USA Today work Nikki Dobrin

INSIDE
FOREIGN
AFFAIRS
Export boom
benefits U.S.
SPECIAL EDITION
FAMILY
FARM
Six generations have
tilled the same land
TASTY
TREATS
Healthy school lunches
appeal to children
AGRICULTURAL
CAREERS
Colleges and jobs
attract new interest
FREE2015 EDITION
AMERICA’S
FARMING
LANDSCAPE
8GREAT
CROPS
Pork, produce,
poultry & MORE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE

4 USA TODAY SPECIAL EDITION
CHRISTOPHER GANNON/THE DES MOINES REGISTER
50 DEFINING ‘LOCAL’
The distance between farm
and table can vary
52 BOOMING EXPORTS
American agriculture
makes a mark overseas
56 WHERE CROPS GO
A closer look at the
destinations of U.S. farm
exports
62 MODIFYING THE MENU
GMO potatoes and apples
to hit the U.S. market
66 BIG DATA
Who owns the information
gathered by farmers?
74 STILL DRY
California enters a fourth
year of drought
FEATURES
CONTENTS
U.S.DEPARTMENTOF
AGRICULTURES P E C I A L E D I T I O N
MULTI-GEN
FARMING
THE DAMMANN
FAMILY HAS
TENDED THE
SAME LAND
FOR SIX
GENERATIONS

USA TODAY SPECIAL EDITION 5
DIRECTOR
Jeanette Barrett-Stokes
jbstokes@usatoday.com
CREATIVEDIRECTOR
Jerald Council
jcouncil@usatoday.com
CUSTOMCONTENTMANAGER
Christine Neff
cneff@usatoday.com
EDITORS
Nikki Dobrin
Chris Garsson
Elizabeth Neus
Lori Santos
Amanda Shifflett
DESIGNERS
Erin Aulov
Gina Toole Saunders
Lisa M. Zilka
INTERNS
Alexa Rogers
Hannah Van Sickle
CONTRIBUTINGWRITERS
Matt Alderton, Rachel Barron, Mary Helen Berg,
Christopher Doering, Adam Hadhazy, Laura Laing,
Katherine Reynolds Lewis, Diana Lambdin Meyer,
Erik Schechter, Adam Stone
CONTRIBUTINGPHOTOGRAPHERS
Dan MacMedan, Tim Parker, Shawn Spence
ADVERTISING
VP, ADVERTISING
Patrick Burke | (703) 854-5914
pburke@usatoday.com
ACCOUNT DIRECTOR
Justine Goodwin | (703) 854-5444
jgoodwin@usatoday.com
ISSN#0734-7456
A USA TODAY publication, Gannett Co. Inc.
USATODAY,itslogoandassociatedgraphicsarethe
trademarksofGannettCo.Inc.oritsaffiliates.Allrights
reserved.Copyright2015,USATODAY,adivisionofGannett
Co.Inc.Editorialandpublicationheadquartersareat7950
JonesBranchDr.,McLean,VA22108,andat703-854-3400.
For accuracy questions, call or send an e-mail to
accuracy@usatoday.com.
PRINTED IN THE USA
This is a product of
STABLE GROUND
Ag chief Vilsack is among Obama’s
last original Cabinet members
ON THE HILL
Five political issues that concern
farmers
RENEWABLE FUELS
Ethanol still strong despite cheaper oil
WHAT’S FOR LUNCH?
Schools convince children to eat
healthier meals
7
10
12
16
UP FRONT
21
26
35
40
FINDING A NICHE
Farmers opt for unusual crops
as food tastes expand
FACTS ON FIELD CROPS
Full-page infographics on soy,
wheat, corn and produce
BOUNCING BACK
U.S. livestock farms recover
from disease and disaster
FACTS ON LIVESTOCK
Full-page infographics on beef,
pork, poultry and dairy
HIGHER EDUCATION
Colleges find new interest in
agriculture degrees
OFF THE FARM
Ag jobs that don’t require
working the land
FUTURES SHOCK
How the commodities market
fuels the farm economy
CROP INSURANCE
Climate change may affect
policies and rates
80
86
90
92
THE REST OF THE STORY
America’s rich farmland provides food for the world. Photo by Thinkstock.
ON THE COVER
CLOCKWISE: SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTYIMAGES; CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES; FRED ZWICKY/ASSOCIATED PRESS; NATI HARNIK/ASSOCIATED PRESS

By Christopher Doering
A
JOVIAL TOM VILSACK emerged from
a room in a Chicago office building
in December 2008, having just
been offered “the opportunity of
a lifetime” by Barack Obama, then
the president-elect, to be Obama’s agriculture
secretary.
But the former Iowa governor, told to keep
the news a secret, said he left the meeting
feeling “a bit too cheery” and realized he’d
better tone down his sunny demeanor.
Vilsack, a die-hard Pittsburgh Steelers fan,
recalled telling key Obama advisers waiting
outside the room: “My football team is in first
place. Life is good.”
Obama overheard the comment, and he and
Vilsack walked away, discussing their mutual
adoration for the Steelers (the president’s
second-favorite team behind the Chicago
Bears) and how the team’s founding family
was a big donor to the president’s campaign.
The conversation has come to exemplify
the special relationship the country’s top
agricultural chief has with the commander in
chief. Their bond, based on a little bit of sports
and a dose of politics enhanced by mutual
respect — has contributed to Vilsack being one
of three original Cabinet members still in the
Obama administration. The other longtimers
are Education Secretary Arne Duncan and
Attorney General Eric Holder.
And for now, Vilsack and the president
President-elect Barack
Obama looks on as his
nominee for agriculture
secretary, former Iowa
Gov. Tom Vilsack, speaks
at a 2008 press confer-
ence. Today, Vilsack is one
of three original Cabinet
members still on the job.
FIRMLY
PLANTEDVilsack, Obama have a
long-standing bond
in Washington CONTINUED
NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

show no sign of parting ways.
Their bond has grown to
include sports trash-talking at
Cabinet meetings and “wonky”
in-the-weeds political discussions
about everything from the farm
bill and U.S. Department of
Agriculture home loans to bee
pollination. They often discuss
their families. And Vilsack has
appeared at White House Super
Bowl parties and gathered to
watch movies with the president
and other staffers.
Those who work closely with
Vilsack, 64, describe him as
well-respected, accessible and in
tune with the issues relevant to
rural America. The White House
views him as a straight-shooter
who understands the Department
of Agriculture’s influence on issues
such as immigration and health
care that affect the well-being of
rural residents.
Denis McDonough, Obama’s
chief of staff, said the president is
deeply satisfied with Vilsack and
has “great admiration” for him.
“He’s (throwing) his effort
across a wide range of issues, and
you’re seeing really good progress
in rural America,” McDonough
said. “And I know that is some-
thing that the president takes
great pride in.”
At a Cabinet meeting late last
year, Vilsack plopped a massive
white binder with the title “Rural
Investment by State” onto a table.
It was crammed with detailed
investments made by the USDA
during his tenure, including more
than 433,000 disaster aid checks
doled out to livestock farmers and
tens of thousands of loans to help
people buy single-family homes.
Obama asked Vilsack to make
a presentation to other members
of the Cabinet on the report, and
touted it as a good example of a
way for a department to promote
its investments.
“That’s the highest compliment
a president can pay, is when
you’re in the Cabinet room and
the president calls on you to make
a presentation of your operation,
or some aspect of your operation,
as an example of something he
believes is good governance,”
Vilsack said.
Republican and Democratic
lawmakers in Congress who have
worked with Vilsack praise the
job he has done at USDA, calling
him knowledgeable, responsive
and easy to work with.
Former Senate Agriculture
Committee Chairman Tom Harkin,
D-Iowa, who retired in January
after 30 years in the Senate, said
Vilsack’s breadth of knowledge
on issues affecting agriculture and
rural America is an important
resource for White House staff
who may not
be as well-
versed on the
subject.
“It’s my sort
of judgment
that a lot of
them don’t
know very
much about
agriculture,”
Harkin said.
“I think they
realize that
Vilsack knows
what he’s
talking about.
(They) may not
understand it,
but Vilsack sure
knows it.”
Sen. Mike
Johanns, R-Neb., who served
as agriculture secretary under
President George W. Bush, said
Vilsack “has done a really good
job,” specifically highlighting his
work on drought assistance and
livestock disaster aid.
“I don’t have any criticism,
but I will say this, I think he’s
handicapped because this
administration in other areas
relative to agriculture has been
so anti-agriculture,” Johanns said.
“I think because of that, it’s hurt
Tom’s effectiveness out there.”
Vilsack has been helped by
the tailwinds of a strong farm
economy, strong global demand
for U.S. products, low interest
rates that fueled land and
equipment purchases and, until
recently, high commodity prices
that contributed to record farm
income for many producers.
He has escaped many of the
high-profile recalls and animal
disease outbreaks that thrust his
predecessors into the spotlight.
One high-profile flub came early
in his tenure, providing a quick
test of the president’s confidence
in his top agricultural adviser.
In July 2010, Vilsack fired
Shirley Sherrod, a USDA
employee, over allegedly racist
comments. When it turned out
those claims weren’t true, Vilsack
took the blame, apologized and
offered Sherrod a new job, which
she ultimately turned down.
Obama criticized him for rushing
to judgment.
“That’s a situation where the
president easily could have said,
‘You manned up, but it’s early in
the administration; I can’t have
these kinds of things happen.’ But
he didn’t,” Vilsack said.
For now, the country’s 30th
secretary of
agriculture
said he enjoys
his job and is
lucky to have it.
While Vilsack
has been
mum about
his future, he
acknowledged
he’s been
contacted by
people gauging
his interest in
a job in the
private sector.
“As you get
older, you obvi-
ously realize
you only got so
many ticks in
the clock. The
question is, how can you use your
time that’s best for yourself, for
your country, for your family?”
Vilsack asked.
“You never know — there may
be something that comes up that’s
just so overwhelming that I go,
‘Geez, that would be great. I’ve
done what I need to do here,’ that
kind of thing. But I love my job,
and as long as the president is
satisfied, I’ll be around.”
Doering writes about farm
policy and politics for the Gannett
Washington Bureau.
MANUEL BALCE CENETA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack kept in touch with Iowa during a
2010 visit with President Obama, top, where they spoke to organic farmer
Morgan Hoenig. That same year, he apologized to former USDA official
Shirley Sherrod, above, after making what he called a “hasty decision” to
fire her during a controversy over race.
JOHN GAPS III/THE DES MOINES REGISTER
“That’s the highest
compliment a
president can
pay, is when ...
the president
calls on you ...
as an example
of something he
believes is good
governance.”
— Tom Vilsack

T
HE ENACTMENT OF A
five-year, $500 billion
farm bill in February
2014 was the culmina-
tion of nearly three
years of debate in Congress. But
while the farm bill, long viewed as
the pinnacle of agriculture policy,
is finally complete, lawmakers
in Washington may address a
number of topics this year that
could be just as important to the
millions of farmers and ranchers
across the United States.
“The farm bill is just like
agriculture’s Olympics,” said
Dale Moore, executive director of
public policy with the American
Farm Bureau Federation, the
country’s largest farm group. “It
comes around every five years,
and everybody focuses on it,
but what gets lost in the process
… are (other) issues that affect
farmers daily in different ways.”
Here are five farm-related
issues that could come up in
Washington this year:
IMMIGRATION
President Obama used his
executive power last November to
protect millions of undocumented
immigrants from deportation, but
that provided minimal relief to
agriculture and has been chal-
lenged in court for other reasons.
Meaningful change needs to
come from Congress, not the
White House, said agricultural
groups. During the last Congress,
an attempt to craft a new immi-
gration reform bill passed the Sen-
ate, but the Republican-led House
failed to act. At the moment, the
immigration plan is tied up in
court, and Congress has shown
little inclination to work on it.
“There are things the adminis-
tration could do to make things
better,” said Craig Regelbrugge
of the Agriculture Coalition for
Immigration Reform, who
acknowledged it’s a challenging
environment for reform. “While it
may bring relief to some individu-
als, they don’t get to the heart of
the ag labor crisis. In our world, all
eyes are on Congress to legislate.”
The agricultural community
depends heavily on immigrant
workers, employing as many as
1.75 million individuals working in
the country illegally. Farm groups
said a failure to reform the labor
policy will drive more production
outside the country, putting at risk
the nation’s abundant and safe
food supply.
ETHANOL MANDATE
Lawmakers and oil trade
groups led by the American
Petroleum Institute are opposed
to the Renewable Fuel Standard,
a mandate that requires a certain
amount of ethanol be blended in
the gasoline supply. These groups
are already pushing ahead to
change or repeal the law that’s
popular with farmers and rural
Americans.
But change appears dif-
ficult, with many newly elected
Republicans backing the existing
measure.
FARM
BILLS
New Congress puts
immigration, trade among key
issues on agriculture agenda
CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES
Cuban farmers, who work and sell on a small scale at places like this wholesale market in Havana, above, may
compete soon with American imports now that the U.S. is trying to normalize relations with the island nation.

“They still have to get the legislation
(against the standard) passed and
signed into law by the president, and
I just don’t see that happening,” said
Tom Buis, chief executive of Growth
Energy, an ethanol trade group. “It’s
going to be an uphill climb.”
TRADE
Republicans and the White House
have pledged to work more closely
together, and one area that could be
affected by better relations is trade.
While much attention in recent months
has focused on Cuba, where Obama
has proposed to normalize trade
relations, a bigger boon to agriculture
could come through the Trade Promo-
tion Authority (TPA).
“The potential for agricultural
exports is considerable,” said Agricul-
ture Secretary Tom Vilsack. TPA “will
help ensure that America’s farmers,
ranchers and food processors receive
the greatest benefit from these
negotiations.”
The so-called “fast-track authority,”
which expired in 2007, would allow
Obama to negotiate trade deals and
then submit them to Congress for
a vote. Obama asked lawmakers to
renew the TPA in mid-2013, when the
U.S. was progressing on deals with
Europe and Asia that would revise
trade rules covering 70 percent of
the world’s gross domestic product.
Corn, soybean, meat and other
agricultural producers would be among
the beneficiaries of the deals.
WATERS OF THE U.S.
Despite assurances from the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA),
agricultural groups contend the Waters
of the U.S. rule will expand the scope
of “navigable waters” protected by the
Clean Water Act to include not only
rivers and lakes but ditches, stream
beds and self-made ponds that only
carry water when it rains — bodies of
water known as “ephemeral.”
Farmers say the expansion will cause
them to incur higher costs for environ-
mental assessments and the need to
apply for permits to allow them to till
soil, apply fertilizer or engage in some
conservation practices.
A bill to ban the EPA rule found sup-
port from nearly three dozen Senate
Republicans last year. Supporters hope
similar legislation will pass the GOP-led
Congress this year.Sen. John Thune,
R-S.D., said there remains strong,
bipartisan opposition. “Any federal
regulation that could make farmers and
ranchers legally liable for
fines and penalties for
conducting normal farm-
ing practices would be
an overstep of authority
and an infringement on
their rights,” Thune said.
FOOD LABELING
In the U.S., up to 80
percent of packaged
foods contain geneti-
cally modified (GMO)
ingredients, according
to the Grocery Manu-
facturers Association.
As more states require
labels on foods with
GMO ingredients,
Congress is being
pressured to establish a
uniform, nationwide law
regulating the technology.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep.
Peter DeFazio. D-Ore., re-introduced
legislation in February that would
impose a nationwide label for GMO
foods. However, many food and
agribusiness companies support a bill
from Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., to
ban mandatory GMO food labeling by
states and leave labeling
up to food companies.
Greg Jaffe, biotechnol-
ogy project director for
the Center for Science
in the Public Interest,
said a key place to watch
the debate is Vermont,
where opponents
have sued to block the
nation’s first labeling
law.
“Something could
be passed into law on
this issue in the 114th
Congress, and part of
that will be sparked by
what happens in the
federal case in Vermont,”
Jaffe said. “Both sides
see benefits to a federal
solution, but obviously
they have different views on what that
final solution could be.”
Doering writes about farm policy and
politics for the Gannett Washington
Bureau.
“What gets
lost in the
(farm bill)
process …
are (other)
issues that
affect farmers
daily.”
— Dale Moore,
American Farm
Bureau Federation
An Associated
Press-GfK poll
in December
2014 found that
most Americans
would like to see
labels mark-
ing genetically
modified foods,
whether they’re
going to buy the
food or not.
Rep. Luis
Gutierrez, D-Ill.,
with members
of farm- and
food-related
unions near the
White House in
November 2014,
talks about
Thanksgiving
foods produced
and processed
by immigrant
workers.
Farmers are nervous about
the new Waters of the U.S. rule,
which they claim will make them
liable for keeping “ephemeral”
streams, such as this one
in Alaska’s Noatak National
Preserve, free of farm runoff.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BRENNAN LINSLEY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

T
THE ETHANOL AND OIL industries
have dug in for what could be a
pivotal year for the renewable fuel
mandate in Washington. The victor
is poised to add jobs and reap
millions in profits at the expense of a bitter
rival. The debate centers on a 10-year-old
mandate known as the Renewable Fuel
Standard. It requires increasingly greater
amounts of alternative fuels, much of
it made from corn, to be blended each
year into transportation fuel. In 2007, the
mandate increased the volume of renewable
fuel required to be blended from 9 billion
gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
Opponents of the mandate, led by
the American Petroleum Institute (API),
have stepped up pressure on the GOP-led
Congress to re-work or repeal the mandate.
They contend it’s fatally flawed and no
longer works in today’s ever-changing
energy landscape, especially since people
drive less and cars are
more fuel-efficient.
Meanwhile, ethanol
advocates are aware
that if they lose this
battle, they may never
get another chance.
Changing the mandate
would affect the
farmers, producers and
rural Americans who
have invested billions
of dollars into ethanol,
and it would also stunt
the growth of next-
generation fuels made from plant materials.
“There’s no way we’ll take any of this for
granted. And we’re pushing back,” said Tom
Buis, chief executive officer with Growth
Energy, an ethanol trade group. “We’re
going to make this a very public campaign.”
Most gasoline already contains 10 percent
ethanol. The oil industry has warned that
increasing the amount to 15 percent or
higher — a move backed by ethanol sup-
porters — may damage car, motorcycle and
boat engines. The oil industry argues, too,
that consumers have not shown a demand
for these ethanol blends.
API, a trade group representing more
than 600 oil and natural gas companies, also
raises alarm about the “blend wall,” the
point at which the amount of renewable
fuels required exceeds
the amount blenders
can reasonably mix
in. Hit this wall, API
argues, and there is no
way the industry can
blend enough ethanol to
meet the ever-growing
targets set by Congress
in the Renewable Fuel
Standard.
Right now, the
Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) has
the flexibility to adjust
the annual blending level under certain
conditions. In 2014, the agency pushed back
the timeline for finalizing levels multiple
POWERINGUP
CONTINUED
Corn streams into the
Green Plains ethanol
plant in Shenandoah,
Iowa, to make a product
still in demand even as
oil prices drop.
NATI HARNIK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The ethanol debate will take center stage
in Washington this year
Changing the
mandate would
affect the farmers,
producers and rural
Americans who have
invested billions of
dollars in ethanol.

PHOTOS BY NATI HARNIK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
times before announcing in November that
it would not set the fuel standards due to
widespread opposition from Midwest lead-
ers and farm groups. The EPA is expected to
announce the blending rate later this spring,
while at the same time proposing new
standards for 2015 and 2016.
Congress “had a very aggressive, far-
reaching goal” when it said the country
should be producing a certain amount of
its fuel from ethanol, said Chad Hart, an
associate professor of economics at Iowa
State University. The plunge of oil prices
from more than $100 a barrel as recently as
July 2014 has left the two sides even more
focused on defending their market share:
Both gasoline and ethanol have seen their
prices erode.
“This debate was building even before
energy prices really started to drop, but that
put a whole new layer on top of this,” said
Hart.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told
The Des Moines Register in January that
despite its strength, the renewable fuel
industry still faces significant challenges.
“There’s no question Big Oil is interested in
limiting choices,” the former Iowa governor
said. “Especially as low as they are, they will
increase their efforts.”
Bob Greco, director of downstream and
industry operations for API, said getting
the Renewable Fuel Standard repealed will
be one of the association’s top priorities in
2015. The trade group plans to lobby new
members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle and is optimistic about gaining support
to scrap the program.
“We have a Congress now that’s willing
to take votes and willing to consider pieces
of legislation that in the past they might not
have, particularly on the Senate side,” he
said.
The nascent 114th Congress, sworn
in Jan. 6, has wasted
little time trying to alter
the ethanol mandate,
though it’s uncertain
whether it will be
able to muster enough
support to make any
meaningful changes.
A group of Repub-
lican and Democratic
lawmakers in the House
has proposed legislation
that would do away
with the corn compo-
nent of the Renewable
Fuel Standard and cap
the amount of ethanol
that can be blended
into conventional gasoline at 10 percent.
The same bill failed to pass two years ago.
In the Senate, Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Dianne
Feinstein, D-Calif., proposed in February
to eliminate the annual corn targets in the
mandate.
“Few issues in Congress have such broad
support for true reform,” said Rep. Bob
Goodlatte, R-Va., who said the “unworkable
mandate” is felt by every American through
higher grocery bills and wear and tear to the
family car. “Growing support from lawmak-
ers in the House and Senate, as well as a
diverse coalition of over 50 organizations,
signals that there is momentum in Congress
to achieve real reforms of the (Renewable
Fuel Standard).”
Ethanol supporters are confident that
while pressure is
mounting to change or
end the Renewable Fuel
Standard, the proposed
benefits — decreasing
U.S. dependence on
foreign oil, creating
jobs, helping the
environment — will
be enough to quell
momentum to make a
change.
“When you look at
something, it takes
a lot of power, a lot
of cohesion ... if it’s
in Congress’ hands,”
said Colin Johnson,
a fourth-generation farmer in southern
Iowa, the country’s largest ethanol pro-
ducer. “I’m hopeful for the sake of Iowa and
rural agriculture that (the Renewable Fuel
Standard) stays where it is, and I’m pretty
confident that it will.”
Christopher Doering writes about farm policy
and politics for the Gannett Washington
Bureau.
The plunge of oil
from more than
$100 a barrel as
recently as July 2014
has left the two sides
even more focused
on defending their
market share.
About 100 trucks
a day deliver corn
to the Green Plains
ethanol plant in Iowa,
above. Ryan Brock,
far right, who works
at the plant, displays
a sample bottle full
of ethanol, which
accounts for about
10 percent of U.S.
automotive fuel.

By Matt Alderton
C
UBES OF AMBIGUOUS MEAT
swimming in gelatinous,
oatmeal-colored gravy. A piece
of green meatloaf. A sandwich
the size of a smartphone. A
lump of mashed potatoes so solid it can be
tossed in the air like a baseball. A paltry
two-piece portion of chicken nuggets.
These are just a few of the images
students have broadcast on social media
this school year using the snarky hashtag
#ThanksMichelleObama. Their response
to new healthy-eating guidelines for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National
School Lunch Program is a rallying cry
laced with humor.
But it’s no laughing matter to parents
like Tina Jackson of Indianapolis, whose
15-year-old daughter comes home from
school hungry every day.
“She uses the word
‘gross’ a lot,” said Jackson,
recounting her daughter’s
daily lunch report. “It
concerns me because
she’s going the whole
day at school without
eating anything. Of course
I want my daughter to eat
healthier. That’s a good
thing. But she’s not getting
the nutrition in the middle
of the day that she needs.
It’s only healthy if the kids
are eating it.”
Some aren’t, but many are.
Back on Twitter, for instance, exclama-
tions of genuine gratitude temper
complaints of moldy fruit and mystery
meat. Even as one student tweets a
sorry tray of gray hamburger
meat, another tweets a
bountiful bowl of authentic
Asian stir-fry. As one
student complains of Spanish
rice that looks more like
“Spanish moss,” the parent
of another applauds her
child’s fresh and colorful
lunch: fresh strawberries,
mixed melon, Caesar salad
and chicken Parmesan atop
a bed of penne pasta.
“Is there gross food out
there in schools? I can’t
deny that there is,” said
registered dietitian Dayle Hayes of Billings,
Mont., a school nutrition consultant
and founder of School Meals That Rock
New federal guidelines require schools
to serve healthy meals
GOODORGROSS?
Students Katelyn Hamford, left,
Amanda Ajobiewe and Diamond Al-
varado load up at the salad bar at Beatty
Elementary School in Riverside, Calif.
The school charges $2.75 for lunch,
which is so popular that it inspired a
catering division for outside customers.
CONTINUED
DAN MACMEDAN; HALANA TURNER AND HUNTER WHITNEY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Students last year tweeted
out enough unappetizing
photos of school lunches
that #ThanksMichelle
Obama trended on Twitter.

(schoolmealsthatrock.org), a website
showcasing best-in-class school meals.
“But by and large, I think there is tremen-
dous good in school meals today.”
Because nutrition guidelines and federal
reimbursement are equal nationwide, the
difference between “good” and “gross”
isn’t always calories or cash, according to
Hayes. Often, it’s who’s in charge.
“If reimbursement and requirements are
the same, what creates the difference?”
she asked. “It’s a very complex answer.
Probably the most fundamental piece,
however, is the district’s vision for school
meals. Some school districts have a very
powerful, progressive, forward-thinking
vision of what it looks like to serve healthy
school meals. Others do not.”
HEALTHY FOOD, FAST
The National School Lunch Program was
created in 1946, when President Truman
signed the National School Lunch Act pro-
viding free or low-cost lunches to qualified
students through subsidies to schools. Its
original purpose was to counter malnutri-
tion: Many American men had been
rejected for military service during World
War II due to diet-related health problems,
so lawmakers established the National
School Lunch Program as a “measure of
national security” to safeguard the health
of American children.
Nearly 70 years later, what began as
a solution to malnourishment is now
a solution for the
opposite problem:
childhood obesity,
which has more than
doubled in children
and quadrupled in
adolescents in the
past 30 years, accord-
ing to the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control
and Prevention.
“When Michelle
Obama chose child-
hood obesity as her
platform, Congress
passed the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids
Act … which raised
nutrition standards
for school meals for the first time in 15
years,” Hayes explained. Changes — which
took effect during the 2012-13 school
year — include increasing whole grains,
fruits, vegetables and low- and no-fat
dairy; reducing calories, fat and sodium;
and improving food quality with more
farm-to-school connections. “Most of the
changes I completely support,” said Hayes.
To help school districts transition
successfully from preparing processed
foods to cooking from scratch, the USDA
has awarded more than $25 million in
grants to provide school food service
professionals with equipment, training
and technical assistance. For some school
districts, however, the
change has been too
much, too fast.
“The Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act
is the best thing that’s
ever happened to
(the National School
Lunch Program),”
said Rodney Taylor,
director of nutrition
services for Riverside
Unified School District
in Riverside, Calif. “If I
had one criticism for
the USDA, however, it’s
that they might have
asked for too much too
quickly.”
In states and school districts unprepared
for the new guidelines, Taylor said, rapid
change has left students paying more
money for less food of inferior quality. “In
those places, there has been a rebellion,”
Taylor continued. “Even from food service
directors.”
SAVORY SOLUTIONS
Amid “rebellion” against the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act, the USDA has
reported a 4.2 percent decline in National
School Lunch Program participation, down
from 31.6 million students in 2012 to 30.3
million students in 2014.
Still, progress is evident. For example,
“They look at
(the new USDA
guidelines) and
they tell me,
‘Rodney, it can’t be
done.’ Don’t tell me
it can’t be done;
we’re doing it.”
— Rodney Taylor, nutrition
services director
Angelica Rodriguez, left, and
Lilliana Castro, students at Beatty
Elementary School in Riverside, Calif.,
enjoy a nutritious lunch that includes
items from the school’s salad bar.
DAN MACMEDAN

30.3 MILLIONStudents who
participate in the National
School Lunch Program.
$16.2 BILLIONAnnual cost
of the National School
Lunch Program.
224 BILLIONTotal school lunches served by
the USDA since the inception of the
National School Lunch Program.
BY THE NUMBERS
Source: USDA
4.9 BILLIONSchool lunches served
annually as part of the National
School Lunch Program.
BY THE NUMBERS: THINKSTOCK; USDA
The concept of a hot lunch for school chil-
dren has been around for decades; in 1941,
children in Taos, N.M., eat a lunch that cost
about a penny a day.
research published last year by the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) found
that 70 percent of elementary and middle
school students and 63 percent of high
school students generally like the healthier
school lunches that rolled out in fall 2012.
At approximately half of elementary
schools (56 percent), middle schools (44
percent) and high schools (53 percent),
students initially complained about the
new meals but eventually accepted them
as they became more accustomed to them,
research found.
“Our studies show that kids are OK with
these changes, and that there have not
been widespread challenges with kids not
buying or eating the meals,” said Lindsey
Turner, lead author of the study.
And a study released in early March by
the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity
at the University of Connecticut found that
school children are throwing out less food
and choosing to eat more vegetables and
fruit.
In the most successful school districts,
acceptance is a product of ingenuity. Take
Taylor, for example, whose school lunch
program went from having a $3.1 million
debt and a 47 percent participation rate in
2002, when he was hired, to having a $6
million surplus and a 70 percent participa-
tion rate in 2014.
“Instead of treating our school lunch
program like an entitlement program — if
the government wants us to do more,
or do better, they need to give us more
money — we treat it like a business,” said
Taylor, who is well known in school food
service circles for pioneering the concept
of “farmers market salad bars.” Now at
elementary schools across Taylor’s district,
salad bars stocked with fresh produce
purchased directly from local farms give
students more and varied daily choices.
Grants from organizations such as Whole
Foods Market’s Whole Kids Foundation
support the cost-neutral program, accord-
ing to Taylor. Food costs are minimized
by a reduction in waste and more money
from more school-lunch participation.
“Salad bars work because they appeal
to the senses — sight, smell and taste,”
explained Taylor, whose next move
was hiring a professional chef to create
nutritious, restaurant-quality meals.
The food is so good that it’s spawned a
catering division that does everything
from business lunches to weddings.
Through catering and various other
initiatives, Riverside’s program is projected
to make $2 million this school year. “My
colleagues across the country are leaving
school food service in droves because
they don’t want to do the work,” Taylor
continued. “They look at (the new USDA
guidelines) and they tell me, ‘Rodney, it
can’t be done.’ Don’t tell me it can’t be
done; we’re doing it.”
Taylor isn’t alone. In Illinois’ Burr Ridge
Community Consolidated School District
180, nutrition director Beverly Kowalcze
has founded an interactive community gar-
den, which helps improve kids’ perception
of veggies. In Minnesota, Bertrand Weber,
Minneapolis Public Schools director of
Culinary and Nutrition Services, procures
recipes from local restaurants, modifies
them according to USDA guidelines and
sells the meals from a grant-funded food
truck. And in Texas’ Amarillo Independent
School District, which outsources its
school lunch to Chartwells School Dining
Services, students discover healthy food
by watching a chef prepare the meal in a
restaurant-style kitchen.
Although food trucks, chefs and
kitchens cost money, the gap between the
best and worst school lunches isn’t always
financial. In fact, the same programs that
he currently champions in Riverside,
where 62.6 percent of students receive
free or reduced-price school lunch, Taylor
previously instituted in California’s Santa
Monica-Malibu Unified School District,
where just 29.4 percent of students are
eligible to receive free or reduced-price
school lunch.
“To be perfectly honest, it’s not about
money,” Hayes reiterated. “If you look at
districts that are doing a really good job,
what they have in common is creativity —
in terms of preparing food, financing food
and marketing food to kids. More than
anything, that’s what’s going to make a
big, major difference in our schools.”
Many schools are making their lunches
more tasty and visually appealing, serving
items such as Hawaiian chicken wraps.
Dora Aleman, a worker at Beatty Elemen-
tary School, adds to the school’s salad bar.
DAN MACMEDAN
USDA

By Adam Stone
A
BOUT 15 YEARS AGO, Jean
Hediger’s family farm
started growing millet as
a springtime alternative
to wheat. Today, the
3,400-acre Golden Prairie in northeast
Colorado partners with more than a
dozen other growers to put 10,000
acres of the specialty grain under the
plow.
Thank you, celiac disease.
Intolerance to gluten, the largely
wheat-based protein, has spawned
a growing industry of gluten-free
alternative foods, supporting a wave
of surrogate crops. That’s good news
for many niche farmers like Hediger.
“It’s not just a few acres on occasion.
We seed more millet acres than wheat
acres today, and I never would have
imagined that I could say that,” she
said.
As consumer tastes change, farmers
adapt, especially small farmers who
cannot always compete against the
mega-enterprises, with
their tens of thousands
of acres of corn, soy
and wheat. Nowadays,
many farmers thrive
on ancient grains such
as the cereal amaranth,
heirloom tomatoes,
little-known fruits like
pawpaw and wheat
alternatives like millet
and teff.
But cultivating these
specialty crops and
edibles comes with
its own unique set of
challenges. The market demand may
be there, but the farming is demand-
ing, too.
GROWING INTEREST
Farmers have good reason to veer
away from traditional crops.
In the 52 weeks ending July 13,
2014, spelt sales skyrocketed 363
percent. Gluten-free amaranth rose
123 percent and teff sales climbed 58
percent, according to the
Whole Grains Council.
The trends run deep:
Even venerable cereal-
maker General Mills has
launched a new version
of its classic breakfast
cereal, called Cheerios +
Ancient Grains.
At the same time,
traditional crops appear
to be taking a hit as
consumer tastes evolve.
The price of wheat
slipped from $7.24 to
about $6 a bushel from
2011-12 to 2014-15, according to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Gluten’s fall from favor is not the
only driver, said Candace Wilson,
strategic account director at agri-
culture giant Monsanto. Flavor also
factors in, as consumers grow weary of
the gigantic and perfectly formed, but
bland, tomatoes that have long been a
NICHE
WORK
CONTINUED
SPELT
AMARANTH KAMUT
MILLET
CHIA
Grain prices
soared in the
52 weeks
ending July 13,
2014, said the
Whole Grain
Council.
SALES CLIMB
SPELT AMARANTH TEFF
363%
123%
58%
Farmers turn to unusual crops as foodie demand grows
TEFF
GRAIN PHOTOS
BY JERALD
COUNCIL

BUDDING MARKET
CANNABIS
FARMING
BLOSSOMS
The times they have a-changed.
Once a counterculture icon, cannabis
is virtually mainstream, and that has
agricultural implications.
Take Hezekiah Allen: He chairs
Emerald Growers Association, a
member-based trade organization of
some 300 California cannabis farmers.
Yeah, a pot growers’ trade association.
Maybe we didn’t see it coming — but
who could be surprised? Medical
marijuana is legal in 23 states. Four
states have legalized recreational dope
and more are likely to follow suit.
The farmers don’t use words like
“pot” and “dope.” Their chief ambition
these days is to legitimize a potentially
lucrative crop.
“We want it recognized as a crop,
not as manufacturing or anything
else, and we want it regulated as
agriculture,” Allen said. Regulation
would ensure quality, drive business
to legitimate growers and marginalize
the still-prevalent illegal growers, argue
supporters.
Cannabis growers face the same
challenges as other farms: rain, wind,
mold, pests. They insist they work hard
to deliver a quality product. “It’s easy to
grow a commercial-grade bulk product.
It’s like the wine industry: Anyone can
grow box wine, but not everyone can
grow Napa Valley pinot,” Allen said.
For those who do it well, the rewards
can be significant.
“For the farmer, it is a fantastic crop,”
said Doug Porter, East Coast coordina-
tor and lecturer for the Cannabis Career
Institute, a school for business owner-
ship, marketing and employment within
this growth industry. “At this point in
time, the only agricultural product with
a higher (future return) is truffles. This
is the highest yield for the least amount
of time and care and investment.”
But it’s also illegal — sort of. Federal
law still bans marijuana, but the Obama
administration has said it will step back
and make enforcement a state matter.
States remain hazy on the issue.
What to do as a farmer looking to
jump on this hash cow? “You bite your
lip, you find a good accountant and a
good attorney, and you just power
through it,” Porter said.
— Adam Stone
supermarket staple.
“As I spend time talking with retail
accounts, ‘flavor’ is the word that just
continues to come up in our world,” she
said. “There used to be a focus on bigger
and prettier. Now, retailers want to reintro-
duce flavor to our categories. They
want diversity, they want color,
they want anything that will
draw the consumer back
in.”
That’s useful intelli-
gence to growers. “It’s
very important for
the farmer to be in
tune with the retail
need. Ultimately it
is the consumer who
will drive what is on
the shelf,” Wilson said.
Take, for instance,
the newly popular aronia
berry. Five years ago, the
native of eastern North America
was virtually unknown. Today, at
least 60 growers cultivate it across the
nation, particularly in the upper Midwest.
Beyond the obvious allure of consumer
demand, farmers may have solid horti-
cultural reasons for putting trendy crops
like quinoa in the ground. Running a single
crop year after year — a practice known as
monoculture — may deplete the soil, leaving
a long-term deficit for the next generation.
There’s also the eggs-in-one-basket
phenomenon. A farmer betting on a single
crop runs the risk of losing all to unexpected
disease, weeds or pests.
“It helps a lot to have diversity on your
operation. It lowers your risk overall,” said
Charles Rohla, manager of the Center for
Specialty Ag at The Samuel Roberts Noble
Foundation in Oklahoma.
SOME CHALLENGES
With the rising interest in ancient grains
and heirloom produce, one might suppose
more mainstream grains would be on the
wane. The numbers suggest otherwise. Even
wheat, deliverer of dreaded gluten, has gone
from 52.6 million acres planted in 2010 to
56.8 million acres planted in 2014, accord-
ing to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
That number likely reflects the fact that
specialty crops remain a marginal phenom-
enon, grown on small-acreage boutique
farms. In part, that’s because it is logistically
problematic for a really massive farm to
swap out one crop for another. More to the
point, though: Niche crops often present a
range of horticultural challenges.
As president and founder of The Teff
Company in southwestern Idaho, Wayne
Carlson has been supplying his curious grain
to the expatriate Ethiopian and Eritrean
communities in this country for three
decades. Lately, he’s seen a big bump in
demand among those seeking gluten-free
MARY WILLIE/THE DES MOINES REGISTER
Bob and Kathy Pertzborn pick aronia berries near Ankeny, Iowa. The astringent fruits, rich in antioxidants, are growing in popularity.
CONTINUED
SPELTT

alternatives.
Carlson is meeting the demand, in part,
by contracting with growers in Oregon,
Idaho and Nevada in order to fill
orders. The challenge with
niche crops, he said, “is that
it is much more technical.
The corn and soybean
guys over in those huge
areas in the Midwest,
that is simple and
straightforward. There
is a huge body of
knowledge.”
Not so with the more
esoteric crops, said Gary
R. Bachman, a professor
in the Coastal Research &
Extension Center at Mississippi
State University. “If a grower finds a
need for a particular crop and he’s never
grown it before, he may not be able to find
the basic information on planting times,
nutritional needs, harvest intervals. There
is a whole list of things the farmer needs to
learn to produce this crop effectively, and
it is not out there for some of these
crops,” he said.
And many of the niche
crops cannot be grown as
easily with herbicides,
said John Kempf, CEO of
crop nutrition consult-
ing company Advanc-
ing Eco Agriculture.
“These chemicals can
stunt (crops) or even
kill them. So there is
a greater requirement
for weed control, which
means they can be much
more difficult to grow in the
field.”
Beyond the agricultural issues,
specialty produce comes with new business
challenges for farmers looking to gain an
edge in a competitive marketplace.
Many alternative and organically grown
goods are too perishable to travel, so a
farmer has to ask: “‘Am I near the point
of purchase? Is there a distributor
nearby, or a processing facil-
ity? Do I have a big enough
market in the immediate
area?’ It’s always about
understanding your
market,” said Winthrop
B. Phippen, a professor
of breeding/genetics of
alternative crops in the
School of Agriculture
at Western Illinois
University.
Without an established
market, a farmer with a
niche product will have to
be business savvy. “This is, by
nature, something fairly small, and
that makes it high-risk,” said Phippen. “Not
only do you have to grow the crop. Now you
have to market the plant, you have to find
all the people you are going to sell to.”
None of this is easy. Consumers may
clamor for something off the beaten path,
but the stuff may be difficult to grow and
complicated to market. Indeed, farmers take
a risk every time they set aside an acre of
the known for an acre of the unknown.
On the other hand, many smaller-scale
farmers are finding that the uncommon
product gives them the competitive edge
that they need to keep on going.
“Farmers are incredibly entrepreneurial,”
said Mark Manfredo, professor and director
of the Morrison School of Agribusiness
within the W. P. Carey School of Business
at Arizona State University. “They are very
good at observing consumer trends, and
they’re always looking for ways to diversify
their income stream. They are going to try
something new, and if it works — great!”
GOLDEN PRAIRIE
Farmer Bryce Hediger sits in a field of millet on his family’s Golden Prairie farm in Colorado.
The Hedigers have been growing millet as an alternative to wheat for about 15 years.
MILLET
QUINOA
TEFF
“We seed
more millet
acres than
wheat acres
today, and I
never would
have imagined
that I could
say that.”
— Jean Hediger,
farmer

RODNEY WHITE/THE DES MOINES REGISTER
THINKSTOCK
FIELDCROPS
TERRITORY
Plains states, South and Midwest;
mostly in Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota.
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR.
MAY JUNE JULY AUG.
SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC.
PLANTING SEASON
April 15-July 20
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR.
JUNE JULY AUG.
SEP. NOV. DEC.
MAY
OCT.
HARVEST
Aug. 18-Dec. 30
SOURCES: USDA, UNITED SOYBEAN BOARD
SOY
Annual yield
3.97BILLION
BUSHELS
Annual production
$40.3BILLION
Acreage
83.1MILLION ACRES
PLANTED
Exports
$24.2BILLION
2014STATS
DID YOUKNOW?
uThe 2014 soybean crop yield of nearly 4 billion
bushels set a record, as did the average number
of bushels per acre harvested (47.8). Iowa was
the top producer at 9.82 million acres harvested,
followed by Illinois with 9.78 million.
uThe majority of U.S. soybeans are turned into
soybean meal to feed livestock and poultry. Iowa
is the largest user, with 3.9 million tons — nearly 13
percent of the total meal produced — used as feed
in 2012.
uMany farmers rotate corn and soybeans as a
way to reduce soil erosion and control weeds and
insects; the soybeans also fix nitrogen in the soil,
which benefits the corn crop.
Broc Davidson, 14,
of Elkhart, Iowa,
takes part in a state
tradition — “walk-
ing” soybean fields
to pull weeds by
hand. Iowa is one of
the largest soybean-
producing states in
the U.S.

JAN.
MAY
SEP.
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR.
JUNEMAY
HARVEST
Durum: May 15 to Oct. 5
Spring: July 15 to Sept. 29
Winter: May 1 to Sept. 14
FEB. MAR. APR.
JUNE JULY AUG.
OCT. NOV. DEC.
PLANTINGSEASON
Durum: March 31 to June
15 (Sept. 25 to Feb. 1 in
Arizona and California)
Spring: March 1 to June 3
Winter: Aug. 20 to Feb. 1
JULY AUG.
SEP. NOV. DEC.OCT.
WHEAT
FIELDCROPS
Acreage
46.4MILLION ACRES
HARVESTED
(Durum, 1.3 million acres;
spring, 12.7 million acres;
winter, 32.3 million acres)Annual production
$11.9BILLION
(Durum, $462.3 million;
spring, $3.4 billion;
winter, $8.1 billion)
Exports*
$7.7BILLION
*Fiscal year
Annual yield
43.7BUSHELS PER ACRE
(56.8 million acres)
2014STATS
SOURCES: USDA, HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DID YOUKNOW?
uWheat production in 2014 fell by 5 percent from 2013,
mostly due to weather-related issues but also because
fewer acres were planted in some regions.
u81 percent of the U.S. domestic wheat crop (the part not
kept as stock or exported) goes toward food. Another 13
percent is used as animal feed, and the rest is planted as seed.
uIn a study of 118,000 people, the Harvard School of Public
Health found that eating whole grains can cut mortality,
especially from cardiovascular disease, by up to 15 percent.
TERRITORY
Nationwide,
mostly in the
Great Plains
from Texas to
Montana.
KAREN BLEIER/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

FIELDCROPS
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR.
JUNE AUG.
SEP. NOV. DEC.
MAY
OCT.
HARVEST
July 15-Dec. 22
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR.
MAY JUNE AUG.
SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC.
PLANTING SEASON
March 1-July 15
TERRITORY
The continental
U.S. except
New England
and Nevada,
predominantly
Iowa and Illinois
2014STATS
Annual yield
171BUSHELS PER
ACRE
Annual production
$52.4BILLION (GRAIN)
Acreage
83.1MILLION ACRES
HARVESTED FOR
GRAIN
Exports*
$11.1BILLION
*Fiscal year
DID YOUKNOW?
uAbout 490 million of the 14.2 billion bushels of corn produced
in 2014, or 3.4 percent, were used to make high-fructose corn
syrup, a common sweetener used in place of sugar in many
processed foods and drinks.
uOnly 90.6 million acres of corn are expected to be planted in
2015 compared to the 99.7 million planted in 1926, but far more
corn is produced per acre today because of better technology
and production practices: 171 bushels compared to 25.7 in 1926.
uMost corn is used for animal feed or biofuel — only about 10
percent, 1.4 billion bushels, went toward human food or other
non-feed/fuel uses in 2014.
SOURCE: USDA
CORN
Increased
production
hurt corn
prices for
farmers in
2014, drop-
ping the price
to $3.65 per
bushel from
2013’s $4.46.
USDA
LANCE CHEUNG/USDA
JULY JULY

THE STATS
Annual yield, 2013
Fruit and tree nuts:
33.2BILLION POUNDS
Vegetables:
41.6BILLION POUNDS
Annual sales, 2014
Fruit & tree nuts:
$29.7BILLION
Fresh market vegetables:
$13.1BILLION
Acreage, 2013
Fruit & tree nuts:
4.2MILLION ACRES
Fresh market vegetables:
1.6MILLION ACRES
Exports, 2014
Fruits
$6.7BILLION
Vegetables
$7.0BILLION
Tree nuts
$8.6BILLION
All statistics most
recent available
GROWINGSEASON
Year-round, varies by crop
HARVEST
Year-round, varies by crop
PRODUCE
DID YOUKNOW?
uGrapes are the most heavily consumed fruit in the
U.S., mostly in the form of wine, which accounted for 39.1
pounds per capita in 2013, two-thirds of the total.
uThe amount of land devoted to dry edible beans
jumped by an estimated 23.4 percent in 2014, with the
largest gains coming in baby lima, cranberry, black and
navy beans. The U.S. Hispanic population, which tends
to eat more beans than other demographics, is growing,
and many people are adding beans to their diet for health
reasons.
uFruits were the second-largest U.S. food import
by volume in 2013, with 12.4 million tons compared to
13 million tons of cereal and bakery-related products.
Vegetables were third, at 8.97 million tons.
Potatoes
116.7
SOURCES: USDA, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING RESOURCE CENTER
PER CAPITA USE,2013
FIELDCROPS
TERRITORY
Nationwide, with most
grown in California,
Florida, Washington
and North Dakota
Tomatoes
87.2
Lettuce
23.8
Sweet corn
22.0
Onions
18.7
Oranges
55.9
Apples
45.4
Bananas
28.1
Melons
25.9
Grapes
58.1
TOP 5 VEGETABLES:
TOP 5 FRUIT:
In pounds/farm weight, U.S.
(vegetables are preliminary data)
NEXT 5 VEGETABLES:
Peppers 17.3
Cucumber 10.6
Carrots 10.0
Broccoli 9.2
Cabbage 8.0
NEXT 5 FRUIT:
Pineapple 13.9
Strawberries 9.5
Lemons 8.0
Peaches 6.4
Grapefruit 5.8
LANCE CHEUNG/USDA
BOB NICHOLS/USDA

LIVESTOCK
CATTLECALL Livestock producers try to
bounce back after rough years
By Laura Laing
T
O GET THE REAL story behind today’s
livestock statistics, you’ve got to go
back to 2006, when the grain market
began to go haywire, thanks to basic
supply-and-demand economics.
A 2005 energy bill placed mandates on the
production of renewable fuel, which upped the
number of corn crops devoted to ethanol. At
the same time, China increased its purchase
of U.S. soybeans. Add to this the short reserve
of land due to drought and, suddenly, the
supply of grain for feed couldn’t keep up with
CONTINUED
LARRY BECKNER/GREAT FALLS (MONT.) TRIBUNE
Farmer Don Eakman checks on one
of five sets of twin calves — a high,
and rare, number —born on his Mon-
tana ranch in February. Beef farmers
are managing to increase their stock,
although mostly in less unusual ways.

LIVESTOCK
demand.
As a result, feed prices skyrock-
eted and didn’t slow for several
years. In 2006, corn prices were
around $2 per bushel, but by 2012,
they had increased to nearly $7 per
bushel.
Because feed represents 50
percent to 65 percent of the cost
of producing animals, livestock
farmers buckled under high costs.
“This really
put the animal
industry into
a period of
losses,” said
Purdue Univer-
sity agriculture
economist
Christopher
Hurt. “We saw
pretty major
declines.”
In 2007, total
meat production
in the U.S. was 223 pounds per
capita, and by 2014, that amount
had dropped to 203.
At the same time, severe
droughts in the Midwest and
Southwest devastated beef herds.
Farmers short on cash had to sell
some of their animals to feed
the remaining stock. Adding to
the woes, last year a virus killed
millions of piglets, scaring pork
producers.
But with all of these challenges,
there is light at the end of the
tunnel. Feed prices are leveling off,
and livestock farmers are respond-
ing more quickly to environmental
and health threats. The skies look
brighter for 2015.
FEED VS. OIL
“The real issue for all of us (in the
animal industry) is the moderation
of feed costs,” said Chris Galen,
senior vice president of com-
munications for the National Milk
Producers Federation (NMPF). “It’s
the biggest story of the year.”
Last year, the U.S. experienced
the largest feed
grain crop in his-
tory. According to
the USDA, yields
of corn, sorghum,
barley and oats
in August and
September 2014
totaled 295
million metric
tons. To compare,
the total was 277
million metric
tons in 2013, an
increase of 64 million metric tons
over 2012.
A higher yield means lower
feed prices, which in turn reduces
production costs for livestock
farmers.
In years past, for instance, pork
producers spent between $80 and
$93 per total carcass weight (cwt)
on production costs. Steve Meyer,
staff economist for the Pork Board
and president of Paragon Econom-
ics, expects those costs to fall to
$70 per cwt in 2015.
The drop in feed costs benefits
dairy, beef, poultry and egg produc-
ers as well.
“That was really a tailwind that
gave a boost to (milk) producers,”
said Galen. “When you have lower
feed costs, you tend to produce
more milk.”
That’s because dairies can shift
the savings from feed to other
costs, such as increasing herd size
and enhancing feed with additives
designed to increase milk produc-
tion. Hurt noted that all animal
industry products will expand in
response to lower feed prices.
Also helping is the drop in oil
prices. “There’s been a kind of
return to normalcy in grain and oil
prices,” Meyer said. “And when
production costs are lower, farmers
can produce more and earn more.”
DROUGHT EFFECTS
Back-to-back severe droughts in
the Midwest and Southern Plains
also hurt the livestock industry.
According to records kept by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, rainfall deficits in
the Southern Plains states — includ-
ing New Mexico, Oklahoma and
Texas — between May and August
2012 topped records set during the
Dust Bowl in 1934 and 1936.
“The (beef) cattle herd was
decimated by drought, but it really
got bad in 2011 and 2012,” Meyer
noted. “We’ve had the smallest cow
crop since the ’50s.”
In fact, the Southern Plains lost
21 percent of its beef cattle due to
drought conditions. Hurt notes that
1.4 million were lost in Texas alone,
representing 26 percent of the
BACKYARD BIRD OWNERS
KEY IN AVIAN FLU BATTLE
Since December 2014, federal and state health officials have
been responding to an avian flu outbreak along the Pacific Flyway,
the westernmost of four major U.S. routes used by migratory
birds.
Highly pathogenic bird flu has been confirmed in seven backyard
poultry flocks and three captive wild birds in Oregon, Washington
and Idaho, as well as a commercial turkey farm in California.
Twenty-five wild birds also have been diagnosed with the strain:
12 in Oregon, eight in
Washington, three in
California and one each
in Idaho and Utah.
The outbreak, which
includes three different
strains of avian flu,
doesn’t pose a risk to
humans — eggs and
poultry are safe to eat,
and people can’t catch
avian flu easily — but
it’s a huge threat to
the country’s poultry
industry.
Tens of thousands of
chickens and turkeys
have died or been
destroyed in British
Columbia, which also
has been hit with the
outbreak. Already,
29 countries plus the
European Union have
restricted poultry
imports from affected
counties or states. Four
more countries have banned poultry imports from the entire U.S.,
including China, which last year imported $272 million in chicken,
turkey and duck products.
Officials have been quick to respond with surveillance, voluntary
testing and outreach. But they discovered a new challenge since
the last outbreak a decade ago: The number of urban chickens
and other backyard birds has exploded in recent years, especially
in cities such as Portland, Ore.
The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), for example,
knows how many commercial poultry operations exist around the
state, but that’s not the case with urban chickens.
“Backyard bird owners are often hesitant to come forward to
ODA because they are not sure who to contact, they are not
sure if their concerns matter and they may feel they aren’t being
represented as much as commercial operations,” ODA avian health
coordinator Madeline Benoit said.
ODA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have reached out
to farmers, backyard chicken owners, hunters and 4-H clubs by
attending poultry events around the state to provide information
and conduct biosecurity demonstrations.
The most important message they’re giving backyard bird
owners is to reduce or eliminate contact between their birds and
wild birds, thought to be spreading the virus.
— Tracy Loew
CONTINUED
DANIELLE PETERSON/SALEM STATESMAN JOURNAL
Backyard chicken flocks are more
difficult to monitor for signs of avian
flu than those on commercial farms.
USDA
A deadly disease that killed as many as 7 million piglets and pigs in 2013 and 2014 is on the wane, pleasing farmers.
Back-to-back
severe droughts
in the Midwest
and Southern
Plains also hurt the
livestock industry.

state’s herd.
The drought still threatens large swaths
of Oklahoma, Texas, California and Nevada,
but the easing of feed prices points to
a recovering animal industry in these
regions. Unfortunately, the beef industry
can’t bounce back as
quickly as pork and
poultry, which has
a shorter gestation
period.
“The gestation of
an (poultry) egg is
three weeks,” Hurt
said. “They can grow
that baby chick
to Kentucky Fried
Chicken in around six
weeks. Gestation (of
cattle) is nine months
and growth is about two years after that.”
In order to expand beef production in the
long run, farmers need to reduce production
in the short term. That’s because young
females or heifers must be held back from
the meat supply for breeding. The latest
USDA report shows this happening; 4
percent of heifers are being held back from
the supply.
“This kind of surprised us,” Hurt said.
“Producers of animal products are respond-
ing (to lower grain prices) more quickly than
we thought.”
Farmers in Western states still seem wary
of expansion. California is still struggling
with severe drought conditions, and farmers
in other states are
taking smaller steps
toward expansion.
Because of this, Hurt
doesn’t expect beef
supplies to be back to
peak levels until 2020
or 2022.
Heat waves are
another concern,
especially for milk
producers. Galen
noted that these do
not generally become a
national phenomenon or an ongoing issue.
“Some of the most productive dairies in
the country are in Arizona,” he said. And
California, even in drought, remains the No.
1 dairy state.
“We’ve learned how to modulate the
worst effects of climate change,” Galen said
of the dairy industry. “For the most part
even in these long-term instances, we’re still
seeing increases in milk production.”
ANIMAL AILMENTS
“Last year’s hog market was a bizarre
one,” Meyer said. “The reason was this new
disease.”
Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV)
spread throughout pork herds in 2013 and
2014, killing as many as 7 million piglets and
pigs, according to Meyer’s economic report
to the National Pork Board. Producing acute
and severe diarrhea, the virus is particularly
dangerous to vulnerable piglets.
“That was a major market force last year,”
Meyer said. “That virus is more active when
it’s cold. We were afraid it would be more
active this winter, but that has not turned
out to be the case.”
Thanks to preventative measures,
including vaccines and safer transportation
methods, the disease has waned signifi-
cantly this year. In the winter of 2013-14,
PEDV hit 85 pig farms in the U.S. This year,
only 12 have been affected.
Despite the virus, pork prices increased
last year, making it a record year.
“There was a time period in February,
March, April 2014, when we realized that
meat not only was in tight supply, but
consumers and buyers started to ask, ‘What
if you can’t even buy bacon?’” Hurt said. “I
think this really was a kind of fear situation.
What we saw was a kind of explosion of
prices in the whole animal complex.”
“Because of the inelastic demand for pork,
total revenue went up, even on those farms
that lost pigs” to PEDV, Meyer said. “It’s
going to be profitable again this year.”
Farmers have learned a great deal from
outbreaks of diseases such as PEDV and
avian flu, which surfaced in the Pacific
Northwest in 2014 in backyard flocks and
wild birds.
“PEDV served as a wakeup call for us,
and we’ll be better prepared,” Meyer said.
“We’ve really been blind to diseases from
other parts of the world. We’re making a
concerted effort to identify these diseases
before they get here.”
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
As consumers add more animal protein to
their diets, the pork and poultry industries
have seen a surge in demand, “the best I’ve
seen in my career,” Meyer said. “Animal fats
aren’t the demons that we made them out
to be. Consumers have said, ‘Oh really? I’m
going to eat more meat.’”
In addition, supply of most livestock is
expected to increase in 2015. According to
the USDA, the total livestock production
(not including eggs) was 92.2 billion pounds
in 2014. Next year, the agency anticipates
production to increase to 94 billion
pounds.
But not all industries will increase. Beef
cattle production — hampered by drought
and other economic factors — is expected
to drop from 24.3 billion pounds in 2014 to
23.8 billion pounds. This follows a five-year
trend, a long-term decline in cattle herds
and extremely high retail prices.
“Beef is really going to struggle,” Hurt
said. Retail beef prices went up by 13
percent in 2014, and they are expected to
increase again in 2015. Still, a recovering
economy will help.
“When consumers have higher incomes,
they tend to eat higher-priced meat
products,” Hurt said. They also might spend
their savings from lower gas prices on better
cuts of meat.
At the same time, beef always suffers
from the substitution effect. With shorter
gestation periods, pork and poultry supplies
will rebound faster, dropping their normally
lower retail prices even more. But even in
2014, price-per-pound of pork went up only
10 percent, and chicken broiler retail prices
stayed about the same.
“Customers look at the price of beef and
then look down the case and say, ‘What else
is available?’” Hurt said.
With a break in drought conditions,
lower feed costs and an overall improving
economy, animal producers are beginning to
feel relief. Still, any industry that depends on
weather and fickle customer behavior finds
itself hedging its bets.
“We’re coming off a very unusual year,”
Hurt said.
LIVESTOCK
As consumers add
more animal proteins
to their diets, the pork
and poultry industries
have seen a surge.
BRYON HOULGRAVE/THE DES MOINES REGISTER
It can take three years to re-stock a herd
of cattle, due to long gestation periods and
time needed for calves to mature.

LIVESTOCK
TERRITORY
Nationwide,
with most in
Texas, Nebraska,
Kansas and
California.
SOURCES: USDA, THE CATTLE RANGE
DID YOUKNOW?
uThe number of cattle increased
an unexpected 1 percent during
2014 as farmers slowly gained back
losses caused by drought; experts
had thought that declining numbers
would continue.
uBeef prices jumped nearly 50
cents per pound in the second
half of 2014, ending the year at an
average $6 per pound.
uFor the first time in more than 15
years, European beef will be sold in
the United States. The U.S. banned
beef from the continent in the late
1990s after an outbreak of mad
cow disease.
2014STATS
Inventory
89.8MILLION
Annual production
24.3BILLION POUNDS
Average live
weight
1,363POUNDS
Average dressed weight
825POUNDS
Number of
producers
729THOUSAND
Annual cash
receipts
$81.5BILLION
Exports
$6.3BILLION
BEEF
SCOTT OLSON/GETTY IMAGES
RICHER TASTES
The price of beef products continued to increase through
2014, due to the continuing impact of the drought on cattle
herds. The U.S. Department of Agriculture expects price
hikes of 5 percent to 6 percent in 2015.
6
7
8
5
4
3
2
1
January 2014 January 2015
Ground beef Beef roasts Beef steaks
$3.89
$4.67 $4.83
$5.84
$6.34
$7.53
Priceperpound

TERRITORY
Nationwide,
predominantly
in Iowa, Illinois,
Minnesota,
North Carolina
and Indiana.
SOURCES: USDA; BLOOMBERG;
NATIONAL PORK BOARD
DID YOUKNOW?
uThe U.S. has been one of the top five pork
exporters in the world since the beginning of this
century, with Japan, Mexico and Hong Kong its top
customers.
uIowa was the largest U.S. pork producer in 2014,
with 20.9 million head, followed by North Carolina
with 8.6 million and Minnesota with 7.85 million.
uPork production in 2015 is expected to surpass
beef for the first time in more than 50 years,
according to the USDA.
uBut an increase in broiler chicken production may
push pork prices down by up to 26 percent in 2015.
2014STATS
Inventory
66.1MILLION
ANIMALS
Annual production
22.8BILLION
POUNDS
Average live
weight
285POUNDS
Average dressed
weight
214POUNDS
Number of
producers
63,246
Annual cash
receipts*
$23.4BILLION
Exports
$6.7BILLION
PORK
USDA
LIVESTOCK
*2013, most recent
available
PORK ON YOUR FORK
The average pig creates 156.7 pounds of retail
products sold — meat, trimmings and more.
14.5
6.0
6.1
6.4
7.9
10.9
13.1
13.5
16.0
16.1
16.6
29.6Cured ham
Boneless loin
Picnic ham
Bacon
Loin trimmings
Jowls, feet, etc.
Blade roast
Spare ribs
Sirloin roast
Blade steaks
Ham trimmings
Everything else
Pounds

What
makes a
curious
reader?
You do.
Read to your child today and inspire a lifelong love of reading.
www.read.gov

LIVESTOCK
DID YOUKNOW?
uA January USDA report indicates that the increase in
chicken production last year happened because the birds
were bigger, not because farmers were increasing the
sizes of their flocks.
uThe average American eats the equivalent of 261 eggs
per year.
CHICKEN & EGGS
LANCE CHEUNG/USDA
TERRITORY
Eggs: Nationwide,
predominantly
Iowa, Ohio, Indiana,
Pennsylvania
and California.
Broilers: Mostly
in a swath from
Delaware to
Texas, with some
farms in the upper
Midwest.
EGG-SPENSIVE
California egg
prices are
considerably
higher than
the rest of the
country’s — by as
much as $1 per
dozen in some
areas — partially
because of a new
law requiring
chickens to be
kept in cages of a
certain size.
BROILERS
Inventory*
8.5BILLION
BROILERS
Production
38.5BILLION POUNDS
Annual sales*
$30.7BILLION
EGGS
Inventory
361MILLION
EGG-LAYERS
Production
99.8MILLION
Annual sales
$5.5BILLION
SOURCES: USDA, AMERICAN EGG BOARD, NATIONAL
CHICKEN COUNCIL, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
2014STATS
Number of farms
64,570
Exports
$5.8BILLION
*2013 , most recent available

LIVESTOCK
TERRITORY
Nationwide,
with most
in California,
Wisconsin,
New York,
Pennsylvania
and Idaho.
SOURCES: USDA, DAIRY FARMING TODAY
DAIRY
MICHAEL CONROY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
DID YOUKNOW?
uThe average dairy cow produces 7 gallons of milk per day, up to
2,500 gallons each year.
uAmericans consume most of their dairy at home, 1.32 cups per
day compared to .45 cups away from home.
uTwo-percent milk is most popular, followed by whole milk,
1-percent and skim.
KIMM ANDERSON/ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAY CHEESE
Milk is by far the most-consumed dairy
product, but thanks to our love for pizza and
burritos, cheese may be rising the fastest in
popularity. In 2012 (the most recent figures
available), Americans ate 33.5 pounds of
cheese per person.
121064 820 lb.
Swiss
Cream/
Neufchatel
Provolone
Mozzarella
Cheddar
Other
cheeses
2014STATS
Inventory
9.3MILLION MILK COWS
Annual production
206BILLION POUNDS
Number of farms
51,000
Annual milk sales
$49.1BILLION
Exports*
$7.2BILLION
*Fiscal year
NOTE: “Other”
cheeses are defined as
Colby, Monterey Jack,
Romano, Parmesan, blue,
Gorgonzola, ricotta, brick,
muenster and others.
11.5 pounds per person
9.4
7.7
2.6
1.1
1.1

48 USA TODAY SPECIAL EDITION USA TODAY SPECIAL EDITION 49

By Erik Schechter
I
N AN EPISODE OF the sketch comedy series
Portlandia, actors Fred Armisen and Carrie
Brownstein play a socially conscious couple
sitting down for a meal at a restaurant. When
the waitress comes to their table, Brownstein’s
character asks about the chicken.
“The chicken is a heritage-breed, woodland-
raised chicken that has been fed a diet of sheep’s
milk, soy and hazelnuts,” the waitress answers.
“And this is local?” Armisen’s character interjects.
“Yes, absolutely.”
The waitress is emphatic in her response, but he
is not quite convinced. “I’m going to ask you just
one more time. It’s local?” he asks.
“It is,” the waitress responds.
The questions, though, keep coming. Now, the
couple is asking who certifies the food organic,
whether the hazelnuts fed to the chicken are also
local and how big is the area where the chickens
roam.
Excusing herself, the server leaves and returns
to the table with the chicken’s ID papers. His
name was Collin, and they raised him humanely.
“When you say ‘they,’ who are these people
raising Collin?” Brownstein’s character asks.
The show is obviously a spoof. But it does
scratch at real issues involving local food. First
off, what exactly is local food? Is it a farm 30-plus
DEFINE
‘LOCAL’It’s the question
of the moment —
and the answer
isn’t simple
DYLAN RIVES/GETTY IMAGES
Chris Cosentino, a winner of
Top Chef Masters, prepares a
dish at a farm-to-table event
during the 2015 South Beach
Wine & Food Festival in Miami
Beach. Locally grown food has
increased in popularity among
the dining cognoscenti.

miles away (as in the chicken episode), or
can it mean anything within 200 miles,
inside state boundaries, etc.? And why do
we care about local food, anyway? Is it for
Collin’s well-being, or his environmental
impact?
Unlike “organic” or “cage-free,” there
is no formal national definition for “local”
food, said Bob Young, chief economist for
the American Farm Bureau Federation. So
the term means different things to different
people — especially when, as in the case of
supermarkets, there is a financial incentive
to call something local. “We had a represen-
tative from Walmart at our annual meeting
… and he said that it needs to be within the
state that it’s sold,” Young said.
By contrast, Christopher Schlottmann,
clinical associate professor of environmen-
tal studies at New York University, contends
that local food should be tied to one
agricultural region. “It doesn’t have to be in
the same state, but if it’s within 100 to 200
miles, that would fall under the definition
of local food,” he said.
Even then, there’s some wiggle room on
distance. For example, the local farmers
who sell their produce at markets in New
York City can come from as far away as 360
miles and across several state lines.
WHY DOWE CARE?
When the modern movement of buying
locally began more than 15 years ago,
the driver behind it was quality food, said
Peggy Barlett, an anthropologist who stud-
ies sustainability and agricultural systems
at Emory University in Atlanta. It was about
getting fresher and crisper produce than
could be found in the supermarkets.
Later, local food became about
petroleum use, climate change and how
far food travels from farm to dinner plate.
But further research into “food miles”
cast doubt on the concept. Only a small
percentage of agriculture’s carbon footprint
is associated with transportation. Also, it
might make more environmental sense to
transport a lot of food in one 18-wheeler
than in several smaller vehicles.
Sonali McDermid, assistant professor
of environmental studies at New York
University, said that nowadays local food
is less about distance “and more about
the relationships that are being developed
between the consumers and the people
who are setting up the market ... and the
farmers themselves.”
It is these face-to-face interactions that
allow consumers to ask farmers about
things like humane practices (“Was Collin
the chicken happy?”) and sustainability.
Sustainability, like local food, is amor-
phous. It concerns itself with biodiversity,
pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, water runoff
and sometimes labor policy. And consultant
groups like The Sustainability Consortium
and Sustainable Agriculture Initiative
Platform have come up with a checklist of
practices for companies.
Ultimately, though, sustainability is
something that will have to be measured
over time, McDermid said.
CHOOSING LOCAL FOOD
Agriculture experts agree that local
food is growing in popularity in the United
States. It’s a phenomenon Young attributes
to “food snobs,” like the two characters
portrayed in Portlandia. And, certainly,
the movement did start as a middle-class
romance with a relatively expensive type
of farming that had been replaced by the
modern industrial-scale system.
But more people embrace the movement
now, and from a variety of demographics.
As soon as farmers markets in New
York started taking Electronic Benefits
Transfer (EBT) cards — the form of payment
formerly known as food stamps — in 2005,
sales started to climb. In 2011, farmers at
GrowNYC’s Greenmarket made more than
$638,000 from EBT sales.
The urban poor have also embraced
local food in Atlanta. “You see people who
are interested in fresh, local food grown
by farmers they can talk to among every
stratum,” Barlett said.
That said, a strict “locavore” diet is hard
to keep. There aren’t as many small-scale
farmers in the regions of the country
devoted to large-scale corn or wheat crops,
for example, and eating only local means
doing without off-season crops or sticking
to preserves. For example, asparagus will
not grow in February in North Dakota,
Young said; it’s usually harvested mid-May.
”When I grew up, we ate canned aspara-
gus,” he recalled. “I hate canned asparagus.”
More than difficult, local food is not
always even the green option, Schlottmann
said. For example, “grass-fed beef that
is locally raised often has more methane
output than industrially raised grain-fed
cattle,” he said. Grass makes cows gassier
than grain does.
There are always going to be trade-offs
when being socially conscious about food,
Barlett said. Sometimes local wins; other
times it is the environment or even what
benefits the nearby rural community.
(Barlett’s own school community at Emory
decided to import its coffee, but it will be
Fair Trade.)
But at least there is a discussion. “I see the
local food movement as an effort to move to
greater transparency,” she said.
There are always
going to be trade-offs
when being socially
conscious about food.
Sometimes local
wins; other times it is
the environment or
even what benefits
the nearby rural
community.
STEVEN SENNE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Shopper Sandra Paden
checks out peaches at a farm-
ers market in Providence, R.I.
The popularity of such markets
is inspiring some people to
start up small-scale local farms.

FEEDING
THEWORLDWhen it comes to global agriculture,
the U.S. is the cream of the crop
By Erik Schechter
I
T’S BEEN A ROBUST couple of years for U.S. farmers selling
their crops and animal products abroad. According to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service
(ERS), there has been a strong global demand for agricultural
products in general, and the United States, in particular, with
its growing trade surplus, has been reaping the reward.
The top export markets for the U.S. are China, Canada,
Mexico, Japan and the European Union, said Veronica Nigh, an
economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. Depend-
ing on the statistics one uses, the top exports are soybean,
corn, wheat, beef and pork.
CONTINUED
THINKSTOCK
EXPORTS

Laura Foell, a chair on the United
Soybean Board and a soybean farmer from
Schaller, Iowa, estimates that last year the
United States exported about $30 billion in
whole soybeans, meal (for animals, mostly
poultry) and vegetable oil. China takes the
bulk of U.S. soybeans, about 1.01 billion
bushels, which are crushed into animal
meal in China’s own plants. By contrast,
Indonesia, also a large trading partner,
imports its 75 million bushels of soybeans
only as food, noted Bryce Cooke, an ERS
economist.
In terms of dollar value, soybeans are
clearly U.S. agriculture’s top export, but
corn beats it in metric tonnage, said Manuel
Sanchez, manager of global trade at the
U.S. Grains Council. American farmers will
produce 14.2 billion metric tons of corn
this year, with 44.5 million metric tons
projected as going for export. U.S. soybean
production for 2014/15 is projected at 4.1
billion bushels.
The two top international consumers
for U.S. kernels are Japan, which buys 15
million metric tons, and Mexico, which
imports 10.9 million metric tons, Sanchez
said. However, these two countries consume
corn very differently than the United States;
in this country, more than one-third of all
corn goes to produce ethanol, while in Japan
and Mexico it’s almost all going to food and
animal feed.
“Other countries are producing ethanol
from sugar cane,” he explained.
Finally, though not among the top five
exports, poultry is subject to national vaga-
ries, Nigh said. “In the U.S., we historically
tended to like white meats and not much
the dark meats. Other countries certainly
like dark meats more than the U.S.”
Then there are preferences for parts of the
bird not as popular here. “We export a lot
of chicken feet to China,” Nigh said. “It’s a
delicacy there.”
TRADE AGREEMENTS AND
OPPORTUNITIES
While U.S. farm exporters have been
doing well, global trade is increasingly
characterized by preferential trade relation-
ships; however, the United States has not
been aggressively building ties with other
countries. Of the 260 or so preferential trade
agreements worldwide, the United States is
party to only 20, said the ERS.
By comparison, the European Union (EU)
has 45 preferential trade agreements with
other countries and regions and is in the
process of negotiating agreements with 87
more nations. This massive lead poses a chal-
lenge to U.S. agriculture because American
exporters may find themselves restricted
by high tariffs that no longer exist for other
regions.
TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
One trade agreement the United States
is currently pursuing is the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP). When concluded, the
TPP will give local farmers, among
other U.S. exporters, increased access to 11
Asia-Pacific countries — Australia, Brunei,
Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New
Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
These countries haven’t been too
concerned about U.S. genetically modified
(GM) crops — the TPP will not enforce
GMO labeling — so that hasn’t hampered
trade, but “there are still of lot of tariff
barriers, especially with Japan,” said David
Salmonsen, senior director for congressional
relations at the American Farm Bureau
Federation. It is these tariffs — in Japan, it’s
a 38 percent markup on American beef,
328 percent for sugar and a mind-boggling
778 percent for rice — that U.S. agriculture
would like to see come down.
Salmonsen said negotiations on the TPP
are “moving along fairly well” and expects
that the agreement, which stalled several
times last year, could be signed by the end
of the year. For U.S. farmers, that means an
estimated $77 billion per year in agricultural
sales and a total of $223 billion a year to TPP
member countries.
Those hoping for a quick signing of the
TPP are pushing Congress to grant President
Obama trade promotion authority, which is
the ability to fast-track negotiations by not
allowing Congress to amend the deal and,
instead, only vote yea or nay on the agree-
ment as a whole. Presidents have had this
fast-track power since 1974, but this newest
effort comes with opposition from liberal
Democrats and even some Republicans,
who are fearful that TPP will hurt American
workers, and the National Farmers Union.
Nigh said the Farm Bureau is “certainly
out there beating the pavement on trade
promotion authority.” Having the trade
deal go before Congress and be subject to
assorted amendments is impractical, she
added: “If you start pulling at the threads
with 535 elected officials, they can come
undone pretty quickly.”
TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
On a much slower track to adoption than
the TPP, the Transatlantic Trade and Invest-
ment Partnership (TTIP) is being negotiated
between the U.S. and the EU. Salmonsen said
American farmers hope that TTIP will address
a number of outstanding issues between the
United States and Europe. At the top of the list
EXPORTS
Those hoping for a quick signing of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership are pushing Congress to grant President
Obama trade promotion authority, which is the ability
to fast-track negotiations.
MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
President Obama meets
with other leaders from the
Trans-Pacific Partnership in
Beijing in November 2014.
A trade agreement with the
11 nations involved in the
pact will give U.S. farmers
increased export access to
Pacific Rim countries.

are sanitary and safety concerns.
As it stands now, he said, there are U.S.
agricultural practices that the Europeans
oppose on the grounds of “reasonable
precaution,” instead of scientific evidence
that shows harm to human beings. Salmon-
sen cites poultry processing as an example.
“They don’t accept our poultry products
in the European Union because our process-
ing industry uses … in their final wash, to
kill all bacteria, small amounts of chlorine,”
he said. Such washes have been banned in
Europe since the 1990s over cancer fears.
Then there is the EU’s stand on growth
hormones and GM crops. Despite a World
Trade Organization ruling in favor of the
United States in 1997, the European Union
has refused to import beef from cows
raised on artificial growth hormones. The
EU also has a slow regulatory process for
approving GM products, “and this just
for feed use, not for cultivation of those
commodities,” Nigh said.
The United Soybean Board’s Foell noted
that 94 percent of American soybeans are
GM, so European policies are a big concern
for soybean exporters. Currently, once a
company fills out an application for a new
GM soybean variety, it can take the EU up
to 10 years to approve it. In the meantime,
if an unapproved variant gets accidentally
mixed in with a soybean shipment, that
whole soybean shipment is sent back.
Finally, though not as dramatic as the
debate over GM food and growth hormones,
European insistence on the Protected Desig-
nation of Origin — geographical indications for
certain types of regional food (think “spar-
kling wine” instead of “champagne”) — is giv-
ing American negotiators a headache. Many
countries are trying to assert a monopoly
over cheese names that are already used
generically in the U.S., such as Brie, Muenster
(a semi-soft cheese completely different from
French-made Munster cheese and no relation
to the German city of Muenster) and feta, the
latter which, though associated with Greece,
is not even a place name.
“The one that is causing the most fuss is
the use of the term ‘Parmesan,’” Salmonsen
said, with the Italians arguing that only
cheese from Parma, Italy, can be called such.
EXPANDED MARKET FOR CUBA
While things have been chugging along
with the EU, in December Obama initiated a
gradual re-establishment of political ties with
Cuba, and exporter groups expect to see an
economic payoff to this new era of diplomacy.
According to Nigh, American farmers mostly
export poultry, soybeans and corn to Cuba.
Last year, they sold less than $300 million
worth of cash-on-delivery agricultural
products, down from $710 million in 2008,
but increasing ties will produce a 25 percent
to 50 percent bump in U.S. exports.
Still, the impoverished island nation, with
a population of 11.27 million, is hardly on
par with the EU. “I think we all look at Cuba
as a long-term market. In the grand scheme
of international trade, it’s a pretty small
market,” Nigh said, adding that U.S. farmers
will be mainly servicing the well-heeled
American tourists visiting Cuba.
LOOK AT THE FUTURE
Fixing a gaze on the seemingly smooth
road ahead, the already strong U.S. dollar
is, the ERS said, expected to “appreciate
another 2 percent” this year, making U.S.
exports more expensive (all things being
equal). But there is concern about how a
bumper year in grain production will affect
future prices, Nigh said.
U.S. exporters are also waiting to see how
foreign markets react to the case of avian flu
found in a turkey flock in California in Janu-
ary. Also of concern is the lingering impact
of the just-ended nine-month slowdown at
West Coast ports due to labor issues.
“A lot of our members have seen really
excruciatingly large losses on the fresh meat
side of ag trade,” Nigh said.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Deep water ports are the last stop for Asia-bound grains before they are shipped from U.S.
farms to overseas buyers. Soybeans are loaded onto a barge, above, at an Oregon port.
EXPORTS
YOSHIKAZU TSUNO/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Chefs show off a U.S. T-bone
steak at the annual Foodex
food exhibition in Chiba, Japan.
Japan currently has a tariff on
American beef that creates a 38
percent markup in price; federal
agriculture officials are negotiat-
ing for a change in that policy.

$6.2
BILLION
OTHER
FEEDS &
FODDER
TOP10
EXPORT
COMMODITIES
SOURCES: USDA, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU. ALL INFORMATION MOST RECENT AVAILABLE. INFOGRAPHICS: ERIN AULOV
TOP 5 CORN
DESTINATIONS
TOP10EXPORTINGSTATES
6
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
2. IOWA, $10.2 BILLION
3. MINNESOTA,$7.98 BILLION
4. ILLINOIS, $7.9 BILLION
5. NEBRASKA,$6.6 BILLION
6. TEXAS, $5.7 BILLION
7. KANSAS, $5.0 BILLION
8. INDIANA, $4.8 BILLION
9. WASHINGTON, $4.5 BILLION
10. OHIO, $4.4 BILLION
EXPORTS
$4.6
BILLION
BEEF
& VEAL
$4.8
BILLION
SOYBEAN
MEAL
$3.4
BILLION
ALMONDS $4.8
BILLION
PORK
$9.3
BILLION
CORN
$8.2
BILLION
WHEAT,
UNMILLED
$6.2
BILLION
COTTON,
EX LINTERS
$4.9
BILLION
MISC.
HORTICULTURAL
PRODUCTS
TOP5PORKEXPORTINGSTATES
WHERETHEFOODGOESU.S. food exports account for 6 percent of all American goods sent
overseas — $150.4 billion of the total $2.3 trillion in exports in 2014 alone.
JAPAN
1.2 BILLION LBS.
CANADA
540.6 MILLION LBS.
SOUTH KOREA
385.6 MILLION LBS.
CHINA
330.5 MILLION LBS.
$24.6
BILLION
SOYBEANS
IOWA | $1.96 BILLION
NORTH CAROLINA | $738.9 MILLION
MINNESOTA | $737 MILLION
ILLINOIS | $410.3 MILLION
INDIANA | $306.9 MILLION
MEXICO | 1.4 BILLION POUNDS
TOP5
PORK
DESTINATIONS
TOP 5 CORN
EXPORTING STATES
IOWA | $1.1 BILLION
MINNESOTA | $828.7 MILLION
ILLINOIS | $802.8 MILLION
NEBRASKA | $765.7 MILLION
INDIANA | $409.6 MILLION
JAPAN | $2.67 BILLION
MEXICO | $2.26 BILLION
SOUTH KOREA | $1.05 BILLION
COLOMBIA | $892 MILLION
EGYPT | $595 MILLION
CALIFORNIA
$19.5 BILLION
1
13
15
2CANADA
$21.3 BILLION
3MEXICO
$18.1 BILLION
BRAZIL
$1.9 BILLION
SOUTH
KOREA
$5.1
BILLION
TAIWAN
$3.1
BILLION
INDONESIA
$2.8 BILLION
6
8
9
10
11
12
14
JAPAN
$12.1 BILLION
4
5
EU
$11.9 BILLION
EGYPT
$1.7 BILLION
TURKEY
$2.1 BILLION
VIETNAM
$2.1 BILLION
7
PHILIPPINES
$2.5 BILLION
HONG
KONG
$3.9 BILLION
VENEZUELA
$1.5 BILLION
TOP15EXPORTDESTINATIONS
1CHINA
$25.9 BILLION

EXPORTS
TOP5WHEAT
EXPORTINGSTATES
CANADA
$1.78 BILLION
TOP 5 FRESH FRUIT
DESTINATIONS
CALIFORNIA
$3.5 BILLION
TOP 5 FRESH FRUIT
EXPORTING STATES
CANADA
$1.8 BILLION
TOP 5 FRESH VEG.
DESTINATIONS
CALIFORNIA
$865.9 MILLION
TOP 5 FRESH VEG.
EXPORTING STATES
HONG KONG
$345 MILLION
OREGON
$115.2 MILLION
TAIWAN
$65 MILLION
ARIZONA
$133.6 MILLION
TOP5SHELLEGG
DESTINATIONS
TOP5POULTRY
EXPORTINGSTATES
GEORGIA | $756.8 MILLION
NORTHCAROLINA | $698.9MILLION
ARKANSAS | $645.9 MILLION
ALABAMA
$571.1 MILLION
MISSISSIPPI
$423.1
MILLION
TOP5SOYBEAN
EXPORTINGSTATES
IOWA | $2.7 BILLION
ILLINOIS | $3.1 BILLION
MINNESOTA | $1.76 BILLION
INDIANA | $1.75 BILLION
NEBRASKA | $1.6 BILLION
TOP5DAIRY
EXPORTINGSTATES
IOWA
$355.2
MILLION
MICHIGAN
$92.6 MILLION
UNITED KINGDOM
$49 MILLION
IDAHO
$130.1 MILLION
JAPAN
$327 MILLION
MEXICO
$583 MILLION
WASHINGTON
$565.4 MILLION
MEXICO
$143 MILLION
FLORIDA
$211.6 MILLION
SOUTH KOREA
$348 MILLION
FLORIDA
$324.8 MILLION
JAPAN
$126 MILLION
WASHINGTON
$153.5 MILLION
TOP5FRESHFRUITSANDVEGETABLES
$1.3
BILLION
$705.8
MILLION
NORTH DAKOTA
$961.2
MILLION
MONTANA
WASHINGTON
$510.9
MILLION
OKLAHOMA
TOP5
SOYBEAN
DESTINATIONS
KANSAS $1.5
BILLION
MEXICO
$1.8
BILLION
INDONESIA
$1.04
BILLION
JAPAN
$995
MILLION
TAIWAN
$729
MILLION
JAPAN | $925 MILLION
CHINA | $14.8 BILLION
TOP5
BROILER
CHICKEN
DESTINATIONS
MEXICO | 1.5 BILLION POUNDS
MEXICO | $1.6 BILLION
TOP5
BEEF/VEAL
DESTINATIONS
JAPAN | 662.5 MILLION POUNDS
MEXICO
435.1 MILLION LBS.
HONG KONG
415.9 MILLION LBS.
CANADA
364.4 MILLION LBS.
SOUTH KOREA
301.3 MILLION LBS.
MEXICO
$856
MILLION
BRAZIL
$753
MILLION
PHILIPPINES
$698
MILLION
NIGERIA
$693
MILLION
WISCONSIN
$923.7 MILLION
CALIFORNIA
$1.27 BILLION
NEW YORK
$474.6 MILLION
PENNSYLVANIA
$378 MILLION
IDAHO
$428.8 MILLION
TOP5
WHEAT
DESTINATIONS
TOP5
DAIRY
DESTINATIONS
ANGOLA
510.8 MILLION LBS.
CANADA
358.7 MILLION LBS.
RUSSIA
317.3 MILLION LBS.
CUBA
316.5 MILLION LBS.
MEXICO
65.5 MILLION DOZEN
HONG KONG
47.6 MILLION DOZEN
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
6.6 MILLION DOZEN
JAMAICA
3.1 MILLION DOZEN
CANADA
90.6 MILLION DOZEN
TOP5BEEF/VEALEXPORTINGSTATES
NEBRASKA
$946.6
MILLION
TEXAS
$905.6
MILLION
COLORADO
$333.1
MILLION
KANSAS
$695
MILLION
CHINA
$697
MILLION
CANADA
$592 MILLION
PHILIPPINES
$423 MILLION
SOUTH KOREA
$417 MILLION

Even a solid, century-old farm faces challenge and uncertainty
ATRISKBy Sharyn Jackson and Christopher Gannon
O
N THE LAWN OF a ranch house abutting rolling acres
of emerald Iowa pasture, a red-haired girl, 7, leads a
calf in circles with the help of her family.
It’s early July, and Jillian Dammann is getting ready
to show her bottle calf, Olaf, at the nearby Page County
Fair. Her parents, Justin and Jennifer, are teaching her how to lead
him, and her little brother, Jayden, is helping.
Named after a character in Disney’s Frozen, this calf from
the Dammanns’ livestock breeding operation lost its source of
sustenance when its mother died. So Jillian helps rear it, feeding
Olaf milk from a bottle that’s bigger than the pink cowboy boots
she wears, here in the southwest Iowa county where 4-H clubs
were among the first in the country.
Jillian is one of two possible heirs to a business that’s been
in her family for five previous generations; the other, her little
brother Jayden, 4. Her training with Olaf is more than an extracur-
ricular activity; it’s an investment in the legacy of this family and
the future of this farm, this county and this country.
For the Dammann family to continue its legacy, it will need
to navigate the subtle but sweeping forces of change that are
transforming America and its place in the world. Two massive
demographic shifts head the list: Americans are rapidly graying,
and the nation is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse.
“Either one of these by itself would be the defining demographic
drama of its era,” said Paul Taylor, a Pew Research Center senior
fellow and author of The Next America: Boomers, Millennials and
the Looming Generational Showdown. “The fact that they’re hap-
pening together could be a recipe for stresses in social cohesion.”
CONTINUED
Justin Dammann walks across a newly-constructed terrace on his Iowa farm. The fifth-generation farmer works to preserve the family land for his own children.

uGerman immigrant who founded
the farm in 1901 with wife Dora.
DAMMANN FAMILY TREE
These profound changes are perhaps
best seen through the eyes of the people
who for centuries have fed the U.S. and
the world. In rural America, the aging
population and ever-bigger farms enabled
by technological advances are already
depopulating the countryside. Jillian
Dammann, for example, attends a private
school because her parents don’t know
whether the local public school will still
be around by the time she graduates.
“It is almost inevitable that there are
going to be less farm families farming in
the state of Iowa, which in turn means
less schools, less churches, less com-
munities. And it just kind of snowballs,”
said Justin Dammann. “I think as we go
forward, the big question mark is: How is
it going to look?”
But if ever a family was equipped to face
uncertainty, it would be the Dammanns.
Their six-generation farm has survived
waves of tumult since its founding by a
German immigrant ancestor.
The operation survived the Great
Depression of the 1930s, a destructive
tornado in 1964, the farm crisis of the
1980s, consolidations that squeezed
the family out of the swine and poultry
industries, drought in recent years and the
latest challenge, corn prices in July 2014
less than half of what they were a year
ago.
The passing years also brought times of
promise, fostered in part by this family’s
commitment to preserving the land for
subsequent generations, as well as its
ability to adapt to a changing industry.
The farm has grown from a 160-acre
plot once owned by the Burlington and
Missouri River Railroad to 7,100 acres of
owned and rented cropland and pasture
sprawled over six counties in southwest
Iowa and three counties in northwest
Missouri.
At the farm’s core is “the shop,” the hub
of activity and the spot where the original
1888 farmhouse still stands.
The shop is surrounded by farm
life — on one side, a field of corn; on the
opposite, a pasture for calves; at one end,
the machine sheds, where tractors are
constantly driven in and out; and on the
other, the old house, where an oak tree,
planted in the 1970s by the founder’s
son-in-law, George Dammann, towers
over all.
Today, the Dammanns raise soybeans,
corn for ethanol and food-grade corn,
which is processed and sent around the
country for tortillas. They also breed and
raise beef cattle.
Four generations are rooted here,
including Arnold Dammann, 79, whose
grandfather William Bartels founded the
farm and whose pioneer father imparted
to him the frugality of Depression-era
life; Arnold’s son, Danny, who entered the
business just as the 1980s farm crisis took
hold, shaking his confidence that he could
continue doing what he loved; Arnold’s
grandson and Danny’s son, Justin, 34, who
as manager of the farm is at the core of
today’s operation; and, representing the
fourth generation, Justin’s son, Jayden.
With his bins of toy tractors and drawers
of iconic green John Deere T-shirts, Jayden
is viewed as the best prospect to take over
one day.
Danny Dammann said the family was
lucky to have his sons, Justin and Jordan
(the farm’s master mechanic), join the
operation. “I remember when I was
getting Justin started,” he said. “There’s a
lot of kids his age that did not stick on the
farm.”
Jillian isn’t sure she wants to farm, but
by proximity alone, she’s learning the
basics. The culture in which her family
is raising her, on a homestead rich with
history, teaches her how to care for
animals and how to nurture the Earth and
its creatures.
Jillian struggles as she tries to lead Olaf,
who pulls her away from her intended
destination. But Justin won’t let her give
up. “Tough times,” he said, “make people
stronger.”
TECHNOLOGY BRINGS
CHANGES
At 57, Danny Dammann is becoming
more conscious of his health. These
days, the lifelong farmer sticks mostly
to operating the sprayer, avoiding more
strenuous jobs.
But farming has also become easier as
The Dammann family — from left, Jennifer, Jillian, Justin and Jayden — help Jillian and Olaf the calf practice for the county fair.
uEmma and George’s son.
For the Dammann family
to continue its legacy,
it will need to navigate
the subtle but sweeping
forces of change that are
transforming America.
uJustin and Jennifer’s children.
uWilliam’s daughter; took over
the farm with her husband George
Dammann after her brother Albert
died.
uDanny is Arnold’s oldest son and is
recently divorced from wife Barbara,
who owns part of the farm. Justin
Dammann is Danny’s oldest son; he
runs the farm with his wife, Jennifer.
WILLIAM BARTELS, 1871-1956
EMMA BARTELS, 1901-1995
ARNOLD DAMMANN, 79
DANNY DAMMANN, 57
JUSTIN DAMMANN, 34
JILLIAN DAMMANN, 7
JAYDEN DAMMANN, 4
BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOS COURTESY OF THE DAMMANN
FAMILY; CHRISTOPHER GANNON/THE DES MOINES REGISTER

USA Today work Nikki Dobrin

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to USA Today work Nikki Dobrin

Similar to USA Today work Nikki Dobrin (15)

USA Today work Nikki Dobrin