Delta Farm Press recently reported that America’s Farmers Grow Ag Leaders is now launching in 40 states, with more than $500,000 worth of scholarships available. Sponsored by the Monsanto Fund, the program provides $1,500 college scholarships to students pursuing a degree related to agriculture.

Starting Nov. 15, high school seniors and college students in eligible states can apply for this opportunity. Farmers know the rewards of a career in agriculture, but many of today’s youth may not. Luckily, there is an abundance of evidence that agriculture is a smart career choice. According to  USDA, nearly 55,000 jobs in agriculture are available every year. Many of the nation’s largest land-grant institutions, such as Penn State and Texas A&M University, report job placement rates above 90 percent for their ag students
.
Grow Ag Leaders helps engage future generations in agriculture by raising awareness of the broad range of career opportunities in the industry and by supporting their college education.

The program was created in response to farmer requests to keep rural youth involved in agriculture. Farmers can participate in the program by encouraging students in their community to apply for a scholarship and by endorsing their application.

Because farmers play a crucial role in the industry, each applicant is required to obtain endorsements from at least three local farmers. “We want to encourage ambitious and talented students to pursue careers in this growing field,” said Elizabeth Vancil, Youth and Community Outreach manager at Monsanto.

“As students who grew up in rural areas learn more about what agriculture has become, they are realizing that it is a fascinating, hi-tech industry, with job growth, job security, and high wages,” Vancil said. “These young people are seeing that there are emerging opportunities for a new generation of innovative young farmers, engineers, implement designers, marketing specialists and seed scientists.”

Grow Ag Leaders is part of the overall America’s Farmers campaign, which highlights the vital role played by farmers, through programs designed to support rural communities. Farmers interested in promoting the program and endorsing students’ scholarship applications can learn how at GrowAgLeaders.com.

The scholarships are administered by the National FFA Organization, but FFA membership is not required to apply. Students have until Feb. 1, 2015 to complete the application online at FFA.org/scholarships.

Super weed! Fact or Fiction

Journalists like Paul Holis from South East Farm Press love a good buzzword or moniker – a “trending” name or nickname that can be used in place of a much more ordinary-sounding word or phrase.

For one thing, it’s just more fun to use such words. For another, it’s more likely to catch the attention of the reader, translating into a greater readership and the resulting increased number of “hits” on a website.

But there are admittedly cases where we simply use such a word to death. A case in point might well be the infamous “superweed.” Holis goes on to write about the subject.

Originally, I suppose it was a fairly good substitution for glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth pigweed. It certainly takes less time to write “superweed,” and it sounds sexier than the aforementioned technically accurate term.

But in recent years, we’ve overused it to the point to where no one’s really certain what “superweed” truly means. It has been used for a lot more than just glyphosate-resistant weeds, and therein lies the problem. “Superweed” makes for a swell headline, such as in “Superweeds Choke Farms,” but what does it really mean?

To help dispel some of the common misconceptions about superweeds, the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) recently published an excellent fact sheet to clarify two common misconceptions about superweeds. The WSSA, if you don’t already know, is a non-profit organization that promotes science-based information about weeds, their impact on the environment, and how they can be managed.

While there is no science-based definition for superweed, the WSSA points out that the term is often used to describe weeds “believed to have special capabilities that are helping them outcompete other plants in ways never experienced before,” with many associating superweed with glyphosate-tolerant crops and the suspected transfer of resistance genes from these crops to weeds.

The first superweed misconception, according to the WSSA, is that rampant gene transfer between genetically modified crops and weeds is creating weeds able to resist treatment by herbicides.

In reality, states the fact sheet, there is no evidence that gene transfer is a major factor in the development of herbicide resistance. Instead, overreliance on herbicides with a single mechanism of action to control certain weeds has led to the selection of weeds resistant to that mechanism of action.

“The transfer of resistance traits from genetically modified crops to weeds growing in the field is rare, and the occurrences observed and reported to date have had minimal impact. The only currently known mechanism for any crop trait to move into weeds (or vice versa) is through cross pollination – a sexual crossing between the crop and the weed. Gene flow is more likely to happen if the crop and weed are sexually compatible, near relatives. Gene flow among more distantly related plant species is rare because they do not cross as readily. There are often physiological barriers, including pollen incompatibility, varying numbers of chromosomes and other factors that serve as impediments.”

