Opinion Columnists

From Compliance to Liability: How Court Decisions Threaten America’s Agricultural Supply Chain

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:34:26 GMT

By Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association President & CEO

Pesticide labels are not suggestions. Under federal law, they are binding rules.

For decades, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has governed the review, labeling, and use of pesticides in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops and approves pesticide labels. Once approved, those labels dictate how products may be sold, handled, and applied nationwide. Deviating from them is illegal, and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) strongly supports following labeling requirements.

A case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, threatens to unravel that system. If state tort claims are allowed to impose additional warning requirements beyond those approved by EPA, businesses that comply fully with federal law could still be held liable under state law. The result would be immediate disruption across the agricultural supply chain—higher costs, reduced access to vital tools, and increased uncertainty for the farmers who depend on them.

Why Uniform Labels Matter

FIFRA does not just regulate manufacturers; it imposes strict legal requirements throughout the supply chain. Agricultural retailers are prohibited from altering or supplementing pesticide labels, and professional applicators must apply products exactly as directed by the label. Any violation can bring substantial civil penalties.

Uniform labeling makes compliance possible; without it, federal law becomes a guessing game.

National uniformity is needed because retailers serve customers across multiple states. Insurers underwrite coverage based on predictable compliance rules, and farmers rely on timely access to lawfully labeled products during narrow planting and pest-control windows.

An Impossible Legal Conflict

State-law “failure to warn” claims argue that an EPA-approved label should have included additional warnings. But this contradicts FIFRA, which states that pesticide labels cannot be changed unilaterally.

Allowing state tort claims to impose different warning requirements creates an impossible bind: obey federal law and face state liability, or attempt to satisfy state law by breaking federal law. Congress did not intend for compliance itself to become grounds for punishment.

If national uniformity were to end, insurance premiums could increase, coverage could become harder to secure, and products farmers need could be pulled from shelves, even though they remain fully approved by the EPA. Costs would likely increase as service capacity decreased, and that pressure would flow directly down the supply chain to the farm gate.

Science Versus Jury Verdicts

FIFRA assigns responsibility for evaluating pesticide safety to the EPA, not to state courts. The agency makes those determinations through scientific review, public input, and a weighing of risks and benefits.

Tort litigation bypasses that process and asks juries to second-guess EPA’s scientific judgments years later, without access to the full regulatory record and without the agency itself as a party. If those verdicts can override FIFRA and federal approval, the result is a patchwork system in which legal obligations vary by state and evolve retroactively—requirements that retailers and applicators cannot comply with without violating federal law.

Why Glyphosate Matters Beyond One Case

The Supreme Court case centers on glyphosate, one of the most widely used and reviewed herbicides in American agriculture. EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic when used as directed and has approved its labeling accordingly.

Glyphosate is affordable, effective, and integral to modern farming practices that reduce soil erosion, conserve fuel, and maintain yields. Retailers, applicators, and farmers rely on EPA’s determinations for every pesticide they sell, apply, or use.

If a product that has cleared decades of federal review can still be deemed unlawfully labeled under state law, no product is truly secure.

What’s at Stake

Congress designed FIFRA so pesticide safety decisions would be made prospectively, scientifically, and consistently. Undermining that framework turns compliance into liability—and jeopardizes farmer access to lawful, essential tools.

The Supreme Court’s decision may very well determine whether pesticide regulation remains grounded in science and federal law, or becomes a moving target shaped by courtroom verdicts. For American agriculture, the consequences would be immediate and real.

Preserving uniform federal labeling protects everyone who depends on the food system—and that means all of us.

Effective Strategy at a Glance: How Powerful Visuals Improve Buy-in From Employees and Investors

Tue, 05 Aug 2025 21:00:00 GMT

How clearly can your team and customers communicate the essence of your strategy? What is different about you and how does that benefit the customer?

A great strategy shows your team how you and your customer win, together, in ways others can’t copy.

When a business strategy lives only in documents or boardroom dialogue, its power remains limited. But when strategy is made visual, crafted with clarity, structure and meaning, it becomes not only understandable but actionable. From the manufacturing floor to the investor meeting, a well-designed visual strategy can unify teams, align efforts and accelerate growth.

In 2013, the CEO of Hagie Manufacturing, Alan Hagie, and his wife invited my wife and I to a vacation home of theirs. In some one-on-one planning at a lakeside bar, and after some adult refreshment, Alan waxed eloquently about his amazingly detailed growth vision for the company and the industry. Even after some word crafting, there were five pages of detailed vision points and strategic directives. While most of the management team appreciated the depth and detail, it wasn’t a document that would likely be absorbed by the employees.

So, for back at the plant in Clarion, Iowa, I created a 20'-wide strategy mural printed on canvas that was suspended above the plant floor. It wasn’t just art; it was architecture for alignment. At Monday morning meetings, employees gathered under it. Over time, that one visual became part of the company’s culture. It served as a weekly reminder of what mattered, reinforcing the company’s direction and values. (Shown above: the first draft of my Hagie strategy visual, and one Pioneer shared publicly at the time.)

Why Strategy Visuals Matter

Strategy isn’t just what you say; it’s what people understand and act upon.

A compelling visual helps people grasp key strategic components, see how they connect and remember what matters most. It becomes a bridge between leadership’s intentions and the daily actions of employees.

Recent research from London Business School showed visualizing a strategy’s rationale can double investor support. Presentations with one simple, well-structured strategy slide, featuring clear components, layered detail and flow between elements, produced significantly higher stock valuations. Yet fewer than 20% of corporate decks do this well.

Anatomy of Effective Strategy Visualization

It isn’t about design flourishes; it’s about cognitive clarity. I’ve seen firsthand how most effective strategy visuals follow core principles:

Top Three or Four Points, Pillars of Differentiation — A great strategy visual shows points of focus and how you’re distinct, such as customer segment focus, value proposition, core capabilities.
Supporting Detail — Under each major concept, include two to three subpoints of supporting ideas, e.g. operational principles, measurable targets or key resource needs.
Flow and Connection — Arrows or lines should show how each element relates to the others. For example, how resources enable value delivery or how customer needs inform strategic priorities.
Horizontal Layout — We’ve grown to understand landscapes and strategy visuals that follow this format are simply easier to absorb.
Purposeful Art and Color — Use color to distinguish structure or layers and art for mnemonic impact.

The goal isn’t just clarity; it’s alignment. When employees see the whole picture, their daily decisions begin to sync with the company’s direction. When investors grasp the “why” behind a strategy, confidence rises. And when teams revisit that one-page strategy, they remember not just what to do, but why they do it.

Strategy isn’t static. But when made visual, it becomes a living guide — a shared map that helps teams navigate complexity, adjust course and stay aligned on the journey ahead.

Mark Faust works with owners, CEOs and sales managers who want to grow their businesses. You can schedule a free profit improvement session with Mark by visiting calendly.com/markfaust . Read more idea from him here .

Could This Be Roundup’s Last Roundup?

Tue, 05 Aug 2025 12:30:16 GMT

On June 7, 2018, German pharmaceutical giant Bayer completed its $63 billion acquisition of St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. The deal promised to create an agricultural powerhouse by combining Monsanto’s vast seed genetic base with Bayer’s strong portfolio of crop protection products.

But that dream lasted exactly two months.

