I am Angus | Life on a Kansas Cattle Ranch

Awesome example of using social media for agriculture & consumer education!

From Crystal Cattle and video produced by the American Angus Association:

Before Christmas I traveled out to the Flint Hills of Kansas to spend a day videoing and interviewing Debbie Lyons Blythe. Debbie is a pretty cool gal. She is the man power behind her family’s ranch, and has five kids and a great husband to support to her. She’s involved in her community, knows the importance of attending industry agriculture meetings and has wrote a cook book so consumers who are buying boxed beef from her have a better understanding of how to utilize the whole carcass.

I got to the Ranch just a little before lunch and Debbie was starting to make a huge pot of chili. I knew it would be good because I am a huge fan of Debbie’s Beef Enchilada Soup recipe. Looking at that pot I thought wow she’ll have left overs for days. However, when her kids (four in high school, and one a in college) rolled in for lunch it was evident that there wasn’t going to be much left over. These kids were filling up on beef, and it would fuel them for rest of the day.

Debbie was the subject of my I am Angus segment because of her commitment to telling agriculture’s story to the consumer. She wants consumers to know where their food comes from, and she wants farmers and ranchers to be accessible to answer questions. Things I want too.

Be sure to check out Debbie on Twitter @DebbieLB, her facebook page Life on a Kansas Cattle Ranch or Debbie’s ranch blog.

The opinions expressed in the above post represent the thoughts and feelings of the blogger, and not necessarily NYFEA as a whole.

Environmental Stewardship – Presentation & Handout

Check out the presentation below from Tommy Bass & Jill Heemstra on Environmental Stewardship.

This presentation was given at the 2010 National Institute as part of the Environmental Ag Leaders Project.  If you haven’t taken the Environmental Ag Leaders survey yet, we hope you will at http://tinyurl.com/nyfeasurvey.

We want your feedback!

From Jill Heemstra, Environmental Ag Leaders:

http://tinyurl.com/nyfeasurvey

We want to know! What environmental issues will have the greatest impact on your farm or ranch? Where do you go to learn more about environmental topics? Please take a few minutes (less than 10) to complete a survey about environmental issues and resources. This survey is part of the new Environmental Leaders Award project recently announced by NYFEA (http://agriculturespromise.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/environmental-leaders-award-program/). We invite farmers and ranchers and ag professionals who influence environmental decisions on farms and ranchers to participate. We will post the results in February. If you have any questions, contact Jill Heemstra jheemstra@unl.edu (or @LPELC on Twitter).

 

STC Analysis Shows Impact of Transportation on Farmer Incomes

by: Mike Steenhoek, Executive Director, Soy Transportation Coalition

Analysis performed on behalf of the Soy Transportation Coalition documents the strong relationship between our nation’s freight transportation system and individual farmer profitability. The study provides compelling evidence that farmers, more than any other segment of agriculture, are responsible for paying the transportation costs from the farm to the dinner plate.

The study examined 36 soybean loading facilities across seven states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota) and analyzed the relationship among origin basis, destination basis, and transportation costs. The resulting graphs from the analysis all exhibit how transportation costs are disproportionately absorbed by farmers via a declining origin basis.

Dean Campbell, a soybean producer from Coulterville, Illinois, explains the inherent challenges of conducting such a study, “The price a farmer receives for any commodity is determined by a complex assortment of issues. Trying to single out transportation’s role in determining prices is difficult, but as we discovered in conducting the study, it is possible to provide greater clarity to this issue and allow farmers to more accurately see how transportation has a major impact on our individual bottom line. Farmers should therefore be among the leading advocates for a well-maintained, reliable transportation system.”

The report specifically identifies how in periods of strong worldwide demand (a “demand pull” market), the ultimate customer will pay the costs — including transportation costs — for obtaining the shipment of soybeans. However, the report notes, “after the temporary demand pull is over, the market will always adjust/correct and any increases in transportation costs will always be passed back to producers.” Over the long term, as the report highlights, agriculture is a “supply push” market due to strong competition from other grain and oilseed producing nations — resulting in transportation costs being disproportionately passed back to producers.