Even among sexually compatible crops and weeds, states the WSSA, the opportunity for crop-weed gene flow depends on the proximity of the crop plant to its wild weedy relatives. For example, there have been no reports of gene transfer in the more than 160 million annually planted acres of genetically modified corn, cotton and soybean crops where herbicide resistance weeds are such a significant issue today. Since these crops don’t have sexually compatible, near relatives in the U.S. and Canada, the risk of gene flow to other plants in the region is extremely low.

The second major misconception, according to the WSSA, is that herbicide use is creating a new breed of herbicide-resistant superweeds unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.

“In reality, the costly issue of herbicide resistance isn’t new – and neither are the competitive characteristics of weeds. Although the number of acres affected by resistant weeds has increased over the last decade as more growers have come to rely solely on herbicides with a single mechanism of action for weed control, weeds have exhibited resistance to many types of herbicides over the past 40 years. Many weed populations have even evolved resistance to multiple herbicide mechanisms of action,” states the report.

Herbicide resistance is an important, costly and escalating issue, especially as growers have come to rely more than ever on a single class of herbicides that targets weeds in the same way, states the WSSA, and it is more critical than ever for a variety of carefully integrated weed management strategies to be used so weeds resistant to one method can be controlled in other ways before they have an opportunity to spread. This includes nonchemical means of weed control, such as crop rotation, tillage, cultivation, hand hoeing, seed capture, etc.

As to those super powers that many individuals ascribe to herbicide-resistant weeds? Under herbicide-free conditions, says the WSSA, resistant weeds are no more competitive or ecologically fit than their susceptible partners. Both can crowd out crops and other desirable plants by outcompeting them for water, nutrients, sunlight and space. They grow incessantly and can be prolific seed producers. A single Palmer amaranth plant, for example, can produce hundreds of thousands of seeds, regardless of whether it is herbicide resistant or not.

How to Reduce Risks for New Herbicide Resistant Plants

With all the new technology and herbicide resistant crops coming onto the market, there are risks of chemical application mishaps.  Farmers are being urged to use a free program to reduce those risks.

Agricultural engineer Dharmendra Saraswat from the University of Arkansas Division of Agricultural Cooperative Extension service helped develop the technology.  He recently spoke to Delta Farm Press about the new product.

On the program’s genesis:

“The flag the technology cloud (FTTCloud) program was launched last April, 2014, and is currently used by hundreds in Arkansas.

“The precursor to FTTCloud was initially launched in Clay County in 2010 -- but under a different name: Color Identifies the Field Technology (CIFT). Following the initial success, the program was launched statewide in 2011 and renamed ‘Flag the Technology.’ The changed name directly conveyed program’s focus on use of color coded flags to aid farmers in identifying which fields they are planting to what herbicide-tolerant technology.

Dicamba-tolerant crops soon to be a reality

“In subsequent years, Flag the Technology program also brought forth some unanticipated challenges. During the summertime, as farmers know very well, there are often gusts of wind. Those would sometimes pull the flags out of the ground and take them all over the place.

“In some cases, there were also mischievous people who would intentionally move the flags around.

“Obviously, movement of flags would be a cause of concern for chemical applicators. That’s perfectly understandable. ‘What if we rely on the flags and spray a product that injures the crop?’”

On the switch to a digital program…

“Due to these concerns we began considering how we could keep the program but ‘flag’ fields in a different way. In discussions with some county agents and forward-looking consultants and producers it was decided to launch a digital version of Flag the Technology program.

“The digital version doesn’t store any information on any of university servers. To provide quality experience to the current and potential users, the program has been hosted on a scalable cloud platform.

“The digital version, FTTCloud, retains the simplicity of its field-based precursor.

“Producers, consultants and chemical applicators can all participate after registering an account. The participation is voluntary. A registered producer can allow his/her consultant or chemical applicator to access complete information about entered fields by following certain protocol. The other registered users are provided essential information about herbicide technologies reported nearby or in the target field as new information is added to the program.

“Producers can either manually draw or upload field boundary data in shapefile format and then
interactively assign an individual field or a group of fields to herbicide-tolerant technology of their choice. The program assigns a color to the field based on selected technology. Fields with stacked technologies are also assigned colors, using a protocol slightly different from the field version of the program.

“The FTTCloud tool also allows users to identify other sensitive areas such as pumpkin patches, bee hives, fish ponds, vineyards etc., thereby not limiting its use to only those interested in row crops.

“Participation is free and the whole effort is being funded by the Arkansas Soybean Promotion Board.”

On the digital program savings…

“When using actual flags, fields require an average of five flags. That is at a cost of about $25. If someone has 100 fields in herbicide-tolerant technology, that means an expense of $2,500. However, use of FTTCloud program costs nothing.”