On Aug. 10, 2018, a California jury delivered a verdict that would haunt Bayer. The court found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company’s Roundup-branded, glyphosate-based herbicides caused his cancer. The jury ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages.

Since Bayer had completed its acquisition of Monsanto just two months earlier, Bayer inherited full legal responsibility for the verdict and all future Roundup litigation. Crucially, the verdict was based on state “failure to warn” laws that allow plaintiffs to claim inadequate labeling, even though EPA considers glyphosate safe and has repeatedly stated that cancer warnings are not scientifically warranted and cannot be added to product labels without federal approval.

Just like that, Bayer’s honeymoon phase was over, as that case opened a judicial Pandora’s box that has engulfed the company in litigation ever since. To date, over 181,000 individual glyphosate-related lawsuits have been filed against Bayer. More than 100,000 have been litigated, resulting in over $11 billion in settlements paid.

There have been not-so-subtle hints from Bayer that something has to change. The best-case scenario would be a positive Supreme Court ruling that ends the legal onslaught. Worst case? Bayer cuts bait and stops manufacturing and selling Roundup altogether. It has indicated such dramatic action could be necessary and could happen before the 2026 crop year begins.

Chinese Monopoly Looms

A complete Bayer exit from the glyphosate market would have ripple effects throughout agriculture and beyond. Currently, Bayer sells about 35% to 40% of the glyphosate products sold in the U.S. Generic products from China make up the bulk of the remaining sales, with India responsible for the rest.

If Bayer were to cease Roundup sales, China would achieve a worldwide monopoly on glyphosate production and sales by default. Overnight, China could slap exorbitant tariffs on glyphosate, and U.S. farmers would see input prices skyrocket. Worst case scenario: China declares an embargo on all glyphosate shipments to the U.S.

Victim of Its Own Success

One could argue Roundup ended up being too successful as both a product and a brand.

When Monsanto introduced glyphosate in 1974, no one predicted it would revolutionize agriculture. Deemed “safer” than residual herbicides like atrazine, Roundup largely enabled the no-till movement.

But the zenith moment in Roundup’s product history came in 1996 when the first Roundup-Ready soybean genetics rolled out. Ultimately, Monsanto brought to market Roundup-Ready genetics for six different crop species.

Linking specific genetic resistance to your flagship herbicide was revolutionary from the science side but was true genius in marketing. That is why, in the U.S., glyphosate accounts for 60% to 70% of all agricultural herbicide use. It’s the most used herbicide on the planet.

Roundup’s very success created new problems. Prolific use led to shifts in weed species. Farmers no longer battled cocklebur or velvetleaf. Instead, glyphosate-resistant weeds such as pigweed and out-of-control henbit became the new nemeses for farmers.

The Perfect Storm

The legal challenges have been compounded by cultural and political factors. The “Make America Healthy Again” movement has singled out glyphosate, echoing themes from the 1962 book “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. This literary piece is widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement.

With “MAHA Moms” and high-profile figures amplifying concerns about glyphosate’s safety, a perfect storm of public opinion has emerged that has made jury verdicts even more favorable to plaintiffs.

Trading One Problem for a Bigger One

The situation serves as a cautionary tale: Be careful what you wish for. The potential consequences of losing glyphosate could force U.S. agriculture to revert to practices reminiscent of the 1970s, dusting off old agronomic playbooks and rediscovering chemical combinations many farmers have never used.

Without glyphosate, weed management would be more complex, costly and tillage-dependent. Farmers would likely use more of older chemistries like atrazine, 2,4-D, and dicamba, which pose their own environmental challenges. Pressure for new solutions — biotech traits, precision technology and non-
chemical tools — would intensify.

Yet this litigation reduces incentive for newer and better alternatives. It takes 10 to 15 years to bring a crop protection product to market, and the current legal environment discourages innovation.

We need to think outside the box, using technologies like AI and robotics to reduce herbicide use and rates while improving effectiveness. But here’s the fundamental problem: the future of American agriculture should not be determined by trial lawyers chasing billion-dollar paydays. These legal campaigns don’t make farming safer; they’re driving us backward toward older, less effective chemistries that pose their own environmental risks.

We need innovation, not litigation. The era of Roundup might be in its twilight, but U.S. agricultural innovation should not be chased off into the sunset by overzealous groups of individuals who prefer not to get mud on their boots.

Steve Cubbage is a precision ag consultant and farmer from Nevada, Mo. He is the founder of Longitude 94, an agriculture sustainability and technology consulting business. Read more from him here .

ARA Seeks Action To Aid Transportation Supply Chain

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 21:00:00 GMT

By Alex Enlow, Director of Communications and Member Experience, and Richard Gupton, Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Counsel

The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) has highlighted to Congress significant challenges in the transportation supply chains that impact U.S. agriculture. Efficient intermodal transportation is crucial for the economic well-being of rural communities and the overall competitiveness in the global economy. Here are key issues, as well as policy support needed from Congress and the administration.

Commercial Trucking

Agricultural retailers heavily depend on commercial drivers for the timely delivery of farm supplies and essential products. However, the industry is grappling with driver shortages and higher shipping costs due to regulatory burdens such as hours of service (HOS) and electronic logging device (ELD) requirements.

The current gross vehicle weight (GVW) limit for federal interstate highways, which is 80,000 lb. on five axles, was established in 1982. This outdated weight restriction has led to more trucks hauling over 80,000 lb. on local roads, exacerbating existing infrastructure issues.

Legislation like the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, which is reauthorized every five years, has far-reaching implications for the agricultural industry. This comprehensive legislation aims to address the nation’s transportation infrastructure needs and ensure the smooth functioning of the supply chain. For the agricultural sector, this legislation offers numerous benefits, including enhanced efficiency, reduced costs and improved connectivity.

Building a resilient and adaptable transportation network is essential for the agricultural industry to thrive in an ever-changing global market. ARA has submitted several policy priorities for inclusion in this critical reauthorization legislation, which needs to be finalized by the end of September 2026.

Congress has already begun working on this legislation, with the House aiming to produce a multiyear reauthorization bill and votes by fall 2025.

In a step to address commercial trucking issues, Rep. Tracey Mann, R-Kan., is leading efforts to reform the Seasonal Ag CDL by authorizing online renewals and codifying that implements of husbandry do not count toward the gross combination weight rating.

Additionally, Senators Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., introduced the Vehicle Axle Redistribution Increases Allow New Capacities for Efficiency (VARIANCE) Act this year, which ARA strongly endorses.

This proposal would authorize a 10% axle weight variance for commercial motor vehicles transporting dry bulk goods, like fertilizer, on the Interstate Highway System. This common-sense solution addresses unique challenges posed by the natural shifting of dry bulk cargo during transport, ensuring trucks can operate safely and efficiently without exceeding the maximum gross vehicle weight limit. Granting this variance will improve the efficiency of transporting essential commodities, like fertilizer and grain, and enhance the overall cost-effectiveness and safety of the nation’s infrastructure.

Agricultural retailers, farmers and other supply chain stakeholders rely on policies like this to maintain the steady flow of critical goods that drive the U.S. economy. ARA urged lawmakers to include this vital measure in the next Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act.

Freight Rail System

U.S. agriculture also relies heavily on a competitive freight rail system, which is vital for distributing crop nutrients and crop protection materials. However, rail carrier consolidation over the past 40 years has led to reduced competition and less reliable service.

