Monday October 19 Ag News

NDA ANNOUNCES MEMBERS OF LIVESTOCK MATRIX COMMITTEE

Nebraska Department of Agriculture (NDA) Director Greg Ibach today announced the members of the newly created Livestock Development Matrix Committee.

Appointed by Ibach to serve on the committee are: John Csukker, Shelby; Elizabeth (Liz) Doerr, Creighton; Leon Kolbet, Hayes Center; Dean Krueger, Hebron; Mark McHargue, Central City; Jennifer (Jen) Myers, Palmer; Sarah Pillen, Columbus; Andrew (Andy) Scholting, Wisner; Steve Sill, Wisner; and Richard (Rick) Stowell, Ph.D., P.E., Lincoln.

The Livestock Development Matrix Committee was created through Legislative Bill 106, which was signed by Gov. Pete Ricketts on May 27, 2015. The law charges the NDA with development of an assessment matrix that can be used by county government officials for siting livestock operations.

Per the law, committee members are to provide consultation to Ibach during the matrix development process and must review the matrix annually and recommend changes to the department if needed.

The assessment matrix must be complete by Aug. 30, 2016.



NePPA and NSB Offer Free Teaching Aid about Pork Production and the Nutritional Value of Pork.  

The Nebraska Pork Producers Association (NePPA) and the Nebraska Soybean Board (NSB) are offering a free educational package to elementary schools that teaches students about our food supply system with a focus on pork production.

Producers, Pigs & Pork is a series of five lessons designed for third- through sixth-graders. Each lesson includes a DVD that enhances core learning objectives. Students will learn where their food comes from; how pigs are raised; how farmers work to protect the environment; pork’s nutritional values; non-food pork products; and food safety. Also included is an illustrated storybook about a boy’s visit to a modern pig farm, and a variety of exercises to encourage student application of educational standards and skills, such as vocabulary, science and communications.

“We’re pleased to join with the NSB to make Producers, Pigs and Pork available to the state’s elementary school teachers,” says Kyla Habrock, the NePPA’s youth leadership director. “This package developed by the National Pork Board provides great information about how pork provides high levels of protein and other nutrients that are important for good health.”
NSB Education and Outreach Manager Teri Zimmeran agrees.

 “It’s very important that we start to educate Nebraskans at a young age about how their food is produced and how nutritionally beneficial pork is in their diets,” she says. She also points out that Nebraska’s soybean farmers provide much of the feed for the state’s pig farmers.

Other educational materials provided free to the state’s elementary schools by the Nebraska Soybean Board and the Nebraska Pork Producers Association include: a Bingo card game that teaches students about pork and soybean farming; Food For Thought, an animated video package that gives students a look at how pork is produced in Nebraska; Short Snoots, Soybean Sprouts, a colorful, four-page worksheet with interactive exercises to help students understand the interdependency of pig and soybean farming in Nebraska; and Pigmania, a six-lesson package that teaches students the basics about pork production.

Teachers can order Producers, Pigs and Pork at no cost at nebraskaproducerspigspork.com. Quantities are limited, so teachers are urged to order immediately.



SIX ON-FARM RESEARCH HARVEST TIPS
Laura Thompson & Keith Glewen, UNL Extension Educators

Harvest is in full swing and many on-farm research trials are being harvested. Before you begin harvesting the study, here are a few things to keep in mind to make sure you get results that will be beneficial to you in the future.

1. Calibrate your yield monitor. If you will be collecting yields using a yield monitor remember to first calibrate the yield monitor according to the recommendations in the manual. For a great guide with more information, click here. Remember, the accuracy of your conclusions is dependent on the quality of the data you have to work with. Getting reliable yield data is critical if you plan to base future management decisions on the results of the study.

2. If weighing grain, make sure the combine bin is empty before starting the study. This may seem obvious, but in the rush of getting started, simple things can be overlooked. On the same note, if using a weigh wagon, double check that it is empty or tare it before starting to unload.

3. Consider treatment buffer effect. Before cutting into the field, think about your treatments. Does one product or practice have the potential to influence a neighboring treatment? One example is a study with different nitrogen treatments. Corn roots can access nitrogen from the next row over, so neighboring nitrogen treatments can effect yields. Another example is a study where different products were applied via a high clearance applicator or airplane. In this case, drift may impact neighboring treatments. In these cases, you may have set up treatments so that you can harvest and record the yield while leaving a “buffer” on each edge that is harvested later and not included in the study data. Check plan and flags carefully to make sure.

4. When in doubt, call us. If you are harvesting your study and don’t remember a detail about the harvest plan or treatment layout, call your extension educator to go over the details.

5. Think about future research topics. Harvest is a great time to be reflecting on management decisions from the past year, and in retrospect, many questions may come to mind. Did that fungicide treatment pay? Was the extra nitrogen worth it? Should I have applied more nitrogen? Think through these questions and jot down a list of things you may be interested in looking into more closely next year. Keep in mind that many nutrient and cover crop studies need to be planned now.

6. Share your pictures! We love to see pictures of your research plots being harvested. Post your pictures on twitter and tag us @OnFarmResearch. We will retweet and join the conversation.

The Nebraska Extension On-Farm Research educator team can help you develop a custom plan for your research experiment to help you get reliable information to use when making future decisions.

For more information about the project, contact your local Nebraska Extension office or contact Laura Thompson (email: laura.thompson@unl.edu, phone: 402-624-8033) or Keith Glewen (email: kglewen1@unl.edu, phone: 402-624-8005).



2016 NATIONAL BEEF AMBASSADORS SELECTED

Lauren Schlothauer (New Mexico), Hannah Nave (Tennessee), Ashtyn Shrewsbury (Nebraska), Kylee Sigmon (Arkansas), and Mackenzie Kimbro (Arizona) were chosen as the 2016 National Beef Ambassador Team at the annual National Beef Ambassador competition, which is managed by the American National CattleWomen, Inc.

Contestants were judged in the areas of consumer promotion, education and outreach strategy, media interview technique and issues response at the event held in Denver.

Senior contestants aged 17-21 from throughout the country vied for a place on this elite team of agriculture advocates and five educational scholarships totaling $5,000 were given by the American National CattleWomen Foundation, Inc.

This year’s contest also hosted a junior competition for youth beef industry advocates ages 12-16, competing in three judged categories:  consumer promotion, media interview technique and issues response.  The top three competitors were: Angelee Dowling (California), Lindsey Parsley (Tennessee) and Sarah Harris (Virginia).

While preparing for this national beef promotion and education competition, youth across the nation learn about beef and the beef industry with support from state CattleWomen and Cattlemen’s associations and state beef councils. The preparation highlights industry issues of current consumer interest. Winners of the state competitions compete at the national level where they receive additional training. After the event, the youth ambassadors speak to industry issues and misconceptions and educate their peers and meal-time decision makers about beef nutrition, cattle care, safety and more during consumer events, in the classroom and online.

Follow the National Beef Ambassadors on Twitter at @beefambassador and visit www.ancw.org for more information.



NMPF, USDEC and IDFA Urge Senate to Solve COOL Labeling Issue to Head Off Tariffs on U.S. Dairy Products

The dairy industry today said it is “critical” that Congress solve the trade dispute over country-of-origin labeling to head off damaging new tariffs on U.S. dairy exports by Canada and Mexico.

In a letter to the Senate, the National Milk Producers Federation, U.S. Dairy Export Council and International Dairy Foods Association expressed “growing apprehension” that retaliatory tariffs are drawing closer under a finding that said parts of the U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law violate World Trade Organization rules.

“(We) urge the Senate to pass legislation to bring the U.S. into compliance with its WTO obligations without further delay,” the groups said.

Last spring, the WTO ruled against the U.S. COOL program, saying that Canada and Mexico could retaliate against U.S. exports in response. American dairy products have been on Canada’s target list for retaliatory tariffs resulting from the ruling.

“Retaliation against dairy products would come at a particularly challenging time for our industry, given the currently depressed global dairy market…” said NMPF, USDEC and IDFA. “Multiple cooperatives have already been faced at times this year with oversupplies of milk, causing them to dispose of excess milk at a loss. Retaliatory tariffs would back up exports further onto the U.S. market during this time of overly abundant milk supplies.”

Any congressional solution, the groups added, must satisfy Canada and Mexico because those two countries would retain their right to retaliate against the United States until a lengthy WTO arbitration process is concluded. “U.S. dairy producers and processors cannot risk getting mired down in that drawn-out process,” they said.

The three groups asked the Senate to work together “to put in place an outcome that Canada and Mexico agree resolves this issue.”




Beef Demand: Q3 Update and Broader Understanding
Glynn T. Tonsor, Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University

The past couple months likely will go down as some of the most turbulent in memory for most cattle producers.  At the heart of industry-wide price declines and rallies has been concern and uncertainty regarding both supply and demand fundamentals.  Most of the near-term supply pressures related to extra heavy-weight fed cattle are well documented.  What is less well understood and shrouded in uncertainty is the status of beef demand strength.

Accordingly it is useful to note the KSU All Fresh Beef Demand Index (AFBDI) increased 8.7% compared to 2014.[1] To appreciate the AFBDI patterns, note per capita consumption increased by 2% and real prices increased by 6% in the third quarter.  Anytime we observe both consumption and price increases we know demand improved as consumers clearly were willing to pay more for beef than in the past.  In economic jargon we know the demand curve shifted in a positive way for the industry.  This strong demand estimate suggest the widely stated concerns with demand strength in September may have been overstated or at least were offset by prior strength in July and August.

As noted many times before, the background confusion and uncertainty on demand calls for all industry participants to engage in ongoing education.  This includes recognition of alternative methods of assessing demand.  Therefore it is valuable to briefly summarizing key aspects and differences between two alternative ways of assessing retail beef demand: KSU indices and the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) published by Oklahoma State University[2].

The demand indices currently released by KSU measure revealed preferences as informed by governmental estimates of past consumption (disappearance) and retail prices.  This approach relies on an assumed elasticity estimate conveying how price sensitive we believe consumers are.  By design this provides a backward looking estimate of how strong demand was in the most recently completed quarter.

The FooDS is a monthly survey conducted since May 2013 of at least 1,000 individuals weighted to reflect the U.S. population.  The FooDS includes a sequence of product-selection questions from which estimates are derived of what consumers say they would pay for eight specific food products including steak and hamburger.  Accordingly this approach measures stated preferences as directly gathered from the consumer, by design attempts to look at the current month's demand strength, does not require any assumptions regarding price elasticity estimates, and offers less aggregated estimates of demand.

The KSU index and FooDS approaches each offer valuable demand information and have their own set of strengths and drawbacks.  Ongoing research will more finely assess the relative merits of each approach as this is the main subject of interest in an active USDA funded grant project.[3] In the meantime, it is useful to appreciate my favorite quote from the most recent issue of The Economist magazine: "it is only by understanding differences between people that we can understand the whole" in discussing Angus Deaton's contributions to economics as the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize.[4]  Similarly, it is only by investing in assessing demand multiple ways can the industry truly advance its understanding of beef demand.  The critical importance of said understanding should be clear to all producers as industry success is contingent on providing consumers products they strongly demand.

[1] Additional details on the KSU demand indices and demand concepts more broadly are available at: http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/Beef%20Demand/default.asp.
[2] Additional details on the OSU FooDS are available at: http://www.agecon.okstate.edu/agecon_research.asp.
[3] Dr. Tonsor and Dr. Jayson Lusk (lead researcher with FooDS at Oklahoma State University) are collaborating on a USDA funded grant project (2015-67023-23134) titled "Using Consumer Tracking Survey to Understand and Forecast Changes in Consumer Demand for Disaggregated Meat Products."
[4] Interested readers can find this article at: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21674436-angus-deaton-wins-nobel-prize-bringing-economics-back-real.



Monsanto Being Sued Over Allege Roundup Cancer Link

Personal injury law firms around the United States are lining up plaintiffs for what they say could be "mass tort" actions against agrichemical giant Monsanto Co. that claim the company's Roundup herbicide has caused cancer in farm workers and others exposed to the chemical. According to Reuters, the latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Delaware Superior Court by three law firms representing three plaintiffs.

The lawsuit is similar to others filed last month in New York and California accusing Monsanto of long knowing that the main ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, was hazardous to human health. Monsanto "led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general population that Roundup was safe," the lawsuit states.

The litigation follows the World Health Organization's declaration in March that there was sufficient evidence to classify glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans."

The firm held town hall gatherings in August in Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska seeking clients.

Monsanto said the WHO classification is wrong and that glyphosate is among the safest pesticides on the planet, Reuters reports.

Attorneys who have filed or are eying litigation cited strong evidence that links glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They said claims will likely be pursued collaboratively as mass tort actions.

At least 700 lawsuits against Monsanto or Monsanto-related entities are pending, brought by law firms on behalf of people who claim their non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by exposure to PCBs that the company had manufactured until the late 1970s.



Protein Makes a Comeback

Eat a different kind of fat and fewer carbohydrates. Or is it the other way around? Over the last 40 years, consumers have been led one way or the other, which begs the question: Where’s the protein?

“Starting almost a half century ago, protein was basically ignored,” according to Shalene McNeill, executive director of nutrition research for the beef checkoff. “Although its benefits to the human diet are indisputable, in the past, it often has been left out of the discussion when it comes to the three macronutrients.”

When the 1977 Dietary Goals for the United States were published by the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, protein was indeed the forgotten macronutrient. Eat less fat, sugar and salt, the report urged, and more carbohydrates. The American public took admonitions about the need to eat less fat to heart, replacing those fat calories with carbohydrates — and now, concerns about human health, particularly overweight and obesity, are at peak levels.

This leads to the question:  What would happen if the optimal amount of protein in the diet was re-examined? The benefits of protein have never been in question, McNeill asserts, and have been established in research that began in the first part of the 20th century. This research demonstrated that amino acids, the basic building blocks of protein, are used by the body to make protein that support many bodily functions, including growth, transport and storage of nutrients, repair of body tissues in the muscles, bones, skin and hair, and removal of all kinds of waste deposits. Amino acids are also a source of energy for the body.

Importantly, research also has shown that not all proteins are the same. The essential amino acids (EAA) cannot be synthesized in the body and must be supplied by the diet. In general, plant proteins do not contain all of the EAA in sufficient quantities when eaten alone. While protein is found in both plant and animal foods, animal-based proteins have been shown to be more bioavailable and more readily useable by the body.

About three ounces of lean beef contains 25 grams of protein and 154 calories. To obtain the same amount of protein in less useable form would, for example, require six tablespoons of peanut butter with 564 calories.

“You have to question why these recommendations (to focus on plant forms of protein) are out there, at least from a protein standpoint,” according to Stuart Phillips, a recognized researcher who is focused on the nutrition and exercise factors that impact skeletal muscle health. “Animal protein is superior to plant forms of protein in stimulating muscle protein synthesis.”

Phillips, a professor in the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, says there are minimal and optimal levels of protein consumption, and today’s Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) should be categorized in the former, not the latter. Unfortunately, the semantics themselves often mislead people.

“Recommended Dietary Allowances suggest that not only are these levels what are recommended, but what are allowed,” Philips says. “But that level of protein is not what’s recommended – it’s the minimal level of protein to offset protein deficiency in 98 percent of individuals. In my opinion, what the RDA really is, is the MDI – the minimal dietary intake.”

Protein Researchers Convene
Other researchers have come to the same conclusion. About eight years ago, protein researchers came together to put more light on the question of protein in the diet. Funded in part by the Beef Checkoff Program, Protein Summit 2007 in Charleston, S.C., assembled more than 50 researchers from numerous countries. Consensus among those in attendance was that higher protein intakes were important to various health outcomes, such as weight management, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, especially among certain populations and segments of populations.

Analysis of protein intake in the American population, for instance, was conducted using data collected in 2003-04 from a nationally represented sample of the U.S. population and reported at the 2007 summit. It found that while most age/sex groups appeared to consume more protein than the respective Estimated Average Requirements (EAR), a significant percentage of adolescent females and older women had inadequate protein intake (below the EAR). Furthermore, as Americans age they tend to decrease their protein intake. Given the rising concern about the loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength associated with aging, summit attendees agreed protein intake in older Americans deserved increased attention.

Researchers throughout the nutrition field have been paying attention. Eight papers from that summit were published in a supplement in the May 2008 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and have been downloaded more than 70,000 times.

In October, at 2013 Protein Summit 2.0, co-sponsored by the Beef Checkoff Program, scientists agreed that progress had been made since the 2007 summit, and that “the scientific literature has expanded with research indicating that higher-protein intakes contribute to better diet quality, healthy weight management, improved body composition, and maintenance of, or increase in, lean body mass for certain populations,” according to Summit 2.0 proceedings.

Proceedings in the form of six papers from that summit were published in a supplement in the June 2015 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Those papers asserted that additional research is needed, including human clinical trials, as well as animal and cellular models.

Work Goes On
The need for research is in direct correlation to the need for information that the beef industry and others can use to educate consumers better, according to Anne Anderson, a Texas beef producer and vice chairman of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board. “We didn’t create the need for knowledge on good nutrition, but we certainly can help fulfill it,” says Anderson. “Beef happens to be a wonderful provider of protein. Through our Beef Checkoff Program, we can help answer some important nutrition questions, while as an industry we provide the product that delivers solutions to the challenge of designing the best human diets.”   

“If you look at where we are in terms of nutrition knowledge, it becomes obvious that we are still in the infancy of our understanding of optimal human nutrition,” according to McNeill. “Significant research remains to be done. While beef-checkoff research continues to make inroads into this topic, with every building block of knowledge it provides, it reveals a new avenue for study. One finding has been convincing:  Adequate protein is crucial. For that reason, beef will continue to play a role in the discussions of the optimal human diet.”



 CWT Assists with 2.2 million Pounds of Cheese Export Sales

Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) has accepted 12 requests for export assistance from Dairy Farmers of America, Northwest Dairy Association (Darigold) and Tillamook County Creamery Association who have contracts to sell 2.196 million pounds (996 metric tons) of Cheddar, Gouda and Monterey Jack cheese to customers in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and Central America. The product has been contracted for delivery in the period from October 2015 through April 2016.

Year-to-date, CWT has assisted member cooperatives who have contracts to sell 49.872 million pounds of cheese, 25.671 million pounds of butter and 35.556 million pounds of whole milk powder to thirty-five countries on six continents. The amounts of cheese, butter and whole milk powder in these sales contracts represent the equivalent of 1.297 billion pounds of milk on a milkfat basis.

Assisting CWT members through the Export Assistance program, in the long-term, helps member cooperatives gain and maintain market share, thus expanding the demand for U.S. dairy products and the U.S. farm milk that produces them. This, in turn, positively impacts all U.S. dairy farmers by strengthening and maintaining the value of dairy products that directly impact their milk price.



Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics to Meet on November 4-5

The annual meeting of the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics will take place in Louisville, Ky., on Nov. 4-5, 2015. The agenda includes a discussion of the 2017 Census of Agriculture; urban agriculture; next generation farmers and ranchers; the Agricultural Resource Management Survey program; Chemical Use program, and data quality. There will also be an update on the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) by Administrator Joseph T. Reilly.

The meeting is open to the public and will take place at the Louisville Marriott Downtown, 280 West Jefferson St. Louisville, Ky. There will be an opportunity for public questions and comments at 9:45 a.m. on Nov. 5th. Registration is required. To attend, please contact NASS by email: HQSDOD@nass.usda.gov (ACAS RSVP in subject line); Phone: 202-720-2127; or Fax: 855-593-5473.

The committee advises the Secretary of Agriculture and NASS on the scope, content and timing of surveys and the every-five-year Census of Agriculture. The 20 committee members represent a broad range of agricultural disciplines and interests. More information about the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Statistics can be found on the NASS website.

For more information about the meeting can be found in the Oct. 14, 2015 Federal Register.



Cargill reports first-quarter fiscal 2016 earnings

Cargill today reported financial results for the fiscal 2016 first quarter ended Aug. 31, 2015. Key measures include:
-    Adjusted operating earnings in the first quarter were $611 million, compared with $619 million in the same period a year ago.
-    Net earnings were $512 million, a 20 percent increase from last year’s $425 million.
-    Revenues were $27.5 billion, down 17 percent from $33.3 billion a year ago.

“Cargill posted a productive start to the new fiscal year, led by solid performance globally in grain and oilseeds processing and animal nutrition,” said David MacLennan, Cargill’s chairman and chief executive officer. “Our team ably navigated the quarter’s weather-driven agricultural commodity markets, as well as the effects of more volatile emerging markets, currency fluctuations and other macroeconomic uncertainty. Across the company, we made good headway on operational improvements aimed at strengthening business performance. The integration of ADM’s chocolate business is proceeding on target, and we are excited to welcome EWOS, a global leader in salmon nutrition, to our company.”

Segment performance:
The Origination & Processing segment made the largest contribution to Cargill’s first quarter, with adjusted operating earnings up slightly from a year ago. Within the platform, combined results for the grain and oilseed supply chain businesses rose considerably, based on effective positioning in agricultural commodity markets distinguished by persistent downward trends and occasional sharp price reversals. Soybean crush results strengthened globally, boosted by improved capacity utilization in South America and an unusually long processing season in North America. Performance in North American farm services lagged last year’s strong first quarter, reflecting a return to more normalized levels in Canada after two very large crop years.

Adjusted operating earnings in Animal Nutrition & Protein decreased in the first quarter, with increased results in animal nutrition offset by lower earnings in animal protein. Global animal nutrition earnings exceeded last year’s solid start due to higher sales volumes of customer-aligned products and services, and good cost management. Areas of particular strength included the U.S. and Vietnam, and aquaculture nutrition in Latin America. Within the segment’s animal protein businesses, poultry results in Central America, Europe and the U.S. rose on strong operational and marketing performance. Unseasonable pressures in cattle and beef markets led to a weaker quarter in North American beef. Cattle costs remained high, and continued high beef prices caused consumers to seek less expensive alternatives such as pork and poultry.

Results in Food Ingredients & Applications were down slightly from last year’s first quarter, though efforts to reduce costs and improve performance showed good progress across the segment. Profitability in starches and sweeteners was pressured in Europe by historically low sugar prices, and in North America by the impact of low crude oil prices on markets for corn-based ethanol. Other ingredients within the segment’s portfolio also saw slippage in earnings, as did staple foods in some emerging markets. In contrast, salt results rose on new volume from last year’s purchase of a salt facility in Michigan and lower freight costs. The acquisition of ADM’s chocolate business was completed in late July and integration is proceeding smoothly.

Industrial & Financial Services’ adjusted operating earnings declined as hedge fund closures at a Cargill-owned asset management subsidiary overshadowed a good start in the industrial units. The energy businesses posted a solid first-quarter profit due to effective trading strategies in more volatile, downward trending markets. Metals and ocean transportation also posted better results in challenging markets.



Bayer CropScience Celebrates Agriculture Literacy Week Oct. 19-23

In a community-wide effort to support the future of agriculture and to help solve the world’s most pressing food issues, Bayer CropScience is celebrating Agriculture Literacy Week Oct. 19-23. Bayer CropScience sites across the country will engage with local communities to provide hands on learning opportunities for students and stakeholders. The company seeks to increase the public awareness to the power of modern agriculture and the critical role technology will play in food production to help meet the needs of a growing population.

Societal and environmental changes within the next 30 years will severely test our ability to produce enough food to satisfy a growing world population. During this time, global food demand is expected to increase 60 percent and we must meet this demand using the same or fewer arable acres that we have today, and in the face of a shrinking water supply, evolving pest pressures and a changing climate. Innovation in agriculture is imperative but innovation can only be achieved with an agriculturally literate population that is enthusiastic about developing solutions that can address future food challenges.

“Bayer is committed to improving agricultural literacy among students and the general public for two very important reasons,” said Jim Blome, president and CEO of Bayer CropScience LP. “There is a disconnect between non-agriculture audiences and modern agricultural production that often leads to an unnecessary misunderstanding of our industry and farming practices. There is also a shortage of young talent needed to fill agriculture jobs, particularly in STEM fields, that will create the innovation necessary to feed the more than 9 billion people that will inhabit our planet by 2050.”

Bayer CropScience sites in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; West Sacramento, California; Kansas City, Missouri; and Lubbock, Texas, will host a series of Agriculture Literacy Week events focused on public outreach and student engagement. Bayer CropScience employees will participate in agriculture-focused community service activities, engage in Making Science Make Sense events at local schools, participate in community events that promote STEM education and more. All activities will serve to highlight the importance of agriculture literacy by showcasing where our food comes from, the technology that enhances modern agricultural production, the vast availability of STEM careers in agriculture, and telling the innovative story of modern agriculture.

“It is important that people know where their food comes from and how it is produced, because the agriculture supply challenges we’re facing cannot be solved without new technology and increased engagement in our industry,” said Blome. “The future of agriculture looks most promising when young minds develop a passion for STEM, agriculture and innovation that will make a tangible difference in solving the world’s most pressing food issues.”