Vilsack's Confirmation Hearing

Yesterday, the Senate held its confirmation hearing for Gov. Tom Vilsack, President-elect Obama's pick for the next Secretary of Agriculture.

The hearing touched upon the most, if not all, of the major agricultural issues facing the new administration, including renewable energy, food safety, sustainable ag, rural development, trade issues, farm subsidies and commodity programs.

But some of the most enthusiastic language came in support of childhood nutrition and school lunches.

We can work with our schools to make sure fruits and vegetables are available. . . . We will be very aggressive in this area. . . . It’s going to be important for us to promote fresh fruits and vegetables as part of our children’s diets. . . . That means supporting those who supply those products.

Such ideas are in keeping with Obama's plan to work through the USDA's various nutrition programs to end childhood hunger by 2015.

The hearing, which ran just over two hours, is available as a Webcast from the Senate Ag Committee's site.

From all reports, Gov. Vilsack is expected to be confirmed as the new Secretary of Agriculture as early as Tuesday and sworn in soon after.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Biography and Farm Bill and Food and Nutrition and Marketing and Trade and Natural Resources & Environment and Organic Production and Plants and Crops and Rural Life and Water Quality on January 15, 2009 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

Will my daughter eat fruits and vegetables? Nutrition is good, as a small farmer I really would like more support. How are they going to get kids to eat fruits and vegetables though?

Submitted by: BradJ on February 26, 2009 05:51 PM

Secretary Schafer's Farewell

In case you missed it, Secretary Schafer held what was likely his final teleconference last week, where he reviewed the current administration's accomplishments in the agricultural sphere and looked ahead to what issues the new Secretary might face.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Biography and Farm Bill and Marketing and Trade and Plants and Crops on January 15, 2009 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

Name:

.....

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

And Now a Word from Our Sponsor

I'm turning the blog-waves over to USDA today to help get the word out about the upcoming Agricultural Outlook Forum, February 26-27, 2009, in Arlington, Virginia.

This year's presenters and break-out sessions will deliver on the theme "Global Agriculture & Rural America in Transition."

You'll hear scientific, policy, business and marketing perspectives on a range of ag issues, from food safety to food security, from rural America to world markets, and from conservation efforts to developments in biotechnology.

The then Secretary of Agriculture will give the keynote, with an as-yet-unnamed distinguished guest speaker to follow.

Got any ideas who that distinguished guest speaker should be? I'm collecting suggestions below. Who knows, the conference planners just might listen.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Education and Farm Bill and Food and Nutrition and Marketing and Trade and Natural Resources & Environment and Plants and Crops and Rural Life and Water Quality on October 29, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

I wait, when can you send me more information about health?

Submitted by: jhjityiity on October 30, 2008 09:58 AM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on October 30, 2008 10:13 AM

Submitted by: Bill Harshaw on October 30, 2008 12:27 PM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on October 30, 2008 02:13 PM

Submitted by: Karl Schneider on November 4, 2008 10:29 PM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 5, 2008 11:31 AM

You COOL With This?

Country-of-origin labeling (COOL) became mandatory today. What does that mean for you?

On the one hand, it means that lots of foods you regularly buy in grocery stores will be sporting a sticker, a stamped rubber band or a modified wrapper -- or will be displayed under signs -- letting you know where they came from.

Foods required to be labeled include:

• raw beef, veal, lamb, pork, goat, and chicken
• fish and shellfish, whether wild or farm-raised
• fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables
• peanuts, pecans and macadamia nuts
• ginseng

However, not every place you buy food is covered by the law. Butcher shops, fish markets and smaller grocers that invoice less than $230,000 annually are off the hook, as are the country's restaurants, cafeterias and food stands.

Add to that that plenty of foods aren't on that list because they've been "processed," and you'll still find plenty of foods not labeled through COOL.

