TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Government

    Young Farmers Podcast

    The Young Farmers Podcast, a project of the National Young Farmers Coalition, is digging into the most critical issues facing the future of farming: land access, climate change, racial equity, water for the next generation, government access and accountability. This season, you’ll hear from policy makers, experts and advocates, and, of course, young farmers themselves, all fighting to make sure that the next Farm Bill does what we need it to do: supports the future of farming in the U.S.

    Listen in and find out how YOU can join the young farmer movement.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © All rights reserved

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Ndée Bikíyaa: The People's Farm Oct 12, 2018
    Show notes

    In celebration of Indigenous People's Day, Lindsey speaks with Clayton Harvey of the White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona about how farming has shaped his spiritual identity and helped keep Apache traditions and language alive in his community. Clayton shares how his journey to Standing Rock has influenced him, and inspired other indigenous young people to farm. His farm, Ndée Bikíyaa, has a mission of promoting personal and cultural health among White Mountain Apache through agriculture.

    “In Apache, the word for mind and land are the same. It goes to show the relationship that our people had with the land-we're one with the land…Our mother [earth] is alive and has a heartbeat in the same sense that our mind is alive…we can eat all the healthy food, we can be active and involved in our community and our ceremonies, but if environmental health isn't right, then we're just a broken puzzle.”

    https://www.facebook.com/ndeebikiyaathepeoplesfarm/

    https://gardenwarriorsgoodseeds.com/2014/09/19/ndee-bikiyaa-the-peoples-farm-white-mountain-apache-tribe-az/

    https://edibleschoolyard.org/program/ndee-bikiyaa-peoples-farm

    https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/plains-treaties/dapl.cshtml


    How did so many pigs end up in a floodplain? Oct 05, 2018
    Show notes

    Hurricane Florence has been a disaster on many levels, leaving economic, social, and environmental destruction in its path across the Carolinas. In North Carolina, a locus of global pork production, continued flooding has also led to a livestock death toll in the millions. This week, Lindsey interviews Tom Philpott, former farmer, and current food and ag correspondent for Mother Jones, about the complex future of confinement meat production in the U.S., and the clean up poultry and hog producers face in the storm’s aftermath.

    Mother Jones:
    https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/09/2-weeks-after-florence-we-still-dont-know-how-toxic-carolina-waterways-are/

    The Secret Ingredient Podcast:
    http://thesecretingredient.org/

    The Bite Podcast:
    https://www.motherjones.com/topics/bite/

    USDA CAFO facts:
    https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/people/?cid=nrcs142p2_000482
    https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/livestock/afo/

    Disaster Assistance for Young Farmers:
    https://www.youngfarmers.org/2018/09/drought-wildfire-hail-is-there-a-usda-disaster-assistance-program-to-help-your-farm-or-ranch/

    Text FARM BILL to 40649


    Facing Disaster, Head-On Sep 28, 2018
    Show notes

    Hurricane Florence has caused an estimated $1 billion in damages to farms in the Carolinas, and the destruction continues. Lindsey interviews Davon Goodwin, a North Carolina farmer and manager of the Sandhills AGInnovation Center, to find out what it looks like on the ground, how farmers are trying to recover from the losses, and what can be done to build resilience to natural disasters in the future.

    AND, the farm bill expires September 30th. Ryan McCrimmon of Politico's Morning Agriculture gives us the rundown on what to expect by, and after, the deadline.

    Politico Morning Agriculture:
    https://www.politico.com/morningagriculture/

    Sandhills AGInnovation Center:
    https://sandhillsag.com/

    USDA Disaster Assistance Programs:
    https://www.youngfarmers.org/2018/09/drought-wildfire-hail-is-there-a-usda-disaster-assistance-program-to-help-your-farm-or-ranch/

    Crop Insurance for young farmers:
    https://www.youngfarmers.org/2018/08/one-young-farmer-is-thankful-for-crop-insurance-could-it-be-right-for-you/


    Climate and the Future of Farming with Dr. Nathan Mueller Sep 22, 2018
    Show notes

