Podcasts about Agricultural economics

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/

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

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

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/

Is it time to say good riddance to Supply Management in the dairy industry?  Guest: Ryan Cardwell - Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

**Exciting Teatime Alert!** Join us on **December 3rd** for a delightful session of Teatime with Miss Liz, featuring the talented **Tong Ge**, who will be discussing her incredible book, *The House Filler*! **Date:** December 3rd **Where:** Live on Miss Liz's YouTube Channel [Join the Live Stream Here!](https://youtube.com/@misslizsteatimes?si=NgHQg1l5B6ZRfKGx) **Meet My Guest: Tong Ge** Born and raised in China and making her way to Canada in the late 1980s, Tong Ge brings a wealth of knowledge and experience. With a Bachelor of Commerce in Finance and Banking and a Master of Science in Agricultural Economics, she is an accomplished writer, passionate reader, and lifelong learner. Since 2012, her works have graced publications across North America and Taiwan, earning her multiple literary awards. Her debut novel, *The House Filler*, has already made waves, winning the 2024 Independent Press Award for New Fiction! **How You Can Participate:** Have questions for Tong Ge or want to share your thoughts on her book? Join the live chat during the stream! Your comments and questions could be featured in the discussion! Let's raise our teacups and celebrate literature together! #TeatimeWithMissLiz #TongGe #TheHouseFiller #LiteraryChat #BookDiscussion #LiveStream #SupportAuthors #LiteraryAwards #BookCommunity #CalgaryAuthors #CanadianLiterature #joinus

LAP contributing editors Daniela García Grandón, Joana Salém Vasconcelos, and Andrew R. Smolski join the pod to discuss the January 2024 issue of LAP, "The Agrarian Question as an Ecological Question." The themes covered include the classic debate over agrarianism and development, the history of land reform in Latin America during the twentieth century, and the significance of centering ecology in the agrarian debate.  Daniela García Grandón is a part-time professor in the School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies at the University of Ottawa. Joana Salém Vasconcelos is a full-time Visiting Professor at the Federal University of ABC (UFABC), Brazil, and has a PhD in Economic History from the University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil. Andrew R. Smolski is an Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Education at the Pennsylvania State University.  Access the January 2024 issue of LAP here: https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/lapa/51/1 For additional information about contacting the journal, podcast host, or guests, please contact latampodcasts@gmail.com

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.