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) plays a crucial role in overseeing the rail marketplace. Since 2001, rail rates have doubled due to a lack of competition, affecting manufacturers, agricultural retailers, distributors, farmers and energy producers. Without STB regulatory reform, agricultural productivity will stall, and consumers will face increased food and energy costs.

ARA Transportation Requests

To support the industry, ARA has made several requests to Congress:

Pass a multiyear surface transportation reauthorization bill.
Ensure equitable funding for the Highway Trust Fund for all types of vehicles.
Address highway infrastructure needs without imposing a vehicle miles travel tax.
Establish a 10% axle weight variance for dry bulk.
Implement a safety data collection program for six-axle vehicles.
Allow 18-to-20-year-old CMV drivers to operate across state lines if data supports their safety standards.
Reform the Seasonal Ag CDL program.
Eliminate “planting and harvesting” seasonal provisions in HOS regulations.
Define Class 1 rail carriers’ common carrier obligation and provide clearer oversight rules.
Increase transparency in rail pricing and promote competition within the rail industry.

The transportation supply chain challenges faced by the agricultural industry require immediate attention and support from policymakers. By addressing these issues and implementing the necessary reforms, the agricultural sector can enhance its productivity, reduce costs and improve its competitiveness in the global market.

The Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act represents a significant step toward building a robust and efficient transportation network that benefits the entire agricultural industry. ARA will continue to advocate for Congress to implement these necessary transportation reforms.

New ARA Member Benefit: LaborLink, ARA’s H-2 Workforce Solution

Finding and keeping dependable labor is a big challenge for agricultural retailers. That’s why ARA partnered with másLabor, the country’s top provider of H-2 visa solutions, to offer members a powerful new benefit called LaborLink — direct access to expert support in navigating the H-2 visa program.

Whether hiring applicators, warehouse operations, delivery logistics, equipment servicing or other roles, this program helps you stay fully staffed and focused on your business. The H-2 visa program enables U.S. employers to legally hire foreign workers for temporary, non-agricultural positions. For agricultural retailers — many of whom require help with logistics, custom application and facility operations — it offers a powerful tool for filling workforce gaps. Once enrolled in LaborLink, you will receive step-by-step support through the process, including:

Prevailing wage determination
Job order development
Application filing
Worker recruitment
Compliance documentation

You will also receive tools and templates for onboarding, training, and audits, as well as ongoing support from a dedicated másLabor case manager.

To get started, ARA members can visit this link . Not an ARA member? See membership information at aradc.org/join .

From Setbacks to Stand: How Resilience Took Root

Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:35:17 GMT

By Daniel Fowler, NAICC president

In late June, I wrote, “I’ve never seen a year like this, have you?” That phrase echoed through fields and farm shops across northeastern North Carolina as record-setting rains threw planting season into chaos. Saturated soils and constant rainfall led to poor stands, multiple replanting efforts and difficult decisions regarding abandonment and prevented planting insurance.

Nearly two-thirds of the way through July, the rain hadn’t stopped. Measurable precipitation fell on 11 of the first 20 days, causing delays in fungicide, herbicide and insecticide applications. Resprays were common as rainfall quickly followed treatments. Still, growers didn’t fall far behind.

In fact, despite all odds, the 2025 crop is showing signs of strength. Steady rain paired with heat is helping late-planted fields align more closely with the normal calendar. A few fields remain unplanted, green with grass and weeds, reminders of just how unpredictable nature can be, but across the region, thousands of acres reveal stories of grit, adaptability and unwavering commitment. Some crops aren’t what was originally planted, but growers made timely adjustments, and now those fields are full of promise.

This season’s landscape paints a vivid picture of what makes farming so remarkable: endurance in the face of uncertainty and innovation under pressure. While 2025 has been a roller coaster of setbacks, it’s also proven the extraordinary resilience of northeastern North Carolina growers.

Farming isn’t just about weathering storms; it’s about navigating them. And this year, that resilience has truly taken root.

The National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC) is the national society of agriculture professionals who provide research and advisory services to clients for a fee. Daniel Fowler is the current NAICC president and has worked as an independent crop consultant for more than 20 years. For more, visit NAICC.org .

Exploring Hidden Forms of Concentration Across U.S. and Global Agri-Food Systems

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 15:29:11 GMT

I have blogged about the issue of concentration in agricultural markets previously, in November 2017 on concentration levels across various sectors of U.S. agriculture and last March about concentration in the U.S. and global fertilizer markets. However, I am indebted to my friend Austin Frerick, who explored concentration in several key agribusiness sectors, mainly but not exclusively in the United States, in his recently published book Barons . That book shed light for me on an aspect of market concentration that often gets little attention. In recent decades, many big companies have accumulated significant market power in their chosen agricultural sectors by acquiring other companies in the same market segment, but obscure the scale of their total ownership interests in the sector by maintaining the same brand names and/or business names used by the now-absorbed companies, allowing consumers to assume those brands and/or businesses are still in competition with each other.

Austin’s book cites several examples of this phenomenon. He describes the formation of the enormous JAB Holdings Company, a Luxembourg-based company owned by the Reimann family from Germany, which styles itself as an investment firm. This company was established only in 2012. However, as of December 2023, they reported having $54 billion in assets, with most of those investments in the retail food and beverage sector. Their investments include significant holdings in coffee chains such as Peet’s Coffee and Caribou Coffee, pastry shops such as Brueger’s Bagels, Einstein Bagels, and Krispy Kreme, and sandwich restaurants such as Pret a Manger, and Panera Bread. They also sell several branded coffee products in retail stores, such as Green Mountain and La Coulombe Coffee Roasters, and own 27 percent of Keurig, which sells millions of single serve coffee pods (as well as pods for tea and hot chocolate) around the world. I had never heard of this company before reading Austin’s book, but collectively their retail outlets sell more coffee annually than does Starbucks.

In the animal protein sector, a Brazilian-based company, JBS, has acquired several U.S. meatpacking companies over the last few decades. Using $20 billion, some of it obtained through low-interest loans provided by the federal government and state governments of Brazil, the owners of JBS, two brothers named Joesley and Wesley Batista, bought up meatpacking facilities around the world, including in Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Mexico, Italy, and Northern Ireland. They also purchased several U.S. meatpacking firms, including Swift and Company, the beef packing arm of Smithfield Foods, and a controlling interest in Pilgrim’s Pride, a poultry integrator. Today, JBS is one of four firms that control 85 percent of the U.S. beef packing sector. This company also elected to maintain the brand names of the companies they acquired, and sell their products under 43 different labels in the United States alone. In 2023, global revenue of JBS amounted to approximately $72.9 billion.

Although not covered in Austin’s book, the German-based life science company Bayer AG, has followed a similar path to market dominance in the production of seeds that is described above for JAB Holdings and JBS. Bayer is much older than the other two companies discussed in this blog, with a more than 160-year history, although it was one of six major German companies absorbed by mutual agreement into the operating consortium I.G. Farben in 1925, and didn’t re-emerge as an independent company until after World War II. During the war, I.G. Farben made ample use of forced and prisoner labor in its facilities in support of the Nazi war effort.