    Can farmers save the planet? We all know that the weather impacts agriculture, but farmers are also changing the weather. Dr. Nathan Mueller, head of the Mueller Lab and Assistant Professor of Earth System Science at the University of California, Irvine, walks us through cutting edge research on the complex and interesting relationship between agriculture and climate, and some of the powerful ways farmers can steer global environmental change. The Mueller Lab:https://www.ess.uci.edu/~nmueller/people.html Climate Change and Agriculture:https://www.ess.uci.edu/~nmueller/research.html Check back soon for the new study on climate change and the future of the global beer supply! Xie, W, W Xiong, J Pan, T Ali, Q Cui, D Guan, J Meng, ND Mueller, E Lin, and SJ Davis. in press. Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat. Nature Plants. Episode Transcript This is the Young Farmers Podcast. I'm Lindsey Lusher Shute. We already know that weather impacts farmers and the food system. So what will the future of farming look like in the face of climate change? To get an answer to that question, I spoke to Dr. Nathan Mueller. He works at the Department of Earth Systems Science at the University of California-Irvine. He's studying this exact topic, how climate change and farming relate to one another, how weather influences farmers, and farmers influence the weather. Hi, I'm Greta Zarro, organic farmer at Unadilla Community Farm and co-leader of the Leatherstocking Young Farmers Coalition in New York State. I'm a member of the National Young Farmers Coalition because NYFC provides me with a platform for connecting with fellow beginning farmers in my region. For $35 a year, you can become a member too. As a member, you're part of a community of beginning small family farms following sustainable and fair practices. And you get discounts too like 10 percent off High Mowing Seeds. To join, go to youngfarmers.org. Lindsey: And Nathan, what is your area of study? And what do you do? I know your website says the Mueller Lab. That is like a group of researchers working together? Nathan: So I study, uh, the intersection of agriculture and global environmental change, thinking about land use, biogeochemistry, the climate system. And then I'm also thinking about the ways in which global environmental change is influencing agriculture and farmers. Um, so for example, how changes in climate are influencing crop yields and how we can adapt to those changes in the future. Lindsey: Can you talk about how climate change is currently impacting agriculture and what we anticipate for, for the future of agriculture? I heard you share one stat that there's going to be an 80 percent loss of maize production by 2080 just in the US, which is pretty incredible. What are we seeing already and what does it look like, uh, going into the future? Nathan: So that particular stat is an interesting one to start with. There was a paper that came out about 10 years ago now, using statistical models of past weather variability and yields and they projected this potentially very large decline in the productivity of US staple crops, and the conversation has evolved since then talking about statistical modeling, so throwing a bunch of data at the problem, talking about process based modeling, so using our best understanding of how crops grow and how they respond to temperature and radiation and soil moisture. And what we see is that the picture is mixed. I wouldn't say we're confident about that 80 percent number. One thing that is clear is that climate change will pose a greater headwind to crop productivity. It's unlikely, given, especially in the US, given the way that technology advances. So it's unlikely that we'll get net declines, but we might see that increase start to slow in the future. Lindsey: So the productivity gains will not continue on sort of the same trajectory given the increasing challenges of growing food in certain regions. Nathan: Yeah, you can think of that in line of yields going up. And we actually have some new research coming out soon, fingers crossed, where we've looked at historical trends in climate over the US. And we've had this really interesting thing for corn farmers where kind of moderate temperatures have increased but extreme temperatures have have actually decreased just a little bit in the corn belt, and this seems to actually have given a little bit of a boost to yields, but looking into the future that trajectory may change as warming is projected to increase quite a lot. Lindsey: That's really interesting. The reduction in extreme temperatures, do you think potentially that's related to some of your other research on how corn and agriculture of some of these commodities is changing the weather? Nathan: Yeah. So, you know, when we think about climate change our default is to just think about carbon, right? The big greenhouse gas. But there are many different greenhouse gases including nitrous oxide, which, uh, you know, we see released from the use of nitrogen fertilizers for example. But you can also have a regional climate changed by land surface properties. So irrigation, when we have irrigated large swaths of land, that actually can lead to a cooling of daytime maximum temperatures. Think about, you know, when you walk into a lawn that's just been watered or something. It feels nice and cool compared to your pavement. Lindsey: So this reduction- am i characterizing that right-- it's a reduction in extreme temperatures or sort of moderation because of this irrigated agriculture. And is that just in the midwest that you're seeing that or is that something that's happening outside of the Midwest as well? Nathan: Right. So is something that's happening globally. Everywhere we have irrigation development, it influences regional climate. In the Midwest, we've seen it in the central valley. In places like the North China Plain and other places where a summer crops have intensified and where irrigation has developed as well. Lindsey: This irrigation phenomenon in moderating the climate, is this some sort of a bubble...this impact because farmers are in many cases reliant on groundwater and underground aquifers for irrigation? Is this, is this something that you anticipate will not be the case in the future as some of those supplies dwindle? Or do you think that just the techniques, even with rain fed agriculture are so much more advanced than they were at one point that this trend will continue? Nathan: That's a great question. If we zoom in on the Midwest and of course as you go to the western part of the corn belt in Nebraska and the great plains, you have irrigated crop lands. But farther east, very little irrigated and in those areas to the east, when there's a big drought, that cooling effect goes away. It evaporates, no pun intended. Um, and so yeah, you could think very similarly in the irrigated areas, if your water dries up, this sort of buffering induced by the land surface change is going to go away. In agricultural landscapes, you've got multiple factors influencing that regional climate. One factor, as we were just talking about, can be changes to the land surface. It can be increasing productivity of crop lands and more water use. But then we also have the influence of what we typically think about as global climate change. We have increasing greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, trapping energy and leading to warming of air temperatures and surface temperatures. So it's kind of the balance of all of those factors that are going to drive climate into the future. And well, I think it's fair to argue that the landscape change has had a big influence, for example, in the Midwest during the summer, the greenhouse gas signal is having a bigger effect during other seasons and at some point is going to lead to warming during the summer for those very extreme temperatures as well in the Midwest. Lindsey: When you say other seasons, I imagine one of the things that you're talking about would be, for instance, in the Southwest, we're seeing some of what would normally fall into the mountains as snow is coming as rain or the melt is happening sooner, that type of thing? Nathan: Definitely. Yeah. So winter is warming. In general, nighttime temperatures have been warming more than daytime temperatures and winter temperatures have been waming more than summer temperatures. And I think the snow question is a really interesting one and really critical, especially here in California, we rely so much upon the natural reservoir of snowpack. It's pretty unclear how globally, you know, how much of our food supply is really dependent upon snow melt for water supply and what the vulnerability is in the future. But I would say it's clearly something to worry about. Lindsey: Right, yeah, our western farmers are pretty concerned in the four corners area in particular just about what the reservoirs are like right now. Um, some of them didn't get any allocation of surface water, river water this year, and they receive like 60 percent of their allocation of storage water that comes from that snow pack and the reservoir is lower going into the fall than it typically is. So that is definitely on the minds of a lot of our farmers thinking about are we going to get enough snow this winter to keep us through next summer? Nathan: And one thing with that is that, you know, it's not just the average changes but also the changes in extreme events and routes that we're really concerned about, especially multiyear droughts like we had in California recently. When these events happen year after year, it can really influence the financial viability for farmers and um, could end up pushing people out of agriculture, which is something we certainly don't. Lindsey: Oh yeah, that's absolutely true. You know, we talk about resilience oftentimes when it comes to farmers adapting and being prepared for, um, climate extremes. But there's also like a financial viability as a big part of that as well. Like, can your business make it through those tough seasons? Nathan: Well, I have a great postdoctoral scholar who is just starting to investigate snow melt dependence of irrigated agriculture from a global perspective. Lindsey: All right, excellent. Nathan: So we'll let you know what we find out. Lindsey: You know, with climate change, there's a couple of other elements of it that I'm curious about. Certainly out east this year we had a major hailstorm on our vegetable farm. It was a really extreme storm with like softball size hail that knocked out solar panels that are rated for golf ball sized hail, that kind of thing. I just wonder like are these sort of extreme storms that we're seeing- is this normal or can this also be in any way associated with climate change? Nathan: One of the projections from the models is in fact that we will see more frequent and severe rain events, in the midwest to the northeast. And so that certainly could be related. There is a growing field within the climate science community called attribution. And the idea is that when we get extreme events that you can actually use the tools of climate science, these global climate models, and use them to characterize what the influence of climate change is on the probability of some event occurring. And as scientists we're always very hesitant to say that anything is definitively because of climate change. What we can say is when something is more likely to have occurred because of climate change. Lindsey: And I'm wondering too, one of the things that I know we've experienced on our farm has been, um, you know, different pests and disease pressures and whatnot because of, you know, warmer winters. Um, and I'm wondering what do the climate models project in terms of disease pressure and how that is going to change nationally? Is that something that you could speak to? Nathan: There was just a brand new study that came out in Science which was one of the, uh, I'll say one of the fanciest journals out there, and they did a nice job connecting climate projections with essentially pest prevalence, and they do predict that this will be a major mechanism by which agriculture is effective. Lindsey: This is really an intriguing idea how farmers are impacting the weather. It's a difficult thing for farmers to internalize, right? Like what a responsibility it is to actually have impact on global climate systems. To think about that and take responsibility for that I think is quite important. So I'm just wondering if you can just name all of the ways that farmers are presently impacting weather now and into the future. Nathan: I guess there are two main mechanisms by which farmers and agriculture in general influence the weather and our climate system. One is by influencing these biophysical mechanisms that we were talking about earlier. So for example, how much water is used on the landscape, irrigation, changes in crop productivity, and land use change. So for example, deforestation. All of these factors influence the climate from that biophysical perspective. And then the other main way that farmers and agriculture influence the climate system is through greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture in general contributes about 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. About half of that is coming from land use change, uh, primarily in the tropics, deforestation and related carbon emissions. And then the other half has to do with kind of on farm management practices as well as livestock. Ruminate livestock commit methane is a greenhouse gas. Um, rice cultivation also releases methane. The use of nitrogen fertilizers releases N2o. And those are some of the big ways in which farmers influence and agriculture and food consumers such as myself influence, uh, the greenhouse gas budget of the world. It's not fair to, you know, I don't think we'd want to put it all on farmers, for some of these are like unavoidable consequences and they are very, I would say, difficult to deal with emissions, compared to changing power plants, etc. Lindsey: When it comes to transition of forested land or prairie land or whatnot, and I guess a lot of this is happening right now in the tropics, can you explain what that means for greenhouse gas emissions or how that impact occurs? Nathan: Yeah. So let's take as an example, Indonesian Rainforest that is being cleared for oil palm. And so they'll come in and clear the land often through burning. And so you release the carbon locked up in the above ground biomass in the trees when you burn, and then when the soil is disturbed, that also releases carbon from the soil. And then in Indonesia, there's another interesting case where you have wetlands soils and when these wetland soils are drained, um, that increases the decomposition of the biomass that's essentially locked up in those soils. And so, um, you can see a lot of emissions from the soils as a result of that. Lindsey: And what about in the Midwestern context? Um, when we see a native native prairie, uh, turned into cultivated land, I suppose as an example. Are there similar greenhouse gas emissions in that scenario? Nathan: Yeah, exactly. Very similar mechanisms at play where you have a pulse of carbon coming from the above ground biomass and then also when that soil is tilled and worked with, um, you see emissions from below ground as well. In general, there's this enthusiasm about focusing on soil health and how focusing on soil health can actually be a really key way to help solve the climate problem. Specifically the idea that these soils can be made more carbon-rich through management and that that sequestr…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Farm Bill Politics 4: Down to the Wire Sep 14, 2018
    Show notes