Some examples might help (PDF | 80 KB):

• A package of raw chicken legs is covered. Breaded chicken fingers are not. (The breading makes them processed.)
• Farm-raised salmon is covered. Smoked salmon is not. (Hot or cold smoking makes them processed.)
• Frozen peas are covered. Canned peas are not. (Because they're cooked on the way to being canned.)
• Fresh strawberries are covered. Dried strawberries are not. (Drying changes things.)
• Raw peanuts are covered. Roasted peanuts are not. (Yup, the roasting does it.)

Even combining a couple of things that are covered by the rule makes the uncovered, so strike the frozen peas and carrots medley from the COOL list.

But that doesn't mean you'll never know where your peas-and-carrots blend came from. Anything pre-packaged abroad remains covered by the Tariff Act of 1930 and will still be marked as an import despite its exclusion from COOL.

On the other hand, if those peas and carrots are imported to the U.S. in bulk, and then combined and packaged here, then they'll have no label.

Yes, it can be confusing, but USDA is working on it.

Earlier today the Department held a news conference about the rule's implementation. There Under Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight noted that they've received 175 to 200 comments on the rule and will be taking those under advisement. Now, however, the rule is going forward as-is.

How are you feeling about it: Confused? Pleased? Irritated?

A Consumer Reports poll from June 2007 indicated that "92 percent of consumers agree that imported foods should be labeled by their country of origin," but does this rule get it done for you? Let us know.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Food and Nutrition and Marketing and Trade on September 30, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

I am glad to see some changes being made and encourage even more acurate labeling. I was surprised the other day when I got home from the grocery store (I was in a hurry there and didn't really pay attention to all the labeling) and the beef I planned to cook for supper had a small label on it that said "from USA or Mexico". I had assumed all the fresh meat we buy here would have been produced here and really felt that I had been caught off guard against something that I should not have even had to be concerned about - sort of swindled in a way. I guess it is customer beware, but I feel like we owe it to people to do the best possible job to keep our food supply as safe as possible and to support USA agriculture as much as possible. We see what kind of shap we are in by depending on foreign countries for oil. Woe unto us if we ever become so dependent on others for food!!! Thanks for the labels - I will watch more closely!

Submitted by: Anonymous on October 2, 2008 12:13 PM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on October 3, 2008 04:58 PM

In Lockup: A Dramatization

The security guard's keys clank and jingle, echoing against the plaster walls of the cavernous hallway that stretch before him. He turns to look into one office or another every few steps, but he's alone. He knows it, too, because he locked the last of them in just before midnight, and they aren't coming out til morning.

He still chuckles to himself about it, too. He never had to do this kind of thing when he contracted at other Federal agencies. And his friends don't believe him when he tells them he has to do this kind of stuff working for the USDA.

"Aw, c'mon, man. What's with all the cloak and dagger biz? They got some secret three-headed cow down there?"

"Nah, I'd have smelled that by now, I think," he laughs. "But they do have a whole team of people locked away overnight every month or two -- number crunchers, reporters, folks in the print shop. They all have to turn in their cell phones before they go in, and they can't communicate with the outside world until they're done."

"Done with what? What's so important, if it ain't some three-headed cow?"

"Well, that's the crazy part. It's the farm forecasts from the National Agricultural Statistics Service. You've heard them on the radio, haven't you? 'Soybean production is up, corn and cotton are down,' that sort of thing."

"Yea, I've heard 'em, but why all the secrecy about 'em?"

"Because there's money to be made. The reports influence market prices around the world. Getting a hold of those crop forecasts before they're released is like insider trading. You'd have information no one else had, and you could set yourself up in the market to make a bundle."

"Ah, c'mon. It's corn and soybeans, not gold and platinum."

"Maybe so, but it has happened. Back in 1905, two guys set up a signal using a window shade. The guy on the inside would adjust the window shade to tell the guy on the outside if the cotton projections were going to be higher or lower than whatever they had thought. Nowadays, the shades are secured in place before the whole process starts. They also block any wireless signal from getting out."

