Trump, in a statement announcing the new round of tariffs, warned that if China takes retaliatory action against U.S. farmers or industries, “we will immediately pursue phase three, which is tariffs on approximately $267 billion of additional imports.”

China replied Tuesday it has no choice but to retaliate against the new U.S. tariffs, risking even stronger action from President Donald Trump in an escalation of the trade war between the world’s largest economies.

“To protect its legitimate rights and interests and order in international free trade, China is left with no choice but to retaliate simultaneously,” the commerce ministry said in a brief statement, without specifying what action it would take.

Apple’s iPhone was not among the “wide range” of products that the company told regulators would be hit by the $200 billion round of tariffs in a Sept. 5 comment letter to trade officials (all figures US$).

But if the Trump administration enacts a further $267 billion round of tariffs, the iPhone, along with all other smart phones, are likely to be included in the list.

Collection of tariffs on the long-anticipated list will start Sept. 24 but the rate will increase to 25 per cent by the end of 2018, allowing U.S. companies some time to adjust their supply chains to alternate countries, a senior administration official said.

So far, the U.S. has imposed tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese products to pressure China to make sweeping changes to its trade, technology transfer and high-tech industrial subsidy policies.

The escalation of Trump’s tariffs on China comes after talks between the world’s two largest economies to resolve their trade differences have produced no results. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin last week invited top Chinese officials to a new round of talks, but thus far nothing has been scheduled.

A senior Trump administration official told reporters that the U.S. was open to further talks with Beijing, but offered no immediate details on when any new meetings may occur.

“This is not an effort to constrain China, but this is an effort to work with China and say, ‘It’s time you address these unfair trade practices that we’ve identified that others have identified and that have harmed the entire trading system,'” the official said.

China has vowed to retaliate further against any new U.S. tariffs, with state-run media arguing for an aggressive “counterattack.”

China’s yuan currency has weakened by about six per cent against the U.S. dollar since mid-June, offsetting the 10 per cent tariff rate by a considerable margin.

Consumer tech trimmed

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office eliminated about 300 product categories from the proposed tariff list, along with some subsets of other categories, but administration officials said the total value of the revised list would still be “approximately $200 billion.”

A broad, $23 billion category of internet-connected devices will remain subject to tariffs, but some products, such as smart watches, Bluetooth devices, and other consumer-focused technology products were removed following a lengthy public vetting period during which more than 6,000 comments were received.

Also spared from the tariffs were Chinese inputs for U.S.-produced chemicals used in manufacturing, textiles and agriculture.

Consumer safety products made in China, such as bicycle helmets sold by Vista Outdoor and baby car seats and other products from Graco also were taken off the list.

But the adjustments did little to appease technology and retail groups who argued that the tariffs would hit consumers hard.

“President Trump’s decision to impose an additional $200 billion is reckless and will create lasting harm to communities across the country,” said Dean Garfield, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents major tech firms.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association pointed out that the new tariffs would still hit more than $1 billion worth of gas grills from China, $843 million worth of luggage and travel bags, $825 million worth of mattresses, and $1.9 billion worth of vacuum cleaners.

“Tariffs are a tax on American families, period,” said Hun Quach, RILA’s vice president for international trade. “Consumers — not China — will bear the brunt of these tariffs and American farmers and ranchers will see the harmful effects of retaliation worsen.”

Earlier on Monday, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said the U.S. was ready to negotiate a trade deal with China if Beijing was ready for serious discussions.

“We are ready to negotiate and talk with China any time that they are ready for serious and substantive negotiations towards free trade, to reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers, to open markets and allow the most competitive economy in the world — ours — to export more and more goods and services to China,” Kudlow said.

— Reporting for Reuters by Steve Holland, David Lawder, Ginger Gibson and Eric Beech in Washington.

The post Trump to slap more tariffs on Chinese goods appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“What’s not normal?” asked Brady.

“The weather,” said Randy. “It’s the middle of April. “The snow has been gone for two weeks. It hasn’t rained. Every day it’s windy and dry and way warmer than it should be at this time of year. I should be happy that it’s not freezing cold and snowing every day, but this weather just makes me anxious.”

