Morning Ag Clips

Home Âť You searched for land values Âť Page 240

Hidden costs for biofuel consumers

by

URBANA, Ill. — Farmers earn more profits when there is demand for corn for biofuel instead of for food only. This can lead some to convert grasslands and forests to cropland. This conversion, also called indirect land use change, can have large-scale environmental consequences, including releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere. To penalize the carbon emissions from this so-called indirect land use change, the USEPA and California Air Resources Board include an indirect land use change factor when considering the carbon savings with biofuels for their compliance with the federal Renewable Fuel Standard or California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard.

“Biofuel policies like the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard in California are trying to minimize the indirect land use change-related emissions by accounting for the indirect land use change factor as part of the carbon emissions per gallon of biofuels. We examine the costs and benefits of using this approach at a national level,” says University of Illinois agricultural economist Madhu Khanna.

A research paper on the subject by Khanna and her colleagues appears today in Nature Communications in which they ask: By how much would carbon emissions be reduced as a result of regulating indirect land use change like they are attempting to do in California? At what cost? And, who bears those costs?

Khanna says a low-carbon fuel standard creates incentives to switch to low-carbon advanced biofuels, but including the indirect effect makes compliance more costly and fuel more expensive for consumers.

Evan DeLucia, a U of I professor of plant biology and a co-author on the study, explains that biofuels differ in the carbon emissions they generate per gallon and their effect on use of land. Cellulosic biofuels, particularly from crop residues, or energy crops, like miscanthus and switchgrass, produced on low-quality marginal land lead to lower indirect land use change than corn ethanol.

“Inclusion of the indirect land use change factor makes it much more costly to achieve the Low Carbon Fuel Standard,” Khanna says. “It penalizes all biofuels and increases their carbon emissions per gallon. It imposes a hidden tax on all fuels that is borne by fuel consumers and blenders.”

“What we find is the inclusion of this indirect land use change factor leads to a relatively small reduction in emissions and this reduction comes at a very large cost to fuel consumers and fuel blenders,” Khanna says. “The economic cost of reducing these carbon emissions is much higher than the value of the damages caused by those emissions, as measured by the social cost of carbon. What our findings suggest is that it’s not optimal to regulate indirect land use change in the manner that it is currently done in California and of extending that to other parts of the country.”

The social cost of carbon, Khanna says, is $50 per ton of carbon dioxide on average. The economic cost of reducing carbon emissions by including California’s indirect land use change factor at a national level is $61 per ton of carbon dioxide.

The use of California’s indirect land use change factors applied nationally would imply that the cost of reducing a ton of carbon is 20 percent higher than the avoided damages from those emissions. “We find that it is just not worth reducing these indirect land use emissions using California’s approach. It imposes a cost that is passed on to the consumer in the form of a higher cost for fuel,” Khanna says. “These costs for fuel consumers could range from $15 billion to $131 billion nationally over a decade, depending on the indirect land use change factors applied.”

“We need to think of better ways to prevent indirect land use change that would be more cost-effective,” Khanna says.

Currently, there is no national low-carbon fuel standard. California has one, Oregon recently established a low-carbon fuel standard, and other states are considering it. Khanna says this study provides useful information as states move forward to determine whether or not they should continue this policy of including an indirect land use change factor when they implement a low-carbon fuel standard.

“A lot of effort has been made and continues to be made to calculate the indirect land use change factor so they can be included in implementing low-carbon fuel policies,” Khanna says. “The presence of indirect land use change due to biofuels has, in fact, dominated the whole debate about the climate benefits of biofuels. We may be more productive if we focus more on the direct carbon saving with biofuels and incorporating those in trying to encourage the move toward lower carbon biofuels rather than regulating the indirect effects. Estimates of the indirect effects of biofuels have also become much smaller over time and it’s time to re-evaluate the benefits of continuing the policy of regulating indirect emissions,” Khanna says.

The paper, “The social inefficiency of regulating indirect land use change due to biofuels,” is written by Madhu Khanna, Weiwei Wang, Tara W. Hudiburg, and Evan H. DeLucia and is published in Nature Communications. Funding for the work was provided by the Energy Foundation, the Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, and the Department of Energy Sun Grant.

Khanna is the ACES Distinguished Professor for Environmental Economics in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois.

— Debra Levey Larson, University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences

For more news from Illinois, click here.

