Why our annual Farm Journal planning meetings...

Are so painful for this engineer: we talk about design, and graphics, and style.
EEE-yewww.

But apparently that kind of stuff can make or break a magazine since this book you DO judge by the cover. And when our own Dairy Today made a big splash with their cover, it reinforced the point.

A magazine is that rare publication in which you're actually expected to judge a book by its cover. This explains why a good magazine cover — like a good book jacket or, say, a poster — benefits enormously from a great, central, visual idea, which is one reason why portraits are so ideally suited to covers. This is perhaps particularly true of fashion and lifestyle magazines — things like Vanity Fair and Vogue — publications that typically enlist a celebrity's likeness to help sell magazines. With such an unbeaten formula for success, clearly the barnyard is the next logical step. Or is it? Unlike their consumer counterparts, trade magazines aren't obliged to sell themselves in quite the same full-frontal manner. They're not competing for the same kind of attention in a dense visual marketplace. Their circulation is mail-driven — not newsstand-driven — but does this mean they don't deserve the same attention to scale, drama, impact? D.J. Stout's recent redesign for Dairy Today reminds us that a good magazine cover depends less on a magazine's circulation and content, and perhaps more on the art director's imagination and skill. But you're nothing without a star. Some years ago, I wrote an essay on the uncredited art directors of trade magazines, in which I went to great lengths to learn more about — of all things — poultry farming. When I saw the new and improved "Dairy" I wondered: beyond the white background and the big nameplate and that exquisite bovine mug, what was so different from those magazines of long ago? [More for you art history majors]

My observation is putting a cute chick on the cover is never a bad idea.

[via 2 blowhards]

How agrarian ag might work...

If you read my book review from last night, you might find this counterpoint interesting. By linking two seemingly unrelated events - $100 oil and Castro stepping down - one can construct a scenario that would make a return to agrarian farming a dominant part of our industry.

19 February 2008 was an historic day. For the first time in history, the price of oil at the close of the U.S. markets sat above $100. Ok, it was by only a penny, but that penny was probably the most significant penny anyone's see in years. And when you consider that in 2006 the U.S. consumed just over 20 million barrels of oil everyday, those pennies start to add up pretty quickly. The other major news event of the day was of course the announcement by Fidel Castro that he will step down from his top position in Cuba after nearly 50 years. The announcement received wide attention, but after years of frail health the news was not as surprising as it would have been not so long ago. Two events, forecasted for years, finally came to fruition. At first blush, the two seem utterly distinct, totally separate and unrelated events. It is true there is no causal relationship (unless someone knows something I don't), but there is a more subtle, deeper connection between the two.

For years I've listened to scientists and economists, one after another, pronounce that nothing can, nothing will be done to move our society past its addition to oil until said oil reached $100 a barrel. Well, that day has arrived. I'm just wondering what it will mean? Should I start preparing my landlady's roof for solar panels? Can I expect a new, faster, more efficient mass transit system to shuttle me around Philadelphia, to my family back in Latrobe, or to meetings and conferences around the country? Does this mean we Americans will have to finally face the fact that our current consumption habits are simply unsustainable, and that these higher costs will finally force us to reconsider our lifestyles? Is the new post-petroleum age upon us? [More]

Analyzing what happened to Cuban food production after the fall of the Soviet Union provides at least some insights into conditions that might force a rethinking of our industrial ag sector.

The American model of agriculture is pretty much what people mean when they talk about the Green Revolution: high-yielding crop varieties, planted in large monocultures, bathed in the nurturing flow of petrochemicals, often supported by government subsidy, designed to offer low-priced food in sufficient quantity to feed billions. Despite its friendly moniker, many environmentalists and development activists around the planet have grown to despair about everything the Green Revolution stands for. Like Pretty, they propose a lowercase greener counterrevolution: endlessly diverse, employing the insights of ecology instead of the brute force of chemistry, designed to feed people but also keep them on the land. And they have some allies even in the rich countries—that's who fills the stalls at the farmers' markets blooming across North America.

But those farmers' markets are still a minuscule leaf on the giant stalk of corporate agribusiness, and it's not clear that, for all the paeans to the savor of a local tomato, they'll ever amount to much more. Such efforts are easily co-opted—when organic produce started to take off, for instance, industrial growers soon took over much of the business, planting endless monoculture rows of organic lettuce that in every respect, save the lack of pesticides, mirrored all the flaws of conventional agriculture. (By some calculations, the average bite of organic food at your supermarket has traveled even farther than the 1,500-mile journey taken by the average bite of conventional produce.) That is to say, in a world where we're eager for the lowest possible price, it's extremely difficult to do anything unconventional on a scale large enough to matter.

And it might be just as hard in Cuba were Cuba free. I mean, would Salcines be able to pay sixty-four people to man his farm or would he have to replace most of them with chemicals? If he didn't, would his customers pay higher prices for his produce or would they prefer lower-cost lettuce arriving from California's Imperial Valley? Would he be able to hold on to his land or would there be some more profitable use for it? For that matter, would many people want to work on his farm if they had a real range of options? In a free political system, would the power of, say, pesticide suppliers endanger the government subsidy for producing predatory insects in local labs? Would Cuba not, in a matter of several growing seasons, look a lot like the rest of the world? Does an organopónico depend on a fixed ballot?

There's clearly something inherently destructive about an authoritarian society—it's soul-destroying, if nothing else. Although many of the Cubans I met were in some sense proud of having stood up to the Yanquis for four decades, Cuba was not an overwhelmingly happy place. Weary, I'd say. Waiting for a more normal place in the world. And poor, much too poor. Is it also possible, though, that there's something inherently destructive about a globalized free-market society—that the eternal race for efficiency, when raised to a planetary scale, damages the environment, and perhaps the community, and perhaps even the taste of a carrot? Is it possible that markets, at least for food, may work better when they're smaller and more isolated? The next few decades may be about answering that question. It's already been engaged in Europe, where people are really debating subsidies for small farmers, and whether or not they want the next, genetically modified, stage of the Green Revolution, and how much it's worth paying for Slow Food. It's been engaged in parts of the Third World, where in India peasants threw out the country's most aggressive free-marketeers in the last election, sensing that the shape of their lives was under assault. Not everyone is happy with the set of possibilities that the multinational corporate world provides. People are beginning to feel around for other choices. The world isn't going to look like Cuba—Cuba won't look like Cuba once Cubans have some say in the matter. But it may not necessarily look like Nebraska either. [More of an excellent article about Cuban agriculture]

Could such a combination of factors arise here? It is less unthinkable that it used to be. But the absolute drop-off in oil experienced by Cubans is unlikely to occur in the US. But even if it is more gradual, the agrarian portion of US ag could become the hot growing portion, capturing more and more market share.

