When there is no dialogue and engagement, consumers’ perceptions about our food supply will hinder the move towards a more sustainable and efficient future for everyone.

Another overarching topic was defining what sustainability actually means. “Sustainability means something different for whoever is talking about it,” Bruett said.

“Simply defined, sustainability is responsibility meeting the needs of the present while improving the ability of future generations to responsibly meet their own needs,” Bruett said. He added that it’s more about finding a balance between three things: social responsibility, economically viable and environmentally sound.

John Graettinger, director of food chain affairs at Merck Animal Health discussed the topic of consumer trust on a panel alongside Mandy Hagan, vice president of state of affairs at Grocery Manufactures Association.

“We need to show our face because people like people,” Graettinger said. “If you put that face on our production facilities, we are going to go far.”

Hagan followed by introducing the notion that the agricultural industry needs to make the conversation about the consumers and show how agriculture benefits them, not just the companies, especially when talking about technology in agriculture. Hagan gave the example of GM crops and how adding vitamin A to a developing world’s staple food could save lives.

“Our side of the story is much more complicated,” Hagan said. “If it’s a benefit for the consumer then the dialogue will change. I don’t think it’s too late.”

To close out the first day, two bloggers from the Alliance’s blogger tour took the stage and shared their personal experiences as well as how their new role in the industry can have a positive impact for farmers and consumers.

Ilina Ewen, writer for the blog Dirt & Noise, said that the experience for her was very “eye-opening” and said the agriculture is really about family, people and culture. “Food in this country is something we take for granted and [the tour] made me value our food system,” Ewen said. “The passion that is demonstrated in ag is unparalleled to any other industry.”

Lisa Frame, writer for the blog A Daily Pinch, shared that she came from a farming family and that agriculture is really about “becoming part of a family” and that her experience made her and Ewen a part of the family. “We are vested in your fishbowl now,” Frame said.

Source: Animal Agriculture Alliance

Mighty Earth Attacks Crop Farmers to Advance Anti-Meat Agenda

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:48:49 GMT

A report last week from Mighty Earth , a campaign of the Center for International Policy , took a break from criticizing farmers and ranchers that raise livestock for meat, and instead turned their attention to the meat companies and feed suppliers (ie. crop farmers), asking them to provide “pollution-free” feed.

In “ Mystery Meat II: The Industry Behind the Quiet Destruction of the American Heartland, ” Mighty Earth says “Demand for feed crops is driving widespread water contamination across the country, destroying America’s last native prairies, and releasing potent greenhouse gases.” The report claims excess fertilizer and manure washes off fields, contaminating local drinking water and creating algae blooms that cause Dead Zones in the Gulf of Mexico.

While the agricultural industry does have an impact on these issues (see here and here ), the report does little to quantify agriculture’s contribution to the problem versus other industries.

The article calls out Tyson Foods, charging “America’s largest meat company” is in the “regions suffering the worst environmental impacts from industrial meat and feed production—from grassland clearing in Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas, to manure and fertilizer pollution pouring into waterways from the Heartland down to the Gulf states.”

In a written statement to Farm Journal Media, Tyson responded “We share this group’s concern about the environment but disagree with its misleading characterization of our company. Tyson Foods is not in the business of raising the crops and we own very few livestock farms. Instead, we depend on thousands of independent farmers to raise our chickens or sell us their cattle or hogs. We work closely with our partners from farm-to-fork to identify and deploy new technologies designed to better protect the environment, our workforce, and the communities we serve.”

In an article by the Des Moines Register, Mark Peterson, a farmer near Stanton who has reviewed the report, said it may be impossible to produce “pollution-free feed.” … But farmers can adopt conservation practices — such as no-till or conservation tillage, cover crops, buffers and grass waterways — that reduce nutrient losses.

The negative characterizations of the agriculture industry in the report is a long list. However, it failed to include the fact that crop and livestock production is regulated and monitored by USDA’s Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency. Nor did it mention that many farmers and ranchers participate in quality assurance programs to document animal health and environmentally friendly practices. Tyson discloses its environmental efforts on its website.

Livestock feed is just one use of grain products grown in the U.S. In this chart from USDA, shows the growing market for biofuels, as well as consumer food and industrial uses. Source: USDA

When Your Plate Is Too Full: Tips to Delegate and Manage the Workload

Thu, 20 May 2021 15:30:32 GMT

Do you ever feel overwhelmed, overloaded, scattered?

“Generally, pandemic or not, leaders feel at least a little bit this way all the time,” says Marlene Eick, a leadership coach and consultant from Wooster, Ohio. “The question is, is this ok? And if not, what can we do about it?”

Eick says delegating is helpful to any leader and can help solve those feelings of being overwhelmed, overloaded and scattered.

Why Don’t We Delegate?
Three obstacles stand in the way of leaders delegating tasks, Eick explains.

1. You think you’re the only person who can do it.
This is a tough one, especially if you are a business owner, she says. People often struggle with the idea that someone else could have as much passion as they have for the business.

“If we are leaders in our field, we’ve likely gotten to this place of leadership by being a person who does things. You’ve probably worked independently, too. Now you’re at this place where you’ve got all kinds of things on your plate,” Eick says. “Even though you have a team of people, assistants, contractors, industry partners, etc., and could be delegating some of this work, you might still be operating from that mindset of ‘I have to be the one to do this.’”