Breakeven yields: corn & soybeans

by

BROOKINGS, S.D. — The 2016 U.S. crop-year showed record acreage for soybeans and a large acreage for corn. The combination of more acres, warm temperatures, and adequately-timed rainfall events, resulted in also record yields. According to the NASS stocks for corn and soybeans have been increasing since 2014, a trend that’s likely to continue in 2017. In a US market largely driven by supply and demand, it is expected prices will remain moderately low for both crops, unless there are drastic changes in crop output in other countries. This situation has impacted farm profitability which was down for the third consecutive year. Land values are also expected to drop since they usually follow commodity prices. According to 2017 USDA Farm Service Agency figures, farm net worth, defined as asset value minus debt, will likely follow suit during 2017, down for the third consecutive year. Farm debt-to-asset ratio is forecast to be higher at almost record values.

Costs of Production

In order to attempt to sell at a profit rather than taking a hit, it is important for corn and soybean producers to know their breakeven yields. Table 1 shows the 2016-2018 costs of production according to the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS. 2017). Projected costs were calculated on projected changes based on indexes of prices paid for farm inputs. 1. Commercial fertilizer, soil conditioners, and manure. 2. Custom operations, technical services, and commercial drying. 3. Purchased irrigation water, cotton ginning, and baling straw. Source: Compiled by ERS using Agricultural Resource Management Survey data and other sources.

Table 1. 2016-2018 Costs of Production (USDA Economic Research Service)

Items
Corn
Dollars per acre planted
Soybeans
Dollars per acre planted
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Operating Costs:
 
Seed 102.4 103.4 104.7 61.0 61.6 62.4
Fertilizer 1 134.9 127.8 131.6 33.6 31.9 32.8
Chemicals 28.1 28.3 28.7 27.7 28.0 28.3
Custom Operation 2 19.2 19.5 19.9 10.8 11.0 11.2
Fuel, Lube, & Electricity 21.0 21.2 22.0 13.9 14.0 14.6
Repairs 25.1 25.4 26.0 22.4 22.7 23.2
Other Variable Expenses 3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Interest on Operating Capital 0.5 1.2 2.4 0.3 0.7 1.3
Total Operating Costs 331.2 327.0 335.4 169.7 169.8 173.8
Allocated Overhead:
 
Hired Labor 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.5
Opportunity Cost – Unpaid Labor 26.3 27.1 27.7 19.3 19.9 20.3
Capital Recovery
(Machinery & Equipment)		 102.4 101.6 103.4 90.2 89.4 91.0
Opportunity Cost – Land
(Rental Rate)		 179.1 180.1 178.4 161.5 162.4 160.9
Taxes & Insurance 11.1 11.3 11.6 10.9 11.1 11.4
General Farm Overhead 19.0 19.2 19.5 17.6 17.8 18.2
Total Allocated Costs 341.2 342.7 344.1 302.7 304.0 305.4
Total Costs Listed 672.4 669.7 679.5 472.5 473.9 479.1
Source: Compiled by ERS using Agricultural Resource Management Survey data and other sources.

Breakeven Yields

Operating costs of production for corn were 49% of the total in 2016, and are expected to remain the same through 2018. Operating costs of production for soybeans as a percent of the total were approximately 36% of the total, and are also expected to be nearly the same across all three years. With average corn and soybean yields of 157 and 44 bushels per acre (NASS 2017), and price at harvest of $3.59 and $8.95, one can calculate the 2016 breakeven yields for both crops. For corn it can be calculated dividing total operating costs by the harvest price per bushel, which for 2016 was: 331.2/3.59 or 92 bushels. When overhead costs were factored in however, the corn yield needed to breakeven was 672.4/3.59 or 187 bushels. The breakeven yield for the operating costs of soybeans can be calculated similarly dividing total operating costs by harvest price per bushel, which for 2016 was: 169.7/8.95 = 19. That is to say that 19 bushels of soybeans were needed to breakeven. When overhead costs were included the soybean yield needed to breakeven was 472.5/8.95 = 53 bushels.

Opportunity Cost

The calculations above show the importance of including overhead costs to estimate breakeven yields. It can be summarized in just two words “opportunity cost”, since it’s the individual cost that weighs the most in the total cost of production. The combined “opportunity cost of land rental” and “opportunity cost of unpaid labor (farmer’s wage)”, represented in 2016 close to 60% of the overhead costs for both corn and soybeans. However, when calculated as percent of the total cost of production they were higher for soybeans at 38%, compared to corn at 31%. If the opportunity cost of land and labor are removed from consideration, total costs of production were $467 and $292 for corn and soybeans, respectively. When the opportunity costs were not allocated to the total cost of production, breakeven yields per acre for corn and soybeans were $467/$3.59 = 130 bushels of corn, and $292/$8.95 = 33 bushels of soybeans.