Another reason to be glad I'm getting older - those types of changes are not that easy. And I think we'll need some younger minds and bodies to make such a shift.

Credit crunch update...

Just a quick story that I think points out one emerging headache that was not well thought out on the downside by lenders eager to securitize mortgages.

Judges in at least five states have stopped foreclosure proceedings because the banks that pool mortgages into securities and the companies that collect monthly payments haven't been able to prove they own the mortgages. The confusion is another headache for U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as he revises rules for packaging mortgages into securities.

``I think it's going to become pretty hairy,'' said Josh Rosner, managing director at the New York-based investment research firm Graham Fisher & Co. ``Regulators appear to have ignored this, given the size and scope of the problem.''

More than $2.1 trillion, or 19 percent, of outstanding mortgages have been bundled into securities by private banks, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a Bethesda, Maryland-based industry newsletter. Those loans may be sold several times before they land in a security. Mortgage servicers, who collect monthly payments and distribute them to securities investors, can buy and sell the home loans many times. [More]

The fallout from this could likely affect the depth of the stack of paper you'll sign for your next loan. I've already gone from 3 to 8 pages for my operating loan. Who knows where we could be heading?

Friday Deep Thoughts...

I taken decades of flack because of my SF viewing habits. But if you want to understand something about leadership, study these Seven Habits of Highly Effective Spaceship Captains:

1. The Prime Directive is just a suggestion. Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the Enterprise wasn't as swashbuckling as he predecessor Captain James T. Kirk, simply because he actually wrestled with breaking the Prime Directive instead of ignoring it entirely. The Prime Directive states that humans shouldn't involve themselves in the affairs of less developed planets, for fear of messing up their cultures with ultra-advanced tech. While Picard often considers the importance of the Prime Directive in his decision-making, he refuses to be bound by it. Lesson learned? Rules are made to be broken. [More stellar advice]

Live long and prosper.

Local food, global miscalculations...



[I know, I know - I said I would get this book review up about twenty times before and it was due a month ago. This whole deal is turning into fourth grade all over again. Just be glad I'm not just paraphrasing the book jacket. Which I didn't do then either.]

Animal, Vegetable, Miracle - A Year of Food Life by Barbara Kingsolver

There is a tide in the food culture and writers like Kingsolver and Michael Pollan surf it better than almost anyone. Whether its the loss of connection predicted by Putnam due to the passing of the WWII generation, or general dissatisfaction with modern lifestyles, many of us with ample disposable incomes have decided the problem is our food.

I mention Pollan, because at time AVM reads like his latest report from the frontlines of getting in touch with our calories - Omnivore's Dilemma. To unfairly summarize, our food supply, in their opinions, has been hijacked by poor nutrition choices and the profit motive.

Given the considerable talents of both, their powers of persuasion are not to be dismissed lightly. And the criticisms of our food system are for the most part on target: we eat too much of the wrong food, we eat too much prepared foods and miss the power of food preparation as a human activity, we have lost any linkages with where food comes from.

Perversely, that last complaint often spouts from self-appointed ag-spokespersons. Only they are referring to veneration of farmers and public dollars for subsidies, whereas modern food writers like Kingsolver are correctly labeling the unfortunate lack of understanding of how much better our eating and living could be if we respected the processes of nature and traditions of cultures in food preparation and enjoyment.

Kingsolver's premise was to eat local for a year, growing and consuming as much as possible from her own garden and neighborhood. Her account is masterfully told, albeit interrupted by poorly informed little sermons from her college daughter. Like Pollan, Kinglsover brings enormous literary talent to bear on her arguments against CAFO's, HFCS, vegetables from California in January, and the now-familiar litany of foodie-complaints.

She also includes some highly dubious or flat out false statistics: "fewer than a third of our farms are run by families"; "An estimated 67 million birds die each year from pesticide exposure on US farms." [Some context - that would work out to about 1/5 bird per acre of cropland. US bird population best guess I could find = 5000 million (5B) birds. If pesticide loss is true, which is very unlikely, it would be a little over 1% loss]"

Any verbiage about GM crops is long since disproven (butterflies and GM pollen) or simply mistaken.

Surprisingly, I agree with many of her points about food itself. Thanks to a master gardener roommate, I have discovered that maybe I do like fresh, in-season vegetables after all. I throw out the tomato-like impostors that add neither taste nor texture to winter salads and wait to eat in season. And I consume far less meat, and prefer poultry dark meat as the only part of modern birds with any hint of flavor or juiciness in them.

All these choices however, are made possible because of my relatively considerable disposable income, ample room for gardens, and (I think I should have mentioned this first) a spouse who loves to cook and garden, and who doesn't have to commute and hold down a job so we can have health insurance. In short, better food choices are easier to make if you're well-to-do.

Kingsolver dances neatly around this unmentionable truth. In fact, she works studiously to avoid offering any advice as to how others who don't have a husband with tenure and time, and an author's schedule could duplicate her year of food improvement.

Since she is living in a small rural community, understanding of farm life flows into her by osmosis and via the agrarian gurus at the Temple (AKA the farmer's market). She is where things grow, ergo she understands growing things. And this is where her masterful prose goes to strange places.

For example, in her long-winded but poetic lamentation for the loss of tiny, picturesque farms she bizarrely rambles toward embracing the virtues of tobacco, since it was that high value crop that made 20 acres enough to support a family.

""Yes, I do know people who've died wishing they'd never seen a cigarette. Yes, it's a plant that causes cancer after a long line of people (postfarmer) have specifically altered and abused it. [Is she saying we should have stuck with peace pipes and all would have been well?] And yes, it takes chemicals to keep blue mold off the crop. But it sends people to college. It makes house payments, buys shoes, and pays doctor bills."

Kingsolver is so intensely focused on personal enjoyment and meaning in food and the well-lived, self-absorbed agrarian life she cannot fathom the consequences of her conclusions on a globe that includes a few more people than her family.

I also came to realize Kingsolver was sadly and embarrassingly innumerate. She cannot handle this simplest math problem and hence wisely and completely ignores the economic implications of her conclusions about what our food should be and how we should grow and consume it. I think it was this sentence that tipped me off:

"In 2005, ten years after the program began, participating family farms collectively sold $236,000 worth of organic vegetables to regional retailers and supermarkets, which those markets, in turn, sold to consumers for nearly $0.3 million."

Umm, would that be the same as "nearly $300,000", I wonder? Or a markup of about 25% from wholesale. But then $0.3 million sounds so much bigger. Say it out loud and see.

