If you follow my posts, you know that winter is “meeting season” for Midwest farmers.  Many of the meetings I attend are a two-hour drive from my farm, so I have plenty of windshield time – alone with my thoughts.  I spent a lot of time (probably too much time!), analyzing what I’ve learned from these meetings and thinking about how I can apply this new knowledge to my operation.  I also spend a lot of time in the winter months reading ag-related articles and blog posts.

Yesterday, Shannon Latham’s blog post about how members of the ag community define “technology” differently made me think about the stark contrast between two meetings I’ve recently attended.  Midwest farm leaders gathered at both of these meetings, but their use of technology was totally different.

The AgChat Upper Midwest Regional Conference in February was all about technology, so it was “socially acceptable” for attendees to send Tweets and update their Facebook status throughout the conference.  In fact, it was encouraged!  Sponsors announced the hashtag (#ACFR13), and many speakers began their presentation by telling audience members their Twitter handle.  Presentation topics ranged from how to set up a Twitter account to creating a fan page on Facebook for your farm, and even fine-tuning your blogging skills.  As fellow Franklin County farmer Val Plagge says, “The Upper Midwest Regional Conference was set-up to empower farmers and ranchers to connect communities through social media platforms.”  And that’s really what that did!

Then about two weeks ago I attended the Iowa Ag Leadership Forum, which was really a reunion for alumni of training programs from several groups including: the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Cattlemen’s Association, Iowa Corn Growers Association and Iowa Soybean Association.  The one thing everyone in the room had in common was a desire to share what he/she knows about farming with folks who don’t understand it… or so I thought!

I was proved wrong during a question and answer session led by Erika Poppelreiter (@poppel), a Kansas farmer and representative for the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (@USFRA).  Erika had just given a presentation about the USFRA’s The Food Dialogues: New York, where farmers, ranchers, industry experts, pundits and media tackled some of today’s toughest questions on biotechnology (GMOs), antibiotic use on farms and ranches, and how media and marketing influence “healthy” food choices.

It was then that an Iowa farmer stood up and asked Ericka, “Why should I give a damn about what customers think?”  A brief moment of silence followed.

Most of us were a little slow to come up with the answer for that person, but Erika did respond with an example of what happened with caged layers and the impact that could on of the use of gestation crates.  The end product is still pork (bacon), and it should be up to the producer to determine the best way for him to produce that pork.

If only I would’ve been quicker on my feet!  I would’ve shared this quote with that farmer:

“We as agricultural producers are proud of feeding our world, but that doesn’t go far when the world doesn’t understand how we produce that food.  We must participate in conversations with consumers at every opportunity.  I am proud of the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance for starting these dialogues with both the pro and con sides represented. It’s the only way we can explain our story to others and not just ourselves.” – Barb Determan, a Sioux County Iowa farmer and pork advocate, who served on a panel at The Food Dialogues: New York

Barb mentions that farmers need to share their stories with others besides like-minded individuals.  While I thought farmers were pretty good about preaching to the choir, it appears our work is not done!  Perhaps we need to fine-tune our message, so our fellow producers understand “why” it’s so important for us to share our stories with consumers.

I have given that farmer’s some thought since the Ag Leadership Forum.  In an ideal world, his way of thinking would be great.  It’s just not acceptable today because there are so many groups opposed to certain farming practices.  There is no simple answer.  We must take our message to the rest of the congregation if we want to continue to raise our products in a way that allows us to make a living, free from unnecessary rules and regulations.

“How do we share with consumers what we want them to know?” asked another attendee at the Ag Leaders Forum.  I believe we need to take AgChat to the state level.  Each state’s ag leaders much understand how to communicate, effectively, using today’s technology.  For example, there were only 20 tweets total from the two-day Ag Leader Forum.  I would guess (and this literally a guess because I can’t count them all) there were way more than 20 per hour coming out of the AgChat Convention!

Iowa Farmers lead the nation in production, yet they’re slow to adopt social media for advocacy.

Farmers and ranchers are always looking for a way to do something better.  It is what we do!  Technology has been used from the time early settlers learned from the natives the value of using fish to fertilize crops to farming with smartphones.  It’s time for the masses to adopt communications technology.  I’m not saying social media is the only way. Face-to-face visits go a long ways toward sharing and communicating, but social media really allows us to have a broader reach.