In Summary

In summary, when calculating breakeven yields for corn and soybeans there is a need to first define if the opportunity costs for land and labor are going to be included. When both opportunity costs were not included in the breakeven yield calculations of the 2016-crop season, any yields above 130 bushels for corn and 33 bushels for soybeans sold at harvest represented income over breakeven prices.

— Alvaro Garcia, SDSU Extension

For more news from South Dakota, click here.

Fairy Gardens & Gnome Homes

by

CANANDAIGUA, N.Y. — Travel to the land of wonder and make a fairy garden or gnome home with Jeanne Totman, Ontario County Master Gardener on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. This workshop will be held at the Cornell Cooperative Extension Center, 480 North Main Street, Canandaigua, NY 14424.

Please bring a container of your choice to build your fairy garden and gnome home. The inspiration will be supplied by our Master Gardener. You may bring some plants or supplies that you wish to add to your fairy garden. There will be additional supplies available for purchase. The soil and basic supplies will be furnished.

The fee is $10.00/person. To register contact: Nancy at 585-394-3977 x 427 or email nea8@cornell.edu with your name, address, phone number.

Cornell Cooperative Extension is an employer and educator recognized for valuing AA/EEO, Protected Veterans, and Individuals with Disabilities and provides equal program and employment opportunities.

—Cornell Cooperative Extension

For more articles out of New York, click here.

Northern Crops Council names officers

by

FARGO, N.D. — Greg Kessel, a producer from Belfield, North Dakota, was elected the new chair of the Northern Crops Council at its reorganizational meeting June 15. The Northern Crops Council governs the Northern Crops Institute in conjunction with NDSU.

Kessel serves in the North Dakota Barley Council’s permanent seat of the group. He began his first council term in 2013.

Tregg Cronin, a producer from Gettysburg, South Dakota, was elected vice chair of the NCC. He serves as a representative for the South Dakota Wheat Commission. Cronin started his first term with the Northern Crops Council this year.

Mark Martinson, a producer from Rolette, North Dakota, representing the U.S. Durum Growers Association, also is a newly-elected member.

New appointed members include Ben Vig, a producer from Sharon, North Dakota, who serves in the North Dakota Oilseed Council’s permanent seat, and Derik Pulvermacher, a producer from Crosby, North Dakota, who serves in the North Dakota Soybean Council’s permanent seat.

Outgoing council members include John Bartsch, Kelley Bean Co., who served as an industry representative from Maple Grove, Minnesota; Chet Edinger, producer from Mitchell, South Dakota, who represented the South Dakota Wheat Commission; and Perry Ostmo, producer from Sharon, North Dakota, who represented the North Dakota Soybean Council.

Also during the meeting, institute director Mark Weber announced his plans to retire on Dec. 31. A search committee will be appointed by Kessel and interviews conducted during the fall.

Northern Crops Institute supports regional agriculture and value-added processing by conducting educational and technical programs to expand domestic and international markets for northern-grown crops. The institute is funded by the states of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota and commodity groups in those states and Montana.

As a student-focused, land-grant, research university, we serve our citizens.

— North Dakota State University

For more news from North Dakota, click here.

KFB conversation with Nancy Cox

by

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — KFB Candid Conversation presents a discussion about the topical issues facing the agricultural industry in a question and answer format with a member of the agricultural community. In this column, the issue of agricultural research and extension are discussed with Dean Nancy Cox of the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Food and Environment.

In your estimation, what is the value of research to the agricultural industry?

Since the time land grant universities were created, we have gone from one farmer feeding four or five people to one farmer feeding 150 or more people in this country, and much of that is because of the advances research created. Whether it is in fertilizers, crop management systems, variety development or precision agriculture; you name it, and it came out of ag research. The productivity has been amazing.

What is an example of how funding affects this kind of research?

If you look at some of the recent U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service reports, the progress in improving productivity is slowing down and federal funding for ag research has been flat for 20 years. There are two major ways the universities get funding from the USDA; one is through competitive grants, and one is through partnerships with the states, termed capacity funds, which is critical in doing what a state needs. Those funds are precious to us, because they let us invest in infrastructure over the long haul. For instance, if you need to study disease in cattle, you can’t just always buy the cattle you need, you have to have a herd you can use over the long term and whose history you know. In this longer term type of research, you have to make sure you have the farms, the animals and the cropping systems needed to mobilize quickly. We depend on this USDA capacity funding, as well as state funding. A couple of specific examples include the cases of the Mare Reproductive Loss Syndrome and the problem we had with soybean rust a few years ago. Faced with these dire and immediate situations, we didn’t have the luxury of time to write a grant, and our stakeholders benefitted from our ability to mobilize rapidly. If there’s a problem in Kentucky, we’ll find a way to work on it. To mobilize quickly, we have to have those capacity funds from the federal government. This funding is part of the Farm Bill, and we depend on it to serve our traditional programs as well as new ones.