    As the September 30th farm bill expiration date looms, Lindsey checks back in for a status update with NYFC's National Policy Director, Andrew Bahrenburg. What do the "Fab Four" have to do with farm bill conference negotiations? Will Congress pass a final farm bill in time? And what will happen to the programs young farmers rely on if they don't? Take action, and tell your Representatives that we need a #farmbillnow. Text "FARM" to 40649 today. For more about the farm bill programs young farmers rely on: https://www.youngfarmers.org/2018/09/beginning-farmer-and-rancher-training-programs-in-danger-of-farm-bill-cuts/ https://www.youngfarmers.org/2018/09/young-farmers-rely-on-the-organic-cost-share-program-to-afford-organic-cred/ Episode Transcript This is the Young Farmers podcast. I’m Lindsey Lusher Shute. Currently, there is a Senate version of the farm bill, and a House version of the farm bill. And unless they resolve their differences, the farm bill will expire at the end of this month. And that means the Senate and the House are in something called a conference committee to work it out. And what are the things they have to work out? Well, the House bill would remove an estimated 2 million – yes, 2 million people from federal nutrition programs; the House version would eliminate funding for farmer markets, organic certification, and it would take billions from conservation programs — even as farmers in the West endure one of the worst droughts of their lives. The bill needs to be passed by September 30th, and our representatives are taking recess starting Monday and won’t return until Sept. 25! Andrew Bahrenburg, our guy on the ground in Washington, was at the first public conference committee meeting last week. Today, he brings us up to date on what happened. Lindsey: So tell me what happened. Andrew Bahrenburg: Yeah. So, it was the first official meeting of the Farm Bill Conference Committee yesterday and they met for about three and a half, four hours. There are 56 members of the conference committee and each of them gets three minutes to make their opening statements. Um, so after, after some longer opening statements from the chair and ranking member of the committees, the so-called “big four,” or as Senator Roberts calls them, the “fab four,” they kind of set the tone. And then from there, each member of the committee got three minutes to basically stake out their priority issues. Lindsey: Wait, wait, wait–all 57 members got the opportunity to [speak for] three minutes? Andrew: Every single one. That’s right. A few were in and out from other, you know, I mean Senator Leahy of course, is one of the top Democrats on the judiciary committee. So he was in the Supreme Court confirmation hearing most of the time. So it was mostly ceremonial I would say. Of course, this is not the venue for actual negotiations. This is more the ceremonial pomp and circumstance around the conference committee. So you saw a lot of members, um, you know, getting in their primary talking points about the things they like and the things they don’t like. Lindsey: So it’s like the opening ceremonies for the conference committee. Andrew: Exactly. Lindsey: How do all fifty-some people get beyond their talking points to actually, you know, work this thing out? Andrew: At the end of the day they really don’t. Right? I mean, I think they will meet as a big group like this. You know, they did yesterday. They likely will at least once more. The main negotiations are happening behind closed doors with the top members of the committee. That’s not really a mystery who will be negotiating the actual brass tacks of this thing. It’ll be Senators Roberts and Stabenow and Congressman Conaway and Peterson, the people who have been really steering this ship from the get go for the last, you know, the better part of two years now. Lindsey: Who’ve been doing it all along.. Andrew: Mmhmm, and their staff. And there are members of their staff who, you know, know more about every single line in those bills than anyone here in Washington. They’ll be putting in some long hours ahead, particularly as we get closer and closer to the September 30th deadline. Lindsey: But the actual negotiations, none of that is happening in the public view. Andrew: Not yet. I mean there will be some controlled releases to the press. For instance, after the long three and a half to four hour conference committee meeting yesterday, the Fab Four, they then met privately immediately after that meeting to really continue negotiating. And that’s more or less the dynamic and then you know, coming out of that couple hours long meeting, but they kind of held forth with members of the DC press. But again, you know, most of their comments publicly are not real substantive, because, you know, these are really delicate negotiations and I think to say too much publicly, for better or worse, could swing things in one direction or the other. Or at least you lose some degree of control over how negotiations are going. And they are trying to thread a very small needle here. Lindsey: I mean, just the idea that they’re going to be able to do this by the end of the month. Is that realistic? I mean, just a month. It doesn’t turn out to be a whole lot of time. Andrew: I would say it’s possible. It’s going to be very difficult. There are still are some pretty big issues and big differences between the two bills. I mean the big wild cards are non-farm bill related things that are also required of these legislators in September. Right? So the entire federal government for 2019 is not currently funded. So September 30th is not just the deadline for the farm bill. It’s the deadline for funding the federal government. You’ve seen President Trump saying that if a shutdown happens, it happens, right? Having kind of a cavalier attitude toward the entire federal government grinding to a screeching halt. Um, and then there are some other big things. Of course there’s a supreme court nominee to be possibly confirmed this month as well. And you have some potential battles over immigration, and oh yeah, every member of the house is on the ballot in early November for reelection and a third of the Senate. So there are plenty of things that could get in the way of them doing a farm bill on time. Lindsey: If it doesn’t happen by the end of September, what do they do? Andrew: That’s an important question. They have to pass an extension, which is not a particularly uncommon thing to have happened with a farm bill. Uh, it’s such a big piece of legislation, you know, it’s a five year authorization bill, but also in part because politics have gotten more divisive than partisan over the last decade or two. So it’s gotten harder even with the farm bill. The big concern particularly for a lot of our priorities is with those so called stranded programs that would not automatically be extended because they’re so small. Right. Which is, you know, almost ironic in that sense. They’re the smallest, cost the least, and yet they’re the hardest to make sure they continue. So if we reach October one, we wake up that morning, and even if an extension has passed, unless that extension specifically funds those programs (like beginning farmer and rancher development program, like organic cost share, like value-added producer grants, farmer’s market promotion, that kind of stuff), those programs will in effect cease to exist at least for the time being until they pass a permanent farm bill. Lindsey: Right. Which is what happened in 2014, and then there wasn’t a year of funding for projects that are funded by the beginning farmer and rancher development program, which has a big impact for a lot of the young farmers in our network, because those are the training programs and technical support programs that many of them rely on. Andrew: Exactly…which isn’t to say that those programs aren’t already impacted, right? Because so the way that money kind of moves out the door through USDA is not always just, you know, “here’s some money.” But instead, you know, they’ll put out requests for proposals for this or that program. There’s a whole bureaucratic process that has to take place before you can start writing checks to farmers or to community based organizations or to lenders or something like that, and so even by coming up to the deadline like we are right now is inevitably going to cause some delay in those requests or applications getting out the door. Now obviously those problems would pale in comparison to an entire year of no funding for some of those programs. Lindsey: Of course. Andrew: But the impact will still be felt regardless. Lindsey: And so what are we hearing on big ticket items like SNAP and food stamps? Do we expect that the house is going to back down on some of the work requirements? I know just right before conference committee, President Trump tweeted out his support for the work requirements. I mean, how is that going to play out? Andrew: And he did so again earlier this week and Vice President Pence has as well. In a way that seemed almost a little bit coordinated, right? Like they are still digging in and at least trying to fortify the house position on some of that stuff a little bit. Now, of course like that is also quite possibly negotiating tactic, right? You want to seem like you’re not going to cave right up until the moment that you maybe do make some concessions. There has been some indication that the both sides have been moving a little bit. There were reports earlier this week that Chairman Conaway, the chair of the House Ag Committee, had essentially made kind of a compromise proposal and had put it on the table in the form of a memo that kind of outlined some of the things within the nutrition title that he could envision softening on, I guess. No one but for a handful of people well above my pay grade have seen that memo. Right. So we have no idea what’s in it. The press has only been able to report that it exists, but we’re not sure where he has identified there is wiggle room, but it’s at least a signal that they’re starting to kind of do the horse trading that will be necessary, right. And I think because the Senate Farm Bill passed with 86 Yes votes at the hearing yesterday, there were two senators absent during that vote that would have voted yes. So really it would have gotten 88 votes. Right. That’s an overwhelming majority that gives them a very strong negotiating position on this stuff. You know, that’s kind of impacting all of these negotiations, right? It’s to say, “look, our bill is bipartisan and popular. It doesn’t have all of those work requirements that made yours so divisive. We’re holding all the cards here and we can’t pass anything that’s not going to get 60 votes. So you know, put your gun down and we’ll do the same.” Lindsey: Yeah. Andrew: Yeah. So that’s the big piece as you correctly identified. I mean, and then there’s plenty of other things, especially around the conservation title that I think are also going to come down to the wire. Right. I expect that those will be the last pieces to fall into place. And particularly around funding. Right. I think where negotiations have gotten so far is on a lot of the policy pieces because that’s like an easier place to start, but the actual money discussions, which are arguably the most important, those are kinda gonna be saved till the end I guess. Lindsey: All right, so what’s the next step here? When’s the next public meeting of the conference committee? When do you start to see some text? Andrew: I mean little bits and pieces of text will trickle out and, and I think that’s, you know, you asked earlier how transparent this will be. I think the answer is not very for now. Um, but they are pulling in key stakeholders on particular chunks of the bill. Right? So it’s like for us, you know, if there are beginning farmer provisions of the farm bill being negotiated, um, you know, a lot of times the committee staff will kind of reach out to us and be like “like how would you feel if we were to move this section and eliminate this part?” Right. So that will happen across all stakeholders, I think as we go. There is no next meeting formally on the books, uh, so that’s an open question. The Senate Ag Committee interestingly did schedule a hearing for next week on trade where they are hauling USDA’s topic economist before the Senate committee, probably to yell at him about tariffs and trade and also ask a lot of questions about that trade bailout package, for which the application process began this week. Money is going to start moving out the door at a pretty steady clip. Andrew: And so who receives that money and where it goes is going to be a particular interest to the Senate Ag Committee. Lindsey: And what day is that hearing scheduled for? Andrew: That’s on the 14th. That very much seems like an election year type hearing. So every member can kind of stake out their turf and talking points on the trade situation, particularly those up for reelection in big ag states. Lindsey: So even if they support the administration that has created the tariffs, uh, and they can’t do anything about it from a policy perspective, at least they are on record saying they don’t support it or they’re concerned about impacts. Andrew: And asking some tough questions of the people overseeing where this money goes, which to be clear is their job as the legislative branch– to conduct that level of oversight. So I don’t mean to cast too cynical a pall over it, you know, it is a very necessary hearing I think. And a lot of us will be watching to see what sorts of questions are asked and the answers given. Lindsey: Yeah. And these senators are in a really tough position, right? I mean because I think that they have very, I mean they might support the administration on, on some level, even if it’s just in support of their party, but you know, the impacts at home are very real. Um, and I think many of them are quite upset about the tariff situation. So… Andrew: Yeah. And I think it’s particularly interesting for members that are big on agriculture and may sit on that committee but also come from big manufacturing states. Right. Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio comes to mind who is a Democrat and so obviously is often very critical of things the Trump administration does. But at the same time, as steel workers in Ohio celebrate those tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, he has to walk that line between knowing that the retaliation is, you know, the hammer’s going to come down on farmers in his state, but at the same time he’s got an interest group in, in a lot of the manufacturing sector. I don’t envy that position one bit. Lindsey: Yeah. On one level, I guess maybe it’s a difficult position to be in, but it’s good that senators like Senator Brown are, you know, looking out for all sides of the equation here. Andrew: Mhmm. It kind of underscores the point about global trade, which is that when you get to that level, everything’s connected, right? Like you can’t separate raw metals from soybeans traded on the global marketplace, right? Everything is connected. And if you pull on one thread, all of a sudden the whole thing starts to come apart. Lindsey: Well we certainly hope that the farm bill doesn’t fall apart and we will be closely following what comes next in the days ahead. If you want to take action on the Farm Bill and join the National Young Farmers Coalition’s network of activists text ‘FARM’ to 40649. There is a lot at stake here. As a reminder, the Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach Program (FOTO), remember Tiffany Washington from an earlier episode, is in the Senate version of the bill. That’s the funding for beginning farmer training nationwide, and outreach and support to veteran farmers, indigenous farmers, and historically underrepresented farmers. I don’t know who is against this program, but it wo…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    "Water is Scarce, Water is Rare" Sep 07, 2018
    Show notes