Another example is this extraordinarily ill-informed tax commentary concerning shipping food from places like California.

"It's hard to believe, given the amount of truck fuel involved, but transportation is tax-deductible for the corporations, so we taxpayers paid for that shipping."

Let's go through that little gem of illogic slowly. Tax-deductible does not equal government funded. When I can get a tax credit equal to my fuel bill, then taxpayers will be paying for the shipping. And oddly enough, transportation expenses are allowable tax-deductible expenses for individuals, not just corporations. For instance, authors can deduct plane fares to go on a book tours - just to pick an example at random.

Besides, as the Kiwis demonstrated convincingly, the food miles concept is arithmetically suspect because of the staggering efficiencies of bulk shipping and handling.

But the real killer problem for the local food movement is not the concept that it is better food. In many ways they are dead right. It is that local food is not scalable. In other words, when Kingsolver writes that 70% of Americans live within striking distance of a farmer's market, she leaves the impression that the 210 million individuals could a) all go to one easily and b) find something there to buy.

I stand by my previous conclusion after doing the math: "If we all shopped at farmer markets, where would we park?"

Kingsolver, Pollan, et al. think they understand history and find traditional agrarian methodology vastly superior to industrial agriculture. But no actual numbers demonstrate how our modern food system could be much different if we are serious about getting food to 300,000,000 souls every day. The fact that virtuous agrarian agriculture is a small part of the food industry is blamed on base motives, corporate greed, and sadly misled simpleton consumers. I believe it's because agrarian production is a niche activity that can't begin to carry that kind of load.

Take a business course, people! Then come up with a production, distribution, and retail system that does what ours does at the same cost and I'll bet it looks pretty similar.

But I digress. Kingsolver does scrupulously document the time and costs of her year-long experiment and the wonderful benefits it clearly bestowed on her family. She simply cannot make a credible case for how that example could be adapted to families without access to land in a temperate climate, transportation, or comfortable, secure income.

Local food is a wonderful idea to improve your eating and our world. The idea and people like Kingsolver are going to have a significant effect on industrial food production. But, it is also a luxury good.

Why the pothole problem could stay bad...

This year seems to be a prodigious pothole production event. And it's a major pain all over the country.

Even though I try to be very careful on my road when it's soft, we do have grain to move. And even in ideal conditions (warm, dry) increasingly heavy trucks and equipment take a toll on under-engineered rural roads.

In fact, there is a pothole on the way to Cargill in Dana (IN) Jan and I know as "The Mouth of Hell". We have pet names for some of the smaller ones too, but this abyss is as horrifying as it it impossible to totally avoid.

The entire stretch badly needs repaving, but here is where the seemingly distant credit crisis comes home to your neighborhood. You see, it's not just about super-rich people bleeding cash, it's about the ability to fix roads and bridges.

"Without affordable funding, projects don't get built, streets don't get repaved," Leighton said. "It affects the people driving on those roads and the people paving those roads." The credit crisis that began in the subprime mortgage market last year has now spread to municipal bonds. Governments and public authorities face steep increases in borrowing costs because investors are losing confidence in the credit markets and the companies that insure the debt. Public officials nationwide are now weighing whether to restructure their debt to lower rates - if they have good enough credit ratings - or to ride out the storm with the hope that investors will return. However, some are concerned they may have to raise taxes or cut services to balance their budgets. [More]

So if you need a new school/underpass/road in your neighborhood, the price is escalating. You don't just evaporate trillions of dollars without the pain getting spread around.

Maybe we should be extra-thoughtful about when we load up and hit the road this year.

Maybe I'm wrong...

Hardly a news flash, huh? When I was in Canada I spoke with some young ag communications students who had attended my presentation. One of them said my presentation was inspirational. My reaction was close to offense, although I'm pretty sure she saw it as an attempt at least at modesty.

I have never wanted to be lumped into that category, and frankly find the motivation industry to be pretty dang shallow. I feel they manipulate people emotionally (which I despise), and yet find myself reminded constantly in my research how important it is to respect our "old" brain - which is basically our emotional center.

I hope to do this in a way that at least has some respectable and defensible hard data, preferably with pie charts and linear regression. But the deeper we probe into how we decide and choose to act, into how we plan and the effect of those plans, and especially into how important it is to connect with those around in our lives and our value chain, the less goofy some of these guys sound.

I'm not talking about the speaker-circuit fire-walkers or goopy self-help guru/authors, but people who can touch our emotions in a delicate and honest manner to help us change our lives for the better.

So when a friend sent me this link, I checked it out and decided to post it. Make of it what you will, but it can't offend or diminish your life, I'm sure. And if you decide I'm getting old and sloppily sentimental, I think I'm OK with that too. This won't happen very often.



[Thanks, Dave]

Do not adjust your set...

The "Recent Comments" has disappeared (at least for me). Me not know why.

Men working....

New, improved ways to lose lots of money...

While the subprime/CDO fiasco has simmered to a slightly slower train wreck, another even more abstruse financial storm may be brewing: credit default swaps (CDS). [Late note: this didn't help much either.]

I know - say what? I've been working on this post for a coupla weeks, and still barely comprehend the scope and intricacy of the issue. [Feel free to add corrections/criticisms, gang] Let's start with the basics.

A credit default swap (CDS) is a bilateral contract under which two counterparties agree to isolate and separately trade the credit risk of at least one third-party reference entity. Under a credit default swap agreement, a protection buyer pays a periodic fee to a protection seller in exchange for a contingent payment by the seller upon a credit event (such as a default or failure to pay) happening in the reference entity. When a credit event is triggered, the protection seller either takes delivery of the defaulted bond for the par value (physical settlement) or pays the protection buyer the difference between the par value and recovery value of the bond (cash settlement).

Credit default swaps resemble an insurance policy, as they can be used by debt owners to hedge, or insure against credit events such as a default on a debt obligation. However, because there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer a loss, credit default swaps can be used to speculate on changes in credit spread.

Credit default swaps are the most widely traded credit derivative product[1]. The typical term of a credit default swap contract is five years, although being an over-the-counter derivative, credit default swaps of almost any maturity can be traded. [More, and it doesn't get any easier]

This already complex instrument rose in popularity as things were booming. But the growth has been phenomenal. The NYT does a good job of explaining the problem.

The market for these securities is enormous. Since 2000, it has ballooned from $900 billion to more than $45.5 trillion — roughly twice the size of the entire United States stock market.