What kinds of programs are available, that are really important to agriculture, that this funding helps?

There are programs in animal health and forages, and we’re really seeing emerging water management issues that we need to address. Kentucky Farm Bureau has led our state to take a leap forward in that area. There is the Young Farmer and Rancher program that has enabled a new set of farmers to get into the business, and we put a lot into that. Programs of critical importance to Kentucky’s families are the Expanded Food and Nutrition Program and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program educational arm. And these are just a few of the important programs.

With a new budget proposal on the table in Washington and a Farm Bill coming, what are your hopes for research and extension?

With the high level budget that has been released by the President, there are some substantial cuts to the programs that we depend on for our research, and we’re waiting to see what Congress does with those numbers. We have really benefited for many years from our Congressional members recognizing the value of research to the nation and each state. We hope we can inspire the confidence of the legislators as we move forward.

What would you say to the general public, who has little knowledge of agriculture, about the need for research?

This research affects what the consumer pays for food. It also affects whether their food is safe; people want to know their food is safe for their children. Research helps to preserve wildlife, the environment and recreational uses of our lands. And they like to see our farmland. Our beautiful Kentucky farmland is preserved, because our farming enterprises take such good care of the land. Aside from ag production, we have programs to help those less fortunate learn how to eat in a healthier way. We have students who partner with researchers and go out into the community to visit and cook meals for senior citizens. Students, the third pillar of our land grant mission, are one of the big beneficiaries, because they are exposed to our knowledgeable faculty. Because of that, they will become better citizens. There are many ways in which the research here touches the consumer every day.

Is it a fair statement to say Kentucky is a leader in research because of the network of universities and agriculture organizations working together to make the industry better?

Any ag dean in Kentucky is very lucky. I can’t imagine a better situation as far as all of the valued partnerships we have. Kentucky Farm Bureau is certainly a leader; it’s progressive and connected across the state, and it is not overstating the case to say that someone from UK works with someone from KFB every day. The same goes for the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. Other agencies we talk to a lot are the Division of Water and the State Veterinarian’s Office. We also work hand-in-hand with all the commodity groups for crops, animals and forestry. We have such good legislators who support agriculture at both the state and federal levels. And there are all the other universities that have agriculture programs; we all talk to each other, and there’s a lot of cooperation rather than competitiveness. There is a thread of cooperation and growth that runs through the leadership of Kentucky agriculture, and I’m very grateful to be in this job.

Where does Extension fit in with all the research that is done at UK?

In everything I’ve said about research, it has taken Cooperative Extension to get that information out there, and we have a good reputation for service and innovation in each of our counties. I am so grateful for the 100-plus years of extension and of Kentucky’s excellent agents. There are so many programs these agents put on. We certainly work hard to increase the ag economy, but in extension we also want to increase the ability of people to start a new business or maybe manage their finances better or to feed their children better. So we’re not just about ag production, we’re about quality of life and helping families through initiatives like our strong Family and Consumer Science programs. A county extension program is designed, somewhat, to do what its county needs it to do most, and we have many transformative stories to tell from all across Kentucky. Extension also serves as a bridge between the agriculture industry and those who don’t come from a farming background. Think about how many 4-H’ers don’t come from a farm. We have a treasure trove of things to share with all of our citizens.

— Kentucky Farm Bureau

For more news from Kentucky, click here.

UCCE advisor Roger Ingram retires

by

DAVIS, Calif. — UC Cooperative Extension livestock and natural resources advisor Roger Ingram will retire June 30 after 31 years of efforts to sustain the ranchers and rangelands of Nevada and Placer counties.

Ingram joined Nevada County UCCE in 1986 after serving for three years as an extension agent with Texas A&M University, his alma mater. During his first seven years in Nevada County, Ingram also had a role with the 4-H Youth Development program, which he gave up in 1993 when he began working with Placer County ranchers. In 2007 Ingram also accepted the role of UCCE county director in Placer and Nevada counties.

Ingram had a long career with UCCE, but the focus was constantly evolving to meet the changing needs of the community.

“My position has involved a lot of different jobs,” Ingram said. “That’s the strength of UC Cooperative Extension. When new issues emerge, you can shift the program.”

Early on, Ingram devoted his attention to grazing management. When research began to show the benefits of low-stress livestock handling, Ingram brought in experts from around the country to provide hands-on demonstrations. Local ranchers learned that low-stress techniques were easier and safer for handlers and reduced livestock injuries, which helped the bottom line.