"Dang, that's serious stuff."

"Sure is, which is why I have to secure the area and let no one in or out except as instructed. The reporters can't even have telephone or computer connections until 8:30 on the dot. It makes sure everyone gets the same information at the same time."

"Sounds like the beginnings of a spy novel."

"I'd think so too if I didn't see it for myself. You really ought to read the article the Farm Journal did about the lockup (PDF | 1.2 MB). It's pretty cool. And a former staff member at NASS wrote a history of the whole process (PDF | 1.5 MB) to mark the 100th anniversary of the 1905 security breach. That one really gets into how things have changed over the years and even tells a few stories of folks getting trapped inside the lockup."

"Don't tell me -- they wouldn't let 'em out until the report was done."

"You got it. You don't want to get stuck at NASS overnight. Better just to read the reports when they come out."

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Marketing and Trade on August 13, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

You missed the fact that the economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote a mystery novel keyed to the idea someone broke security on the crop estimates. (I forget the title, it was not a very good book. I think it was in the late 60's, after his ambassadorial days. Galbraith, of course, worked for USDA in the New Deal.

Submitted by: Bill Harshaw on August 14, 2008 04:00 PM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on August 14, 2008 04:04 PM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on August 14, 2008 05:27 PM

Can Strawberries Impact the Olympic Medal Count?

Did you see that China's Olympic athletes accomplished what years of negotiation could not?

Thanks to a survey the Chinese athletes completed regarding their food preferences during the Games, the first shipment of U.S.-grown strawberries was legally exported to China last week, in time for opening ceremonies.

But the inaugural shipment did not just sail through the gates of the Olympic Village. Instead, "Chinese inspectors spent 12 hours going over 50 trays" before giving them the okay.

Even in the face of such scrutiny, California growers were more than willing to satisfy the shortage of fresh strawberries left by China's short growing season. In fact, the California Strawberry Commission and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had been trying for years to break into the Chinese market.

No telling yet though if the trade doors will stay open. Growers are hopeful.

I share their optimism, but I do have one question. If strawberries ended up third on the Chinese athletes' list of preferred fruits, what ranked one and two?

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Marketing and Trade and Plants and Crops on August 12, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

We should have never let them have those strawberries...

Submitted by: michelle on August 14, 2008 04:09 PM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on August 14, 2008 04:24 PM

Why Food Prices Are Surging

Everybody wants to know what's pushing food prices. Everybody also has an answer.

Of course, the answers are all different. Too many people, too much ethanol, too little surplus. Bad policies, bad weather, bad luck.

In one way or the other, it seems they all end up at the old Econ 101 stand-by, supply and demand.

But we all know the answer is much more involved than can be delivered in a sound bite.

Two days ago, two different reports looking at the quick rise in food prices hit the streets, and they each try to give a fuller answer to this widespread question.

The first, from USDA's Economic Research Service, actually updates one the agency released in May.

The second, sponsored by the Farm Foundation, a publically-funded non-profit organization, was authored by three economists from Purdue University.

Both reports agree: The rise in food prices results from a complex interplay of factors.

The Farm Foundation report points to three high-level forces driving the price increases:

• global changes in production and consumption of key commodities,
• the depreciation of the dollar, and
• growth in the production of bioofuels.

Of course, the economists from both research teams provide the charts, graphs and numbers to support these conclusions, though, interestingly, neither report tries to divvy up the responsibility for the price spikes among the contributing factors. (Those wielding agendas rarely show such restraint.)

I encourage you to read the reports yourself, but even moreso, I encourage you to resist the urge to oversimplify this complicated and involved issue.

Everybody's right on this one. The answer is "D. All of the above."

And it's going to take all of us to find our way through it.

With that in mind, what's your answer to the food crisis?

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Food and Nutrition and Marketing and Trade on July 25, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

Name:

.....