No one knows how troubled the credit swaps market is, because, like the now-distressed market for subprime mortgage securities, it is unregulated. But because swaps have proliferated so rapidly, experts say that a hiccup in this market could set off a chain reaction of losses at financial institutions, making it even harder for borrowers to get loans that grease economic activity. [More of a superb article, with cartoon to help guys like me]

[Update 2/22: The $45T figure may be overstated. See a another opinion here.]
Like the CDO problem, nobody knows exactly what the meltdown could look like. But the effect for agriculture could be felt in at least two ways I think.

First, the Farm Credit System could have a harder time selling their bonds which in turn fund your operating/real estate loans. They also have some exposure (note the word "some") to CDS's.

The total amount of credit default swaps in use by the Farm Credit System is unknown, although, for the year ending December 31, 2006, the Funding Corporation stated, "we have reduced the credit risk of some real estate mortgage loans by entering into agreements that provide long-term standby commitments to purchase System loans and other credit guarantees, including credit default swaps. The amount of loans under credit guarantees was $3.2 billion at December 31, 2006 and$3.6 billion at December 31, 2005. [More]

With their unique status and relatively small needs, FCS would probably be one of the last bond originators to take a serious hit, but this can't be a good thing for them.

A particularly pessimistic, but well-documented opinion on the whole problem borders on the whimperingly-scary:

$45 trillion bet on swaps with the entire treasury market is a mere $4 trillion is simply absurd. Compounding the problem is lack of knowledge abut who the guarantors are and lack of liquidity in much of the derivatives market. There's always plenty of liquidity when times are good. However, liquidity is a coward. It runs and hides at the first sign of trouble.

Things are so illiquid now that even the municipal bond market has locked up. Insurance guarantees made by Ambac and MBIA are at the heart of it. See No Underwriter Support For Failed Muni Auctions.

Credit Default Swaps on Ambac and MBIA are trading 7 or more levels below investment grade (deep into junk) and 12-14 levels below the AAA or AA ratings assigned by Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P. Clearly this calls into question the competency of the rating agencies.

Banks and brokerages are unwilling to commit capital and who can blame them?

* No one knows what anything is really worth because there is no market at all for some of these securities.
* Banks and brokerage houses are afraid of a downgrade of Ambac and MBIA because it might require as much as $200 Billion more in capital to be raised.
* Mark to fantasy models have too much stuff on the books at unrealistic prices.
* No one trusts the ratings put out by Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P.
* Fears of counterparty failures are in everyone's minds.

Credit default swaps are going to blow sky high. If 10% of credit default swaps blow up, it would wipe out $4.5 trillion in capital. A mere 1% hit would wipe out $450 billion. We don't know when, but we do know the fuse is lit. [More of a view I don't fully share, but find credible nonetheless]

Second, as the staggering reality of the risks we have been blithely discounting in the Big Money arena become horrifying apparent, frightened and/or singed investors could fall in love with harder assets: commodities (especially gold) and the only strong player in the real estate sector: farmland.

While I think pressure from 1031 swaps has eased, the pure investment play for land is another story. This would seem to jibe with admittedly anecdotal evidence of insurance money flooding back into farm loans and demand for large tracts from land brokers.

The most worrisome aspect of this is the same problem we are having in the commodity pits - the sheer volume of cash dwarfs the assets available. Keep in mind that you can buy every acre of farmland in the US for about $2T. Now compare that to the numbers above.

My advice: do whatever is possible not to let land go to public sale. Talk to landowners about the importance of local, farmer ownership, and calculate carefully what your planning horizon is. Short term (your lifetime) may eliminate you from considering a purchase. But I would seriously contemplate devoting two generations of work - and (gasp) sacrifice - to establish a secure base for a third.

It's official - finally!!...

USFR and AgDay are on satellite (well, real soon). The Press release from FJ:

AgDay and U.S. Farm Report Expand Distribution to DIRECTV

Philadelphia, PA – February 19, 2008

Farm Journal Electronic Media (FJEM), the broadcast division of Farm Journal Media, announced today an agreement with DIRECTV to add satellite carriage of its national TV programs. Beginning March 10th, AgDay will be seen weekdays on DIRECTV Channel 225 from 8:00-8:30 a.m. EST, and U.S. Farm Report on Saturdays from 8:00-9:00 a.m. EST.
"In an effort to better serve our farm and rural audiences, we are thrilled to add nearly 17-million DIRECTV subscribers with great access to our programs," says FJEM General Manager Brian Conrady. "More and more, our core ag viewers are making the switch to satellite, so the timing is perfect for a DIRECTV launch."
AgDay and U.S. Farm Report are both targeted to commercial farmers, rural landowners, and consumers interested in the country way of life. As two of America’s longest-running syndicated shows, the programs are viewed weekly by more than 1.5 million households (Nielsen).
“This new platform also gives us a place where we can easily and quickly launch new programming," says Jeff Pence, President of Farm Journal Digital Media. "Along with adding yet another convenient time and place for viewers, our advertising clients will have new and unique opportunities to reach this targeted audience with expanded messages - or even their own programs adjacent to ours. Farm Journal Media will leverage all of its multi-media channels and touch points across agriculture to let everyone know they can now find AgDay and U.S. Farm Report on DIRECTV Channel 225.”
DIRECTV carriage will be fully incremental to the existing broadcast syndication networks. AgDay is carried by more than 130 stations nationwide, and U.S. Farm Report by nearly 190 stations. Both programs are also viewed heavily on www.AgDay.com, www.USFarmReport.com, and on www.AgWeb.com.



About Farm Journal Media:
Farm Journal Media is the nation’s leading agricultural media company. Its magazines are the 131-year-old flagship Farm Journal, as well as Top Producer, Beef Today, Dairy Today, and Beef Business Journal. Farm Journal Electronic Media includes AgDay and U.S. Farm Report television programs. Its gateway website is AgWeb.com, The Homepage of Agriculture. Farm Journal Media also publishes the Pro Farmer family of newsletters, produces numerous live events, offers custom publishing services and provides extensive database services.

For more information contact:
Farm Journal Media
Brian Conrady
Phone: 574.631.1302
Email: bconrady@farmjournal.com

BTW - interesting fact: DIRECTV and Dish are illegal in Canada (not enough curling, I think). Found that out last night in Ontario. I dunno, I suppose they have some kinda satellite police. Those guys put up with a lot for universal health care.

How to get DIRECTV: click here.

Some advice from a long time subscriber: I prefer TiVo to the DIRECTV DVR, by a long shot. DTV used to offer TiVo but dropped it last year, I think. There may be something coming on that front, so ask before you buy.

Why doesn't Illinois...

Have one of these?

Most excellently cool.

[via MeFi]

Inflation data point #27...

China.

China's inflation accelerated to the quickest pace in more than 11 years after the worst snowstorms in half a century disrupted food supplies.