With more consumers curious about where their food comes from and how it’s raised, there is a greater need for more farmers to share their stories.  If you’re a fellow farmer, I encourage you to share your story!

Each year on March 22 the United Nations’ (UN) World Water Day is held to increase people’s awareness of water’s importance in environment, agriculture, health and trade.

Farmers are always aware of the crucial water plays in crop development, and after experiencing the 2012 Drought, we really don’t need to be reminded how a lack of water can impeded crop development.  World Water Day, however, does provide us with a platform to share our story with others outside agriculture.

“My farm received a total of 5 inches of rain between May and October 2012.  Normal annual rainfall is 23 inches, so we’re starting the 2013 growing season with a moisture shortfall,” said April Hemmes, who is speaking today in Washington, D.C., as part of a panel discussion sponsored by the Daugherty Water for Food Institute and the Global Harvest Initiative.  Other panelists include:  Dr. Cathie Woteki, USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics; Mark Svoboda, National Drought Mitigation Center Climatologist, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; and Joel Lipsitch, John Deere Director of Business Integration and Strategy;

Soybean yields averaged 6 bushels per acre (bu/A) lower in 2012 for Hemmes, who has farmed for nearly 30 years just south of Hampton in Franklin County, Iowa.  Her corn yields were reduced by 10 percent, or approximately a net loss of $70 per acre.  When you consider that the average size of an Iowa farm is 333 acres, it’s feasible that each Iowa farm family lost between $11,000 and $23,000 of income due to the 2012 Drought!

“It scares me to think we’re going into the 2013 crop year with almost nothing for moisture,” says Hemmes.  “Moisture is especially important to farmers in my area because we don’t irrigate.  As much as I dislike late season snowfall, I’m thankful for it this year because now we will at least have topsoil moisture to get the crop planted.  If we don’t receive adequate spring rains, however, young plants will suffer more quickly due to a lack of subsoil moisture.”

To help preserve soil moisture last fall, many experts were reminding famers to till less for more water.  Seed selection is even more critical in dry conditions as genetics are the most determining factor in whether or not a corn hybrid can handle drought.  While corn genetics have come a long way over the past decade and are much better at handling drought stress than ever, soybeans historically perform even better in dry weather.

Current weather patterns are likely to play a role in farmers who have yet to finalize their 2013 seed purchases.  Trait packages will likely be especially important this growing season as the 2012 Drought might impact 2013 crops in regard to pressure from weeds, insects and plant disease.  Once the seed is selected, and planters have been calibrated, Iowa State University Corn Specialist Roger Elmore says farmers must go “back to the basics” for seeding depth.

The proposed ban on Rice Krispies® in schools is just one more example of unrealistic rules being created by the Obama administration.  Because Rice Krispies aren’t sugar coated, I had to do some digging to find out what makes them so disagreeable to rule makers.  Here’s what I uncovered:

… the cereal’s first ingredient, refined rice, is neither a vegetable nor a whole grain.  Items have to be one of those categories — or a fruit, dairy product or protein food or a combination that contains at least 1/4 cup of fruit or vegetables. If it’s not one of those, it can slip by if it contains at least 10% of the recommended daily value of calcium, potassium, vitamin D or fiber. But those nutrients have to be naturally occurring. Rice Krispies doesn’t meet that standard either because it’s fortified with vitamins and minerals…  But Baked Lays would pass the test because potatoes are considered vegetables. Fried chips, however, wouldn’t because of their higher percentage of calories from fat.

So, “crisp rice” is neither a whole grain nor a vegetable.  Even though Rice Krispies rates a 57 on the completeness score for nutrition – which I might add is pretty good for a breakfast cereal – new school rules would make Baked Lays a better choice than Rice Krispies for breakfast.

It’s also interesting to note that it will take an additional 926,935 hours per year for local and state administrators to comply with the proposed new school lunch rules.  That’s more than 100 years’ of time!  If these rules get implemented, adding this many more hours to payroll would create even more pressure on belts that have been tightened by budget cuts.

This leads me to the subject that I really want to dig into, which is the federal budget and Sequestration.  My mind is filled with questions:  Where did the USDA get money to research and then propose all these school lunch rules or was a study even conducted?  How were these proposed changed decided and by whom!  From the facts I found through a quick Internet search on “school lunch rules,” and “meat inspector furlough,” I’m also questioning whether USDA officials have even heard of a search engine!