Andrew pulled his hat down lower to keep it from flying off in the wind. “When it comes to weather,” he said, “there’s no such thing as normal. Take 2004. It never got up to 20° during the spring. Not once. It hit 20° on June 21, the first day of summer. On May 12 we had a snowstorm. The leaves didn’t come out on the trees till the last day of May. June and July were cold. It finally warmed up enough in August so people could go to the beach. Of course it was 30° in the end of September, but what’s the point of that? The days are so short by then. You’ve got no time to enjoy the heat.”

There was a moment of silence.

“What’s your point?” said Randy.

“Stop being anxious,” said Andrew. “Que sera sera.”

“That’s very helpful,” said Randy. “Another week of this wind and our cropland is going to be somewhere in the Interlake. And that’s going to make seeding a logistical nightmare. So don’t que sera sera me.”

“You worry too much,” said Brady.

“Somebody has to do it,” said Randy. “And I’m really good at it.”

“You’re good at it?” said Brady. “How can you tell that you’re good at worrying?”

“Because 99 per cent of the things I worry about never happen,” said Randy.

“I’ll wager none of them would happen even if you didn’t worry about them,” said Brady.

“Ah, but you don’t know that for sure,” said Randy. “Are you willing to take that risk?”

“Absolutely,” said Brady.

Randy sighed. “People who don’t worry have no idea,” he said.

“We appreciate all your hard work Randy,” said Andrew. “Thank you for saving us from all those imaginary disasters.”

“You’re welcome,” said Randy.

“It’s going to rain next week,” said Andrew.

“Oh goody,” said Randy. “Dad says it’s going to rain next week. All of my troubles are over.”

“I have three weather apps on my iPhone,” said Andrew, “and they all agree that it’s going to rain next week.”

“I have an app on my iPhone,” said Brady pulling the phone from his pocket, “that tells me next week is going to be a great week for romance, and also for finishing that novel I’ve been working on.”

Andrew and Randy looked surprised. “You’re working on a novel?” said Andrew.

“Don’t be ridiculous,” said Brady. “Of course not. But my iPhone apparently thinks I am. Which just goes to show that my iPhone doesn’t know any more about me than your iPhone knows about the weather.”

“Don’t insult my iPhone,” said Andrew. “My iPhone is very sensitive. Last week I got peeved with it when it tried to tell me that hurryhard isn’t a word in the Scrabble dictionary and I flung it across the living room onto the couch and it stopped working for like, 12 hours.”

“You should get an Android,” said Randy. “I swear at mine all the time and it never stops working.”

“How come you swear at it all the time?” asked Andrew.

“Because it’s a piece of crap,” said Randy. “But at least it isn’t overly sensitive.”

“Does it tell you that it’s going to rain next week?” said Andrew. “Because if it doesn’t, you should get a new one.”

“Of course it does,” said Randy. “It always tells me that it’s going to rain next week. It also always tells me that it’s going to be sunny next week. So depending on how you look at it, it’s either always right or it’s always wrong. And I’m more of an always wrong kind of guy.”

“That’s true,” said Andrew. “You definitely are.” A sudden gust of wind forced all three of them to grab for their hats.

“It’s going to be a good summer,” said Andrew.

“Is it?” said Randy. “How do you know?”

“I don’t,” said Andrew. “It’s just a random guess.”

Brady looked up from his phone. “My iPhone agrees with you,” he said.

Andrew patted Randy’s knee. “See?” he said pointing at Brady’s phone. “You should get one of those.”

The post Weather predictions and cursing smartphones appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Today’s mobile technology is a perfect fit for farmers. The ability to access business and agronomic resources while on the move has enabled producers to spend more time in the field and less time in the office chair.

“A lot of these mobile tools were not created for the ag industry but it’s up to us to be thinking, how we can use this for our purposes,” said Peter Gredig, as he addressed an audience during a seminar on the use of mobile technology.

Gredig is a mobile technology specialist from AgNition Inc., a Canadian company dedicated to producing mobile technology for the agriculture industry.