Consumer prices rose 7.1 percent in January from a year earlier, the statistics bureau said today, after gaining 6.5 percent in December. That was more than the 7 percent median estimate of 23 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.

Food prices soared 18 percent after blizzards paralyzed transport systems and destroyed crops. The government faces the challenge of curbing inflation without derailing the expansion of the world's fastest-growing major economy. [More]

This bears watching. Their economy matters at least as much as the US today, I think, because measured in Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) they are gaining fast. Moreover, everybody and their uncle are betting on Chinese growth for their economic future.

John's World: Your best resource...

For all things political. Some helpful definitions for those of you confused by political rhetoric:

ballot: An object recording a voter's decision that is frequently counted toward an election's outcome.

debate: A contest to see which candidate can answer the fewest questions.

democracy: A moderately representative plutocracy.

electoral college: A process by which the number of states in the Union is narrowed down to the most important seven or eight.

lobbyist: A better-paid legislator.

[Even more and better stuff here]

This should clear things up for many of you.

[via andrewsullivan]

I don't get the PR strategy here...

I am fascinated by the idea of trying to shoot down a satellite as it falls out of orbit.

If a missile launched by the Navy succeeds in taking out the bus-sized satellite as streaks across the sky 150 miles up, it will be one of the longest shots ever.

But the Navy is pretty confident it won't miss. In fact, the Navy has decided to go with only one ship instead of the three it originally planned to send out on the mission. [More]

Opinions vary on the political wisdom of this attempt. But at the risk of being seen as a jealous submariner, one small question:

What if we miss?

I'm not the only nervous Nellie either.

The good news is: The government has a plan. The bad news is: The government has a plan. It involves shooting missiles into space with the hope of blowing the satellite to smithereens, a technical term for "very small reens."

Experts say there is an 80 percent chance of success. While that sounds pretty good on the surface, we are talking about a 5,000-pound paperweight here, and if my math is right, there is still a 40 percent chance it could wrinkle my rhododendrons.

A Navy missile known as "Standard Missile 3" will be used to shoot the satellite before it crashes. Wouldn't we all feel better if the missile was called "Interceptor" or "Sure Shot" or "Satellite Annihilator"? Somehow, I get the impression "Standard Missile 3" has the words "ACME ROCKET CO." printed on the side.

As confident as the government seems to be, I noticed in a related story that the members of the space shuttle crew hastily are packing their bags to get out of the satellite space-vicinity before the shooting starts. The astronauts were quoted as saying: "We just waxed the shuttle and promised NASA we'd bring it home without any smithereens stuck in it." [More of an irreverent , albeit humorous essay here]

But seriously, folks. By broadcasting this plan widely, the stakes are now high for US military prestige and the Navy in particular.

It could be the Navy is feeling slightly left out in recent years. The Army and Marine Corps. are stretched to the max and showered with resources (and medals). Even the loathsome flyboys (USAF) are seen as essential to supporting the troops. But since we stopped "shocking and awing", the workload for Naval air and ships has been much lower and definitely lower down the news chain.

With budgets always problematic the ol' USN needs a winner image, and I think they are betting a serious part of the farm on a showy display of firepower. A safer route would have been to shoot the rascal down and then start bragging.

I hope it works, for whatever reason it is being planned. But given the Chinese success at a similar mission, it better.

Kids today, yadda, yadda...

I was enjoying Moe Russel's presentation to the IFAO this morning. While he and I are in different parts of the spectrum on some issues like land ownership, he make a powerful case for his analyses of farm profitability.

One point that hit home for me was how attracting, developing and retaining the best people possible could soon be more important than capital, if it is not already. [In the past two weeks, as plans for my son Aaron to return to the farm have become concrete, I awake every day to unforeseen advantages and possibilities his education, experience and energy can add to the farm (and our lives). I think Jan and I have been undervaluing this happy future both to prevent being disappointed and because we simply had not thought it through enough.]

But the trouble is the people we need and are adding aren't sensible 50-somethings. They are (shudder) young people with silly ideas that don't agree with Baby Boomer Holy Writ. We're not the only business struggling to manage these entirely-too-energetic yahoos. So maybe we should extract some lessons from what other industries are learning.

5. Don't conceal, communicate. Young people in business today crave feedback and interaction with their peers and managers, more so than previous generations did. When researchers at professional staffing firm Hudson (HHGP) conducted a survey of 2,000 employees, they found striking differences between generations in their attitudes toward their bosses and co-workers. Twenty-five percent of workers who fall into the Gen Y category consider it important to get feedback from their bosses at least once a week. However, only 11% of baby boomers desire that level of communication. Young employees also want greater social interaction with their peers and supervisors. Maintain an open, consistent dialogue and you will win their loyalty.

Young people fall into a category I call the "EmpowerME Generation" because that is exactly what they are asking from their employers—to be empowered. The 2008 election is proving that young people can be engaged when they feel as though they are making a difference. The same holds true in the workplace. [More of a very helpful article]

Agriculture has tradtionally valued people the same way as draft horses. We admired more than anything "the good worker". As the physical load plummets in farming, we'd better start recruiting for other reasons than being able to stay in the tractor saddle for 18 hours straight. Hard work is now just one criteria.

More importantly we'd better upgrade our management savvy if we want to optimize our return on good people, IMHO.

Fewer stores as well...

We've heard plenty about the housing slowdown. And the data is starting to become real in the form of layoffs and plant idling. But that's not all that is slowing down in the construction biz.

Retail space demand is being hit by a triple whammy.

And supply is up. This decade's build­ing frenzy produced a bumper crop of new retail space—from McStrip malls built near new McMansions to hip new bou­tiques in the ground floors of hip new Mi­ami condo buildings. But the occupants for new retail space haven't ma­terialized. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the national retail-vacancy rate rose for the 11th straight quarter to 7.5 percent, the highest level since 1996, according to research firm Reis Inc. With new projects coming online—34 million square feet of retail space will be completed in 2008—the rate is expected to climb further to 8 percent. In the parlance of the trade, many chains are simply over-stored. [More]

Now add in the relentless expansion of on-line retailing, and consumer spending jitters, and I think we have a decade or so breather from 1031 money flowing our from shopping malls into our farmland market.

Farmers may take this opportunity to increase their market share of farmland ownership. I hope so. It is farmowners who decide who gets to farm - not farmers.

All climate change, all the time...

Any of my posts on climate change seems to provoke serious comment by those who hold an opposing view. Luckily, we're not the only bunch of people having this exchange.

Check out this website.

(I think a good rule would be to read one from Column A and one from Column B.)

It used to be such a nice country...