The graphs from the 36 soybean loading facilities provide examples of when the relationship between transportation and farmer income is strongest (“supply push” market) and when it is the weakest (“demand pull” market). For example, in the graph from Jeffersonville, Indiana, the correlation between transportation costs and origin basis (farmer income) is clearly evident. As transportation costs rise, origin basis diminishes. This is particularly the case from 2004 to 2008, a period largely categorized as a “supply push” market. However, the graph highlights the “demand pull” market of 2009 during which worldwide demand, particularly in China, was strong and supply was diminished due to drought conditions in South America. During this period, the correlation between transportation costs and origin basis was not existent. This dynamic can be observed in all 36 locations analyzed for the study.

To complement the empirical data collected for the study, a survey was conducted in which 11 grain traders were asked if freight rate increases are passed onto the end user or if most increases are passed onto the producer. Seven of the 11 traders responded that freight increases are passed back to the farmer. Two responded that such costs are passed onto the end user with the remaining two suggesting that the costs are split between the farmer and the end user.

“This analysis truly highlights how farmer profitability is dependent upon a number of items out of our control,” explains Norm Husa, a soybean producer from Barneston, Nebraska. “When reviewing the data and corresponding graphs, one can clearly see the role that worldwide supply and demand and transportation costs play in establishing the prices we receive. Farmers may be tempted to believe that once their grain has been delivered, any subsequent transportation costs are the problem of the elevator. In reality, these costs are our problem. Farmers should therefore be active to ensure we have a transportation system that is not an obstacle to our profitability.”

Intensive farming may ease climate change

Land saved from cultivation offsets carbon emissions.

by: Jeff Tollefson, Nature News

To many people, modern agriculture, with its industrial-scale farms and reliance on petroleum-based fertilizers, may seem a necessary evil — one that has fed a growing human population while causing untold damage to the environment. But the alternative may be worse, concludes a Stanford University study: a less-productive agricultural system would destroy even more wild land, drive up greenhouse-gas emissions and wreak havoc on biodiversity. The study’s results suggest that further agricultural intensification will play a critical part in addressing global warming.

In the study, researchers modelled the world as we know it, complete with the ‘green revolution’ and modern agricultural practices, and two alternative realities in which crop yields were kept at the levels of decades ago. Published on 14 June, the results show that increased greenhouse-gas emissions resulting from intensive farming are more than offset by the effects of land preservation, which keeps carbon sequestered in native soils, savannahs and forests (J. A. Burney et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA doi:10.1073/pnas.0914216107; 2010).

“In the beginning, we weren’t even sure whether the carbon savings from land use would outweigh the increased agricultural emissions,” says David Lobell, an agricultural scientist at Stanford University in California and a co-author on the study. After all, the fertilizers used in intensive farming increase emissions of greenhouse gases. All told, agriculture was responsible for 10–12% of global anthropogenic emissions in 2005.

Yet the balance turns out to be favourable, says Lobell, “and the carbon savings are quite large”. All other things being equal, the researchers found that agricultural advances between 1961 and 2005 spared a portion of land larger than Russia from development and reduced emissions by the equivalent of 590 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide — roughly a third of the total emitted since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

The notion that increasing crop yields preserves forests and other native lands dates back to the father of the green revolution, the late US plant scientist Norman Borlaug, and is known as the Borlaug hypothesis. Lobell’s team attempted to quantify that effect and to calculate the resulting reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Between 1961 and 2005, the global population increased by 111%, from 3.1 billion to 6.5 billion, but agricultural yields went up by 135% over the same period, according to the researchers. As a result, global cropland increased by just 27%, from 960 million to around 1.2 billion hectares.

To work out how much land would be required to feed today’s world using yesterday’s technology, the researchers froze agricultural yields at 1961 levels and then allowed population and living standards to increase apace. Although emissions from fertilizer use were lower than in the real-world scenario, the amount of land required to grow food expanded by nearly 1.8 billion hectares. In a second scenario, both the yields and the standard of living were fixed at 1961 levels; the effects in terms of agricultural-land conversion and greenhouse-gas emissions were roughly half those of the first scenario but were still higher than actual impacts in the real-world analysis (see ‘Greenhouse-gas emissions’).

Finally, the team analysed the nearly US$1.2-trillion investment in agricultural research and development since 1961. Averaged over the study period, investments in agricultural yields reduced carbon emissions at a cost of around $4 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, less than a quarter of the going price for emissions permits under Europe’s carbon-trading scheme.