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Yes, We Have More Bananas

If you're a typical American, you eat, on average, two bananas a week. And if you buy those bananas at a typical American grocery store, you're getting the same kind of banana each time, a variety called the Cavendish.

Fifty years ago, that was not the case.

My parents and grandparents grew up eating a different kind of banana, the Gros Michel, that, from all reports, was both tastier and better suited for export. But for all its popularity, the Gros Michel had a weakness: it was highly susceptible to Panama disease, a fungal disease that, over time, wiped out the Gros Michel.

Enter the Cavendish.

Resistant to the Panama disease that felled the Gros Michel, the Cavendish surged to the top export spot and never looked back. Now, however, its position is threatened, not by a competing cultivar, but by a strain of Panama disease that neither it nor its growers can combat.

Back in March NAL hosted a forum that examined this situation, along with the importance of bananas and plantains in meeting the food and economic needs in tropical regions around the world. As it turns out, the Cavendish is just one piece -- though certainly a big commercial piece -- in the sustaining role bananas play around the globe.

Nearly one thousand other varieties of bananas populate tropical regions, and most never leave their home countries. These other varieties sustain the farmers that grow them and serve as staples in their surrounding communities.

But economic forces are understandably pushing small growers to abandon these other varieties in favor of marketable ones. That trend, however, threatens banana diversity.

What can we do?

While scientists chart the banana's genome, preserve their genetic resources in genebanks, and work to counteract the diseases that plague them, consumers can help by buying more than just the Cavendish. Be willing to spend a little more to try something new and to send the message to your grocer that there is a market for other varieties and the products made from them.

You can also learn more about the banana in all its forms. Over the last two years alone three major books on the banana and its history -- political, cultural, economic and otherwise -- have hit the shelves:

• The Banana: Empires, Trade Wars, and Globalization by James Wiley
• Banana: The Fate of the Fruit that Changed the World by Dan Koeppel
• Bananas: How the United Fruit Company Shaped the World by Peter Chapman

My library colleagues have also pulled together a collection of resources covering the agricultural and scientific research focused on the banana, along with nutritional info and recipes.

Obviously, there is much to learn, but there is also much to eat. With over one thousand varieties of bananas out there, you'd better get started. Stop back to tell us which ones you like, and if you've got a good recipe for banana bread, send it along. It's one of my favs.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Food and Nutrition and Marketing and Trade and Plants and Crops on June 23, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

I can’t say I know a lot about bananas and I have never really looked for different varieties. Occasionally my local grocer will have plantains, but I will have to check to see if there are multiple varieties of bananas. –Thanks for calling this to my attention. Are any bananas being grown in the US right now? If so, where and what kind of volume? Alex Tiller http://blog.alextiller.com

Submitted by: Alex Tiller on June 25, 2008 02:26 PM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on June 25, 2008 03:12 PM

Global Food Security Conference

Today in Rome, heads of state from around the globe began an intensive three-day conference on food security, climate change and rising food and fuel prices. The conference, called by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, is intended to help countries devise sustainable solutions to rising food prices and to address the growing challenges of climate change and energy security.

Much of the conference is available online. Resources include conference documents and written remarks, along with audio and video webcasts of the sessions.

USDA Secretary Ed Schafer leads the U.S. delegation to the conference.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Food and Nutrition and Marketing and Trade and Natural Resources & Environment on June 03, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

Name:

.....

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Pineapples in Paradise

What comes to mind when you think of Hawai'i? Paradise, right? Sun, sand, surf, warm breezes . . . I'm with you.

Okay, but what about Hawaiian food? My top three: pineapple, macadamia nuts, and poi. (Not that I've ever had poi, but too much television has undoubtedly shaped my perceptions.)

But Hawai'i is no longer paradise for the pineapple. That industry, so closely tied with many Americans' vision of Hawai'i, is showing signs of struggle.