Starting in December of 2014, the company’ Crop Sciences division began its efforts to acquire new interests, with the Land Management component of DuPont Crop Protection. In May 2016, they contracted to acquire Monsanto, another major life sciences company, although the deal was not completed until 2018. Due to Monsanto’s own acquisitions in previous years, Bayer is one of two companies (the other being Corteva) that controlled the majority of sales to U.S. corn, soybeans, and cotton producers as of 2020. However, Bayer continues to sell seed products under the brand names of companies that no longer exist, such as Asgrow, DeKalb, and Channel (corn, soybeans, and sorghum), Westbred (wheat), and Deltapine (cotton). The company is also a major player in the U.S. and global agricultural chemicals markets, although it assumed a lot of potential liability in its acquisition of Monsanto due to ongoing lawsuits regarding the health effects of its glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide. The whole company’s revenue was $51 billion in 2023, about half of which came out of their Crop Science businesses.

As Austin rightly points out in his book, the U.S. entities with the authority to inhibit the accumulation of market power in the agribusiness sector, as well as the rest of the U.S. economy, have done little to rein in these mergers and/or acquisitions in recent decades. This lack of action characterizes the attitude of both the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which have neglected their role in restraining the accumulation of such power under presidential administrations of both parties. The current regulators face an upcoming test with the proposed acquisition of a nitrogen fertilizer plant (owned by OCI Global) in Iowa by Koch Industries, which if approved would increase the 4-firm concentration ratio in that industry above already high levels. In public hearings held in Iowa in April of this year, farmers called on the FTC to halt this deal.

Incentivizing U.S. Farmer Efforts to Improve Water Quality

Fri, 06 Sep 2024 18:54:27 GMT

In modern agriculture, there is a considerable array of practices that crop and livestock farmers can adopt that help to reduce runoff of agricultural chemicals, manure, and/or soil erosion, which can impair the water quality of bodies of surface water as well as groundwater that impacts their neighbors near and far.

In its reporting from the National Water Quality Initiative in 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that “agricultural runoff is the leading cause of water quality impacts to rivers and streams, the third leading source for lakes, and the second largest source of impairments to wetlands”.

In recent decades, water quality has declined so seriously in certain bodies of water that federal courts have ordered local and state jurisdictions to take concrete actions to address the problem, using authority provided under the Clean Water Act, first enacted in 1948 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. These orders contain restrictions on the maximum amount of one or more pollutants allowed to enter a specific waterbody, known as Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL, with the specific levels typically developed by the state or local agency with jurisdiction over water quality in that area, including development of plans to reduce those levels over time, which then have to be approved by EPA. Recent estimates indicate that more than 700,000 miles of U.S. waterways, about 51 percent of assessed river and stream miles, are impaired by pollution.

For example, the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which covers portions of six Northern Atlantic states from Virginia up to central New York, has 276 distinct TMDL’s covering the various segments of the watershed, and many of them stem from excessive nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment entering the water from agricultural operations. Pollutants and sediments running off of agricultural operations are known as ‘non-point sources”, to distinguish them from pollutants flowing from identifiable commercial sources such as processing or manufacturing facilities through discharge pipes or ditches.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently operates two distinct types of conservation programs which provide financial and technical assistance to help farmers put practices that address water quality into place. The single largest program in annual expenditure terms, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), pays farmers an annual rental payment to retire farmland from active cropping operations for between 10 and 15 years. The land that is enrolled in this program is considered to be environmentally sensitive and the CRP contracts are awarded on the basis of which proposed plots of land to be retired offer the best environmental outcome. At the end of 2023, there were 24.8 million acres enrolled in this program, at a cost of $1.86 billion for that year, not including cost share assistance to help farmers install their conserving use practices such as trees, perennial grasses, or pollinator habitat.

The current version of the CRP was established in the 1985 Food Security Act (1985 farm bill) after an earlier incarnation was created as part of the Soil Bank program in the 1950’s. Today’s CRP retires three types of farmland–enrollment of whole fields previously devoted to crop production, enrollment of partial fields for the creation of conservation buffers and similar practices, called Continuous CRP or CCRP, and enrollment of grasslands, which prior to the 2018 farm bill was an entirely separate program. Retiring all of these categories of land helps with water quality by reducing soil erosion, but the partial field enrollment portion, allowing farmers to install the following types of ‘edge of field’ practices–riparian buffers, filter strips, field windbreaks, contour strips, prairie strips, and grass waterways, all of which help filter out pollutants and sediment that otherwise might enter nearby bodies of water. The target in the 2018 farm bill for such contracts was 8.6 million acres by the end of 2023. Farmers enrolling land in these practices are entitled to receive bonus payments over and above rental payments.

Farmers can also receive payments to install similar ‘edge of field’ practices under the other type of USDA conservation program known as ‘working land’ programs, primarily the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Under the provisions of the 2018 farm bill, which were extended in December of 2023 through the end of September, EQIP will have more than $2 billion in funding for FY25 and CSP will have $1 billion in funding for the same year. A significant number of edge of field practices, such as saturated buffers and grassed waterways, are also eligible for funding under the conservation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which provided an additional $4 billion for EQIP and CSP for FY25. In FY24, farmers contracted to implement more than 2500 edge of field or riparian practices under EQIP, accounting for less than 2.5 percent of all practices implemented in that year.

There are also some non-profit entities which are helping farmers install these types of practices, such as the Wetlands Initiative based in Illinois and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, dedicated to “ to protecting and restoring our nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and habitats for current and future generations.”

Most farmers seeking to implement new conservation practices under these two programs receive 75 percent of the funding for the practice under their contract, a process known as cost-share assistance. Farmers from underserved populations, such as African-American, Hispanic, or Native American tribe members, can receive up to 90 percent as their cost share assistance.

Economic analyses suggest that farmers adopting new in-field conservation practices such as cover cropping or no-till can offset some of the remaining cost due to reduced input costs or modestly higher yields, but few such opportunities arise from installation of edge of field practices, the benefits of which accrue largely to the general public and not the farmers themselves. As Congressional lawmakers strive to end the stalemate in the current farm bill process, they might consider whether a higher cost share might be justified for farmers implementing the latter type of practices.

Reducing On-Farm Energy Use in the United States

Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:19:33 GMT

According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, U.S. farmers spent nearly $30 billion on direct energy expenditures (gasoline, fuels, and oils plus utility expenses) in 2022, a 24 percent increase over similar expense categories in 2017 (the previous Census year). This figure does not account for indirect energy expenditures, such as the natural gas used to produce nitrogen fertilizer used in crop farming, and energy expended to produce other inputs, such as farm machinery or farm chemicals. These expenditures made up just under seven percent of total farm production expenses in those years. This share is probably an overestimate, since some portion of farm utility expenses would be for water and sewer services and not energy-related.

A 2020 report issued by the Farm and Energy Initiative (University of Vermont) found that average fuel spending on U.S. crop farms were about $8,500 in 2017, as compared to about $3,900 per average livestock farm, primarily due to more intense use of farm machinery in cultivating and harvesting fields.

U.S. farmers have been taking steps for several decades to reduce their on-farm energy consumption, although improving their net financial position was often more of a motivating factor for such efforts on their part than were the resulting environmental benefits. For example, adopting more efficient irrigation practices, such as drip irrigation or a low-pressure sprinkler system with use of advanced sensor technologies, not only saves the farmers by reducing the amount of water applied to their fields but also reduces the electricity costs associated with pumping and/or moving the water onto the fields. Farmers also moved away from using gasoline-powered engines in their farm equipment towards more efficient diesel-powered machines.

