Ag Opportunities
Volume 14, Number 4
January - Febuary 2004

Capture Higher Prices for Your Products
By James Hayes
This article first appeared in Small Farm Quarterly, Summer, 2003

Economic stability -- or sustainability -- of a small farm may
depend on a stronger involvement in marketing and selling your
agricultural products directly to the end consumer. Depending on
your product and where you want to sell it, direct marketing may not
be easy. However, the advantages may help to offset the high costs
of retailing and bring a higher profit to the farmer.

Premium product, premium price
When you market a premium product, you should expect to receive
premium prices. Here at Sap Bush Hollow Farm, once we’ve calculated
a price that covers the cost of production and includes a fair
return for our labor, we do a “reality check” and compare our prices
to the local supermarket prices of the same items. If we assume that
a steak is a steak and a tomato is a tomato, our prices may seem
high. But when you look at some very tangible criteria like
freshness, flavor and texture, our products are quite superior. They
should command a significantly higher price. Convincing people of
the true value of our product is the essence of our marketing plan.
If you have a sound marketing strategy and good sales techniques,
your market size may be very significant, even in a relatively small
community. In their recent book, The Support Economy, authors Zuboff
and Maxmin describe changes in our consumption patterns that may
offer some real advantages to direct marketing for small farms. The
authors review several studies which indicate that our economy is
evolving beyond a mass production and consumption model. Although we
are still in an industrial production economy, there is a great deal
of consumer dissatisfaction with mass produced, homogenous goods.
As workers in the industrial economy, people have to conform to the
rules of business. Work hours, clothing, and productivity levels, to
name a few, are all highly regulated. As consumers, however, these
same people are free to express their individuality through their
consumption patterns.



What the direct market consumer wants
The authors suggest that the new consumers are using their spending
power to satisfy three needs: sanctuary, voice, and connection.
These concepts can help us determine what, how, and where we present
our products to the consumer and strongly influence the size of our
market and our price premium.

Sanctuary is defined as a place of refuge. At Sap Bush Hollow Farm,
we use a back porch model of retailing. People come to our farm to
buy our products. They drive into our small valley, sit down on our
porch and see the hogs and lambs in the pasture, or watch the
chickens chasing bugs. They feel relaxed, as though they have
entered into a refuge. It is hard to believe that they get the same
sensations wheeling their cart through the aisles of the local
Wal-Mart Supercenter.

Voice. Having a voice means that you can make a meaningful statement
about what you believe in. Buying a factory-raised chicken at the
local chain grocery store doesn’t give a person an opportunity to
express their convictions about the environment, animal welfare,
excessive use of antibiotics or the importance of family farms.
Buying a chicken from our farm gives the consumer strong votes on
all these issues. They can see our birds out in the pasture, read
our feed tags, or even come to the farm and help on processing day.
We have many customers at our farm who were formerly vegetarian, not
because they didn’t like meat, but because they are opposed to
industrial livestock farming and now vote with their dollars for an
alternative. It helps to collect newspaper and magazine articles
that reflect these concerns, and share them with your customers and
help them understand the significance of their purchases.

Connection. The desire for connection is extremely important to all
of us. Knowledge of or participation in growing our food satisfies a
primitive need. The tremendous success of Community Supported
Agriculture is a strong testament to this concept. “Relationship
marketing” is a fundamental premise to all farmers who are meeting
their customers face to face. A sale is no longer simply a
transaction - it is a connection between two individuals with a
mutual concern for each other’s welfare.
At our farm, we know our customers’ names, and we enjoy many
leisurely conversations on sale days (although we still try to have
ample help available so that people who need to be served quickly
can be satisfied). Each spring, my wife mails an annual newsletter
with a pre-order form and a current price list. Many customers
comment on how they look forward to the news from Sap Bush Hollow
Farm. If the newsletter is late, they will call with concerns over
the health of our family and our business. That means they feel
connected to our business, and our family.
Connection is a very important component to a successful direct
marketing program. If you’re a recluse or extremely shy, step back
and let another member of your family handle the sales. On our sale
days, I do farm chores and ferry meat orders between the freezers
and the sale space. My wife, daughter and son-in-law are much better
with sales than I am, so I yield to their higher level of skill.
Direct marketing from your farm may not be the economic solution to
all small farm problems. But if you do it well, it can go a long way
to making the farm solvent. Taking the time to understand what the
consumer wants and to develop the appropriate skills and marketing
strategy can yield significantly higher returns than simply adhering
to the rules of industrial agricultural production.
James Hayes raises – and markets -- chickens, turkeys, geese,
cattle, pigs and sheep with his wife Adele in Warnerville, NY.  For
more information on a variety of small farm topics, visit
http://www.smallfarms.cornell.edu.