In 2006, Del Monte planted its last crop of pineapple, citing the expense of growing in Hawai'i as the prime reason for shutting down operations after 90 years in the islands. Their departure leaves just two pineapple companies in the state, Dole Food Hawai'i and Maui Pineapple Co.

But last year, the latter shuttered its pineapple cannery, the last one in the U.S. The closure brought an end to an era for many Hawaiians, but the company remains, redirecting its attention to fresh fruit and juice in an effort to stay profitable.

The bottom line talks loudly. Growers in Thailand, the Philippines, Brazil, China, India and Costa Rica can produce the fruit more cheaply, thrusting these countries to the top of list of suppliers worldwide (XLS|41 KB). As a result, the pineapple might become more symbol than reality in Hawai'i. Only time -- and the market -- will tell.

But in honor of pineapple's long, deep history in Hawai'i, and in conjunction with Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, let me point you to a couple of unique resources from the Center for Oral History at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa that celebrate this fantastic fruit and the people who've brought it to us for decades.

The first, a short video clip (Quicktime | 4.4 MB), shows Venicia Guiala, a former pineapple field worker, demonstrating how she prepared for work in the hot, dusty pineapple fields. If you prefer, you can read the transcript, but I heartily recommend the video. Seeing Mrs. Guiala putting on her scarves, goggles and hat conveys more strongly than the words how difficult and uncomfortable that job must be.

The second provides a short introduction to the Center's oral history project on Women Workers in Hawai'i's Pineapple Industry, a combination of narrative and oral history excerpts.

But for a more contemporary twist on pineapple processing, check out this clip from YouTube. The music makes it an almost mesmerizingly peaceful experience. (Though I'd appreciate someone telling me what the song "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" has to do with peeling and coring pineapple.)

Finally, if you haven't given much thought to the role Asian-Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders have played and continue to play in our country's agricultural endeavors, jump over to NAL's site on Asian Pacific Americans in agriculture. Among many other things, you can learn from the resources there the unique niche Chinese immigrants filled in 1850s California; the key role Filipinos played in the formation of the United Farm Workers; and the impact of Alien Land Laws on Japanese immigrant farmers.

Aloha.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Biography and Food and Nutrition and History of Agriculture and Marketing and Trade on May 06, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

Interesting blog post, Mary Ann. With Del Monte leaving Hawaii, the last two producers are Dole and Maui Pineapple. Maui Pine was the last to close their cannery on Maui, they did it earlier this year or late 2007. So all the fruit produced in Hawaii is for the fresh fruit market. The latest statistics shows that the acreage in pineapple in Hawaii is less than 14,000 acres and seed crops has now surpassed pineapple as the number crop in terms of farm gate values. Sugarcane, macadamia nuts and coffee round out the top 5. As for poi, taro, which is used to make poi, only 9% of the taro consumed in Hawaii is produced here. All of these statistics are from the NASS Hawaii state statistics. Doug Vincent College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii

Submitted by: Doug Vincent on May 20, 2008 09:23 AM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on May 20, 2008 09:29 AM

Submitted by: Welcome Books on June 11, 2008 02:50 PM

Amber Waves?

Are you feeling the pinch at the grocery store yet?

Higher food prices are creating unrest in some parts of the world and simple belt-tightening in others.

The Washington Post devoted this past week to exploring the current food crisis brought on by food shortages and spiking inflation. If you haven't yet read their five-part series, I recommend you do.

• The New Economics of Hunger looks at skyrocketing grain prices and their impact on the global markets and the world's poor.


• Where Every Meal Is a Sacrifice focuses on the situation in Mauritania and other poor countries that are forced to import most of their food.


• Emptying the Breadbasket tells of the fall in wheat production in the U.S. as more farmers turn to corn and soybeans and examines some of the forces that led to the shift.


• Siphoning Off Corn to Fuel Our Cars examines the tug-of-war over corn as food and fuel and identifies the winners, losers and ongoing fighters in the battle.