A series of reports published by USDA’s Economic Research Service on agricultural and resource indicators found that total energy utilized on U.S. farms, both direct and indirect, fell by about 27 percent between 1978 and 2011. These estimates exclude data on electricity use, which was not available after 1991. Direct and indirect energy use on farms generated about 12 percent of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from U.S. agriculture in 2021, according to EPA’s GHG inventory.

A USDA program established in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill), Rural Energy for America or REAP (Section 9007), is aimed at helping U.S. farmers and ranchers reduce their energy and GHG footprints by providing financial assistance to either install renewable energy systems on the farm to replace or supplement energy acquired from conventional sources, or improve the energy efficiency of their current operation. This program resulted from effectively combining two programs created in the 2002 farm bill, the Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Program and Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements.

Between 2009 and 2022, USDA received more than $750 million in mandatory funds through the 2008, 2014, and 2018 farm bills to fund projects under REAP, although in a few years the mandatory funding levels were reduced due either to subsequent actions by Congressional appropriators or as a result of automatic budget sequestration steps taken. In addition, in some years, Congress has opted to provide modest discretionary funds (typically less than $500,000) through the annual appropriations process to supplement the mandatory funds. In nearly all cases those funds were targeted at projects seeking federal loan guarantees.. That tranche was elevated in fiscal year 2022 to $13 million.

In the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), enacted just over two years ago, Congress provided $2 billion in additional funds for this program, to be available until 2031. USDA has chosen to allocate this funding for REAP projects in quarterly competitions. The first round of competitions combined remaining mandatory funds from the 218 farm bill with $1 billion of the IRA funding, with all proposals to be submitted by September 30, 2024. Of that amount, $303 million will be targeted to “underutilized renewable energy technologies.” The remaining $1 billion from the IRA provision will be allocated through similar competitions over the next several years, to be completed by September 30, 2031.

According to data collected under the Census of Agriculture, the number of U.S. farmers that reported generating energy or electricity on their operations rose from 23,451 in 2007 up to 153,101 in 2022, an increase of more than 550 percent over a 15-year period. Such activities not only reduce energy costs on the farm, but in many circumstances actually yield additional income to the farming operation, as any excess energy not utilized on the farm can be sold back to the local utility for use by other households or businesses in the area. The most common energy system reported was use of solar panels (at nearly 117,000), followed by renewable-energy using systems (such as geothermal) at more than 28,000, and wind rights leased to third parties at more than 20,000. REAP funding doubtless accounted for a substantial share of these new on-farm activities.

Farmers Want Gene-editing Technology

Tue, 02 Jul 2024 19:05:14 GMT

By Cherilyn Jolly Nagel: Mossbank, Saskatchewan, Canada

Canada is ready for the next genetic revolution.

Farmers like me applaud the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for letting sound science guide agricultural policy—and clearing up the uncertainties and ambiguities that until now had surrounded crop production’s most promising new technology.

On May 3, the CFIA confirmed that gene-edited crops are safe for livestock, following Health Canada ’s lead in determining their safety for food.

This decision means that farmers across Canada will enjoy a new tool for fighting drought, defeating pests, and improving sustainability. For consumers, it means affordable, abundant, and nutritious food. For the world, it means better food security.

It all starts on the farm and I’m excited about what gene-editing will help me accomplish here on the plains of Saskatchewan, where we’re currently planting our new crop of canola for cooking oil, lentils for stews and soups, and durum wheat for pasta.

We’re also fighting a seven-year drought. Our area is typically rather dry, and the crops we grow are adapted to these difficult conditions—but over recent years we’ve received much less water than we need, putting extra stress on our plants as they try to flourish.

Gene editing offers a solution. It allows researchers and scientists to speed up the otherwise slow process of conventional breeding. They can develop and refine traits from the genetic code that is already inside each plant—and, for example, develop crops that make more efficient use of water.

Gene-edited crops may rely on new technologies, but in every way that is important, they are indistinguishable from crops produced the conventional way.

This is different from the technology of genetic modification in GM crops, which involves taking the genes from one species and transplanting them into another. I’ve been a strong supporter of GM technology—the canola on my farm is GM canola—but it’s important for people to know that gene editing is a more refined approach to crop improvement. Gene editing allows for precise changes within a plant’s own genome without introducing foreign genes, making it a more precise and targeted method for enhancing crop traits.

Traditional conventional crop breeding can take ten or more years of research and development for a crop trait to move from concept to commercialization.

I’m not near patient enough to wait that long for new, much needed traits. And now I don’t have to be. Gene editing lets us pick up the pace. I’m looking forward to a future in which farmers see new traits every year, as we build crops that withstand drought, frost, and pests. This new generation of crops with specific traits should also allow us to use our resources more efficiently and to improve the nutritional value of our food.

And it gets even better. Because gene editing is fast and efficient, R&D teams will be able to focus their time and energy on specialty crops and regional varieties. It will finally make economic sense to develop plants uniquely suited to the local environment of my region, the Mossbank area of Saskatchewan.

The CFIA’s decision lets us take full advantage of what gene editing can deliver.

It also helps Canada maintain its position as a global leader in agricultural technology. Because we export so much of what we grow, we have both an obligation and an opportunity to tell the story of gene editing to the rest of the world.

That’s why I travelled to Brussels last year to talk about the benefits of gene editing with a group of international farmers: Gilbert Bor of Kenya , Guillermo Breton of Mexico , David Danio of the Philippines , and Diana Lenzi of Italy . And then took my whole family to Japan to share our farm’s experience and support for seed technology with Shuichi Tokumoto, a farmer in Tottorishi, Japan. We are all affiliated with the Global Farmer Network , and we come from vastly different places. Our goal was to show our united support for gene editing.

We think gene-edited crops will make us better farmers, and that means we’ll grow better food for the people who count on us.

This is an essential point: Farmers want this technology. And now Canada is going to get in the game so my family farm can continue to grow safe, healthy, affordable food.

Cherilyn and her family own a diversified grain farm in Mossbank, Saskatchewan, Canada. In addition to farming, Cherilyn is active in many agricultural policy initiatives to improve the communication between farmers and the public and advocate for modern agricultural practices. Cherilyn volunteers as a board member for the Global Farmer Network . This column originates at www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Are You Getting Full Use Out Of Your Drone?

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 02:43:12 GMT

Written by Andrew Eames, Marketing & Communications Manager at ASFMRA

When drones began emerging into mainstream commercial use, it seemed like the sky was the limit for how this technology would impact farm management and farmland appraisal. But now that outlooks have become a bit more grounded, how are these professions actually making use of drones today?

For appraisers, the obvious advantage of using a drone is gaining an aerial perspective that allows you to view a property from different angles and inspect areas that would normally be difficult to access.

“The primary purpose was getting a better view of the things we’re trying to evaluate,” said Dave Cullins, Senior Vice President of Administration for AgTexas Farm Credit Services, who oversees a team of appraisers. “Basically, it’s an extension of our cameras.”

“When you’re riding with a farmer and you’re there to see 500 head of cattle and it’s 2,000 acres in rough country, sometimes you can’t drive where you want to go,” he added. “A drone can give you a real-time look at what you’re there to see.”

Cullins has also found a way to employ drone technology for chattel inspections in the livestock industry, specifically when it comes to feedlots. Using a third-party AI software that analyzes drone photography, his appraisers can automatically count all the cattle contained in feedlot pens, saving up to two days of work.

