Home

Most read stories

New comments

  • The more atheists tell me that pigs have more value than human babies (born or unborn), the more pigs I'm going to eat. Bring on the crates!! We've ...

    Read more...

     
  • The "hot air" is the paper by McGee, not in organic farming. Please see the response of IFOAM - Organics International at www.foam.bio.

    Read more...

     
  • I just ate a pork chop. Yummy. And i grew up on a farm and we put pigs in crates. Of course they can lie down in there. But lose sows often lie on their ...

    Read more...

     
  • No, dismissing animal feelings because we "do not know" is unjust. But just for the record, surmounting evidence illustrates that animals have feelings.

    Read more...

Most recent stories

  • Translating Food Technology: Social media panic of the month scrambles the egg picture

    Social media scrambles egg advice

    Because the Internet, social media and e-mail chain letters have become important sources of information for grocery shoppers, Farmer Goes to Market regularly follows those sources for food news and food-safety warnings. We will bring you regular updates on such food-news reports, testing them for accuracy and context, so you can convey the realities to your consumers.

    This month, like our previous report on Facebook claims about dangers of chlorine in baby carrots, another long-lived Internet-driven theme claims scrambling eggs is the next big danger. Because scrambling an egg breaks its yolk and therefore allows the cooking heat to oxidize the natural cholesterol found in it, according to these Internet health experts, scrambling is the most risky form of egg preparation—riskier even, it seems, than eating them raw. Oxidizing the egg yolks increases the level of very low density lipoproteins in the cholesterol, which is the form of cholesterol most linked to coronary disease. Accordingly, the ranking of dangerous egg cooking practices, from least to most, goes like this:

    • Raw, if pastured and organic
    • Soft boiled or poached with runny yolk
    • Fried in butter or coconut oil, sunny side up, soft yolk
    • Cooking with the yolk intact
    • Cooking with a broken yolk
    • Scrambled or omelet

    It's a very elegant scientific theory, save for one small problem. "Not only is this ranking silly," says molecular biologist and senior fellow for the American Council on Science and Health Julianna LeMieux, "it's dead wrong."

    Here's why:

    This theory that never dies completely dismisses an important fact about cholestrol and nutrition. Yes, eggs contain cholesterol. And yes, whipping the yolk and heating oxidizes it, converting more of the cholesterol into the VLDL form. The problem is the lipid profile of the cholesterol is irrelevent, because it never reaches the bloodstream in the form it's consumed. All cholesterol, regardless of its form, only gets converted into VLDL (the worst form), low density lipoprotein (bad), or high density lipoprotein (good cholesterol) after it's digested and reaches the liver. How the liver converts those components into VLDL, LDL or HDL and then sends them into the bloodstream is genetically determined and affected only peripherally by diet and exercise. That's why, for most people, the cholesterol you get from your diet makes little to no difference in HDL or LDL levels.

    The real irony of the Internet advice, LeMieux argues, is that the only real risk in eating eggs comes with the "best" alternative in the list above: eating raw eggs.

    Eating eggs raw does bring a chance, although small, of causing harm. In about one in 20,000 times, she says, eggs can carry Salmonella bacteria which can cause a stomach bug. And that risk is the same whether the eggs are organic or not. So if they're playing the odds, cooking, regardless of how consumers choose to do so, is a safer bet than eating eggs raw.

    Have an Internet myth or consumer concern relayed to you that you'd like to see us address? Leave a comment below, or click here to email us.

    {jcomments on}

  • Navigating the New Food Movement: Why eating poor is the new status symbol

    Eating poor is the new status symbol

    "Diseases of affluence," they are called, the so-called Western-World diseases caused by stuffing ourselves with too much sugar, red meat and other rich food, and working it off with too little hard labor: obesity, heart disease, acquired diabetes, high blood pressure and more. As a society, we are mortgaging our health to squander our relative wealth on modern, processed diets bought from large agribusiness companies controlled by rich, fat white guys. And the antidote, according to the new food movement? Eat simpler, eat organic, eat local, eat non-GMO, eat paleo, eat socially responsibly, eat closer to the land, eat brown, eat Native American. In short, go back to eating like we used to eat when we were too poor as a society to be obsessed with keeping up with the gastronomical Joneses.

    But what if it's less about the health than it is about the show? Has eating poor become the new symbol of affluence?