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was quizzed last week by U.S. congressmen.  They asked why he would furlough certain needed workers but not others.  Sec. Vilsack answered that his hands are tied, and he claims the law was written in such a way to make it as drastic as possible.  No leeway?  Really.  I’m not believing it!  If that were the case, Congressmen wouldn’t be questioning Vilsack’s decisions.

Potentially shutting down the meat industry and threating a meat shortages this summer is certainly drastic!  Yet, there are all kinds of other USDA program that seem to be unaffected by sequestration.

In AgriNews on Jan. 23, 2013, Sec. Vilsack talked about the USDA Rural Development’s investments in job creation, businesses, infrastructure and housing in rural communities.  This one arm of the USDA has a portfolio of $176 billion dollars in loans and grants.  Most likely, this budget includes some unessential programs that could be eliminated and a few other programs that could be downsized, so the USDA could cut spending without shutting down the meat industry or causing food safety concerns.

The Inspectors General, a Washington-based watchdog group, points out there is an easy $67 billion to be saved in government spending.  This $67 billion in “rampant waste, fraud and abuse” would cover most of the $85 billion being cut by the sequestration, which is making extremely painful cuts.  Even this cut is such a small part of the yearly spending, that it does not even make a dent in the deficit.

Common sense must be restored!  Please join me in contacting elected officials to let them know how you or your family members – your livelihoods – might be impacted unless they restore sense to school lunches, pass the Farm Bill or end the meat inspector furlough.  As I was reminded this past weekend at the Iowa Ag Leaders Forum, it only takes a handful of constituents to get a legislator’s attention.

“Constituents give truth to what lobbyists are working on and saying,” said Dale Moore, Executive Director of Public Policy for the American Farm Bureau.  Together, we can make a difference!

Guest Blog by Katie Pinke
reprinted, in part, with permission from On the Minds of Moms

As moms, the worldly pressures to feed ourselves and our families the healthiest, most nutritious meals seem to be everywhere: Meals should be homemade. Ingredients should be local. Or is it natural? Organic? These food “buzz” terms may confuse us.

That’s why I have chosen to rid myself of the food guilt mantra and adopted a food choice mantra. Food choice gives me the ability to buy at the grocery store while having a garden. Digging in the dirt clears my mind while teaching our kids a little about raising food, but I don’t want to go back to when my great-great grandma had to produce food in her garden in harsh weather conditions to feed her seven children. Unlike my great-great grandmother, if I don’t get the canning or freezing done, I can go to my local grocery store where a plethora of luscious food awaits.

The food in our grocery store is seasonal. It’s not always local, as in grown in my community or even in my state. But “local” is relative. We will never grow strawberries in the winter in North Dakota, and I don’t know any American banana farmers. But supporting different types of farmers gives us food choices. Food choices mean I can buy any food that fits the latest trend word, but I don’t have to.

Through ridding myself of mommy food guilt, I have developed guidelines for my food choices. Not rules, only guidelines, as I cannot always follow them. I support local options first.  But when I need a mango, I buy it. I purchase the mango at my local grocery store and know supporting a locally-owned business impacts my small town. I also buy some local meat from state inspected meat processors.

Where I am located, deep in the prairies of North Dakota, supporting food choice means helping support 32,000 farm and ranch families. Agriculture is North Dakota’s number one industry, employing roughly 25% of our state. North Dakota produces 46 different crops and livestock from honey to canola to beef to potatoes; North Dakota leads the nation in the production of 14 of the crops grown.

North Dakota is the number one producer of dry edible beans. Throw a few cans of beans into chili. It’s local. It’s nutritious. It’s a fast, easy solution to a family meal. Plus, you are supporting North Dakota farmers. Not only are you supporting local farmers, you are supporting a local grocery store and feeding your family. What a gift we have of food grown and raised in our own backyard!

The Upper Midwest is the foundation of food choices. That’s why I am not advocating for any particular food choice. I am advocating for choice. Period. Food choice is a beautiful freedom and luxury we have and one that billions globally never see. Rid yourself of mommy food guilt and relish in the choices you have to give you and your family the most nutritious, healthy and often easy food choices!