For appraisal and farm management businesses that are also involved in real estate brokerage, the value of aerial photography and video can be hard to overstate. Howard Halderman, AFM, owner of Halderman Real Estate and Farm Management, favors the use of drones for this side of his company.
“I’d say 80% of our use probably comes from our real estate marketing side,” explained Halderman. “That is for still photography as well as video and creating lots of virtual tours of properties.”

Good quality drone video and imagery can help your marketing stand out from competitors. “Drones help us highlight the best of a property, and also highlight the things we need to improve,” said Tim Cobb, AFM, who owns Farmland Company in Spokane, Washington.

When a nearby university was deciding on a broker to sell a 7,000-acre ranch, Cobb created a marketing video made with drone footage highlighting the property’s best characteristics. A member of the university’s decision-making committee approached Cobb afterwards, thanking him for his preparation and utilizing video.

“We did everything we could to separate ourselves out from the rest,” he said. “I don’t know what happened in the rest of those interviews, but I do know that I received the assignment.”

Cobb also uses drones in his farm management work, though to a lesser extent. For an irrigated corn crop, a drone can help identify plugged sprinklers or similar issues, allowing his team to activate quickly to save bushels.

In the Arkansas delta, Jeffrey Hignight, AFM, finds drones useful for identifying water-related issues as well. “Sometimes the beavers like to make dams,” he said. “The drone is a good way to locate it so that you can remove the dam and get your farm draining again.”

Hignight, who works for Glaub Farm Management, believes drones are also a useful tool for surveying land.

“In our part of the world, we’re irrigating with what we call polypipe – basically a plastic tube that is laid along the high point of the field with holes punched in it so water can go down the furrow,” he explained. “A drone can take the elevation so that information can be put into a program that can tell you what sized hole needs to be punctured along the pipeline.”

Hignight uses drones to survey land when doing dirt work as well, including land leveling and precision grading.

The best and most interesting uses for drones might still lie ahead, when drone-integrated technologies like remote sensing become more practical and commonplace.

“Remote sensing can literally tell you the nitrogen content of the leaves at a very granular level,” said Cullins. “If I can remotely collect information on how much nitrogen to use per acre, now you’re talking about million-dollar decisions.”

AI-based measurement may also become more prevalent as a tool for rural appraisers. This technology would take imagery captured by a drone and determine the length, width, and height of large structures. “Some of these barns we measure are really huge,” Cullins described. “We’re already seeing this at county appraisal districts, where they’re able to measure residences.”

When considering the applicability of drones for your business, it’s important to take into account the various regulations that now govern their use. While once upon a time drones were unregulated, the Federal Aviation Administration now requires testing, education, and licensing with recurrent requirements.

A pioneer of drone usage in the Farm Credit system, Cullins is now educating other Farm Credit branches on how to go about using drones in proper compliance with regulations. “Without being aware of all the things that a company needs to consider, you might make the mistake of just going and getting one,” he warned.

Regardless of the manner in which rural professionals are using drones today, there is a consensus surrounding their potential to add value to a business.

“I really feel that it has had an impact in my business,” said Cobb. “I’m a better overall ag professional partially because of the knowledge I gain from something that I can’t see otherwise, and that comes from drone technology.”

NAICC’s Foundation Supports the Future of Ag

Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:00:00 GMT

The Foundation for Environmental Agriculture Education (the FEAE) supports the education goals and activities of the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC) by providing financial assistance for quality educational training for independent crop and research consultants, by sponsoring the annual Richard L. Jensen Memorial speaker at the annual meeting, and by providing scholarship endowments to students pursuing careers in agriculture. The mission statement of the Foundation is to: “Catalyze innovative education and training for current and future professional crop management practitioners.” We were founded in 1991 with seed money from two Agricultural Chemical companies that had an interest in ensuring a sustainable resource of educated agriculture professionals.

One of the Foundation’s early major successes resulted in the establishment of two university PhD degree programs, the Doctor of Plant Medicine and the Doctor of Plant Health programs at the Universities of Florida and Nebraska, respectively. The purpose for these programs was to train practicing plant health professionals who were destined to practice plant medicine in the field, much as a medical doctor does for people. The programs at the Universities of Florida and Nebraska have since become self-supporting by the respective states.

Currently we offer five annual scholarships to deserving students pursuing a degree in a crop agriculture-related discipline. Three of the five are awarded to undergraduate students. The largest of these three scholarships ($3000) is known as the Jensen Memorial Scholarship and commemorates Richard Jensen, an instrumental founder of the NAICC. The Jensen Memorial Scholarship is awarded to our most qualified undergraduate applicant, based on their GPA, candidate statement, volunteer service, awards and recognitions previously received, and work history. The 2020 winner of our Jensen Scholarship was Audrey Pelikan of North Carolina State University.

The other two undergraduate scholarships, sponsored by Belchim Crop Protection, are $1500 scholarships that are awarded to the 2nd and 3rd runners-up. Our 2020 winners of these scholarships were Forrest Hanson from North Dakota State University and Cristina Griffith from Mississippi State University.

In 2020, for the first time the FEAE awarded two graduate scholarships. A $3000 scholarship commemorates one of the founders of the NAICC, Edward H. Lloyd. Our winner in 2020 was Agustín Núñez from the University of Wisconsin – River Falls. The second $2000 graduate scholarship is sponsored by Wilbur Ellis to support the agriculture industry. The 2020 winner of that scholarship was Clayton J. Nevins from the University of Florida.

Money from all these scholarships is sent directly to the University registrar to pay tuition for the recipients. Students may apply for these scholarships at any time of the year, but applications are due no later than December 1 with awards notification given later that same month and distributed in the following year in January. Please visit our website for information on qualifications and how to apply for these scholarships.

Additional educational opportunities funded in whole or partially by the FEAE include the following:

An annual Focus on Precision Workshop to train crop consultants and researchers on precision Ag technologies.
Keynote speaker honoraria at the NAICC annual meeting
GLP training workshops for Quality Assurance professionals and researchers. GLP training is required by the EPA to bring novel crop protection products and plant-incorporated protectants to market.
Contributions to organizations like GAIAC (the Global Alliance of Independent Agricultural Consultants) who bring international speakers to the annual NAICC meeting.
The NAICC Leadership Program to enhance leadership skills and personal development among our members and prepare them to better advocate for agriculture at the state and federal level

Future opportunities we are working on include:

Agriculture education of students at the middle or high school level
Help to develop a Bachelor’s degree program at universities to prepare graduates for a career in crop consulting

The outcome of all of these activities is an NAICC membership that is more educated on current agricultural technology and informed on issues affecting agriculture, as well as more students graduating with degrees in agricultural majors, in part due to our help with their college expenses. Ultimately, this should benefit the greater good of agriculture. The resources of the Foundation exist as building blocks for the maintenance and future of professional crop management practitioners.

The FEAE is a non-profit organization, and all our board members are volunteers. All our scholarships are fully administered by volunteers. No one is paid for the work or the service we provide. Our volunteers are passionate about agriculture and donate their time to ensure a robust food supply system into the future. We keep our operating expenses very low, so that nearly all of our funding goes directly to support the educational opportunities in agriculture described above.

The FEAE is in need of sustainable, recurrent funding resources to continue its mission. Individuals can contribute any sum directly to the FEAE. Donations of $250 and above are recognized as a “Friend of the Foundation”. If you would like to donate to support the future of agriculture, go to www.naicc.org/donate/ . Select the “FEAE General Fund” to support any of our education outreach activities, or the “Richard Jensen Scholarship Fund” if you would like to donate directly to the scholarship fund.

We have also established a framework for suggested corporate donations with annual contributions at various levels as follows:

Bronze - $1000
Silver - $2500
Gold - $5000
Platinum - $10,000
Diamond – >$10,000

If you would like to donate at the corporate level, contact Sandra Mackie at sjwmackie@gmail.com to discuss options. For individual donations click here.

More information about the FEAE can be reviewed on our website or click here to view our new promotional video.

In-Person Education With ASFMRA

Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:00:00 GMT

This July, the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers will hold its annual Education Week once again. The event, which was moved to a virtual format last year due to restrictions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, will take place in La Vista, Neb., just outside of Omaha.

As in past years, Education Week will feature qualifying education for rural appraisers, including Sales Comparison Approach and Integrated Approaches to Value. In addition, land professionals seeking professional designations will gather in Omaha to take key courses and exams that guide them one step closer to becoming Accredited Rural Appraisers and Accredited Farm Managers.

ASFMRA accredited members lead today’s agribusiness by meeting the complex needs of agriculture’s changing environment.

ASFMRA professionals offer expertise in biotechnology, environmental issues, changing technology, land, property, business valuation, market trends, and governmental involvement and regulations. To earn accreditation, rigorous education and continuing education requirements must be met, and extensive practical experience in the profession must be demonstrated.

Speaking of continuing education, the ASFMRA’s Education Week will include three unique seminars specific to the rural land appraisal profession, including “Alternative Investments: Agriculture as an Asset,” “Valuation of Lifestyle and Trophy Properties,” and “Practical Applications of the Equivalency Ratio.”

Finally, farm managers, agricultural consultants, and truly any with a passion for ag land and agronomy will not want to miss two exclusive events, each to be held on the same day. On the morning of July 20, those who attend or participate in land auctions will enjoy taking part in a special Ringman Training session. Later, managers will have the opportunity to tour Midwest Laboratories, one of the largest soil labs in the country.

While the entire event takes place over the course of two weeks, key dates features seminars and networking opportunities will be held from July 18-21 at the Embassy suites La Vista Hotel and Conference Center.

For more information on the event, visit ASFMRA.org/Edu-Week.

A Great Year For Change

Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:42:35 GMT

For so many in agriculture, their work is driven by a passion, and it’s more than “just a job.” This past year was an impressive demonstration of this as so many worked through unforeseen challenges with the COVID-19 pandemic. The crop was planted, monitored, tended and harvested. And ag retailers were assisting farmers in any and every format along the way.

We have done the annual salary survey featured in our cover story for more than a decade. This provides great numbers to use in your own analysis of how you are compensating employees.

But Wait. There’s More

Beyond their paycheck and health benefits, are you filling their cup in other ways? Are you and other leaders at your company recognizing and rewarding how team members are performing above expectations or meeting customers’ needs in powerful ways?

Even small gestures—a surprise gift card or company-provided lunch—could be the extra boost someone needs to know his or her work is being seen. When you feel your passion is recognized by others, it’s pretty empowering.

And this year is a great year to help your team see why its work matters in supporting your vision for the future.

Overcoming 2020’s challenges and entering into the 2021 growing season provide momentum for how your company is set up to succeed. And it’s an opportunity to show your team how it is an important part of the future success.

Whether it’s how you’re investing in technology or how your company is regearing itself for the farmer of the future, the ag industry is evolving right before our eyes. Share how you see the future, and it’ll lead to team buy-in and a more bountiful crop.

Farmer-Facing Rebates: Threads In The Sweater

Thu, 18 Mar 2021 20:53:44 GMT

The process of selling crop protection products is layered. And in our cover story, the editorial team chose to take a deeper dive in one of those layers: farmer-facing programs. Most suppliers make changes to these marketing programs once a year, but the past few years have ushered in a new era. The accompanying table provides a look at the landscape of leading row crop programs in crop protection.

Can’t Pull On Just One Thread

What do we call this group of initiatives? Each supplier has a unique approach to incentivize its products and best place its agronomic tools in the marketplace. They aren’t all rebates, but they are adjacent in the discussion about rebates. The one common thread—suppliers say they still rely on and appreciate ag retailers as the local trusted adviser.

As you look at what makes each program unique, you pick up on the trend that more changes are coming. You can see how financing, early order, product pairing and more are being woven tighter together with product performance, data and weather.

Beyond Product Volume

Is the future more and more rebates? There are already players indicating the future will be some kind of departure from traditional multiproduct- or volume-centered programs. One clear takeaway—the future will involve more data-driven decisions.
Bob Reiter, head of R&D, crop science division at Bayer, says the company wants its business to evolve from volume-based to outcome-based. For three years, the company has piloted programs looking at outcome-based business models. Reiter expects a significant expansion of offerings to growers in the latter part of this decade.

This Will Be A Big Year For Carbon

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:50:55 GMT

The factors are converging to make this coming year a springboard for how agriculture is involved in carbon sequestration and climate policies. New carbon programs for farmers are being announced at a pretty fast clip. Just a few months ago, Farm Journal assembled a table to compare the leading carbon markets. To update that table for this magazine, I added three additional enrollment opportunities for farmers. And there’s at least one more to be introduced in 2021 that the company wasn’t ready to discuss at press time.

Will it be the carrot or the stick?

In December, I moderated a panel with ARA’s Richard Gupton, Wilbur-Ellis’ Scott Rawlins and Growmark’s Chuck Spencer at ARA’s virtual conference. Those leading policy experts shared their outlook for what was coming in 2021, and climate policies topped all three of their lists.

Grab the reins

This is opening an opportunity for you to be a trusted adviser to your farmer customers in navigating this new frontier. Data will be paramount with carbon. Whoever understands how to manage the very detailed data required will hold the keys to maximizing opportunities.

In partnership with Aimpoint Research, a study we conducted in mid-2020 found 41% of farmers were seeking help with data management. If you have not already, then there is no better time to invest in data management and data analysis services. And it will be equally important when new environmental mandates are put into place.

Do Your Business Activities Spark Joy?

Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:14:59 GMT

Think back 11 months ago when the whole world and our day-to-day lives really started to change in light of COVID-19. Flash forward to today, and add up all of the adaptations you’ve made in your everyday life. Now, think of all of the things you didn’t do in your business in the past year—mainly travel and events. My bet is we will never fully return to pre-2020 business behaviors.

The organizing consultant Marie Kondo became part of our popular culture with a book and a Netflix show engraining her “does this spark joy?” measurement for our physical possessions. She encourages us to go through our homes and ask, “Does this item spark joy?” Those with “yes” answers stay; those with “no” answers get donated or thrown out. And this process applies to everything.

As we’re able to resume some of our previous business activities, I suggest we can apply this tool with a bit of a different angle. Ask yourself, “Does this spark growth?” Maybe some of your previous business activities no longer serve their original purposes or have a place. Making those assessments now means you’re able to move forward faster.
Join myself and the pros at Aimpoint for a deeper dive on Jan. 21. Register online at FarmJournal.com. An on-demand recording will be available.