I tried to get into Canada today to speak to the Innovative Farmers Association of Ontario. I remembered to bring my passport. But when I got to the border dude the conversation went something like this:
Why are you coming to Canada?
To speak at a meeting in London.
What kind of meeting?
Farmers.
What about?
About the boom in grain farming and what it might mean for the future?
Are you being paid?
Yes.
How much?
Excuse me?
How much are you being paid?
Umm, $XXX
One moment.
(Closes the window)
(Opens window)
Take this ticket and go talk to immigration (gives directions)

In the immigration office:
Why are you speaking to Canadian farmers?
They invited me. They watch US Farm Report and read my blog, I think.
Take a seat, we'll call you after some checking.

(About 5 minutes later)
You can go. Give this paper to the officer at your car.

Weird, no? According to my hosts, the Canadian government doesn't want "furriners" coming into do jobs Canadians could be doing.

Their suggested "right answer": I'm going to look at a planter.

No, I'm not making this up.

Food science takes a giant step...

Sideways. Behold the Col-Pop


Chicken nuggets on top, soda underneath. Why didn't I think of that?

[via RGS]

Switching the lights...

Jan and I have been replacing the lights in our homes with compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL). I'm almost used to the half-second delay when you turn the switch on. And after they warm up (about 3 minutes I would guess) they are just as bright and warm as incandescent.

But I had concerns:

• I needed larger ones than I could find at Home Depot (200-300 Watt equivalent). Solution.
• I needed dimmable bulbs for a few places in the house. Solution
  
• I had read about the mercury issues.

On the last question, I found a helpful article from Green Lantern (my favorite comic hero*)

But what about the mercury? The toxic heavy metal is integral to the design of current CFL bulbs: Electricity agitates the mercury molecules, causing them to emit ultraviolet light. That light then spurs a bulb's phosphor coating to give off visible light. But the amount contained in each bulb is barely enough to cover the tip of a ballpoint pen, and won't cause any bodily harm as long as simple precautions are taken. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has voluntarily imposed a limit of 5 milligrams per bulb on all CFLs sold in the United States—about 1 percent of the mercury contained in an old home thermometer. Since manufacturers are well aware that health fears are preventing the widespread adoption of CFLs, most have committed to making bulbs with even less mercury than NEMA's standard. The average CFL bulb now contains around 4 milligrams of mercury, and that figure should drop closer to 2 milligrams in the very near future. Much of the credit for these reductions goes to Wal-Mart, which has pressured GE, Royal Phillips, and Osram Sylvania to cut down on the quicksilver. [More]

This is an easy step to lower electric bills and save energy. Not cheap - but getting cheaper all the time.

[* Can you still recite the Oath?]

How to worry better...

I do seminars entitled "What are the odds? - A guide to better worrying" and this article summarizes many of the same points I came up with in my research.

IV. No Pesticide in My Backyard—Unless I Put it There

We prefer that which (we think) we can control.

If we feel we can control an outcome, or if we choose to take a risk voluntarily, it seems less dangerous, says David Ropeik, a risk consultant. "Many people report that when they move from the driver's seat to the passenger's seat, the car in front of them looks closer and their foot goes to the imaginary brake. You're likely to be less scared with the steering wheel in your hand, because you can do something about your circumstances, and that's reassuring." Could explain why your mother always criticizes your driving.

The false calm a sense of control confers, and the tendency to worry about dangers we can't control, explains why when we see other drivers talking on cell phones we get nervous but we feel perfectly fine chatting away ourselves. Similarly, because homeowners themselves benefit if they kill off bugs that are destroying their lawns, people fear insecticide less if they are using it in their own backyard than if a neighbor uses the same chemical in the same concentration, equally close to them. The benefits to us reduce the level of fear. "Equity is very important," says Slovic, and research shows that if people who bear the risk also get the benefit, they tend to be less concerned about it.

Understanding why people have irrational fears is more helpful than scorning their illogic. The same farmer who ridicules GM-phobes may jump in his truck and leave the seat belt unfastened while smoking, for example. Or scream about a wind farm or nuclear generator going in next door.

Some of the most important research being done today is how to help ancient brains cope with modern risks.

It ain't easy.

[via 3 quarks]

Got a BIG meeting?...

With a landlord? Lender? Customer? Potential partner? Some great advice:

Some meetings are the equivalent of playing three games of chess at once. You’re making arguments and parrying others as you strive to give the best impression possible, make your strongest case, and, of course, listen to and actually hear what the other people have to say. You can’t expect the brain to do all that and think about what it’s doing at the same time.

That’s why you should never walk leave home without a Prep Card:

Take a 3” x 5” index card and write down 3 key points you want to mention in simple clear language, nouns and verbs. At the bottom, give yourself 2 reminders to avoid your bad habits.

* Bill got a raise in half the time, with an inferior track record.
* We will match our competitor’s best bid.
* You’d agreed to a 10% discount over the phone.
* —
* Sit up straight.
* Talk slowly and take a full breath after every sentence.

That’s it. In any discussion, you’re almost certainly not going to have time to process and deliver more than 3 important points.

And it always helps to be reminded not to crack your knuckles or speak too quickly when you have a tendency to do those things under stress. [More]

I imagine most of you will laugh at the stunning simplicity of this idea, but having spent nearly 15 years as a professional speaker, it sounds right on to me.

[via 43 folders]

Good call...

The announcement today of a record recall of beef would not have lodged in my mind, if were not for the reason:

Officials said it was the largest beef recall in the United States, surpassing a 1999 ban of 35 million pounds of ready-to-eat meats. No illnesses have been linked to the newly recalled meat, and officials said the health threat was likely small.

The recall will affect beef products dating to Feb. 1, 2006, that came from Chino-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., the federal agency said.

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said his department has evidence that Westland did not routinely contact its veterinarian when cattle became non-ambulatory after passing inspection, violating health regulations.

"Because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection, Food Safety and Inspection Service has determined them to be unfit for human food and the company is conducting a recall," Schafer said in a statement. [More]

The videos and allegations came out much earlier and received cursory coverage in the farm/livestock press. This is not unusual for charges of animal abuse. Frankly, I think the meatpacking industry is leery of actually confronting the issue because it could snowball completely out of control.

I think that snowball just formed.

If you haven't gotten your mind around the power of viral video and YouTube, watch this one play out. And what fed this story was some gruesome video. Even setting aside for the moment the increasing government surveillance in the name of national security, the ubiquity of cameras and the plummeting price of data storage means all of us are on some radar nearly all the time.

As creepy as this can be (and Google Streets is one example), it is nonetheless reality, and those who don't deal with it as such are going to be smacked around.

What folks don't know, doesn't hurt them, of course. But this is one more example of how much people can easily know about and how it can affect customer sensitivities. The Steak 'n Shake motto comes to mind: In sight it must be right. Today the safest assumption is everything is in sight.

Stories like this intensify the scrutiny on the the meatpacking industry, as well.

And the disease that confronted doctors at the Austin Medical Center here last fall was strange indeed. Three patients had the same highly unusual set of symptoms: fatigue, pain, weakness, numbness and tingling in the legs and feet.

The patients had something else in common, too: all worked at Quality Pork Processors, a local meatpacking plant.

The disorder seemed to involve nerve damage, but doctors had no idea what was causing it.

At the plant, nurses in the medical department had also begun to notice the same ominous pattern. The three workers had complained to them of “heavy legs,” and the nurses had urged them to see doctors. The nurses knew of a fourth case, too, and they feared that more workers would get sick, that a serious disease might be spreading through the plant. [More]

I will be watching to see the full consequences of this rather aggressive USDA action. Now tie it to the inflammable immigration issue and the dependence of the packing industry on immigrant labor. It lends more credence to the idea that meat will become more expensive and per capita consumption will likely decline in the US.

You guys all think TV is easy...

But sometimes interviews head south in a hurry.

Expert On Anteaters Wasted Entire Life Studying Anteaters

Another party trick...

That's hard to believe.



Am I the only one who wonders how much of a life must be invested to master such an arcane art form?

[via Abroath]

Bubble-casting...

The flood of forecasts of an ag/ethanol "bubble" is in full spate now. Steve make some good points in his recent post:

So you’ve got the bubble. You’ve got the mood of the country. You’ve got a public with more stuff than anybody ever thought anybody would ever have and they’re demanding more. I don’t THINK I worry about a new Dust Bowl. I THINK that with modern technologies and knowledge—no-till and minimum till and sweeps instead of disc plows—we can avoid that part of the Depression. If, that is, there is enough money in farming to pay for chemicals and fuel. But it’s still worth your time to get a copy of Mr. Egan’s book. He didn’t get much into how good things were for farmers during the 20’s, but he sure did a good job on the bleakness of the 30’s. It might be a good thing to read as you consider how much money to borrow to buy more of this high priced land. Or those $1,200 cows, for that matter. And not to tut-tut, but you should certainly read it before you buy a $399,000 house in town. [More]

He is far from alone. Some ag economists have numbers to back up the "bubble" label.

It is not a case of if, but when, the bubble bursts suggests Iowa State economist Bruce Babcock in the winter issue of the Iowa Ag Review. He says high prices are their own worst enemy because more profits invite more competition and more production. That means lower prices. Babcock says we may have high corn prices now, but in the past 50 years there have only been two occasions when corn prices were high in successive years. Short global crops did the trick in 1973-75, and from 1979 to 1984 prices were kept up with drought and farm policy. [More via farmgate]

I don't dispute the call, but I have learned to be skeptical about the timing. Oracles started calling the 2000 NASDAQ crash in 1995, and the stern warnings about the real estate bubble can be traced back to at least 2002. About 18 months prior to actual evidence of the bubble bursting, the jeremiads became a cottage industry.

So, if we assume these prophets are correct, should we take to the storm cellar now?

Hardly. I think one of the strange developments of our information-juiced global economy is the tendency for trends to last longer than we think they should. Just like most of us could recognize the dot-com and housing bubbles as unsustainable, both markets defied gravity far longer than we thought possible.

I can't offer any good reason for this "Wile E. Coyote" leg-pedaling-after-running-of-the-cliff-but-not-falling phenomenon. It could be that skeptics are finally converted after years of being wrong, fueling the last gasp of the bubble. I know I reluctantly invested in a tech fund in (wait for it) February 2000.

It could also be when early prediction do not come true right away, subsequent warnings are dismissed, and investors and farmers simply double down. I think that is the stage we are in right now.

Complicating such predictions is the deep involvement of an arbitrary (and irrational) economic force: the government. We simply have few historic examples to use as analogs for the curious effects of "thou shalt" economic regimentation.

For those reasons, I'm betting a good 3 years remain before forces collapse our little boom (although the earliest prediction I can find does date to 2004). I am also basing my plans on the remarkable impotence of the livestock and policy reform groups to have any discernible effect on the new farm bill. (I don't mean to be unkind - I stand with them and gave it my best shot to get the government to stop sending guys like me money.) But when legislators from Western states shaft the cattle industry, what use is the NCBA?

Consequently, I am less persuaded about the immediacy of a reality intrusion. During that "air-pedalling" interim, serious money can be made. The upshot is cash rent contracts moving on upward but ending around 2011, and an expectation for $10,000/A prices for 200-bushel corn ground in I-states.

I reserve the right to adjust my outlook (before I tell you guys, of course). And of course, my opinions are for what I think will work in Prairie Township - I do not farm outside my neighborhood, and thus only "threaten" folks I live next to. My opinions are even more useless elsewhere therefore.

All operators will place their bets on when they think this bubble will burst. Some will do it formally with a plan, and many will vote to embrace denial by making no plan at all.

Oddly, this is not a useless strategy, I think. Most farmers will survive to see the other side, and if you are not in the lowest part of the competitive spectrum, you should be one of them. Some sort of plan could maximize your outcome on the way down however.

Reason # 22 to reschedule the end of modern agriculture ...
(Re-post from 5/26/06)

One of the most persistent gripes about industrial farming (I happen to like the term) is it causes much more erosion than the good old days. Few objective numbers back up this claim, but it just seems right to sustainable fans.

By some measures, we are eroding less. I find this survey acceptable, but I will allow that we really don't have good erosion data. My hunch is we are actually improving, since all the predicted cataclysmic consequences (plummeting yields, etc.) have failed to appear.

This topic is like debating what heaven looks like - all conjecture and little empirical data.

I wept because I had I had no shoes...

While skiing I managed the remarkable feat of falling whilst getting on the chairlift - and getting off (same trip).

But my pain and embarrassment are nothing compared to this.

In case your day is going too well...

This from the Energy Blog referencing this post.

Some key points from the first of four posts in EnergyTechStock.Com: * There is only about 1.2% more oil available each year, not enough to keep up with 1.5% annual demand growth. * Between now and 2010, this supply shortfall will be made up through a drawdown in inventories, helped out by a slowdown in demand in 2008 and 2009 due to a recession or near-recession in the U.S. * In 2010, the shortfall will become greater than can be made up by what’s still in inventory, thus beginning a period of global oil scarcity that will lead to a “peak” in conventional oil production in 2012 or 2013. * It gets even worse in 2015, which is when he expects a peak in the production of all liquids, a category that includes condensates, tar sands oil and biodiesel. * By 2025, “We can create some answers.” He explained that both plug-in electric vehicles and cellulosic biofuel are “wonderful ideas”; however, given that it takes 10 to 15 years or longer to turn over the world’s vehicular fleet, such technological breakthroughs won’t happen quickly enough to prevent the nightmare from happening. In part 2 he forecasts $12 to $15 dollars a gallon gasoline "in a few years" with oil at $180 a barrel in 2015 and $300 a barrel in 2020.