• Clipping, Scrimping, Saving registers the impact of rising prices on American consumers across income levels and reveals what steps folks are taking to save money.

You can also hear Dan Morgan, Washington Post agriculture reporter and one of the series' authors, talk about what he learned while researching the series in an interview on C-SPAN. Morgan also answer questions during the hour-long video.

Of course, the global reach of these events means that far more than just the Post is writing about them. For other perspectives, you might also want to dip into the BBC's extensive coverage or read The Economist's recent cover story on what they termed The Silent Tsunami.

Finally, for information about food aid available from USDA and the Administration's response to recent events, see the Department's Food Aid page.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Food and Nutrition and Marketing and Trade and Plants and Crops on May 01, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

Interesting blog post, Mary Ann. With Del Monte leaving Hawaii, the last two producers are Dole and Maui Pineapple. Maui Pine was the last to close their cannery on Maui, they did it earlier this year or late 2007. So all the fruit produced in Hawaii is for the fresh fruit market. The latest statistics shows that the acreage in pineapple in Hawaii is less than 14,000 acres and seed crops has now surpassed pineapple as the number crop in terms of farm gate values. Sugarcane, macadamia nuts and coffee round out the top 5. As for poi, taro, which is used to make poi, only 9% of the taro consumed in Hawaii is produced here. All of these statistics are from the NASS Hawaii state statistics. Doug Vincent College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii.

Submitted by: Doug Vincent on May 19, 2008 06:14 PM

Made in the USA

The stock market yo-yoed yesterday and is dropping today. The dollar continues to struggle against the euro. Prognosticators are talking recession. But I've found some good economic news in the Washington Post: American farm equipment is doing well in oversees markets, particularly the former Soviet Union.

"American-made farm machinery is considered by eastern European farmers the best engineered and most reliable in the world," according to Nickolay Ryabov, a native Russian and an international business specialist for a North Dakota manufacturer of sugar beet harvesting equipment.

The new equipment has increased farm efficiency, and that, in turn, has increased demand for the machinery abroad, even as domestic orders are slowing. Equipment sales to Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan have grown steadily over the last few years, showing leaps over 100% according to the Association of Equipment Manufacturers.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

If you're ready to test the foreign market yourself -- or any market, for that matter -- you should probably check out the great resources NAL has collected on marketing and trade issues, from exporting basics to trade policies and consumer research.

But we'd also appreciate hearing what tips you might have for those trying to break into a new agricultural market. What are the key steps? Best things to avoid? Contacts you can't live without? Share your wisdom and help generate more economic good news.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Marketing and Trade on January 23, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

UPDATE Right about the time the Washington Post was running the article cited above about booming overseas tractor sales, The Times of London was reporting on "an international criminal gang making millions from stealing top-of-the-range [tractors] which are smuggled abroad." The stolen farm equipment is purportedly being shipped as far away as Australia for resale. Read the full story to learn more.

Submitted by: Mary Ann on January 31, 2008 03:34 PM

Submitted by: Wisconsin Farm Boy on April 30, 2008 07:38 PM

Ag Words on the Growing Edge

As a follow-up to yesterday's entry on locavores, I wanted to quickly mention the other agriculturally related words that have recently been in the running for Word of the Year.

In 2005 Oxford gave the nod to "podcast," a decidedly non-agricultural word, but a technology the aggies have certainly taken advantage of, including the folks over at USDA's Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics Service.

And among the runners-up that year we had "bird flu" and "trans fats," two very different but significant challenges to our health that ag researchers are addressing.

The following year was also big for agriculture and the environment. "Carbon neutral" took the top spot, encouraging all of us to reduce our carbon emissions and to then balance "our remaining emissions...by purchasing a carbon offset, paying to plant new trees or investing in 'green' technologies such as solar and wind power."

Then "CSA," community supported agriculture, occupied a key runner-up position, and -- who knows? -- maybe contributed to "locavore's" win in 2007 by building momentum in the "buy local" movement.