    Texas A&M University ag economists tested a sample of 201 non-students from a midsized college town, selected by local newspaper advertisement in order to mirror the typical grocery shopper. They then gave participants a battery of survey questions regarding their shopping behavior as it relates to feelings of prestige, prominence and social status, in order to rank them on a well-accepted marketing scale that classifies shoppers along a continuum from those who buy simply to satisfy basic needs to those who buy just to show off. As the researchers anticipated based on other such work, the group broke along typical lines:

    • About seven in 10 were "utilitarian buyers," those who make buying decisions based on functionality and care little about status symbols.
    • Some 12 percent were "ambitious shoppers," those with relatively lowest incomes who hope to mimic the rich by spending more.
    • The "affluent elitist" comprised a little over 9 percent of the participants, those who are relatively most wealthy and are the most likely to spend on expensive luxury brands to feel good about themselves.
    • The final 9 percent were "prestige lovers," shoppers who are impressed by buying high-priced products, even within relatively inexpensive categories, and show the most concern that buying the low-end item might make them look cheap.

    The researchers then asked participants to bid in a silent auction to buy lettuce and spinach that was labeled as either conventionally grown, hydroponically grown or organically grown. The meaning of each category was explained in detail to participants. They applied sophisticated statistical modeling to guage the willingness of shoppers in each of the categories to pay for each type of food. They found:

    • Average willingness to pay for all products was lowest among the utilitarian buyers. The other three classes which demonstrated tendancies toward conspicuous consumption were each more willing to pay higher prices across all categories.
    • The prestige lovers class showed a significant willingness to pay a premium for organic lettuce that, although small, was consistent with everyone in the class. The researchers believe this effect is because prestige lovers, who are also most likely to be Millenials who regularly use social media to boost their status, associate organic food with prestige.
    • The same effect on willingness to pay from the labelling information treatment was seen in the affluent elitist and ambitious shopper classes, to a larger degree although less consistently. Although both classes bid up their willingness to pay after learning about the production methods, the higher income levels of the affluent elitists led to higher premiums than the ambitious shoppers, suggesting ambitious shoppers may want the status of organic lettuce but can't afford it. The relative low income, high regard for prestige and higher willingness to pay across all products for the ambitious shopper suggests they are using food purchases to "buy their way up" in social status.
    • The bottom line: All three categories of conspicuous consumers in the experiment responded to labeling information, suggesting grocers may be able to boost premium prices of status-conscious shoppers through customer education and marketing.

    If it's true that the new ethical eating is simply conspicous consumption, and that, as VOGUE writes, "Wellness has become an important part of the luxury lifestyle... Eating right can give the privileged class a sense of moral superiority," how does the grocer communicate that basic-food luxury? Consider how you might manage your organics bin within these basic tenents of marketing luxury goods, from Jean-Noël Kapferer, author of Strategic Brand Management, and Vincent Bastien, former CEO of Louis Vuitton Malletier and author of The Luxury Strategy:

    Remember, you don't launch luxury brands, you build them progressively. Successfully marketing luxury begins with understanding what a luxury brand is, and isn't, and then steadily promoting those traits. "In order for conspicuous consumption to exist, there is a need for others to be aware of the purchase so that it signals status," the Texas A&M study authors write. "Consumers evaluate conspicuous goods based on quality attributes and the prestige and social status derived from consuming them." Promoting organic and local as luxury depends on maintaining and building what the scholars call "socially constructed preciousness."

    Feed the need. Despite the fact all boats in our society are floating higher with growing average afflence and some high-profile disavowal of riches, man's base need for some form of social stratification has not disappeared, Kapferer and Bastien argue. People still feel it vital to know their place in society, and luxury has the fundamental function of creating and reinforcing that stratification.

    Luxury is where you find it. As the relatively small but consistent price premiums in the A&M study demonstrate, conspicuous luxury doesn't necessarily mean expensive. "Anything that can be a social signifier can become a luxury," according to Kapferer and Bastien. "By the same token, anything that ceases to be a social signifier loses its luxury status." Case in point: backyard swimming pools. Promotion and merchandising for organic products should reinforce the elements that make their purchase such social signifiers. It's the preciousness that matters, preciousness that results from making food harder, not easier to acquire, by placing often artificial constraints on its production: antibiotic-free, locally grown, animal-welfare-friendly, to name just a few.

    Keep them believing. "No luxury brand can hope to survive if it relies purely on clients who are only interested in reputed signs of recognition, the symbol rather than the substance," say Kapferer and Bastien. Luxury customers will abandon you as soon as they lose faith in the symbol, which could explain the growing impatience by former apostles with organic that has been co-opted from the small, independent farmer by large corporations.