    "If we don't start doing things differently, there won't be agriculture to pass down." Climate change is a hot-button political issue, but in the Western U.S., no one can deny that the drought and above average temperatures are real. Mike Nolan, a young farmer in Mancos, Colorado, gives an insider perspective on farming in extreme weather conditions, building resilience, and shares how an innovative conservation policy idea that started over beers and ended up in the Senate farm bill. What is the path forward for farmers in the arid West? Mountain Roots Produce:https://mountainrootsproduce.com/aboutus/ U.S. Drought Monitor:https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ Rocky Mountain Farmers Union Drought Diaries:https://www.rmfu.org/homepage-2/latest-news/happening-now/the-drought-diaries/ Episode Transcript This is the Young Farmers Podcast. I’m Lindsey Lusher Shute. Today I’m speaking with Mike Nolan, a farmer at Mountain Roots Produce, and chapter leader at the Four Corners Farmers and Ranchers Coalition that’s based near Mancos, Colorado. Mike is already growing in a dry climate, but this year has been especially tough. He explains the challenges brought by drought and severe weather and how he is cop ing with it all. He also tells us how micro-equip, an idea he had over some beers, made it all the way to the Senate version of the farm bill. I’m Julia Sherman, farmer at Rag and Frass Farm in Jeffersonville, Georgia, and a leader of the Middle Georgia Young Farmers Coalition. I’m a member of the National Young Farmers Coalition because it’s so important for young farmers to work together to create change. For $35 a year, you can join too. In addition to being part of a bright and just future for agriculture in the United States, you’ll also get discounts like 40 percent off Filson and 25 percent off farm to feed socks. To join, go to youngfarmers.org. Mike: You know, you guys had that at your place. You had that massive hail storm. Lindsey: Yep. Mmhmm. Mike: You know, we’ve had like kind of like one of those events or something like that, like every 10 to 14 days where it’s like— Lindsey: Woah Woah Woah… Mike: We’re like really? It’s either hail or bug infestations or water issues or smoke or fire or something. Lindsey: Ah wow, you’ve had it all. So can you just, you know, even now when I talk about the water situation, particularly to really new farmers where you are, who are east coast farmers, it’s just so different. I mean you’ve farmed on this side of the country for a while so you can understand the contrast. Could you just very briefly describe how your farm gets water? Mike: Yes, definitely. Um, basically our water rights go back to the late 1800’s. They’re some of the oldest in the state, so a lot of the farms and ranches here have adjudicated water rights. So they’re water rights that kind of stay with the ground. Like ours come off river. So we have river water rights and then we also have storage water rights. So we have storage water out of our lake, which serves to make this valley, and that deeds us an acre foot of water per acre on an annual basis. And then we have– Lindsey: And that’s not water that you have on your farm–that’s in the reservoir. Mike: Yeah, that’s in a reservoir. And that reservoir also serves Mancos role water, which is our domestic water. It serves the town of Mancos and it also serves to Mesa Verde National Park. And that reservoir is small compared to a lot of place s. It’s only 10,000 acre feet when it gets full. And right now after this summer, I think it’s sitting at about 1400 acre feet going into the winter with the 2 municipalities or municipal water. Mancos and Mesa Verde will be continuously using it all winter. Lindsey: Okay. So over 10 percent full. Uh, how does that compare with a normal August? Like where should the reservoir be at this time of year? Mike: You know, normally the reservoir would be 30 to 40 percent full, possibly higher. The tricky part this year, Lindsey, was that in a normal year we get to run off our adjudicated water, our priority water, and in the past five years on this place we can run off river water until about, you know, fourth of July, sometimes early August, and this year we didn’t get a single day of river water. And then our storage water was limited to 60 percent of our total allotment. So this is really abnormal. And the hardest part about it honestly was we didn’t get any precipitation all winter, so the ground was so dry. So even hay guys around here, they could grow two to three inches of water in 24 hours on hay grounds and it would just drop right into the water table. Like you’d come back seven days later and it’d be bone dry. Lindsey: If you have senior rights, then there’s a lot of other people who clearly didn’t get water either. Lindsey: Yeah. Some folks, I mean, some folks still have river water. Um, so here’s kind of an interesting thing. The town of Mancos is priority 3, but the priority is sitting at two right now. Um, so the town of Mancos is actually using their storage water and there’s two irrigators in the valleys that are priority one and two that are using water right now to irrigate hay. So the town has actually fallen out of priority, which rarely happens. Lindsey: So the town has fallen out of priority for its river water? Mike: Yeah. So the town usually is able to pull off the Mancos River for their domestic water use. Um, but right now they’re just pulling off the lake Lindsey: And so they’re further depleting the reservoir? Mike: Yeah. And I don’t totally know what their usage is. It’s a small town so I can’t imagine it’s more than an acre foot or two. So yeah, they were using their lake water. Everyone’s on storage water right now and it’s scary out there. Speaker 2: Yeah. So you have received 60 percent of your total allotment this season for storage water. How is that impacting the farm? Mike: So we, this winter by farm partner and girlfriend Mindy Perkovich and I kind of sat down and we knew it was going to be tight, so we wanted to, we knew we needed to do the CSA crops and we can kick that on domestic water. Then we kind of had tears of like, okay, storage, beets, potatoes, winter squash. You know, last year we did about seven acres in production. This year I think we did about 1.7 or 2 acres of production. So we’re super limited. Our water came on about four weeks later than it should and we’ve been out of water for I think two and a half weeks now. And we’ve had like barely any rain. We’ve been running off our Mancos role water just to ease things along, and we’ve just taken crops that we would like to finish out, like the cabbage and the beans. And we’ve either just mowed them and decked them or picked them early. We could afford the water with rural water. Lindsey: That’s like from the town? Mike: It’s our domestic water for the valley. So it, you know, we don’t like to use too much of that stuff because the Ph is a little bit off. It’s a little bit higher in salt, it’s chlorinated. Lindsey: It’s treated water. Mike: It’s treated water and I hate using treated water for vegetable production personally. Lindsey: And it’s expensive I imagine. Lindsey: Oh yeah. You know, we budgeted about a thousand dollars for the last six weeks of the season to be able to tide us through. Speaker 2: Wow. So what, so what is next for you guys for next season? Doesn’t seem like it’s expected to get much better next year and the reservoirs are lower than in previous seasons. What are you thinking about for the 2019 season? Mike: We’re thinking a lot of stuff. It’s, you know, with all the workers in NYC, you know, we are always talking about resiliency, right? Resiliency and drought. And what I’ve realized this year is that I can totally figure out how to be resilient, resilient with my markets and crop production. What I’m having a hard time with is being resilient in relationships and with mental health. And I don’t think that Mindy and I could do this again next year. I think it would crush us. So