Since maintaining profitability was a key to keeping land and ranchers in the agriculture business, Ingram worked actively on numerous programs to boost revenues. One such effort was producing niche products, like grass-fed beef, which offered the potential for higher economic return to the ranch. In time, Ingram and a consortium of growers Ingram brought together helped form High Sierra Beef to market area ranchers’ high-quality specialty meat to local restaurants, stores and families. In time, one of the board members bought the company and still operates it today.

Ingram worked with community leaders to launch PlacerGrown, a branding effort to add value to local products. Later a similar program, Nevada County Grown, was established for Nevada County.

Beginning farmers and ranchers, and a new generation land holders were a priority for Ingram’s educational program. In 1992, he and fellow livestock advisor Dave Pratt created the California Grazing Academy – an intensive three-day training program that has continued to provide innovative grazing information to farmers, ranchers and land management professionals for 25 years. To date, more than 665 individuals have attended and now manage over a million acres of rangeland.

“At the Grazing Academy, our emphasis was on experiential learning,” Ingram said. “We spend 50 or 60 percent of the time in the field, working with cattle, designing fences, drought planning and studying ecology.”

When the similar need among goat producers became apparent, Ingram launched the California Browsing Academy in 2003. This later became the California Multi-Species Academy as interest in sheep production grew in the foothills. Modeled on the grazing academy, the multi-species academy also had an emphasis on experiential learning to reinforce classroom instruction.

Ingram became more focused on soil health in range and irrigated pasture later in his career. He said soil health is an area where more research is needed to understand the grazing management principles that will improve the soil and provide ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration.

Ingram’s contributions to supporting small-scale ranchers was recognized when he was presented with the Pedro Ilic Award for Outstanding Educator in 2013. The award is named for a Fresno County small farm advisor whose untimely death in 1994 prompted the small farm program to annually honor those who carry out his legacy of personal commitment to small-scale and family farming. In 2014, Ingram received the William Nickerl Award for Conservation Leadership from the Bear Yuba Land Trust.

Dan Macon, a Placer County sheep producer who most recently served as an assistant rangeland specialist at UC Davis, will succeed Ingram as livestock and natural resources advisor in Placer and Nevada counties beginning July 1. Cindy Fake, the UCCE horticulture and small farms advisor in Placer and Nevada counties, will take on Ingram’s county director duties.

The University of California has conferred on Ingram the honor of emeritus status. For the time being, he plans to stay in Placer County and will help with beginning farmer and small business planning programs.

In retirement, Ingram will work with his own sheep and Border Collie sheep dogs. He will also be training to walk all or part of the 500-mile-long Camino de Santiago (The Way of St. James) in Spain in 2018 or 2019. He said he will take time to travel and looks forward to watching lots of major league baseball games.

—UC Agriculture and Natural Resources

For more articles out of California, click here.

Soybean farmers improve sustainability

by

SALISBURY, Md. — Maryland’s soybean farmers have improved the sustainability of their crop, according to a recent review of government data released by the United Soybean Board.

Thanks to the responsible use of technology and continuous improvement in management practices, Maryland’s soybean farmers have increased their productivity on less land per bushel, the report said. The United Soybean Board’s “Soy Sustainability” research gathered datasets from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Since 2010, Maryland soybean farmers have harvested 29 percent more bushels of soybeans, on just 11 percent more soybean acres. Those additional acres were borrowed from other crops, according to the United Soybean Board.

Over time, Maryland farmers also have put more of their acres into conservation, watershed and wildlife programs, which reduced their environmental impact. With nearly a third of Maryland’s land mass in farming, and almost the entire state within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, how Maryland farmers manage their land has a huge impact on the health of the Bay.

“The responsibility for taking care of the land, water and air we utilize to produce soybeans is our livelihood and the heritage that’s been passed to us. While our farms are often bigger or look different than they did a generation or two ago, our commitment to doing what’s right by our neighbors and future generations remains the same,” said Travis Hutchinson, chairman of the Maryland Soybean Board and soybean farmer from Cordova, Md. “My family enjoys those resources the same way most people do. We drink the water, hunt the land, and fish the waterways, so we do everything we can to protect them.”

Maryland farmers embrace their responsibility to conservation through approaches ranging from cover crops and fencing cattle out of streams to high-tech equipment like GPS and variable rate application of fertilizer. In the process, they’ve improved water quality and reduced soil erosion.

In fact, Maryland farmers reduced soil erosion per acre per year by more than a ton between 2000 and 2015, for a total 21 percent reduction of erosion.

The USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service reflected these findings in its most recent Chesapeake Bay Progress Report: Agricultural Lands — Key to a Healthy Bay, stating that “Independent reports show positive trends for water quality, habitat and key aquatic species, and modeled results and monitoring stations show declines in nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay.”

American soybean farmers’ sustainability performance is increasingly important to customers who buy their products. Currently, 98 percent of U.S. soybeans are certified sustainable, according to the U.S. Soybean Sustainability Assurance Protocol.

U.S. soybean farmers are committed to implementing new production practices to continuously improve their sustainability record. The protocol is a certified, aggregate approach to the sustainability performance of U.S. soybean production. The data used is regularly compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other sources that collect it from U.S. soybean farmers through existing government programs.

Maryland’s farmers produce soybeans all across the state. The soybeans produced in Maryland provide poultry and livestock feed, food and other everyday products. Those include healthier soybean oils for salad dressing and deep frying, new more sustainable plastics and printing inks, and feed for the poultry and livestock produced across the state.

In Maryland, farmers grow about a half a million acres of soybeans, producing more than 20 million bushels of beans each year. With a value of $173 million to the state’s economy, soybeans are one of Maryland’s top crops.

— Maryland Soybean Board

World Food Prize awarded

by

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The son of a Nigerian farm laborer who rose out of poverty to earn graduate degrees in agricultural economics and spent his career improving the availability of seed, fertilizer and financing for African farmers is the winner of this year’s World Food Prize announced Monday.

Akinwumi Adesina, president of African Development Bank, says the future of global food security relies on making farming in Africa a profitable business and developing local food processing that adds value to agricultural products to help move farmers out of poverty.

“I believe that what Africa does with agriculture and how it does it is not only important for Africa but it’s important for how we’re going to feed the world by 2050 because 65 percent of all the uncultivated arable land left in the world is in Africa,” he said. “To help Africa get it right in agriculture is also going to be a key part of securing food for the world.”

World Food Prize President Kenneth Quinn, a former U.S. ambassador to Cambodia, said those goals are one reason the organization’s board chose Adesina this year for the $250,000 prize.

An official announcement for the World Food Prize was expected to come in a ceremony Monday at the U.S. Department of Agriculture with USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue hosting the event. Adesina will receive the prize in a ceremony Oct. 19 at the Iowa Capitol.

The World Food Prize was created by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Norman Borlaug in 1986 to recognize scientists and others who have improved the quality and availability of food. The foundation that awards the prize is based in Des Moines, Iowa.

The award recognizes several of Adesina’s accomplishments including:

—Negotiating a partnership between commercial banks and development organizations to provide loans to tens of thousands of farmers and agribusinesses in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana and Mozambique.

— Creating programs to make Nigeria self-sufficient in rice production and to help cassava become a major cash crop while serving as Nigeria’s minister of agriculture from 2011 to 2015.

—Helping to end more than 40 years of corruption in the fertilizer and seed sectors in Nigeria by launching an electronic wallet system that directly provides farmers with vouchers redeemable for inputs using mobile phones. The resulting increased farm yields have led to the improvement of food security for 40 million people in rural farm households.

Adesina said it’s vitally important to show young people in rural regions of Africa that farming can be profitable and can improve their lives as a way to stem terrorist recruitment efforts. He said high unemployment among young people, high or extreme poverty, and climate and environmental degradation all contribute to conditions in which terrorists thrive. He said these factors make up “the disaster triangle.”

“Anywhere you find those you find terrorists operating. It never fails,” he said.

Adesina grew up in poverty in a rural area of Nigeria and said his father and grandfather walked fields as laborers. After his father was chosen for a government job, Adesina was able to go to college. He earned agriculture economics degrees — both a master’s and a doctorate — from Purdue University.

As a student, he said he saw that classmates were able to attend school when agriculture afforded them the opportunity, but they dropped out when it didn’t. He said from that experience he learned making agriculture profitable so families can provide their children with an education was a key to breaking the cycle of poverty.

He said he often thinks of the hundreds of millions of young, rural African people whose opportunities are limited because of what is happening with agriculture.

“So in a way for me this is not a job,” Adesina said. “This is a mission. And I believe that in getting agriculture to be a business — turning our rural areas from zones of economic misery to zones of economic opportunity — therein lies the future of Africa’s youth, especially those rural youths.”

___

Follow David Pitt on Twitter at https://twitter.com/davepitt

—By DAVID PITT , Associated Press

For more articles concerning international issues, click here.

Soybean business: helping hands

by

MANKATO, Minn. — This story was first featured in the May-June issue of Soybean Business. The online version can be found here. 