The environmental benefits will accrue if yields continue to increase, say researchers. Last year, for example, a team from the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, analysed land-use scenarios and found that increasing yields could reduce emissions as much as could energy technologies such as wind and solar (M. Wise et al. Science 324, 1183–1186; 2009).

“Above all, this study underscores the purpose of agricultural research funding, especially in developing countries,” says Andrew Balmford, a conservation scientist at the University of Cambridge, UK. Unless the world sees a second green revolution, some 1.5 billion to 2 billion additional hectares will need to be put into production by 2050 to feed a growing population, according to an ongoing analysis by David Tilman, an ecologist at the University of Minnesota in St Paul. Fortunately, there is plenty of cleared land that is underperforming and massive potential for boosting yields in developing countries, Tilman says. “If we want to save the Earth, we have to feed the world,” Tilman adds.”And it’s these poorest countries that have the most to contribute.”

Featured: What’s this CSU ag organization doing on campus?

We asked Colorado State University’s CYFEA president about what his organization is doing on campus!  Read on!

Greetings from Ft. Collins, CO! The Colorado State University Young Farmers chapter is excited to be featured for Agriculture’s Promise. As we wrap up classes and get set to begin final exams next week, our members are all relieved to have made it through our busiest time of year unscathed.

Spring is always a very busy and productive time for our chapter. Beginning in the first week of February with the Colorado Young Farmers State Institute, we find ourselves always either planning or executing some event virtually through the first weekend in May. This February, five members of CSU Young Farmers competed in the Colorado Young Farmers Spokesperson for Agriculture contest, and for the third consecutive year, a CSU Young Farmers member won the contest. Stephanie Lebsock will represent our chapter, and our state, at the National Institute later this year. Our advisor, Dr. Kellie Enns, left State Institute with the Glenn Schmeeckle Colorado Young Farmers Outstanding Advisor award.

For the past three years, we have coordinated a broomball tournament with other student organizations in the CSU College of Agricultural Sciences. This year, we expanded the tournament to include five organizations. That is always a great time for our members to mingle with one another and engage in some friendly competition with a large number of other students.

CYFEA members play broomball

We have a unique opportunity to work very closely with the Colorado FFA Association to support Agricultural Education in Colorado. In 2008, we founded the CSU Young Farmers chapter in order to broaden the horizons of an already existing campus organization that is now housed inside CSU Young Farmers. Alpha Tau Alpha (ATA) is a national organization for college students majoring in Agricultural Education. Today, our Young Farmers chapter includes ATA, so many of our university’s Agricultural Education students are members. Dr. Enns, our advisor, is a member of Colorado Team AgEd, and she works to train future ag teachers in her position as an Agricultural Education professor at CSU. Our Young Farmers chapter remains very in touch with the goals of ATA, so much of what we do is done with the purpose of supporting and promoting Agricultural Education at the state and district levels.

Throughout our school year, we run various FFA Career Development Events. We put together Parliamentary Procedure and Quiz Bowl contests to send to FFA districts that are too far for us to drive to, and we plan and coordinate contests that we can get to. It is always a tremendous learning experience for all of our members. In March, we planned and coordinated the Quiz Bowl and Parliamentary Procedure contests for Colorado’s North Central FFA District in Brighton, CO. In June, we will travel to Craig, CO, for the Colorado FFA State Convention, where we will coordinate the state contests for Quiz Bowl, Parliamentary Procedure, Extemporaneous Public Speaking, Prepared Public Speaking, and Creed Speaking. We also judge all of the students’ record books from their Supervised Agricultural Experience Programs, their Ag Notebooks, secretary’s books, and the science fair competition.