It’s been an amazing effort to see how all of the sectors of our industry have responded to carrying on with business—just in some creative ways. Lean into the new normal, and I think there’s even more success to uncover.

ASFMRA: More Than One Way

Mon, 23 Nov 2020 21:15:15 GMT

In September, the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers hosted a live seminar called “Appraising Unique & Atypical Properties” that was developed and instructed by Mark Williams, ARA.

Over the years, Williams has accumulated a wealth of experience when it comes to dealing with “oddball” rural appraisals, and a reputation for it as well.

Williams designed his seminar in such a way that participants are encouraged to get into a problem-solving mode, think creatively, and work together. Attendees are divvied up into teams and tasked with tackling a series of appraisal scenarios that Williams borrows from his past. After each scenario, the class gets back together to review Williams’ approach to the assignment.

“I’m not sure this is the only way, but this is the way we tackled the problem,” explained Williams. “Each and every one of those appraisal projects was reviewed at some level, and most of them were reviewed pretty thoroughly by some government agency.”

But the learning in this seminar goes both ways, and sometimes the students become the teacher.

“Through all the times that I’ve instructed the class, the class has come up with some additional things that I should have considered, or some other avenues that would have worked,” notes Williams.

One of Williams’ examples is dubbed “The House of Tomorrow,” which is the actual name of a house constructed for the 1933 World Fair in Chicago. This ten-sided home represented what people of the time thought the future would be like in 50 years, and had some odd features, such as a garage designed for a personal plane instead of a car. The primary challenge for this project was determining the house’s historical value.

Another example is a project that Williams refers to as “Supersized and Stinky.” In this scenario, a farmer decided to build a new house immediately downwind of a large dairy production facility. The house itself was overbuilt at 4000 sq. ft., in a market where most homes were 1500-2500 sq. ft. To make things weirder, the house had seven bedrooms and a single half bathroom on the second floor, as well as no basement, which was unusual for the area. The challenges for this project involved figuring out how the odd layout affected the home value, as well as measuring the discount for being downwind of the smelly dairy facility.

With fun and challenging examples to work with, it was easy for participants to stay engaged.

“When we got to the end of class and I said ‘Well, are there any more questions?’ […] It actually went another 15 minutes past time. People just kept talking,” said Williams.

This discussion is what Williams hopes for, as he sees networking as one of the best tools you can have when appraising unique and atypical properties. “Look, you have twenty new appraisal partners as of today, because you all sat through this class,” concluded Williams. “So the next time one of these oddball things comes along, reach out to some people you’ve taken this class with and say ‘hey, what do you think?’”

NAICC: Farming Challenges of 2020 in Northeast North Carolina

Mon, 23 Nov 2020 20:58:05 GMT

by Matt Winslow, NAICC President

Farming in Northeast North Carolina has come with many sets of challenges in 2020. Our winter was very mild however a late spring freeze caused variability in wheat yields depending on maturity. Yields ranged from 40 to 100 bu/acre.

Most of our corn crop was planted timely in late March to late April, however an extremely wet, cold May followed by a hot and dry July along with high winds in August caused significant damage in a lot of our acres. In many cases the difference in variety selection or a week difference in planting date played a dramatic role in how much damage the crop sustained. Yields varied from 60-250 bu/acre depending on how the hot and dry weather interacted with the crop during pollination or how tender the stalks were during the heavy winds in August.

Our cotton crop was either planted early or late. The middle of May was extremely cool and wet which prevented planting after May 7. Cotton planted prior to that faced a lot of early season stress but was able to make it through and should be a good crop. Most farmers didn’t start planting again until after May 27 and many acres did not go in the ground until after the June 1. The late cotton crop has just been defoliated and the crop will be variable depending on variety and plant bug pressure.

We had a very wide range of soybean planting dates this season. Some farmers elected to plant beans ahead of corn in April, but most beans were delayed by the same weather that impacted cotton planting. A large portion of our soybean acres were planted in late June and July, because mid-June was too wet. Overall, we expect good yields across our soybean acres.

Every year is different, but we always adapt and survive. I pray that all areas have a safe harvest and a profitable crop.

It's Billion, As In It Starts with a B

Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:21:44 GMT

That’s billion with a b as Nutrien reports the company sold more than $1 billion in products via its Digital Hub in the first three quarters of 2020. Nutrien leaders shared that’s double their goal for the entire year.

The company first announced its big investment in technology development in 2018 when CEO Chuck Magro promised $100 million invested every year, which coincided with the company’s introduction of the Nutrien customer portal.

When the Digital Hub launched in 2018, our readers named it the New Product of the Year. ( You can vote for this year’s new product award here. )

It was also three years ago when Farm Journal launched its first research survey that looked at farmers’ crop input purchases online. And as detailed in our upcoming December cover story, the number of farmers who are buying some of their crop inputs online has nearly doubled since that first survey.

What does this mean for ag retail? The big trend here is more technology in agriculture. There are many threads within that trend, and one of them is online purchasing.

There’s a need for digital strategy. As an example, COVID-19 accelerated existing trends. Nutrien and other retailers that had embraced a digital strategy were positioned to offer their online portals as an alternative to face-to-face sales at just the right time.

That echoes the big takeaway from the panel I moderated for the Ag Retailers Association; the panel included AgVend’s Alexander Reichert, CommoditAg’s John Demerly and EFC Systems’ Ernie Chappell. That nugget: much of this integration with technology takes a change in mindset and consistent leadership.

Understand Your Customers To Underpin Your Value To Them

Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:46:46 GMT

by Brad Oelmann, a consultant with Farrell Growth Group, a leading agribusiness consulting firm.

There has been much discussion around value propositions in the past several years. As a point of reference, let’s define a value proposition. It is a promise of value to be delivered, communicated and acknowledged. It is a belief from the customer about how value will be delivered, experienced or acquired. Focus on some of these “watchouts” as you develop or review your value proposition.

Watchout #1
How has our customer changed?

A value proposition is developed at a point in time. We look at our customers and see a need we believe we can address better than competitors. It is important to have an ongoing understanding of where our target customers are going with their businesses, so we can adjust our value proposition to bring value. First, the profitability outlook for their businesses may have changed. Second, they may have increased or decreased the size of their operations or changed their focus. Third, factors such as consumer preferences, sustainability, food security and data-driven decision-making are all more important than they were a few years ago. These could all directly or indirectly impact a value proposition.

Watchout #2
How have our competitors changed?

Assuming we have been successful in executing our value proposition, competitors will most likely respond in some fashion. First, they may invest in a way that narrows or eliminates the difference the customer perceives in our value propositions. Second, they may change the price-value relationship of their offers to make them more attractive. Finally, they may offer something that our target customers may value more than what they see in our offer. It is important to understand how our key competitors are modifying their approach and re-evaluating their needs.

Watchout #3
How are you measuring success?

It’s easy to look at overall top-line sales and bottom-line profits to measure the success of our approach. But most of the time, we need to dig deeper. Inflation and deflation in the products we sell can mask true results. Customers get bigger and smaller. Suppliers don’t always follow through with their value propositions. It is very important to measure the cost and value of our proposition over time.

Every business is dynamic. Customers, competitors, suppliers and consumers are constantly evolving and changing. We need to make sure our value proposition is keeping up with the changes in the world around us.