“This technology has really evolved and it doesn’t matter what you have — iPhone, Android, or BlackBerry — it’s how you use it. All of these devices are amazing tools and it is up to us to figure out how we can best use them in our operations.”

Along with discussing a number of the latest apps geared toward the industry, Gredig spoke on how to get more from your smartdevice and different functions the technology can perform that save farmers time.

“A tablet is so much more useful than all of those monitors in tractor cabs. Fairly recently, ag companies have started moving away from selling in-cab monitors to rather utilize producers’ tablets and smartphones as the monitors.”

Even without downloading additional applications, Gredig notes that these devices come with a number of gadgets that are handy to farmers in the field, such as the flashlight, protractor, compass, speedometer and level.

“Many of us still think of these devices as phones that can do other things, whereas in reality they are incredible mobile tool boxes that include a phone. The industry certainly needs to be aware of and understand the power of real-time audio and video communication.

“If you don’t use these video communication apps, you are really missing the boat. Say you have something in your field that you see and you don’t know what to do about it. Sure, you can take a picture, GPS the location and email it but you could also video-call your agronomist,” said Gredig, suggesting use of the Facetime and Skype apps.

“If you were to Facetime your agronomist, they would be able to see exactly what you are dealing with at that moment. As an industry, we need to start doing this.”

Many of these modern-day devices also offer voice recognition or Bluetooth software. Employing these features on your device can be a time saver and increase your safety.

“When we look back at the advancement of this technology, it is not going to be these cool little apps that make life easier for us, it is going to be how we gather our data, store and manage it,” said Gredig.

According to Gredig, the real valuable feature of mobile technology is in the use of Cloud computing‚ — the practice of using a network of remote servers hosted on the Internet to store, manage and process data — rather than a local server or personal computer.

Gredig relates the Cloud to a virtual filing cabinet that allows you to store data on the Internet and access it with the security of a password.

“The liberation and freedom of the Cloud means that you don’t worry about the basement flooding, a fire or hard drive crashes, because as you are generating data it is wirelessly and immediately being stored.”

The post Put mobile technology to use on your farm appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

University of Alberta researchers David Mitlin and post-doctoral fellow Zhi Li have developed a fast-charging supercapacitor using eggshell membranes — a plentiful egg industry byproduct.

“We sell the liquid egg whites and the yoke to food processors, and we have no use for the eggshells,” said Li. “But we have the technology to separate the eggshell membranes from the physical hard shell.”

The membranes have a unique structure that allows them to hold three times the electrical charge of a battery, making them ideal for use as a supercapacitor.

“It’s similar to a battery because it stores energy, but it’s different from a battery because it can charge very quickly,” said Li. “You can charge it in 30 seconds or, in some cases, even five seconds. That’s impossible for a battery.”

And like a battery, these egg-powered supercapacitors can be used in electronics, vehicles, and yes, even smartphones.

“If you have an iPhone, your battery is dying in one year or two years, but if you have a supercapacitor, it will probably last you more than 10 years,” he said. “That’s amazing for some applications.”

If it all works out, it’ll be great news for egg farmers, too, said Jenna Griffin, industry development officer for the Egg Farmers of Alberta.

“The market for shell eggs has been declining over the years,” she said. “There’s been a trend toward more processed and liquid egg products.”

While there are some low-value markets for eggshells, many processors simply send them to the landfill. But making batteries could use a fair number of them.

“If you do some back-of-the-envelope numbers, you can see the practicality of what they’re doing,” said Griffin. “There’s somewhere between 150 million to 200 million dozen eggs broken in Canada, and from that byproduct, they can make about seven million batteries.”

Every year, supercapacitor production in the world nearly doubles to meet the growing demand for better power sources. But this is the first supercapacitor built using eggshell membranes, said Li.

“There is a market for supercapacitors, and there are supercapacitors available,” said Li. “But there is no commercial capacitor available utilizing this kind of functionality.”

While Mitlin and Li have not yet commercialized their findings, they said they hope to scale up production as funding becomes available. Until then, Li will continue exploring the energy potential of other agricultural products and byproducts.

