On October 16-19^th, Myers attended the International Dairy Federation (IDF) World Dairy Summit in Chicago, Illinois, to hear how global dairy leaders are approaching some of the major issues impacting the dairy sector.

It is not often that the global dairy community gathers to discuss high-level issues that are specific to the dairy industry or agriculture in general. Over the last seven years, I have been lucky to attend numerous conferences that discuss research relevant to specific issues in the dairy industry, whether this be the adoption of a new technology or the modification of a testing procedure. However, I noticed absent from these discussions were relevant policy conversations or how the adoption of new technologies could enhance farm income. More so, there was little discussed as to what is happening in the global dairy sector and how global innovations and trends might impact dairy farmers and processors in the United States. I just assumed these conversations didn’t happen at conferences.

I learned that is not the case at the International Dairy Federation (IDF) World Dairy Summit, which I attended a few weeks ago in Chicago, Illinois. The meeting itself rotates to different countries each year, and it has been over 30 years since the United States hosted the World Dairy Summit. As someone who has recently shifted away from the dairy foods processing sector and into dairy policy and economics, I was excited to attend a conference where there appeared to be such a focus on dairy markets and policy. The World Dairy Summit itself hosted 1,200 participants from around the world to discuss the theme of the conference: “Boundless Potential, Endless Opportunities.”

High-level plenary sessions were held with global dairy industry leaders coupled with topic-specific concurrent sessions. Plenary sessions focused broadly on issues the global dairy industry is facing. However, there was a strong focus on sustainability and how the dairy industry can work toward a greener future. To contribute to this dialogue, global dairy industry leaders discussed how their companies and governments are working to achieve the global dairy industry’s goal of being carbon neutral by 2050. Furthermore, dairy industry leaders discussed how technology adoption and policies can intersect to fill the demand for dairy solids from a growing population. Importantly, leaders also discussed how this intersectionality can work to achieve a carbon-free dairy industry, without curtailing production. In the concurrent sessions, dairy industry leaders widely discussed how trade can be a tool to mutually benefit the global dairy industry, and how changing global consumer demand stands to impact U.S. dairy farmers.

Making New Connections

Although the plenary and concurrent sessions offered valuable information and insight from global dairy leaders, one of the most remarkable aspects of attending the IDF World Dairy Summit was networking with like-minded dairy professionals from around the United States and the globe. These conversations, whether in concurrent sessions or in one-on-one hallway conversations, were incredibly important to gaining valuable insights into dairy markets, policy, and future career opportunities. The connections I have made with farmers, members of the scientific community, and industry groups at IDF were numerous and have proven helpful in several instances since the conference. I hope to continue to cultivate these networks as I continue down the very narrow, but increasingly relevant, field of dairy economics.

Besides a plethora of new connections, friends, and colleagues, I returned to Arkansas with one other memento from the World Dairy Summit, a first-place trophy from the dairy marketing and economics poster session. Participants were invited to submit original research posters to one of seven major research categories. Those who placed first in the category returned home with a glass plaque with the IDF logo etched into it. The dairy markets and economics plaque now sits proudly on a shared bookshelf in our department’s Ph.D. office. In a research space as small as dairy markets and economics, receiving first place signified to me that our research had valid and broad implications for the entire dairy industry. Personally, I feel as though this award signifies I am making headway as an aspiring dairy economist.

Overall, the IDF annual meeting exceeded my expectations and offered an incredible experience of networking with like-minded dairy enthusiasts while thinking of new ideas on how my research can impact dairy farmers here in the U.S. The IDF meeting has truly expanded my personal network of global dairy industry stakeholders and fueled my commitment to contributing meaningfully to the dynamic and ever-evolving world of dairy.

I attended this conference as both a graduate student at the University of Arkansas and as a Farm Foundation Agricultural Scholar, and as such my attendance at this meeting would not have been possible without the commitment of Farm Foundation. As I reflect on this experience, I am incredibly grateful for Farm Foundation for affording me this incredible opportunity.

The post Perspective: Deepening Insights at the International Dairy Federation World Dairy Summit appeared first on Farm Foundation.

Farm Foundation kicked off our 90^th year by convening our Round Table Fellows in Savannah, Georgia, on the topic of “Opportunities and Challenges for International Trade.”  The Round Table Fellows are a unique group of thought leaders, tapped by their peers to become members of this program. All discussions are off the record; however the broad themes and insights are shared to catalyze change and progress for the food and agriculture sector.

Prior to the discussions, we enjoyed a tour day of the Port of Savannah and some agricultural sites in the area, learning about a variety of crops including Vidalia onions. The port tour highlighted the heavy volume of traffic coming through that port, as well as the high degree of automation and digitization deployed there. The ongoing evolution of trade and innovation means all ports need to keep investing in infrastructure and modernization to ensure the United States continues to be a leader in trade.