Wally Hardie and his son, Josh, don’t run a typical farming operation. The Hardies live in North Dakota, but farm in Minnesota, South Dakota and … Africa.

Yes, Africa. In the Nampula Province to be specific, where “it feels like the last frontier on earth for agriculture,” Josh Hardie says. 

But don’t expect the Hardies to pat themselves on the back. That’s not their style.

“I just enjoy being over there so much,” Josh says.“We’ve gotten a generally positive response from people back home in the States, but until you really get over there and experience it, it’s hard to grasp.”

The family is doing the work they love, trying to run a business and make their world a better place through better nutrition and cleaner water.

“Farming is what we take pride in, and we think it’s a very honorable profession,” Josh says from his American home in North Dakota, a few days after returning from the farm in Nampula in northern Mozambique. “Farming isn’t an easy industry, but it’s certainly a privilege to do it.” 

The Hardies were first introduced to Mozambique 10 years ago, where Wally’s oldest daughter was working as a missionary nurse. Wally spent a month in Mozambique and saw possibilities in both the land and its citizens.

“We liked the people,” says Wally, who’s been farming in the States for nearly 40 years. “We put it in the back of our mind that if we could come back and farm, we would like to do that.”

The Hardies met a chicken farmer in northern Mozambique who was looking for a grower to raise soybeans for his livestock feed. The Hardies took over a bankrupt farm about five years ago, and began growing soybeans on their Deep Roots Farm. The Hardies’ goal: enriching the malnourished diets of the Mozambique people.

“There really isn’t a commercial ag tradition at all in Mozambique, and there aren’t a lot of soybeans in the area,” Josh says. “We were starting from scratch with the local people, but it’s exciting. We saw — and still see —the potential. Ultimately, we want Africans to be feeding Africans.”

Josh travels about 30 hours to Mozambique about four times a year. He arrives for planting season in December — most of Africa’s lingering in a drought and Mozambique sees hardly any rain from April to November. He stays for most of the winter, cultivating about 1,000 acres. He’ll be in the States helping on the family farm until about June. While he’s home in America, a team of local apprentices manage the farm in Nampula.

“When we’re planting here, we’re harvesting over there,” he says. “We’ve got a great group of guys who run the show when I’m not there. I’m more of a coach than anything.”

The Hardies report soybean yields in Nampula averaging about 20 to 30 bushels, and some as high as 40. Mozambique’s intense heat is an issue; as a result, germination and crusting are hindrances.

“You really see the value of no-till cover crops because it’s so hot,” Josh says. “Economically it’s been a big learning curve.”

The Hardies have brought their own tractors and combines to Mozambique despite South Africa’s strict border policies.

“It’s not easy to get equipment out there,” Wally says. “Every time we come over, we carry parts in our suitcases.”

The Hardies were initially aware of the locals’ suspicions of outsiders coming in for a quick buck before departing. But they’re staying for the long haul. To build a stronger rapport with the community, Josh’s wife, Sarah, started the non-profit Garden Well project in Corrane, Mozambique. Garden Well provides clean, affordable water for local villagers through drilling wells.

“We’ve really tried to up our game as far as having a good neighbor policy and positive outreach in the community,” Josh says. “And water has such an impact. Our goal is to be a catalyst to uplift the whole community and we’ve really seen a shift in the last year or so, a lot more openness.”

Josh believes his family will have to continue to reach the community beyond agriculture. “If the community looks in 10 years as it does now, we will have failed,” he says. “But things have already changed. The farm has become a rallying point for the community, and I can see in 10 years where there are farms all along the way.”

Giving Back

Al Roesler doesn’t hold any business ties to Africa per se. He’s visited Zambia in southern Africa three times on missionary trips, visiting his friend’s farm for a month at a time, and teaching the locals how to grow corn and soybeans.

Al Roesler (left) has visited Zambia four times since 2009. His best friend, Paul Webster, runs the Mujila Falls Agriculture Centre.

“It’s not a vacation, a place I would I aim to go,” he says. “But I got lucky in choosing a place where the little bit I could contribute made a big difference. And the Africans are grateful for it.”

The average lifespan in Zambia is around 35 years. For Roesler, that reality puts matters into stark perspective when he’s back on U.S. soil.

“When you come home and you hear people complain about low interest rates for their savings accounts, you just kind of roll your eyes,” he says. “All of the things I take for granted, I have to relearn over there. That’s culture shock when you think, ‘My God, you’re on your third Zambia lifetime!’”