“There’s tons of biomass grown by farms or farmers, and each of them has a special structure,” he said. “Eggshells are just an example. There’s lots of things we’re interested in that are grown by farms or farmers.”

The post Alberta researchers use eggshells to build better battery appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The proposals, which follow the passage of the Safe Food for Canadians Act last fall, still have to be put into the form of regulations. Draft regulations will be issued for comment next spring, with implementation in January 2015.

The regulations will require food companies selling products in other provinces or internationally to detail preventive control plans, including how they will deal with “deviations and respond to unforeseen food safety situations.”

Farms that ship to other provinces or internationally would also be required to have preventive control plans in place. The draft plan notes “a food safety outbreak originating from a single farm could have devastating economic consequences to the entire sector and diminish consumer confidence in fresh fruits and vegetables.”

The traceability will require food companies to maintain records on inputs and distribution one step up and down the food chain. For example, a processor would have to know who supplied ingredients and what retailer or distributor bought the plant’s product.

That’s the bare minimum in traceability, and is already happening in many livestock sectors and food companies, said Brian Sterling, president of SCS Consulting which advises food companies.

“Traceability is a fact of life for almost every other commodity that consumers buy, yet somehow we have not embraced traceability’s potential in the world of food,” he said. “I cannot buy an iPhone that does not have complete traceability back to its basic components. Yet what we put into our bodies is rarely traceable to source. Why is that?”

Implementing full traceability is far cheaper than one major food recall, he added.

“Most of the information we need is already being collected, we just have to use it,” he said.

The new rules would also require a company to provide information on their production output on request within 24 hours. During last year’s XL Foods contaminated beef incident, the meat packer took a long time to produce records — which were boxes of paper documents CFIA staff had to dig through. That delayed efforts to contain and round up contaminated products.

Food companies will also be required to immediately inform the CFIA if they suspect they may have a food safety problem.

The agency said it will try to design rules that won’t bury small and medium enterprises in requirements that are overkill for the size of their operation or range of products.

The new regulations would enable the minister of agriculture, to suspend the operating licence of any company or importer that doesn’t comply with food safety rules, and cancel it if the company provides “false or misleading information.”

The post CFIA beefs up food safety rules and sets minimum traceability standards appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That’s a quote (see page 16) from Brian Sterling, president of SCS Consulting which advises food companies.

Anyone care to disagree?

Or how about this, which is a paraphrase from a statement by a U.S. senator a few years ago?

“The law in this country requires that my underwear has a label to say where it comes from. Are you going to tell me that I shouldn’t have the same information about what I put in my mouth?”

Over the past few weeks we’ve been bombarded by indignant Canadian reaction to the new U.S. rules on country-of-origin labelling (COOL) for Canadian meat. Federal and provincial agriculture ministers and commodity organizations have issued statements. National newspapers have run columns from various pundits. Everyone agrees. It’s unfriendly. It’s unfair. It’s unnecessary. It will cost Canadians more. It will cost U.S. consumers more. U.S. meat packers and retailers don’t like it either.

Uh, huh. All true. But so what?

For several years, or at least since that senator’s comparison with underwear labels, it was clear that this thing was a done deal. There is overwhelming support in the U.S. (as in Canada) from consumers who want to know where their food comes from, and knowing where meat comes from would be at the top of everyone’s list. To think Canada could be an exception is simply unrealistic. Yes, we know all about the complications of animals raised in one country and slaughtered in another. Yes, we know there’s a free trade agreement with the U.S. Yes, we know it’s contrary to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

Yes, but we should also know that we’re dealing with the U.S. This is the country which refuses to recognize the International Court of Justice, which kidnaps people to be interrogated by the CIA in other countries run by dictators, which uses drones to execute suspected opponents without trial and monitors everyone’s phone and Internet traffic.

In comparison, violating the rules by insisting that a package of bacon say “Canada” on it is presumably not something that President Obama and colleagues are losing much sleep over.

Though it is a violation of the WTO, as we were proudly informed by the usual blizzard of government and industry press releases when Canada won its COOL challenge. Apparently they assumed the U.S. would roll over and comply.