2. You haven’t identified and trained anyone else.
Training people to do parts of your job requires focused investment and time. Simply put, it takes a lot of work. In the short-term, that may be true, but Eick says in the long-term, that investment will pay off.

“Take the time right now to identify who on our team could do the job,” she says. “If we identify that person and train them, we know that saves us time. But this can definitely be an obstacle if we haven’t done that yet.”

3. You haven’t created a process for delegation.
Once you’ve shifted your mindset to accept someone else could do some of this work and you’ve identified and trained that person, you need to have a process in place to shift work to them at appropriate times.

Challenges may include not having a standing meeting with someone on your team or poor regular channels of communication to share tasks with someone, she says.

How Can We Get More Off Our Plate?
Taking more off your plate starts with shifting your mindset and asking the hard questions, Eick says.

1. What can someone else do?
Take an inventory of everything that is on your plate. Consider what tasks could be shared or outsourced to someone else. Eick says it is important to consider your personal tasks, too.

“We can often lighten the load of all the things we have to do by thinking what about what we can delegate in our personal life to make space for those professional tasks or projects we have going on,” she says.

2. Who can do it?
Eick says determining who could take on some of your tasks is an important question – but not an excuse to get out of doing things in your job description. Based on the tasks at hand, who are you looking for? Someone who has entry-level skills? A high schooler? A new college graduate? Or do you need a skilled and talented contractor to come in and help with a project?

“Being very clear about what you need is critical,” she says. “And make sure you train or instruct them accordingly.”

3. How can you get work to them?
Determine a process that will allow you to share tasks easily. Some ideas to consider are a daily e-mail, a morning phone call or a Slack channel for discussions.

“Find the right way to regularly communicate because no one can read your mind,” Eick says. “They want to help you, but they can’t know what you need unless you are communicating that to them.”

Delegating tasks starts with one tiny step forward, she says. It also requires a willingness to share the workload.

“No matter where we are in our careers, if no one before us had ever thought, ‘I’m not the only person who could do this,’ none of us would have gotten an opportunity,” Eick says.

Read More:

When You Are Waist-Deep in Alligators

Plan Big, Execute Small

Reader Responds to Mental Health Struggles in Agriculture

Greta Thunberg Aims to Change How Food Is Produced

Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:02:56 GMT

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has set her sights on changing how the world produces and consumes food in order to counteract a trio of threats: carbon emissions, disease outbreaks and animal suffering.

In a video posted on Twitter on Saturday, Thunberg said the environmental impact of farming as well as disease outbreaks such as COVID-19, which is believed to have originated from animals, would be reduced by changing how food was produced.

“Our relationship with nature is broken. But relationships can change,” Thunberg said in the video marking the International Day of Biological Diversity.

A focus on agriculture and linking the climate crisis to health pandemics is a new angle for Thunberg who has typically focused her ire on policy-makers and carbon emissions from fossil fuels.

“The climate crisis, ecological crisis and health crisis, they are all interlinked,” she said.

Thunberg said the spillover of diseases from animals to humans was caused by farming methods, adding that a move to a plant-based diet could save up to 8 billion tonnes of CO2 each year.

The World Health Organization has said the coronavirus was probably transmitted from bats to humans through another animal, while scientists say 60% of the infectious human diseases that emerged from 1990 to 2004 came from animals.

Meanwhile, demand for alternatives to regular meat is surging worldwide due to concerns about health, animal welfare and the environment.

More than two dozen firms are testing lab-grown fish, beef and chicken, hoping to break into an unproven segment of the alternative meat market, which Barclays estimates could be worth $140 billion by 2029.

The Global Center on Adaptation, which works to accelerate climate resilience, said in January climate change could depress global food production by up to 30%, while rising seas and more intense storms could force hundreds of millions of people in coastal cities out of their homes.

(Reporting by Colm Fulton; Editing by Alison Williams)

Veterans Key in Homesteading America's Farms

Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:57:02 GMT

A major milestone is approaching for the act that helped open the country to settlement by farmers and veterans. The Homestead Act was signed by President Abraham Lincoln on May 20th, 1862 and is now approaching its 160-year anniversary.

“I think without the Homestead Act and without as many different people doing what they’ve done, this would be a very different country,” said historian Johnathan Fairchild with the Homestead National Historical Park in Beatrice, Nebraska. “The Homestead Act was in effect in 30 different states, basically from Florida and the southeast all the way to Alaska.”

(Farm Journal)

Fairchild says while it’s often thought of in that sense, the Homestead Act was not just in the Great Plains or western United States. It took settlers all over the country.

Roughly 270 million acres, or 10% of U.S. land, was ultimately opened to be claimed and settled.

“That was an area about the size of California and Texas put together and so it is a huge part of our country’s history,” said Fairchild. “Homesteading ended in the lower 48 in 1976 while Alaska got a special 10-year extension.”

Fairchild said from 1976-1986, Alaska was the last state that you could homestead.

Over the years, thousands of citizens including former slaves, immigrants and veterans became landowners through the Act.

“In fact, the very first and very last homesteaders were both veterans,” said Fairchild.

(Farm Journal)

Land titles could be bought from the government for just $1.25 an acre but they came with stipulations. A claim required you to stay on the land for five years build a home and farm it. History shows about 50% of homesteaders made it all five years.

“Farmers were often dealing with locusts eating their crops, dealing with blizzards, dealing with prairie fires, and frankly, just dealing with the extreme loneliness of knowing that there just maybe a few homesteaders within several miles of you,” said Fairchild. “So having to make it through the isolation and all of that made it very, very difficult for sure.”

Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, and Colorado had the highest number of successful claims. Many veterans were homesteaders because they were able to receive extra benefits from the Act. Those added benefits also extended to the widows and children of veterans.

“You could get more land than you could if you didn’t serve, you could get better quality land and you could take time from your military service and apply that to the five-year requirement to live on the land,” explains Fairchild.

Civil War veteran Daniel Freeman was the first homesteader to file a claim.

“On January 1st, 1863, he actually met a land office agent at a New Year’s Eve party and convinced them to open up the office and let him sign right at midnight as soon as the law took effect,” said Fairchild.

(Farm Journal)

Today, his home is the location of the Homestead National Historical Park where rangers help tell the homesteading story and assist some of the 93 million descendants of homesteaders living in America to learn more about their family history.

“So, there’s a one in three or maybe one in four chance that you’re tied to the homesteading story,” said Fairchild.

A story that helped not just populate the country but also jump-start a revolution.

“It changed our country and turned America into an industrial superpower, in part because of turning us into the breadbasket of the world,” said Fairchild.

For more information on a family’s homesteading history or go to the Homestead National Historic Park’s website .

Non-Profit Focuses On Mental Health Needs Across Rural America

Tue, 26 Oct 2021 01:03:13 GMT

Rural Minds™ launches with a mission to serve as the informed voice for mental health in rural America, and to provide mental health information and resources. The 501(c)(3) nonprofit will also convey the importance of overcoming the stigma around mental health challenges.

Rates for depression are higher in rural America than in urban areas, and suicide rates among people living in rural counties are 25 percent higher than those in major metropolitan areas. Addressing mental illness is a significant challenge in rural America due to unique barriers that include twenty percent fewer primary care providers than in cities, in addition to:

A lack of psychiatrists in 65 percent of rural counties;
A lack of psychiatric nurse practitioners in 81 percent of rural counties; and
A lack of access to broadband internet at home (four times more likely than it is for urban residents).

“Rural Minds is being launched to help rural Americans obtain greater access to mental health information and resources, while providing opportunities to help those affected through shared stories of lived experiences with mental illness,” said Jeff Winton, Rural Minds founder and chairman. “We hope to put an end to the suffering, silence and stigma that surrounds mental illness in rural communities where the need is so great.”

Growing up on his family’s multi-generational dairy farm in upstate New York, Winton was aware of local residents struggling with mental illness in silence, but it did not hit home until his 28-year-old nephew, Brooks, died by suicide nearly a decade ago. This shattering news became an eye-opener to the prevalence of mental illness in rural communities, and a call-to-action.

“While my mother, Elaine, was urged by some members of our small farming community to keep silent about the cause of Brooks’ death, she insisted our family talk about what happened,” said Winton. “For this reason, I delivered a very honest eulogy at his funeral that prompted some of those in attendance to open up about their struggles with depression and mental illness in their own families.”

Talking with his friends and neighbors about their mental health and suicide experiences cemented the need for an organization focused on the unique challenges faced by rural families. “The organization we are launching now, Rural Minds, is a tribute to my nephew, my mother, and to all the people who have or are currently struggling with mental illness in rural areas across the country,” Winton added.

“I am pleased that this new organization is working to bring together individuals, grassroots organizations, nonprofits in the mental health space, and corporations who have a stake in the wellness of rural America,” said Jeff Ditzenberger, founder of TUGS (Talking, Understanding, Growing, Supporting), a support group and Facebook page to help others by sharing mental illness lived experience. “Knowing that an organization like Rural Minds now exists to help people in rural America receive the mental health services that are so desperately need is hopeful news for everyone impacted.”

Jason Medows, founder of Ag State of Mind, said the effort to shine a light on underserved Americans who are feeding the nation is important to the health of the entire nation.

“It is gratifying to know that this team has pulled together the concept, vision and mission for Rural Minds,” Medows said. “The silent suffering and stigma must end. This is exactly what the farm families and rural residents need, now more than ever.”

Rural MindsTM is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit with a mission to serve as the informed voice on mental health in rural America, and to provide mental health information and resources. Our vision is a rural America where there’s no more suffering, silence, or stigma around mental illness. Find more information at www.RuralMinds.org .

Food Waste is a Growing Problem in the U.S.

Fri, 23 Sep 2022 20:42:12 GMT

A new report shows over one-third of the food produced in the U.S. is never eaten. Not only does this waste resources used to produce food, but it also creates a myriad of environmental impacts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in its latest report .

Food waste is the single most common material landfilled and incinerated in the U.S. In its report, “From Farm to Kitchen,” EPA pointed out that wasted food presents opportunities to increase food security, foster productivity and economic efficiency, promote resource and energy conservation, and address climate change.

Nearly seven years ago, the U.S. announced a goal to halve U.S. food loss and waste by 2030, but EPA said significant progress has not been made toward this goal.

“Globally, food loss and waste represent 8% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (4.4 gigatons CO2e annually), offering an opportunity for meaningful reductions,” EPA said in the report.

(Farm Journal)

A Sustainable Approach

Reducing food waste can help feed the world’s growing population more sustainably. The United Nations (UN) predicts that the world population will reach 9.3 billion by 2050. This increase will require a more than 50% increase in food production from 2010 levels.

“Decreasing food waste can lessen the need for new food production, shrinking projected deforestation, biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and water scarcity,” the report noted.