An estimate on how much crop damage has been reduced through the use of the flags?

“That’s a good question. The program is aimed at avoiding risks. An erroneous chemical application can almost ruin an entire field. So, you’re protecting a field that can be worth several thousand dollars to, in some cases, six figures.”

Enlist traits approved, Enlist herbicide next

On the safety of farmers’ data…

“Misuse of online information is an obvious fear in the minds of many and farmers are no exception. The FTTCloud program explicitly recognizes that all the information entered belongs to the producer. The university has no role in accessing it. The information is encrypted and then stored on the cloud platform.

“Towards the end of each year, we will send emails to those who registered an account. That will remind them to download their information for next year’s use. We don’t encourage archiving the information since the university wants to limit its role to providing educational means for chemical risk aversion.”

Farmland on Hulu

I'm sure by now you've heard of the documentary "Farmland" directed by Academy Award winning director James Moll.  Well, in case you missed it in the theater's, you can now watch it on Hulu.  Just click here to watch it.  I thought it was a very educational documentary for folks who know very little about modern day agriculture.  Enjoy.

The Return of Agent Orange?

The USDA recently approved a new technology which conveys resistance to 2,4-D and glyphosate herbicides in corn and soybeans.  The anti GMO crowd was, as usual, up in arms again.

Delta Farm Press recently covered this reaction.  Those whole believe farming should remain in the stone age reacted predictably.  Some even compared this technology to Agent Orange, a herbicide used in the Vietnam war and has been connected to cancer among vets.

Let's take a look at what Agent Orange was.  It was a mix of two herbicides, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, with only the later associated with the negative impacts on health.  According to studies done by the National Pesticide Information Center, 2,4-D has not been implicated in any relationships between pesticide exposure and subsequent disease.

Despite all that information being out there, a New York Times reporter mentioned the Agent Orange connection.  This sent the anti GMO crowd into a frenzy.  Some news websites have even called it Agent Orange technology.

Fortunately there is science to calm everyone down.  Also, the USDA, EPA and farmers know better.  My hope is rational eventually takes over.  I understand peoples hesitance to this technology.  But it's unfounded.

Will this bring farming back to the "good old days"?  Where farmers could spray with impunity and no fear?  Far from it.  With all this new technology, farmers will have to make sure and spray properly and avoid as much drift as they can.  They will need to communicate better with their neighbor farmers on what they're doing and vice versa.

There will be lots of eyes watching this new technology.  And there are plenty of people out there who can't wait for something to go wrong.

Q&A with Monsanto CTO Robb Fraley

Robb Fraley, Monsanto chief technology officer, is excited about the future, but he's looking for new ways to explain new technology with non farmers.

Monsanto has been on a roll these days, as the St. Louis based firm integrates its recent acquisitions with existing seed and trait businesses.

The recent buying craze started with the purchase of Precision Plantation in May of 2012.  "It used to be seeds at planting would land on top of the field, others would land below where you wanted to plant them," Fraley, Monsanto's executive vice president and chief technology officer, said during a recent interview with Agriculture.com.  "Now, were talking about a planter precisely controlled by hydraulics, with picket fence stands occurring."

In 2013, Monsanto also expanded into biotechnology with a Novozymes collaboration, and extensive weather data with its acquisition of The Climate Corporation.

"We are seeing all these technologies starting to integrate together," he says.

Not all has gone smoothly however.  A simple Google search of Monsanto turns up groups like March Against Monsanto and Millions Against Monsanto.  Also, some weeds and corn rootworms are resisting the companies weed-resistant and insect-resistant technology.

The following is a Q&A between Fraley and Agriculture.com.

AG: What excites you?
RF: Microbials and biological.  We are in the early stages of how useful they will be, but we see applications for control of insects, weeds and viruses.

AG: Did weeds and insects that resist transgenic technology surprise Monsanto?
RF: From the day we launched Roundup Ready soybeans (in 1996), resistance was always on top of our minds as a possibility.  We are always testing the next generation product.  In the case of corn rootworm, the science moved quickly, and we were able to replace a single gene product with dual gene products with multiple modes of action.  We are expecting RNAi technology to come into the market by the end of the decade.  This will defer from the Bt technology now used in corn rootworm traits.

AG: What's the state of the U.S. regulatory system?
RF: It's getting more complicated.  We are seeing more delays.  The EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) that USDA requested dicamba (Monsanto) and 2,4-D tolerant soybeans (Dow AgroSciences) has added another two years onto the time these products can get to the market.  We are complying, but we didn't think it was necessary.  The last two products we launched in Brazil took just two years to get government approval.  We are able to launch Roundup Ready Xtend (dicamba-tolerant) soybeans in Argentina before we launch it here.