Which it has, apparently with a set of rules that are even more complex than the ones already in place. According to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, the previous rules cost the Canadian producer approximately $25 to $40 per head. The new ones will increase that to $90 to $100.

In other words, we were better off doing nothing. The headline should read: “WTO challenge more than doubles cost to Canadian producers.”

That doesn’t include the cost of all the legal work and fruitless lobbying by producer organizations.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is eating our lunch in the beef business, or perhaps that should be serving us lunch with beef from our own cattle. According to last year’s Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute’s report on the Canadian beef industry, in 2002 Canada had a beef trade surplus of $1.4 billion with the U.S. By 2011 it had dropped to $42 million. They’re taking our cattle and shipping us high-end beef cuts that we should be producing ourselves. CAPI says we are at risk of becoming a net importer of beef.

The U.S. is also using some of our beef to expand exports offshore. Since 2005 its exports are up 280 per cent by value. Since 2002 ours are down by 3.5 per cent. How is it that Canada, with a comprehensive cattle identification system, can be so outsnookered by the U.S., which has none?

Even more ironic is that we have a better identification system than the U.S., but Canadian industry representatives have spent all this time and effort on insisting that a label not be placed on Canadian product.

Could it be that all the fuss over COOL is just a smokescreen for failure to address bigger issues in the industry?

The latest WTO “victory” will mean the cost to export to the U.S. will more than double. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and the Canadian government need to look up the definition of a “Pyrrhic victory” — “one with such a devastating cost that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat.”

Please, let’s not try to win another one.

The post Please, let’s not win again appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That’s where the fresh, unprocessed foods, like raw fruit and vegetables, and fresh meat and dairy are found.

Unfortunately, many of us stroll the middle aisles instead, and load up on the ready-to-eat foods, usually higher in fat and sodium. We’re often overwhelmed by the vast range of choices in the grocery stores too.

A recent poll conducted for Dietitians of Canada finds many of us unsure about what we should buy when we get there; an astonishing 63 per cent of those polled said they struggle to make healthy choices at least half the time.

The better news is most of us (67 per cent) also take a grocery list when we go, over half (52 per cent) read labels and 58 per cent say they cook balanced meals at home.

The 2013 Nutrition Month theme — Best Food Forward — Plan, Shop, Cook, Enjoy — aims to encourage more of that, offering practical tips and advice to make better decisions at the store that result in healthier food cooked at home. The tips offered include cooking for small households (one or two persons), shopping on a budget, focusing on fresh food and 31 tips for grocery shopping for healthy food.

The campaign includes lots of simple, common-sense tips — like keeping a fridge uncluttered, with fresh food snacks in plain sight, lest you be tempted with the higher-fat and sugar stuff.

As always, Nutrition Month’s overall message is that healthy eating isn’t complicated. With a plan-ahead, strategic approach to grocery shopping, we can take home better food for making simple, lower-cost, home-cooked meals that are much healthier for us too.

You can access Nutrition Month tips from eaTipster, the Dietitians of Canada’s new free iPhone and iPad app, or visit their website at www.dietitians.ca.

Here’s an example:

Today’s Tip!

• Brown sugar is usually white sugar with molasses added.

While some people consider brown sugar to be more natural, it is no healthier than white sugar. In fact, brown sugar is usually white sugar with molasses added to it. Both brown sugar and white sugar are concentrated sources of calories with very few other nutrients. Too much sugar in any form gives you extra calories. Whether you choose to use brown sugar or white sugar, use small amounts.

Here are two recipes courtesy of Dietitians of Canada (www.dietitians.ca) I think you’ll want to try. Cook and enjoy!

Mediterranean Roasted Beef And Veggies

This colourful, nutrient-rich dinner cooks all at once, for minimal fuss. Serve with cooked couscous, quinoa, rice or pasta.