Estimates that include food lost or wasted during all stages of the food supply chain (from primary production to consumption) range from 161 to 335 billion pounds per year, or 492 to 1,032 pounds per person per year, equal to approximately 35% of the U.S. food supply.

Each year, U.S. food loss and waste embodies:

• 140 million acres agricultural land – an area the size of California and New York combined
• 5.9 trillion gallons blue water (fresh surface and groundwater) – equal to annual water use of 50 million American homes
• 778 million pounds pesticides
• 14 billion pounds fertilizer – enough to grow all the plant-based foods produced each year in the United States for domestic consumption
• 664 billion kWh energy – enough to power more than 50 million U.S. homes for a year
• 170 million MTCO2e GHG emissions (excluding landfill emissions) – equal to the annual CO2 emissions of 42 coal-fired power plants

The report also examines how U.S. food loss and waste compares to other countries. The U.S. currently wastes more food and more food per person than most any other country in the world.

“Closing yield gaps and increasing productivity alone will likely be insufficient to prevent further deforestation and environmental degradation,” the authors of the report said. “Even under the most promising scenarios of yield increases, up to 20% more land will be needed by 2050. Thus demand-side measures, such as reducing food loss waste or dietary shifts, will also be needed to sustainably increase the food supply.”

The full EPA report can be accessed here.

Read More:

Want Not, Waste Much: 5 Ways to Reduce and Recycle Food Waste

Gas Prices Crush Another Record, Prices Now On Track to Top $5 Soon

Thu, 02 Jun 2022 16:57:42 GMT

Gas prices crushed another record to start June, and experts say there’s no sign of a slowdown yet with $5 gas a strong possibility as the summer driving season pushes into high gear.

The new highest all-time record is now $4.67 a gallon. AAA reports seven states now average $5 a gallon or higher, which includes California and Illinois.

GasBuddy , which tracks real-time fuel prices at more than 140,000 gas stations in the U.S., Canada and Australia, has been following the recent run-up closely. Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy, spoke with AgWeb about why prices continue to climb after the Memorial Day weekend.

“It’s almost like every five minutes, I see the little live indicator tick up on our GasBuddy data. We are now at $4.70 and four-tenths. 15 minutes ago, we were at $4.70,” says De Haan. “We continue to actively climb here throughout the day. This is a culmination of a big jump in the wholesale price of gasoline that happened last week.”

De Haan says prices have jumped 52 cents in just a month. Prices are up $1.65 compared to a year ago. He says there are no signs of a slowdown anytime soon.

“I think gasoline could be headed the way of diesel potentially, at least nationally, the price of gasoline could eventually hit that $5 gallon mark,” says De Haan.

No Quick Fix

The soaring prices are led in part by strong demand as people ramp-up travel plans and a sluggish supply. The jump also comes after the European Union reached a deal to ban 90-percent of its Russian oil imports by the end of the year.

According to Farm Journal Washington Correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer, President Biden sees no quick fix on gas prices. Biden told reporters at the White House on Wednesday the U.S. has no immediate way to slash the price Americans are paying for gasoline and is considering other proposals such as trying to set a lower price for sale of Russian crude.

Wiesemeyer also reports Biden is likely to visit Saudi Arabia later this month as part of an international trip for NATO and Group of Seven meetings. He says Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members may boost oil output to offset a drop in Russian production, a move that could take some pressure off surging global inflation and pave the way for an ice-breaking visit to Riyadh by Biden.

Gas Prices and the Impact on Food/Meat Demand

Kansas State University agricultural economist Glynn Tonsor says while there’s not one strong indicator a recession is imminent, domestic meat demand hinges on whether the U.S. economy runs out of gas.

“Beef demand, in particular, historically, is tied to consumer incomes. If we have a recession, we would anticipate weaker beef demand and maybe protein demand overall, but particularly beef demand,” says Tonsor.

Tonsor says typically a recession isn’t defined until after the fact, but watching consumer confidence, as well as shopping habits, are both solid indicators of what’s to come.

“We’re on the road in the summer more, so we may not be done with those higher gas prices is the point,” adds Tonsor. “Yes, it does eat pocketbooks. All else equal, if one input and your budget goes up, that eats into your discretionary income for other categories. And we are watching that.”

Commodity Programs Might See a 12% Cut in the Proposed $1 Trillion Farm Bill

Fri, 17 Feb 2023 19:59:17 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office unveiled its 10-year cost estimates (2024 to 2033) for existing farm bill programs on Wednesday, with a projected $1.5 trillion price tag, up from $867 billion in the 2018 farm bill.

Jim Wiesemeyer, Pro Farmer policy analyst, advises not to put too much weight in these estimates, as they are the reason the farm bill is out of date so soon after it is written.

“CBO’s farm bill forecasts are frequently well off the mark in either direction,” he says. “It’s a lot like USDA’s farm income projections in February for the year head. CBO looks out 10 years … good luck taking these forecasts too seriously.”

So, will this amount of money keep the programs ahead of their time? Some aren’t convinced. And it starts with the farm bill’s largest funded program—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

SNAP Spending

Based on the 10-year period, SNAP spending is nearly 82% larger than what it was granted in the 2018 Farm Bill at $663 billion.

(Farm Journal)

A large portion of the increase is due to the administration’s re-evaluation of SNAP’s the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which resulted in a quarter-trillion-dollar increase in SNAP benefits from July 2021 to the May 2022 baseline.