AG: Aren't there concerns, such as off-target movement, about these new weed control technologies?
RF: I understand there are concerns.  We and BASF are doing a lot of work in developing new formulations of dicamba.  Dow is doing the same thing with new formulations of 2,4-D.  These new formulations are incredible.  I remember as a kid spraying Banvel and seeing volatility and drift.  Newer formulations have dramatically decreased off-target movement.

AG: How is Monsanto working to ease concerns about genetically modified foods?
RF: We're making a bigger effort to talk with consumers - in schools, with moms, with people who like us and people who don't.  We need different approaches.

AG: What will you be talking about in five years?
RF: We will talk about how big of an enhancement Roundup Ready Xtend has made across soybean production.  It is a great new tool for weed control.  We will also be talking about adoption of probably the third or fourth generation of FieldScripts.  These will build upon products that select the right seed for the field and for planting at optimal populations.

"Right to Farm" Could Expand to Other States

Constitutional amendments normally go unnoticed.  And that's usually for a good reason.  Most of the time the are archaic, outdated and doesn't apply to modern times.  Politicians usually just tack things on they want to pass for lobbyist and away we go.

So when the amendment "Right to Farm" was passed in Missouri, it came as no surprise no one noticed it.  The ballot asked, "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed?"

Basically it asserted the right to farm.  Why would anyone need to have that written into the constitution?  Isn't the right to farm your own land an unalienable right?  Unfortunately, in today's age, we need to have everything spelled out for us.

The law seems reasonable enough.  Proponents of this law were reasonably concerned about what's been going on in other states.  For example, in 2008, California voters approved roomier living conditions for hens.  And in Oregon, a rural county overwhelmingly passed a ban on genetically modified crops.

Considering all the hysteria surrounding GMO's recently, it's not out of the question that similar laws like the one in Oregon couldn't be passed in other states.

Missouri isn't the first state to pass a "Right to Farm" law.  South Dakota passed a similar law two years ago.  North Dakota State University law professor David Saxwosky says he hasn't seen any resulting court cases in a recent interview with South West Farm Press.

Maybe sometime in the next decades there will be some technology that even producers will say, 'Hey, wait, are we really aren't sure if we want that within our industry.'  And at that point, this language will be tested," Saxwosky said.

Other states are looking to add similar laws like the ones in Missouri and North Dakota.  Indiana recently added right to farm legislation in the form of a law.  Oklahoma had legislation that didn't make it pass the general assembly.  Many other Midwestern states have also begun conversations about "Right to Farm".

Why the Opposition?

You would think in a state like Missouri, with nearly 100,000 farms, the "Right to Farm" would pass easily.  Actually it passed by the narrowest of margins.  So slim in fact there may be a recount.

Unofficial results showed in the 3,898 precincts, it passed with only 50.1% of the vote.  Out of the 1 million votes casted, it passed by a mere 2,528 votes.

You may be asking yourself, why would anyone oppose the right of an individual to farm?  But Missouri is the "Show Me" state.  The message became muddled.  

Those supporting the amendment were portrayed as large corporate agricultural interest that were trying to avoid regulation relating to environmental and animal welfare while opponents were painted as over-zealous environmentalist who wanted to destroy traditional farming.  The debate pitted urban interests against rural ones.  The areas of Kansas City and St. Louis largely opposing the amendment.

Essentially, politics as usual.

Where ever you stand on the issue, we might be seeing similar legislation soon in Southern states.  In states like Alabama and Georgia, the "Right to Farm" issue would seem like a softball issue.  And we all know our esteemed legislators love softball issues.

How to Feed 9 Billion People

This is your challenge.  In 30 years you're going to have to feed 9 billion people with less land and less water.  How do you do that?

To do this, farmers will have to use the best technology available.  Including some that isn't entirely popular with the public.

South West Farm Press recently covered a event featuring speakers discussing this very topic.  The most important thing is communication with the public.  The event was the Rolling Plains Spring Field Day held at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research station near Chillicothe.  The event featured Julie Borlaug, granddaughter of the late Dr. Norman Borlaug, a Noble Peace Prize laureate known internationally as the "Father of the Green Revolution."