Roesler was raised on a farm in Waldorf, Minn., and is a longtime Farm Business Management program advisor at South Central College in Mankato. He first became interested in African agriculture after reading about Paul Webster, a Wisconsin dairy farmer who had served in the Peace Corps and was starting a demonstration farm in Congo before the political climate forced him to flee for Zambia. In Zambia, Webster’s church was granted 2,500 acres to develop a demonstration farm to teach a malnourished area how to eat a more balanced diet.

“Paul’s take was: We can better their lives but we can’t teach someone who’s hungry,” Roesler says. “So he took the ag bent to social reform.”

Roesler contacted Webster, who invited him to his farm to show the locals the rudiments of growing crops for livestock feed. He traveled alone for about a week to reach his destination. Roesler then spent a month on the 2,500-acre farm in September 2009 amid the rolling hills and valleys of Zambia, elevation 4,000 feet.

“It’s wonderful land, and it doesn’t take long to clear it,” Roesler says. “And climate-wise, it’s very interesting — at that elevation, the wind never blows.”

The rainy season, along with planting, arrives in November. Precipitation totals average around 10 inches a month through January. 12 hours of daylight is consistent throughout the year. “The soil’s about 80 degrees with all that rain if you plant it at the right time,” Roesler says. “If you’re going to raise food, you better get it planted right away in November. It grows faster than in Minnesota. You can practically hear the beans grow.”

Insects don’t pose a threat to yields, but animals of a larger variety are liable to wreak havoc on crops.

“Hippos can be a problem,” Roesler says, laughing. “I show pictures of them to my crop insurance buddies and say, ‘Adjust that!’ I mean, what are you going to do with a hippo? You can’t shoe ’em away because they’ll charge you.”

The dietary changes didn’t happen overnight, but Roesler says the natives began incorporating milk and eggs into their daily regimen. It required patience, and an understanding and appreciation of African culture.

“The first four or five years, they were skeptical,” Roesler says. “I didn’t anticipate this project growing like it has. But once the food comes along, the diet improves. Now they’re learning to raise berries, corn, soybeans, vegetables, you name it.”

Roesler forged a bond with Webster over the years, and considers the founder of Mujila Falls Agriculture Centre his best friend.

“We found out we had a lot in common and inspire each other,” Roesler says.

Roesler’s missionary efforts have also inspired members of his church.

“When the church saw what I was doing, they wanted to help and send money,” he says. “That’s a healthy thing for any congregation.”

He hasn’t been back to Zambia since 2015, but Roesler wouldn’t hesitate to make a return to the farm where the local field hands still pick corn and thrash beans by hand.

“Everyone’s working together,” he says. “These are good people who love to work, and they love to rally around. When you’ve got 25 guys, a lot can get done. It’s a big-picture type of thing.”

— Minnesota Soybean

For more news from Minnesota, click here.

Del. farmers face 120-plus regulations

by

DOVER, Del. — A new study of farm regulations by the Delaware Soybean Board has revealed that farmers are required to comply with more than 120 separate regulations to operate an agricultural business in the First State.

“The results demonstrate that Delaware farmers work in a highly-regulated environment,” said Jay Baxter, chairman of the board and farmer from Georgetown. “The web of regulations touch nearly every facet of farming operations today.”

The review was commissioned to help farmers be aware of all the various regulations and multiple agencies that are involved in the business of agriculture. It has been posted on the DSB website, www.desoybeans.org.

A compilation of federal, state and county regulations which directly or indirectly relate to a farm operation, the report lists regulations by subject and agency. Multiple agencies have jurisdiction over various parts of a farm operation, including the departments of Agriculture, Finance, Environmental Protection Agency, Transportation, Motor Vehicles, Labor, Land Use Planning & Zoning, Natural Resources & Environmental Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Army Corps of Engineers and Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

“We strive to continually improve the way we farm and comply with all the rules,” Baxter said. “With so many statutes and so many agencies involved at the federal, state and local level, it is time consuming and difficult to track. We wanted to provide our farmers a reference of regulations to do some of that work for them.”

Delaware farmers plant about 180,000 acres of soybeans each year, and the crop generates approximately $60 million in value to the state. Delaware’s agricultural industry contributes about $8 billion per year to the Delaware economy.

The Delaware Soybean Board consists of nine farmer-directors and the Secretary of Agriculture. Funded through a one-half of one percent assessment on the net market value of soybeans at their first point of sale, the checkoff works with partners in the value chain to identify and capture opportunities that increase farmer profit potential. One-half of the soybean checkoff assessments collected by the state boards are forwarded to the United Soybean Board.

For more information about the Delaware Soybean Board, visit www.desoybeans.org.

— Delaware Soybean Board