In the most recent baseline, CBO increased its estimate of outlays for SNAP by $93 billion over the 2023–2032 period for “technical” reasons.

According to Sen. Boozman (R-AR), these reasons are rooted in “unacceptable” $250 billion spending by the USDA on TFP—which was supposed to have cost nothing—in the previous farm bill. Boozman made his sentiments known at a Senate Ag Committee farm bill hearing on nutrition on Thursday.

“Congress had no intention of your team spending that, and if you understood that was going to happen, you should have alerted Congress,” Boozman said to Cindy Long, USDA administrator. “How can we trust you going forward to give us advice? Spending a quarter of a trillion dollars from this committee is totally unacceptable.”

Related articles: How Long Does it Take to Write a Farm Bill?

While Boozman is adamant other program will suffer funding losses due to the “unsustainable” TFP increases in the coming bill, Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) says that’s not the case.

“Whether commodity or SNAP programs go up or down, these monies aren’t traded. So, cutting SNAP won’t add money to the commodity title,” Stabenow says.

The 2018 bill enacted policy for a “thorough” farm bill update that hadn’t been done since 1975, according to Stabenow. She says the TFP increases fall under that update umbrella.

“The Trump administration chose not to use that [update and funding] because that was 2018—they chose not to proceed,” Stabenow rebutted. “The Biden administration came in and chose to proceed with those funds, and I’m glad they did.”

The General Accountability Office (GAO) has since determined USDA failed to submit the TFP food basket increase to Congress as a rule as required by the Congressional Review Act.

Row Crop Safety Net

Disaster programs such as the Market Facilitation Program (MFP), Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP), Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+) and Emergency Relief Program (ERP) saw billions of dollars moved from taxpayers to producers in the past 10 years, with USDA reporting the largest spike in 2020 at $45 billion.

According to estimates from the House Ag Committee, CBO’s 2023 baselines compared to the 2018 farm bill will cause changes over the five-year period in:
• Commodity programs—12% decrease
• Conservation—19% increase
• Nutrition—82% increase
• Crop insurance—26% increase

However, CBO’s latest baseline provides no built-in ad hoc for these programs.

“If Congress doesn’t provide more funding/investments for Title 1, it puts pressure on farm-state lawmakers to continue the billions in ad hoc aid,” Wiesemeyer says. “Some analysts say reforming Title I would mean spending far less than continuing ad hoc assistance. If Title I is not made more effective, farmers will keep wondering if Congress will fund more emergency aid.”

Related articles: The Cost of a Farm Bill: 2023 Row Crop Priorities

GAO released a report stating that those wanting to change crop insurance program features will try to use to their advantage.

Here are the changes GAO says Congress could make to mitigate the programs costs:

• Reduce subsidies to high-income participants by creating an income limit.
• Adjust compensation to insurance companies to better align with market rates.

Livestock Safety Net

Dairy and livestock did, however, receive a safety net mention in CBO’s baselines.

Under the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program, CBO forecasts FY 2023 payments will total $194 million in FY 2023, with those increasing to $248 million in FY 2024 and $266 million in FY 2025. For the rest of the period—through FY 2033—they are forecast between $196 million and $265 million, for a total of $2.531 billion.

Livestock disaster payments are expected at $621 million in FY 2023 and forecast between $562 million to $591 million over FY 2024 to FY 2033, for a total of $6.333 billion.

Sustainable Beef: A “Global” Discussion and You

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:38:31 GMT

By: Heidi Carroll, SDSU Extension, Livestock Stewardship Extension Associate

In the last few months, a global discussion initiated by McDonald’s and several other food retailers continues to intensify as best practices of animal welfare and sustainable food production methods, specifically for beef, are being identified. McDonald’s commitment to buy sustainable beef in 2016 led to the formation of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, which consists of representatives from all sectors of the beef supply chain. So why is it so difficult to agree on a “globally acceptable” definition?

Sustainability has traditionally been framed around maintaining a balance between social, environmental, and economic factors that minimize negative impacts in the long term.

These areas around sustainability are impacted by the geographic location and culture in which a person lives, which makes a universally acceptable definition nearly impossible. Multi-faceted words like sustainability are very difficult to objectively evaluate, and even more difficult to regulate because they are not well-defined, universal, or have well-established measures.

Sustainable food production can become a reality when the components are broken down to simpler pieces and framed in a little common sense. This doesn’t mean the job of becoming more sustainable is any easier when it comes to evaluating an entire food supply starting at the rancher’s gate and going all the way to a finished BigMac. The real question may be, how do we get people at each step in the food chain to make individual choices that have a cumulative effect on the bigger, “global”, sustainability of planet Earth for generations to come? This seemed to be echoed by the Chief Sustainability Officer at JBS USA, and president of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, “we (the Roundtable) wanted to kind of chalk the boundary lines of what we thought sustainability meant, and empower people with the tools to improve their operations, improve their livelihood, improve their social performance to ultimately improve the whole value chain.” It comes down to people impacting other people. It comes down to choices.