if things don’t get better, we’re just going to get jobs for a year. Um, we’ll have some water. We’ll be able to cover crop things great for some rain. Um, in the meantime, financially we’re okay. Like we’d have enough to start up again next year. Um, but if we don’t farm, we won’t have enough to do it again in 2020. We’re being, we’re trying to be really pragmatic about it and not take it too close to heart personally if we can’t farm next year, because fighting it is not..you can’t fight this. In order for us to be looking good next year. Um, and these are things I think folks out of the Mountain West don’t totally understand about water is that, you know, we need some good fall rains to wet the mountains so that the snow, and then we need a good snow pack and then we need a good slow melt. And the reason why we want mountains to go in wet is that if the mountains go in dry, which is what happened last year, the little bit of snow there, you know, for every 10 inches of moisture up there, you can lose 40 to 60 percent of it to the ground and we want that to run into the rivers. So we need to kind of have like a very normal fall, winter, spring, um, in order to kind of pull ourselves out of this. Lindsey: If there are those conditions possibly in the fall, then you and Mindy might consider making a go of it for 2019. Mike: The plan will be to farm next year until we really get those clear signals that it’s not a good idea basically. Every year is a gamble that, you know, I have this silly analogy when it comes to this water stuff that helps me understand it, is that it’s all this stuff. It’s kind of like a GPA. So it’s like you do all this. It’s good, good, good, good, good. And then you have one year or one bad grade and it totally screws you up. And then it can take years to get back to that place that you were prior. And that’s kind of where we’re at now is that one winter is not going to save us. We probably will have a limited year next year. It’s going to take a couple of good winters and some good summer rain to pull us out of this. Lindsey: And what are you hearing from folks who give technical support and are making projections on the weather? Lindsey: You know, all spring they were like “this is going to be one of the best months and years on record” and we have gotten about an inch of moisture or less than that all summer. And so it’s like they’re predicting for a wet fall. But I, I honestly have no idea like what to expect. We’re just grateful that it’s cooled off a little bit because the other thing is that, um, our nighttime and daytime temperatures are five to 10 degrees above average for most of the summer as well. It was, it was a very bizarre summer here. But you know, some of my 80 year old neighbors are like, they’ve never seen this before. So we have some CSA members that do, you know, there’s a lot of folks that work for the FEDS around here, a federal government, whether it’s BLM, Forest– Lindsey: On federal lands? Lindsey: Yeah, national parks, I mean they employ so many people in our region because we’re surrounded by every form of public lands. Um, so there’s lots of scientists and biologists and we have a woman who is a CSA member and she does lizard studies and she was telling us that she’s seeing Pine, Pinyone and Juniper trees that are 80 to 90, 100 years old, just completely dying in front of her plot that she’s researching. Lindsey: Because, because of the weather, because of lack of rainfall. Mike: 2018 is one for the books is the most quiet way I can say it. Lindsey: And then on top of that there was, was the 416 fire, is that the one that has impacted you as well? I know there have there been quite a few in the region. Mike: The big impact of the fires is that, um, it just, it hit the economy super hard. Everybody’s numbers are down. I mean, wholesale numbers are down across the board for farmers. People weren’t eating out as much. Tourism kind of dropped off. Honna and Daniel, who are NYFC members, um, they’re about 45 minutes away from us. They were saying that there was a four or five week period where their wholesale numbers were down about 60 percent or more. Locals were leaving town, so they weren’t buying the local restaurants and tourists weren’t coming and it was just this really weird—. Like one restaurant we sell to was closed for three weeks because the fire, because they couldn’t access it, um, they’ve pulled them out of there on opening night. So we’d lost that account for about three, four weeks. And then you first smoke on top of that and you know, that kind of messes with the plants, we would call it. It was causing all of our head-lettuce successions to bolt, because I think it was messing with their, with their daylight requirements. You’d have multiple times where our visibility was like a mile and a half, two miles and the sun was red. Kind of like the eclipse last summer. And we would plant these head-lettuce successions and they would just barely grow and then bolt. It was usually a couple days after you’d have one of those kinds of smoke events. So yeah, that’s another, another crazy thing about the fires, but the economy hit was the really big one. Um, and I will give props to everyone, like being really resilient about it and also to our elected officials on both sides of the aisle that showed up. I mean we had our congressional rep, both senators, governor, um, everyone in the State House, State Senate, county commissioners. Everyone’s really pushing for people to like come back to our area because we’re such a tourist economy. Lindsey: Just by, just by promoting it and saying it’s still safe. You should come. It’s beautiful. Mike: We’re still open for business. Lindsey: I mean, I guess that sort of brings me to another question. How does policy relate to any of this and what do you want elected officials to do to help farmers in your region? Mike: Havin g direct assistance payment is I think what they really need. There’s so many cattle producers, hay producers, you know, producers that are just on the verge of bankruptcy. The last thing they need is a loan. Lindsey: And you’re talking about like an emergency loan offered by a farm service agency? Mike: Yeah, and those, you know, I appreciate those and I think they work for some people, but we’re down here with our state representative, Marc Catlin, and that’s what all, I mean these are guys and girls that do not want to ask the government for everything. And they were like, we need something. Otherwise, you know, our centennial farms are going to be filing for bankruptcy and we’re done. And there’s no reason for the next generation to come in if it’s not economically viable in any way, shape, or form. Lindsey: I don’t disagree with you at all. But I wonder what is the strategy to keep those farms viable if these conditions continue? Like I think they do need, you know, more than a loan potentially. But like for how, I mean no one knows for how long. What we’re seeing with global warming is only going to make these conditions potentially even worse than they are now. So what are people talking about just like the future of agriculture in the region? Like is there a path forward? Mike: Yeah. So I would, I think that’s a great question. I don’t think it’s smart for anybody to prop up types of agriculture that are long-term unsustainable. Stewardship-wise, but also economically. I think a couple of steps would be to like prop things up now and get it so you know, these families aren’t dipping into all their savings and their kids are going to be left with nothing. Just prop them up for a minute so we can all sit down and figure it out. There are a lot of families in this region who are coming to. I’m on the Mancos Conservation District Board as well. And we have multi-generational families and cattle families that are coming to our offices being like, “what can we do that’s differe…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Bonus Episode: Vets Need Farm Bill Action Sep 05, 2018
    Show notes