This year we had an esteemed group of global speakers joining us for this in person gathering. The Honorable United States Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack joined in person for the opening keynote and questions. Then we had a panel of former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, including Secretary Glickman, Venneman, Johanns, and Schafer. What was striking about these conversations was the bi-partisan respect across this group of leaders who all share the desire to advance agriculture. Among the themes discussed were the ongoing challenges with Mexico for trade relations, such as for GMO corn, with mixed views on likelihood of progress until a change of leadership occurs. Most thought the upcoming Farm Bill would likely be evolutionary in nature and discussed the role of the food program in advancing bi-partisan legislation.

International Trade Dynamics

Through other sessions attendees gained a deeper understanding of trade dynamics. One session highlighted the long-term challenges that will result from the war in Ukraine, made more visceral by several participants from Ukraine highlighting the personal, national, and global destruction that is a direct result of this war. Seasoned veterans of trade negotiations shared the sheer amount of detailed work and negotiations that go into any trade agreement, both the technical and interpersonal dynamics that play out. Logistics and infrastructure leaders shared how they are continuing to invest through hiring, training, and innovating to ensure our country has what is required to support robust trade in agriculture.

We also welcomed some guests and younger participants from Farm Foundation’s Next Generation programs who added different perspectives to the dialogues.

The next Round Table gathering will be in Chicago, June 14 to 16 on “Mapping the Future of Food and Agriculture” and will feature a public gala to celebrate our 90^th birthday the evening of June 15. For more information, contact FFgala@farmfoudation.org.

The post Themes and Takeaways From Savannah Round Table appeared first on Farm Foundation.

Started in 2020, the Young Farmer Accelerator Program seeks to actively engage farmers from 21 to 40 years old in a year-long series of interactive learning and networking experiences, focused on gaining a deeper understanding of a wide variety of agriculture, agribusiness, and government issues. The program also hopes to help young farmers build a strong, enduring network of peers and agribusiness and government contacts.   Participants are sponsored to attend events, engage in virtual conversations, and participate in exclusive learning opportunities.  More information and a link to the nomination for this program are available at farmfoundation.org/young-farmer-accelerator-program.

The full suite of Farm Foundation Next Generation programs have to date engaged nearly 200 promising farmers and agri-business professionals early in their careers, helping them establish critical connections that are nurtured past the current program year through the alumni network.

Nominations are due by February 8, 2023. Participants can be nominated by anyone who knows them well, such as managers, colleagues, community leaders, etc. Participants may also be self-nominated.

The post Call for Nominations Opens for Young Farmer Accelerator Program appeared first on Farm Foundation.

The post Flyer on New FDA Antibiotics Guidance Available appeared first on Farm Foundation.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has created increased pressure on global food systems, limiting supply and driving up prices of many key foodstuffs. However, pressure on global food systems was already significant, driven by rising demand and production challenges around the world.

This global challenge requires local solutions, with food producers being called on to find sustainable ways to meet growing global demand. This webinar explored current dynamics within the global food system and considered what policy solutions could be implemented in Canada, the United States and around the world.

This discussion was moderated by Farm Foundation President and CEO, Shari Rogge-Fidler. Lee Ann Jackson, Agro-food Trade and Markets head of division, OECD, provided an opening presentation, followed by a panel discussion featuring:

Kip Tom
Former US  United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture,
Chief of the United States Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome from 2019 to 2021,
Managing member, Tom Farms, and Farm Foundation Round Table Fellow

Rick White
President and CEO, Canadian Canola Growers Association,
Chair, International Agri-Food Network

Murad Al-Katib
President and CEO, AGT Foods

This webinar builds on collaboration between the Farm Foundation and CAPI, including the Trade and Climate Change conference in 2021, Trade and the Environment (2020), and Trade in an Increasingly Chaotic World (2019).

The webinar was recorded and may be viewed at the link below.

The post CAPI Dialogue on Agriculture and Food Security: Global Challenges and Local Solutions appeared first on Farm Foundation.

I often claim, honestly, that I am lucky to have the most interesting law practice one could have. Case in point: a few weeks ago, I visited a biology lab where I ogled petri dishes containing plants that have been engineered to produce proteins that are ordinarily derived from animals—a novel source of a key food ingredient that has the potential to revolutionize dairy alternatives. Every day I work with product developers like that one, who are using everything from artificial intelligence to zinc fingers to add to the already incredible toolbox potentially available to our farmers and ranchers, such as salmon that can be farmed in domestic land‐based facilities, soil microbes that can decrease the use of synthetic nitrogen, urban farm facilities, and better‐tasting fruits and vegetables. All have a laudable goal: to improve the way we produce food, fuel, fiber, and other products vital to our lives, both in the United States and globally.

It’s a truly remarkable time to be working in this field. Record amounts of capital are being invested in the agriculture sector—particularly in ventures operating at the intersection of agriculture and technology, sometimes referred to as “AgTech.” One source has estimated that venture capital firms invested $10.5 billion across 751 deals in AgTech startups during 2021, an increase in deal value of more than 58 percent over 2020. This also means there are opportunities to convene with developers, investors, and researchers at conferences and summits, particularly now that we are able to get back to doing some of that convening in person. As we face incredible challenges, the future is bright and full of solutions.

As I practice at the intersection of law and regulation, thinking about the future of our food and agriculture system always leads me to contemplate our regulatory system and the role it plays in advancing innovation. A significant part of my day‐to‐day work is spent working with developers to identify, understand, and secure a regulatory pathway for the newest of these tools so that products can get to market. I also work with trade associations and industry coalitions on ensuring that federal, state, and local policy provides a clear, predictable pathway to market for those new tools while providing consumers with the confidence that new products are safe.

Focusing on Risks, Not Hazards

We are fortunate to live in the United States for many reasons. Innovation flourishes here because of our world‐class education system, thriving public and private research and development programs, and access to capital. We are also fortunate to live in a country whose regulatory system evaluates innovation using the principles of risk assessment.

The goal of risk‐based regulation is to focus regulatory resources in a way that is proportionate to the risks that particular products, or categories of products, pose. Where technological advancements, and our understanding of those advancements, allow a greater understanding of risk, regulatory burdens should be lowered (or enhanced) accordingly. This approach stands in stark contrast to the hazard‐based framework used by some of our most important trading partners, under which technology is avoided or resisted until all risk—irrespective of degree—is ruled out.

Warp‐speed innovation is not without its challenges. In particular, it is a continuing challenge for our regulatory system to keep pace with advances in technology. Indeed, this very question was the subject of a National Academies report a few years ago entitled “Future Biotechnology Products and Opportunities to Enhance Capabilities of the Biotechnology Regulatory System.” In it, the authors predicted that advances would increase in scale, scope, complexity, and tempo—simultaneously—and counseled that agencies should prepare. But in order to address this increased volume of product development using new technologies, regulators at all levels of government need to understand the underlying technologies to be able to adequately and efficiently assess risk. Indeed, the study authors advocate for increasing agencies’ scientific capabilities, and for agencies to increase investments in regulatory science, among other recommendations.

The Role of Stakeholders in Promoting Innovation

We all have a role in identifying opportunities to harmonize advancement with the appropriate level of regulatory resources. All stakeholders should take advantage of every opportunity afforded them to communicate with regulators about what challenges they are facing, and what tools are needed to solve them. Product developers—large, small, public, private, and all the rest—should communicate with the agencies that will regulate them about what products are in the pipeline (in a manner that is in balance with the important need to protect valuable IP) and communicate with Congress about where additional resources or capabilities are needed. And Congress and the executive branch should use their existing authorities to ensure that agencies have all the resources they need to work cooperatively with developers to conduct timely and complete reviews.

Karen Carr counsels, advocates, and litigates on behalf of food and agriculture companies and industry groups, with a focus on agricultural technology, food, biotechnology, pesticides and other chemical substances, and environmental law. She co-leads ArentFox Schiff’s AgTech industry group.

The post Perspective: The Interaction Between Ag Innovation and Regulation appeared first on Farm Foundation.

The following is an excerpt from a paper written by Alejandro Plastina, the current Farm Foundation Agricultural Economics Fellow.  Dr. Plastina is an Associate Professor/Extension Economist in the Department of Economics at Iowa State University.

Emerging voluntary carbon markets are being touted as the new cash crop in U.S. agriculture. In essence, large companies would purchase carbon credits from multiple sources, including agriculture, to achieve their net zero-emission goals. Farmers and ranchers would implement conservation practices following protocols from a carbon program to sequester carbon from the atmosphere into the soil or avoid greenhouse gas emissions in exchange for compensation. The carbon program would connect purchasing entities with farmers, and direct the flow of payments, data, methods, and carbon credits throughout the system (Plastina 2021).

Agricultural conservation practices must be additional and permanent to generate carbon credits (Plastina and Wongpiyabovorn 2021). Additional practices are different from baseline practices. Evaluating the additionality of a practice requires judgement on whether it would have been implemented in the absence of the carbon program. Permanence refers to the length of time that a specific practice sequesters carbon from the atmosphere.

Annual conservation practices can be adopted with certain annual patterns in mind that would make them hard to qualify as permanent practices. For example, cover cropping could be highly desirable for some farmers before corn in a corn-soybean rotation, but less desirable in every single year. In the former case, carbon sequestration would take longer to occur than in the latter case. When annual practices are temporarily discontinued due to factors external to the farm, most carbon programs include penalties associated with skipping payments for the discontinued practices until reinstated (Plastina and Wongpiyabovorn 2021).

Even if annual conservation practices are adopted with the intention to implement them every single year, there could be agronomic or economic reasons that would justify a temporary discontinuation. For example, the adoption of a no-till system requires a long-term commitment because it requires new implements and a different timing of certain practices. However, if weed resistance builds up to a point where chemicals become ineffective, then vertical tillage could be used as a weed management strategy one year before returning to no-till. When tilling a soil that has been in a no-till system for multiple years, the sequestered carbon from previous years leaves the soil and returns to the atmosphere. Some carbon programs address the risk of “reversal” through a voluntary carbon reserve, which consists of carbon credits generated by agricultural practices that are kept untraded (outside the carbon market) for 10 years or more. (Plastina and Wongpiyabovorn 2021).

In an attempt to shed light on regional patterns of adoption and disadoption of conservation practices, Plastina and Sawadgo (2021) evaluated changes in acres on cover crops and no-till in Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa between the last two Censuses of Agriculture,  2012 and 2017.

Cover Crops

In 2017, cover crops were planted in 2,617,335 acres in the I-States, equivalent to 4.12% of their total cropland area. An analysis of changes in adoption rates by county indicates that 199 counties out of the 289 counties in the I-states for which there is complete data (69%) increased their rates of adoption by at least 1 percentage point between 2012 and 2017, while 59 counties (20%) kept it relatively stable (change between 0 and 1 percentage points), and 31 counties (11%) experienced declines in their rates of adoption, or disadoption (see figure 1). The biggest gain in cover cropped area (20,001 acres) occurred in Keokuk County, Iowa, and the largest drop (-6,374 acres) was observed in Orange County, Indiana.

In Indiana, twenty counties experienced a total decline in cover crop area of 40,616 acres, equivalent to 22.7% of their 2012 cover cropped area. In Illinois, seven counties reduced their cover cropped area by 5,603 acres, equivalent to 28.0% of their 2012 levels. In Iowa, four counties experienced a total decline of 8,572 acres, equivalent to 42.5% of their 2012 levels.

No-Till

In 2017, no-tillage systems were implemented on 19,571,098 acres in the I-States, equivalent to 30.84% of their total cropland area. An analysis of changes in adoption rates by county indicates that 175 counties out of the 291 counties in the I-states for which there is complete data (61%) increased their rates of adoption by at least 1 percentage point between 2012 and 2017, while 20 counties (7%) kept it relatively stable (change between 0 and 1 percentage points), and 96 counties (33%) experienced disadoption (see figure 2). The biggest gain in no-till area (62,616 acres) occurred in Plymouth County, Iowa, and the largest drop (-35,435 acres) was observed in Jasper County, Indiana.

In Indiana, forty-six counties experienced a total decline in no-till area of 369,247 acres, equivalent to 14.6% of their 2012 cover cropped area. In Illinois, thirty-nine counties reduced their no-till area by 292,086 acres, equivalent to 12.1% of their 2012 levels. In Iowa, eleven counties experienced a total decline of 95,457 acres, equivalent to 11.1% of their 2012 levels.

Disadoption and Carbon Programs

Plastina and Sawadgo (2021) highlight the non-permanence of two annual conservation practices between 2012 and 2017 in the I-States: 11% and 33% of the counties in the region disadopted cover crops and no-till, respectively, reducing their areas in those conservation practices by 25% and 13% with respect to 2012 levels. If these percentages are indicative of the probability that farmers participating in voluntary carbon programs could temporarily discontinue contracted practices and trigger penalties from carbon programs, their findings suggest that farmers planting cover crops and using no-till would face non-trivial probabilities of being penalized over the life of a multi-year carbon contract.

Read the paper

For more information

Plastina, A. 2021. “How do Data and Payments Flow through Ag Carbon Programs?” Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. Ag Decision Maker File A1-77. Available at https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a1-76.html.

Plastina, A., and O. Wongpiyabovorn. 2021. “How to Grow and Sell Carbon Credits in US Agriculture.” Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. Ag Decision Maker File A1-76. Available at https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a1-77.html.

Plastina, A. and W. Sawadgo. 2021. “Cover Crops and No-till in the I-States: Non-Permanence and Carbon Markets.” Agricultural Policy Review, Fall 2021. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. Available at www.card.iastate.edu/ag_policy_review/article/?a=133.

The post Non-Permanence of Conservation Practices and Carbon Markets appeared first on Farm Foundation.