News Update
March 19, 2012
American Farmland Trust Urges Congress to Consider Environmental Impact on New Farm Bill
American Farmland Trust (AFT) last week urged Congress to consider the environmental impacts of farm safety-net reform and reiterated key AFT policy positions in support of a strong and equitable farm support system.
"Conservation compliance measures should be reattached to the federal crop insurance program — the new farm safety net — in order to protect the long-term productivity of vulnerable land," said AFT President Jon Scholl. Scholl's comment was triggered by a comment during the hearing that asserted that tying conservation compliance measures to crop insurance would discourage participation in the federal crop insurance program. Scholl noted, "Conservation compliance didn't discourage participation in farm programs; it won't in crop insurance either."
Currently, farmers must apply approved soil conservation systems to highly erodible cropland and refrain from draining wetlands to maintain eligibility for agricultural support programs. According to USDA, federally subsidized crop insurance is the only large USDA program that is not currently subject to conservation compliance.
"We support a strong farm safety net in order to keep farmers on the land producing food for our country. However, a safety net is not complete if it creates long-term threats to farm productivity by incentivizing farming practices that jeopardize our soil and water," Scholl continued. AFT believes the facts clearly show that managing risk with crop insurance has the same impact on our soil and water resources as managing risk with farm programs of the past.
"Congress is about to undertake the most far-reaching reform of farm safety-net programs since the 1996 Farm Bill," explained Scholl. "As the Agriculture Committee crafts this reform package, it must also remain mindful of the potential impact farm program changes could have on the environment and on conservation practices."
Risk-management programs that take away too much economic risk result in producer decisions driven by government payments rather than the market, Scholl noted. Those distortions, he added, have real consequences for the environment by encouraging production in areas that cannot be farmed in an environmentally sustainable manner. "Economic and environmental sustainability must go hand in hand," Scholl said.
"We can do this by maintaining strong funding support for conservation programs that help farmers manage their soil and water resources. Congress should also stand firm on the principle that farms with highly erodible land that receive federal subsidies be required to have a conservation plan," Scholl said.
AFT had previously laid out four key principles in addition to compliance that it believes should guide the development of the 2012 Farm Bill's risk management title. "In light of yesterday's hearing, we again encourage Congress to refer to these principles as they write the 2012 Farm Bill," said Scholl. AFT urges that the 2012 Farm Bill's risk management programs should:
- 1. Respond to markets and be revenue-based. Revenue protection should be triggered by current prices and yields, not historic averages.
- 2. Complement, not duplicate, crop insurance. The Bill should ensure that crop insurance and commodity support programs do not overlap, but rather work in concert.
- 3. Require accountability. Farmers should receive assistance only if they sustain an objective, real loss.
- 4. Minimize distortion. Government payments should not determine where and how intensively crops are grown.
farm-safety-net.
SARE Grants Millions for Sustainable Ag Research at Ohio State
Ohio State University Extension researchers have garnered some $2.8 million in grant funding over the last 23 years to advance sustainable agriculture issues in Ohio as part of an effort to benefit farmers, farm families and Ohioans statewide, according to a pair of OSU Extension educators.
Since 1988, OSU Extension faculty members, researchers, educators, graduate students and farmers have been awarded the grants to fund 47 research and/or education projects and Extension projects from the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, which is managed by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture in partnership with regional and state coordinators nationwide.
The goal of the program is to advance agricultural innovations that improve profitability, environmental stewardship and quality of life, according to USDA.
The grants have allowed Ohioans to identify projects that are relevant to them and their interests, said Mike Hogan, an OSU Extension educator and one of Ohio's SARE coordinators.
"The benefit is that it leverages dollars to evaluate sustainable production and marketing strategies for Ohio farm families," he said. "Agriculture is a large segment of our economy, so having an industry that is more viable is important."
The results of the work being done through funding of these grants have benefited Ohioans "in broad but hard-to-measure ways," said OSU Extension educator Alan Sundermeier, another Ohio SARE coordinator.
"The multiplying effect from the research is hard to quantify," he said. "It will result in improved practices or ways of broader thinking about issues and offer more creative solutions to problems.
"We hope that as future farm bills are funded, this program continues and that people continue to take advantage of it in the future."
