Podcasts about Agricultural economics

02/27/26: Joel Heitkamp is on vacation and has Richland County Commissioners, Nathan Berseth and Perry Miller, filling in for him on "News and Views." They're joined by Daniel Julson to talk about tax season, specifically digging into the taxing on tips, Trump accounts, deductions, and more. Daniel Julson graduated in 2015 from North Dakota State University with a degree in Agricultural Economics with an emphasis in Accounting. He received his CPA license in January 2017. (Joel Heitkamp is a talk show host on the Mighty 790 KFGO in Fargo-Moorhead. His award-winning program, “News & Views,” can be heard weekdays from 8 – 11 a.m. Follow Joel on X/Twitter @JoelKFGO.)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If the last U.S. herd rebuild can be described as a “jackrabbit” rebuild, this current period is completely the opposite, says Oklahoma State University economist Darrell Peel.The beef industry is on pace for a slow rebuild, and this episode of The Angus Conversation dives into the “why.”Cattle feeder Steve Sunderman and stocker-operator Gene Copenhaver join Peel to discuss tight supplies, margin pressures and how producers are adapting. From heavier finishing weights to rising capital requirements for the next generation, the guests explore what's shaping today's dynamics and long-term outlook. The guests share why they're “cautiously optimistic” and yet emphasize the importance of risk management.HOSTS: Miranda Reiman and Mark McCullyGUESTS:Derrell Peel is an ag econ professor at Oklahoma State University, holding the Charles Breedlove Professorship of Agribusiness in the Department of Agricultural Economics. He has served as the extension livestock marketing specialist since 1989, focusing on livestock market situation and outlook and marketing/risk management education for producers.His work covers all areas of livestock production economics and marketing for beef cattle including meat supply chain and international cattle and beef trade with an expertise in the Mexican cattle and beef industry.Gene Copenhaver is a fifth-generation cattleman whose family dates to the 1850s in Washington County, Va. Copenhaver currently manages his family's stocker operation in southwest Virginia with his son, Will. He was an agriculture loan officer for 38 years and served his clients who were primarily cattle producers in five East Coast states.Copenhaver is currently serving as National Cattlemen's Beef Association president.He has been married to his wife, Jodi, for more than 35 years, and they have three grown children, Brad, Will and Jaymee, and one granddaughter.Steve Sunderman is a sixth-generation farmer rancher who works alongside his parents near Norfolk, Neb. Sunderman Family Farms is a farming, cow-calf and cattle feeding operation. Steve has served the board of the Nebraska Cattlemen Association and is currently vice chair of the taxation committee as well as past chair of the marketing & commerce committee and past member of their executive committee. He is also a past chair and vice chair of the National Cattlemen Beef Association's live cattle marketing committee.Steve is a co-founder and president of Sunderman Investments, an investment firm focused on rural downtown development and value-added ag investments.SPONSOR:Angus Media: Are you ready to find your next influential Angus sire? Angus Journal subscribers will receive a free copy of the Angus Bull Book: Spring 2026 Angus Sire Directory, mailed right alongside their March edition. Visit www.AngusJournal.net to subscribe to the Angus Journal today.Angus Media: A sale book isn't just a sale book. You have options. Big or small, private treaty or live auction, Angus Media's Pasture to Publish online portal is here to serve you. Visit www.AngusMedia.org to learn more.  Don't miss news in the Angus breed. Visit www.AngusJournal.net and subscribe to the AJ Daily e-newsletter and our monthly magazine, the Angus Journal.

US and the World Winter is still with us but if you look really hard you might see signs of spring. It is the time of year which can be quiet on farms across the greater North American corn belt. However, as the days go by their surely will be more warmth coming over the land with visions of planters heading out into the field. At the same time in South America, harvest and planting are in full swing. That is creating all kinds of variables for market action. Then there is the USDA which chimed in with their latest WASDE report on February the 10th. As reports go the February report is often quiet because it’s sandwiched between the bigger January reports and the later Prospective Planting report in late March. This USDA report did not veer from that script. In the report US corn ending stocks were reduced 100 million bushels but they’re still the largest in seven years. Also too, world stocks outside of the US and China are still tight and there were no changes to South American corn estimates. Corn exports were increased by 100 million bushels up to 3.3 billion bushels which is a record for corn exports. Corn exports are sitting at 2.127 billion bushels. On the soybean side of the ledger US balance sheet remain unchanged from January. There was an increase in production in Brazil which had been widely expected. Brazil soybean production is now expected to be 180 MMTs which is up to 2 MMTs from last month. Simply put, it was a quiet report for soybeans. US soybean ending stocks remained at 350 million bushels. World wheat ending stocks or increased 5 million bushels from last month currently sitting at 931 million bushels. On February 13th corn, soybeans and wheat futures were higher than the last Market Trends report. March 2026 corn futures was at $4.31 a bushel. Dec 2026 corn was at $4.64 bu. The March 2026 soybean futures was at $11.33 bu. The November 2026 soybean futures were at $11.13. The March 2026 wheat futures closed at $5.48 a bushel. The Minneapolis March 2026 wheat futures closed at $5.71 a bushel with the September 2026 contract closing at $6.14 a bushel. The nearby oil futures as of February 13th closed at $62.89/barrel higher vs the nearby futures recorded in the last Market Trends report of $59.44/barrel. The average price for US ethanol in the US was $2.03/gallon, up vs the $1.97/gallon recorded in the last Market Trends Report. The Canadian dollar noon rate on February 13th, 2026, was .7345 US, up vs the .7188 US reported here in the last Market Trends report. The Bank of Canada’s lending rate remained at 2.25%. Ontario In Ontario it has been an icy cold winter leading up to February the 14th. Parts of Ontario in the snow belt north and West of London as well as toward Barrie have an inundated with snow most of the winter and relief would be welcome. Hopefully this created an environment where winter wheat could survive underneath all the snow. Producers will be looking for some respite as we go into March to facilitate grain movement and production plans for 2026. In the meantime, Agricorp released final figures on last year's crop putting Ontario corn at 191 bushels per acre and soybeans at 46 bushels per acre. Ontario basis levels have hardly changed for grains over the last 30 days since the last Market Trends report. In fact, there’s been a slight improvement in some parts of Ontario with eastern Ontario showing historical advantage on the corn basis. Very surely some of this is because of the terrible yields that were experienced in parts of eastern Ontario last year. As we move ahead it’s pretty clear in this part of Ontario and into Quebec that they will need corn to satisfy their needs. The Canadian dollar remains a significant stimulus to cash grain prices. This has happened even though the Canadian dollar did gain almost $0.02 over the last 30 days. Part of the issue has to do with the American dollar sinking and inversely the Canadian dollar gaining within that paradigm. This will likely continue because the American dollar is seeing pressure it is not seen before partly resulting from some of the political moves being made in the United States. For instance, the American President recently commented that he thought it was a good thing that the US dollar was going down. Foreign exchange markets are more complicated than that but their trade algorithms feed on those comments too. As we move ahead Ontario grain producers should be focused on the value of the Canadian dollar as always but also keep abreast of what’s happening with the US dollar. The two are highly inversely interrelated. Old crop corn basis levels are $1.35 to $2.15 over the March 2026 corn futures on Feb 13th across the province. New crop corn basis levels were $1.15 to $1.47 over Dec 2026 futures. The old crop basis levels for soybeans range from $3.10 to $3.69 over the March 2026 futures. New crop soybeans range from $2.90 to $3.06 over the November 2026 futures. Ontario SRW wheat prices are approximately $7.02. For July 2026 new crop the bid is in the $6.72 bu. range. On February 13th the US replacement price for corn was $6.28/bushel. You can access all these Ontario grain prices in the marketing section at https://gfo.ca/marketing/daily-commodity-report/ The Bottom Line We are at somewhat of a standstill in grain prices. Or is this the start of something new even to the point of kidding ourselves for a bit thinking it might be the start of a bull market. All three grains have shown a little bit of resilience in the last 10 days meaning something might be up. That might be China coming in and buying US corn and even more soybeans and it may not be. However, corn prices have recovered from the downdraft from the January USDA report and soybeans have moved much higher. Geopolitics is always a factor when it comes to grain prices and China is usually part of that equation. In fact, you might say it’s always old news. Last year they didn’t buy American soybeans until there was some type of dialogue with the American President. This year there seems to be more optimism by the Americans that the Chinese might come around. Part of that is based on their better relationship and the specter that President Trump will be visiting China in April. In many ways this is key. You've got to believe in the run up to that meeting there will be social media posts from the President about selling more soybeans and corn to China. Our trading algorithms feed on that phenomena. The only way to capture market opportunities from this is to have standing market orders ready. A weather market it continues to be if you consider South American production. The Mato Grosso Institute of Agricultural Economics recently reported that the Safrinha corn planting had reached 46% by mid-February. This is a touch behind where it usually is. At the same time keep in mind that on the Chinese Dalian corn futures exchange prices have been rising since last October. Corn is not quite like wheat; it is grown mostly in the United States but even still producers should keep an eye on market information about the Safrinha crop. Traders in China are looking at that too. As we move into March there will certainly be a shift for some producers from old crop to new crop. Keep in mind that every day of the year is an opportunity to buy and sell grain. 2025 did not offer a very long period of profitable grain pricing opportunities. Who knew we would see some of our largest price increases during harvest time? As we move ahead the March Prospective Planting report looms as a major market mover. However, in the relatively bearish environment which we find ourselves in a big change in acres might not be significant to market action until we actually see what gets planted in late June and July. Commodity Specific Comments Corn As we all know demand for US corn continues to be record setting. This is a very good thing considering that we had 17.02 billion bushels last year. Add a certain point there will be a small tussle for acres between corn and soybeans. Will corn acres be about 95 million this year compared to 99 last year? If they are that is reduction of 4 million acres of corn a fairly major move in the market environment we are in now. We will see if that happens and of course there will be estimates released in late February on the number of acres, but the big prediction will be coming at end of March USDA Prospective Plantings report. Any variation on the script like China buying US corn because there’s has quality concerns will certainly weigh on prices. Simply put, there is so much risk for price as we look ahead toward blowing off the dust on those corn planters. The March 2026 corn contract is currently priced at 10.5 cents lower than the May 2026 contract a neutral to bearish indication of old crop corn demand. Seasonally, we know that corn prices tend to peak in early June and bottom out in early October. The March 2026 corn futures contract is at the 11th percentile of the past five-year price distribution range. Soybeans There is a lot going on in soybeans, possibly increased China buying, a resilient soybean oil market not only with exports abroad but also increased domestic consumption within the United States and possible quality issues in Brazil. For instance, all of these factors are relevant, but the earlier harvested soybeans in the northern part of Mato Grosso have been affected by very rainy weather. Needless to say, with the USDA predicting 180 MMTs of soybeans being produced in Brazil surely it is a minor factor. Brazil continues to be the titan of soybean production and harvest is continuing there at this time. Keep in mind that Brazil has had 19 straight season of production expansion and 75% of their exports go to China. Also keep in mind that Chinese demand growth for soybeans has been in concert with this production increase in Brazil. There is really no sign of this changing other than the fact you have to ask yourself the question can both China and Brazil continue to boost capacity on demand in production respectively. The March 2026 soybean contract is currently priced 15.25 cents below the May contract considered bearish for soybean demand. Seasonally, soybean prices tend to peak in early July and bottom out in early October. The January 2026 soybean contract is currently at the 22nd percentile of the past five-year price distribution range. Wheat There are strong wheat crops almost everywhere. As always, these crops are ready to fill supply gaps. There is also rain in the American southwest plains which will help the wheat crop. That’s a partial list of bearish factors with wheat so why is the price been going up recently? Some might argue the law of averages but there’s been some movement up in wheat based on the other commodities. However, it is a bearish environment. Funds have been short wheat since 2022. Breaking out of that might have to be led by soybeans or corn prices catching fire in the next few weeks. In Ontario old crop wheat prices shot up above $7.00 in the last few weeks helping some producers who were tempted to store wheat from last summer. This reflected the increases in futures prices as well as the Canadian dollar still being relatively low in the $0.73 US range. With snow still inundating most of the Ontario wheat crop it is always difficult to know how and when to contract new crop wheat. Is it alive or is it not? As the snow recedes, we should get a better answer. The Bottom Line (cont.) The Canadian dollar has gained about two cents since the last Market Trends report. It is always hard to tell why but the American dollar has been dropping significantly starting about a month ago but has recently been rising getting within three points of its value on the US dollar index where it was in January. Usually, a 2 cent rise in the Canadian dollar means that basis values go down for Ontario producers. It is not as acute this time around but will likely be next time. Still, the Canadian dollar at $0.73 US will always be good for Ontario cash grain prices. As now it stands Ontario farmers need to continue to watch the markets and keep an eye on South America. There is still time for something to change in the big crop that’s coming off there. Also keep in mind that we will have another March WASDE report coming up as well as the big Prospective Plantings report at the end of the month. Then there are the Black Swans, those market events that happen which nobody sees coming. You tell me when they will happen. The challenge for Ontario producers is to balance all of these market factors. It is difficult, but the profession we chose means risk is almost part of our lifeblood. Managing that risk is a continuing experiment for all of us. Markets will continue to be fluid but so will be our ability to price our grain. Each trading session is an opportunity for us. Daily market intelligence will be key. There will be many grain marketing opportunities ahead. The post Market Trends Report – February & March 2026 appeared first on Grain Farmers of Ontario.

Ward Black     During his career, Ward has worked in multiple sales, procurement, research, and business intelligence roles for private companies, Fortune 500 corporations, and public institutions. Ward holds a BSA and MS in Agricultural Economics from the University of Georgia. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Georgia Green Industry Association […]

About the Guest Dr. Derald Holtkamp is a Professor in the Department of Veterinary Diagnostics and Production Animal Medicine (VDPAM) in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa, U.S.). He received his DVM, MS in Agricultural Economics, and B.S. in Agricultural Business with a minor in statistics, all from Iowa State University. Prior to joining Iowa State, he was a private veterinary consultant. He has also served as a technical services veterinarian for ADViSYS Inc., Vice President of Swine Applications for MetaFarms Inc., Director of Pork Development for E-Markets, Inc., and veterinarian for Smithfield Foods in Warsaw, North Carolina. Dr. Holtkamp's research focuses on managing infectious swine diseases, biosecurity, disease risk assessment, and the economics of animal health and disease. He has authored more than 70 peer-reviewed publications, delivered over 70 invited presentations internationally, and given more than 220 invited talks across the United States. In addition, he has mentored over 275 professional and graduate students. What can you expect to learn from this episode of Popular Pig? How pig mortality directly impacts US competitiveness and why productivity gaps matter far beyond individual farms. What global benchmarking data shows about how the US compares to countries like Brazil and why mortality is a major driver. How PRRS continues to play a significant role in lost productivity and why its true economic impact is likely underestimated. Why biosecurity failures are usually tied to everyday processes, not rare events or one time mistakes. How identifying, prioritizing, and monitoring biosecurity risks matters more than debating rules like downtime length.