For the librarians in the audience, 2006 also brought us "DRM," digital rights management, a mere hop, skip and a jump from the copyright issues we discussed the other day.

Then, as noted earlier, "locavore" snagged Oxford's latest blue ribbon, but the mysterious "colony collapse disorder" made the list, as did "upcycling," a innovative alternative to waste disposal, one that puts a value-added spin on recycling.

So, not bad, nine words in three years related to agriculture, the environment, nutrition or librarianship. (I cast a wide net.)

But what did Oxford miss? Any other good, new agricultural words out there? Send 'em along or make 'em up. We're always ready to push that growing edge.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Animals and Food and Nutrition and Marketing and Trade and Natural Resources & Environment and Plants and Crops on January 18, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

Hello! Nice site ;) Bye

Submitted by: BersJonrete on January 20, 2008 12:26 AM

Submitted by: David Engel on January 23, 2008 09:57 AM

Submitted by: Mary Ann on January 23, 2008 01:26 PM

Submitted by: Lori Finch on January 24, 2008 05:18 PM

Are You a Locavore? Should You Be?

So, do you consider yourself a locavore? If so, you're environmentally conscious and trendy, wearing a label declared the "Word of the Year 2007" by the New Oxford American Dictionary.

For those who've never heard the term, it was coined just a few years ago by Jessica Prentice, one of four women in San Francisco who set out to eat food grown or produced within 100 miles of their homes. They weren't the only ones doing so, but their word caught on, at least in some circles, and is now, as Oxford sees it, a "word to watch."

It has gotten a few amateur (maybe even professional) lexicographers in an uproar: Should it be "localvore," (with an "l")? Should it be "localtarian," to convey the choice implied (a la "vegetarian")? Should we even care?

Of course, the last question touches upon more than just the word, but on the choices and actions the word encompasses -- eating locally, supporting nearby farmers and producers, reducing the transportation and shipping costs associated with what we eat.

The payoff comes in terms both personal and global. The food I get from our neighborhood farmers' market is generally fresher and tastes better than the long-distance stuff. Even the meat is more flavorful. And I get all that while doing something positive for the environment.

Not so fast, interjects Sarah Murray. While buying locally might supply those benefits, "food miles" shouldn't be the sole factor taken into account when buying food. We must also consider harvesting and production methods, storage requirements, food packaging, and other steps along the road from farm to fork.

Murray cites the example of a British snack company that teamed up with the Carbon Trust to measure the carbon footprint of a bag of its potato crisps. In calculating the carbon dioxide emissions in the making and shipping of the crisps, they found that the troublespot was not transportation, but "storing and frying the potatoes." Making changes there, Murray points out, could reduce emissions more than constraining the miles the crisps travel to consumers.

Okay, sounds good. But what about the formula used for calculating a product's carbon footprint in the first place? What gets included? What doesn't? And how far down the growth and production chain do you go? As an article in The Economist points out, how you answer these questions significantly impacts your formula, and, of course, the results.

And taking a consumer's position on this, how will I know which formula is "right"?

Obviously, this carbon footprint stuff is tricky business, and the scientists will be hashing out the details for some time. Until then, though, until we see standards, I'll work with what I do know and buy locally as much as I can. I might never be a true locavore -- I like chocolate way too much for that -- but I'll do what I can, even if it does address just one factor in a lengthy environmental equation.

But what are you doing? Have you tried being a locavore, even on a short-term or seasonal basis? Do you grow your own herbs or veggies? Have you joined a community supported agriculture program? Are you a regular at the local farmers market? Let's hear your tips for reducing our individual carbon footprints.

Or offer your comments on our latest Word of the Year. Does "locavore" work for you? Got a better idea? Propose it here and you might find fame via your well-chosen neologism. Wouldn't that be cool?