    Obey the circle of fashion. Luxury is closely tied to fashion, they suggest, and fashion plays a key role in our social life by "recreating the rhythm of the seasons that was done away with by urbanisation." Can you say "Eat Seasonably?"

    Lead, don't follow. In traditional marketing, the marketing duo write, client is king. Consumer package goods put the customer at the heart of the business and listen constantly to customers. The luxury brand, on the other hand, springs from the creator's mind, often driven by vision that borders on eccentric. Can you think of a better explanation for the growing popularity of biodynamic food, farming that counsels growing food according to the star alignment and fertilizing crops by burying amputated cow's horns filled with fermented manure in fields. "Don’ t look for equality with your clients," Kapferer and Bastien counsel. "...the brand must always dominate its client. As a result, a certain distance is preserved that is not supercilious or aloof, but nevertheless maintains an aura of mystery."

    Be difficult to buy. "The luxury brand is something that has to be earned," they write. "The greater the inaccessibility–whether actual or most often virtual–the greater the desire." What better description of the local, sustainable, community supported agriculture movement? Notes University of Wisconsin professor Craig Thompson: If you set out to purposely design a food system that offered only limited selection, at limited times of the year, at higher prices, determined largely by what the producer had to sell rather than what the customer wanted, pushing items you often aren't familiar with and don't know how to use, you couldn't do better than today's alternative food systems. It's those very inaccessibilities of farmers markets compared to supermarkets that draw shoppers to be there, he says. 

    {jcomments on}

  • Foresight on Food Politics: Why do farmers hire illegal Mexican workers?

    Why do farmers rely on Mexican workers, often illlegal?

    As more than 500 companies lined up before this week's deadline to get their bids in to build a prototype of the Trump administration's promised border-security "wall" between Mexico and the United States, agricultural interests were continuing to caution that America's farmers could be hurt by a planned crackdown on illegal immigration. Bloomberg Politics, for example, reported last year several sources within the nation's dairy industry were expressing concern even before Trump's nomination that building an immigration-tight wall between Mexico and the southern United States would cause the nation's milk-producing farms in particular to suffer.

    The continuing debate over immigration and its peculiar relationship with U.S. agriculture here may raise the question with shoppers: Why do farmers hire so many immigrant, and sometimes illegal, workers?

    Cost. If you believe the advocates for laborors' rights, it's all about cost control. Farmers hire immigrants, often undocumented, because they can pay them less than native workers, better control efforts to unionize and bargain, and keep them in low-level positions because they have fewer options. Although no doubt some farm employers are guilty of that exploitation, such a black-and-white picture of the economics of immigrant labor is too simple.

    In one sense, the cost-control argument is correct. Migrant farm workers do get paid relatively little. But it's not because they're migrants. If's because they're farm laborers. The average wages for hired farm workers across the board in the United States are the second lowest category for all U.S. workers, trailed only by private household help. Underpaying immigrant labor is less about exploiting them than it is about the monetarily thankless task farming in general is: In U.S. farming and ranching, farm managers as a whole earned a median annual income of only about $64,000 in 2015, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That figure compares to nearly $86,000 for other managerial occupations in this country. The average U.S. corn farmer, for example, made only $25.63 per acre for his time in 2015, USDA survey data show. The average U.S. farm size is 434 acres. You do the math.

    With that said, according to USDA, average hourly farm worker pay for 2016 was $12.98, which is above both the national $7.25 minimum wage and the BLS' $10.43 average hourly wage for grocery cashiers. Yet it's widely accepted in the farming community those wages often aren't sufficient to motivate legal citizens to turn down unemployment payments, SNAP cards, Section 8 Housing and other benefits that might dry up should they accept employment in the often difficult business of farmwork. That leaves farmers with little choice than to hire immigrants, they say.

    Shortage. With a national unemployment rate that peaked at 9.5 percent during the 2009 recession and still lingers at about 5 percent, along with a real unemployment rate that's still more than 9 percent, many have a hard time believing farmers when they claim they can't find enough workers. But according to Texas A&M ag economists Dennis Fisher and Ronald Knutson, those general averages don't paint an accurate picture of the farm-labor supply. Their recent work shows reports of labor shortages are in fact real, if you consider the labor markets at the local, not national, level.