Many areas are receiving attention in the global beef sustainability discussion:

Intensive forage and crop production practices
Pasture management techniques
Animal welfare, health, and feeding programs
Water and energy use
Land use / natural resource availability and depletion
Natural biological process of a ruminant (methane production)
Employee treatment and fair wages
Traceability of products
Food waste
Product packaging
Economic impacts (who pays and who benefits)

Some of these topics are better understood and quantifiable than others. As livestock producers, we should engage ourselves with diverse audiences to understand the concerns with production practices that other members of the community may have when it comes to long-term sustainability of a safe, healthy, and affordable food supply. It is important to identify areas of our individual operations that can be monitored to understand the actual impact livestock production is having on the environment, society, and economy. Assuming we, livestock producers, are already sustainable gets the discussion nowhere and brings the continuous improvement to a screeching halt. The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef should release a draft of the proposed practices that promote sustainable beef production for public comment sometime this spring or summer after the group completes an internal review of the first draft. Until a draft is released, give some thought to the daily production practices at home.

Evaluate local natural resources and the direct impacts of the operation on those resources. This means acknowledging the positive and negative effects on others concerning land use, water and air quality, and wildlife. Are there areas for improvement?
Gather information about alternative crop production methods for your area that promote healthy soils and water ways and maximize production efficiencies. Can methods that require less inputs of fertilizer, irrigation, or tillage be implemented?
Evaluate livestock feeding programs. Can modifications be made to existing equipment or facilities that promote decreased waste of feedstuffs or water, and essentially save money? What marketing options are available to capture the best profit opportunity without sacrificing the well-being of the animals or impacting the quality of the food products?
Consider the waste or garbage that is produced by all aspects of the operation. Do less wasteful alternatives exist that have positive effects on the environment and the community?

Maintaining integrity for continuous improvement of food production practices while preserving our resources can lead to sustainability of a diverse food supply. Another obvious benefit of pursuing sustainable production methods is having access to more customers. As stewards of the land, animals, and our communities, let’s start the discussion at the ranch gate to make sustainable food production more of a reality.

Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef Invites Public Comment

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:38:39 GMT

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) has released its draft Principles and Criteria for Global Sustainable Beef document for public comment. The document identifies the key areas in the beef value chain that must be addressed to ensure beef production around the globe is environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically viable. The draft was developed by GRSB members, including producers and producer associations, the processing sector, retail companies, civil society organizations, and regional roundtables.

“These principles and criteria establish a global framework for ensuring sustainable performance in beef production,” according to Ruaraidh Peter, GRSB Executive Director. “The definition covers all elements of the global beef value chain, including production, processing, distribution, sale and consumption. GRSB members believe sustainability is a journey of continuous improvement that requires the shared participation and responsibility among all actors – from producers to consumers. The GRSB definition provides a broad road map for this journey, allowing different regions to establish specific indicators, metrics or practices.”

The draft document, accessible at www.GRSBeef.org , is the product of more than a year’s work by members of the GRSB, as well as consultations with outside reviewers and beef sustainability subject matter experts around the globe. The public is invited to provide input and comments to the draft definition through May 16, 2014, after which the document will be updated to reflect the input received during the public comment period. Comments, along with any improvements to the draft definition, will be published for public review.

“GRSB defines sustainable beef as a socially responsible, environmentally sound and economically viable product that prioritizes our planet, people, the animals, and continuous progress,” said Cameron Bruett, President of the GRSB and Head of Corporate Affairs at JBS USA. “Our membership has worked in a collaborative fashion to boldly confront the challenges in every segment of the beef value chain. The core principles for global sustainable beef production seek to balance a broad range of issues including natural resources, community and individual development, animal well-being, food, efficiency and innovation.”

GRSB officially formed in 2012 and includes international members from across the beef value chain. The group is organized into five constituency groups, including cattlemen, ranchers and producer groups, commerce and processing, retail, civil societies (NGOs), and regional roundtables. It is through the efforts of the regional roundtables that the definition will be applied to accomplish on-the-ground improvements in specific areas of the world.

“Our diverse membership recognizes that the global beef industry plays an important role in the lives of the people and communities who produce and consume beef; the well-being of the animals under our care; the management of natural resources; and in meeting the growing global population’s demand for animal protein efficiently,” Bruett said. “We are confident that through leadership, collaboration and the promotion of a science-based approach, we can achieve our vision of a world where all aspects of the global beef value chain are environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically viable.”

The GRSB general assembly will vote on final adoption of the Global Beef Sustainability Principles and Criteria document later this year during the Global Conference for Sustainable Beef.

About GRSB
The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) is a global, multi-stakeholder initiative developed to advance continuous improvement in sustainability of the global beef value chain through leadership, science and multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration. The GRSB envisions a world in which all aspects of the beef value chain are environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically viable.

Source: Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

Changes in U.S.-Mexican Cattle and Beef Trade

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:36:55 GMT

—Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

Mexico has long been a major beef industry trading partner with the U.S. in roles that have continually evolved into deeper and more integrated relationships. For many years, Mexico has been the major source of imported feeder cattle. U.S. beef exports to Mexico developed in the late 1990s and Mexico has been one of the top beef export destinations since then.

Most recently Mexico has emerged as a top source of beef imports into the U.S. All of these markets have been rather dynamic in recent years and raise the question of what the nature of U.S. and Mexican cattle and beef trade will be in the future.

Since 2009, U.S. imports of Mexican beef increased by 268% to make Mexico the fourth largest source of U.S. beef imports. Mexico exports beef to a number of countries including Japan, Russia and South Korea and Mexican beef exports have more than doubled since 2009. Beef exports to the U.S. represented just over 40% of total Mexican beef exports in 2012.