Dr Lindie von Maltitz, Dept of Agricultural Economics & Manager of LEAF at the UFS & Dr Jacques van Rooyen - Animal scientist and rangeland ecologist with a PhD in veterinary science. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Views & News with Clarence Ford Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to Views and News with Clarence Ford broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/erjiQj2 or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/BdpaXRn Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Livestock sale barns are often thought of as places where cattle are bought and sold. But for many producers, they also serve as important gathering spaces — places to exchange information, build relationships, and stay connected in an industry that can be isolating at times.In this episode of Nebraska FARMcast, Ryan Evans talks with Marilyn Schlake and Dr. Cheryl Burkhart-Kriesel of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Nebraska Extension about their new research on the social value of livestock sale barns in Nebraska. The conversation explores what they observed on sale days, what producers told them about connection and mental well-being, and why these spaces matter to both individuals and rural communities.The research is summarized in the report Beyond the Auction: The Social Impacts of Nebraska's Livestock Sale Barns, available from the Center for Agricultural Profitability.

University of Georgia research shows farmers don't want help managing stress, they want help managing the financial pressures causing it.

In this episode of the Farm4Profit Podcast, we sit down with Joe Kerns, a 30-year industry veteran and Iowa State University graduate who has worked across procurement, risk management, nutrition, hedging, livestock marketing, and operational benchmarking. Joe doesn't sugarcoat the situation—and his perspective raises uncomfortable but necessary questions about the future of U.S. agriculture, especially pork production.Joe explains why he believes the pork industry is on the brink of becoming “a serf to the packer,” tracing the roots back to the 1998 hog price collapse and the financial community's push for mandatory packer contracts. The result? The negotiated cash market has collapsed from roughly 17% in 2002 to around 1% today, leaving producers without meaningful price discovery and shifting risk almost entirely onto the farm.We also tackle the growing loss of faith in USDA reporting, including:Corn yield overestimations that led to bad marketing decisionsThe September 2024 hog supply miss that sent futures $20/head higherDeclining participation in USDA reports and what that means for accuracyHow flawed data distorts markets, hedging decisions, and producer confidenceBut this episode isn't just about problems—it's about opportunity.Joe outlines how producer-driven, anonymous data aggregation could flip the power dynamic back toward farmers. With enough participation, predictive analytics could unlock insights across genetics, nutrition, management, equipment, and animal health—turning farm data into a monetized advantage instead of a liability.We also explore:Why pork producers may actually be agriculture's quiet sustainability success storyHow efficiency gains from genetics and feed conversion are reshaping protein productionWhy beef prices are likely to remain elevated—and why politics are missing the pointThe hard reality behind renewable diesel, SAF, and global energy policyWhat happens to independent producers if nothing changesThis is a candid, data-driven conversation about power, control, and survival in modern agriculture—and why the next decade may determine whether independence remains viable at all. Want Farm4Profit Merch? Custom order your favorite items today!https://farmfocused.com/farm-4profit/ Don't forget to like the podcast on all platforms and leave a review where ever you listen! Website: www.Farm4Profit.comShareable episode link: https://intro-to-farm4profit.simplecast.comEmail address: Farm4profitllc@gmail.comCall/Text: 515.207.9640Subscribe to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR8c1BrCjNDDI_Acku5XqwFollow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farm4profitllc Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Farm4ProfitLLC/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of The Pet Food Science Podcast Show, Dr. Aleksan Shanoyan from Kansas State University explains how economics, consumer behavior, and supply chain dynamics shape modern pet food trends. He shares new insights from large-scale research on buyer preferences, pricing responses, and the gap between what consumers say they want and what they actually purchase. Learn how these findings can guide better product design and marketing decisions. Listen now on all major platforms!"Understanding why consumers select specific products is more valuable than only tracking what is being purchased at a given moment."Meet the guest: Dr. Aleksan Shanoyan is a Professor and University Distinguished Teaching Scholar in Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University. His work focuses on agribusiness management, agri-food marketing, supply chain resilience, and the economic forces shaping pet food purchasing behavior. He leads research exploring consumer preferences, pricing responses, and industry needs within the pet food sector.Liked this one? Don't stop now — Here's what we think you'll love!Don't miss the chance to be part of the Pet Food Inner Circle!Join now and connect with leading experts in pet nutrition: https://petfoodinnercircle.com/What will you learn:(00:00) Highlight(01:20) Introduction(09:07) Supply chain changes(10:50) Consumer review patterns(14:37) Price response insight(18:11) Attribute competition(25:15) Wish list versus cart(37:05) Final QuestionsThe Pet Food Science Podcast Show is trusted and supported by innovative companies like:* Trouw Nutrition* Kemin- Biorigin

In this segment, Tracy speaks to Paula Law the Event Chair for CrossRoads - Alberta's Crop Conference about their upcoming January 2026 event. Join Tracy and Paula in this segment as they discuss the theme of this year's event "Grow Boldy," key event speakers, networking opportunities, and so much more.  About CrossRoads - Alberta's Crop Conference CrossRoads provides a dynamic platform where farmers can engage with leading experts, share experiences, and explore the latest trends shaping the agricultural landscape. What to Expect: - Exceptional Speaker Sessions - Dynamic, Relevant Topics - Latest Insights for Western Farmers -  Valuable Networking - Essential Tools to Keep Farmers Ahead of Industry Trends CrossRoads – Alberta's Crop Conference is brought to you by three of Alberta's crop commissions, comprised of farmers and staff from Alberta Canola, Alberta Grains and Alberta Pulse Growers. Not from Alberta? That's perfectly ok. The event is hoping to draw farmers from across the prairies. Tune into this week's segment to learn all about this event. SHOW RESOURCES: CrossRoads Conference Event Info https://crossroadscropconference.ca Purchase Tickets - https://crossroadscropconference.ca/tickets/ Don't Wait. Early Bird Savings Deadline is December 31, 2025. .................. ✅ Important Link to Follow

This podcast is sponsored by Learning Quest. As parents, we all want to set our children up for success—but when it comes to planning for their education, the options can feel overwhelming. One powerful tool to consider is a 529 account, which allows you to invest in your child's future education no matter what path they choose. In this episode, we're joined by Kansas State Treasurer Steven Johnson, an expert on 529 programs and the Kansas Learning Quest® plan. He shares insights on how families can make the most of these accounts and confidently plan for their children's educational journeys. Topics we cover include: What a 529 plan is, along with its uses and key benefits The best time to open a 529 account Who can contribute to a 529 plan and contribution limits Guidance on setting up a 529 account Tune in for an informative conversation designed to help you better understand 529 plans and how they can support your child's educational future.   Kansas State Treasurer Steven Johnson Kansas State Treasurer Steven Johnson was born and raised on a cattle and grain farm near Assaria, Kansas. After graduating from Southeast Saline High School, Steven went on to study Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University, where he was elected Student Body President and graduated with honors. Steven began his career in the financial services sector while remaining involved in the family farm. He continued his education at the University of Chicago where he received a Masters in Business Administration with an emphasis in finance and business policy. Steven's financially-focused education was a valued tool in the financial services sector when he led the development of an asset allocation software program that calculated the highest return of investment for a particular need. His interest and expertise in financial issues during the economic downturn of 2008-09 was a catalyst in his decision to enter public service. Steven ran for the state legislature and was elected in 2010. His financial and agricultural background led to committee appointments including Chairman of the Tax Committee, Chairman of Insurance and Pensions Committee, and a member of committees including Appropriations and Agriculture and Natural Resources. Steven was elected the state's 42nd state treasurer in 2022 and assumed office on January 9, 2023.   Before investing, carefully consider the plan's investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. This information and more about the plan can be found in the Learning Quest Handbook, available by contacting American Century Investment Services, Inc., Distributor, at 1-800-579-2203, and should be read carefully before investing. If you are not a Kansas taxpayer, consider before investing whether the beneficiary's or your home state offers a 529 Plan that provides its taxpayers with state tax and other benefits not available through this plan. Notice: Accounts established under Learning Quest and their earnings are neither insured nor guaranteed by the state of Kansas, the Kansas State Treasurer or American Century. Administered by the Kansas State Treasurer, Steven Johnson. Managed by American Century Investment Management, Inc. The availability of tax or other state benefits (such as financial aid, scholarship funds, and protection from creditors) may be conditioned on meeting certain requirements, such as residency, purpose for or timing of distributions, or other factors. As with any investment, it is possible to lose money by investing in this plan. The value of your Learning Quest account may fluctuate, and it is possible for the value of your account to be less than the amount you invested. The earnings portion of non-qualified withdrawals is subject to federal and state income taxes and a 10% federal penalty. Please consult your tax advisor for more detailed information regarding the Roth IRA or for advice regarding your individual situation. Taxes are deferred until withdrawal if the requirements are met. A 10% penalty may be imposed for withdrawal prior to reaching age 59 ½. ©2025 American Century Proprietary Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Connect with Megan and Sarah We would love to hear from you! Send us an e-mail or find us on Instagram or Facebook!        