    Their figures show that the national farm labor force is made up of approximately 1.1 million workers, which has been relatively stable for at least the past decade. But their data also indicate substantial seasonal variability in that supply. For example, the total number of workers ranged from 802,000 in January 2010 to almost 1.35 million in July 2010. And they believe even those national data do not reveal the more extreme seasonal hiring fluctuations that occur in local markets. In addition, Fisher and Knutson challenge the notion that immigrant farm labor is mobile and thus fluid to move to areas of shortage. They cite studies demonstrating three out of four immigrant field-crop workers work at a single location within 75 miles of their permanent home, and they predict the percentage of settled workers on livestock farms is even higher. America may have surplus of farm labor as whole, but locality, the shortages are often acute. At the local level, the farm labor shortage is real.

    Bureacracy. One reason estimates say the number of immigrant farm workers working illegally in this country is from 50 percent to as high as 70 percent is that all other factors equal, the cost difference between hiring an illegal and legal immigrant often prices the legal out of the market. The federal government's guest worker program is hampered by bureacracy and delay, they write. Before an agricultural employer can use the program, he must demonstrate the domestic labor supply can't meet his requirements and that hiring immigrant worker won't drive down wages of similar native workers. A University of Florida study reported in February found complying with the pre-hiring requirements of the guest-worker program to hire one citrus picker from Mexico added $1,900 to the cost of that worker. Fisher and Knutson cite the story of a Georgia blueberry grower that illustrates the practical outcome of such regulation. In order to rectify the fact that 90 percent of the 67 workers the grower hired over the course of a year were working illegally, he decided to apply for guestworker approval. After following all prescribed procedures, only 13 workers accepted jobs, six worked for three days or less, only two worked for more than two weeks, and none finished the harvesting season.

    Desire and ability. “The notion that immigrants are taking jobs away from American workers is simply not true,” said Missouri dairy farmer Randy Mooney in conjunction with release of a study by the National Milk Producers Federation showing 51 percent of the nation's dairy employees are immigrants. “Dairy farmers have tried desperately to get American workers to do these jobs with little success — and that’s despite an average wage that is well above the U.S. minimum wage.”

    One of the widely held sentiments for preferring Mexican immigrants that farmers don't often openly talk about is they believe they're better at the job. A more rural population (although that's changing in Mexico as it is in the United States), along with some cultural traits often leave Mexican immigrants more suited to farm work, particularly livestock-related work, than native Americans.

    Research suggests that's not just prejudice. A November 2016 study by the American Immigrant Council supports the notion."Our findings challenge well-established perceptions of individuals working in low wage service jobs—such as janitors, maids, or caregivers—as socially invisible workers performing tasks requiring little or no skill or special training," the study says. "In contrast to these perceptions of the disadvantaged and unskilled migrant farmworkers, we found substantial skill transfers, skill development, and social mobility among the migrant farm workers in our study. Of the male migrants who entered agricultural jobs upon arrival in the United States, for example, 80 percent said that their agricultural experience and knowledge of planting and harvesting crops in Mexico helped them learn new ways of doing things in their agricultural jobs abroad."

    {jcomments on}

     

     

  • Competitive Commodity Information: Are we positioned to withstand another bird flu outbreak?

    Is the market ready for another bird flu outbreak?

    In early March, USDA confirmed a highly pathogenic form of bird flu in a breeding flock of 73,500 Tennessee broiler chickens. Alerted after hundreds of birds died suddenly, the agency identified the cause as a strain of the flu virus that came from wild birds, unrelated to the virus that caused the 2015 U.S. outbreak, but deadly and contagious nonetheless. Officials destroyed the entire flock to keep the virus from spreading, as well as worked with workers to ensure they didn't carry the disease to other farms.

    Although the avian fluenza response plan worked as designed, this latest outbreak may have marketers wondering: Are we at risk of facing turkey, chicken or egg shortages should another widespread outbreak occur similar to the last one, in 2015? USDA called that 2015 outbreak the largest animal health emergency in U.S. history, costing farmers nearly 50 million birds and a conservatively estimated total economic impact of more than $3.3 billion before ending in June of that year. Retail turkey prices weren't noticeably affected, but egg prices soared in response.

    Where do poultry markets stand going into this upcoming flu-risk season?

    Chicken. Broiler meat production in January was 2 percent above last year at this time, at 3.5 billion pounds, owing mostly to an increase in the number of birds slaughtered, USDA reports. December production was 3.3 billion pounds, 4 percent above December 2015 on a per day basis. Preliminary data suggested that February production was also higher than a year earlier on a per-day basis; however, bird weights may have been lower, masking a larger number of birds in the supply than implied by the slaughter data. Growers appear to be continuing a trend toward sending birds to processing at lighter weights, in order to alleviate some reported quality problems. These recent developments, as well as the recent resumption of growth in average weights, contributed to increased expectations for first-quarter production. The forecast was raised 50 million pounds above the previous first-quarter forecast.