International animal welfare expert shares insights
By Jason L. Jenkins
Extension & Ag Information

Growing up as an autistic child, Temple Grandin saw the world from a
different point of view, where her thoughts took the form of
pictures, and where she noticed little details that no one else did.
She saw the world as animals do.
Grandin, an internationally recognized animal behavior expert and
associate professor of animal science at Colorado State Univ,
recently spent a day at the Univ of MO, sharing her experiences with
students, faculty, staff and the community.
"The same things that scare autistic kids scare animals," she told a
standing-room-only crowd during a public presentation on the MU
campus. "You have to take the animal's place and see how an animal
looks at things."
Grandin has worked to improve livestock welfare by implementing
low-stress handling techniques and equipment since the 1970s. Today,
one-third of all livestock-handling facilities in the US use her
designs.
"An animal that's scared or excited is harder to handle than one
that's calm and relaxed," she said. "Animals remember, and those
fear memories can't be erased."
During her visit, Grandin explained how she uses her gift of
perception to see what scares animals. "It's the little things that
you have to get rid of," she explained. "Things such as rapid
movement, darkness and high contrast objects can all scare an
animal."
When handling livestock, Grandin said that yelling and screaming at
animals only increases their stress level. "They can differentiate
between sounds. A gate slamming shut may upset them, but a person
yelling at them will really upset them."
Research has revealed that fear stress can reduce an animal's
productivity, she said. She cited a number of studies that showed
stressed dairy cows produced less milk, stressed sows gave birth to
6 percent fewer piglets, and stressed cattle had significantly lower
weight gain.
Another study measuring levels of the stress hormone, cortisol,
found that cattle handled quietly had cortisol levels almost
two-thirds lower than cattle that were handled roughly. "Fear is a
really big stressor for cattle," Grandin said. "If they're so
stressed that they poop, then you scared the you-know-what out of
them."
The key to reducing fear stress is to identify and remove the things
that scare them, she said. "If the cattle won't go in the barn
because it's dark, get some light in there. If they won't go up the
squeeze chute, add solid sides to control what they see."
Making such changes doesn't have to be expensive or complex. "It
seems like people are more willing to buy some new technology or new
equipment instead of practicing good stockmanship," Grandin said.
"It has just as much to do with changing a mindset, and I find some
people have minds set in concrete."
Grandin advocated reduced use of electric prods and rough handling.
During her public presentation, she showed a photo of a cow with her
head pinched in a squeeze chute. "You want this cow to eat in your
restaurant and stay in your hotel, but then you smack her in the
face with a metal bar. How would you like it if when you checked
into the Hyatt, the doorman shocked you and the desk clerk punched
you in the mouth? It's cruel and really stupid."
More information about Temple Grandin's research on animal behavior
and livestock-handling facilities is available on her web site,
http://www.grandin.com.


Increase in state's recreation land values outpaces crop,
pastureland
By Jason Jenkins
Extension and Ag Information