Producers Should Consider Interseeding Pastures in the Spring
Spring is the time for pasture producers to consider interseeding to add to or improve forage in their existing pastures. Interseeding offers an opportunity for improving pasture productivity, as well as forage nutritive quality. Interseeding involves using a no-till drill to aid in the incorporation of a legume or a more productive grass into an existing pasture sod. Interseeding is normally done from mid-March through early May, when soil moisture and temperature are suitable for rapid seedling establishment.
Interseeding can be accomplished with relatively few field operations. Opening of the grass sod, shallow seed placement, and seed coverage are required. A number of drills are available that can be used in sod-seeding efforts. Some of these drills may have improved features related to sod penetration, depth control, seed metering or coverage that improves their effectiveness in sod-seeding situations. Equipment limitations for sod-seeding implements sometimes are overcome by operator experience and home shop modifications.
Legumes interseeded into grass sod should increase pasture yield, improve forage quality, and eliminate or minimize need for nitrogen fertilizer. Clovers, alfalfa and bird's-foot trefoil have been successfully interseeded. The more efficient seed placement provided by a no-till drill allows many of our more productive perennial forage grasses to also be successfully established by interseeding. Thin, low-producing, grass sod might best be improved by interseeding a grass-legume mixture.
When renovating a pasture, select species are suitable for desired use and persistence. When considering forage species to add to an existing site, choose legumes or grasses of similar height, palatability and competitiveness to those already in the pasture. Iowa State University Extension bulletin PM-1792, Selecting Forage Species, covers characteristics of many forage legumes and grasses commonly used in Iowa. A seeding delay into late spring to improve growing conditions also brings a greater competition from the existing grass sod. Close grazing in the fall or early spring, ahead of interseeding, will help to reduce sod competition. Labeled herbicides are sometimes also used to temporarily further reduce competition from plants present in the stand.
Interseeding success depends a great deal on paying attention to details, timeliness, careful management of sod completion, controlling seeding depth to no deeper than ¼ to ½ inch, and a little bit of luck with weather.
Interseeding research has been conducted in many parts of the United States and around the world. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the conclusions from these efforts all point to several very important issues that must be met for successful interseedings. See Iowa State University Extension bulletin PM-1097, Interseeding and No-Till Pasture Renovation for more suggested seeding rates and guidelines.
Consumers Will Pay More for a 'Made in the USA' Label
New research published in the Journal of International Marketing shows that consumers are willing to pay a premium for products made in countries with favorable reputations.
"Our findings show that consumers not only prefer and assign a higher value to branded products from a country of origin with a favorable country image, but also are willing to spend more money to obtain them," say study authors Nicole Koschate-Fischer, Katharina Oldenkotte and Adamantios Diamantopoulos, in an article appearing this month in the American Marketing Association's (AMA) Journal of International Marketing.
The authors ran four experiments in which participants (college students in Germany) revealed how much they were willing to pay for branded products coming from different countries. One study, for example, compared Evian bottled water from France, a nation shown to have a more favorable reputation, and Evian bottled water from Turkey, a nation shown to have a less favorable reputation. On average, respondents showed they were willing to pay the equivalent of $1.28 for Evian coming from France versus $ 1.04 from Turkey. The study also looked at the U.S. shoe brand Nike. When participants were told the Nike's they were considering were made in America, they were willing to pay more for them than when they were told they were made in South Korea. Further experiments, however, showed that the price differential becomes less substantial the more familiar consumers are with the brand in question, regardless of where the brand originates.
The findings can help marketers in their pricing decisions. For example, if marketers are pricing a product that comes from a country with a favorable reputation, they may consider charging a premium for it. They may also want to highlight the product's country of origin in advertisements. Conversely, if marketers are promoting a product from a less favorable country, they may benefit from highlighting product attributes rather than its origin. The authors also suggest companies consider the impact on price and consumers' willingness to purchase if they are thinking of relocating manufacturing to a country with a less favorable image.
More of the study's findings can be found in the article "Are Consumers Really Willing to Pay More for a Favorable Country Image?" in the March issue of AMA's Journal of International Marketing.
Editor’s Note: The articles used within this site represent a mixture of copyrights. If you would like to reprint or repost an article, you must first request permission of Angus Productions Inc. (API) by contacting the editor at 816-383-5200; 3201 Frederick Ave., Saint Joseph, MO 64506. API claims copyright to this web site as presented. We welcome educational venues and cattlemen to link to this site as a service to their audience.