To unpack what the eased US tariffs means for South Africa’s agricultural economy, John Maytham speaks to Wandile Sihlobo, chief economist at the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa and senior fellow at Stellenbosch University’s Department of Agricultural Economics. Presenter John Maytham is an actor and author-turned-talk radio veteran and seasoned journalist. His show serves a round-up of local and international news coupled with the latest in business, sport, traffic and weather. The host’s eclectic interests mean the program often surprises the audience with intriguing book reviews and inspiring interviews profiling artists. A daily highlight is Rapid Fire, just after 5:30pm. CapeTalk fans call in, to stump the presenter with their general knowledge questions. Another firm favourite is the humorous Thursday crossing with award-winning journalist Rebecca Davis, called “Plan B”. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Afternoon Drive with John Maytham Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 and 18:00 (SA Time) to Afternoon Drive with John Maytham broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/BSFy4Cn or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/n8nWt4x Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast, host Norbert Wilson is joined by food and nutrition policy economists Will Masters and Parke Wilde from Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition, Science and Policy. The discussion centers around the concept of the least cost diet, a tool used to determine the minimum cost required to maintain a nutritionally adequate diet. The conversation delves into the global computational methods and policies related to least cost diets, the challenges of making these diets culturally relevant, and the implications for food policy in both the US and internationally. You will also hear about the lived experiences of people affected by these diets and the need for more comprehensive research to better reflect reality. Interview Summary I know you both have been working in this space around least cost diets for a while. So, let's really start off by just asking a question about what brought you into this work as researchers. Why study least cost diets? Will, let's start with you. I'm a very curious person and this was a puzzle. So, you know, people want health. They want healthy food. Of course, we spend a lot on healthcare and health services, but do seek health in our food. As a child growing up, you know, companies were marketing food as a source of health. And people who had more money would spend more for premium items that were seen as healthy. And in the 2010s for the first time, we had these quantified definitions of what a healthy diet was as we went from 'nutrients' to 'food groups,' from the original dietary guidelines pyramid to the MyPlate. And then internationally, the very first quantified definitions of healthful diets that would work anywhere in the world. And I was like, oh, wow. Is it actually expensive to eat a healthy diet? And how much does it cost? How does it differ by place location? How does it differ over time, seasons, and years? And I just thought it was a fascinating question. Great, thank you for that. Parke? There's a lot of policy importance on this, but part of the fun also of this particular topic is more than almost any that we work on, it's connected to things that we have to think about in our daily lives. So, as you're preparing and purchasing food for your family and you want it to be a healthy. And you want it to still be, you know, tasty enough to satisfy the kids. And it can't take too long because it has to fit into a busy life. So, this one does feel like it's got a personal connection. Thank you both for that. One of the things I heard is there was an availability of data. There was an opportunity that seems like it didn't exist before. Can you speak a little bit about that? Especially Will because you mentioned that point. Will: Yes. So, we have had food composition data identifying for typical items. A can of beans, or even a pizza. You know, what is the expected, on average quantity of each nutrient. But only recently have we had those on a very large scale for global items. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of distinct items. And we had nutrient requirements, but only nutrient by nutrient, and the definition of a food group where you would want not only the nutrients, but also the phytochemicals, the attributes of food from its food matrix that make a vegetable different from just in a vitamin pill. And those came about in, as I mentioned, in the 2010s. And then there's the computational tools and the price observations that get captured. They've been written down on pads of paper, literally, and brought to a headquarters to compute inflation since the 1930s. But access to those in digitized form, only really in the 2000s and only really in the 2010s were we able to have program routines that would download millions and millions of price observations, match them to food composition data, match that food composition information to a healthy diet criterion, and then compute these least cost diets. Now we've computed millions and millions of these thanks to modern computing and all of that data. Great, Will. And you've already started on this, so let's continue on this point. You were talking about some of the computational methods and data that were available globally. Can you give us a good sense of what does a lease cost diet look like from this global perspective because we're going to talk to Parke about whether it is in the US. But let's talk about it in the broad sense globally. In my case the funding opportunity to pay for the graduate students and collaborators internationally came from the Gates Foundation and the UK International Development Agency, initially for a pilot study in Ghana and Tanzania. And then we were able to get more money to scale that up to Africa and South Asia, and then globally through a project called Food Prices for Nutrition. And what we found, first of all, is that to get agreement on what a healthy diet means, we needed to go to something like the least common denominator. The most basic, basic definition from the commonalities among national governments' dietary guidelines. So, in the US, that's MyPlate, or in the UK it's the Eat Well Guide. And each country's dietary guidelines look a little different, but they have these commonalities. So, we distilled that down to six food groups. There's fruits and vegetables, separately. And then there's animal source foods altogether. And in some countries they would separate out milk, like the United States does. And then all starchy staples together. And in some countries, you would separate out whole grains like the US does. And then all edible oils. And those six food groups, in the quantities needed to provide all the nutrients you would need, plus these attributes of food groups beyond just what's in a vitamin pill, turns out to cost about $4 a day. And if you adjust for inflation and differences in the cost of living, the price of housing and so forth around the world, it's very similar. And if you think about seasonal variation in a very remote area, it might rise by 50% in a really bad situation. And if you think about a very remote location where it's difficult to get food to, it might go up to $5.50, but it stays in that range between roughly speaking $2.50 and $5.00. Meanwhile, incomes are varying from around $1.00 a day, and people who cannot possibly afford those more expensive food groups, to $200 a day in which these least expensive items are trivially small in cost compared to the issues that Parke mentioned. We can also talk about what we actually find as the items, and those vary a lot from place to place for some food groups and are very similar to each other in other food groups. So, for example, the least expensive item in an animal source food category is very often dairy in a rich country. But in a really dry, poor country it's dried fish because refrigeration and transport are very expensive. And then to see where there's commonalities in the vegetable category, boy. Onions, tomatoes, carrots are so inexpensive around the world. We've just gotten those supply chains to make the basic ingredients for a vegetable stew really low cost. But then there's all these other different vegetables that are usually more expensive. So, it's very interesting to look at which are the items that would deliver the healthfulness you need and how much they cost. It's surprisingly little from a rich country perspective, and yet still out of reach for so many in low-income countries. Will, thank you for that. And I want to turn now to looking in the US case because I think there's some important commonalities. Parke, can you describe the least cost diet, how it's used here in the US, and its implications for policy? Absolutely. And full disclosure to your audience, this is work on which we've benefited from Norbert's input and wisdom in a way that's been very valuable as a co-author and as an advisor for the quantitative part of what we were doing. For an article in the journal Food Policy, we use the same type of mathematical model that USDA uses when it sets the Thrifty Food Plan, the TFP. A hypothetical diet that's used as the benchmark for the maximum benefit in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. And what USDA does with this model diet is it tries to find a hypothetical bundle of foods and beverages that's not too different from what people ordinarily consume. The idea is it should be a familiar diet, it should be one that's reasonably tasty, that people clearly already accept enough. But it can't be exactly that diet. It has to be different enough at least to meet a cost target and to meet a whole long list of nutrition criteria. Including getting enough of the particular nutrients, things like enough calcium or enough protein, and also, matching food group goals reasonably well. Things like having enough fruits, enough vegetables, enough dairy. When, USDA does that, it finds that it's fairly difficult. It's fairly difficult to meet all those goals at once, at a cost and a cost goal all at the same time. And so, it ends up choosing this hypothetical diet that's almost maybe more different than would feel most comfortable from people's typical average consumption. Thank you, Parke. I'm interested to understand the policy implications of this least cost diet. You suggested something about the Thrifty Food Plan and the maximum benefit levels. Can you tell us a little bit more about the policies that are relevant? Yes, so the Thrifty Food Plan update that USDA does every five years has a much bigger policy importance now than it did a few years ago. I used to tell my students that you shouldn't overstate how much policy importance this update has. It might matter a little bit less than you would think. And the reason was because every time they update the Thrifty Food Plan, they use the cost target that is the inflation adjusted or the real cost of the previous edition. It's a little bit as if nobody wanted to open up the whole can of worms about what should the SNAP benefit be in the first place. But everything changed with the update in 2021. In 2021, researchers at the US Department of Agriculture found that it was not possible at the old cost target to find a diet that met all of the nutrition criteria - at all. Even if you were willing to have a diet that was quite different from people's typical consumption. And so, they ended up increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in small increments until they found a solution to this mathematical model using data on real world prices and on the nutrition characteristics of these foods. And this led to a 21% increase in the permanent value of the maximum SNAP benefit. Many people didn't notice that increase all that much because the increase came into effect at just about the same time that a temporary boost during the COVID era to SNAP benefits was being taken away. So there had been a temporary boost to how much benefits people got as that was taken away at the end of the start of the COVID pandemic then this permanent increase came in and it kind of softened the blow from that change in benefits at that time. But it now ends up meaning that the SNAP benefit is substantially higher than it would've been without this 2021 increase. And there's a lot of policy attention on this in the current Congress and in the current administration. There's perhaps a skeptical eye on whether this increase was good policy. And so, there are proposals to essentially take away the ability to update the Thrifty Food Plan change the maximum SNAP benefit automatically, as it used to. As you know, Norbert, this is part of all sorts of things going on currently. Like we heard in the news, just last week, about plans to end collecting household food security measurement using a major national survey. And so there will be sort of possibly less information about how these programs are doing and whether a certain SNAP benefit is needed in order to protect people from food insecurity and hunger. Parke, this is really important and I'm grateful that we're able to talk about this today in that SNAP benefit levels are still determined by this mathematical program that's supposed to represent a nutritionally adequate diet that also reflects food preferences. And I don't know how many people really understand or appreciate that. I can say I didn't understand or appreciate it until working more in this project. I think it's critical for our listeners to understand just how important this particular mathematical model is, and what it says about what a nutritionally adequate diet looks like in this country. I know the US is one of the countries that uses a model diet like this to help set policy. Will, I'd like to turn to you to see what ways other nations are using this sort of model diet. How have you seen policy receive information from these model diets? It's been a remarkable thing where those initial computational papers that we were able to publish in first in 2018, '19, '20, and governments asking how could we use this in practice. Parke has laid out how it's used in the US with regard to the benefit level of SNAP. The US Thrifty Food Plan has many constraints in addition to the basic ones for the Healthy Diet Basket that I described. Because clearly that Healthy Diet Basket minimum is not something anyone in America would think is acceptable. Just to have milk and frozen vegetables and low-cost bread, that jar peanut butter and that's it. Like that would be clearly not okay. So, internationally what's happened is that first starting in 2020, and then using the current formula in 2022, the United Nations agencies together with the World Bank have done global monitoring of food and nutrition security using this method. So, the least cost items to meet the Healthy Diet Basket in each country provide this global estimate that about a third of the global population have income available for food after taking account of their non-food needs. That is insufficient to buy this healthy diet. What they're actually eating is just starchy staples, oil, some calories from low-cost sugar and that's it. And very small quantities of the fruits and vegetables. And animal source foods are the expensive ones. So, countries have the opportunity to begin calculating this themselves alongside their normal monitoring of inflation with a consumer price index. The first country to do that was Nigeria. And Nigeria began publishing this in January 2024. And it so happened that the country's national minimum wage for civil servants was up for debate at that time. And this was a newly published statistic that turned out to be enormously important for the civil society advocates and the labor unions who were trying to explain why a higher civil service minimum wage was needed. This is for the people who are serving tea or the drivers and the low wage people in these government service agencies. And able to measure how many household members could you feed a healthy diet with a day's worth of the monthly wage. So social protection in the sense of minimum wage and then used in other countries regarding something like our US SNAP program or something like our US WIC program. And trying to define how big should those benefit levels be. That's been the first use. A second use that's emerging is targeting the supply chains for the low-cost vegetables and animal source foods and asking what from experience elsewhere could be an inexpensive animal source food. What could be the most inexpensive fruits. What could be the most inexpensive vegetables? And that is the type of work that we're doing now with governments with continued funding from the Gates Foundation and the UK International Development Agency. Will, it's fascinating to hear this example from Nigeria where all of the work that you all have been doing sort of shows up in this kind of debate. And it really speaks to the power of the research that we all are trying to do as we try to inform policy. Now, as we discussed the least cost diet, there was something that I heard from both of you. Are these diets that people really want? I'm interested to understand a little bit more about that because this is a really critical space.Will, what do we know about the lived experiences of those affected by least cost diet policy implementation. How are real people affected? It's such an important and interesting question, just out of curiosity, but also for just our human understanding of what life is like for people. And then of course the policy actions that could improve. So, to be clear, we've only had these millions of least cost diets, these benchmark 'access to' at a market near you. These are open markets that might be happening twice a week or sometimes all seven days of the week in a small town, in an African country or a urban bodega type market or a supermarket across Asia, Africa. We've only begun to have these benchmarks against which to compare actual food choice, as I mentioned, since 2022. And then really only since 2024 have been able to investigate this question. We're only beginning to match up these benchmark diets to what people actually choose. But the pattern we're seeing is that in low and lower middle-income countries, people definitely spend their money to go towards that healthy diet basket goal. They don't spend all of their additional money on that. But if you improve affordability throughout the range of country incomes - from the lowest income countries in Africa, Mali, Senegal, Burkina Faso, to middle income countries in Africa, like Ghana, Indonesia, an upper middle-income country - people do spend their money to get more animal source foods, more fruits and vegetables, and to reduce the amount of the low cost starchy staples. They do increase the amount of discretionary, sugary meals. And a lot of what they're eating exits the healthy diet basket because there's too much added sodium, too much added sugar. And so, things that would've been healthy become unhealthy because of processing or in a restaurant setting. So, people do spend their money on that. But they are moving towards a healthy diet. That breaks down somewhere in the upper income and high-income countries where additional spending becomes very little correlated with the Healthy Diet Basket. What happens is people way overshoot the Healthy Diet Basket targets for animal source foods and for edible oils because I don't know if you've ever tried it, but one really delicious thing is fried meat. People love it. And even low middle income people overshoot on that. And that displaces the other elements of a healthy diet. And then there's a lot of upgrading, if you will, within the food group. So, people are spending additional money on nicer vegetables. Nicer fruits. Nicer animal source foods without increasing the total amount of them in addition to having overshot the healthy diet levels of many of those food groups. Which of course takes away from the food you would need from the fruits, the vegetables, and the pulses, nuts and seeds, that almost no one gets as much as is considered healthy, of that pulses, nuts and seeds category. Thank you. And I want to shift this to the US example. So, Parke, can you tell us a bit more about the lived experience of those affected by least cost diet policy? How are real people affected? One of the things I've enjoyed about this project that you and I got to work on, Norbert, in cooperation with other colleagues, is that it had both a quantitative and a qualitative part to it. Now, our colleague Sarah Folta led some of the qualitative interviews, sort of real interviews with people in food pantries in four states around the country. And this was published recently in the Journal of Health Education and Behavior. And we asked people about their goals and about what are the different difficulties or constraints that keep them from achieving those goals. And what came out of that was that people often talk about whether their budget constraints and whether their financial difficulties take away their autonomy to sort of be in charge of their own food choices. And this was something that Sarah emphasized as she sort of helped lead us through a process of digesting what was the key findings from these interviews with people. One of the things I liked about doing this study is that because the quantitative and the qualitative part, each had this characteristic of being about what do people want to achieve. This showed up mathematically in the constrained optimization model, but it also showed up in the conversations with people in the food pantry. And what are the constraints that keep people from achieving it. You know, the mathematical model, these are things like all the nutrition constraints and the cost constraints. And then in the real conversations, it's something that people raise in very plain language about what are all the difficulties they have. Either in satisfying their own nutrition aspirations or satisfying some of the requirements for one person or another in the family. Like if people have special diets that are needed or if they have to be gluten free or any number of things. Having the diets be culturally appropriate. And so, I feel like this is one of those classic things where different disciplines have wisdom to bring to bear on what's really very much a shared topic. What I hear from both of you is that these diets, while they are computationally interesting and they reveal some critical realities of how people eat, they can't cover everything. People want to eat certain types of foods. Certain types of foods are more culturally relevant. And that's really clear talking to you, Will, about just sort of the range of foods that end up showing up in these least cost diets and how you were having to make some adjustments there. Parke, as you talked about the work with Sarah Folta thinking through autonomy and sort of a sense of self. This kind of leads us to a question that I want to open up to both of you. What's missing when we talk about these least cost diet modeling exercises and what are the policy implications of that? What are the gaps in our understanding of these model diets and what needs to happen to make them reflect reality better? Parke? Well, you know, there's many things that people in our research community are working on. And it goes quite, quite far afield. But I'm just thinking of two related to our quantitative research using the Thrifty Food Plan type models. We've been working with Yiwen Zhao and Linlin Fan at Penn State University on how these models would work if you relaxed some of the constraints. If people's back in a financial sense weren't back up against the wall, but instead they had just a little more space. We were considering what if they had incentives that gave them a discount on fruits and vegetables, for example, through the SNAP program? Or what if they had a healthy bundle of foods provided through the emergency food system, through food banks or food pantries. What is the effect directly in terms of those foods? But also, what is the effect in terms of just relaxing their budget constraints. They get to have a little more of the foods that they find more preferred or that they had been going without. But then also, in terms of sort of your question about the more personal. You know, what is people's personal relationships with food? How does this play out on the ground? We're working with the graduate student Angelica Valdez Valderrama here at the Friedman School, thinking about what some of the cultural assumptions and of the food group constraints in some of these models are. If you sort of came from a different immigrant tradition or if you came from another community, what things would be different in, for example, decisions about what's called the Mediterranean diet or what's called the healthy US style dietary pattern. How much difference do this sort of breadth, cultural breadth of dietary patterns you could consider, how much difference does that make in terms of what's the outcome of this type of hypothetical diet? Will: And I think, you know, from the global perspective, one really interesting thing is when we do combine data sets and look across these very different cultural settings, dry land, Sahelian Africa versus countries that are coastal versus sort of forest inland countries versus all across Asia, south Asia to East Asia, all across Latin America. We do see the role of these cultural factors. And we see them playing out in very systematic ways that people come to their cultural norms for very good reasons. And then pivot and switch away to new cultural norms. You know, American fast food, for example, switching from beef primarily to chicken primarily. That sort of thing becomes very visible in a matter of years. So, in terms of things that are frontiers for us, remember this is early days. Getting many more nutritionists, people in other fields, looking at first of all, it's just what is really needed for health. Getting those health requirements improved and understood better is a key priority. Our Healthy Diet Basket comes from the work of a nutritionist named Anna Herforth, who has gone around the world studying these dietary guidelines internationally. We're about to get the Eat Lancet dietary recommendations announced, and it'll be very interesting to see how those evolve. Second thing is much better data on prices and computing these diets for more different settings at different times, different locations. Settings that are inner city United States versus very rural. And then this question of comparing to actual diets. And just trying to understand what people are seeking when they choose foods that are clearly not these benchmark least cost items. The purpose is to ask how far away and why and how are they far away? And particularly to understand to what degree are these attributes of the foods themselves: the convenience of the packaging, the preparation of the item, the taste, the flavor, the cultural significance of it. To what degree are we looking at the result of aspirations that are really shaped by marketing. Are really shaped by the fire hose of persuasion that companies are investing in every day. And very strategically and constantly iterating to the best possible spokesperson, the best possible ad campaign. Combining billboards and radio and television such that you're surrounded by this. And when you drive down the street and when you walk into the supermarket, there is no greater effort on the planet than the effort to sell us a particular brand of food. Food companies are basically marketing companies attached to a manufacturing facility, and they are spending much more than the entire combined budget of the NIH and CDC, et cetera, to persuade us to eat what we ultimately choose. And we really don't know to what degree it's the actual factors in the food itself versus the marketing campaigns and the way they've evolved. You know, if you had a choice between taking the food system and regulating it the way we regulate, say housing or vehicles. If we were to say your supermarket should be like an auto dealership, right? So, anything in the auto dealership is very heavily regulated. Everything from the paint to where the gear shift is to how the windows work. Everything is heavily regulated because the auto industry has worked with National Transportation Safety Board and every single crash investigation, et cetera, has led to the standards that we have now. We didn't get taxes on cars without airbags to make us choose cars with airbags. They're just required. And same is true for housing, right? You can't just build, you know, an extension deck behind your house any way you want. A city inspector will force you to tear it out if you haven't built it to code. So, you know, we could regulate the grocery store like we do that. It's not going to happen politically but compare that option to treating groceries the way we used to treat the legal services or pharmaceuticals. Which is you couldn't advertise them. You could sell them, and people would choose based on the actual merit of the lawyer or the pharmaceutical, right? Which would have the bigger impact. Right? If there was zero food advertising, you just walked into the grocery store and chose what you liked. Or you regulate the grocery store the same way we regulate automotive or building trades. Obviously, they both matter. There's, you know, this problem that you can't see, taste or smell the healthiness of food. You're always acting on belief and not a fact when you choose something that you're seeking health. We don't know to what extent choice is distorted away from a low-cost healthy diet by things people genuinely want and need. Such as taste, convenience, culture, and so forth. Versus things that they've been persuaded to want. And there's obviously some of both. All of these things matter. But I'm hopeful that through these least cost diets, we can identify that low-cost options are there. And you could feed your family a very healthy diet at the Thrifty Food Plan level in the United States, or even lower. It would take time, it would take attention, it would be hard. You can take some shortcuts to make that within your time budget, right? And the planning budget. And we can identify what those look like thanks to these model diets. It's a very exciting area of work, but we still have a lot to do to define carefully what are the constraints. What are the real objectives here. And how to go about helping people, acquire these foods that we now know are there within a short commuting distance. You may need to take the bus, you may need carpool. But that's what people actually do to go grocery shopping. And when they get there, we can help people to choose items that would genuinely meet their needs at lower cost. Bios Will Masters is a Professor in the Friedman School of Nutrition, with a secondary appointment in Tufts University's Department of Economics. He is coauthor of the new textbook on Food Economics: Agriculture, Nutrition and Health (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Before coming to Tufts in 2010 he was a faculty member in Agricultural Economics at Purdue University (1991-2010), and also at the University of Zimbabwe (1989-90), Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (2000) and Columbia University (2003-04). He is former editor-in-chief of the journal Agricultural Economics (2006-2011), and an elected Fellow of the American Society for Nutrition (FASN) as well as a Fellow of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). At Tufts his courses on economics of agriculture, food and nutrition were recognized with student-nominated, University-wide teaching awards in 2019 and 2022, and he leads over a million dollars annually in externally funded research including work on the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy (https://www.anh-academy.org), as well as projects supporting government efforts to calculate the cost and affordability of healthy diets worldwide and work with private enterprises on data analytics for food markets in Africa. Parke Wilde (PhD, Cornell) is a food economist and professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. Previously, he worked for USDA's Economic Research Service. At Tufts, Parke teaches graduate-level courses in statistics, U.S. food policy, and climate change. His research addresses the economics of U.S. food and nutrition policy, including federal nutrition assistance programs. He was Director of Design for the SNAP Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) evaluation. He has been a member of the National Academy of Medicine's Food Forum and is on the scientific and technical advisory committee for Menus of Change, an initiative to advance the health and sustainability of the restaurant industry. He directs the USDA-funded Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Partnership. He received the AAEA Distinguished Quality of Communication Award for his textbook, Food Policy in the United States: An Introduction (Routledge/Earthscan), whose third edition was released in April 2025. 