Land purchased for hunting and other recreational activities
increased more in value than the state's cropland or pastureland in
2003, and that trend is predicted to continue in 2004, said a Univ
of MO economist.
"Over the past 4 or 5 years, the fast-growing category has been land
for recreation," said Ron Plain, a professor of agricultural
economics who conducts the annual MO Farm Land Values Opinion
Survey. "I predict that we'll continue to see increases for hunting
land for the foreseeable future."
The land values survey has been conducted for more than 20 years to
gauge regional farmland values in MO. Each year, questionnaires are
sent to rural real estate appraisers, lenders and others who are
familiar with land transactions in their area.
Plain said the survey originally started with only cropland and
pastureland values, but that "there's a lot of other land in the
state that has value for other purposes." This year, the category,
"other land," was divided into two subcategories - timberland, which
referred to land with valuable trees, and hunting/recreation land.
On average, survey respondents estimated that all MO farmland values
increased 5.3 percent from June 2002 to June 2003, Plain said. "This
is the same percent increase the USDA report on agricultural land
values reported for actual sales in MO."
When subdivided by category, respondents estimated that cropland had
increased 4.9 percent, pastureland had increased 5.1 percent, and
other types of farmland had increased 6.1 percent.
"We used to say the booming economy was the driver behind purchases
of recreational land because people had more discretionary funds,"
Plain said. "But even though the economy has slowed, people are
still buying land, and that land is increasing in value. The
disappointing stock market makes real estate that much more
attractive as an investment."
Overall, hunting/recreation land in MO averaged $922 per acre, still
less than average cropland at $1,272 per acre, but more than average
pastureland at $901 per acre. Plain said the survey excludes tracts
smaller than 40 acres, but that if those tracts were included, he'd
expect recreation land to increase even more in value.
"Historically, land has been a good investment, and right now,
hunting land may be a better investment than the stock market," he
said. "It outperformed the market last year, and could do it again
this year."
Survey respondents expected the value of all land in MO to increase
by 3.4 percent in 2004, with a 3 percent increase for cropland, a
3.2 percent increase for pasture, and a 4 percent increase for other
farmland, Plain said.
"If you're in the market to sell, recreation lands near St. Louis
and Kansas City are commanding some of the highest prices," he said.
"If you're in the market to buy, consider land in the southeast and
south central regions of the state. Being farther away from the
state's metro areas have kept prices down, but it's great recreation
land."
Plain said he was surprised to see recreational land values in
northwest MO were the highest in the state, but he added, "it's the
only place in the state with good pheasant hunting, and that could
be the driving force. I'll be interested to see next year's
numbers."
The complete MO Farm Land Values Opinion Survey results are at
http://agebb.missouri.edu/mgt/landsurv03.htm.   Source: Ron Plain
573-882-0134



Degree of landowner liability for hunters, other recreational users
hinges on fees
By Jason L. Jenkins
Extension & Ag Information

Missouri landowners hesitant to permit hunters or other recreational
users on their property due to liability concerns can reduce their
legal responsibilities by not charging for access, a Univ of MO
professor said.
"Since 1983, MO has had a recreational user statute that lessens
landowner liability in cases where the landowner does not charge a
fee," said Stephen Matthews, director of the MO Agricultural Law
Center who specializes in rural and agricultural issues. "The law
was passed to encourage landowners to open their property for public
recreation."
If a landowner chares for access, however, no additional protection
is afforded, he said. "This charge could be monetary, such as paying
to lease the land for some recreational use, or in another other
form of benefit to the landowner, such as sharing harvested game."
Under the statute, landowners do remain liable in no-charge
situations when they fail to warn against ultrahazardous conditions
on the property, Matthews said.
"By informing a user about dangers such as old wells, unmarked
ravines or broken down fences, a landowner transfers the
responsibility to the user should he become injured," he said.
Both public and private landowners are protected by the law, but
there are two main exceptions. "The statute doesn't apply within
city limits, nor does it apply outside city limits in areas deemed
residential," Matthews explained. "Residential areas are defined as
tracts of land one acre or less in size that is used predominantly
for residential purposes."
Landowners who wish to grant access to their property can take steps
to further protect themselves against potential lawsuits, he added.
"Make sure the user is experienced at what he's doing, whether it's
hunting, four-wheeling, or some other recreational activity. Also be
sure that minors are supervised by an adult."
When granting access to hunters in particular, Matthews said that
explaining the layout of the property can be helpful. "Provide them
a map that delineates borders and shows where the property adjoins
neighboring land. Marking property lines also will ensure that they
don't go somewhere they shouldn't be."
Limiting access through a formal agreement can also lessen
liability, he said. "Have a user sign a contract that releases you
of any liability. Include an indemnification clause for the
landowner to have a legal right to expect reimbursement from the
hunter should injured third parties sue the landowner."
Matthews also encouraged landowners to carry some liability
insurance, and in situations where landowners charge for access,
"make sure the user carries both liability and health insurance."
"Check with your agent to see if you're covered with your current
home or farm policy. If you're not, adding a rider to your policy
can provide adequate coverage. Just consider it sleep insurance.
It'll let you rest at night without worrying."
More about liability issues can be found online at the MALC web
site, http://ssu.agri.missouri.edu/faculty/smatthews/MALC.htm.
Source:Stephen Matthews 573-882-0152



Growers in the Kansas City Region
Kansas State Univ and the Univ of MO are launching a project to
expand local produce production in the KC region.  Most of the
fruits and vegetables bought by consumers in this area are imported.
Extension training sessions for small and new farmers will be
conducted on topics ranging from irrigation to post-harvest
handling.  If you grow and market produce within 100 miles of KC and
you are interested in growing for the local demand, contact
Katherine Kelly, Program Manger, 913-488-1270, growers@ksu.edu



Community Food System and Sustainable Agriculture Evaluation
Results: A Summary
By José García and Carol Fulkerson

This is a summary of an extensive evaluation report presented by
Odilio Fernandez, a master’s student of Rural Sociology at the Univ
of MO.  The evaluation of the Community Food System and Sustainable
Agriculture (CFSSA) program was completed in the spring of 2003.
The program accomplished a great deal during its first year and a
half according to the evaluator.  Results of this survey evaluation
of the program are summarized in this report.
The CFSSA program became what it is now in July 2001 through a grant
of Univ of MO Outreach & Extension.  The goals of the program are to
create local and regional information pathways regarding sustainable
agriculture and to support people and communities striving for a
more sustainable future.  Additional goals are:
*Strengthen farms and communities’ economic viability through
sustainable practices in agriculture.
*Positively impact or maintain MO’s natural resources through
ecologically sound agriculture practices and consumer choices.
*Make producers and consumers equitable partners and influential
players in establishing and strengthening local food systems and
economies.
Specifically, the CFSSA program has been working in supporting the
establishment of farmers’ markets, providing marketing training on
meat and other products, educating consumers in small and large
events, assisting producers in forming cooperatives, establishing
Latino community gardens in rural MO, informing and assisting
producers on organic and sustainable farming, supporting small
farmer organizations, and others.  The targeted population of the
program is producers interested in sustainable issues and consumers
concerned about food security, safety and freshness.

Description of  the Evaluation Survey
This evaluation was conducted among farmers and has two purposes.
The first is to assess if producers improved practices on
sustainable agriculture.  The second is to assess what knowledge and
skills were acquired on sustainable agriculture, along with
discovering if producers experienced economic and environmental
benefits as a result of CFSSA program activities.
Almost 80 producers, many of who have participated in and benefited
from CFSSA program activities, were mailed or e-mailed a
questionnaire. The response rate was 73.3% and 26.7% respectively.
The questionnaire was short and easy to complete, using mostly
closed questions.

Demographics
The respondents tended to be older with 63.3% over 47 years old.
Both genders were almost equally represented.  A majority of the
respondents have as principal products animal and animal related
products, due perhaps that many responses came from areas where
caw-calf and cattle operations have a strong presence.
Many examples of how respondents live principles of sustainable
agriculture were revealed through this research project.  Almost ¾
of the respondents were involved in conserving and protecting soil
and water.  Furthermore, 80% of the respondents are involved in
managing pests, diseases and weeds with minimal environmental
impact.  Finally, slightly more than half surveyed are involved in
encouraging wildlife habitats.

Program Awareness and Attitudes
The bulk of the survey is data related to respondents’ awareness of
the CFSSA program and attitudes they held about the program.  In
general, awareness came from several sources.  43.3% of the
respondents that knew about the program first heard about it through
an extension specialist, 53.3% have heard about the program from a
meeting, conference or exhibit.  66.7% of the respondents have
participated in program events.  Publications related to CFSSA have
been a great source of respondent’s awareness, as 46.7% have read an
article about the program’s activities.
Questions on attitudes about the CFSSA program showed some
interesting trends.  73.3% of the respondents, after learning about
the program, were very interested in participating in its
activities.  Whereas about half of the respondents heard about the
program from an extension specialist, only 30% were motivated to
participate by an extension specialist.   One interesting finding
was that 43.3% of respondents describe the general attitudes of
farmers toward sustainable agriculture living in their area as
somewhat negative versus 13.3% who say that there is a positive
perception in their area.
Also, 80% of the respondents pointed out that the program activities
helped them to get closer to their goals in sustainable agriculture
and 60% declared the activities provided them with new ideas.  Only
20% thought the activities helped them to develop new markets.  In
addition, two thirds of the respondents feel that as a result of
their participation in the CFSSA program they are taking steps to
increase their income through direct marketing/reduction of external
costs.  Similar percentages relate to increasing their environmental
sound practices on their farms and their links to their communities.
A huge majority, 96.7%, thought that more conferences are a way to
get more support.  All thought exhibits and displays are a way to
get more support, as well as field demonstrations.  And all thought
that meetings with extension specialists and written information on
sustainable agriculture are a way to get more support.  The
information that they most appreciated was that of a technical
nature.  Grants were very popular with the respondents, as seen by
all believing that grants are a way to get more support.  Events
were just as popular an idea for getting support.
Outcomes from participating in the CFSSA program were measured
through questions related to what knowledge and behavior changes
respondents took away from program activities.  66.7% agreed that as
a result of their participation in the program they are taking steps
to increase their income through direct marketing and reduction of
external costs.  The same percentage stated that participation in
the program resulted in their taking steps to increase their
environmentally sound practices on their farms.  Also, that majority
of respondents stated their participation in the program resulted in
their strengthening their links to their communities.

Conclusions
The evaluator stated that at the time of the survey, the CFSSA
program did not have the exact number of sustainable agriculture
producers who are reached by the program’s activities.  Suggestions
on obtaining more exact numbers of producers included more
investigation of those applying for MO Sustainable Agriculture
Demonstration Award Projects.  It would be beneficial to gather
numbers of both recipients and applicants.  And the question exists,
“What is the total number of producers in MO interested in
sustainable agriculture?”  In this case, it’s important for the
program to determine a potential number of producers to enroll in
the program activities in order to know the universe of producers
that can be reached by the program.
Even exact number of such producers applying to grants and attending
conferences and exhibits would not give the full picture of the
exact number of producer beneficiaries of the program.  For each
participant there are at least 10 other people who may benefit from
the knowledge learned from CFSSA programs.  Consumers may also
benefit from the interactions with CFSSA program participants in
addition to the CFSSA activities for consumers.
The CFSSA program is working on identifying the producers’ specific
problems and it intends to assist them with possible solutions.  A
series of focus group meetings was conducted by the CFSSA program
last winter and spring and it was an important tool to identify
issues and needs as well as strategies to address them.  This will
allow the CFSSA to determine what kind of support should be provided
by the program and quantify the material and financial resources
that should be secured.
The evaluator stated that the program’s informative and educational
materials are resources that are part of what is required for its
accomplishment.  However, it may take time to develop effective
levels of adoption with just such materials and other resources
should be considered.  Grants were one resource suggested to make
the program have more impact, as grants give producers the necessary
resources to implement sustainable agriculture practices.
Demonstration projects also stimulate producers to implement such
practices.  The evaluator recommends the program to increase
demonstration projects in a sufficient number and with time
schedules convenient for the producers.  It also is important for
the CFSSA to identify strategies, guidelines or criteria to identify
and recruit producers.  This will also be useful to clarify the
expectations and practices of the program.  The questionnaire showed
that the informative events were not totally efficient in promoting
interaction among producers and consumers.   So, the program has to
increase its efforts to promote the intended producers’ interaction
and motivate them to implement sustainable farming practices.
The program has only two full time extension professionals doing
fieldwork and the program leaders recognize the need of more
personnel and resources in order to increase the number of
educational and informative events they provide to producers.
However, the current funding situation is constraining that
intention. CFSSA is facing an uncertain funding situation that
varies irregularly from year to year.  As such, the need to increase
the number of extension specialists in the program has to be
carefully assessed.



IN PRINT
*A Different Field: Innovative Entrepreneurs in Illinois Farming*
www.aces.uiuc.edu/~asap/ or Agroecology/Sustainable Ag Program, Univ
of Illinois, 217-968-5512, asap@aces.uiuc.edu.

Agroforestry projects funded by USDA-SARE are featured in
Summer/Fall 2003 issue of Inside Agroforestry, www.unl.edu/nac, for
print copy, contact USDA's National Center for Agroforestry,
402-437-5178.

*Assessing Chestnut Market Opportunities* available from the Univ of
Nebraska’s Food Processing Center and can be accessed on line at the
FoodMAP website, www.foodmap.unl.edu/index.asp. This report
summarizes US and world chestnut production and assesses current
markets and distribution channels for chestnuts. It also reports on
the test marketing of three value-added chestnut products to the
food service industry.

*Growing Plants for Hawaiian Leis* Covers 85 plants including some
(especially annuals) that are commonly grown in temperate areas.
Color photographs show each of the plants as used in a lei.
(Potential idea for cut flower growers to create leis for local
market?)  College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Univ
of Hawaii at Manoa, 3050 Maile Way, Gilmore Hall 119, Honolulu, HI
96822, 808-956-7036, $20 + shipping.

*Greenhouse Raspberry Production Guide* Dept of Horticulture, Max
Welcome, 134a Plant Science Bldg, Cornell Univ, Ithaca NY
14853-5904, $9.00 or www.fruit.cornell.edu/Berries/ghrasp.html

*Pumpkin Production Guide* Topics include variety selection,
cultural practices, maximizing yields, weed, insect and disease
control, maintaining post-harvest quality an marketing.  GFM, PO Box
3747, Lawrence KS 66046, 800-307-8949, www.growingformarket.com,
$43.

*Growing and Selling Fresh-Cut Herbs* $38.95.  GFM, PO Box 3747,
Lawrence KS 66046, 800-307-8949.

*High Tunnel Production Manual* Penn State Univ, Dept of
Horticulture, 206 Tyson Bldg, University Park, PA 16802,
www.plasticulture.org, $25.



IN THE NEWS
New research from the Rodale Institute's long-running 'Farming
Systems Trial' provides further evidence that organic cropping
systems perform better than conventionally managed crops during
climate extremes, indicating they will be a "valuable resource in an
era of climate variability." Two organic systems (one legume-based
and one manure-based) outyielded the conventional system in 4 out of
5 years of moderate drought in southeastern PA. Though all corn and
soybean yields suffered in 1999 (with 5 months of severe drought
followed by the wettest September on record in the Northeast), 3 of
4 crop comparisons resulted in significantly better yields in the
organic systems compared to the conventional. Water harvest,
important for groundwater recharge, was significantly higher over 5
years, with 16 percent and 25 percent more water retained for crop
use in the organic systems. The report appeared in American Journal
of Alternative Agriculture (Vol. 18 No. 3, 2003); for info, Rita
Seidel, rita.seidel@rodaleinst.org.

American Grassfed Association, founded in June 2003 to promote
grassfed livestock industry, www.americangrassfed.org or AGAPO Box
400, Kiowa, CO 80117, 877-774-7277, aga@americangrassfed.org.

Enterprising Rural Families: Making it Work. Online course for the
Rural Family in Business. Contact John Hewlett  
307-766-2166.

A business planning guide  www.cbsc.org/ibp/doc/intro_ibp.cfm. The
Interactive Business Planner is a free Internet-based application
from Canada Business Centres designed as a self-service tool for
entrepreneurs in the creation of a 3-year business plan. 

Wholesale flower prices available on the web from USDA’s Market News
Service at www.ams.usda.gov/fv/mncs/ornterm.htm

High tunnel tomatoes were 5 weeks earlier than field tomatoes this
year.  Quality and yield was also significantly higher.  Unlike the
field, high tunnel tomatoes did not develop problems with bacterial
speck. Early blight was observed in the high tunnels but it did not
spread too fast.  As we continued to pick in July, we applied a 47%
black shade cloth to 2 of the 4 experimental high tunnels.  The
shade cloth reduced temperatures by about 4 degrees and
significantly improved quality.  Contact Lewis Jett, 573-884-3287,
jettl@missouri.edu

USDA researchers report that concentrations of antioxidants
(considered valuable in the diet for helping to reduce hart disease,
certain eye problems, and the incidence of some types of cancer) in
red– and purple-fleshed potatoes are two to three times higher than
the concentrations in white-fleshed potatoes.  (American Journal of
Potato Research 80(4))

Heritage breed (or heirloom) turkeys are becoming a profitable
niche, according to an article on the New Farm web site. Although
domesticated turkeys come in a variety of breeds, 90% of the current
market is comprised of a single breed, the Large White, which was
commercially bred for meat production. Many consumers are no longer
satisfied with the Large White because of lack of flavor or less
than ideal living conditions in large-scale turkey operations.
Through such groups as the Slow Food, many consumers are being
reconnected to “standard” turkeys—one of eight heritage breeds
established in the late 1800s. In return for the increased labor and
time required to produce a heritage turkey, farmers who raise the
birds can see a profit pf $60 to $80 per bird. Find more about
heritage turkeys, including links and resources, at
www.newfarm.org/features/1103/heritageturkey.shtml



ON THE CALENDAR

Jan 17—Lamb Processing and Marketing Workshop, Mountain Grove, MO. 
Call 417- 683-4409.

Jan 20—Small Game Management Workshop, Hillsboro MO.  Call
636-789-2441 x 3.

Jan 20-22—Mid-America Fruit Grower’s Conference, Excelsior Springs,
MO.  Call 573-882-9632.

Jan 23-24	—Heartland Agriculture and Natural Resources Expo, Poplar
Bluff, MO.  Call 573-686-8064.

Jan 23-24—IL Specialty Crop Conference and Trade Show, Springfield,
IL.  Call 309-557-2107.

Jan 30—10th Annual Mid Missouri Ag Expo, Sedalia, MO.  Call
660-826-2222.

Jan 30—Annual Watermelon Grower’s Meeting, Kennett, MO.  Call
573-888-4722.

Jan 30-31—MO/AR Watermelon Grower’s Assn Annual Meeting, Memphis,
TN.  Call 314-835-0027.

Jan 30—Specialty Meat Production, Decorah, IA. Call 563-382-2949.

Jan 30-31—MO Farmers Union State Convention, Call 573-659-4787,
www.missourifarmersunion.org

Jan 30-31—Midwest Value Added Agriculture Conference. Eau Claire,
WI. Call Heather Amundson, 715-834-9672.

Feb (Monday evenings)—Horseman’s Shortcourse, Hillsboro, MO.  Call
636-789-2441 x 3.

Feb 2-6—Ag Science Week, Columbia, MO.

Feb 3—Prescribed Burning Workshop, Hillsboro, MO.  Call 636-789-2441
x 3.

Feb 3—Greenhouse Growers School, Columbia, MO. Call 573-882-9631.

Feb 4-7—Annual Advanced Organic Vegetable Production Workshop, East
Troy, WI. Call 262-642-3303 x 100.

Feb 7-8—Missouri Young Farmers/Farm Wives	Association State
Convention, Osage Beach, MO.

Feb 7-9—Midwest Regional Grape & Wine Conference, Tan-Tar-A.  Call
800-392-WINE.

			
Feb 16-18—MO Small Fruit and Vegetable Conference, Springfield, MO. 
Call 417-926-4105.

Feb 21-23—Western Farm Show, Kansas City, MO.

Feb 26—Organic Poultry on Pasture Workshop, La Crosse, WI.  Call
715-722-3153.

Feb 27-28—Missouri Tree Farm Conference, Lake Ozark, MO.  Call
573-882-3234.

Feb 26-28—Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conference, LaCrosse, WI.
www.mosesorganic.org

March 2—AgriTourism/Niche Market Conference, St. Joseph, MO.

March 4—Mid Missouri Grazing Council Conference, Jefferson City, MO. 
Call 573-893-5188.

March 13	—MU College of Veterinary Medicine Equine Health Day,
Columbia, MO.  Call 573-882-7848.

March 14-20—National Agriculture Week

March 27—Tri-State Forest Stewardship Conference, Keokuk IA.  Call
573-882-3234.

March 27—Realities & Opportunities: Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Conference, Kearney, NE.  Call Heidi Busse 507-523-3366 or Joy
Johnson 402-846-5428.  (focusing on minimizing risk in starting new
farm or ranch, sponsored by Center for Rural Affairs, Land
Stewardship Project, University of Nebraska, and USDA's Risk
Management Agency)

June—3rd Annual Rabbit University, St Louis, MO.  Call 800-227-8941.

June 9-10—Dairy Specialization, Decorah, IA.  Call 563-382-2949.

July 30—Ozark Empire Fair, Springfield, MO.

Aug 12-22—Missouri State Fair