• 6 cloves, garlic peeled
• 3 plum (Roma) tomatoes, cored and quartered
• 1 small Spanish onion, cut into 12 wedges
• 1 baby eggplant, cut into chunks
• 1 red bell pepper, cut into chunks
• 1 yellow bell pepper, cut into chunks
• 8 ozs. zucchini (about 2 small), cut crosswise into 1⁄2-inch slices
• 4 ozs. mushrooms, quartered
• 4 tbsp. basil pesto, divided
• 2 tsp. olive oil
• 3 lbs. boneless beef sirloin tip or inside round oven roast
• Pinch each salt and freshly ground black pepper
• 1 tbsp. balsamic vinegar
• 1 tsp. liquid honey

Preheat oven to 275 F. Lightly spray prepared baking sheet with cooking spray. In a large bowl, combine garlic, tomatoes, onion, eggplant, red pepper, yellow pepper, zucchini, mushrooms and three tbsp. of the pesto; toss to coat. Spread evenly on prepared baking sheet; set aside. In ovenproof sauté pan, heat oil over medium-high heat. Season beef with salt and pepper. 

Cook beef, turning with tongs, for about 10 minutes or until browned all over. Spread the remaining pesto over roast. Place on rack in the same sauté pan. Roast beef and vegetables in preheated oven for about 1-1/2 hours or until a meat thermometer inserted in the thickest part of the roast registers 140 F for medium rare, or until desired doneness. Transfer roast to a cutting board, tent with foil and let stand for 10 to 15 minutes. Using a rubber spatula, scrape vegetables into a large bowl. Add vinegar and honey; toss to coat. Carve roast across the grain into thin slices. Serve with vegetables. Makes six servings, with leftovers.

Butternut squash, spinach and feta frittata

• 1 butternut squash, peeled and cubed (4 to 5 cups)
• 1 pkg. (10 ozs.) frozen chopped spinach, thawed and drained
• 1-1/2 c. cubed peeled potatoes
• 3/4 c. thinly sliced red onion
• 8 eggs
• 1/2 c. 1 per cent milk
• Freshly ground black pepper
• 1 c. shredded cheddar cheese
• 1/2 c. crumbled feta cheese

Preheat oven to 400 F. Place squash in a large microwave-safe bowl and cover with plastic wrap, leaving a corner open to vent. Microwave on High for about five minutes or until fork tender. Drain off excess liquid. Gently stir in spinach, potatoes and red onion. Spread in 13×9-inch glass baking dish, lightly greased. In a bowl, whisk together eggs and milk. Season to taste with pepper. Pour over vegetables and stir gently to distribute. Sprinkle evenly with cheddar and feta. Bake in preheated oven for 35 to 40 minutes or until eggs are set. Makes 12 servings.

Source: ©YEAR. Dietitians of Canada. All rights reserved. Permission to reprint in its entirety. For noncommercial use only. www.dietitians.ca.

Oops!

Several readers were quick to point out a recipe for a Chewy Granola Bar on these pages Feb. 28 was listed as ‘nut free’ when the ingredients include peanut butter, almonds and coconut. These ingredients are not in fact nuts — peanuts are a legume, almonds and coconuts are drupes, which is the same family as a peach. But they can be allergens or, as in the case of almonds, are often processed in the same facilities that handle nuts. So they are usually on the list of foods that should not be served in nut-free facilities.

In the original article containing this recipe, I failed to include safer substitutes. My apologies for that. Here is the original recipe again with those substitute ingredients.

Jenn’s chewy granola bars

• 3/4 c. brown sugar
• 3/4 c. honey
• 2/3 c. smooth peanut butter (substitute 2/3 c. Sunbutter*)
• 1/3 c. canola oil
• 2 tsp. vanilla
• 1 tsp. cinnamon
• 1/2 tsp. nutmeg
• 1/2 c. coconut flakes
• 1/2 c. raisins
• 1/2 c. chocolate chips
• 1/2 c. sliced almonds, skin on (substitute 1/2 c. coarsely chopped apricots**)
• 1/2 c. sunflower seeds
• 1/3 c. wheat bran
• 2 tbsp. sesame seeds
• 3 c. large flaked oats

Preheat oven to 325 F/170 C. In extra-large bowl, mix brown sugar, honey, peanut butter (or Sunbutter), canola oil, vanilla, cinnamon and nutmeg. Mix well. Add coconut, raisins, chocolate chips, almonds (or chopped apricots), sunflower seeds, bran, sesame seeds and oats. Stir until blended. In a 9×13-inch pan, line with parchment paper and lightly spray with canola oil. Press mixture into the pan, making sure it is even. Bake for 35 to 40 minutes. Cool in pan. Cut into individual bars and store in freezer.

* Sunbutter is found in health food stores and is a peanut butter alternative that is not only nut free but gluten free, and contains no hydrogenated oil. It has very similar consistency to natural peanut butter and tastes just like sunflower seeds. To learn more about the product visit www.sunbutter.com.
** Chopped apricots is one suggestion from Jenn, who experimented with the original recipe to produce the alternative version. She also suggests using dried cranberries, or coarsely chopped prunes, golden raisins, dried berry mix, dried mango, coarsely chopped dried apples. Or you could add an extra 1/2 cup combination of the other items in the bars (chocolate chips, raisins, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, oats, coconut). If you are wary of any of the other ingredients, experiment with other combinations of the ingredients you do like.

The post Recipe Swap: Use perimeter vision to make over your grocery cart appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

And farmers are just as likely as anyone to be carrying an iPhone, BlackBerry or Android as anyone else these days. But many just aren’t making full use of that little computer in their coveralls, says Kim Keller, founder of Farm at Hand.

Keller and her co-founder, Himanshu Singh will be presenting “How are you using your smartphone on the farm?” on Wednesday at 1:30 p.m.

“A lot of people aren’t really aware of what their smartphone can do for them,” says Keller. “It can be used for just about anything from communications, to news, to market prices, weather or keeping track of your production or finances. There is almost an app for everything.”

Keller and Singh, who are also exhibiting their mobile technology at Ag Days, have developed their own free Farm at Hand management software, which is available as an app for the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad Tablet and also has a mobile site for BlackBerry and Android devices. The software allows farmers to keep track of field lists, storage, equipment, contracts and many other items vital to farm operations.

The number of apps directly aimed at the farming community has grown tremendously over the past year, says Keller, who predicts that’s a trend that isn’t going to change.

“Right now there are a lot of agricultural companies that are realizing that they need a mobile strategy and they need to address this market that I don’t think a lot of companies have addressed,” says Keller.

“So I think in the next few years we are going to be seeing a lot of companies coming out with their own apps specifically for farmers.”

Smartphones definitely have a role to play in helping farms become more productive and efficient, she says.

“Your farming community 20 years ago may have been within a 50- or 100-mile radius,” says Keller. “But with technology, your community has become global and you need to know what’s happening everywhere when you are planning all aspects of your production.”

The post Expert says think of a smartphone as a computer in your coveralls appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In the process, cowboys became beef producers and hog farmers became pork producers and a half-million or more of each became no more.

Recently, however, the big “producer” groups behind all these producers discovered most Americans don’t want their eggs, milk, vegetables, steak and sausage from “producers.”

Instead, consumers want their food from – you guessed it – farmers and ranchers.

So, beginning midsummer, a new group calling itself the U.S. Farmers &Ranchers Alliance will launch a “well-funded, long-term, and co-ordinated public trust campaign for American agriculture.”

Its goal, says USFRA chairman Bob Stallman, who moonlights as president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, is to “allow its supporting organizations to operate as needed, while still pooling resources to maximize efficiencies and effectiveness of a consumer influencer and thought leader campaign.”

That means USFRA’s 30 or so groups, checkoffs and agbiz “partners” plan to spend upwards of $20 million over the next year to change the face of American agriculture.

No longer will it resemble a Land Grant alumnus ordering GM seed or livestock antibiotics on an iPhone. Instead, tomorrow’s farmer will look more like Walter Cronkite than Walter Mitty: weathered, wise, trustworthy.

In short, more golden fields, golden sunsets and golden hair and less silver hog barns, silver-sided food factories and silver semis hauling ethanol. (True; ethanol and the upcoming Farm Bill debate are two topics recently banned by USFRA for discussion.)

How USFRA will pull off this “national trust and image campaign” has yet to be finalized, says Cindy Hackman, executive director for Drake &Co., a Chesterfield, Missouri association management firm with long ties to checkoffs and ag groups, hired to manage the effort.

What is known, Hackman relates, is a troubling “consumer decline in confidence in their food source” today. That drop, according to USFRA, has two causes: a “general disconnect between consumers and farmers” and “opposition groups that attack farming on a daily basis,” she says.

If either is accurate – and both are debatable – you might wonder why the same people often accused of fuelling one or both reactions are the same people now gathering money and manpower to remake the image of American farmers and ranchers.

Hackman offered a keen insight to this curious approach in an April 19 telephone interview when she acknowledged that “Farmers and ranchers have a great reputation with consumers. It’s how farmers and ranchers produce that concerns them.”

She’s right. The problem most consumers have with farmers and ranchers is how they produce, not what they produce. Consumers have worries about new-generation technology like GM seeds, “animal health” products, crop chemistry, fertilizer run-off, and agriculture’s vast thirst for water.

As such, spending $10 million or $20 million on a glossy “consumer influencer and thought leader campaign” is waste of time, money and goodwill.

If the vast majority of consumers have questions about today’s production practices, the least “producer groups” and “producers” can do is give ‘em answers.

Golly, that’s what Walter Cronkite did.

Alan Guebert is a syndicated columnist based in Illinois.

The post “To Operate As Needed” Is Not What’s Needed appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The colour tells you how environmentally friendly the product is (green is good, red is bad). The number rates the product’s environmental footprint from one to 10 (the lower the number, the bigger the footprint).

Sounds futuristic? Not at all. It’s already used in the United States and it’ll be here within two years, says Al Scholz.

TECHNOLOGY

Scholz, a Saskatchewan-based management consultant, used that example to show Keystone Agricultural Producers delegates how modern technology helps consumers make purchasing decisions based on environmental and other considerations.

It means farmers will need to be even more conscious about their management practices to satisfy consumer demands, said Scholz.

“The important thing is, consumers are going to have the ability to make an assessment right in the aisle on what product they want to use,” he said after speaking to the KAP annual meeting last week.

“I think it’ll help a lot of farmers be more focused on knowing exactly what they need to do.”

Scholz’s presentation on linking farmers with consumers reflected the KAP conference theme “Bridging the Urban- Rural Divide.”

The above example described by Scholz involves a special iPhone application to access a database developed by a research group out of Berkeley, California. It rates products based on their health, environmental and social impacts.

DATABASE

The database currently evaluates over 75,000 shopping items. The main ones are personal care, household and food products. Pet food, toys and paper products are also rated.

The database is accessible at www.goodguide.com. Although less than two years old, it is expanding rapidly.

Eventually, shoppers will be able to select which products to buy according to their ecobalance ratings, he said.

“The ability to make an assessment on the environment and the impact on society and the social aspect of sustainability shows up in these ratings.”

The ratings are sometimes surprising because products may be either more or less sustainable than people think, Scholz said.

For example, he cited a British study which showed the energy footprint of imported New Zealand lamb meat was only 25 per cent of the footprint for local lamb.

That’s because lamb grown in the mild New Zealand climate requires little energy to produce. As a result, the production costs are much lower. Even shipping the meat thousands of kilometres to the U.K. didn’t change its lower energy input.

Evaluating goods by their footprint is part of a technique called life cycle assessment. LCA assesses the total environmental, social and economic impact of a product all the way through from raw material to production, use and waste disposal.

Scholz said food retailers are adopting LCA because of shoppers’ growing interest in knowing more about what they buy. For example, Safeway and Walmart are developing databases for the products they sell.

But while consumers use real-time IT applications to make food choices, much of agriculture still produces undifferentiated bulk commodities, just as it always has, said Scholz.

“We need to think about what the market wants.”

He said most farmers do a good job of being environmentally responsible. But consumers are interested in how their food is produced and producers must demonstrate what they produce is sustainable, he said. ron@fbcpublishing.com

The post Shoppers Rate Products By IPhone appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.