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Food and Nutrition and Marketing and Trade and Natural Resources & Environment and Plants and Crops on January 17, 2008 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

I have started looking into this for myself. The task can sound simple at first, but in reality may require some research. I would have to cut many things from my diet like bread and beer because ALL the ingredients weren't grown within 100 miles of my home. Then again wine would still be available. The process of researching what does grow in your area opens up your mind to what really goes into producing food and getting it to your kitchen. And as we already know the food that's least processed is usually the best for you. So I think I can do without the potatoe crisps, but I draw the limit at giving up beer. It's a challenge that I want to take soon. I'd love to hear if anyone else does this, what their personal parameters were and how it went!

Submitted by: Virgie J on July 9, 2008 07:15 PM

Duck...Duck...Goose

Next week, mixed in with the last of their holiday cards and the first bills of 2008, farmers and ranchers across the U.S. will be getting their packets for the 2007 Census of Agriculture. The folks at USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service are dropping them in the mail today.

NASS conducts the survey every five years to count the nation’s farms and ranches and the people who operate them. Census questions cover land use and ownership, operator characteristics, production practices, crop yields, livestock count, and machinery used, along with income, expenditures and other topics.

Maybe this is where that old game "Duck, Duck, Goose" got its start -- farmers counting their animals for the annual ag census. Okay, I admit that's not likely, but you do have to report your poultry numbers on the survey, so there actually might be folks mumbling that very phrase to themselves as they walk through barnyards across the country this January.

But lest you think the ag census is equally silly, let me assure you that the reponses provide vital information that factors into a range of decisions, from crafting agricultural policy like the farm bill, to making funds and services available to rural communities. Businesses might use the information to determine the locations of facilities serving agricultural producers, while the farmers and ranchers themselves can use census data to make informed decisions about the future of their own operations. (More ducks, perhaps? Or maybe more geese? Hmmm, let me run around in a circle while I think about it.)

So, when that envelope arrives next week from the government, don't just toss it into recycling. Open it. Look it over. Fill it out. Or grab your Census ID from the mailing and click your way to the online response version.

After all, filling out the ag census is not only a good idea, it's the law (Title 7, U.S. Code), regardless of the size or type of your operation. Fortunately, the same law makes your responses confidential and limits their use to statistical purposes, so no worries that your survey will be passed along to the IRS or your local inspectors.

Instead, think about getting yourself counted so that decision-makers know you're out there. If nothing else, it'll be a great way to spend a cold January evening, right? Right? Um, right?

Census reports are due February 4, 2008.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Animals and Farm Bill and Marketing and Trade and Organic Production and Plants and Crops and Rural Life on December 28, 2007 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

Name:

.....

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Happy Birthday, Oklahoma!

One hundred years ago today Oklahoma became the 46th state in the union.

Like the rest of the Plains states, it has a long and storied agricultural history that includes more than just the Dust Bowl. Today, based on the 2002 Census of Agriculture, Oklahoma ranks ...

• 4th in the nation in the production of all wheat for grain;
• 4th in the production of grain sorghum;
• 5th in cattle and calf production;
• 8th in hogs and pigs;
• 12th in broilers; and
• 17th overall in the value of agricultural products sold.

If you'd like to see how your state stacks up against Oklahoma, just head on over to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service for a state-by-state run-down of the numbers (or to the latest BCS rankings, if you're more interested in the pigskin than the pigs).

For the marketing angle, you won't want to miss the state marketing profiles supplied by the Agricultural Marketing Service, along with the selected marketing and trade resources pulled together by my colleagues here at NAL.

Consider this my birthday present to all you Oklahomans out there, with a little something for the rest of you, too.

And if you find yourself humming a certain Rodgers and Hammerstein tune for the rest of the day, don't blame me. I didn't make it so gosh darn catchy.

Posted by Mary Ann Leonard

Added to Marketing and Trade on November 16, 2007 EST | Permalink

Share your comments

Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.

Name:

.....

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.