As well as speaking she moderated a wheat seed industry panel consisting of: Jon Rich with AgriPro-Syngenta in Junction City, KS; Marla Barnett with Limagrain Cereal Seeds in Wichita, KS; Sid Perry with WestBred-Monsanto in Filer, ID; and Janet Lewis with Bayer CropScience in Lincoln, NE.

March 25th was my grandfathers' birthday and many people have asked me if he was here today what would his message be about how we are going to feed 9 billion people by 2050," Borlaug said.  "I think he would probably tell you there are three areas we need to be concerned about."

Involve the Next Generation

"It's important for us to continue to train the next generation of agricultural scientist," Borlaug said.  "We need to engage students; we need engage those even outside of agriculture, because it's going to take people from various backgrounds across different disciplines to help figure out how to feed 9 billion people."

This will require new economic and political policies, advancements in engineering, medicine energy, but mostly agriculture.

We need what her grandfather called "hunger fighters."  Entrepreneurs, scientist, researchers, policy makers and farmers.

They need to embrace bold new ideas and work with people along different disciplines.  They must engage smallhold farmers and private and public sectors to come up with sustainable ideas.

"So we need to continue to reinvest in that and move our generation forward, so they will become the next Norm Borlaug and leaders in agriculture," she said.

Funding Dilema

"We need to re-engage the funding entities and those outside of agriculture to understand why their support is so important," Borlaug said.  "We are going to need a lot of technology and improvements to feed 9 billion people, especially with climate change and scarce natural resources."

The third thing she stressed is - "the misunderstanding and misinformation that's spread about agriculture."  She said that mainly comes from the anti-science, anti-GMO groups who don't understand the basic role of biotechnology in agriculture.

Borlaug said her grandfather was known to say "fear of change is the greatest obstacle to progress."

The ag sector must address the public differently.  People need to understand how important new technology, innovation and biotechnology are to our future.

"It is no longer enough to just have collective support of the research and private sector.  We must gain the support of the general public in order to move agriculture research forward."

Most arguments against these advancements are emotional and not rational.  They resonate because they fuel the anti-corporate mentality.

She brings up the GMO golden rice crop in the Philippines.  "Do you as biotech opponents really want to deny golden rice to those children who could so profoundly benefit?  Are you willing to condemn them to blindness and death out of your own ignorance?  I say out of your opposition, you are somewhat responsible for their vitamin A deficiency and blindness."

This is not to say biotechnology is the only solution.  "but we must understand that a multi-faceted integrated solution is needed."

Wheat Breeding

Wheat is the most important food crop in the world.  It's time to reinvest time and energy into the crop.  

"What's happened over the years is that in the U.S., wheat has not been looked upon as a high staple crop like corn and soybeans," Rich said.

There is a lower cost of molecular markers and the ability to "speed breed" to bring greater yields.  

"I think it has been largely customer-driven - seedsmen and farmer driven," Barnett said.  "We've seen the demand for wheat yields to be increased.  Farmers have long been asking, "Why am I still getting the same wheat yields my grandfather got while my corn yields have tripled?"

The industry has learned a lot from corn, soybeans, cotton and canola that can be applied to wheat.

GM Wheat?

Right now there is no GMO wheat on the market.  However, acceptance will be necessary the panel suggested.

"Most people don't know what GMO means; they don't know that GMO is a technique, a tool that can be used in the breeding toolbox," Lewis said.  "There is a lot of confusion on what GMO is, and it has been a slow process of education for the general public.  There is a perception issue."

The breeders agreed it is important to look into GMO and non-GMO solutions.  And if there is a non-GMO answer then that's the route to peruse because it's cheaper.  They also agreed research needs to be done on nitrogen use efficiency, heat tolerance and water use efficiency.

"We have a skeptical public, which is okay; but we also have a gullible public, which is discouraging," Perry said.  "They are willing to accept the popular view on something rather than scientific research.  So take every opportunity to educate the people around you."

GMO acceptance is more likely to come with food safety.

"It's an emotional issue to a lot of people, and an education issue," he said.  "We need to educate the people on what GMO traits can do and how we feed people correctly.  We can reduce the amount of pesticides; we can reduce the amount of nitrogen we put in the soil; we can reduce the amount of irrigation we have to apply to get those maximum yields."

In the end, the most important thing to the public will be the pocket book.  We need to make a loaf of bread cheaper and the production cheaper for the farmer.

"It's a real luxury here in the U.S. as long as our bellies are full and food is cheap, we can complain about having GMOs in our products," Perry said.  "But that is a real disservice to others in the world who don't have that luxury.  I don't know how we can get that across to our public; a lot of it is in their hands."