    Today’s bonus episode is about an important program in the 2018 Farm Bill that needs your support: Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO). Tiffany Washington, Navy Veteran from Austin, Texas, shares her personal journey to farming, and how farm bill programs are helping her find success.

    Take action:
    Text "Farm" to 40649 to join NYFC's Team Farm Bill

    Farmshare Austin:
    https://www.farmshareaustin.org/

    Texas AgrAbility:
    http://txagrability.tamu.edu/


    OG Weather Nerds Aug 31, 2018
    Show notes

    It's hard to imagine anyone thinking more about the weather than farmers, but then again, there's Chief Meteorologist Mark Brusberg of USDA’s agricultural weather and assessments group. This week, Lindsey talks with Mark about the ways that drought, extreme weather, and the changing climate are impacting farmers and agricultural production globally and here at home. Mark also talks about "the blob," building farm weather resilience, and how farmers can keep track of it all. Mark Brusberghttps://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/2018/bios/Mark_Brusberg.pdf US Drought Monitorhttps://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ Tropical Tidbitshttps://www.tropicaltidbits.com/ The Blobhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean) Weather Undergroundhttps://www.wunderground.com/ NOAA Weatherhttps://www.weather.gov/ IntroductionLindsey: This is the Young Farmer’s Podcast. I’m Lindsey Lusher Shute. First, a quick announcement. If you’re in New York State or care about state policy, I want you to know that NYFC just released a report about New York’s high farmland prices and policy strategies to keep that land affordable for future generations. Check it out at youngfarmers.org. Onto the pod. Most farmers i know are obsessed with the weather, and for a simple reason. The weather is tightly linked to how profitable and successful a farm will be in any season. On our farm, for example, we had a short-lived but major hail storm that knocked out nearly all of our crops this spring. And our western farmers, many of them are dealing with a deep drought and are trying to make it through the season. Today I’m talking to Mark Rosberg who serves as the chief meteorologist at USDA’s Agriculture Weather and Assessments Group, a component of the World Agricultural Outlook Board. He talks to us about the weather across the country and how farmers can keep track of it all. Dustin Stein: Hi I’m Dustin Stein, ranch manager at Stubborn Farm and Bert Beef in Mancos, Colorado, where we raise grass fed and finished beef. I’m also a leader of the Four Corners Farmers and Ranchers Coalition. I’m a member of the National Young Farmers Coalition, because it’s extremely important for young and first generation producers to have a voice at our nation’s capital. For 35 dollars a year, you too can join. In addition to being part of a bright and just future for agriculture in the United States, you’ll also get discounts like 16% off earth tools , walk behind tractors, and 5% off of Felco. To join, please visit Youngfarmers.org. OG Weather NerdsMark: My name is Mark Rosberg. I'm the chief meteorologist here at USDA's office of the chief economist. I'm physically located in Washington D.C. in the USDA south building. Lindsey: What is the office of the chief meteorologist like? Mark: Well, we're a staff of five meteorologists. We cover global weather, uh, to provide whether intelligence to USDA’S monthly supply and demand estimates report. So you have one meteorologist monitoring weather in the United States. The other four are monitoring global conditions. I personally happened to be the South America weather analyst amongst other areas, you know, Canada and Mexico. So if there's a drought in, for example, there was a drought in Argentina last year, I provided weather information and helped us try to determine exactly what the what the condition of the corn and soybean crop was. Lindsey: And where does your weather data come from? Mark: It’s primarily through our agreement with National Weather Service Lindsey: And the National Weather Service, it has its own worldwide network of weather stations. Mark: Well, they get the data from other countries through an agreement through the World Meteorological Organization. That's a United Nations, uh, agency. So the weather bureaus of other countries have signed an international agreement where they promised to give a certain amount of data from their countries. Lindsey: I see. I, you know, just with all of the conversations these days around trade and tariffs and what other countries are producing and how that competes with the US corn...I'm just thinking of the example of Brazil, uh the commodity market...I guess these agreements are long standing and shared, but none of that data is sort of protected from those, uh, I mean, I wonder if any --- Mark: Oh you mean, would there be an embargo of data for any reason? Lindsey: Right, uh huh. Mark: Well I've seen it twice and the one time was during the first Iraq war when Iraq stopped transmitting their data during the war. The only other time that I’ve seen a reduction of data--I can't remember the year, but it was in the 1990’s. Germany had a policy where they wanted to charge more for their data and that sort of went against what the WMO was sort of supporting and they started giving us less data. I couldn't see a country whoa withholding data for any, any purposes like that because it is, especially in this day of satellites, I mean, you could do a fairly reasonable job estimating rainfall and temperature using satellites. I think they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face, really. They started doing things like that and you know, the scientific community, we sort of stick together. I don't know that we would want to politicize what we're doing. Lindsey: I’m just wondering, does politics, do different administrations impact fear core responsibilities or your work at USDA or is the weather something that everyone can agree on? Mark: Yeah, we've, we've never had any political pressure put on us to do anything. Um, there's been times, uh, I remember one of my predecessors as chief meteorologist was asked to put his name on a declaration regarding climate change. And he refused to do that because it wasn't part of our purview and he was absolutely correct. I mean, we don't do anything with climate change here. You know, we don't do climate research, we’re not the ones that do that. So, you know, we didn't want to step on anybody's toes or pretend that we know more than we do. Lindsey: We don't have to call it climate change or talk about causation or anything, but I am wondering what the data would say about the current conditions across the United States that are, that our farmers are facing. We're seeing severe rainstorms, certainly drought conditions in the southwest. Uh, I had a written you earlier about the significant hail that we saw on our farm this season as this system of thunderstorms came across the country and it was like softball size hail. We're seeing a lot of extreme weather. As long as USDA has been, um, and National Weather Service have been monitoring this type of thing...is what we're seeing in terms of extreme weather in over the last few years.. is this unusual from a data standpoint? Mark: I don't know in terms of severe weather and it's, it's hard to make a, it's hard to make a call on severe weather weather. There was more observations there, more people reporting, things like that. So I don't know if you could say anything about just the number of hailstorms. I don't know if that's actually increased or if that's just a sign that the data is better. Now some of the things that we've seen agriculturally in the West are unique. We monitor one of the networks that USDA maintains. It’s the Snow Tell Network, so we have snow observations and one of the things that we're witnessing in the western United States is the snowpack is melting earlier. Uh, we're getting rain, uh, at times of year at elevations where you would expect snow like in the Sierras recently. We saw that. So that is something that’s a bit disconcerting and obviously, you know, we know what's happening in the arctic with the polar ice cap. We know about the ridging in the Pacific because of the sea surface temperatures being, you know the northern Pacific blob. Lindsey: And remind us about the northern Pacific blob. Mark: Yeah. That. Well, yeah, I'm sorry. There was a pool of above normal sea surface temperatures in the northern Pacific that was attributed to ridging over the western part of the United States in the Pacific. They called it the blob because if you look on a sea surface temperature anomaly map, it just looked like a red blob on the map. Meteorologists and climatologists not being the most clever people in the world...they just called it the blob. Lindsey: How does the current drought in the southwest, how long has this current drought been going on and how does it compare with past droughts on record? Mark: Looking back at the history of the drought monitor, so going back to about 2000, um, the southwest has had periods of drought, uh, almost nonstop. If you were to go to the, uh, the drought monitor page, which is droughtmonitoror.unl.edu. You can see a time series for the states. The United States itself has had, you know, some percentage of drought, uh, just about through the entirety. There's always someplace in drought. If you were to look at individual states, this year's drought, for example, in Arizona, really doesn't look as bad as it did say in 2002, 2003. Um, but they've had spikes of drought also in the early 2000’s, 2011, 2012. There was another spike of a, you know, fairly significant drought in 2013. So they, they have been experiencing problems really for, you know, a good part of the last two decades. Lindsey: But this a year in the southwest, this is one of the hottest years on record. Is that, is that correct? Mark: Yes. See that’s another thing because we seem to be setting a record just about every month.Lindsey: Right. It’s not good news. Mark: Yeah it’s really hard to compare this with past years because it feels like the playing field keeps changing on us. Lindsey: And how does drought differ in different parts of the US? Mark: Well, I mean, starting, starting in the southwest sort of as an example, uh, you've got, uh, a climate that's already arid. As a matter of fact, the infrastructure in general in the southwest is to retain water here in the east and northeast where we, we get 40 or more inches of rain. The infrastructure is designed to move water away from population centers. You know, we've got, we've got drainage ditches, we've got storm drains. It's like get the water the heck away from us so we don't get swamped. So there's that. Um, now if you look at, say the corn belt, you know, parts of the south western corn belt had a drought this year, um, Missouri and eastern part of Kansas that came right when they're trying to grow their corn and soybeans. So the combination of the dryness and the, you know, the 95 degree days that they had took a big bite out of their agricultural production. However, they can recover. I mean, they can recover from that if they have a wetter than normal winter, they can rebuild their moisture supplies going into next growing season. Um, Missouri has also experienced flooding, so they're one of those unique parts of the country where they can have drought that impacts their ag production, but they can also have severe flooding that can impact their drought production. I mean, we had, you know, the big drought of 1988 in the midwest. It was one of the more famous droughts before 2012. It was one of the more famous droughts. And then five years later they had the floods of 1993, so within just a few years they went from a horrendous drought to horrendous flooding. Lindsey: Yeah. And so the 20, the 2012 drought had a significant impact on um, corn yields and soybean yields. Can you, can you speak to that and how sort of where that ranks among, among drought conditions? Mark: Um, you know, people, they always keep going back to the dust bowl years of the thirties and you know, the droughts in the 1950’s. So depending on the indices that you look at it, it was ranked up there with some of the worst droughts that producers had seen in the United States. One of the good things is when you're looking at comparing these types of phenomena, uh, historically back in the thirties, we didn't have the soil conservation techniques that we do now. I mean you still get dust storms in severe events, but you know, you don't see the loss of top soil farming practices have. Claude is that you need to have cover crops and you need to, uh, you know, maybe use less tillage in certain parts of the countries to, to prevent disasters like that from occurring again. So you know, we don't see the severe impacts that we did back in the 1930’s. Lindsey: So farmers are, are more well prepared for I guess these, these severe droughts. And are those farming practices, do they have an impact also on the weather? Mark: Um, you know, that's difficult to say. I mean, I've actually seen studies where, you know, rainfall does have an imprint or a footprint rather. If you have rain over an area, then depending on the time of year and the types of crops, you can actually see the transpiration after a, after a rain event. And um, you know, and I, I have seen research showing that, you know, that added moisture does fuel summer storms. So it, so it is possible. I mean, if you have, again, if you've got bare soils or the water's running off, um, you know, you've reduced the ability for it to be reintroduced into the atmosphere. So that is, that is a possibility. Lindsey: I see. Interesting. So across the country right now, what are, what are the patterns that we're seeing that are going to have an impact on how well farmers are doing in 2018? Mark: Actually, if you take away the drought that they had in the southwestern portion of the corn belt, most states had a pretty good year given the latest outlook from USDa, it wasn't a bad year. Now one of the things that we did see that sort of help things out was we had a relatively mild July for the corn belt. Now, what we hope to see is, is sort of maybe some good finishing rains or immature soybeans, this the eight to 14 day outlook issued by CPC which goes through the 10th of September, is calling for near to above normal rainfall. So the next week or so it does look favorable or finishing up in some of the later planted corn and soybeans. Lindsey: How many, how many crops does your office track for the United States? Mark: My office works with the National AG Statistic Service. They're the ones responsible for monitoring or, or I guess keeping estimates of crop production in the United States. We're more, uh, responsible for the international production and then we work very closely with foreign ag service and Economic Research Service to come up with a global supply and demand balance sheet if you will, you know, looking at, looking at yields, but also looking at production, looking at ending stocks, et Cetera. So it's a, there's a lot of people working on this to try to come up with a global balance. Lindsey: The Global Balance, what is the value of that information?Mark: Well, I, I just real quick, knowing what the global situation looks like helps our farmers. It helps us to target foreign markets and it helps us to know who our competitors are and how they're doing.Lindsey: I see. I assume it's also used for the evaluation of crop futures.Mark: Right. That will, that will be a, a sort of an end result to the work that we do. Um, you know, the price is sort of settled. I mean we do a price estimate but the market really determines what the price is going to be. Lindsey: I’m wondering just in general, how important do you think it is for a given farm to have that sort of a personalized weather forecast or to have a weather station? Because the weather underground, I know, you can connect your weather station in. Is that a good thi…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    An Extraordinarily Difficult, Uphill Battle. Aug 24, 2018
    Show notes