Another reason I'm leaning toward more inflation soon.

Great balls of fire!...

OK - small balls of fire.

Flames are hard to understand because they are complicated. In an ordinary candle flame, for example, thousands of chemical reactions take place. Hydrocarbon molecules from the wick are vaporized and cracked apart by heat. They combine with oxygen to produce light, heat, carbon dioxide and water. Some of the hydrocarbon fragments form ring-shaped molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and, eventually, soot. Soot particles can themselves burn or simply drift away as smoke. The familiar teardrop shape of the flame is an effect caused by gravity. Hot air rises and draws fresh cool air behind it. This is called buoyancy and is what makes the flame shoot up and flicker.

Flame balls, on the other hand, are simple. The balls form in low gravity where turbulence and buoyancy have little effect. Oxygen and fuel combine in a narrow zone at the surface of the ball, not hither and yon throughout the flame. Once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant. Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them. Finally, the fact that flame balls are spherical reduces their dimension to one: the radius of the flame itself. [More]

Right - like you haven't wondered how a candle burns in space.

OK - maybe not.

[via Neatorama]

A close second...

Sometimes being the runner-up has an advantage. Consider this example: our dairy program.

Not only is the marketing scheme barely comprehensible, the pricing mechanism would make a Dickensian attorney proud. But even with that, our cousins in Europe make us look practically like a free market.

Perverse effects abound. German farmers from the plains of Schleswig-Holstein would “love to see no quotas”, says an official. Yet the German government is resisting reform. This is said to be because the German farm minister is both ambitious and from Bavaria, a hilly place with lots of small farms. France fell far short of its quota last year, thanks in part to a system of state planning that ties quotas to individual regions, to prevent concentration of the industry in profitable areas. In practice, this means that frustrated dairy farmers in Brittany and Normandy cannot expand, while quotas languish unused in other regions. French officials proudly proclaim that EU quotas are the reason that milk is still produced in every corner of France.

This is all especially pleasing to Michel Barnier, the French agriculture minister. He is from the Alps, and likes to say that one EU priority must be to save European palates from industrial, “aseptic” food. One Eurocrat says more bluntly that the French have “decided to save mountain farmers by kicking farmers in Brittany”. And while gourmet France under-produces, industrial America has been “flooding” world dairy markets, he adds: perhaps not the outcome France had in mind. [More]

The irony is, as we are poised on the brink of a possible decade more of our dairy policy, the EU is moving glacially in the direction of limiting payments and policy reform.

Or not.

If we are gaining market share from the quota-bound Europeans, we can only imagine how fast free marketeer competitors like New Zealand are expanding to serve the expanding Asian market.

A recession for all...

I have sensed a touch of schadenfreude in a few grain farmers as prosperity rains down in the form of record prices. Much of the country teeters on the brink of harder times and, well,... we aren't.

But they probably had it coming. At any rate, the slowdown is not being shared equally.

In Florida, Nevada and Arizona the story is similar: plunging house prices, rising foreclosures and disproportionate increases in unemployment. Not all is gloomy: in these states, as in the rest of America, strong global growth and the weak dollar have buoyed export industries and boosted tourism. (Orlando International Airport, the gateway to Disney World, saw a record number of passengers last year.) But these positives have failed to counter the drag from housing and weaker consumer spending. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, reckons that all four bubble states, along with Michigan, are already in recession. Together, he points out, they make up 25% of America's GDP.

Move inland from the coasts and away from the industrial Midwest, however, and the picture, for now, looks less grim. A belt running from Texas north-west across the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains has been doing particularly well, thanks to soaring exports and high commodity prices. Ethanol subsidies and “agflation” have brought a bonanza to the farm states. Agricultural exports are up almost 20% compared with 2006, while farm incomes are growing smartly. Extractive industries are booming. Miners find it worthwhile to dig for copper in Butte, Montana, even though the operators say it is the worst-grade ore in the world. These states now have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. With far less of a housing boom, they have also avoided the worst of the subprime bust.

For politicians from Butte to Topeka, the question now is whether this good fortune will continue. Regional disparities, both in good times and bad, are no surprise in a vast continental economy. During the 1991 recession California and New England suffered disproportionately, thanks to banking crises and defence cutbacks. The 2001 downturn hit states with high-tech hubs hardest at first, while its hangover lasted longest in the industrial Midwest. This time a lot depends on the rest of the world. If emerging economies remain resistant to an American recession and commodity prices stay strong, America's exporting regions will benefit. [More]

Even though it was a mirage, farmers are no longer estranged from the rest of the economy. And economic pain will filter down to us. The most profound connection won't be from GDP either.

Virtually all producers now have family and a majority of their friends outside agriculture. Our children are feeling the squeeze, our brother worries about his job, our golfing buddy just lost his health insurance - the ties are personal, not just financial.

So while we can feel the bullet whistle by, it is likely striking closer to the heart than we think.

Globalization: The Early Years...

Archaeologists have unearthed the earliest evidence of farming in Egypt.

The crops and animals—and techniques for raising them—were all introduced to Egypt from the ancient Middle East, where domestication of plants and animals is known to have existed as far back as 9000 B.C. It came together as a "package" around 7000 B.C., according to Zeder, an expert in Middle East domestication.

"An increasing area of study is looking at how this package diffused out of its homeland into other areas," Zeder said. We now have "really good prima facie evidence of some of the earliest movement of that technology into Egypt."

It's not clear whether the crops and animals were brought to Egypt by ancient mariners on the Mediterranean Sea or overland through the rugged Sinai desert or both. The presence of Red Sea shells at the site could indicate that the trading routes cut through the Sinai Peninsula.

As the new evidence is studied further, it could help experts iron out those details and also map the initial spread of farming across the African continent.

Faiyum "really is the beachhead front now in the movement of agriculture and the increase in trade into Africa," said Zeder, who added that the movement of agriculture may be the first example of globalization. [More]

It's hard to keep a good idea to yourself, especially when it's literally out in the open. One of the great strengths of our profession is its operational transparency - we can watch what the competition is doing and usually come close to duplicating it on our own farms.

That's about the only upside to farming next to really great operators.