Podcasts about Agricultural economics

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.

The beef industry is facing a mix of optimism and uncertainty — with strong prices giving way to questions about supply, demand, regulation, and long-term sustainability. But as the industry navigates these issues, a group of students at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln is stepping up to study them closely. On this episode, we're joined by Professors Brad Lubben and Elliott Dennis, both from the Department of Agricultural Economics here at Nebraska, to talk about the latest Policy Report column in Nebraska Farmer magazine, which not only outlines key challenges in the beef sector but also highlights the work of the Krutsinger Beef Industry Scholars — a unique program developing the next generation of policy-minded leaders in agriculture.Read more: https://cap.unl.edu/news/beef-scholars-program-addresses-most-important-issues-producers/

Tariffs - On this bonus episode of Agriculture Today, listeners will hear the full conversation about tariffs from K-State professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Nelson Villoria. The conversation ranges from explaining what a tariff is to discussing the impact of past tariffs.   AgManager.info

Learning About Tariffs, Part 1 Learning About Tariffs, Part 2 Spring Insect Pests   00:01:05 – Learning About Tariffs, Part 1: Beginning today's show is Nelson Villoria, K-State professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics, with two segments discussing tariffs. He explains how tariffs work, who pays for the tariff, retaliatory tariffs, and how, historically, tariffs have impacted agriculture and consumers.   00:12:05 – Learning About Tariffs, Part 2: Nelson continues to build on his conversation about tariffs in the second segment.   00:23:05 – Spring Insect Pests: K-State horticultural entomologist Raymond Cloyd ends the show with an update on early spring insect pests, including clover mites and ants.     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

As any parent knows, it is really important to help our children to make healthy food choices. I know as a father who cooks for my child, it is really critical that I introduce her to fruits and vegetables and encourage whole grains and try to manage the amount of additional sugars, but it's hard. We do this with the goal of trying to make sure that our child is able to eat healthy once she leaves the home. That she's able to make healthy choices there. But it's not just about the future. My child is making choices even today at school and outside of school, and the question is, can we help her make those choices that are going to lead to healthy food outcomes? Do food labels on products encourage children to make healthy food choices if it indicates good ingredients? Or would labels that warn against nutrients of concern actually discourage kids from using those or consuming those products? Today we're going to actually explore those questions in a particular context- in Chile. In 2016, the Chilean government implemented a comprehensive set of obesity prevention policies aimed at improving the food environment for children. Last year on this podcast, we actually explored how the Chilean food laws affected school food purchases. But now today, we're going to explore how food labels are influencing youth outside of school. It is my pleasure to welcome back my colleagues, Gabriela Fretes, who is an associate research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, or IFPRI; and Sean Cash, who is an economist and chair of the Division of Agriculture, food and Environment at Tufts University at the Friedman School of Nutrition, Science and Policy. Interview Summary Gabi and Sean, I'm excited to discuss our new paper, Front of Pack Labels and Young Consumers an Experimental Investigation of Nutrition and Sustainability Claims in Chile that was recently published in a Journal of Food Quality and Preference. Gabi, let's begin with you. So why look at Chile? Can you explain the focus of the Chilean labeling and food environment policies there? So, the setting of our study, as in the previous study, was Chile because recently the country implemented the law of food labeling and advertising, which includes three main components. The first one being mandatory front of package warning labels on packaged goods and beverages. The second one being restrictions on all forms of food marketing directed to children younger than 14 years. So, including printed media, broadcast, and also all digital media. And the third component being at school regulations at different levels including preschool, elementary, and high school levels. Briefly, food manufacturers in Chile must place front of package labels on packaged foods or beverages that are high in specific nutrients of concern, including added sugars, saturated fats, sodium, and or energy. This law was implemented in three stages, starting in June 2016. The last stage was implemented in June 2019. So, it has been already six or seven years since the full implementation of the regulation. Specifically talking about the school component because this, yeah, it relates to children and adolescents. The law mandates that foods and beverages with at least one front of pack warning label cannot be sold, promoted, or marketed inside schools. And this includes the cafeteria, the school kiosks, and even events that are happening inside the schools. And additionally, food and beverages that have at least one front pack warning label cannot be offered as part of school meal programs. In addition to this front of pack warning label regulation, Chile also implemented voluntary eco labels starting in 2022 that provide information about the recyclability of food packages specifically. There is a certification process behind this labeling regulation and the eco label can be displayed if the food or beverage package is at least 80% recyclable. Wow. This is a really comprehensive set of policies to encourage healthier food choices, both at the school and then also outside of the school. I'm excited to discuss further what this may do to food choices among children. Sean, that really brings up the question, why is it important to look at young consumers and their food choices and what makes them unique compared to adults? Thanks for asking Norbert. This is an area where I've been interested in for a while. You know, young consumers play a crucial role in shaping the demand for food and long-term dietary habits. And young consumers might be more open to incorporating dietary advice into those long-term habits than adults might be. Just perhaps kids are less set in their ways. Children and adolescents are both current, but also future consumers with growing autonomy in what they choose around food as they get older. To marketers, we sometimes would say they might represent a three-in-one market. First, they spend their own money on snacks. What you could think of as the primary market. And how children spend money autonomously is really something that hasn't been studied enough by researchers. Although it's an area where I have tried to make a contribution. Second, kids influence household purchases. This is sometimes called pester power. You can think of a kid in the supermarket begging a parent to buy a favorite snack or a certain brand of cereal. But this can also be more socially positive in that kids might be agents of change within their households. Encouraging perhaps other family members to buy healthier food items if they get more interested in that. And third, this three-in-one market is rounded out by the fact that children represent future purchasing power as future adults. So, the habits that they're forming now might influence what they do when they're older. Despite this importance for marketers, but also for pro-social behavior change, there really hasn't been a lot of research on youth food purchasing behaviors. And this question that we are looking at here of how kids might respond to front to package labels has been particularly limited. In this project, we wanted to understand how Chilean adolescents might respond both to nutrition warning labels, but also eco labels, and how they consider price when choosing snacks. We were lucky to be able to recruit a sample of over 300 kids, aged 10 to 14, to participate in these experiments. I know we're going to chat a bit more about what we found, but in general, our results suggest that while price is perhaps the biggest factor in explaining what the kids chose in our experiment, that some of these youth showed preferences for the eco labels, which could be indicative of an emerging interest in sustainability issues. But overall, understanding these behaviors is really important because the food choices made during childhood and adolescence can persist in adulthood. And this can be really something that helps change long-term health outcomes.   Gabi, let's talk a little bit more about eco labels for a moment. What are they, and how do these echo labels influence children's snack choices? What did they tell us about their awareness of sustainability? That's a great question, Norbert. Thanks. In our study specifically, we found that eco labels, had a greater influence on adolescents' snack choices than nutrition warning labels these black and white octagons that are displayed on the front of the package of products in Chile. And this suggests that some young consumers are becoming more aware of environmental issues, or at least in our sample. One possible explanation for this could be that eco labels suggest positive emotions rather than warnings, as with the nutrition labels. Which might feel more restrictive. Unlike the nutrition labels that tell consumers what not to eat, eco labels, on the other hand, highlight a product's benefits, making it more appealing. This could be one of the reasons. Related to that, adolescents may also associate eco-friendly products with social responsibility aligning with increasing youth-driven environmental movements that are very prevalent around the world. However, not all adolescents in our sample responded equally to the eco labels that were presented to them in the snacks. Our study specifically found that those who receive pocket money were more likely to choose eco label snacks. And this could be possibly because they have more autonomy over their purchases and their personal values could be playing a bigger role in their choices. If eco labels are really influencing children and adolescents with choices, one intervention that could be potentially beneficial could be to incorporate sustainability messaging in school food and nutrition education in order to reinforce those positive behaviors. And make them part of the daily food choices that they make. In making sustainable food more affordable, government incentives or retailer promotions could encourage youth to choose more eco-friendly snacks. Given that price, as we saw in our study, remains a key factor for choice. Lastly, not all eco labels are created equal. And this suggests that clear standardization and regulation are needed to prevent misleading claims. And ensure that adolescents receive accurate information about the sustainability of their food choices. Ultimately, the eco labeling, of course, is not a silver bullet. It's not going to solve all the environmental issues, but it represents a promising tool to nudge consumers. So our better dietary and environmental behaviors. Gabi, you talked about how the eco labels have a bigger effect than nutrition warning. And overall, the nutrition warning labels didn't really have that big of an effect on snack food choices. Why do you think that's the case? Yes, this was really one surprising finding in our study. That front of pack nutrition warning labels did not significantly impact children's and adolescents' snack choices. And this kind of contradicts some previous research suggesting that warning labels can help consumers make healthcare choices. And there are several possible explanations for why this could be happening. The first one could be just lack of interest. So compared to adults, children and adolescents may be just more responsive to positive rather than negative messaging. Because negative messages related to nutrition might not seem relevant to them because they feel healthy in the present. They just are not interested in those kinds of messages. The second could be label fatigue. We discuss this in our paper and basically it is because Chile's regulation was already introduced in 2016. Given that it has been already some time since implementation, young consumers may have become habituated to seeing the warning labels on food products. So, like how adults also experience label fatigue, and this is documented in the evidence, children and adolescents might no longer pay attention or pay less attention to the warning. Third possible explanation is it relates to taste and brand loyalty. For this point, research shows that for youth specifically, taste remains the top priority when they choose food. So often outweighing any other factors including health concerns. If a favorite snack, for example, has warning labels but remains tasty and familiar to the kid, the label alone may not discourage them from choosing that snack. And lastly, social and environmental factors. Our study found, as we already mentioned, that eco labels had a stronger influence that nutrition warnings, and this could indicate that children and adolescents are just more responsive to messages about sustainability than to warnings, which they may perceive as less immediate. Thank you for sharing that. And at this moment in the US there is a conversation about front of pack labels. And the work that you are showing in this paper may even point to some of the things that may happen if we see similar front of pack labels here in the US. I'll be looking forward to see what happens with that effort right now. Sean, I want to turn to you and ask an economist type question. What role does price play in adolescent food choices? Not only price, but the availability of pocket money? And how do you think that should influence policy? Our study shows that price is the most significant factor influencing the snack choices of the kids in our study. And higher prices definitely reduce the likelihood of seeing a certain product being selected. It was kind of interesting. Interestingly, this effect was consistent regardless of whether the kids regularly received pocket money. Suggesting that even those that don't receive spending money still are paying attention to price. And this was a little bit different from what we found in some other studies that I've been able to work on, in the US and Germany, that suggested that previous experience with pocket money, or getting an allowance, was really important for understanding which kids might be most careful about spending their own money. I don't know if that's something different in the Chilean context than those other contexts. Or if that was just about what the kids in this particular study were paying attention to because we're asking about different things. But when we look more closely at the kids in our Chilean study, we found some important differences. As Gabi already mentioned, those kids who received pocket money were the ones who were more positively inclined to choosing products with the eco labels. And that suggests that they might be valuing sustainability a little bit more when making their own choices. Perhaps because they're already a little bit more familiar with some of those dynamics of spending their own money. Whereas those without pocket money were more likely to choose cheaper options or sometimes the healthier options like the apples that we provided as an option in our study. And suggesting they're focused more on affordability or health. So, what this means for policy, given the strong influence of price, it means that policy interventions that focus on price, like taxes on unhealthy foods or perhaps subsidies for healthier options, might be effective tools in guiding better choices for these kids. But also, programs promoting budgeting skills and food literacy might help adolescents make more informed decisions both about the nutrition and the sustainability of the foods they're eating. Finally, since some kids are responding positively to eco labels, integrating sustainability messages with the nutrition education could enhance the impact of food labeling policies. Overall, combining price policies and education labeling strategies could be really effective in driving meaningful changes in children and adolescent food choices. Sean, thank you. And it's really important to appreciate the differences that may occur when we think about a country like Chile versus the US or in some of your other work in Germany. And understanding that youth culture may be different and may be shaping these behaviors. But it's very clear that all people, it sounds like, are responding to price. And that's a constant that we're seeing here. Sean, here's my final question for you. What is the take home implications of this study? Well, first and foremost, our findings here suggest that nutrition labeling alone isn't necessarily going to be enough to drive healthier choices among children and adolescents. It can be part of an answer, but policymakers looking to promote healthier food choices might need to compliment labeling with education campaigns that reinforce the meaning of these warnings and integrate them into school-based nutrition programs. That said, I think that Chile has already been a leader in this regard, because the food items that get the warning labels in the Chilean context are the same ones that are subject to different restrictions on marketing or sales in schools, as well. I do think that we're going to see kids and eventually adults just become more familiar with these categorizations because of the consistency in the Chilean law. Also, on the eco label side, leveraging that kind of eco labeling alongside nutrition messaging might be an effective combination to help promote both healthier and more sustainable food choices. And finally we've been talking about new front to pack labeling schemes here in the United States. And it's really important to make sure we learn as much as possible from the experiences with such policies in other countries. Chile's really been a world leader in this regard and so I'm very happy to have tried to contribute to an understanding of how people use these labels through this study and through some of the other projects that Gabi, you and I have all been involved in. Bios Gabriela (Gabi) Fretes is an Associate Research Fellow in the Nutrition, Diets, and Health (NDH) Unit of the International Food Policy Research Institute. She received her PhD in Food and Nutrition Policies and Programs at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, USA in 2022 and holds a master's in food and nutrition with a concentration on Health Promotion and Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases from the Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, University of Chile. Her research interests are at the intersection of child obesity prevention, food policy and consumer behavior, and her doctoral thesis involved evaluation of a national food labeling and advertising policy designed to improve the healthfulness of the food environment and address the obesity epidemic in Chile, particularly among children. She has worked with a broad range of government, international organizations, academia, public and private sector stakeholders and decision-makers in Paraguay, Chile, and the United States of America. Sean Cash is an economist and Chair of the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. He conducts research both internationally and domestically on food, nutrition, agriculture and the environment. He is interested in environmental impacts on food and beverage production, including projects on crop quality and climate change, consumer interest in production attributes of tea and coffee, and invasive species management. He also focuses on how food, nutrition, and environmental policies affect food consumption and choice, with specific interest in children's nutrition and consumer interest in environmental and nutritional attributes of food. He teaches courses in statistics, agricultural and environmental economics, and consumer behavior around food. He is currently Specialty Chief Editor of the Food Policy and Economics section of Frontiers in Nutrition, and has previously served as an Editor of the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics as well as the Chair of the Food Safety and Nutrition Section of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

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/

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/

The price difference between steers and heifers can be a key indicator of herd expansion or contraction and recent trends indicate that we may be at a turning point. TaraLee Hudson, a graduate researcher in the Department of Agricultural Economics here at Nebraska, and Dr. Elliott Dennis, an associate professor in the Ag Econ department, have published a new article analyzing the factors driving the price difference between steers and heifers. They discuss steer-heifer price difference and insights into herd expansion. Read more: https://cap.unl.edu/news/steer-heifer-price-difference-implications-herd-expansion

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

Record-high cattle prices in 2025 have created unique opportunities and challenges for producers looking to maximize their profits. One key factor in cattle marketing is the price slide — when lighter-weight calves tend to command a higher price per pound than heavier calves. Understanding how a price slide works, and how to leverage it, can make a big difference in profitability.This concept is covered in a new article by TaraLee Hudson, a Graduate Research Assistant in the Department of Agricultural Economics here at Nebraska, and Dr. Elliott Dennis, an Associate Professor in the department, to break down what the price slide means, how it's shaping cattle markets in 2024, and how producers can use it to make informed marketing decisions.Read more: https://cap.unl.edu/news/leveraging-price-slide-marketing-opportunity-amid-record-high-prices/

Eric Snodgrass is principal atmospheric scientist at Nutrien Ag Solutions. He joins us to discuss the weather outlook, especially with rain, as planting season gets underway. Professor Glynn Tonsor is with the Department of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University. He shares data and trends seen from the latest Monthly Meat Demand Monitor.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In our 65th episode, Aileen Miziolek sits down with ownership expert and co-author of Own It!: How to Develop a Family Enterprise Owner's Mindset at Every Age, Barbara Dartt, to ask her how she started and grew her career in the family business consulting world, what being an owner of a family enterprise can mean and the different roles that owners often have to navigate in their ownership journey.   All views, information, and opinions expressed during this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily represent those of Family Enterprise Canada.   Guest bio Barbara Dartt has more than 20 years' experience helping individuals and family groups grapple with the joys and challenges that are a natural part of families owning and managing businesses together. As a principal consultant for FBCG, Barb helps families get aligned, anticipate and prevent future challenges, and communicate effectively to grow their businesses.   Growing up, Barb watched her grandfather and father provide educational extension services to family-owned farms. Her interest in serving farm families led her to study veterinary medicine, receiving her doctoral degree from Michigan State University in 1996. In 1998, Barb earned a master's degree in Agricultural Economics at MSU where she worked as a graduate research assistant, and then as a Farm Business Management Specialist.   You can learn more about Barbara Dartt on the Family Business Consulting Group website.   Key Takeaways [0:26] Aileen Miziolek welcomes Barbara Dartt and asks her to share how she came to a career in the family business consulting world.   [4:49] Regardless of the industry, the need for ownership development tends to sneak up on families; Barbara explains how that evolution can take place.   [9:40] Both operating and non-operating ownership can become complex and challenging, but non-operating ownership is not for everyone.   [11:12] Highly expert industries can evolve beyond their owners' knowledge base so creating a team for strategic ownership is critical. Barbara explains a good perspective and a few non-negotiables to guide ownership development.   [17:00] Patient capital as a quantifiable way to measure the return on time and energy.   [18:45] The owners' mindset, beliefs, and behaviors chart is one of the many tools provided in the book; Barbara shares her favorite.   [24:42] Barbara breaks down the common symptoms of underdeveloped ownership and what to do to prevent it.   [27:56] Generation friction can also be an issue when it comes to ownership, Barbara shares her experience with intergenerational cohorts and how their different perspectives affect what feels important to them.   [30:24] Barabara offers what advisory structure she would provide for proper ownership development.   [33:20] Aileen Miziolek thanks Barbara Dartt for sharing her expertise and closes this episode by reminding listeners to rate and subscribe.   If you enjoyed today's episode, you can subscribe to Let's Talk Family Enterprise on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and other podcast apps. Please remember to share this episode with family, friends, and colleagues. Share your thoughts with us at fea@familyenterprise.ca.   Mentioned in this episode The Family Business Symposium 2025: Navigating the Calm and the Storm in Family Business, May 26 to 28 in Halifax, Nova Scotia   Own It!: How to Develop a Family Enterprise Owner's Mindset at Every Age, by Wendy Sage-Hayward, Gaia Marchisio, and Barbara Dartt   More about Family Enterprise Canada Family Enterprise Canada FEC on Facebook FEC on Twitter FEC on LinkedIn

Dr. Cory Walters, associate professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at UNL, joins to discuss a unique and potentially valuable tool for farm risk management —micro-captive insurance. This concept allows farm operations to manage risk and insurance costs in a more customized way while also presenting financial opportunities. But, as with any financial tool, micro-captives come with complexities, regulations, and risks that must be fully understood before implementation. More: https://cap.unl.edu/news/strategically-insuring-your-farm-rise-micro-captive-insurance/

Larry Deboer,  Professor and Extension Specialist in Agricultural Economics at Purdue University, who has consulted about taxation of property for decades, describes Indiana's property tax and various issues about it.  

Indiana lawmakers returned to the statehouse this week for the second half of the 2025 legislative session. They still have to finish crafting a two-year budget and address a number of bills that advanced out of committees.Read more: Indiana's legislative session hits halfway pointProperty tax reform has been a major priority of Governor Mike Braun – and the assembly. Senate Bill 1 would provide some relief to homeowners while seeking to be “responsible” with local governments and schools, which could lose millions of dollars in revenue from the state.Language in the budget would also create a universal school voucher system. That would mean any Indiana family, regardless of income, could use state funds through the Choice Scholarship Program to attend private, parochial or non-religious schools.Other education-related bills – there's more than 30 – would require school districts that have at least 100 students attending a charter school to share their operating funds with that school; require schools to report when students miss more than 10 days of school; revamp the A-to-F grading system; add chaplains to schools; and require school board candidates to declare a political party.Read more: Senate bill bans DEI in state government, schoolsThere's also legislation pertaining to social issues.Senate Bill 289 would ban any agency or educational institution that receives money from the state from requiring employees to take part in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, training and hiring.Read more: Advocates say Braun EOs tell transgender Hoosiers: 'You don't belong here'And House Bill 1041 would ban transgender women from playing in collegiate athletics. Braun signed an executive order this week that lines up with moves at the federal level to ban transgender women and girls from playing sports.The session must wrap up by April 29.Join us on the air by calling 812-855-0811 or toll-free at 1-877-285-9348. You can also send questions for the show to news@indianapublicmedia.org.  You can also record your questions and send them in through email. GuestsAbdul-Hakim Shabazz, Political analystNiki Kelly, Editor, Indiana Capital ChronicleLarry DeBoer, Emeritus Professor, Agricultural Economics, Purdue UniversityKaitlin Lange, Government and Politics Editor, Indianapolis Star Kirsten Adair, Education Reporter, Indiana Public Broadcasting

In this episode of The AgCulture Podcast, Jason Champoux, VP of Crop Production at Yakima Chief Ranches, gives us an inside look at the hops industry—from breeding and production to its key role in brewing. He talks about Yakima Chief's unique business model, the collaboration between growers and brewers, and the innovations shaping the future of hop farming. Discover how strategic partnerships help maintain quality and sustainability in this specialized agricultural sector. Tune in now on all major platforms!Want to learn more? Visit the Yakima Chief Hops and Yakima Chief Ranches websites for details.Meet the guest:Jason Champoux grew up on a fourth-generation hop farm in Washington and earned a degree in Agricultural Economics. With over 21 years in the produce and packaging industry, he now serves as VP of Crop Production at Yakima Chief Ranches, leading global procurement and grower partnerships. His expertise lies in optimizing hop production and connecting growers with brewers worldwide.Connect with our guest on Social Media: LinkedIn(00:00) Introduction(02:25) Jason's background(04:46) Hops production process(09:33) Yakima Chief's business model(11:26) Breeding and variety development(20:26) Growth of craft brewing(31:49) Final Questions

We help navigate the space of dairy market risk from understanding the basics to future implications. The first part cover dairy risk management options to important deadlines and the second part discusses what dairy market risk will look with changes in the Federal Milk Marketing Orders to the Farm Bill. Dairy Stream host, Joanna Guza, and guest, Dr. Chris Wolf, discuss the following topics:  Why do we have dairy market risk tools Dairy market risk options Options for certain size dairies Recommendations for beginners in risk management Important dates and timeframes Federal Milk Marketing Orders impact on dairy market risk Potential for new risk management tools Resources Future of dairy market risk management This episode is brought to you by the Voice of Milk. About the guest Chris Wolf is the E.V. Baker Professor of Agricultural Economics and the Director of Land Grant Programs in the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University. Wolf conducts research, extension and teaching focusing on dairy markets and policy, livestock disease economics, farm business management, risk management, and farm animal welfare. He has published widely in academic and industry outlets. Wolf's extension program stresses the effect of public policy on farm behavior and financial outcome, aiming to focus on issues of current and future importance to policy makers and industry decision makers. A native of Wisconsin, Wolf received his B.S. from the University of Wisconsin and his Ph.D. from the University of California-Davis.  Episode recorded February 27, 2025 Compeer Financial is proud partner of Dairy Stream.  Learn more about Dairy Stream sponsorship. This podcast is produced by the Voice of Milk, a collaboration of individual dairy organizations working to improve the future of dairy farm families. Become a sponsor, share an idea or feedback by emailing podcast@dairyforward.com. 

The Dairy Streamlet is a condensed version of a long Dairy Stream episode and covers the high-level points of the conversation. If this topic interest you, then listen to the full episode on March 5. The focus is on dairy market risk with understanding the basics and what items impact it. Dairy Stream host Joanna Guza and guest Dr. Chris Wolf discuss why dairy market risk programs exist, options for dairy farmers, recommendation for beginners, changes to the Federal Milk Market Order, future farm bills and resources. This episode is brought to you by the Voice of Milk. About the guest Chris Wolf is the E.V. Baker Professor of Agricultural Economics and the Director of Land Grant Programs in the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University. Wolf conducts research, extension and teaching focusing on dairy markets and policy, livestock disease economics, farm business management, risk management, and farm animal welfare. He has published widely in academic and industry outlets. Wolf's extension program stresses the effect of public policy on farm behavior and financial outcome, aiming to focus on issues of current and future importance to policy makers and industry decision makers. A native of Wisconsin, Wolf received his B.S. from the University of Wisconsin and his Ph.D. from the University of California-Davis.  Episode recorded February 27, 2025 Compeer Financial is proud partner of Dairy Stream.  Learn more about Dairy Stream sponsorship. This podcast is produced by the Voice of Milk, a collaboration of individual dairy organizations working to improve the future of dairy farm families. Become a sponsor, share an idea or feedback by emailing podcast@dairyforward.com. 

In this episode of The Voice of Retail, I sit down with Cheryl Ong Seng, Vice President of Retail at Circana, to explore the latest trends shaping the Canadian retail landscape. From consumer confidence and value-seeking behaviours to the challenges of personalization and pricing strategies, they cover the key insights retailers need to know.Cheryl shares her journey from Mauritius and Australia to leading Circana's retail insights based in Canmore, Alberta, providing a unique perspective on the data and analytics that drive decision-making in the industry. She explains how Circana collects and interprets consumer trends across multiple sectors, helping retailers and brands stay ahead in an evolving market. One of the key themes of the conversation is how consumer behaviour continues to shift in response to economic pressures. Cheryl and Michael discuss how Canadian shoppers seek more value through private-label products, reward programs, or trading down to budget-friendly options. They explore the “little treat culture paradox,” where consumers splurge on premium items like coffee or gourmet groceries rather than traditional dining experiences.The episode also examines the role of AI and technology in retail, particularly in enabling better personalization and targeted marketing. Despite years of discussion around personalization, many retailers still struggle to deliver relevant promotions to their customers. Cheryl shares insights on how AI-driven data analytics can unlock new opportunities for more effective engagement.Pricing strategy is another hot topic, as retailers weigh the benefits of everyday low pricing (EDLP) versus high-low promotional models. Cheryl highlights the importance of understanding consumer psychology—while EDLP offers stability, shoppers often respond more enthusiastically to promotions and perceived discounts.Finally, the discussion touches on key industry trends, including the rise of buy-now-pay-later options, the growing consumer preference for Canadian-made products, and the balance between sustainability and affordability in purchasing decisions.Whether you're a retailer, brand leader, or industry analyst, this episode offers valuable insights into the future of retail in Canada. Tune in for expert perspectives on the data-driven decisions shaping the industry today. About CherylAs Vice President of Retail Canada, Cheryl Ong Seng is responsible for leading retail commercial teams in Canada. This includes retail client engagement, thought leadership and delivery of innovative solutions that enable accelerated decision making along with enhanced retailer-manufacturer joint business collaboration. Cheryl came to Canada from Sydney, Australia and was the first person to serve as Client Service Account Director for Aztec Canada, a startup business in 2010. She joined IRI as part of the IRI- Aztec merger in 2013 and has since held multiple roles as IRI merged with the NPD Group and rebranded to Circana, including Vice President of Client Service, Managing Director and more recently Vice President of Retail Canada. Leveraging her expertise in analytics, shopper marketing solutions and bespoke client services management, Cheryl has led the expansion of the company's leading-edge capabilities in Canada.Originally from Mauritius Island, Cheryl grew up in Australia where she graduated from the University of Sydney, where she earned a Bachelor of Agricultural Economics, majoring in Marketing and Economics. Beyond the world of Circana, she has a passion for the outdoors and resides in Canmore allowing her to take full advantage of the Canadian Rockies. In addition to this, she sites her proudest achievement as conquering Mt. Elbrus, Russia, one of the seven summits of the world and aspires to climb a second summit. 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 fifth year in a row, the National Retail Federation has designated Michael as on their Top Retail Voices for 2025, 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.

Tim Meyer, associate professor of practice in the Department of Agricultural Economics at UNL, joins to discuss his new article for the Ag Econ department's Cornhusker Economics series that explores the relationship between cash flow, profitability, and solvency in farm management. He breaks down why those matter, how they interact, and what farmers should consider when making big financial decisions—like buying land or managing debt. We won't be diving into all the numbers from Tim's case study, but we will discuss the big-picture takeaways that producers can apply to their own operations. Read more: https://cap.unl.edu/news/reconciling-paradox-positive-profit-and-negative-cash-flow-meyer-250205/

This quarter of the Future of Agriculture podcast is made possible by Case IH: https://www.caseih.com/en-us/unitedstatesAgricultural Economic Insights: https://aei.ag/Today's episode features David Widmar of Agricultural Economic Insights. David first appeared on the show a year ago on episode 399, which ended up being one of my most listened-to episodes of the year. Today, we discuss the current state of the ag economy, the margin squeeze that farmers are facing and where that places us on the economic cycle that commodities tend to follow. We also talk about some key ideas and mental models that David has written about for how to manage risk during this challenging time for the industry. As background, David Widmar is an agricultural economist specializing in ag trends and the farm economy. Through his research, he supports agribusinesses and farmers in their strategic and planning efforts. David's current work can be found at Agricultural Economic Insights, aei.ag, which he co-founded with Dr. Brent Gloy in 2014. Prior to Agricultural Economic Insights, Mr. Widmar was a researcher with the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University, and served as the economist for the Kansas Department of Agriculture. Brought to you by Case IH: Case IH designs,engineers and produces cutting-edge farm equipment based on a comprehensive understanding of farmers' needs, wants and challenges, integrating these insights into their development and manufacturing.For example, take their Model Year 25 Magnum tractor. The new Magnum is purposefully designed to answer farmers' needs in every design and engineering choice. Improved horsepower for pulling heavier loads, faster. Bundled, integrated and ready-to-go precision tech for greater accuracy in the field. And a transmission farmers can tweak for improved control and performance in different tasks. That kind of design thinking is exactly where the future of ag is headed, and that's why you'll be hearing me talk to the folks at Case IH at different points throughout this quarter about what they do and how they're working to push the ag forward.

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.

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.

Dr. Jim Mintert, professor and extension economist in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue Universiity, joins us to discuss the results of the latest Ag Economy Barometer. And we have a Farmer Forum with Iowa State Rep. Chad Ingels and North Carolina farmer Frank Howey.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

#192: John Bobbe revisits the investigation and exposure of organic grain fraud that he led, which inspired a series of articles in the Washington Post, and later, the US congress to take action. He also updates us on where things stand today and how bad actors in the organic grain distribution and regulation space still need our deep attention.John Bobbe is the former Executive Director of the Organic Farmers Agency for Relationship Marketing (OFARM) and a current Policy Advisor for the Cornucopia Institute. He is well known throughout the organic community for his dedicated detective work tracking shipments of organic grain, visiting ports, and inspecting paperwork in order to uncover the story of the international fraud responsible for devastating domestic markets. John holds a Masters in Agricultural Economics from the University of Missouri.To watch a video version of this podcast please visit:https://www.realorganicproject.org/john-bobbe-aiding-abetting-organic-grain-fraud-episode-one-hundred-ninety-twoThe Real Organic Podcast is hosted by Dave Chapman and Linley Dixon, engineered by Brandon StCyr, and edited and produced by Jenny Prince.The Real Organic Project is a farmer-led movement working towards certifying 1,000 farms across the United States this year. Our add-on food label distinguishes soil-grown fruits and vegetables from hydroponically-raised produce, and pasture-raised meat, milk, and eggs from products harvested from animals in horrific confinement (CAFOs - confined animal feeding operations).To find a Real Organic farm near you, please visit:https://www.realorganicproject.org/farmsWe believe that the organic standards, with their focus on soil health, biodiversity, and animal welfare were written as they should be, but that the current lack of enforcement of those standards is jeopardizing the ability for small farms who adhere to the law to stay in business. The lack of enforcement is also jeopardizing the overall health of the customers who support the organic movement; customers who are not getting what they pay for at market but still paying a premium price. And the lack of enforcement is jeopardizing the very cycles (water, air, nutrients) that Earth relies upon to provide us all with a place to live, by pushing extractive, chemical agriculture to the forefront.If you like what you hear and are feeling inspired, we would love for you to join our movement by becoming one of our 1,000  Real Fans!https://www.realorganicproject.org/1000-real-fans/To read our weekly newsletter (which might just be the most forwarded newsletter on the internet!) and get firsthand news about what's happening with organic food, farming and policy, please subscribe here:https://www.realorganicproject.org/email/

Dr. Trey Malone Profile: https://ag.purdue.edu/directory/tjmalone#:~:text=Trey%20Malone%20is%20an%20agri,on%20agri%2Dfood%20supply%20chains.Trey's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/treymalone MS-MBA Joint Degree: https://agribusiness.purdue.edu/degrees/ms-mba/Dr. Trey Malone is an agri-food economist and the Boehlje Chair in Managerial Economics for Agribusiness in the department of agricultural economics at Purdue University. His work focuses generally on strategic marketing and strategic decision making especially as it relates to what universities can do for industry. He has published over 60 research articles in outlets including Food Policy, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, and the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Before Purdue, he worked as an ag economist with the University of Arkansas, and before that at Michigan State University. His insights have been featured in popular press outlets, including the New York Times, TIME Magazine, CNBC, CNN, USA Today, Fast Company, and Popular Science. And now the Future of Agriculture podcast. This episode has been a long time in the making. I've known Trey, at least from a distance for years. He almost came on the show earlier this year, but then was offered his dream job to move from Arkansas to Purdue so we put it on hold until now. In addition to being an ag nerd, I've always had an interest in economics, specifically what drives markets and what drives behavior. I read Freakonomics years ago and am a listener to podcasts like Planet Money. So why it took me so long to realize that what i”m trying to do here with the Future of Agriculture is bring together my science and tech nerdiness with my business nerdiness is beyond me. When I say that this show is really at the core about ag economics, a lot of you long time listeners are probably saying “DUH!”, but to be honest I never consciously thought of it that way. I share all this with you because I'm hoping this episode is just the start of featuring many other economists. No, i”m not going to stop covering agtech or sustainability or science or the other topics we we cover here on the show. But I do want to make a concerted effort to highlight the interesting work our countries 2,000+ ag economists are doing. And this episode with Trey is a great place to start.

On today's episode, joining me is Tom Brink, a legend in the cattle industry. Tom is the current CEO of the Red Angus Association and founder of Top Dollar Angus. He's an expert on all sides with his extensive background of various companies he's worked for and roles he's taken on in the beef industry. In this episode we dive into the current and future state of the industry regarding genetics, technology, supply chains, production and more. He also shares his wisdom on hiring, creating a good working culture, and what it takes to be a good leader. This episode is one of my favorites! Tom Brink is a Kansas native graduating from Cimarron High School before moving on to Kansas State University in Manhattan where he studied Animal Science and Agricultural Economics.  He has spent his entire career working within the livestock industry in various positions including the Senior Vice President of Cattle Ownership & Risk Management for ContiBeef/Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding, President & COO of J&F Oklahoman Holdings, Inc., the cattle ownership arm of JBS Five Rivers, founder and majority owner of Top Dollar Angus, Inc., and currently serves as the CEO of the Red Angus Association of America. Tom and his wife of 38 years have four children and five grandchildren and reside in Brighton, Colorado, where he enjoys hiking, biking, and reading books and articles on a wide variety of topics.    Resources & Links: Atomic Habits Join The Directory Of The West Get our FREE resource for Writing a Strong Job Description Get our FREE resource for Making the Most of Your Internship Email us at hello@ofthewest.co Join the Of The West Email List List your jobs on Of The West   Connect with Tom Brink: Visit Red Angus Association website  Visit Top Dollar Angus website or Facebook   Connect with Jessie: Follow on Instagram @ofthewest.co and @mrsjjarv Follow on Facebook @jobsofthewest Check out the Of The West website   Be sure to subscribe/follow the show so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices