Registrants may attend 8 of the 18 sessions listed below. Please note (by number) which sessions you plan to attend on your registration form.

As the expiration of the 2002 Farm Bill approaches, the process of writing the legislation that will replace the current Farm Bill has intensified. Supporters of traditional farm subsidies have increasingly found themselves defending core programs against those who are advocating for reform. This session will discuss the factors that have driven this farm bill debate and provide an update on the current status of the farm bill in the House and the Senate.

The US House has passed it version of the Farm Bill. Historically there were two main objectives in ag policy; (1) price enhancement and (2) risk management. The FSA commodity programs provided price enhancement and price protection. The crop insurance program provided yield risk protection but there was always overlap between the two programs. The House Chairman was unable to include a “permanent” disaster assistance program but there were changes made to crop insurance in the Farm Bill. The subsidy will be reduced on the 90% GRIP contracts for next year (done administratively). There was a cut in A&O and an increase in quota share in the House passed Bill. However, the House added an area insurance plan that can be added to CRC, RA, IP, or APH. This may offer additional protection for farmers suffering reductions in their APH and resulting coverage. It will also allow additional coverage to protect the losses currently uncovered with the deductible. There are many details that will need to be covered in USDA published procedure before the effectiveness of the area plan can be fully analyzed. It is unclear how many of these changes will be include in the final Law after the Senate passes its bill. Congress did pass a disaster assistance package that provides additional coverage for 2005 and 2006 crop losses. Losses on 2007 winter wheat were included but 2007 losses on spring planted crops are not included. Major changes include the requirement only insured farmers are eligible for disaster payments and lowering the price election to 40% of the APH price election.

Congress included resources for rural development in the 2002 Farm Bill and the next Farm Bill is projected to have similar resources. What do we know about their impact on the rural economy? There are a lot of activities going on in rural areas at the present time. This presentation looks at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Value Added Producer Grants Program and analyzes five years of projects totaling more than 700 different producer organizations.

The livestock industries have recently been, and will continue to be, impacted by the ethanol industry. Traditional feed ingredient values have increased and it appears that price levels will remain higher than long term historical averages for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, by-products such as DDGs have become more readily available, especially in some geographic areas. We examine the impact of the changing feed price and availability situation, and other recent factors, on various phases of the cattle industry.

The recent escalation of ethanol production is good for corn farmers, lobbyists, processors, and (so far) politicians. Ethanol supporters claim benefits that include reduced dependence of foreign oil, cleaner air, and rural economic development. What could possibly be wrong with increased government subsidies for ethanol? If ethanol was truly this beneficial, subsidies from the government would not be needed. Economics teaches that all government policies have benefits and costs. While ethanol makes some producers, processors, and politicians wealthier, it is completely lacking in economic merit. This presentation will illuminate both benefits and costs of ethanol subsidies, and demonstrate that many of the claims made by ethanol supporters are not valid. Why does ethanol enjoy popularity and political support? Economics can explain why voters often support legislation that may be harmful to them. Voter biases that encourage ethanol included: (1) anti-market bias, (2) anti-foreign bias, (3) “make-work” bias, and (4) pessimism. While ethanol subsidies may be a political dream with benefits for all in the short run, it may be an economic nightmare in the long run.

Ethanol production has been expanding rapidly in the U.S. However, the U.S. has not always been the leader in ethanol production. Brazil’s experience in the ethanol industry has dated back for over 30 years. This manuscript will discuss the current ethanol situation in Brazil.

By the time of the Risk & Profit Conference we should have the updated 2007 land value and cash rent information. Our guess is that we’ll see considerable bumps over 2006 in both land values and rents. Of course, the principal driver is ethanol. So, what does the future hold for land values? If ethanol stays? If ethanol disappears? Does it mean the same thing for pasture as it does for crop land? Or, is the boom we’re seeing in land values foreshadowing a period like the early 1980s? In this session Terry and Kevin will work through the economics of ag land ownership, with a special emphasis on the future in light of ethanol-induced crop prices. Although this session will stand alone, it is best viewed in conjunction with Part 2.

What does the future hold for land rents? If ethanol stays? If ethanol disappears? What about pasture rents? Will they rise in concert with crop land rents if ethanol stays around? Or, are pasture rents already over-priced due to non-ag features of grasslands, or perhaps due to recent large cattle profits? Last winter saw many changes in rental arrangements for 2007, from voluntary bonuses in cash rents, to changes from cash rental arrangements to share rents or to fixed bushel rents. Will these changes begun then continue into the future? In this session Kevin and Terry will work through the economics of rental arrangements. We’ll present our views on what the future will hold, especially in light of ethanol-induced crop prices. Although this session will stand alone, it is best viewed in conjunction with Part 1.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze the infrastructure of grain handling and transportation systems in western Kansas. Factors causing change in the western Kansas grain handling and transportation industry include a) bioenergy-related demand for feedgrains, b) supplies of bioenergy processing biproducts to livestock feeders, c) consolidation and changes in ownership of grain elevators, and d) changes in railroad service to rural grain elevators. In recent years railroad providers have increased their emphasis on servicing shuttle or unit train handling facilities, and have de- emphasized or in some cases abandoned low volume branch rail lines. These and other factors are having a measurable impact on the infrastructure of the grain handling system in Western Kansas and the direction and quantity of flows of grain and grain processing bi- products in the region. These changes are expected to affect local grain basis bids and the relative price competitiveness of different parts of western Kansas. This paper will provide a description of the grain handling and transportation system in western Kansas, focusing on the capacity of grain elevators and the rail transportation systems for grain in the region. To address impacts from the growth of the bioenergy industry in the region, the location of existing and expected ethanol plants will also be provided, with an emphasis on the proximity of ethanol plants to grain handling and transportation facilities. Finally, a brief examination of changes in grain basis as a proxy for the relative competitiveness of local grain markets will be provided. This presentation will be largely descriptive in nature, focusing on the state of the current grain marketing and handling industry in the western Kansas region. It is intended to provide a starting place for future, more focused analyses of grain market infrastructure and competitive forces in Kansas and the Great Plains region.

This presentation documents cost differences between farms that have adopted a no-till production system, and those with a conventional or a reduced till system. Costs are compared on a per harvested acre basis. Cost comparisons include the following cost breakdowns: labor; depreciation, repairs, and fuel; seed, fertilizer, and herbicide; and interest charges. Comparisons will be made for farms in northwest, north central, south central, and northeast Kansas.

Most of us desire to have a successful and prosperous future…but how is that related to the past? This session will look at how you can build on an understanding of the past to wisely pursue the future – understand your resource base and how you are using it; identify your operational and management strengths and weaknesses; and plan and develop goals and objectives for the future. Solid and complete records and an understanding of how to analyze and use them will increase your opportunity to successfully achieve a sustainable and profitable future.

Feeding cattle is risky business. To manage this risk, we need to understand and quantify the sources. This is easier said than done, especially because when you place cattle on feed you are assessing risk in a real-time forecasting sense looking months into the future when the animals will be finished. In this session we will introduce, discuss, and demonstrate a web-based cattle feeding return risk analyzer tool that you can use to estimate components of future cattle feeding profit risk using current market expectation information. http://www.naiber.org/cattleriskanalyzer/

Non-users often view GPS-based machinery components as frivolous bells and whistles that never will pay. Quite the opposite will be shown in this presentation. Autoguidance reduces overlap, which reduces machinery and crop input costs. Field size and shape greatly impact machinery costs with larger machines. Boom shutoffs on sprayers and section control on seeding equipment easily can pay in odd-shaped fields – due to reduced machinery and input cost, and less crop losses on headlands due to double application. For many farms, investment in GPS technologies such as these will yield extremely high returns.

What does Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Ben Bernanke have against farmers and ranchers? What does inflation targeting mean? This presentation is a discussion of the Federal Reserve Bank’s monetary policies and the relationship between interest rates and commodity prices. Topics include inflation, the Consumer Price Index, The Fed Funds Rate, LIBOR, Eurodollar futures, the Taylor rule and the Treasury yield spread.

Last year, several Risk & Profit attendees participated in a Water Quality Trading (WQT) Experiment. Participants filled out two questionnaires, one asking them whether they would be willing to participate in a (hypothetical) WQT program under different situations, and another asking about the attributes of their farm, their participation in conservation programs, attitudes toward conservation policies, and demographic information. This session will report the analysis of the data collected from these questionnaires, which sheds light on whether and how WQT would benefit farmers in Kansas if implemented. We will also discuss general conservation policy implications and other alternative approaches being studied, such as Best Management Practice (BMP) auctions.

The Internet is an excellent way to obtain needed information. However, rapid changes in technology, the abundant and varied information available, as well as the increased mobility and interactivity allowed by the Internet can create challenges and difficulties in efficiently accessing and using the information on the web. Though not comprehensive, this presentation notes some of the current trends in Internet usage and seeks to help users to make more effective use of the Internet. The AgManager.info website is introduced and used as an example of some of the issues discussed.

As we move into the 21st century, societal goals for our water resources are gradually changing. Concerns over aquifer decline rates in northwest Kansas suggest the need for water conservation. The Bureau of Reclamation, the Kansas Water Office, the Kansas Department of Agriculture, the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District number four, and Kansas State University researchers combined efforts to analyze the situation. This report summarizes the research and compares the economic impacts of policy alternatives aimed at achieving various levels of water conservation.