Stephen Grootes speaks to Treasury director-general, Dr. Duncan Pieterse on the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement's key takeaways, including measures to reduce debt, boost economic growth, and improve service delivery. In other interviews on this episode of The Money Show, Krish Gopaul, Senior Analyst for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at the World Gold Council explores the factors behind the unprecedented growth in global gold demand, now exceeding $100 billion.   Interviews: Insights into mini-budget and Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's economic agenda Stephen Grootes speaks to Treasury director-general, Dr. Duncan Pieterse on the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement's key takeaways, including measures to reduce debt, boost economic growth, and improve service delivery.   Market Commentary   Grant Nader, Portfolio Manager at Benguela Global Fund Managers joins host Ray White to analyse the day's market fluctuations and delve into the latest developments in business and finance.   Global gold demand reaches a record high value of over US$100 billion Stephen Grootes speaks to Krish Gopaul, Senior Analyst for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at the World Gold Council exploring the factors behind the unprecedented growth in global gold demand, now exceeding $100 billion. Tech Thursday: Shifting Landscape: Challenges Face South African Online Retail Stephen Grootes speaks to tech expert Siphumelele Zondi about the turmoil in South Africa's online retail space, following Jumia's exit from Zando and Takealot's sale of Superbalist. SA is spending worryingly little on agricultural research Stephen Grootes talks to Johann Kirsten, Professor of Agricultural Economics at Stellenbosch University, about South Africa's alarming underinvestment in agricultural research.    Small Business Focus:  Building your brand as a township business for urban and corporate market Stephen Grootes speaks to Bulelani Balabala, Founder of Township Entrepreneurs Alliances about strategies for township businesses to penetrate urban and corporate markets through effective branding with Bulelani Balabala. Investment School - Navigating South Africa's Market Volatility: Strategies for Long-Term Growth Stephen Grootes speaks to Hlelo Giyose, Chief Investment Officer and Principal at First Avenue Investment Management, and Asanda Notshe, Chief Investment Officer at Mazi Asset Management, about navigating South Africa's market volatility: strategies for long-term growth.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you feel like your grocery budget just doesn't buy you as much as it once did, you're not alone. According to U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, food prices rose 11. 4 percent last year alone - the highest annual increase in 23 years. The ongoing pinch at the grocery store has been in the news of a lot of media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Times Magazine, Forbes, and so many others. Our guest today, food economics and policy professor David Ortega from Michigan State, is going to walk us through the food price inflation phenomenon. Interview Summary We've been hearing a lot about food price inflation. Can you tell us how food prices have changed over the last four to five years, and how that compares to the recent past? Definitely. So, I think it's always really important to define what food inflation is so that we're all on the same page. We hear this word a lot and we've been hearing it for a number of years now. Inflation is the rate of increase in prices over a period of time - so how fast prices are changing or increasing in a given period. The time frame here is very, very important. Now, compared to last year, food prices are only up 2.1%. And this is for all food, which includes food at home and food away from home. Now groceries, food at home, are up 0.9% compared to last year. And menu prices at restaurants, or food away from home, are only 4.0% higher. Now if you're listening to this, you're probably thinking, ‘well, how can this be given how expensive things are at the grocery store?' And that's because you are likely thinking about how food prices have changed since the start of the pandemic, right? So, over the past five years, food prices have increased around 26%. And so that's the cumulative effect of inflation that we're all very familiar with at the grocery store. Wow. You talked about the recent past, and in particular, about the time since COVID. How has this looked historically if you take a longer time frame? Yes, so if we look at a few years before COVID, food prices generally increase around 2% or so, year over year. Now in the summer of 2022, we experienced double digit increases in food prices. More than 11%, year over year. And that was the highest rate of increase in around 40 years, since the late 1970s and early '80s. So now that's a significant spike and departure from what we would consider to be normal. But the rate of increase has come down to almost pre pandemic levels, which is really great news. But remember the rate of inflation is the rate of increase, so because that rate has come down, it doesn't mean that prices are decreasing necessarily. They're just not growing as fast as they were before. Correct. I have some ideas, but I really want to hear you talk about it. What has led to this significant increase in the last four and a half years or so? It's really been a convergence of factors. It's not just one particular thing, but really all these factors coming together and sort of compounding on each other. We saw increases in labor costs, and then as we go through the timeline, we had Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022. And that really sent commodity prices surging for things like wheat, other grains, as well as vegetable oils. And it wasn't just the invasion alone, but we had countries responding with export restrictions on things like palm oil that really just exacerbated the situation. We also have the impacts of climate change. The summer of 2022, and for a few years leading up to then, there was this mega drought in the West and the plain states that affected anything from lettuce prices to the price of meat. Something that we're experiencing to this day. We also have the bird flu outbreak, now the largest outbreak in U. S. history. Egg prices have been through a bit of a roller coaster ride, and we've been hearing a lot about increases in egg prices. That's primarily due to the high path avian influenza outbreak, or the bird flu outbreak. Now, those are all what I would consider, for the most part, to be supply side factors. But we also have demand factors at play. And that is, that when we look at consumer spending on food, especially over the past two to three years, it's been much higher compared to before the pandemic. Even when you adjust for inflation. Now, this is likely attributed to households. Some of them accumulated savings. We had the fiscal stimulus payments from the government that injected cash into the economy. For a period of time, some households, we could splurge at the grocery store. We've seen, and the data from USDA shows, that consumer spending on food both at home and away from home is much higher in recent years than prior to COVID. So again, it's a combination of both supply side and demand side factors that have contributed to the significant rise in food prices. This is a really important point that it's not a single factor, but it's this mix of things, which also makes it really difficult to talk about how to disentangle it. And I definitely want to hit on that. But before we get there, I want to know what has the impact of these significant price increases on consumers been? The first thing that I want to point out is that food price inflation doesn't impact everyone the same. It's really low-income households that are hurt the most by these price increases. And that's because they spend a higher share of their income on food. When we look at the poorest 20% of American households, they're spending over a third of their income on food, compared to the average American household that spends roughly 10 to 12%. Now, when we look at industry data, we see that as a result of inflationary pressures, individuals are making shorter and more frequent trips to the grocery store. They're doing more price comparisons. They're turning and buying more of the private labels, the store brands, that sell at a much more affordable price point. And they're buying fewer premium items. So less of the stocking up that we saw at the beginning of the pandemic. But this in turn can also fuel an increase in the price of those conventional or cheaper items. And that's something that I found in the research that I've done on egg and poultry prices. When prices increase, consumers switch to the cheaper, more conventional items. And that increase in relative demand can put upward pressure on prices. So, we've seen this also reflected in the way that consumers are shopping for food and the prices that they're seeing. I think this is really critical for us to appreciate that while it is an often talked about issue, price inflation, and it does hurt lots of people, but appreciating that lower income folks are facing this at a much harder way is important. And, having spent time working with the charitable food sector and understanding the experiences of the individuals there, you're regularly hearing people talk about the high price of food and how they're trying to navigate it. And the role that these food pantries can play in helping meet that need, but it just still it's a grind. It becomes really challenging. Yeah. Recent economic data actually shows that food price inflation is moderating. So, it's not as hot as it once was. But consumers are still experiencing sticker shock at the grocery store. What's going on here? So, coming back to the earlier part of the conversation, people are really feeling the cumulative effects of inflation. And again, that's why I find it very important to define inflation as the rate of increase in food prices. Well, the average consumer at the grocery store shopper, they don't really care about the rate of increase. They care about the price level, right? When you see that eggs are $3-4 a dozen that's going to catch your attention. When we look at the last 4, 4.5 years, food prices are up 25%. That's a significant increase. Now, another reason for this disconnect in terms of what the economic data is telling us and how consumers feel about food price inflation, is the nature of food prices in our interactions with them. We see food prices on a weekly if not more frequent basis. We know when prices are going up. We encounter food prices, we go grocery shopping, much more frequently than we get a haircut or we buy a plane ticket. We see these prices rise. Now, it's also important, coming back to this discussion on the percent increase versus the price level, a 2% increase today is a higher dollar amount than it was a year ago, and certainly 5 years ago. Because the base has increased. It's not just in the consumer psychology. It's when we look at the price level and the increase. Prices are increasing more in terms of a dollar amount today than they were in the past. And so because of this, in many ways, the grocery store has really emerged as the face of inflation here in this country. And it really has impacted just about everybody over the past four or five years. As someone who hasn't had a haircut in probably 10 years, I really do know that prices have changed fairly quickly when it comes to food. But I don't know what's happening at the haircut. But I really appreciate this. And, but I think the thing that a lot of people struggle with in this conversation is, but inflation is coming down. We've just heard these reports and why aren't food prices going down? But you've made it clear. It was almost like we've reached this high level. It is hard for it to roll back. I mean, we don't expect prices to actually fall, do we? When we look at specific items, right, it's not uncommon to see, say, the price of eggs decrease when we have a period of low bird flu activity. But by and large, when we look at food as a category, say groceries, there have been some periods in the recent past where food prices decreased, say, 1-2% year over year. But we shouldn't expect prices to decrease to the level that they were before COVID. And that's because the nature of prices. They generally increase from year to year. And that's a good thing as long as they are moderate increases. And as the data have been telling us for a couple of months now, we're looking at food price increases in the neighborhood of what they were prior to the start of the COVID 19 Pandemic. This is helpful. And it kind of makes me think of something we were talking about earlier. And so I want to ask you this last question. There's been some conversation in policy circles about addressing this problem of food price inflation. What are your thoughts on how policy could be used to make a difference in this situation? That's an excellent question. We're coming up on an election and there's been proposals on both sides floating around and I appreciate the focus on an issue that is affecting consumers. But we have to look at the policies and what economic theory can tell us about what's going to happen. The first thing I'll say before I even get to that is that the President of the United States, policymakers, have very little control over food prices, especially in the short term. We really have to look at sort of the longer time horizon. How can we make our food system more resilient to future shocks? Investing in crops that are drought tolerance, right? That climate change is one of the factors that's going to be with us from here on out into the foreseeable future. We have to make those investments now so that we have a much more resilient food system in the future. In terms of coming back to policies, we have to look at economic theory. There's been proposals to ban, say, a price gouging at the federal level. That's something that I think we have to look at very carefully because there could be some unintended consequences. This is just straight out of Econ 101. Other candidates have proposed tariffs across the board. We've seen what happened when we had the trade war with China back in 2018. It leads to even higher increases in food prices because food producers, food manufacturers, rely on inputs oftentimes from abroad. And so now they're facing higher prices, they're going to be passed on to the consumer. As we look at policies, I think it's really important to look carefully at what some of the outcomes may be so that we don't run into some unintended consequences. BIO David L. Ortega is a professor and the Noel W. Stuckman Chair in Food Economics and Policy at Michigan State University. His research program focuses on understanding consumer, producer, and agribusinesses decision-making to better inform food policies and marketing strategies. Dr. Ortega provides timely analysis of forces and events affecting the agricultural and food sectors. He has been called to provide expert testimony before federal and state agencies, including the U.S. Senate and House agriculture committees. He is a frequent contributor to food price inflation reporting at The New York Times and NPR, and is regularly interviewed by prominent media outlets, including ABC News, NBC News, PBS, USA Today, CNN, Forbes, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Newsweek, and the Detroit Free Press, to name a few. Dr. Ortega earned his Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from Purdue University.