U.S. imports of Mexican beef are up again so far in 2013 and are on pace to increase another 30% by the end of the year. Most of the beef imported from Mexico is middle meats from fed cattle.

The dramatic increase in Mexican beef exports is the result of a rapid conversion of the Mexican beef industry from a carcass to a boxed beef marketing system. This has opened new market opportunities in both domestic and international beef markets. It is not clear how potentially large the market for Mexican beef in the U.S. is, but there appears to be room for additional growth.

U.S. exports of beef to Mexico have declined since 2008 and are declining again in 2013. Since 2008, a combination of higher U.S. beef prices and exchange rate impacts have made U.S. beef more expensive in Mexico and are undoubtedly the major reason for declining beef exports to Mexico. However, Mexican beef prices have risen sharply in the past 18 months and domestic beef prices in Mexico are once again close to U.S. beef prices. This may help stabilize U.S. beef exports to Mexico in the second half of the year. However, high beef prices in Mexico is curtailing consumption and it is hard to anticipate much increase in beef imports from the U.S. with both domestic and imported beef in Mexico at record price levels. U.S beef exports to Mexico are likely to level off and could recover some of the recent declines in the face of expected decreased domestic beef production in Mexico in the next couple of years.

High U.S. cattle prices and drought in Mexico resulted in large and growing U.S. imports of Mexican cattle since 2010. The 2012 total of 1.47 million head was the second largest level of Mexican cattle imports since the 1995 record level of 1.65 million head.

Cattle imports from Mexico in 2012 included the largest number of spayed heifers ever imported while the number of steers actually decreased from 2011 totals. It is apparent that recent levels of cattle exports from Mexico are not sustainable and represent herd liquidation. The rate of cattle imports into the U.S. dropped sharply in late 2012 and so far in 2013.

Total imports of Mexican cattle into the U.S. in 2013 are on pace to decrease by more than 40 percent and may drop even more. Total imports of less than 800,000 head are likely for the year. Mexican herd liquidation in recent years likely means diminished beef production in Mexico and diminished levels of cattle exports to the U.S. for several years.

CattleTrace Holds First Industry Symposium

Fri, 23 Sep 2022 21:19:02 GMT

CattleTrace, the industry-driven initiative to build a disease traceability system for the beef industry, has expanded to multiple states. That was one of the messages more than 200 industry leaders from across the nation discovered at the first CattleTrace Industry Symposium held Nov. 22, 2019, in Manhattan, Kan.

The symposium provided opportunities for CattleTrace partners and other stakeholders to discuss the future of disease traceability and to provide feedback and guidance on CattleTrace and the advancement of disease traceability.

“CattleTrace was developed by and for beef producers,” said Brandon Depenbusch, CattleTrace, Inc., Board of Directors Chairman. “It was humbling to have so many producers and partners participate in the symposium, and their feedback will be critical as CattleTrace continues expanding and progressing.”

CattleTrace was launched in late June 2018. Since then, a disease traceability system has been developed and built, including ultra-high frequency ear tags, tag readers and a private database, owned by CattleTrace, Inc. To date, more than 50,000 tags have been distributed, which has resulted in approximately 150,000 individual sightings at cow-calf operations, livestock markets, backgrounding operations, feedyards and packers being transmitted to the database. Attendees of the symposium saw the first-ever public demonstration of a mock traceback using the CattleTrace system. Kansas Animal Health Commissioner, Dr. Justin Smith, says the CattleTrace system significantly enhances the ability to trace movement of feeder cattle in the event of a disease outbreak.

In addition to observing the first-ever public demonstration of a disease traceback, symposium attendees gained additional insights about the costs and economic impact of implementing a full disease traceability system and were able to ask questions of CattleTrace leaders during a panel discussion. A highlight of the symposium was remarks from Dr. Andrew Moxey, a consultant with ScotEID, about livestock traceability in Scotland and the benefits of ultra-high frequency technology. Attendees also engaged with other CattleTrace partners in breakout sessions where discussion focused on the future of CattleTrace.

“We have come a long way since CattleTrace was launched, but there is a lot of work that lies ahead of us to develop a national disease traceability system for the beef cattle industry,” said Depenbusch. “The feedback we gained at the symposium is not going to be put on a shelf and forgotten about. It will be used to help make critical decisions about the future of CattleTrace. We are excited about building new partnerships and continuing to expand CattleTrace, but more importantly, developing a disease traceability system to benefit our entire industry.”

To learn more about CattleTrace, visit www.CattleTrace.org or follow CattleTrace on Facebook or Twitter.

Wanted: Sustainable Beef Suppliers

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:46:58 GMT

From the May 2016 issue of Drovers.

When McDonald’s—the fast-food behemoth that serves 75 hamburgers every second—announced two years ago it would begin sourcing some of its beef from “sustainable” sources by 2016, a lot of cowboys became skeptical. More suspicions were raised in cattle country when it was learned McDonald’s chose Canada for the company’s pilot project to identify and certify sustainable suppliers.

The company that puts 2% of the world’s beef in the hands of consumers recognized they had to mend some fences, so executives were dispatched to cowboy meetings to discuss their plans and motives.

“Sustainability is part of growing our business and your business,” Bob Langert, McDonald’s former vice-president of sustainability, told cattlemen in Manhattan, Kan., this past year. He said McDonald’s sustainability initiative is driven by consumers, not activists. As the chief architect of McDonald’s sustainability project, Langert helped develop plans to begin sourcing “verified
sustainable beef.”

Langert’s comments raised some eyebrows because suggesting beef production is not sustainable is viewed as an insult by many, especially cowboys from multi-generational ranches.

“I know we’re sustainable, or I wouldn’t be the fourth generation on this ranch,” Cherie Copithorne-Barnes of CL Ranches Ltd. in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, told Drovers in 2015.

Rancher Debbie Lyons-Blythe, White City, Kan., asks, “What better proof of sustainability is there than when we can say we are a multi-
generational ranch?”

Both Copithorne-Barnes and Lyons-Blythe support the concept that beef production is sustainable and cattlemen must accept ideas consumers want to know more. “We need to be at the table to help shape the discussion,” Lyons-Blythe says.

Such sentiments are acknowledged by the folks at McDonald’s, and Langert told the audience in Kansas, “We didn’t create sustainable beef on a whim. Beef is who we are.” He says McDonald’s sustainability initiative is an effort to make beef more “attractive and relevant” to modern consumers. “People want to eat food they feel good about.”

McDonald’s desire to stake out a sustainable position is rooted in allegations that trace back a decade. That’s when the environmental activist group Greenpeace claimed McDonald’s and other fast food giants were linked to Amazon rainforest destruction. They vowed to hold McDonald’s accountable.

Armed with “satellite images, aerial surveillance, previously unreleased government documents and on-the-ground monitoring,” Greenpeace claimed to trace soya “from criminal rainforest destruction to McDonald’s.” They issued a news release across Europe, followed by protesters dressed as 7'-tall chickens who invaded McDonald’s restaurants and chained themselves to chairs. European media ate it up.

High-profile activist antics leave consumers with the impression beef is environmentally unfriendly, or unsustainable. Negative images of its core product left McDonald’s with no choice but to seek ways to prove activist allegations are false—beef is a sustainable food source. Highly-charged activist claims also spurred the beef industry to form the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), an effort to define and promote sustainability in the beef industry worldwide. Closer to home, American beef industry leaders developed their own initiative to counter activist charges with hard data.

“Sustainability is a word that is often hijacked,” says Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, executive director of global sustainability for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). “It doesn’t mean totally organic. It’s about doing more with less and making continuous improvement. Beef is arguably one of the most sustainable industries.”

The foundation for such an argument was laid in the checkoff-funded Beef Industry Life Cycle Assessment, the first food system to benchmark its current status in a holistic manner that encompasses all three aspects of sustainability. The life cycle assessment, Stackhouse-Lawson says, helps producers recognize “how management changes over time have improved the sustainability of beef and utilize that knowledge to produce more sustainable beef in the future.”

The research included an evaluation of thousands of data points to quantify the industry’s progress since 2005. By documenting that progress, the beef industry can for the first time provide science-based answers to questions about its sustainability. Stackhouse-Lawson also sees the industry’s sustainability initiative as an opportunity for cattlemen.

“Producers want to do what is best for the environment, best for the cattle and economically sustainable,” she says. “Ultimately, improvements in efficiency are the main driver of change in sustainability. Adoption of more sustainable production practices also makes good business sense.”

Beef’s sustainability advancements have come through innovations such as higher crop yields, better irrigation, innovations in the packing sector, improvements in technology and better animal performance.

Stackhouse-Lawson says the project was extensive. “We examined millions of individual data points and then created models to simulate specific aspects of beef production practices so that this data and these results are truly representative of beef production in the U.S.”

The findings of beef’s life cycle assessment revealed gains in all three components of sustainability—people, planet and profit. A 7% improvement was documented in both beef’s social and environmental sustainability, with a 6% gain in economic impact.

The assessment reviewed aspects of the beef life cycle at every phase of pre- and post-harvest production. The single-largest improvement in a category between 2005 and 2011 came in occupational illnesses and accidents, which declined 32%, primarily due to fewer occupational accidents and illnesses in the packing sector.

Hard data is still needed to answer critics and address the fact “sustainability of U.S. farming and ranching” is an issue 83% of U.S. consumers say they are very concerned about. In a survey conducted this past June by the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, one in four respondents (26%) said whether food is grown, raised or produced “sustainably” is the most important thought or consideration in their food purchases.

American’s desire for sustainable food production is why Langert says McDonald’s sustainability initiative is driven by consumers not activists, and why the company is moving forward with their Canadian pilot project. This past month McDonald’s senior manager of sustainability, Jeffrey Fitzpatrick-Stillwell, outlined progress the company has made in its pilot project for cattlemen at a conference in Olds, Alberta, Canada.

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Alberta Beef Producers, Alberta Cattle Feeders and other industry experts worked with McDonald’s to develop a system to verify that the beef they buy is raised in a humane and environmentally sustainable manner, yet remains profitable for producers. The results were shared with the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. On June 1 a celebration of certification and workshop on the system will be held in Calgary.

Fitzpatrick-Stillwell told the Mountain View Gazette, Olds, Alberta, the verification process remains a work in progress. By the end of April, McDonald’s hoped to have identified 180 Canadian producers who are raising cattle in a “sustainable” manner.

“We’re at the very beginning stages of this,” Fitzpatrick-Stillwell said. Some cattlemen, he admitted, “may decide it’s not for them.” That won’t deter the project because consumers “are starting to make value judgments about what people on the farm do, and that’s starting to drive things up through the supply chain and starting to impact what we’re selling and how we’re selling to people.”