Our biggest event of the year took place just a few days ago on May 2 and 3. For the past three years, our organization has planned and coordinated the Colorado FFA State Agricultural Mechanics Career Development Event. This is one of the largest and most diverse contests that students can be involved in, and it also serves as a nice fundraiser for our chapter. Students are judged in many different practicum areas, including welding, farm power and machinery, tool identification, fluid identification, plumbing, electricity, creating a bill of materials, a written test, and a team activity. This year’s team activity was cost estimation for ten panels. It included a writing portion and a speaking portion. In some years, plumbing and electricity are replaced by carpentry. Last year’s team activity was building a sawhorse. A group of five of our students spent the better part of their semester planning this contest, and over 30 students assisted in its implementation over the two days that it ran. Along with serving as a wonderful educational opportunity for our students, this time also serves as our biggest fundraiser of the year. The Saturday before the contest began, our students made over 200 burritos to sell to FFA members that come to CSU to compete in various Career Development Events. Many of us were out early in the morning on Monday to sell the burritos, and others were up even earlier to make sure that the burritos were warm.

CYFEA members' Doug Wilson and Megan Semler make burritos to sell to Colorado FFA members.

As our school year winds down, we hope to look back and be able to say that this year has been a valuable one for our chapter. Our membership stands at the highest it has ever been, and we have begun to draw from a diverse group of students from various departments on campus. It is great to become more and more involved with the Colorado Young Farmers, and we hope to send a team to compete in CYFEA’s largest fundraiser this July, the Fish ‘N Chip tournament in Windsor, CO. Thank you for featuring our chapter, and we look forward to a successful 2010-2011 school year!

Will Nelson
President, CSU Young Farmers/Alpha Tau Alpha

Many thanks to Will Nelson for this post & for doing an AWESOME job at CSU for agriculture!

Click here to find CSU Young Farmers on Facebook

Navigating Environmental Issues – The presentation

This presentation was given by Jill Heemstra (@LPELC) and Tommy Bass at Agriculture’s Promise 2010 in Washington D.C.

CYFEA at CSU – Ag On Campus

One week from today, we’ll feature a guest blog post from Colorado State University’s Young Farmers!  Learn how this group promotes agriculture on their campus & why you should join your campus’ Ag organization!  We’re super excited about our very first featured chapter, and we hope you’ll check back Tuesday, May 4th to learn more!

Preview: Case Study – Environmental Issues in the Livestock Industry

Here’s a little idea of what this case study entails.  We’ll try to post the entire presentation soon!

Case Study:

Thomas Bass (Montana State University) & Jill Hoemstra ( U of Nebraska – Lincoln)

Navigating Environmental Issues: Beginning Livestock & Poultry Producers

US Senator Jon Tester

-          3^rd gen farmer, butcher, and teacher

-          1500 + acres primarily organic wheat and barley

-          Big Sandy, MT: pop 703

Quotes from letter from Sen. Tester:  “There will always be challenges. There will also always be opporutnities.  Be an innovator.  Most of the successful farmers I know today took chances no one else would…. The future of agriculture is bright, and you are the future.”

Environmental Concern

-          Primarily non-point source water pollution

• Collective run off from an area
• In animal ag: run-off could be from confinement areas, manure, and feed storage, or land application areas.

-          Livestock and poultry operations have the potential to contribute the following to waters of the US:

• Nutrients,
• sediment,
• pathogens,
• organic matter

-          Existing Regulations

• Primarily water quality driven
  • Clean water act (CWA< USEPA< 1972, 77, 87)
  • CAFO Permitting
• State rules and delegated authority
  • State rules and delegated authority
    • State enforce on behalf of federal government
    • Local ordinances
      • Zoning, setback, air quality, other

-          Animal Feeding Operations

• Most detailed an descriptive rules apply to Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs and CAFOs)
  • Permitting: federa and/or state level
• Animals in confinement in area with no vegetation (or inside), feed delivered
• Permits are size based

-          Base of permit and documentation

• Nutrient Management plan (NMP)
  • “Nutrient and Manure Checkbook”
  • Document and supporting records that account for fertilizer and manure; needs, inventory, use (land application) and export
  • Based on: soil tests, manure tests, yield goals and crop nutrient needs
  • Also documents other

-          Benefits Beyond Compliance

• NMP or similar environmental plan can:
  • Allow for better use of on-site manure nutrients; save on fertilizer purchases and improve soil
  • Reduce liability of spills/water pollution
  • Document/defend against environmental accusation
  • Improve access to credit & insurance

-          Pasture and Range

• Little regulation exists
• Many options for voluntary conservation and stewardship
• Poor management could attract unwanted attention
• Clean water act can still apply

-          On the horizon: air and emissions

• Green House Gasses (CH4, CO3, N2O)