    Commodity farmers across the nation are struggling under the weight of low prices and tariffs, resulting in bankruptcies and crisis in farm country. In this second conversation with Roger Johnson, farmer and president of the National Farmers Union, we talk about how putting controls on production may be the toughest and most important battle for the future of agriculture. Episode Transcript Lindsey: Hey, this is the Young Farmers Podcast. I’m Lindsey Lusher Shute. In our last episode, Roger Johnson, President of the National Farmers Union, walked us through how US commodity producers face declining prices and a trade war with China. I’m looking for ideas about how family farmers can get out of this mess and stay in business. Today, we’re going to see if Roger can offer us any solutions. Selwyn Justice: Hi, this is Selwyn Justice of Justice Brothers Ranch in beautiful Waddell, Arizona, where we grow citrus and raise beef cattle. I’m a member of the National Young Farmers Coalition because even beginning farmers need every chance they can get to create a more sustainable future for farming. For just $35/year you can join too. In addition to being part of a bright and just future for agriculture in the United States, you’ll also get discounts like 40% off Filson and 25% off Farm to Feet socks. To join go to youngfarmers.org. An Extraordinarily Difficult, Uphill Battle Lindsey: I wanted before we talk about sort of policy opportunities and changes that are necessary. In the National Farmers Union policy book, it talks about the family farm as a keystone of a free progressive democratic national society. And it says that a vertically integrated in our multinational grain and food conglomerate is not a family farm. So I’m just wondering before we talk about policy, how do you distinguish between who you’re helping when, when we’re talking about international trade and supporting viability of, of farms and specifically trying to give some sort of preference for family operations. Roger: Sure. The way we decide what we’re going to do, what we’re going to advocate for, is decided entirely by our membership. This, this question of economic concentration and large corporate – either buyers or sellers in agriculture – is a question that we have wrestled with since we were organized more than 100 years ago and it’s one of the reasons why, uh, much of our formative years were spent organizing cooperatives. That question is really important and family farmers, we need to live in an environment where there are fair markets. Lindsey: So I’m wondering in this current situation where we have, sort of, one crisis on top of another crisis for commodity producers and thinking about those family farmers – what can be done to turn this situation around, to create a more stable situation for American family farmers? Roger: Yeah. And let me answer that in the context of the dairy debate that’s going on right now because milk prices are very low. There’s significant oversupply, over capacity in the marketplace. USDA just announced a special program where they’re gonna buy I think $50 mIllion worth of fluid milk and donate it to food banks. That’s one way of dealing with a surplus supply. So we have long advocated and what a lot of the dairy producers are re-advocating right now is some system of supply management. Now this doesn’t have to be the heavy hand of the federal government in saying what you can or can’t do on your farm, but there does need to be some sort of a policy put in place that provides incentives when there’s overcapacity in the market for farmers to produce less. And last time we talked, I spent a lot of time talking about how when farmers are producing and the prices get low, there’s no incentive to cut back on production. And so we keep adding to this excess supply and keep driving prices even lower and lower. And the only thing we’re waiting for is some major weather catastrophe somewhere in the world to cut production so we bring it back in balance. For many, many years the federal government served, uh, in a way to balance those supplies. And we’ve had different programs so that if you had too much production on the market, there would be incentive for farmers to set aside some production, to not produce. Maybe they’re paid to produce less, or maybe the market price they get for all of the milk that they produce is a little higher if they hold their production constant to what they have historically produced or higher still, if they cut it, let’s say, five percent below what their average production has been. But that they be financially penalized with a lower price if they’re expanding production at a time when there’s a surplus in the market. That’s the concept of supply management and it works because of this fundamental economic characteristic that we talked about last time. Which results in, in the market really not being able to send the right signals to farmers to cut back on production during times of overproduction. The signals are too slow and in fact they’re too weak. There needs to be an additional kind of signal that comes in. And that’s one of the things that we’ve argued for in farm bills, that there should be that kind of a policy that incents folks to produce less because it would be far cheaper for the government to provide modest incentives for people to produce less than it would be for the government to come in with these big bailouts. This bail out that USDA is talking about doing – it’s a one time deal. It’s going to largely be paid out in advance of the election. It’s going to be paid out for losses that are presumably largely to the degree that they can calculate it incurred as a result of the trade war. Okay? But as we talked about before, this trade war will have very long lasting implications and markets are going to be lower for a long period of time to come as a result of this trade war. So there’s likely going to be a need for additional sums of money to be paid out over the upcoming years instead of a more thoughtful policy that’s laid out in advance that says, you know what, we’re going to protect prices to a certain level, and we’re going to hold these prices relatively constant. It is the beginning farmers that suffer the most with this high price volatility because their future is going to depend almost entirely on when they chose to start farming. If they started farming when we were looking at $13 or $14 soybeans, the relatively high price period, they’re starting to farm at a time when the land values are high, machinery values are high because commodity values are high. Lindsey: Because, so they paid too much for everything, to start their farm and they can’t sustain it. Roger: Exactly. And so they go in, they’re gonna take on a whole bunch of debt and then the market falls to a point where now they’re going to have to farm for a number of years at a loss. They haven’t had a chance to build any equity so they cannot survive that loss and they’ve got too high a cost structure built into their farm because of when they started. On the other hand, in the 80s when we had the economic collapse and I worked as a farm credit concert during that period, that would have been a really good time for young people to start farming. Land values were low, machinery values were really, really cheap. Lindsey: But every farm parent was probably saying “Do not get into, don’t get into this! This is not a good business.” Roger: Exactly. The psychology was against doing it then, so, so bringing some sort of… Lindsey: Which is when we lost the generation that’s missing now, it was in the 80s, because you have these family farmers now that our retiring that should have, should have kids ready to step up. But kids that were told to do something else during that, during that period of crisis. Roger: Or they started farming and they went broke and left, you know. And as they left they didn’t have a, a family that was there. And so you just, as you pointed out, you lost a generation. And in some cases we lost more than a generation. Lindsey: So Roger, a lot of what you’re talking about sounds like what Canada is doing with milk and that supply, which is something that we hear a lot of farmers complain about and even the Trump Administration complain about. So is Canada doing doing the right thing by their dairy farmers with, with that inventory management, their supply management. Is that something that we in fact should sort of, look to model here in the US? Roger: I think we should. Now that’s not to say that the Canadian system is perfect because I think there is a part of it where they’re cheating. But one of the principles of some sort of supply management program that countries need to follow, is if they’re going to do this, they cannot set prices at a level that incent more production. And then instead of doing programs to moderate production, to bring production down during periods of big surpluses, if countries are just taking that surplus and dumping it on the world market, that’s when you create a problem. And that’s what the Trump Administration is objecting to relative to the Canadian system. Because what Canada is doing is they’re, they’re not throttling back production quite enough. And so they’ve put in place this thing called a class seven milk, which is priced very cheaply and then is sold into the international marketplace. That’s the part that folks are objecting. In the overall scheme of things, it’s relatively modest, it’s probably having very little impact on our prices here. But just the fact that they’re doing it is something that, that gets a lot of people really concerned. Having said that, Farmers Union state members have done a number of meetings where they’ve invited a farmers, dairy farmers from Canada, down to speak to us. They’ve had overwhelming attendance and overwhelming support from the dairy farmers in the room after they hear how the Canadian system works. Dairy farmers are very reluctant… Lindsey: So U.S. dairy farmers are interested in having a system like Canada’s? Roger: Very much so, yep. Earlier this week, in fact, there was a meeting in Albany, where a big dairy coop, uh Agrimark did that meeting and there were, I think 300 or 400 dairy farmers that came in and my, I wasn’t at the meeting, but the reports I got back were, people were very interested and very animated about putting in place some sort of a supply management system because there’s just too much milk on the market right now. It’s very destabilizing. Lindsey: And I think it’s worth pointing out for listeners who might not understand sort of just the degree to which dairy farms have scaled. Here in New York, we see multigenerational dairy farms that haven’t really changed in scale too much, but you know they’re doing 30 to 50 cows. And then you have these newer dairy farms that are doing hundreds if not thousands of cows at their, their operation that are milking that many. Roger: Yeah and in some places it’s tens of thousands of cows on a single farm and so. Listen, this isn’t sort of a diatribe against, uh, you know, the, the size that everyone has to be, it is more, we need to understand what the consequences of these kinds of policies create for us. And if we had a supply management system that sort of held people to something close to what their historical production was, and we can meet the market demand, you can hold prices relatively constant. Consumers are also going to be better off because they’re not going to have those prices fluctuating up and down. And the farmers are going to be better off because they’re going to have, you know, a, a narrower a channel in which prices are going to be moved. They’re going to have a much more predictable, way of, of living. And if you, if you survey dairy farmers in Canada and compare their economic well being to dairy farmers in this country, I mean, you would see a dramatically different result and much more favorable positive attitudes on the part of the Canadian dairy farmers. And that’s really what I hear from all of these meetings that have been held all over the, especially the northern part of the country this past year. Lindsey: So what are, what are the chances that we’re going to be able to have supply management for commodities, for dairy in the United States? Is there a political support for that? Is there bipartisan support for that? Are there bills that are trying to craft how this might work or would that be something that would happen on the administrative side? How do you get there? Roger: No. I think the only way you get there is we continue to have really major economic problems in agriculture to the point where farmers stand up and start saying, we want this to happen. Because right now the politIcal atmosphere in Congress is they’re not going to do this. Lindsey: Why is, why is that? Roger: Well, it can best be summed up by a comment that then Speaker John Boehner made on the floor of the House during the debate over the 2014 Farm Bill when he called the supply management provisions a Soviet style agriculture. And it’s so unfair and so untrue. It’s not that they have supply management, they got a whole entirely different system and negative incentives and all that kind of stuff. It was an unfair characterization and it was made over a provision of dairy policy. And so what we ended up with a dairy policy was just incredibly, uh, almost useless but despised, I think is a good way to describe it by almost all dairy farmers. They just hated the program. Lindsey: And, oh so this is just the last, the policy that’s currently in place, from the last farm bill? Roger: Yup. We’ll see whether, whether this is going to change, but there’s no question that getting supply management provisions in the farm bill is an extraordinarily difficult uphill battle. Lindsey: It’s too late, right? Roger: For this farm bill, no question it’s too late. I think we are likely going to be in a position, uh, like we were in, uh, following the 1996 Farm Bill. And for folks that maybe don’t remember in 1996 or weren’t around, they had had high prices when they passed it, but after they passed it, we entered into a period not unlike what we are facing today where there was relatively good weather, production overtook demand and you drove prices into the toilet and you had very, just a lot of financial distress in agriculture. And so Congress, every year for a number of years, just did a big – they call it economic emergency, uh, payments that were made to farmers. Not particularly well targeted, but they had to respond to this economic crisis. That’s essentially what Secretary Perdue is doing right now with this $12 billion plan that’s been announced. He’s got a crisis on his hand. It’s not solely because of trade, but it’s exacerbated because of the trade war that the Administration is promulgating. Um, and I don’t see any way that Congress or the Administration is going to avoid having to do this again next year and maybe the year after and the year after. There’s just going to be too much financial disruption. That really argues that people ought to put some of these sort of prejudices aside and sit down and talk about – is there a better, cheaper, you know, a more thoughtful way that we can proceed? If you look at the cost of farm bills before the ‘96 Farm Bill, when we had paid land diversions and set asides, and things that, that were designed to incent farmers to cut back on production during periods of, of, of too heavy stocks. Uh, the costs of those farm programs was far less expensive to the government than the cost of the more modern programs after they took all sorts of controls off production, let production run wild, and then they tried to fill up the economic, uh, jar that was only half full with tax dollars. And I think we’re back in that scenario right now. Lindsey: So the 1996 Farm Bill signed by Bill Clinton sort of, s…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Trade Wars Aren't Cool Aug 17, 2018
    Show notes