Consumers are met with an abundance of choices in grocery stores, but more choices doesn't always lead to better decisions.

In today's podcast, we're discussing Fast and Furious. But it's not the movie series starring Vin Diesel. Instead, the catchphrase describes rapidly increasing and somewhat confusing food system environmental impact reporting. Food firms, farmers, and governments all have a clear need for more quantitative environmental impact data in order to measure and understand factors such as carbon footprint, sustainable agricultural practices, and food supply chain processes. But there is no single standard for such reporting and different measurement methodologies make it difficult to assess progress. What's more, greater transparency regarding environmental impacts and food systems will affect trade and supply chains. Our guest today is Koen Deconinck from the Trade and Agricultural Directorate of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD for short. Interview Summary You and your colleagues at the OECD recently published a paper called Fast and Furious: The Rise of Environmental Impact Reporting in Food Systems. Can you tell me a little bit about the paper? Sure. A while ago we were talking to one of the world's experts on sustainability in food systems. He alerted us that there was a major change happening in how people think about sustainability in food systems. He told us in the past, it was thought of almost as a checklist, right? People would say, here's a list of practices that you should or shouldn't use. And then we'll come and confirm whether that's the case on your farm. Then you either get certified or you don't. And he said, you should pay attention because there's a big change underway. We're more and more moving towards actually quantifying things like what is your carbon footprint? What is your water footprint? And so on. He convinced us that this was actually a major change that was happening. Oddly enough, outside of the role of the practitioners, not that many people have been paying attention to it. That is why we wrote this paper. This is a really important shift because just thinking about this in terms of economics, evaluating outputs versus the methods that you get to those outputs can have really significant implications for the various actors involved. So, this seems like a good move, but it seems also kind of complicated. I would love to hear your thoughts about that particular move. Why did you think, or why did you all realize this was a challenge and opportunity at the same? That's a great question. It actually gets to the heart of what we're describing in the paper. Starting with the good news, we do think that this has an enormous potential to improve sustainability in food systems. Because we know from the scientific evidence that there are big differences between different kinds of food products in terms of their average environmental impact. For example, beef tends to have more greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of products relative to poultry and then definitely relative to plant based alternatives and so on. You can see these kinds of average differences. But then the data also shows that within each kind of product category, there's huge differences between different farmers. And what you can do if you start quantifying those footprints is it actually unlocks different kinds of levers. The first lever, if you think about carbon footprints, which is maybe the most intuitive example. The first lever is people know the carbon footprint of different kinds of food products. They could shift their diets away from the products that have a higher footprint towards products that have a lower footprint. For example, less beef and more towards poultry or towards plant-based alternatives. That's one lever. A second lever is that if you can also start to get even more precise and use data that is specific to each producer, not just an average, then also within each product category, people can start shifting towards the producers that have a lower environmental footprint. So, for example, people will still be drinking milk, but then they can shift towards milk producers that have a lower carbon footprint. And the third interesting lever that you can unlock is if you have that data at a supplier level. Suppliers could then say, well, I changed my practices. I changed my inputs. I've done things differently to reduce my impact. You actually can stimulate innovation by each individual farmer, each individual company in the supply chain to lower that impact. And that is something that you can do if you're quantifying those impacts, and that is very difficult or even impossible to do with this previous checklist-based approach. So that's one of the reasons why we're, we think that this has tremendous potential if we get it right. That's right. Just saying that you're doing sustainable practices isn't sufficient. It's really critical to evaluate what kinds of greenhouse gas emissions or other environmentally problematic outcomes of that producer or firm is what really matters. But I have to ask you just how difficult, how realistic is it to be able to measure the environmental impact of every farm? That's a really good question. And of course, if you think about agriculture compared to other sectors, one of the big challenges for agriculture is indeed that there's just so many producers, right? I talked to people who work in the steel industry, and they say that their industry is complicated, but there's basically only 1000 steel factories around the world. That's not that many. The latest evidence suggests that there's more than 600 million farmers worldwide. So clearly, we're talking about a completely different order of magnitude, order of complexity. And the second difficulty is that when we talk about measurements, for a steel factory, in theory, you could put sensors in the chimney and sort of measure that. For agriculture, that's really not practical. Scientists would sometimes do that because, you know, otherwise it's hard to know what greenhouse gas emissions you have in agriculture. But it's clearly not something that you're going to do on 600 million farms. So, what people do instead is, scientists would do the primary research. There are different ways of doing that, to try and estimate which kinds of practices have which kinds of environmental impacts. If you have a cow and it has this kind of diet, how much methane is it burping and how is it affected by differences in the kinds of feed that you give the animal and whether it's inside or outside and so on. And then based on that very detailed research, that then gets simplified into a simpler model, a simpler tool, so that the farmer can plug in some key performance indicators from their farm. I can say ‘I have these many cows, this is the feed rations that I'm giving to them. These are the kinds of manure management options that I have.' And then that tool is a simplified tool that basically gives you an estimate of those emissions. And once you have a tool like that, of course, the challenge is already a lot easier. Because then, if your tool is user friendly and you can sort of focus on just a couple of key parameters that farmers would know, then, of course, you can scale it up. And there are actual examples like that. In Ireland, there is a scheme called Origin Green, which is an initiative by the Irish government to promote exports of Irish Agri food products. They cover something like 90 percent of all the beef and dairy farms in the country. And as part of the initiative, they do the audits anyway, but as part of that initiative, they also quantify the carbon footprint. They basically have farm level data for 90 percent of the farmers. New Zealand similarly has had a big campaign called Know Your Numbers, where they've convinced farmers to use these kinds of calculation tools to get a good insight on how much the emissions are on their farm. So, it is definitely not straightforward. But at the same time, we do see that it is actually happening. It is actually feasible. Thank you for sharing that. This is really impressive work that's happening in the European context and in New Zealand. I have to ask, how challenging is this for small or medium sized producers? I mean, both in a European or Northern context, but particularly when we start thinking about the fact that Agri food chains are global and, and so there can be production practices in the Southern countries that would be of concern. How do you think about this in this context? It is a really important issue. And actually, we've been here before. If you go back something like 20 years ago, and I think you actually did some research on this yourself back in the days, Norbert. There was a big increase in food safety standards, food quality standards. And these were not necessarily public standards. It was quite often retailers who started to impose that on their suppliers. And we did have all those concerns, right? Because on the one hand, it was making food safer and higher quality for consumers. But on the other hand, there was this risk that it would actually exclude, especially the poor producers, the small and medium sized enterprises from those supply chains. There's been a lot of research about that and it turns out that in the end, it was more nuanced than what people feared initially. But of course, we definitely have the same concern now. And there's a few elements to it. One is simply the difficulty of actually quantifying those things. I mentioned a few of these calculation tools and a few of these initiatives. So far, most of the investment in these things has been in high income countries. And even if you look at the underlying science, most of the research has happened in richer countries. So, if you go to tropical agriculture, we even have less scientific evidence that you would use to build a simplified tool like that. Then there's, of course, the challenge of actually getting farmers to use that. So, governments in developing countries typically don't have the same kind of capacity that the government of New Zealand, or the government of Ireland has to help farmers do that. So, there's definitely a role there for development cooperation, technical assistance, things like that. But there's also another concern, which is that one of the important drivers of the environmental impacts of food products is actually your productivity. There are many parts of the food system where your environmental impacts might be roughly the same, no matter whether you are actually very productive or not. So, if you have the type of variety of rice or wheat that you're using that just has relatively low yields, then, of course, you divide the total environmental impact by a smaller number. So, automatically, your relative impact is bigger. And typically, that is what we find in the Global South. So, typically, the producers there will have much lower productivity levels. And studies do find that they tend to have higher environmental impacts, all else equal. So even if they were able to quantify it, there is actually an additional risk that then they would still get excluded. What that means is that this rise of quantified environmental impact reporting is something that we need to pay close attention to. And development corporation agencies and everybody else should be thinking hard about how we are going to make sure that producers in the Global South are not only able to quantify, but also able to improve those environmental impacts. For example, through sustainable productivity growth. This is really helpful. And thank you for sharing that. And you're right. I did think about these issues. I was influenced rather by the experience of increasing food safety standards. I would say one of the differences that we saw with food safety standards was how safe can food be? I mean, we want our food to be extremely safe, but there are always these tradeoffs. With environmental impacts, I think it feels a little different. And I really appreciate the concern of the difference between these small and medium sized enterprises, particularly out of a developing country context. I've got to ask sort of a broader question. Why is all of this happening now? This increase of environmental sustainability measures, both in terms of the technical work and the demand. I mean, what's bringing all of this together? It is actually a pretty interesting story because it appears that, the way we look at it, there's been some changes on the demand side and on the supply side, so to speak, right? So, there's this growing demand for more information. Consumers are increasingly conscious about these things, even though it's not clear yet if this really translates into their shopping behavior. Civil society organizations, of course, have long been asking for more information on that. Governments, in some cases, are also pushing for that. One clear example there is in the European Union. There is this new rule in the EU. It's called the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. That's quite a mouthful. And one of the things it does is it requires all large companies to report not only their own emissions and the emissions from the energy that they're purchasing, but also their emissions upstream and downstream in their supply chain. People sometimes call this Scope Three Emissions. This has huge ramifications because it means that for the supermarkets, a large part of their Scope Three Emissions are the emissions from food. They would then probably ask the food manufacturers 'well, give us more information on your carbon footprints.' And in turn, for the food manufacturers, a large part of their carbon footprint comes upstream from the agricultural sector. So, everybody would be turning around and asking their supplier and all the way up the supply chain for more information. All the way, not only to the farmer, but even further up to the fertilizer companies and so on. So, there's definitely this push on the demand side. And, I guess governments and citizens and civil society, those are sort of the usual suspects, so to speak. There's also unexpectedly a lot of pressure from investors. We see organizations of investors pushing hard for more transparency. Their logic is that sooner or later, stricter regulations on the environmental side are going to come. For some of the companies that we're currently investing in, we have no idea how hard that would hit them. So, those companies need to disclose more information because we as investors need to know how much money is at risk if we invest in a business that is, for example, linked to deforestation and things like that. So, that's the demand side. But what is really interesting is that at the same time on the supply side, it's also becoming easier to actually provide that information compared to five or 10 years ago. Some of this is because people have been working in obscurity for a long time, trying to develop certain methods and databases. A lot of that work has been coming to fruition in just the last few years. For example, there's been development of new reporting standards, there's been development of new databases, there's been development of new methods, people are now using satellites and so on to try and quantify things like land use change, deforestation impacts and so on. A lot of these things are now converging and blending with each other. We do think that the combination of this greater demand and greater supply that is driving what we're seeing now. And of course, some of these initiatives are still at a relatively early stage. At the same time, I think the direction of travel is clear. So, we think that demand is not going to go down. It will keep getting easier to supply that information. We think that this is what explains this fast increase that we're seeing. This is really intriguing, and it makes me wonder how global value chains are going to be realigned. Going back to this idea of small and medium sized producers who may not be able to have the monitoring, or if you think of even larger firms who feel uncomfortable with having some outside agency evaluating the carbon emissions or other greenhouse gas emissions from their farm. I can imagine that this could realign value chains. Is this a fair assessment? Is this a concern? I agree with you that this is something people should be looking at. At the moment, there's not yet any data on that. I don't think anybody has really researched that. We see in general that many researchers aren't really paying attention to this trend, which was actually one of the reasons we wrote this paper. But what you're describing is exactly one of the questions we have as well. There are a few ways that this could play out. You could imagine that if it's only some markets that are getting very interested in this kind of information, you might have a situation where companies in a producing country decide to just send the sustainable stuff to the countries that care about sustainability. But they keep producing the unsustainable stuff for all the other markets. In that case, the total impact for the environment might actually be limited. But there could also be other cases where companies think, well, since a large part of our customer base is asking for more sustainability, we might as well make everything sustainable just to be on the safe side. You might have other cases where companies start working backwards because they want to make sure that what they are selling is sustainable. So, you might actually have situations where a retailer starts working with suppliers or where a food manufacturer starts working with suppliers to make sure that their production is sustainable. This is again something that we have seen in the wake of these food safety standards about 20 years ago. This was a really surprising development and there was a lot of investment from other companies in the supply chain to help farmers start meeting these stricter food safety standards. So, one possibility is that something like that might happen for environmental sustainability as well. At the moment, these are all really just hypotheses. And so I really hope people will start to investigate this more seriously, because I think it is very important also for policymakers to understand what has happened. I'm really appreciative of you making the point that there is just a great deal of uncertainty in this space and that there is a need for researchers to explore this issue. And I agree the food safety concerns of 20 or so years ago is a good example. But I think there are going to be some differences and I'll be intrigued to see how that plays out. I am interested to understand, are there any risks besides the ones that we've kind of touched on, any other risks or downsides to this movement that we're seeing? Yes, there are actually. Because the story I told so far was maybe a little bit on the optimistic side. I was explaining how it's becoming easier to supply the information in part because we now have better reporting standards. That is one part of the story. That's sort of the glass half full view of it. The glass half empty view is that actually, at the same time, there's also a fragmentation. There are also many different initiatives, and this is why we call it fast and furious. So, there's lots of different initiatives that are competing for attention. And you do end up with situations where you might have different ways of calculating certain environmental impact. Different ways of reporting it. And then it's not necessarily clear when somebody is reporting something what exactly they were using as methods. And so that poses an enormous risk, because if every supermarket or every country starts coming up with its own way of doing things, its own way of reporting, then the end result is just going to be confusion and frustration and transaction costs. And then the benefits for the environment won't even be there. So, it is really important if you want this to go well, that people get together, stakeholders, governments, researchers, to get together and try to align as much as possible on common reporting standards, common methodologies, etc. So that it's clear for everybody that the data that we're looking at is comparable. This is important, and I can imagine if we think about international accords on addressing climate change and how it takes a lot of effort to get agreement on those, you can imagine that when we're talking about these kinds of measures and getting concordance on that, there could be some real challenges. We've already touched on this, but I'm interested to know, are there other policy implications of the work that this paper is doing? Is there something we should be paying attention to? Well, one idea that I hope people would start taking seriously is I want people to start thinking in timelines and cycles. And let me explain what I mean by that. There's a lot of different initiatives out there. And you can even start to see a little bit of a hierarchy, how different things, some of these standards are building on other standards. Some of these databases are then in turn using some of those other standards. There's a kind of a logic that is emerging there. One of the problems that happens now is that it's not really clear when all of these elements are going to get updated. So, suddenly one of those standards might get updated and then now all of these other standards that build on that or those databases that build on that are suddenly no longer consistent with that original standard. And then there's some confusion and then it's not really clear whether the data you are using is actually still consistent with the original standard. One idea that I'm advocating for is that people should all explicitly define a certain iteration cycle where they say, look, every four years, for example, or every three years, every five years, we are going to review the standard. We'll give everybody 12 months of warning, and we'll have a stakeholder process, and we'll have a scientific process behind that so it's clear for everybody what we're changing and why. But this way, you know well in advance when each of these building blocks is going to get updated. Then that would make it a lot easier for everybody to make sure that what they're doing is aligned with those standards. And an additional benefit of doing it like that, I think, is these things are moving so fast and there's still so much new science and new technology coming in, that we have to keep the possibility open to keep improving and updating those methods and those standards as well. If you announce in advance that we'll do this on a three year cycle or a four year cycle or whatever it may be, I think that could help us strike a balance between the need for that flexibility, but at the same time that need for stability. Because of course, if things keep changing all the time, then you're never quite sure whether the numbers you're looking at make sense or can be compared. I think that idea would be very helpful. And that will probably require quite a bit of coordination between all the different stakeholders who work in that space. And I think that would be a very good thing to do. BIO Koen Deconinck is an economist in the Trade and Agriculture Directorate of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) in Paris. He was lead author of the OECD report “Making Better Policies for Food Systems” (2021) and has worked on market concentration, seed markets, evidence gaps, resilience, and environmental impacts of food systems. He holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Leuven and has published research in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, the European Review of Agricultural Economics, Food Policy, and Business History, among others. He currently works on measurement of carbon footprints and other environmental impacts of food.  

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds! Sam Stone kicks off the show with Sean Noble as they welcome David Catanese to compare the enthusiasm and confidence between the Republicans and Democrats, discuss whether this is truly the "worst it's ever been" in politics, JD Vance's future, and Kamala Harris' ability to "fake it till she makes it." Later, Chuck Warren sits down with Congressman Jason Smith, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to cover the budget process, the future of Social Security and Medicare, and the impact of Harris' call to let the Trump tax cuts expire—this, in the face of the 20.5% inflation tax that has occurred under her watch as Vice President. Finally, Shay Khatiri joins us to explore growing dissatisfaction within Iran's conservative base over Khamenei's leadership, the potential cracks within the regime, and why U.S. involvement in shaping these developments is crucial for protecting its interests in the Middle East. Stay tuned for an insightful discussion on the pressing issues shaping the future of our country and the world.www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds-Show sponsors:Invest YrefyYrefy offers a secure, collateralized portfolio with a strong, fixed rate of return - up to a 10.25%. There is no attack on your principal if you ever need your money back. You can let your investment compound daily, or take your income whenever you choose. Make sure you tell them Sam and Chuck sent you!Learn more at investyrefy.com4Freedom MobileExperience true freedom with 4Freedom Mobile, the exclusive provider offering nationwide coverage on all three major US networks (Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) with just one SIM card. Our service not only connects you but also shields you from data collection by network operators, social media platforms, government agencies, and more.Use code ‘Battleground' to get your first month for $9 and save $10 a month every month after.Learn more at: 4FreedomMobile.comDot VoteWith a .VOTE website, you ensure your political campaign stands out among the competition while simplifying how you reach voters.Learn more at: dotvote.vote-About our guests:David Catanese is a Washington-based political writer and Host of Too Close To Call. He's written for McClatchy, The Atlantic, U.S. News & World Report & Politico. You can read his work at davidcatanese.substack.com and you can follow him on X @davecatanese. -Shay Khatiri is the VP of development and a senior fellow at Yorktown Institute. An immigrant from Iran, he is an alumnus of Arizona State University and the Strategic Studies Department at Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies. He publishes the Substack newsletter, The Russia–Iran File. You can follow him on X @ShayKhatiri.-Congressman Jason Smith is a 7th generation Missourian, a 4th generation owner of his family's farm, a citizen-legislator, and a champion for the rights and values of rural Missourians. Jason chairs the Ways and Means Committee – the oldest committee in Congress. He became the youngest Ways and Means Chairman since before the Civil War and the first Missourian to lead the committee since John Phelps – the namesake of Missouri's Phelps County – in 1859. The committee has broad jurisdiction over some of the most consequential issues facing Missourians today, including all federal tax policy, all U.S. trade and tariffs, Social Security, Medicare, and many welfare programs.As Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Smith's top priority is delivering for the working families, farmers, and small businesses that make the American economy the envy of the world. In his first term, Smith has passed out of his committee pro-worker, pro-family, pro-small business tax relief; trade agreements that expand opportunities for small businesses and farmers; legislation that expands access and lowers the cost of health care for working families; and legislation to recover fraudulent claims for unemployment insurance. His committee has also engaged in aggressive oversight, including an investigation into certain colleges' unwillingness to curb antisemitic protests on their campus as well as being selected to help lead an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.Smith was elected to Congress in 2013 after serving in the Missouri General Assembly for eight years. He served in elected House leadership during the Trump administration and in 2021 he was elected as Republican Leader of the House Budget Committee.Jason comes from humble roots and learned the value of hard work growing up in Salem, Missouri. He attended Salem High School, where he was an active member of FFA. At the University of Missouri-Columbia, Jason earned degrees in Agricultural Economics and Business Administration. After receiving degrees from both programs in three years, he graduated from Oklahoma City University School of Law at the age of 23.Jason has been rated as the top conservative in the Missouri delegation by the American Conservative Union; he is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and a supporter of the right to life movement and traditional values. Jason attends Grace Community Church in Salem. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Elaine welcomes friend, farm partner, and University of Nebraska agricultural economist, Jessica Groskopf. Elaine and her guest discuss one of the most challenging topics for many farm families - financial transparency in farm transition. From addressing your biggest financial fears (whether you're the owner or the heir) to the importance of having honest conversations around expectations, this episode offers practical insights for farm's facing transition. Jessica highlights key strategies for ensuring financial transparency, the biggest generational differences when it comes to finances, why there IS such a thing as good debt, and some of the best questions every farmer needs to ask. Access the full show notes for this episode at elainefroese.com. Discover more about our guest: Jessica Groskopf Elaine Froese Resources: Watch this episode on YouTube SPEAKING - book Elaine for your next event COACHING - find your Farm Transition Coach MEMBERSHIP - become at Farm Family Harmony Member RESOURCES - download for FREE   CONTACT - take the next steps in your transition  BURNING QUESTION? Submit it here for Elaine or her coaches Timestamps 0:00:03 Hello and Personal Shout Outs 0:00:51 Introduction to Jessica Groskopf 0:02:05 Jessica's Webinar 0:03:09 What are Your Biggest Financial Fears? 0:04:48 The Owner Generation and The Sunset Years 0:06:05 Having Honest Conversations 0:07:49 Your Parents Don't Owe You Anything 0:09:46 Getting A Clear Picture of Your Compensation Package  0:12:13 Good Debt vs Bad Debt, There is a Difference 0:15:33 The Generational Differences in Attitudes About Debt 0:17:39 Keeping The Books and Financial Transparency  0:20:15 Living Expenses for the Average Farm Family Today 0:24:36 What's Good Practice for Bank Accounts  0:26:52 Where is it Written That Only Women Do Farm Books? 0:29:30 Strategies for Transitioning From The Older to Younger Generations 0:33:31 Jessic's Stress Test 0:36:22 Some Great Questions for All Farmers 0:41:00 Jessica's Top Three Takeaways For Financial Transparency

#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. Mark L. Teague is a seasoned executive, entrepreneur, and author whose remarkable journey from farmhand to finance executive has equipped him with a wealth of knowledge and unique insights into the challenges facing the American working class. With a PhD in Agricultural Economics from Oklahoma State University and an impressive track record in the banking and finance industry, Dr. Teague has established himself as an authority on navigating the modern business landscape while staying true to traditional values. Driven by a deep-rooted belief in the power of principled living and the importance of preserving the American working class, Dr. Teague's mission is to empower working men with the tools and wisdom they need to thrive in their careers, relationships, and personal lives. He champions the working class, advocating for personal responsibility, resilience, and the pursuit of meaningful goals. His professional journey and dedication to traditional values in a modern world position him as a trusted guide for those striving to build a legacy of significance. Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Teague has held leadership positions at major financial institutions such as Toyota Financial Services, Metris Companies, and Sears Credit. His innovative strategies and decision science applications have led to significant business successes, including over $300 million in shareholder value, $3.5 billion in accounts receivables growth, and $850 million in credit loss reductions. Dr. Teague's exceptional problem-solving skills and creativity have earned him numerous accolades, including the Business Partner of the Year Award from Sears Credit. He holds a B.S. from West Texas A&M University and a PhD from Oklahoma State University, both achieved with Summa Cum Laude honors. He has also contributed to several peer-reviewed articles in professional academic journals. When he's not writing, reading, or advising, Dr. Teague enjoys spending time with his wife, Melissa, their four children, and nine grandchildren on their Texas ranch. An avid outdoorsman, he finds joy in alpine skiing, hiking, camping, and exploring nature with his family. Dr. Teague is also passionate about the shooting sports and cherishes the moments he spends teaching his grandchildren to ski and appreciate the great outdoors. For insights on living a life of significance and creating a meaningful legacy, visit Dr. Teague's website at www.aworkingmansguide.com.

In this episode of the AgCulture Podcast, Dr. Chris Wolf, an agricultural economics expert, takes a closer look at the dynamic U.S. dairy industry. From shifting dairy markets and policies to managing farm businesses, Dr. Wolf discusses the challenges and opportunities that are shaping the future of agriculture. Tune in to learn how these trends are influencing both producers and the wider agricultural landscape. Listen now on all major platforms to stay informed and ahead in the agriculture industry. This episode was sponsored by ⁠⁠⁠Bankbarn⁠⁠⁠, check out their website to know more! Meet the guest:  Dr. Chris Wolf, the E.V. Baker Professor of Agricultural Economics at Cornell University, brings decades of expertise in dairy markets, farm business management, and agricultural policy. With a B.S. from the University of Wisconsin and a Ph.D. from UC Davis, Dr. Wolf's work focuses on the intersection of research, extension, and teaching. Connect with the guest on Social Media: LinkedIn Timestamps: (00:00) Introduction (04:07) Dairy industry evolution (11:09) Farm management success (19:20) Risk management strategies (26:45) Agricultural policy impact (34:02) Future industry trends (48:45) Closing thoughts Discover the world of agriculture with the "Ag Culture Podcast". This podcast will be a gateway for those passionate about agriculture to explore its global perspectives and innovative practices. Join Paul as he shares his experiences in the agricultural industry, his travels and encounters with important figures around the world. Available on YouTube, Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Subscribe at the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AgCulture WebSite⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and keep an eye out for future episodes, bringing insights and stories from the vibrant world of agriculture.

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.

In this episode, we're joined by Savannah Columbia, a Extension Associate in Agricultural Economics, to explore the vibrant world of produce auctions in Kentucky. Savannah sheds light on the unique role these auctions play in the state's agricultural landscape, providing a platform for farmers to sell their fresh produce directly to consumers, wholesalers, and retailers.Whether you're a farmer, a consumer, or simply curious about the local food system, this episode offers a fascinating glimpse into the world of Kentucky's produce auctions. Tune in to learn more about the people, processes, and products that make these auctions such a vital part of our state's agricultural landscape.Produce Auctions OverviewCCD Kentucky Produce Auction Price ReportsProduce Auctions Marketing ProfileQuestions/Comments/Feedback/Suggestions for Topics: hortculturepodcast@l.uky.eduCheck us out on Instagram!

What You Will LearnCurrent Crop ConditionsAs of September 3, 2024, the harvest of full-season crops in Oklahoma reveals mixed results, particularly with corn and sorghum. Soybeans are struggling significantly, and there is a pressing need for rain across the state.Economic Decision-MakingProducers often grapple with the choice of sticking to historical planting practices versus adapting to current market conditions. Understanding input costs and market prices is crucial for making informed decisions that can impact profitability.Importance of Risk ManagementEffective risk management strategies, such as forward pricing and insurance, are vital for producers to navigate the inherent market fluctuations. These strategies help mitigate potential losses and stabilize income.Market DynamicsThe episode discusses how producers are responding to low wheat prices and the anticipated rise in nitrogen costs. This highlights the need for producers to stay informed about market trends to make timely decisions.Budgeting for SuccessCreating a detailed budget is essential for producers. It outlines expected costs and revenues, enabling them to make informed agricultural decisions and manage their resources effectively. (00:00) - Introduction to episode 314 of the Red Dirt Agronomy podcast(01:10) - Crop update from September 3, 2024(01:38) - Overview of current crop conditions across Oklahoma(02:37) - Discussion on the impact of recent weather on crops(03:27) - Examining the percentage of crop loss in soybeans(05:19) - Wheat planting considerations and concerns(07:21) - Introduction of guest Dr. John Michael Reilly(08:35) - Dr. Reilly's background and current role at Oklahoma State University(09:36) - Discussion on producers' decision-making process for planting(11:51) - Marketing techniques and risk management for producers(14:49) - The importance of budgeting and price considerations(17:05) - Accessibility of market data for producers today vs. 20 years ago(19:21) - The challenge of information overload in decision-making(22:20) - Common questions from students about futures markets(25:16) - What students think they need to learn vs. what they actually need(29:40) - The importance of teaching fundamentals and critical thinking(34:03) - Discussion on teaching methods and memorization in agriculture education(38:01) - Comparing agricultural science to economics in terms of complexity(43:59) - Age groups and their likelihood to engage in market activities(45:04) - Comparing grower mentality on marketing across different regions(46:36) - Discussion on the reasons behind increased on-farm storage investments(51:20) - Closing thoughts on alternative farming systems for new entrants(52:47) - Wrap-up and information on how to engage with the podcast RedDirtAgronomy.com

The ”Heartland” of the United States is a geographical expanse that is breathtaking in its size and scope.  Covering 20 states, from North Dakota to Texas, it is among the most diverse places on the globe. Yet for the past decades it has underperformed the ”Services” economies of America's coastal states and cities.  But that is changing dramatically thanks to the efforts of groups like Heartland Forward.  With entrepreneurial programs and toolkits, this ”Think and DO” tank as they call themselves has been unlocking the intelligence, culture, and capital in places as diverse as Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Oxford, Mississippi, and attempting to drive investment to the heartland of USA. How's it going? As the American economy continues to generate prosperity and opportunities, Heartland Forward's Senior Economist and Chief Research Officer talk to Lou about place-based economic development, the workforce of these 20 states and the linkages between their work and ICF's. This one changes the narrative about the ” flyover country” within the United States and gives examples of how every community can seize its destiny (Sound familiar?) https://www.intelligentcommunity.org/seizing_our_destiny You will enjoy their insights into this continuous rebirth of the American spirit. Julie Trivitt joined Heartland Forward from the University of Arkansas where she was a faculty member in both the Economics and Education Reform departments for eight years and has lived in the heartland her entire life. She leads the research initiatives on labor markets and talent pipelines as they are now and how we need them to adapt so the people of the heartland have opportunities to realize their full potential and employers have the best qualified talent. She has a PhD and MS in Economics from the University of Arkansas. Her bachelor's degree is also in Economics and was earned at Missouri State University. She aspires to be an herb gardener, a cruise director, and a librarian. 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.

In this episode of The AgCulture Podcast, we're joined by Dr. Torsten Hemme, a world-renowned dairy expert with a wealth of experience in dairy economics and entrepreneurship. Torsten shares his perspective on the global dairy market, dairy farming and its opportunities which arise until 2050. Moreover he shares his own journey of a researcher who became an entrepreneur to build the global dairy network IFCN. If you're curious about the fact based insights to stay ahead in a fast-changing global market, this is an episode you won't want to miss.  Tune in on your favorite platform for these invaluable insights. This episode was sponsored by ⁠Bankbarn⁠. Check out their website for more info! WHAT IS IFCN? The IFCN today is a global network connecting dairy economists from over 100 countries and serving dairy organisation and over 130 dairy related companies. The mission of IFCN is to help people in the dairy world to make better decisions. Out of this the IFCN produces annually the IFCN Dairy Report which people call the dairy bible. Moreover it runs various conferences, provides dairy databases, outlooks and a wide number of projects globally. Meet the guest: Dr. Torsten Hemme is the Founder of IFCN Dairy Research Network and a leading global expert in dairy economics. He holds a Master's in Agricultural Economics from the University of Göttingen and a Ph.D. from the same university in collaboration with Texas A&M University.  With over 30 years of experience, Dr. Hemme continues to guide the dairy industry as in different roles like e.g. Chairman of IFCN's Advisory Board and through his educational efforts at University Kiel. Moreover Torsten is since 2003 engaged in New Zealand dairy farming. Connect with the guest on Social Media: LinkedIn (00:00) Introduction (04:47) IFCN's global impact (09:59) Benchmarking dairy farming systems (13:04) Global dairy market trends (20:40) Future proven farming systems (26:26) Key learnings from IFCN (32:14) Closing Thoughts

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

On this week's episode presented by Busey Bank, I'm sitting down with Chris Eckert, the president and CEO of Eckert's Country Store and Farms in Belleville, Illinois. He is a seventh-generation farmer overseeing a vast operation that includes fruit and vegetable crops, a farm market, restaurant, garden center, and the country's largest pick-your-own business. Chris holds a degree in Agricultural Economics and has experience working in the produce industry outside of the family business. We talk about leading a multi-generational enterprise, lessons learned from Mother Nature and continuing to expand the entertainment aspect of their business. Great lessons in this one. Let's roll…