In this special series on corn production from The Crop Science Podcast Show, Dr. Terry Griffin from Kansas State University explains how solar storms can throw GPS off right when farmers need it most, and what it means for planting and harvest. He shares what happened during the May 2024 outage, including the yield and financial losses for corn and peanut growers, as well as the tough decisions farmers had to make in the field. Learn how to manage GPS disruptions and be prepared for possible future interruptions. Listen now on all major platforms!"Conservative estimates suggest half a billion dollars in lost corn production due to GPS outages during peak planting."Meet the guest: Dr. Terry Griffin is Professor of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University. He earned his B.S. in Agronomy and M.S. in Agricultural Economics from the University of Arkansas and a Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from Purdue University. His research spans geospatial analysis and big data applications for farm decision-making. Recognized internationally for his contributions to precision agriculture, Dr. Griffin provides unique insights into the vulnerabilities and opportunities of digital farming.Click here to learn more!Liked this one? Don't stop now — Here's what we think you'll love!What you will learn:(00:00) Highlight(01:16) Introduction(09:09) Space weather explained(15:16) May 2024 solar storm(19:06) Solar cycle insights(28:06) Ag consequences(38:49) Preparing for GPS outages(46:41) Final three questionsThe Crop Science Podcast Show is trusted and supported by innovative companies like:- KWS

Our second part of this week's College Roadshow coverage on AgriTalk features Professor Glynn Tonsor from the Department of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University. We talk protein demand, market fundamentals and more with Prof. Tonsor.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this segment, Tracy speaks to Paula Law the Event Chair for CrossRoads - Alberta's Crop Conference about their upcoming January 2026 event. Join Tracy and Paula in this segment as they discuss the theme of this year's event "Grow Boldy," key event speakers, networking opportunities, and so much more.  About CrossRoads - Alberta's Crop Conference CrossRoads provides a dynamic platform where farmers can engage with leading experts, share experiences, and explore the latest trends shaping the agricultural landscape. What to Expect: - Exceptional Speaker Sessions - Dynamic, Relevant Topics - Latest Insights for Western Farmers -  Valuable Networking - Essential Tools to Keep Farmers Ahead of Industry Trends CrossRoads – Alberta's Crop Conference is brought to you by three of Alberta's crop commissions, comprised of farmers and staff from Alberta Canola, Alberta Grains and Alberta Pulse Growers. Not from Alberta? That's perfectly ok. The event is hoping to draw farmers from across the prairies. Tune into this week's segment to learn all about this event. SHOW RESOURCES: CrossRoads Conference Event Info https://crossroadscropconference.ca Purchase Tickets - https://crossroadscropconference.ca/tickets/ Don't Wait. Early Bird Savings Deadline is December 31, 2025. .................. ✅ Important Link to Follow

Economist Dr. Jada Thompson highlights how much cheaper disease prevention is rather than trying to manage a disease that has already arrived.

Beyond the higher consumer prices and animal losses, outbreaks are also very costly to monitor and contain.

The cattle industry is riding high on prices—but running low on cows. In this episode of the Red Dirt Agronomy Podcast, Dr. Derrell Peel, OSU Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, joins the team to unpack how drought, market cycles, and global trade have shaped today's record-setting beef economy. Peel explains why herd numbers have fallen to their lowest level in 70 years, and why it could take until the end of the decade to rebuild.From wheat pasture leases to feedlot margins, the discussion dives deep into how grain, forage, and feed costs influence decisions on the ranch. The crew also explores producer strategies in a volatile market—from managing risk to making the call on heifer retention. Whether you're a cow-calf producer, stocker operator, or just watching the beef prices at the grocery store, this episode brings timely insight into the complex world of cattle markets.Top 10 TakeawaysU.S. beef cow herd is at a 70-year low—the tightest supply in generations.Cattle prices are at record highs, and analysts expect peaks through 2027.Drought forced widespread liquidation, reducing herds beyond intended levels.Herd rebuilding will be slow—likely taking the rest of the decade.Feedlots benefit from cheap corn, extending feed periods to offset low supplies.Beef demand remains strong, even with expensive retail prices and alternatives available.Ground beef drives the U.S. beef market, making up nearly half of consumption.Imports of lean beef add value to U.S. cattle by balancing fat and lean ratios.Market volatility is a growing risk, making risk management crucial for producers.New producers should proceed cautiously, leasing land or starting small before buying high-priced cattle.Timestamps00:00–04:00 – Opening and crop updates from Dr. Josh Lofton: best summer in years, but grain markets are low.04:00–10:00 – Wheat planting delays, moisture variability, and forage conditions across Oklahoma.10:00–12:00 – Crop quality nationwide and tie-in to cattle feed and grain prices.12:00–14:00 – Introduction of Dr. Derrell Peel, OSU Livestock Marketing Specialist.14:00–17:00 – Record-high cattle prices amid record-low inventories.17:00–20:00 – Feedlots thriving on cheap corn; stocker margins tightening.20:00–24:00 – Drought's impact on herd liquidation; slow path to rebuilding.24:00–28:00 – Consumer beef demand remains strong despite high prices.28:00–32:00 – Myths about government assistance for herd rebuilding.32:00–37:00 – Drought cycles, herd age, and long-term herd quality.37:00–42:00 – Political factors, trade issues, and market volatility.42:00–47:00 – Ground beef's crucial role and the importance of imports.47:00–51:00 – Restaurant beef prices and consumer demand resilience.51:00–53:00 – Practical advice for new landowners and market timing. RedDirtAgronomy.com

Becky Tenges, owner of Equine BodyWorks LLC and a life-long lover of horses, brings her extensive knowledge and training to the horse and its team of trainer, farrier, veterinarian and other equine professionals. Becky, the daughter of a farrier, grew up in Southern California on an Arabian horse ranch and earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Agricultural Economics from UC Davis. After leaving a twenty-year career in Investment Banking, Becky returned to her involvement with horses, initially for the therapeutic benefit they provide to humans; and now for the therapeutic benefit that she can provide to them. With over 40 years of experience with horses, Becky's focus in her business practice is to provide therapeutic relief to her equine clients and information and answers to their owners and trainers. Becky brings straightforward methodologies and a heartfelt dedication to reducing discomfort and enhancing movement & performance.

In this powerful new episode of The Food Professor Podcast, presented by Caddle, co-hosts Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois dissect the forces shaping Canada's food and agriculture economy—from farmland bubbles and provincial politics to the latest retail coffee price increases.The show opens with Michael's visit to Prince Edward County, where he talks about reconnecting with past guest Dan Sullivan of Rosehall Run Vineyards and celebrates the growing influence of culinary innovator and recent guest Charlotte Langley, whose tinned-seafood brand Nice Cans is redefining Canadian bespoke tinned fish dining. Sylvain weighs in on stalled interprovincial trade and Premier Doug Ford's ongoing feud with Crown Royal and Diageo, exploring the politics of booze, bans, and consumer choice - and his support of ice cream maker Chapman's. The hosts also spotlight the wild-blueberry disaster in Atlantic Canada, where drought and fires have slashed yields by up to 70%, threatening regional processors and exports.Then the conversation shifts to a fascinating—and controversial—guest: Trent Klarenbach, BSA AgEc PAg, Special Crops & Grain Marketing Analyst and Founder of Klarenbach Research. A former Saskatchewan farmer turned analyst, Trent explains how he uses technical analysis—tools typically reserved for stock markets—to assess farmland value. His research suggests land in Saskatchewan and Alberta may be overbought, echoing warning signs that preceded the dramatic farmland correction of the 1980s.Trent describes how investor psychology and market cycles shape agriculture just as they do equities, applying RSI and Elliott Wave patterns to farmland data. He details his own journey through farming's booms and busts, his motivation for building a subscription-based insights service, and the mixed reactions he's received from farmers, lenders, and ag-finance professionals. For listeners seeking deeper understanding of the economics—and emotion—behind land ownership, his approach reframes how to think about farm equity and risk.The episode wraps with Michael and Sylvain analyzing temporary-foreign-worker fines, Tim Hortons' price move and Starbucks store closures, and Donald Trump's revived talk of U.S. dairy access. They close on a high note—what soaring bullion signals about global uncertainty and food-price volatility.Website: https://www.klarenbach.ca/YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@KlarenbachResearchPodcast:https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL28YhqW-kvxkfu1I6xFdtaa5BN1GVoHxa&si=_iVqyKVYCkfm6S1m  The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

Do you ever feel like Bible reading has become routine? Maybe life’s distractions, spiritual fatigue, or lack of inspiration have dulled your passion for God’s Word. But Scripture reminds us that “the word of God is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12)—it’s not just words on a page, but a divine conversation meant to transform our hearts. Joe Navarro, known online as @joechristianguy encourages us in today's prayer and devotional to approach the Bible not as a chore, but as a gift from our loving Father. By asking God to renew our desire for His Word, experimenting with new ways of study, and remembering that Scripture is for transformation, not just information, we can rediscover joy in meeting God daily through His truth. Main Takeaways God’s Word is living and active—it has power to refresh our weary souls. Prayer is the starting point: ask God to rekindle your hunger for Scripture. Changing your approach—like trying a new translation, using audio Bible, or joining a group—can spark renewed excitement. Bible study is not just about knowledge, but about transformation. Delight, not obligation, is what God desires for us as we engage His Word. Bible Verse References Hebrews 4:12 – God’s Word is living and active. Psalm 119:18 – Open my eyes to see wondrous things in Your law. About Joe - Joe Navarro, known online as @joechristianguy, is a Christian content creator, entrepreneur, and cultural voice passionate about making faith approachable and impactful for the next generation. With over 4.5 million combined followers across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, Joe delivers bold, Gospel-centered truth through a mix of daily encouragement, short-form teachings, comedic skits, and authentic life experiences. His unique blend of theology, humor, and clarity has created space for millions of young believers and skeptics alike to engage with Scripture and real conversations about following Jesus in a digital world. In 2023, he co-created the popular card game Discernment alongside Jacob and Julia Petersen, which is now available in major retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Museum of the Bible, and Mardel. He also holds a degree in Agricultural Economics with a minor in Sales from Texas A&M. Sign Up for Joe's Newsletter here! https://joechristianguy.com/ Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Bible Verse of the Day: "For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." – Hebrews 4:12 How Is the Word of God Living and Active? (Hebrews 4:12) Hebrews 4:12 reminds us that Scripture is not just ink on a page but a living, active force in the lives of believers. Unlike human words or philosophies, God’s Word is constantly at work—penetrating, discerning, and transforming us. The imagery of a “two-edged sword” underscores Scripture’s precision. It cuts deep, revealing hidden motivations and exposing the true state of our hearts. Nothing is beyond its reach—not our thoughts, not our intentions, not even the parts of us we try to keep hidden. This verse also carries both comfort and challenge. Comfort, because God’s Word brings life, direction, and encouragement. Challenge, because it confronts us with truth, reminding us that nothing is hidden from God’s gaze. The call is clear: approach His Word with humility, letting it shape us into people who live in step with His will. Daily Meditation God’s Word is alive, speaking across all times and cultures. It penetrates beyond outward behavior, reaching our deepest thoughts and motives. Scripture is an instrument of both encouragement and correction. Through the Word, we encounter God’s presence and align with His purposes. Let’s Pray Father, I come to You honestly—sometimes my heart feels distant, and my excitement for Your Word fades beneath the weight of life’s distractions. But I know Your Word is living and powerful, and I long for that closeness again. Please rekindle a deep passion within me to seek You through Scripture. Open my eyes to see the beauty, truth, and life in every page. Stir my spirit with fresh hunger to know You more and to treasure Your voice above all else. Lord, forgive me for the times I’ve treated Your Word casually or out of routine. Help me approach it with awe and expectation, knowing that You are ready to speak each time I open my Bible. Let my heart burn with joy and wonder as I encounter You in new ways. Teach me to delight in Your truth and to let it transform me daily.In Jesus’ name, Amen. About Joe - Joe Navarro, known online as @joechristianguy, is a Christian content creator, entrepreneur, and cultural voice passionate about making faith approachable and impactful for the next generation. With over 4.5 million combined followers across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, Joe delivers bold, Gospel-centered truth through a mix of daily encouragement, short-form teachings, comedic skits, and authentic life experiences. His unique blend of theology, humor, and clarity has created space for millions of young believers and skeptics alike to engage with Scripture and real conversations about following Jesus in a digital world. In 2023, he co-created the popular card game Discernment alongside Jacob and Julia Petersen, which is now available in major retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Museum of the Bible, and Mardel. He also holds a degree in Agricultural Economics with a minor in Sales from Texas A&M. Sign Up for Joe's Newsletter here! https://joechristianguy.com/ Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

I'm really fascinated by today's topic of looking into pest and disease outbreaks in animal agriculture from an economist's point of view. Our guest, Jada Thompson, is going to discuss the economics behind prevention of these biosecurity issues,the economic impact when outbreaks do occur, some of the tradeoffs in the difficult decisions that need to be made, what that means for producers and consumers, and a whole lot more. To give you a little bit of background on Jada: Dr. Jada Thompson is an associate professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at the University of Arkansas. She worked in private industry for a few years managing customer insights and pricing analytics before earning her Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from Colorado State University in 2016. Dr. Thompson's research primarily focuses on animal health and livestock economics with emphasis on the poultry industry. She also came very highly recommended from Dr. Trey Malone who was on this show last year on episode 434. So thank you Trey for the referral to Jada.

When U.S. beef, pork, and poultry are exported, they're tested to make sure residues from antibiotics, dewormers, or other animal health products stay below certain limits. The catch is that those limits aren't the same everywhere. What's considered safe under U.S. rules might not pass in places like the European Union, Japan, or Mexico. That mismatch can lead to trade barriers, rejected shipments, and lost market opportunities—even if the product is perfectly fine by U.S. standards. To help us understand what this means for producers, we're joined by Akinbode Okunola, a graduate research assistant and Ph.D. student in Agricultural Economics here at Nebraska. He and his advisor, Dr. Elliott Dennis, recently published an article about how U.S. veterinary drug residue regulations compare with those in major export markets and how that may impact trade. More: https://cap.unl.edu/news/veterinary-drug-residue-regulations-major-us-export-markets/

In todays episode host Lorrie Boyer talks with Dr. Michael Langemeier, Professor of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University about the most important shifts in farm management thinking: moving from focusing on bushels per acre to cost per bushel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Our coverage of College Roadshow at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln continues with a conversation with Brad Lubben, Extension Associate Professor, Agricultural Economics.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's episode, we're discussing the complex and urgent topic of global food demand. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, ask countries to make measurable progress in reducing poverty, achieving zero hunger, and supporting every individual in realizing good health. While also mitigating climate change, sustaining the environment and responsible consumption and production habits. Researchers have recommended sustainable diets - planetary health diets. For example, the Eat Lancet Planetary Health Diet. However, others have criticized some of these diets for not addressing the economic and social impacts of transitioning to such diets. Is it possible to balance changing diets, rising incomes, and economic growth with economic feasibility, environmental impact, and long-term sustainability? Well, that's what our goals are today. Our guests today are Andrew Muhammad of the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, and Emiliano Lopez Barrera from Texas A&M. They are my co-authors on a new paper in the Annual Review of Resource Economics entitled Global Food Demand: overcoming Challenges to Healthy and Sustainable Diets. Interview Summary Andrew let's begin with you. Why is it important to study the economics of dietary habits and food choices in a global context? Well, it's important for several reasons, right? When we think both about food security as well as environmental outcomes and maintaining biodiversity, in keeping both human beings and the planet healthy, we really do need to think about this in a global context. One could see agriculture as a global ecosystem where decisions in one country clearly have impacts on outcomes in others. While at the same time, we need to see food as a means by which we satisfy the demands of a global community. Whether it be through our own domestic production or international trade. And then the last thing I'll say, which is really most important are all the actual things we want to tackle and mitigate and correct, fix or improve. Whether it be the environmental issues, global food security outcomes, individual diets, mitigating obesity issues globally, right? It's pretty clear that most of the things affecting human beings in the environment as it relates to agriculture are global in nature, and there's an economic component that we need to consider when addressing these issues in a global context. Thank you for sharing that. And I am interested to understand what the role of economics in dietary habits is as we explored it in this review paper. In economics, this is a pretty long history, one could say going back centuries, right? This idea of how income growth impacts food spending on a household or individuals, as well as what economic affluence in development does to sort of how diets transition. And so, for example, it's been long established, right, as individuals get richer, a smaller and smaller share of their income is spent on food. So therefore, food dynamics become less important in [a developed, rich country versus a developing country where a large percentage of income is still spent on food. And what does that mean? That means that while I may find price shocks annoying, and while I may find higher grocery prices annoying, in a developing world that clearly has some implications on the nutritional needs and food decisions far more than it would have on me, for example. But the other thing which is something that has been highlighted for quite some time, and that is this transition from basic staples - from rice, grain, corn, cassava, potatoes, etc. - to more complex food products like high protein dense meat products, fish, milk, dairy, and even highly processed products that are deemed unhealthy. But the point is, as we look at the full spectrum of countries from least developed to most developed, you see this transition from basic staples to these protein dense products as well as complex processed products. This is a really important point about what are the trends across countries and over time as incomes change and as global prices affect choices. And I do appreciate what you're saying about those of us in, say a country like the United States, where we may be able to absorb some of the shocks that may happen with food prices, we also recognize that there are folks from lower income households where those kinds of price shocks can be really challenging. That's true. But this is a different story when we're then talking about developing countries and some of the challenges that they face. Thank you for sharing that. I'm also interested in understanding what do economists mean by a nutritious and sustainable food demand, especially in the context of global or cross-country comparisons. What are some of the things that you uncovered in this review? Yes, and I think the main thing, which is particularly interesting, is how early diets transition. How quick countries go from being staple dependent to sort of relying more on protein in consumption and demand. And that happens pretty early and so long before you get to say, countries like the United States with a per capita income of around $50,000 per person, you start seeing transitions quite early, right? Whereas income goes from say less than a $1,000 per person to maybe $5,000 and $10,000, you see these transitions right away. And in fact, you begin to see things level off. And what that means is when we think about, for example, animal protein production, which is in the context of dairy and beef, which is considered relatively more harmful to the environment than say poultry production. What you do find is that in these developing countries, they really do transition right away to meat with just minimal income growth. Whereas at the same time, when you start seeing income growth at the higher end of the spectrum, you don't see that much of a change. Now, something that's also unfortunate, what you find is that with income growth, you do see decrease in consumption of vegetables. A part of that is that some staples are counted as vegetables, but another part of that is that wealth and influence doesn't necessarily lead to improved diets. And that's something that's unfortunate. And what it says is that interventions are possibly needed for these improved diets. But to really get back to your question, this idea when we say sort of a nutritious diet, obviously we're thinking about diets that satisfy the nutritional needs of individuals. While at the same time mitigating unhealthy outcomes. Mitigating obesity, cardiovascular disease, etc. But then coupled with that is this whole notion of sustainable agricultural production. And I think one of the difficult things about both nutritious and abundant food as well as environmental outcomes, is we really are thinking about sort of trade-offs and complementarities. Then I think economics gives us a real keen insight into how these things play out. Andrew, you make me worry that we're locked in. That is as soon as income start to rise, people move to more animal protein-based products. They move away from some fruits and vegetables. And knowing that the environmental consequences of those choices and even the health consequences, my question to you is what kinds of interventions or how do you think about interventions as a way to shape that demand? Is that an appropriate way to think about this? Alright, so there's a few things. One is just sort of provide nutrition education globally. Having countries and their governments sort of understand these outcomes and then making a concerted effort to educate the public. The other thing is what you often do see is incentivized, for example, fish consumption. Incentivizing poultry production. And you do actually see a lot of incentives for poultry and egg consumption. And I think of like the Gates Foundation in that One Egg a Day initiative to help with child stunting and child growth in the developing world. And so, they're clearly protein alternatives to bovine type products. And I have to be clear here. Like I'm only speaking about this in the context of what's being said, in terms of the environment and animal production. But the other thing I think, it's probably even more important, right? Is this idea that we really do need to rethink how we, both in the developing world as well as in the developed world, rethink how we think about nutrition and eating. And that's just not for developing countries. That's for all countries. And obviously there's one last thing I'll highlight. You do have to be sort of concerned about, say something like taxes. Which would be clearly regressive in the developing world, and probably much more harmful to overall consumer welfare. The point is that taxes and subsidies seem to be the policy instruments of choice. Great. Thank you for that. Andrew has just shared with us some of the issues of what happens as incomes rise and the changing patterns of behavior. And that there are some implications for sustainable diets. Emiliano, how can we use the type of data that, Andrew talked about to model food systems in terms of health and nutrition. What can we learn from these models and, what should we do with them? Emiliano – Yes, thank you. Andrew really pointed to like many very important issues, aspects. We see some worrisome trends in the sense that current diets are going in the direction of showing less nutritious. Also, we are looking at a lot of issues in the environmental externalities, embedded resources. A lot of that within the current diet trajectory. Economic models, they have this advantage that they can connect these things together, right? Each time that we decide what we are purchasing for eating each day we are deciding in a combination of these resources embedded in the food that also some potential nutritional outcomes or health outcomes related to that diet. And the models help to connect these things very well. We can trace this back from more, sort of naive approach where we do have lifecycle assessments where you just track the account numbers through the different stages of the food. And you can just basically trace the footprint or head print of the foods. But you can come up with more advanced models. We have seen a huge advance on that area in the last 10-15 years where models can really connect the things in a more holistic approach. Where you can connect the demand systems and the supply system both together. And then from and calibrate the models. And then also they're very useful to project to the future, different states of the world in the future. By doing that sort of exercises, we can learn a lot of how these things are connected, and how potential different pathways towards the future will also have potential different outcomes in terms of nutrition. But also, in terms of environmental pressure. We can model things, for instance, we were talking a little bit on how to shape these different sorts of diets. That's a thing that is advancing more and more in the modeling literature. We can see that people are going from these earlier approaches where we just get a particular diet that we have as a goal, and then we use that as a sort of counterfactual compared to the baseline sort of trajectory. Now we are looking more and more people doing exercises like how we can actually get there with this, for example, differential value added taxes where you kind of harm some type of food and then you kind of incentivize the consumption of others, as Andrew was saying. And we are looking at a lot of those sort of exercises at the global level, localized, and we are learning a lot of these intricate relations from the models. I think that's bottom line. And in that sense is models are really well equipped to this problem in the sense that show this holistic picture of the issue. Thank you for that. And what we've been learning from these models is this holistic picture, but can you tell us anything about how these models help show these relationships between diet and health outcomes and environmental sustainability? I mean, what's happening? Are we seeing models help predict the greenhouse gas emissions or changes in cardiovascular outcomes? What are you seeing? Well, typically when we do baseline projections, we use a lot of end use information where we have been studying things backwards, and in these integrated relationships. And when we look into the future, these relationships get stronger. Like some low income, middle countries tend to sort of repeat similar patterns of things that we have seen already in more industrialized countries. We have all this nutrition transition that comes strong. Pretty fast and pretty strong within the models. And when we look forward, the problems are not only going to be like the ones we see now, but probably somewhat worse. Especially in the pressure on the use of natural resources. So that's one thing that we have seen. Another thing that we have seen is that there can be a lot of potential multiple dividends of alternative pathways, right? We have this sort of baseline situation where diets kind of go that way and they become less sustainable, less healthy. We have dual burdens, multiple burdens of malnutrition rising in many countries at the same time. But then when we kind of model this counterfactual situation where what if we get a different diet that can follow certain guidelines or a flexitarian diet or even a vegan diet, whatever. All of those things can bring together some multiple dividends in the sense that you can certainly reduce the pressure on the use of natural resources in many degrees. And then also at the same time, you can reduce the burden of the health outcomes. That's a thing that we have been learning. Another thing that is interesting and is really strong in the model is that you can actually see a lot of synergistic things, synergistic goals that we can learn, but also a lot of potential tradeoffs, right? When we shift towards these sorts of alternative diets in an ideal world, well then, a lot of sub populations in certain parts of the world may suffer that thing too. There are multiple benefits, but also there are a lot of tensions. And we are learning more and more about those as well. And models actually showing those synergistics, but also some of these potential trade-offs in a very, very interesting way. Thank you for sharing that because one of the topics I was interested in understanding is can folks actually afford these diets? I mean, there was a lot of controversy around, or concern around an Eat Lancet diet in saying can people afford this. And we actually review that in the paper. What you're telling me is that there is a possibility of understanding distributional effects within societies of if we move our diets in this certain way who's able to afford it. Whether the implications for lower income folks in that society as compared to other model diets. Is that a fair assessment of some of the work that you've seen? Yes, absolutely. If, for instance, when we're doing the models, I'm going to put an example, we do this sort of incentivizing certain kind of foods and we put high taxes on other kinds of foods. Well one thing that is interesting is that all of these potential benefits or spillovers or global spillovers are really interconnected with also trade policies. And global models can tell us a really compelling story about that. In a more connected sort of world, when you do something in certain region that can have some benefits, then that creates spillovers to others. Let's say you reduce the demand of food in certain regions, certain countries, you can shape that. Then that globally through global markets can affect the accessibility or affordability of food in other regions. In that sense, those two things are connected and bring some benefit. But when you look at deeper in that particular region where you're trying to intervene with certain taxes for certain kind of foods, it is obviously going to bring some challenges. Some equity challenges because those particular areas that are devoted to produce that kind of food are also related to a lot of workers, a lot of producers, farmers, etc. And a lot of those are going to get the negative effects of this sort of policies. So that's one side. Then the other side is, yeah, when you affect prices, prices affect obviously the consumers as well. And again, in those certain regions when you have some population that is already are having some challenges to afford certain kind of food, if you impose a tax, then that again will handle those population. There is a lot of work to do to look at the details. And sometimes global models or two aggregated models can fail short in that direction. But we see that in an aggregated world, let's say. Yes, I appreciate and want to pick up on both something you and Andrew have been really pushing. Is this interconnectedness. Once we intervene in one part of the market or in even one part of the world, there are reverberations throughout. And these models sound really rich, and you started to hit on something that I want to learn a little bit more. And it's this idea that the models aren't perfect. Can you tell us a little bit more about some of the limitations of these models, especially as it relates to policy design or policy discussion? Yes. Well one thing that is, and the more you look at these things, is some of these models or mostly global models, they do have again this benefit that you can see many things interconnected at the same time. But that then you have to neglect something. There is a trade off in that decision. And typically, you are looking at things at a slightly aggregated sort of level. So typically, you have a average representative consumer or an average representative producer in a different region or a different country. With that, you then could miss a lot of the heterogeneous effects that a policy or a counterfactual state of the world will have on a certain population. In many cases we will fall short on that. And one thing that we have seen, and it's really cool, and I think it's a really good advancement in recent years more, people is doing, is that sort of multi-scale kind of approach where you do have a sort of global model to solve certain situation and then with that you calibrate in a more granular type of level of model. That sort of multi-scale approach it's working pretty well to see more of these multi-level effects. But sometimes global models can fail short on getting a heterogeneous result, I guess. Thank you for sharing that. And it's important to understand that models are not perfect, and that we're regularly as a discipline, as a field, we're always working on improving the models, making them more realistic, and more responsive to policy shifts. And so that begs this question, and then I'm going to open this up first to Andrew and then back to you, Emiliano. In this review paper, we were looking at the state of the world, the state of the art of research in this space. And my question to you both is what are some places where you see a need for new research or new research questions that we haven't really dealt with? What are you seeing as important places to go here? Here's the thing. I wouldn't necessarily refer to it as sort of new research, but certainly where we definitely need more research. And so, for those studies that continue to link greenhouse gas emissions with animal protein production, and really trying to think about what that would necessarily mean if we in some way mitigate animal protein production. Particularly let's say cattle and dairy. What does that necessarily mean for countries at the lower end of the spectrum where that initial demand for protein is needed. While at the same time we're not seeing changes in the developing world. The point is, where do we get the most bang for our buck? Do we get the most bang for our buck environmentally by trying to mitigate consumption globally? Or in some way trying to mitigate consumption, say in the United States and Europe, while at the same time letting Botswana and other countries carry through on that dietary transition that would otherwise occur. And I do think I've seen studies like that. But I do think this whole issue of where best to mitigate meat production and where best to sort of let it go. The other thing, and we're going to continue with this going forward. And that is particularly in the developing world this idea of how one manages both rising obesity and rise in malnutrition all at the same time. Like that is a very sort of precarious position for governments to find themselves in. One, having to both feed people more than what's available, while at the same time having a subset of the population eating too much. Whereas unlike the United States where we could pretty much have a blanketed dietary strategy to try to reduce size, girth, and just sort of eating habits. In the developing world, you really do have to manage the dual negative outcomes of both obesity as well as malnutrition. Great. Thank you. And I really appreciate this idea of where do we target interventions? Where do we, as you said, where do we get the biggest bang for our buck? And then this really complicated tension of some folks is experiencing food security challenges, others are facing issues around obesity. And we actually see in some places where those two things come together really complex ways. What's the right set of policies to actually solve both of those problems? And how do you do that well? Emiliano, what are you thinking about in terms of new directions or areas to go? So, in terms of approaches like more in a technical way, but I'm going to be brief from this I promise, I feel that there is a lot of work to do in multilayer modeling. I think that's a really exciting avenue that people are trying. And there are different ways to go from top bottom sort of approaches in the demand spectrum, but also in the resource embedded spectrum. So that's pretty exciting. But then topically, I think Andrew covered pretty well. I will say also that we do have the multiple burdens of malnutrition. On top of that thing that I would mention is the food waste. A thing that I have learned in the past that food waste is a big portion of the overall purchasing basket. And it's coming pretty clear still is way sort of underdeveloped kind of area because it's a very difficult thing to measure. There are not a lot of papers that can address this globally or look at long run trends and things like that. But it's typically mirroring the dietary transition as well. But we really need to learn how that looks. Is this a thing that we used to think 5-10 years ago? It was more like a sort of static problem in rich countries that they tend to waste food. But now we're looking more and more that this is an increasing problem in more developing countries, emerging economies. And as soon as we get certain threshold of income, people start purchasing more than what they need. And then we see more and more food waste. And that area I think is somewhat overlooked or still a good challenge to be addressed. And then from there, when you look at that, we should look at how that again enters the big picture, right? I mean, there are a couple of papers that have combined these changes in diets, reducing food waste as a part of it, and so like that. But still there is a lot of work to do on that. We tend to think also, and again, similarly to with the other things, that food waste is not a great thing. It's a clear sign of inefficiency in the global food system. Food waste itself also has a lot of embedded resources, right? One of them is labor. So, we just try or do a huge amount of effort to just reduce or eliminate food waste or reduce in a big portion of food waste. Then what's going to happen with a lot of employment that it was devoted to that. I think that particular fact is somewhat overlooked too. But again, those are the sort of areas I would be excited to look in the near future. I really appreciate this point about food waste. That's an area that I've been working on mostly in the US. And I agree, I think there's some critical places for us to consider. And also thinking about what that means for modeling. I know with the Thrifty Food Plan here in the United States, there's an assumption of a 5% food waste and that's a big assumption. When you can imagine just how different households may respond to incentives or how prices may influence their choice or maybe even lack of choice as food waste does occur. So, I think you are touching on some really important points, and I really like how, Andrew, you're talking about the importance of targeting. Bios Andrew Muhammad is a professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Tennessee Knoxville. He is an expert in international trade and agricultural policy. He assists state and national agricultural decision-makers in evaluating policies and programs dealing with agricultural commodities, food and nutrition, natural resources, and international trade. Emiliano Lopez Barrera is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Texas A&M University. His current research focuses on understanding how future patterns of global food consumption will affect human health, and how the agricultural changes needed to support the ongoing global nutrition transition will affect the environment. He combines econometric tools with economic and nutrition modeling to explore the trade-offs and linkages among diets, human health, and environmental sustainability. Prior to his grad studies, he worked as a consultant for the Inter-American Development Bank at the Central Bank of Uruguay. 

New K-State Range Management Extension Specialist Does Woody Encroachment Impact Land Values Sweet Potato Harvest   00:01:05 – New K-State Range Management Extension Specialist: Starting the show is Molly Reichenborn, K-State range management Extension specialist, as she says what she hopes to bring to K-State and Kansas farmers and ranchers as she begins her job.  mreichenborn@ksu.edu    00:12:05 – Does Woody Encroachment Impact Land Values: Jackson Lindamood, graduate research assistant in K-State's Department of Agricultural Economics, keeps the show moving by explaining if woody encroachment impacts land values.  Land Value Impact of Woody Encroachment in Kansas   00:23:05 – Sweet Potato Harvest: K-State horticulture Extension specialist, Cynthia Domenghini, ends the show passing along information on harvesting sweet potatoes. She says the key is to harvest before the first freeze.      Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu.   Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Shelby Varner and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast.   K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan

LEXINGTON, Ky. (September 11, 2025) – What began as a happy accident between two separate career fairs has grown into one of the most impactful workforce development events at the University of Kentucky. Now in its fourth year, the Kentucky Signature Industries Career Fair is welcoming a new major player — agribusiness — to its collaborative showcase of opportunity.  Hosted by the UK Martin-Gatton College of Agriculture, Food and Environment, the career fair was originally born from a coincidental overlap in scheduling between the college's Ag Equine Programs and the James B. Beam Institute for Kentucky Spirits. Rather than competing, they joined forces to highlight two of Kentucky's most iconic industries — equine and distillation — for a single event that connects students with employers and opportunities they might never have previously considered. This year, the Department of Agricultural Economics is officially joining the fair to represent Kentucky's dynamic agribusiness sector, offering students an even broader view of potential careers across the state's signature industries. “Kentucky is very rich in agricultural history,” said Savannah Robin, a lecturer in career and professional development for Ag Equine Programs. “Being able to bring on our agribusiness employers is really important. Many of them overlap and cross collaborate…so that just seemed like a really natural fit to bring them all together.” The 2025 event — taking place September 25 from 1 to 4 p.m. in the Gatton Student Center — is open to students of all majors from across UK and beyond. Last year's fair drew job-seekers from 12 universities and over 80 different majors, including fields like engineering, business, communication, horticulture, data analytics, and computer science. “I think you're crazy as a student if you don't go to every one of these career fairs you can possibly go to,” joked Seth DeBolt, director of the Beam Institute. “You never really know what you don't know. You think, “I might not be interested in that career, but…you find yourself in front of a future employer saying “this, this might just change my mind, broaden my horizons…” In addition to job opportunities, the fair helps students explore internships, mentorships, and career readiness tools — with a new Student Resource Room debuting this year, including resume printing, wardrobe prep, and free professional headshots. The fair is also a reunion space for alumni now representing their companies — often returning just a year or two after attending as students. “One of my favorite things [is seeing our graduates] now on the other side of the table,” said Aslihan Spaulding, Department Chair and Professor of Agricultural Economics. “They can see, you know somebody that was in their shoes…I think that's validating for them.” On this episode of "Behind the Blue", Robin, DeBolt and Spaulding discuss the evolution of the fair, the strategic workforce development happening inside UK's signature industries programs, and how UK is helping students discover unexpected career paths while building a strong future for the Commonwealth. For more information on the Kentucky Signature Industries Career Fair, including student and employer registration, visit Handshake. “Behind the Blue” is available via a variety of podcast providers, including iTunes and Spotify. Become a subscriber to receive new episodes of “Behind the Blue” each week. UK's latest medical breakthroughs, research, artists and writers will be featured, along with the most important news impacting the university. “Behind the Blue” is a joint production of the University of Kentucky and UK HealthCare. Transcripts for most episodes are now embedded in the audio file and can be accessed in many podcast apps during playback. Transcripts for older episodes remain available on the show's blog page.  To discover how the University of Kentucky is advancing our Commonwealth, click here.  

What does leadership look like in agriculture today? For Felicity Taylor, Area Manager for Rabobank in Moree and a 2025 Zanda McDonald Award finalist, it's about connection, community and supporting others to succeed.In this episode, Felicity shares her journey from growing up on a cropping property to becoming the youngest area manager in Rabobank's history. She talks about the rising costs facing farming, the challenge for young people to get started, and why she believes regional Australia offers opportunities that city life cannot. Head Shepherd is brought to you by neXtgen Agri International Limited. We help livestock farmers get the most out of the genetics they farm with. Get in touch with us if you would like to hear more about how we can help you do what you do best: info@nextgenagri.com.Thanks to our sponsors at MSD Animal Health and Allflex, and Heiniger Australia and New Zealand. Please consider them when making product choices, as they are instrumental in enabling us to bring you this podcast each week.Check out Heiniger's product range HERECheck out the MSD range HERECheck out Allflex products HERE

Do you ever feel like Bible reading has become routine? Maybe life’s distractions, spiritual fatigue, or lack of inspiration have dulled your passion for God’s Word. But Scripture reminds us that “the word of God is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12)—it’s not just words on a page, but a divine conversation meant to transform our hearts. Joe Navarro, known online as @joechristianguy encourages us in today's prayer and devotional to approach the Bible not as a chore, but as a gift from our loving Father. By asking God to renew our desire for His Word, experimenting with new ways of study, and remembering that Scripture is for transformation, not just information, we can rediscover joy in meeting God daily through His truth. Main Takeaways God’s Word is living and active—it has power to refresh our weary souls. Prayer is the starting point: ask God to rekindle your hunger for Scripture. Changing your approach—like trying a new translation, using audio Bible, or joining a group—can spark renewed excitement. Bible study is not just about knowledge, but about transformation. Delight, not obligation, is what God desires for us as we engage His Word. Bible Verse References Hebrews 4:12 – God’s Word is living and active. Psalm 119:18 – Open my eyes to see wondrous things in Your law. About Joe - Joe Navarro, known online as @joechristianguy, is a Christian content creator, entrepreneur, and cultural voice passionate about making faith approachable and impactful for the next generation. With over 4.5 million combined followers across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, Joe delivers bold, Gospel-centered truth through a mix of daily encouragement, short-form teachings, comedic skits, and authentic life experiences. His unique blend of theology, humor, and clarity has created space for millions of young believers and skeptics alike to engage with Scripture and real conversations about following Jesus in a digital world. In 2023, he co-created the popular card game Discernment alongside Jacob and Julia Petersen, which is now available in major retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Museum of the Bible, and Mardel. He also holds a degree in Agricultural Economics with a minor in Sales from Texas A&M. Sign Up for Joe's Newsletter here! https://joechristianguy.com/ Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Bible Verse of the Day: "For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." – Hebrews 4:12 How Is the Word of God Living and Active? (Hebrews 4:12) Hebrews 4:12 reminds us that Scripture is not just ink on a page but a living, active force in the lives of believers. Unlike human words or philosophies, God’s Word is constantly at work—penetrating, discerning, and transforming us. The imagery of a “two-edged sword” underscores Scripture’s precision. It cuts deep, revealing hidden motivations and exposing the true state of our hearts. Nothing is beyond its reach—not our thoughts, not our intentions, not even the parts of us we try to keep hidden. This verse also carries both comfort and challenge. Comfort, because God’s Word brings life, direction, and encouragement. Challenge, because it confronts us with truth, reminding us that nothing is hidden from God’s gaze. The call is clear: approach His Word with humility, letting it shape us into people who live in step with His will. Daily Meditation God’s Word is alive, speaking across all times and cultures. It penetrates beyond outward behavior, reaching our deepest thoughts and motives. Scripture is an instrument of both encouragement and correction. Through the Word, we encounter God’s presence and align with His purposes. Let’s Pray Father, I come to You honestly—sometimes my heart feels distant, and my excitement for Your Word fades beneath the weight of life’s distractions. But I know Your Word is living and powerful, and I long for that closeness again. Please rekindle a deep passion within me to seek You through Scripture. Open my eyes to see the beauty, truth, and life in every page. Stir my spirit with fresh hunger to know You more and to treasure Your voice above all else. Lord, forgive me for the times I’ve treated Your Word casually or out of routine. Help me approach it with awe and expectation, knowing that You are ready to speak each time I open my Bible. Let my heart burn with joy and wonder as I encounter You in new ways. Teach me to delight in Your truth and to let it transform me daily.In Jesus’ name, Amen. About Joe - Joe Navarro, known online as @joechristianguy, is a Christian content creator, entrepreneur, and cultural voice passionate about making faith approachable and impactful for the next generation. With over 4.5 million combined followers across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, Joe delivers bold, Gospel-centered truth through a mix of daily encouragement, short-form teachings, comedic skits, and authentic life experiences. His unique blend of theology, humor, and clarity has created space for millions of young believers and skeptics alike to engage with Scripture and real conversations about following Jesus in a digital world. In 2023, he co-created the popular card game Discernment alongside Jacob and Julia Petersen, which is now available in major retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Museum of the Bible, and Mardel. He also holds a degree in Agricultural Economics with a minor in Sales from Texas A&M. Sign Up for Joe's Newsletter here! https://joechristianguy.com/ Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

In this moving and insightful episode, J.R. sits down with author Tong Ge as part of the Author's Circle series to explore her debut novel The House Fiddler. Born and raised in China, Tong shares the incredible true story that inspired her book—based on her grandmother's harrowing and courageous life spanning war, political upheaval, and bound-foot oppression in early 20th-century China.

ICF has its international awards program for which it is famous.  But that does it take to become one of America's ”Most Dynamic Metro Areas?” and where are they located? Heartland Forward's Chief Reseach Officer discusses the results of the ”think and do tank's” long-awaited report and drops facts behind the reason that, despite the fact it has 39% of the national population, this vast American expanse of talent, resources and states, from North Dakota to Texas, only attracted 10% of investment - until recently.  But things are changing, as Lou learns in part 2 of his conversation with Dave Shideler. David Shideler serves as the chief research officer for Heartland Forward's research team which includes visiting senior fellows Richard Florida and Maryann Feldman. With a mission to help improve the economic performance in the heartland and change the narrative of the middle of the country, the original research efforts focus on four key pillars: innovation and entrepreneurship, human capital, health and wellness and regional competitiveness. Shideler joined Heartland Forward after more than a decade at Oklahoma State University, serving as a professor and Community and Economic Development Specialist in the Department of Agricultural Economics. In these roles, he oversaw projects in community and rural development and small business development, and published peer-reviewed research articles on the economic impacts of internet access, incentive programs, and local food production. Shideler holds a Ph.D. in Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics and an M.A. in Economics from the Ohio State University, an M.S. in Agricultural Economics from the Pennsylvania State University, and a B.S. in Community and Rural Development from Clemson University.

ICF has its international awards program for which it is famous.  But that does it take to become one of America's ”Most Dynamic Metro Areas?” and where are they located? Heartland Forward's Chief Reseach Officer discusses the results of the ”think and do tank's” long-awaited report and drops facts behind the reason that, despite the fact it has 39% of the national population, this vast American expanse of talent, resources and states, from North Dakota to Texas, only attracted 10% of investment - until recently.  But things are changing, as Lou learns. David Shideler serves as the chief research officer for Heartland Forward's research team which includes visiting senior fellows Richard Florida and Maryann Feldman. With a mission to help improve the economic performance in the heartland and change the narrative of the middle of the country, the original research efforts focus on four key pillars: innovation and entrepreneurship, human capital, health and wellness and regional competitiveness. Shideler joined Heartland Forward after more than a decade at Oklahoma State University, serving as a professor and Community and Economic Development Specialist in the Department of Agricultural Economics. In these roles, he oversaw projects in community and rural development and small business development, and published peer-reviewed research articles on the economic impacts of internet access, incentive programs, and local food production. Shideler holds a Ph.D. in Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics and an M.A. in Economics from the Ohio State University, an M.S. in Agricultural Economics from the Pennsylvania State University, and a B.S. in Community and Rural Development from Clemson University.

we welcome Ethan Branscum, a farmland investment leader with a deep background in ag finance, to explore the growing intersection of agriculture and alternative investment. As Partner and Director of Farmland Investments at Sower Farmland Fund and Legacy Farmland Fund, Ethan helps manage a portfolio of properties that connect farmland owners with investors—all while prioritizing legacy, flexibility, and profitability.Ethan shares his personal path from his upbringing and education at the University of Arkansas to over a decade in ag finance and credit. He breaks down the mission behind Legacy Farmland Fund: giving landowners a new path to transition their asset without selling out their identity. Listeners will get a refresh on how Legacy enables contributors to trade farmland for ownership shares—maintaining long-term exposure to farmland returns, gaining liquidity, and relieving themselves from day-to-day operations.We dive into today's land investment landscape, exploring what investors are looking for, how farmland compares to other asset classes, and which U.S. regions are catching the most interest. Ethan also unpacks how technology and data are changing the way land is valued, managed, and selected for investment.For farmers, this episode provides guidance on what makes a strong farmer-investor partnership, what Ethan looks for in operators, and how Sower supports profitability and growth from the ground up. He offers candid advice for producers considering leasing versus owning, and shares examples of farmer success stories made possible through Sower's model. Want Farm4Profit Merch? Custom order your favorite items today!https://farmfocused.com/farm-4profit/ Don't forget to like the podcast on all platforms and leave a review where ever you listen! Website: www.Farm4Profit.comShareable episode link: https://intro-to-farm4profit.simplecast.comEmail address: Farm4profitllc@gmail.comCall/Text: 515.207.9640Subscribe to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR8c1BrCjNDDI_Acku5XqwFollow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farm4profitllc Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Farm4ProfitLLC/

Trevor Donnellan, Head of the Agricultural Economics and Farm Surveys Department at Teagasc, reports that the average family farm income rose substantially last year following a difficult 2023.

In this episode of Red Dirt Agronomy, the team sits down with Dr. Jayson Lusk, Vice President and Dean of Agricultural Programs at Oklahoma State University, for a wide-ranging conversation on the future of agriculture and leadership in higher education. Dr. Lusk reflects on his journey from researcher to administrator, the challenges of guiding a land-grant institution, and how he stays grounded in the needs of Oklahoma's producers. The discussion explores the evolving role of faculty engagement, the value of public communication, and how Extension can remain impactful in an increasingly digital world.The episode also covers Dr. Lusk's strategic vision for OSU agriculture, including plans to revitalize off-campus facilities, launch a beef center of excellence, and leverage big data and AI to support producer decision-making. With insights into the delicate balance of university leadership and the importance of staying connected with faculty and stakeholders, this conversation offers practical value for anyone invested in the future of agricultural research and outreach.Key Takeaways Leadership Through Service: Dr. Lusk's path to administration was driven by a desire to amplify impact, not personal ambition.Extension Still Matters: Public-facing efforts like podcasts and producer engagement remain central to OSU's land-grant mission.Strategic, Not Micromanaged: Dr. Lusk emphasizes empowering faculty and fostering collaboration over top-down control.From Data to Decisions: OSU aims to invest in tools that help producers turn data into practical, on-farm choices.Modernizing Infrastructure: Upgrading aging research farms and facilities is a top priority to support future ag innovation.Beef and Wheat Focus: Strategic investment is centered on Oklahoma's two leading ag sectors—cattle and wheat.Funding Realities: OSU's ag programs benefit from strong state support, offering resilience amid federal funding uncertainty.Collaboration Counts: Lusk believes faculty success drives college success—and that includes interdisciplinary teamwork.Measuring Impact, Not Just Output: Dr. Lusk calls for better ways to reward high-impact work that goes beyond publication metrics.Producers as Stakeholders: Oklahoma taxpayers fund OSU's ag work, and deserve results they can see in the field.Timestamps:00:04 - Welcome and episode intro03:16 - Dr. Lusk's path from faculty to administration07:08 - Strategic decisions in leadership roles13:33 - Navigating university structure and transitions18:42 - Measuring impact in research and extension30:56 - Challenges and strategy behind the new OSU Ag Hall34:28 - Dr. Lusk's strategic vision for OSU Agriculture38:24 - The future of ag data, decision tools, and AI RedDirtAgronomy.com

With escalating prices everywhere, what decisions are consumers making with their dollars at the grocery store? That's the question posed to Dr. Glynn Tonsor, Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University. Tonsor works cooperatively with the beef checkoff and pork checkoff programs to survey consumers on a monthly basis for the Monthly Meat Demand Monitor. Tonsor tells Pam Jahnke that consumers are still investing in beef at the grocery store, but there are conflicting opinions that could bring changes to that scenario. Tonsor says broader issues like tariffs and potential unemployment worry consumers. On the other hand, he says consumers want meat protein in their diet and that more respondents self declare as 'meat consumers'. Tonsor says retail demand is holding firm for beef, but food service purchases have taken a hit. Tonsor also notes that even consumers who are purchasing beef may be changing which cut of beef they're buying to reflect a tighter pocketbook. Tonsor's Monthly Meat Demand Monitor also helps gauge what consumers know about the food system. He explains that survey respondents have confidence in the food inspection service, and that taste and freshness are the most important elements shoppers are looking for. That remains the biggest decision maker for customers, even overriding price. Checkoff chat brought to you courtesy of the Wisconsin Beef Council and underwritten by Equity Livestock Cooperative.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alan Featherstone, of Kansas State University's Agricultural Economics department, and Hal Luthi, of the Kansas Cattlemen's Association and a third-generation farmer, talk trade, the farm bill and hopes for the future.

Do you pay attention to information printed on food labels? From eye-catching designs companies use to entice you to buy a product to nutrition facts panels to the tiny dates printed on packages. There's a lot going on to be sure. For policymakers, they hope that refining date labels on food packaging will help reduce the amount of uneaten food ending up in landfills. Food Waste is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service recently asked for public input on food date labels. So, we decided to gather some experts together to talk about this important policy tool. Roni Neff is a professor in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Senior Advisor at the School's Center for a Livable Future. Her research looks at the intersection of food waste policy, climate change, and food system resilience. Brian Roe is a professor at the Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Developmental Economics. His work focuses on issues including agricultural marketing, information policy, behavioral economics, and product quality. Ruiqing Miao is an associate professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology at Auburn University's College of Agriculture. His research emphasizes sustainability, innovation, and decision making. Interview Summary Brian, let's begin with you and let's make sure everyone's on the same page. Can you talk to us a little bit about what date labels are and where they are on packaging. And what is industry required to include in terms of these date labels? Yes, so date labels, we see them anytime we pick up a food package. Most packages are going to have some type of date label on them. Oddly, federal law doesn't regulate these or really require these other than the exception of infant formula, which is the only federal requirement domain out there. But in the absence of federal regulation, states have kind of done their own thing. About 40 different states require date labels on at least some food products. And about 20 states prohibit or restrict the sale or donation of food past the label date. And even though states that require date labels, manufacturers can still choose the dates. There are no real regulations on them. So, recognizing that confusion over date labels can lead to unnecessary food waste, Government and industry actors have made, you know, some efforts to try to standardize date labeling language. But nothing terribly authoritative. Now, some states have introduced bills that seek to standardize date labels, with the motivation to try to get rid of and reduce food waste. California being perhaps the most recent of these. In 2024, they passed a bill that prohibits the use of any date label other than 'Best if Used By,' the phrase that goes along with foods where the date represents kind of a quality indicator. And then the phrase 'Use By,", if that date has some implications for product safety. The bill doesn't go into effect until July of '26, so we're going to see if this is going to create a domino effect across other states, across the food manufacturing center or even bubble up and be dealt with at the federal legislation level. Now, industries tried to do things before. Back in 2017, the Food Marketing Institute and the Grocers Manufacturers Association had a standardized date labeling suggestion that some firms bought into. FDA has given out some guidance about preferring 'Best if Used By' on certain food products to indicate quality. But again, we're all kind of waiting to see if there might be a federal legislation that kind of brings these state labels into check. Thanks, Brian. And it's really important to know about the policy landscape and the fact that there hasn't been a federal policy across all foods. And it's interesting to see the efforts of, say, in California. I think this begs the question; how do consumers actually process the information of date labels? This fascinated us too. A very clever person at Ohio State that I work with, Dr. Aishwarya Badiger, led a study I was part of. We enlisted consumers to come into the Consumer Evaluation Lab that we have here on campus and evaluate samples of milk. They were presented with the label of each milk. We gave them a little glass with a nose full of the milk that they could sniff. So, they're looking at the date label, they're given the sample they could smell, and then we kind of asked them, Hey, if this were in your fridge, would you keep it or toss it? But the entire time we actually had them fitted with special glasses that precisely track their eye movements so we could understand kind of which information they were looking at while they went through the whole process of evaluating and then making their decision. Consumers overwhelmingly looked at the date itself on the package and largely ignored the phrase or the words that go along with the date. In fact, for more than half of the evaluations, the consumer's eyes never went anywhere near the phrase. This is important. And actually, we'll talk about that a little bit more with some of our other guests. So, what are the implications of date label policies? So the eye tracking research really drove home to me that dates are much more salient than phrases. Although all the policies largely deal with the phrases. Dates give you actionable information. People can look at the date on the label, look at the calendar, and man, that's something they can do something about. They can act based upon that. The phrases are a little bit more ambiguous as Roni will talk about later. I think that people have a hard time interpreting what those phrases really mean. That doesn't mean we should not try to unify those phrases, but rather this is going to be a longer-term investment in educational infrastructure that until those phrases really become salient and actionable to consumers. And then become more of a critical component of the policies. But right now, policies are generally silent on dates. And dates seem to be the real action mover. Yeah. So why don't we just get rid of all of this? What would be the implications? Yes. We did this experiment too. Same kind of setup. Had people come in, they had the jug of the milk in front of them. They had a glass of milk that they could sniff. Same thing. And we had a bunch of different milks. We had some that were only like 15 days post pasteurization. Some that went out to like 40 days past pasteurization. So, the youngest or the freshest had about three days, quote unquote, left on its date label. The 40-day old milk was like two or three weeks past the date. And we did two things. We had them evaluate the milk with the dates on the jugs, and then we had ones where we took the dates and the labels off the milk. Not surprisingly, when they did not have the dates on the milk, they were much more likely to say that they would keep the milk. Even that 40-day old milk, about half of them said, yeah, I'd drink this. I'd keep this if it were in my fridge. But it wasn't a slam dunk. So, our youngest and freshest milk had an odd flavor note. You know, sometimes as the seasons change, feed sources change for cattle, you get an odd flavor note. It's not spoilage, it's just a slightly different note. And when people have the date label, they were much more willing to give that milk a second chance and say that they would keep it. But if the date label wasn't on there, they took that odd flavor note and said, I'm going to toss this milk. So, it's really kind of a nuanced thing. And if you would take those off, I think you're going to get some consumers who are going to kind of freak out without any guidance. And they might have kind of an itchy trigger finger when it comes to throwing away that milk or other products. So, it's compelling. We've seen England, the UK, do this; take dates off of certain products. But I would probably want to see a little more example of how consumers are responding to that before I fully endorse that as kind of a policy movement forward. Brian, thank you for that. And I have got to say, I was not expecting to have a conversation about the bouquet of a glass of milk. But this is really an interesting finding, and it does help us understand some other things that we're going to talk about. Roni, I want to turn our attention to you. And I know you are someone who's been involved in understanding date labels for a while. And I really appreciate it and I've said it before, but you're the reason I got into this work. I want to understand a little bit more about what are important things to understand about the misconceptions that consumers may have about food date labels? And why does it matter for policymakers? Well, I'll start with just saying that conceptions are what we know rationally. And it's not the whole picture because as Brian was alluding to a lot of our decision making is going on in our emotions. And like I can tell my son all day long the fact that that milk is okay, he's going to toss it because he doesn't trust it. There's a lot more going on than conceptions. But I want to talk about two misconceptions. The first one is that despite what Brian just said about the fact that these date labels other than infant formula aren't federally regulated, about two in five people think that they are. We just did a national consumer survey in January 2025, and this is one of the findings. And I did that along with Emily Broad Lieb from the Harvard Food Law and Policy Project and Akif Khan also from there, and then Dana Gunders from ReFED. And in addition to this idea that they're federally regulated, I'll say that these kinds of beliefs were most common among those who were 18 to 34, parents with children under age 18, and black and Hispanic consumers. Our earlier work also found that those who think that food date labels are federally regulated are more likely to discard food based on them. All this speaks to a real challenge. And, you know, it kind of makes sense, like if you see something and you trust it, that it's from the federal government. And of course, we all trust the federal government these days. If you trust it, then you're going to respond to it. So that's an implication for food policy. And then the next thing we did also is that we tested understanding of five different food date label phrases: a date with no text, and then two of those phrases accompanied by icon images. And since none of these actually have a federally recognized meaning the correct answer for all of them in terms of the meaning is like other. But we also accepted answers that were aligned with that voluntary industry standard, just to kind of see how people were perceiving it. And, across all of these labels, only an average of 53% of people answered correctly about what these labels meant. Now, consumers were pretty good at identifying 'Best if Used By' as a quality label. But the real challenge comes in with 'Use By' which under the voluntary industry standards should be a safety label. And more people thought it was a quality label than thought it was a safety label; 44% versus 49%. And so, we need to clear up these misconceptions in support of food safety, in support of food waste prevention. But in order to do that, we need to be able to tell people clearly what the labels mean. And we can't really do that if there's no standardized meaning of what they mean. So, we really need a national standard, and that is the policy implication. Thank you for that. And I know Ruiqing and I have done some work in this space and in part learning from what you all have done. I'm interested because you mentioned the 2025 survey, but of course you also mentioned the 2016 survey. Are there any big shifts or anything that you want to tell us about changes that you see from those two different surveys? We asked a number of the same or almost identical questions in those two surveys. And since that time, we've adopted a voluntary industry standard and there's been a lot of education and communication about wasted food. And yet in our survey we actually found that things were going in the wrong direction. Consumer misunderstandings of date labels increased. Those who quote always or usually discard food based on the label: in 2016, that was 37%, and this year it was 43%. And then in terms of belief that these are federally regulated: in 2016 it was 36% and now it's 44%. We're going in the wrong direction despite all these activities, and I don't know why. I think for those who are looking for future research questions, this would be a really interesting one. This is really disturbing because all of the information that's come out about date labels. I thought people would understand this. And that this is where we would be in a different place. So, this work is really important. So, how did people's response to date labels vary by food item? Did you see any differences? Because this is something that comes up often that people may be more responsive to some food products versus others? Yeah, indeed. We asked about five different foods, and we showed a bunch of different labels for each food. And the responses did vary both based on the item and based on what label was on it. And I'll start with where caution is needed. Deli meats are one example of where we really want people to pay attention to that label. And while there's no federal standard that label's the best piece of information people has, so they should use it. And we found that only 65% would throw out the deli meat before, on, or just after the 'Use By' label. And the number of people that would respond to it reduced with other labels that were used, and older adults were most likely to disregard those labels. And they may be particularly vulnerable in terms of foodborne illness. So that's when lack of caution leads to risk. On the other hand, when caution leads to waste, we looked at raw chicken, pasteurized milk, lettuce, and breakfast cereal. And for all of those there, like the label is really only telling you about quality, and consumers should use their senses to decide, and knowledge of how that was, stored to decide whether to eat it. And so, the most common out of all five foods, including the deli, the one that they responded the strongest to was raw chicken. And that chicken can be contaminated as we know, but if you cook it, you're killing those bacteria, so it's okay. And averaging across all those different date labels, we found 54% would discard these four foods based on the date. And the piece that was most striking to me was that for breakfast cereal, 43% said they were discarded based on the date. So, we've got some education to do. Yeah. In the earlier paper I did with colleagues at Cornell, we used breakfast cereal and we were surprised to see how much people willing to throw away breakfast cereal if it were passed to date. There is confirmation and we see this happen in many other products. And we'll definitely talk about some of those product differences with Ruiqing. The last question I'd like to ask you is you found that many consumers thought they knew the meanings of the various food date labels, but they were incorrect. And in some of the work that you've done in the past, you found that many people answered incorrectly even after viewing information about the labels. So even when you educated folks or gave people information, they still made incorrect choices. Why do you think this is, and what should we do about it? And some people's responses do improve when you show them the information, but it was striking in that study that seconds after having read the definition, according to the voluntary industry standard, people were giving the wrong answer. Even though they had previously said that they thought they understood it. So, to me, this suggests that they already think they know the answer and so they're not tuning in. And this speaks to a real challenge that we're going to have when we do standardize these date labels. How are we going to reach people and capture their attention. Like, if we just change the policy, that does nothing. We've got to reach people and we've got to do it in a sophisticated and well-planned way. And I think the education should also emphasize that misunderstandings are common because that might be something that would help wake people up. But beyond that, we've got to capture their attention. So, you know, dancing clowns, whatever it is that wakes people up. I have a fear of clowns, so I'm not sure if I want that as a policy recommendation. However... For the deli meats we want you to be afraid, so it's okay. Yes, I agree. I agree. One of the things that this conversation has helped us see is that there's some real concerns around whether or not people are paying attention to the label. Or there may be paying more attention to the dates. And even when people are taught or encouraged to think about the dates, there seems to be a mismatch. And Ruiqing, I want to now turn to you because one of the things in the study that we were a part of, there's some questions about differences among people. So, in the paper that we recently published on the relationship between date labels and anticipated food waste, and people's individual orientation to risk and loss, can you tell us a little bit about what some of the key findings of that paper are? Right. So, the paper is published recently in Applied Economics Perspective Policy. It's one of the official journals of Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). Norbert is the leading author. So, this paper built on the framework of prospect theory and is based on the data from a series of experiments we conducted in Alabama and also the state of New York. We find that consumers do adjust their anticipated food waste by date labels and by how much they tolerate risk and losses. In the experiment, we particularly measured their tolerance to risk and losses. We found that the 'Use By' date labels tend to lead to more anticipated food waste than 'Best Buy'. Maybe this echo what Roni has said. So, people may tend to link 'Use By' with quality and food safety. We also found that the consumers with low tolerance to losses and are associated with higher anticipated foot waste regardless of date labels and the products. So, we can see a heterogeneity of the responses of different consumers to date labels and food items based on their tolerance to losses and risks. Thank you for that. And I think this is a really important aspect of looking at this set of studies because we see that people are different. They respond differently. And they have different ideas about how they handle losses. This idea that it can be worse to lose a hundred dollars versus to gain a hundred dollars. Or the way we understand how we'll negatively respond versus how positively we respond. Using this economic framework of prospect theory, something that is drawn from actually the psychology literature to better understand how people react to food labels while shopping. What are some key features of this approach to explaining people's behaviors and why do you think it's a good choice? Why do you think it's important to do this? One of the key features of prospect theory is it divides the possible outcomes of a risky event into two domains. One is a gain domain and one is a loss domain. So, in terms of the food consumption, probably the most likely status quo is do not eat the food items. So, the gain domain might be gaining nutrition from the food item. The loss domain might be the loss of health if the food item is bad. So, I think this framework fits particularly well to describe the consumer's trade off in their mind when they face a food item with a date label that is maybe one day or two days past the expiration date. So, one possibility is you consume this food. If it is good, you get nutrition and if it is bad, you potentially get lost health or lose one day of work or so on. So, I think this model can capture the trade off or the decision-making procedure in a consumer's mind pretty well. And experiments data support the theoretical prediction that loss aversion may affect people's food waste decisions. Thank you for that. And I think what's one of the sort of take home messages that I've learned out of this process is this heterogeneity, the fact that people are different and may respond differently to these date labels, really does put the onus upon policymakers to think critically what date labels, if we were to use them, or if we think they have an effect, which are the right ones. And so I actually want to open up the question to all of you. In your view, what next steps make sense for date labels to help address the food waste challenges that we see in this country? Let's start with you, Brian. Ooh, yeah. So, to me a compelling issue that needs to be addressed is how do we get 'Use By' to really translate to be people to be about safety? Is it a different color? I know we don't want to mess with the phrases, but do we just call this safety date and put it in red or put a clown by it if that scares you. Something along those lines to make that stand out. And then on the relevance side, I think it might be out of policy, but perhaps, industry collaboration to really push printed dates to the end of that quality horizon. So that everybody has confidence that they're not going to get undercut by somebody else having an earlier date printed for cereals or for canned goods or something like that. To have a kind of a truce among commercial interests to say, okay, typically canned beans, has this type of 180 days or 360 days. Let's push it to the end of that acceptable horizon so that we don't have unwarranted waste happening as often. Those are two ideas that I've kind of chewed on a lot and think could be positive steps forward. But I'm fascinated to hear what others think. Thank you, Brian and I really don't like the idea of putting clowns anywhere near this. I want to go to you, Roni. All right, well first, I'll a thousand percent echo everything that Brian just said. And I'll note also in terms of the 'Use By' date, the label that was most commonly associated with food safety was 'Expires On' by consumers. But that isn't part of what has been under [policy] discussion. But anyway, in addition to echoing that, I'll just say we do need a standardized policy and it has to be accompanied by a well-designed education campaign. And this policy change, it's just a no-brainer. It's not controversial. It's fairly minimal cost. And given the high food prices and the struggles that consumers are having right now, they need every tool that they can to save money and food, and this is one of them. Great. Thank you, Roni. I'll give the last word to you, Ruiqing. Yeah. I will echo what Brian and Roni said. So, a well-designed policy and public education campaign. Particularly for the education campaign. I think regardless of if there is a policy change or not, I think it is time to do a public education campaign. Norbert, we have done the research on food waste for almost nine years, right? So, I learned a little bit about the date label's meaning. But still, I cannot change my wife's opinion. When she sees sell by yesterday for the milk, she would suggest we throw it away. But I said this is not for us, this is for sellers. But she wouldn't believe so because I cannot persuade her. But maybe an education campaign from more authoritative institutional federal government can change people's mind as a researcher or like even husband cannot change. Roni - And can I just add to that, just please. I think that the economics and psychology expertise that all of you have can really contribute to that. Because I think that's a really important point that you're making. And it's not just factual, it's emotional too. And so how do we, you know, get in there and change what people do beyond their knowledge? Bios Roni Neff is a Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Department of Environmental Health & Engineering and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, an academic center focused on food systems and public health. Her research focuses on wasted food through the lens of equity and public health. She is a co-Director of the RECIPES national food waste research network, and she recently served on the National Academies of Science and Medicine consensus panel on consumer food waste. Brian Roe is the Van Buren Professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at Ohio State University. Roe has worked broadly in the areas of agricultural and environmental economics focusing on issues including agricultural marketing, information policy, behavioral economics and product quality. He was recently named as a fellow of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and has previously served as an editor for the Association's flagship journal, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. He currently leads the Ohio State Food Waste Collaborative, a collection of researchers, practitioners, and students working together to promote the reduction and redirection of food waste as an integral part of a healthy and sustainable food system, and co-leads the RECIPES Network, a National Science Foundation Sustainable Regional System's Research Network focused on increasing food system sustainability, resilience and equity by addressing the issue of food waste.  In addition to research on food waste, his other recent research includes a USDA funded project focused on local foods and school lunch programs and participation in an NSF-funded multidisciplinary team seeking to understand human-ecosystem feedbacks in the Western Lake Erie basin, including understanding how farms and agribusinesses respond to voluntary environmental programs and how Ohio residents respond to different options to manage Lake Erie water quality. Ruiqing Miao is an agricultural economist at Auburn University. Miao is interested in sustainability, innovation, and decision-making. His research focuses on the interaction between agricultural production and its environment, aiming to understand and quantify 1) agriculture's impact on land use, water use, water quality, and biodiversity, and 2) how agricultural production is affected by farmers' behaviors, public policies, agricultural innovation, technology adoption, and climate change.

In this week's episode, Tracy sits down with journalist and author Brian Reisinger to discuss one of the most pressing — yet overlooked — issues in agriculture today: how farmers continually get caught in the crossfire of government policy, global trade, and economic upheaval. Brian is the author of the powerful book Land Rich, Cash Poor: My Family's Hope and the Untold History of the Disappearing American Farmer, which traces the historical and ongoing struggles of farmers against a backdrop of political decisions that too often leave them behind. From the trade wars and tariffs of today to policy decisions made over a century ago, Tracy and Brian explore the deep and often devastating connection between government policy and farm economics. They unpack how the American farmer has repeatedly gotten the short end of the stick—despite feeding the world.

Hello, everyone, and welcome back to The Relatable Voice Podcast! I'm so excited about today's episode because we're heading to Canada to speak with a truly inspiring guest. Joining us today is Tong Ge, a talented author with a fascinating background. Tong holds a bachelor's degree in Finance and Banking and a master's in Agricultural Economics, but she has since taken an incredible leap into the world of literature. Her latest book, The House Filler, is out now. Find out more at: https://tong-ge.com/

AgriCorps: http://www.agricorps.org/Movement for School-Based Agricultural Education: http://www.sbae.org/4-H Liberia: https://4hliberia.wordpress.com/Trent McKnight's TedX Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2pPO29DaYsToday's episode is going to open a lot of eyes I think. We tend to think of youth programs like 4-H and FFA as great things for the kids to be doing. Very few recognize them for the power they have to not only develop young agricultural leaders but also as tools for spreading ideas and technologies. That's what today's episode is about, and it's a personal one for me. I grew up in 4-H and FFA and both organizations had a profound impact on my life and my worldview. Then in 2012 I joined a team led by today's guest, Trent McKnight, and spent several weeks in the country of Liberia interviewing farmers about food insecurity and farming practices. That experience also left a permanent impression on my life. So I've known Trent for about 25 years now and have had a chance to work with his non-profit organization, AgriCorps in various capacities over the years. In fact Trent first appeared on this show WAY back on episode 27, which i posted in November of 2016, so over eight years ago. For those of you not familiar, 4-H and FFA are youth agricultural organizations. 4-H varies a lot state to state and country to country, but in Liberia which is a country in subsaharan Africa that we will focus on today, they have what is known as a school-based agricultural education model. So in that way Liberia 4-H is similar to how FFA is here in the states. It involves three major components: classroom instruction in agriculture as part of their school, leadership events and contents, and a project outside of the classroom which in Liberia they refer to as a Home Entrepreneurship Project or HEP. If it sounds like a great way to learn a lot about agriculture and develop yourself as a leader and entrepreneur, you're absolutely right. But it's also more than that. The model was intended to lower the risk of adopting new agricultural innovations and as you're about to hear it is also very effective in doing just that. Some biographical background: Trent McKnight is an experienced international agriculturalist, investor, and cattle rancher from rural West Texas. Trent holds bachelor's and master's degrees in Agricultural Economics and Comparative Politics from Oklahoma State University and The London School of Economics, respectively. He has held leadership positions, including national president of the Future Farmers of America and chair of the USDA Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Advisory Committee. In 2013, Trent founded AgriCorps, a nonprofit organization focused on improving school-based agricultural education in sub-Saharan Africa. Through AgriCorps, he created the International Agricultural Education Fellowship Program under the Trade Title of the 2018 Farm Bill and launched The Movement for School-Based Agricultural Education. G. Umaru Sheriff is the National Executive Director and co-founder of 4-H Liberia, a local Non-Governmental Organisation reviving efforts from the 1970s and 1980s, when Liberia boasted over 1,000 4-H clubs. Under his leadership, 4-H Liberia has worked in hundreds of rural communities and empowered thousands of youth through School-Based Agricultural Education (SBAE) and leadership development. Committed to evidence and learning, Umaru partnered with Northwestern University, Innovations for Poverty Action, and AgriCorps on the largest randomized

President Trump's tariffs are sending shockwaves around the world, and across car dealerships here in California, the U.S.'s largest car and truck market. A 25% tariff is being placed on all vehicles imported into the United States, but that tariff also covers car parts that are used to assemble vehicle models associated with "Made in the USA." The tariffs will likely mean higher prices for all kinds of new vehicles. Guest: Brian Ellis, Glendale Dodge, Chrysler and Jeep Perhaps no California industry will face a bigger impact from tariffs than agriculture. In 2018, during President Trump's first term in office, the US engaged in a trade war with China. The US Department of Agriculture estimates that farmers took a $27 billion dollar loss from retaliatory tariffs. But what will happen this time around? Guest: Colin Carter, Professor of Agricultural Economics, UC Davis A Eureka woman is suing a Catholic hospital chain after she was denied emergency abortion care. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Katrina Fitten.  She is also the CEO and CFO of New Day For You Financial Services.  She is a national leader in business funding solutions. Katrina helps women business owners secure $100k in funding in 100 days or less, with same-day approvals and next-day funding.  Katrina's company empowers them to build financial empires. With a Bachelor's in Agricultural Economics, an Executive MBA, and 30 years of professional experience, she has facilitated over $1 million in funding this past year supporting a growing community of women entrepreneurs on their path to becoming first-generation millionaires. Recognized by ESSENCE Magazine and MSN, Fitten is committed to helping women revolutionize their relationship with money and gain confidence in their cash flow to achieve financial peace and generational wealth Talking Points/Questions What a wild time! What is your general take on money, finances post-election?Question 1: How might the proposed changes in the tax code affect small business owners, especially in terms of profit margins and tax write-offs?Question 2: How will Trump's probable proposal of increased tariffs impact mid-to-low income families and business owners?Question 3: How do you predict the potential impact on consumers and business owners if there is deportation enforcement of immigrants?Question 4: What are the implications of the ongoing discussions about Social Security benefits for everyday Americans?Question 5: How can listeners take proactive steps to navigate these financial uncertainties? #STRAW #BEST #SHMS  Support the show: https://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Katrina Fitten.  She is also the CEO and CFO of New Day For You Financial Services.  She is a national leader in business funding solutions. Katrina helps women business owners secure $100k in funding in 100 days or less, with same-day approvals and next-day funding.  Katrina's company empowers them to build financial empires. With a Bachelor's in Agricultural Economics, an Executive MBA, and 30 years of professional experience, she has facilitated over $1 million in funding this past year supporting a growing community of women entrepreneurs on their path to becoming first-generation millionaires. Recognized by ESSENCE Magazine and MSN, Fitten is committed to helping women revolutionize their relationship with money and gain confidence in their cash flow to achieve financial peace and generational wealth Talking Points/Questions What a wild time! What is your general take on money, finances post-election?Question 1: How might the proposed changes in the tax code affect small business owners, especially in terms of profit margins and tax write-offs?Question 2: How will Trump's probable proposal of increased tariffs impact mid-to-low income families and business owners?Question 3: How do you predict the potential impact on consumers and business owners if there is deportation enforcement of immigrants?Question 4: What are the implications of the ongoing discussions about Social Security benefits for everyday Americans?Question 5: How can listeners take proactive steps to navigate these financial uncertainties? #STRAW #BEST #SHMS  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.