    Meanwhile, stocks of broiler meat in cold storage as of Dec. 31 were 783 million pounds, 6 percent below a year earlier, but 3 percent above November, largely due to a higher breast meat total. Year-ending stocks for 2017 were increased 30 million pounds.

    The March 5 announcement confirming avian flu led some countries to restrict imports of poultry from this country, although most of these countries had limited their restrictions to poultry and products from Tennessee or from within a more limited area in the vicinity of the finding. Although those restrictions would in theory save some supply for domestic use, only a small proportion of U.S. broiler meat would be affected by these restrictions, USDA says.

    Eggs. In late February, USDA revised egg production estimates upward for the last two years, bringing the size of the U.S. table-egg layer flock as of Jan. 1 higher by about 4 million birds from the previous estimate, to 314 million birds, a record level for that date. This led 2017 production forecasts for both table and hatching eggs to be increased substantially from the February forecasts, totaling 2.82 billion eggs more in aggregate for the year.

    In fact, December data for the average number of table-egg layers in the national flock was the highest since the series began in 1984. This contributed to higher-than-expected production for the fourth quarter, at 22.8 billion. In addition, the nation's flock appears to getting more productive, now laying 80.6 eggs per 100 hens, an all-time record.

    As with chicken meat exports, the appearance of flu in Tennessee will likely lower U.S. egg and egg product exports, but exports in 2017 are now forecast to reach 305 million dozen, a 9-percent increase above 2016.

    Turkey. Turkey farmers appear to be making up for losses incurred during the last flu outbreak. USDA reports production grew 5 percent in January 2017 compared with a year earlier, as the industry continued to build on the gains made in 2016. Recent growth is largely due to increased young turkey placements from turkey hatcheries, which have averaged 6 percent higher over the last 6 months compared with the same period a year earlier. The forecast for production in the first half of 2017 was raised 15 million pounds to account for the placement expansion. Total production in 2016 reached 6.0 billion pounds, an increase of 6 percent over 2015 and 4 percent greater than 2014. Year-ending stocks reached 279 million pounds to close out 2016, the highest since 2012. As a result, 2017 ending stocks were increased to 300 million pounds.

    {jcomments on}

  • Meet your Farmers: Growing citrus year-round in the High Plains? No problem!

    Alliance farmer Russ Finch demonstrates the greenhouse he designed and built using circulating geothermal heat to successfully brave Nebraska winters and grow hundreds of pounds of citrus fruit every year on an energy cost of $1 a day!

    {jcomments on}

  • On the lighter side: Heartwarming story from the wildfires

    Nearby Ashland, Kan., rancher and horseman Garth Gardner received overwhelming support from the community after he and his family were forced to scramble to save their homes, ranches and animals from one of the worst wildfires in state history. But what he received one morning in an unmarked envelope with no return address left him in tears.

    "My Lord this country has some special people in it!!" he told social media.

    {jcomments on}

Partners

Supported by the Nebraska Corn Board

The Nebraska Corn Board, on behalf of 23,000 corn farmers in Nebraska, invests in market development, research, promotion and education of corn and value-added products. The board aims to work closely with the farmer-to-consumer food chain, to educate everyone about the role corn has in our everyday healthy lives. The Nebraska Corn Board is proud to sponsor the Farmer Goes to Market program to help bring its mission of expanding demand and value of Nebraska corn to the consumer, through the strongest touch point in that chain: the Nebraska retail grocer.


In patnership with the Nebraska Grocery Industry Association

The Nebraska Grocery Industry Association was formed in 1903 by a group of Omaha grocery store owners, wholesalers and vendors to allow them to promote independent food merchants and members of the food industry, and to promote education and cooperation among its membership. NGIA continues to represent grocery store owners and operators, along with wholesalers and vendors located throughout Nebraska, by promoting their success through proactive government relations, innovative solutions and quality services. NGIA offers efficient and economical programs. NGIA also lobbies on both a state and national level, ensuring that the voice of the food industry in Nebraska is heard by our representatives.


Supported by the Nebraska Farm Bureau

The farm and ranch families represented by Nebraska Farm Bureau are proud sponsors of the Farmer Goes to Market program. We take great pride in supporting Nebraska's agricultural foundation. A key part of that effort is to make sure we produce safe and affordable food. This newsletter is an important part of our effort to connect the two most important parts of the food chain -- the farmer and the grocer -- with the goal of increasing consumer awareness and information about how their food is raised in Nebraska.