    President Trump's trade war is sending U.S. agricultural markets into shock. Roger Johnson, farmer and president of the National Farmers Union, talks us through the situation on farms, the $12 billion bailout, and what it all means for the future of U.S. agriculture. Episode Transcript Hey, this is the Young Farmers Podcast. I’m Lindsey Lusher Shute. Okay, let me tell you about this trade war. On March 8th, President Donald Trump put tariffs on steel and aluminum from all countries except Canada and Mexico. In response, on April 2nd, Chine put tariffs on 128 U.S. farm products. The very next day, April 3rd, the U.S. went after 1300 good from China, and the day after that, April 4th, China fought back with 106 new tariffs on the U.S. including soybeans, the country’s top agricultural export to China. Commodity producers already have a tough time getting good prices, and this trade war is making things even harder. Today, I am speaking with farmer and President of the National Farmers Union, Roger Johnson. This is actually part one of a two-part interview. He talks us through how these tariffs work, the farmer bailout everyone’s talking about and the impacts for the future of U.S. agriculture. Krisan Christensen: Hey friends, my name is Krisan Christensen and I’m the one-woman operator, farmer, steward of Farm N’ Wild Wellspring, a modest 1-acre vegetable and cur flower farm in beautiful Boulder, Colorado. I’m also one of the leaders of the Flatiron’s Young Farmers Coalition here on the front range. And I’m a member of the National Young Farmers Coalition because I truly believe in and rely on the efforts of our national and local leadership to help keep the transitioning farmland in agriculture and work on policies that provide training as well as microloans for beginning farmers. As a first-generation farmer, I am forever grateful for the support NYFC provides through trainings, policy work and community building. And for just $35/year you too can join. In addition to being a part of a bright and just future for agriculture in the U.S. you also get discounts like 10% off Farm Tech, 30% off Chelsea Green Publishing and so much more. It’s completely worth it and I highly recommend it. To join, go to youngfarmers.org. Trade Wars Aren’t Cool Lindsey: So just to get started, when did you start your tenure with the National Farmers Union? Roger: I started in 2009 so I’ve been here for about nine and a half years. Lindsey: And can you just in brief tell me sort of how, how you came to be president of National Farmers Union? Roger: Sure. Uh, I’ve been a farmer all my life. I bought the land the farm from my father who bought it from his father who homesteaded it back in the early 1900s. The farm is in North Dakota. It’s a diversified grain and livestock farm. The one piece that’s really important is that I grew up in Farmers Union. North Dakota is a very strong Farmers Union state and very active in the organization and I think that is why I was sought out to run for the position of president of National Farmers Union. Lindsey: And does Farmers Union distinguish itself from a mission perspective as well? I mean clearly owned by farmers and driven by farmers and informed by farmers. Beyond that, how do you think Farmers Union stands out? One thing that comes to mind is really standing with family scale agriculture and family farmers. Roger: Yeah, it’s good that that stands out for you because that is very fundamental to who we are. We represent family farmers, predominantly from a policy standpoint, but we’ve for since the beginning, when we were organized over a hundred years ago, our forefathers sort of adopted the triangle as an emblem of the organization. The base of that triangle is education and the sides are legislation and cooperation. Lindsey: So one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you today is because you are working with farmers that are much more established than Young Farmers Coalition oftentimes and have larger commodity operations and in some cases that are selling to this international market. So many of our farmers, because they’re starting out, they’re not selling to an international market and we want them to have an understanding of what’s happening with trade and tariffs. So I guess to start with, to what extent are members of the National Farmers Union right now being impacted by this trade war and tariff situation? Roger: Well, let me start by talking economics just for a little bit. The last farm bill was passed and signed into law in 2014. Net farm income since 2014 to today is less than half of what it was back then. So in roughly in four or five years, net farm income has fallen in half. Now that’s across, that’s a national number that USDA puts out, so it includes CSAs and commodity farmers, but it’s overwhelmingly overweighted or weighted I should say by commodity production because that’s the biggest part of agriculture in this country. That statistic tells a lot about the economic stress that farmers, ranchers are going to right now. Lindsey: Before tariffs were put in place. Roger: Before tariffs even came into being and so we’ve got a new farm bill that’s in the process of, it’s been, there’s one version passed in the house, a different version in the Senate. They’re going to try to reconcile those and get them passed as a single bill in these next couple months and sent to the President. We’ve been arguing that in that farm bill, Congress needs to put more money in to shore up the safety net and to provide more of these kinds of services that beginning farmers and ranchers need. We’ve worked really hard to have a lot of different places in there where there are incentives for beginning farmers and ranchers. They’re all part of the overall farm bill and the overall farm bill has to respond to this overwhelmingly crushing economic situation that it’s facing a lot of these commodity producers. Now these commodity farmer/producers that as you say, rely on the international marketplace. They’re fundamentally an international market. They’re based on supply and demand. We have a surplus of production in this country and in fact, in much of the world, and so those burdensome stocks overhang the market, that drives prices very low, that ends up in net farm income being very low. When you add tariffs on top, now what initially began was the Administration was putting tariffs on imported steel and aluminum because of overcapacity problems, largely driven by China, but really coming from many countries around the world. A tariff is nothing more than a tax, in this case on exports that has to be paid by imports, you know. So whoever is buying these products, let’s say if it’s China buying soybeans from the US, the tariff is a tax that gets added to the soybeans. Now Trump put the tariff on steel and aluminum. China immediately retaliated and put tariffs on soybeans and whole bunch of other agricultural products because agricultural products is mostly what China buys from the US. So that’s a place where we were very vulnerable. The tariff on soybeans generally is 25%. So if you got $10 soybeans and you put a 25% tax on them, that’s about $2.50. Okay? So what that means is for the Chinese buyer of buying US soybeans, that buyer now has to pay the $10 plus $2.50. Well he or she isn’t going to do that, they can go to Brazil and buy the soybeans for $10. So in effect, what it does is it provides a penalty to US soybeans of $2.50 a bushel. I’m talking in round numbers. So what has really happened is we’ve seen the market for soybeans drop by about $2 a bushel in the US. And the market for other countries, soybeans that are selling into the world market, is about $2 higher than our market. Lindsey: Just to give some perspective, in 2014 what was, per bushel, what was sort of the high point for soybeans? Roger: Yes, soybeans were $13, $14 I think, at the high point. They were running at about $10 then the tariffs start, they’re probably around $8 or thereabouts right now. Of course, they fluctuate every day so. Lindsey: So are farmers selling at a loss at this point with the $8 dollars? Roger: Yes. Lindsey: What is, what is the cost, assumed sort of cost of production for soybeans? Roger: The cost of producing soybeans is probably somewhere around $8.50, $9, some places $10. It varies by area in the country. And incidentally, of the major commodities, soybeans were the crop that was making the farmers the most money, or alternatively put, losing them the least amount of money before this tariff war started. Corn, wheat were even worse off. In fact, if you looked at farm budgets across the country using sort of average, USDA numbers, both wheat producers and corn producers were expected this year to be losing money on every bushel that they sold. Now with the tariffs on soybeans, one could argue that the same thing is likely to happen with soybeans as well. Lindsey: Goodness. And so wheat and corn. The reason that farmers were expected to take a loss on those was because of increased production in places like Brazil and from other parts of the world selling into those same markets? Roger: Yes. Well, and its, and it is because there has just been very strong increases in production over time in this country and that technology has been adopted by other countries around the world and so agricultural production just keeps going higher and higher and higher, and I’m talking about production per acre, so our productivity keeps increasing and increasing. That produces more total product and population is growing at a rate that is slower than our production is increasing. Now there is this other dynamic where you’ve got an expanding middle class that’s coming up in some of these other countries that’s tending to consume more. So that sops up some of that production. But there’s a fundamental imbalance – we’re producing more than what we’re consuming. And that extra that we’re producing are burdensome stocks. This is an important point here, Lindsey, because there’s a dynamic that’s very different in commodity agriculture as opposed to CSA agriculture. In commodity agriculture, if there’s too much that’s produced, that land does not go out of production. That farmer’s going to keep producing it even if they’re producing it at a loss until eventually maybe that farmer goes out of business, but the land does not. Another farmer buys the land, rents the land, keeps producing, so the production machine keeps going. There’s an incentive for that land to always be producing even if it’s being produced at a loss. Because the fixed costs are so high. Lindsey: So just so I’m clear, so the fixed cost of a commodity agriculture is so high that there is an incentive to keep going regardless of whether there’s a loss with the assumption that things are gonna get better. Roger: Yes. Yeah. You’ve got a lot invested in land and machinery and if you’re producing at a loss, you’re losing less money than if you stopped producing because you can’t – to continue making the land payments, you have to continue making the machinery payments and now you’re not going to get any income at all, because you’re not producing. Even worse, the weeds you’re gonna grow, so now when you do decide to come back in production, you’ve got even more expense to bring the land back into production. So those dynamics are very powerful. It’s a fundamental supply-demand sort of paradox that agriculture faces, which is that when farmers are faced with low prices, they try to produce more bushels so that more bushels times that lower price, will give them a slightly larger income. And when farmers are faced with higher prices, they’re going to want to produce more bushels because now they’re going to take advantage of those higher prices, so the so their response is the same. And since these commodities are storable, they then tend to overhang the market for a long period of time until eventually something has to come back into balance. We used to have farm programs that had incentives for farmers to throttle back production when we had too much supply on hand. Now that we no longer have those provisions in the farm bill, really what you’re left with is hoping for a major supply disruption, meaning drought, floods, hail, tornadoes, hurricanes, what have you, that’s going to take a lot of production out. Lindsey: I think you’re the only farmer wishing for those conditions, but yeah, we had a terrible hail storm this year, so that’s all I can think about. But, yeah. Roger: Well, and so did we. I mean our farm is mostly been hailed out about a month ago and so it’s just one of those things. Across North Dakota they’ve got really, really good crops because when you have hailstorms you generally have a lot of rain and so. Lindsey: And when you have those hailstorms then you get an insurance payment, I guess at least. So there’s some, there’s some protection. I mean for a grower doing commodities, they are able to secure insurance. So if they have a loss, they are, they are compensated for that loss and I guess it helps to reduce supply. So you would assume that the price overall would maybe stabilize a bit more or potentially even go up. Roger: Yeah, the much larger supply reducing event is likely to be a widespread drought, they don’t have a meaningful impact in reducing the overall total supply because along with those hailstorms came rain that everybody else got so their supply is gonna go up. The point I was making here is you’re left with sort of wishing that somewhere on the globe there’s going to be a major, longer, bigger, deeper drought that’s going to wipe out a bunch of production. Now, none of us wish ill on anyone, but we’d prefer that it be somewhere other than where we are right? Lindsey: Right, of course. And something to just reduce the overall supply. There’s this whole discussion as you know, can we feed the world, there’s not enough food being produced. This conversation about oversupply does provide contrast to that argument there there’s not enough out there or am I wrong about that? Roger: No, you’re not wrong about that. In fact, there’s plenty of total supply to feed every hungry person on the planet. The problem that we have is that people are hungry not because there isn’t food, they’re hungry because they have no income to buy the food. And so you might say it’s a market failure at least for those hungry people. But we overproduce and the major producing countries, commodity producers, we significantly overproduce over time. And we’re left with trying to find other things that we can do with this crop that is so abundant here. And you know, we say, well, we’re here to feed the world, but in fact, unless you give it away, a lot of those folks who are hungry aren’t going to get it. I mean it costs money to give it away too so that’s why there’s always been different sort of programs to try and, you know, feed the hungry, that are included in the farm bill as well. Lindsey: So the $12 billion bailout got a lot of news. It got a lot of headlines. Can you explain what that is, where that money’s going to go, who it might help? Roger: Yeah. So we don’t know for sure where the money’s going to go. We know that USDA has standing authority through something called the CCC, the Commodity Credit Corporation, which is a government owned corporation that was established during the 30s. Anyway, the CCC has enormous authority that has been granted to the Secretary to buy commodities or even to do direct financial compensation for different things. And that’s what the Secretary is proposing to do. He’s announced it’ll be $12 billion that will be spent. Most of it will be spent in direct payments to compensate, presumably, soybean growers more than anyone else. And then probably corn, wheat producers. Most commodities I would expect would get some amount. The reason I say soybeans more than others is because this bailout as you…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Previous 1 4 5 6 7 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights