Calling all farmers to Winter Workshops in January

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The dark days of winter can be a great time to learn new things, so the Minnesota MDA-logoDepartment of Agriculture (MDA) is again providing farmers a day of Winter Workshops in January. The MDA will offer six workshops covering a diverse array of farming topics on Thursday, January 8, 2015 at the River’s Edge Convention Center in St. Cloud. Workshop details and online registration are available at by calling 651-201-6012 and requesting a “Winter Workshops” brochure. The workshops include:

All Day (9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.)

The Nuts and Bolts of Running a CSA, presented by Mark Boen and Bernard Crosser of Bluebird Gardens, Cost: $50


Transitioning to Organic: From Deciding to Doing, presented by Carmen Fernolz of A-Frame Farms. Cost: $50


Morning Workshops (9 a.m. to Noon)

Grazing Basics, presented by Vermont grazing and organic consultant Sarah Flack. Cost: $25


Reality Checking your Farm Plan, presented by John and Lisa Mesko from the Sustainable Farming Association of MN (SFA). Cost: $25 (free for SFA members)


Afternoon Workshops (start at 1:30 p.m)

Fine Tune Your Grazing System, presented by Vermont grazing and organic consultant Sarah Flack. Ends at 4:30 p.m. Cost: $25


Save Your Own Seed, presented by Koby Jeschkeit-Hagen from Seed Sages and Tiny Diner Farm. Ends at 3:30 p.m. Cost: $25


While they immediately precede the two-day Minnesota Organic Conference to be held January 9-10, also in St. Cloud, these workshops are designed to benefit all kinds of farmers. Minnesota Organic Conference details are posted at

Lake Pepin phosphorous study vindicates Ag

“Phosphorous is an essential element, and we find it in everything,” said Ashley Grundtner, a former graduate student at the University of Minnesota. However, too much phosphorous has been finding it’s way into lakes and rivers in the Midwest for years, and it’s causing a lot of problems.

Algae bloom is a natural consequence of too much phosphorous in water, and Lake Pepin on the Minnesota/Wisconsin border is a good example. The bloom threatens fish and can negatively affect recreational activities. For years, agricultural runoff was considered the only culprit, so researchers began studying other factors that may explain the increase.

“For 20 years or so, many folks have said Lake Pepin was filling up, and in 1988, they had a big fish kill there,” said Dr. Satish Gupta, the Raymond Allmaras Professor in the University of Minnesota Department of Soil, Water, and Climate. “That led to a whole series of studies by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that decided phosphorous was the problem.”

“I had been working on the source of sediment going back to 1994,” said Gupta. “That was the first year that MPCA came up with the report blaming agriculture for the sediment and phosphorous in the Minnesota River and then in Lake Pepin. Farmers were saying it’s not the agricultural land, it’s the banks along the river that was a bigger source.”

Sloughed River Bank

A sloughed tall bank along the Blue Earth River in Blue Earth County, Minnesota. (Photo taken by Satish Gupta)

He said, “When we started working on this, we took a look at the riverbanks and noticed they were bare. Every year, we get a new crop of dandelions, so we wondered why they weren’t growing on the banks. The answer is simple: they are very unstable and they come down every year. There isn’t enough time for vegetation growth.”

In 2005, Gupta and his students began a four-year study of several rivers in Blue Earth County to determine how much of the riverbanks were running off into the waters. “We found that 2.24 million cubic yards of soil was gone during that time,” said Gupta.

“The next question was how are bank materials reacting with the phosphorous in river waters,” said Gupta. “We knew when you apply fertilizer on the land, particularly phosphorous, it ties up pretty fast. There’s only a small amount for the crop to use, so they have to apply it again next year, and the next year after that.”

That’s what led to Ashley’s graduate thesis paper on the source of phosphorous in Lake Pepin. “If the riverbanks are absorbing the phosphorous we put on our farm fields, are they absorbing other sources of P too?” said Satish. “What is the role of sediments in the riverbank material in picking up phosphorous?”

Ashley Grundtner

Ashley Grundtner collecting sewage effluent sample along a drainage ditch in Blue Earth County, Minnesota. (Photo taken by Drew Kessler)

“We looked at historical records, and we found our rivers had been very polluted going all the way back to when Minnesota was a territory,” said Gupta. “Rivers were thought of as a conduit to carry waste away from the cities. They had virtually every kind of contaminant in the waters.”

Gupta said, “They didn’t have toilets to carry waste to a treatment plant back in that time period. Waste went directly into the river, and phosphorous is very common in sewage.”

South Saint Paul had a large meatpacking industry right on the Mississippi River. Gupta said, “It was set up on the river so they could push their waste in. Ice was also available in the wintertime to preserve meat.” He added, “Records show an ammonium phosphoric fertilizer plant was built along the Mississippi River south of St. Paul. We were not careful about what we put into our rivers.”

“Phosphorous is a basic element you’ll find everywhere in geology,” said Ashley Grundtner, who graduated with a Masters Degree in Water Resource Science in 2013. “We wanted to find out what were the natural levels of phosphorous in riverbank material. What happened to the material when it went through a river process? We then considered human input, like pollution, and what happened to it when it went into a river,” she said.

The group considered basic things like total P in the rivers and riverbanks, and how the riverbanks would absorb Phosphorous, and how much capacity the material had to store the element. From the different scenarios they worked on, they determined levels in Lake Pepin prior to and after 1850.

A tall sloughed bank along the Big Cobb River in Blue Earth County, Minnesota. (Photo taken by Drew Kessler.)

A tall sloughed bank along the Big Cobb River in Blue Earth County, Minnesota. (Photo taken by Drew Kessler.)

The results of their work, published in the Nov-Dec Issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality, showed that fine particles carrying P from eroded riverbanks was the main source of P in Lake Pepin before 1850. After 1850, the human element of pollution added to the levels of Phosphorous available for rivers to carry to Lake Pepin. “The rivers became increasingly polluted, and these riverbank materials are picking it up,” said Gupta. “River modification through locks and dams has added to it as well. Coarser materials are going to get stuck behind the dam, and there was more phosphorous in smaller amounts of fine particles going downstream.”

“Ashley’s paper has shown that most of the phosphorous in the Lake Pepin sediment is industrial and a sewage-phosphorous material, which was picked up by riverbank materials. That doesn’t mean there’s no other source, but that’s a big part of it,” said Dr. Gupta.

Farmers, Ag Technology Providers Reach Agreement on Big Data

Big Data now kept private

Major Ag groups and AG Tech providers have reached an agreement on how to manage farmers data to help maximize efficiency, and still keep data private (picture from

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, November 13, 2014 – A coalition of major farm organizations and agriculture technology providers (ATPs) today announced an agreement on data privacy and security principles that will encourage the use and development of a full range of innovative, technology-driven tools and services to boost the productivity, efficiency and profitability of American agriculture.

The coalition supporting the principles includes: American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, Beck’s Hybrids, Dow AgroSciences LLC, DuPont Pioneer, John Deere, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, Raven Industries, The Climate Corporation – a division of Monsanto, and USA Rice Federation.

“The principles released today provide a measure of needed certainty to farmers regarding theprotection of their data,” said American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman. “Farmers using these technology-driven tools will help feed a growing world while also providing quantifiable environmental benefits. These principles are meant to be inclusive and we hope other farm organizations and ATPs join this collaborative effort in protecting farm-level data as well as educating farmers about this revolutionary technology.”

AFBF President Stallman

Bob Stallman applauded the agreement at the National Association of Farm Broadcasters Convention on Wednesday (Photo from

The principles promise to greatly accelerate the move to the next generation of agricultural data technology, which includes in-cab displays, mobile devices and wireless-enabled precision agriculture that has already begun to boost farm productivity across the United States.

Many analysts compare today’s big-data-driven precision ag to the “green revolution” of the 1960s and 70s, which has likely saved a billion lives or more from starvation since its inception.

Central to the effort surrounding the principles will be grower education initiatives that will include an easy-to-use transparency evaluation tool for farmers. The tool would allow farmers to compare and contrast specific issues within ATP contracts and to see how the contracts align with these agreed-upon principles, and how ATPs manage and use farmers’ data.

“The privacy and security principles that underpin these emerging technologies, whether related to how data is gathered, protected and shared, must be transparent and secure. On this matter, we all agree,” said Stallman. “Farmers are excited about this new technology front, which is why Farm Bureau asked these groups to come together and begin this collaborative dialogue.”

Using precision technology, farmers send large amounts of business and production information to ATPs regarding their planting, production and harvesting practices. Companies use that data to produce “field prescriptions” and benchmarks that provide valuable information farmers can use to make decisions on when, how and which crop varieties to plant, and optimize the application of crop protection and fertilizer inputs. “That’s good for the environment and efficient for food production, too,” Stallman said.

The principles cover a wide range of issues that must be addressed before most farmers will feel assured to share their private business information with data providers. Highlights include:

  • Ownership: The group believes that farmers own information generated on their farming operations. However, farming is complex and dynamic and it is the responsibility of the farmer to agree upon data use and sharing with the other stakeholders with an economic interest such as the tenant, landowner, cooperative, owner of the precision agriculture system hardware, and/or ATP etc. The farmer contracting with the ATP is responsible for ensuring that only the data they own or have permission to use is included in the account with the ATP.
  • Collection, Access and Control: An ATP’s collection, access and use of farm data should be granted only with the affirmative and explicit consent of the farmer. This will be by contract agreements, whether signed or digital.
  • Notice: Farmers must be notified that their data is being collected and about how the farm data will be disclosed and used. This notice must be provided in an easily located and readily accessible format.
  • Third-party access and use: Farmers and ranchers also need to know who, if anyone, will have access to their data beyond the primary ATP and how they will use it.
  • Transparency and Consistency: ATPs shall notify farmers about the purposes for which they collect and use farm data. They should provide information about how farmers can contact the ATP with any inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to which they disclose the data, and the choices the ATP offers for limiting its use and disclosure. An ATP’s principles, policies and practices should be transparent and fully consistent with the terms and conditions in their legal contracts. An ATP will not change the customer’s contract without his or her agreement.
  • Choice: ATPs should explain the effects and abilities of a farmer’s decision to opt in, opt out or disable the availability of services and features offered by the ATP. If multiple options are offered, farmers should be able to choose some, all, or none of the options offered. ATPs should provide farmers with a clear understanding of what services and features may or may not be enabled when they make certain choices.
  • Portability: Within the context of the agreement and retention policy, farmers should be able to retrieve their data for storage or use in other systems, with the exception of the data that has been made anonymous or aggregated and is no longer specifically identifiable. Non-anonymized or non-aggregated data should be easy for farmers to receive their data back at their discretion.
  • Data Availability: ATPs agree they should provide for the removal, secure destruction and return of original farm data from the ATP, and any third party with whom the ATP has shared the data, upon request by the account holder or after a pre-agreed period of time.
  • Market Speculation: ATPs will not use farm data to illegally speculate in commodity markets.
  • Liability & Security Safeguards: The ATP should clearly define terms of liability. Farm data should be protected with reasonable security safeguards against risks such as loss or unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure. Policies for notification and response in the event of a breach should be established.

Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data can be found here:

Get support for your innovative ag idea

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is accepting applications for the Sustainable mdalogosmAgriculture Demonstration Grant program. These funds promote conservation of environmental resources and strive to improve on-farm profitability and quality of life. The MDA awards up to $250,000 for on-farm sustainable agriculture research or demonstration projects. Eligible recipients include; Minnesota farmers, educational institutions and individual staff, and non-profit organizations. Farmer’s projects receive priority. All non-farmer initiated projects must show significant collaboration with farmers.

“Farming in Minnesota has a rich past of progress and success,” said Commissioner Dave Frederickson. “It’s our responsibility to keep those advancements in agriculture moving along for future farmers. These grant funds support innovative ideas to sustain our agricultural economy and environment for upcoming generations.”

Dave Frederickson

Minnesota Department of Agriculture Commissioner Dave Frederickson (Photo from MDA website)

Since 1989, the MDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program has awarded more than $3 million to 300 statewide projects. Grants are available to fund:

·         Project diversification and organic production using traditional and non-traditional crops and livestock

·         Cover crops and crop rotations to increase nitrogen uptake, reduce erosion, or control pests

·         Conservation tillage and weed management

·         Cropping systems to start integrated pest management systems for insects, weeds and diseases

·         Nutrient and pesticide management, with an effort to keep them out of water bodies

·         Energy production, such as wind, methane, or biomass

·         Developing/refining marketing opportunities, season extension, and post-harvest storage and handling

·         Other creative ideas addressing farm conservation, energy, and/or profitability

The grant application is available on the MDA website at: or by contacting the Agricultural Marketing and Development Division at 651-201-6012. Completed applications must be received no later than January 23, 2015.


Current and past grant projects are highlighted in the

Not much change to Minnesota fence law

The need for man to fence in livestock has been around a long time, and Minnesota is no exception. Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 346 and 561, cover livestock fencing, and state that a landowner does not need to fence his land against the livestock of another landowner. The livestock owner is required to restrain his livestock from entering the land of another.

Cattle behind a fence

Humans have fenced in livestock as far back as anyone can remember. But who actually pays for fencing in Minnesota Law Books? (Photo from

However, Minnesota Statute, Chapter 344, supplements the Common Law of 346 and 351. Chapter 344 covers “partition fencing,” and says the livestock owner is not the only one responsible for maintaining the fence that keeps livestock on his land and off his neighbors. A landowner who doesn’t have livestock may have to pay his neighbor to help put up that fence.

“When there’s adjoining land and one of the parties wants to have a fence erected, the other adjoining landowner has to pay for half. That’s the long and short of it,” said Bruce Kleven, President of Kleven Law in Minneapolis, and a lobbyist for the Minnesota Cattlemen and Minnesota Wheat Growers.

Bruce Kleven

Bruce Kleven of the Kleven Law Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Photo courtesy of

The obligation doesn’t stop when the fence is put up, either. “It says build and maintain in here (the statute),” said Kleven. “If we think that out, say 20 years go by and you have to paint it, the adjoining landowner would pay half the cost.”

Kleven has been involved in agriculture law for years, and said he thinks many farmers may not even know the law exists. “I think most farmers, if they want to put up a fence, they put up a fence, and they don’t even know they could charge the adjoining landowner for half the cost,” said Kleven. “Property law has been around a long time. It’s old. It’s mid-1800’s.”

“The law itself is a territorial law, which means it predates Minnesota statehood,” said Kleven. “When you look at the development of the law, it was put in out state code in 1858 when we hit state hood. There was an amendment in 1866, and then a couple more in the late 1800’s.”

“Since then, it’s been pretty quiet on Minnesota fencing law through most of the Twentieth Century,” said Kleven.

The only recent amendment to the law was applied in 1994. “The amendment said this law applies to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) like it does to everyone else,” said Kleven. “Elk farming was taking hold at that time. For clarity, I think they said if there’s an elk farm next to a piece of DNR property, this law applies to the DNR like it does to everybody else.”

“I don’t think we’ve had any bills attempting to change the fencing law at the Legislature since 2000 and ‘02,” said Bruce Kleven. “House and Senate members from the Otter Tail County area brought a bill forward, but it never really moved.” He said, “Then, in 2002, House and Senate members from Wright County brought the same issue, and it didn’t move either.”

“What they were trying to do is change the fence law because urban sprawl was beginning to cause conflicts between farmers and non-farmers,” said Bruce. “The non-farmers were moving out into the country and asking ‘why do I have to help pay for your fence?’”

Minnesota hasn’t seen a large number of fencing conflicts in recent years. “There was a court case in 2001 up in Lake of the Woods County,” said Bruce. “The case made it to the Court of Appeals in St. Paul, and the main question there was what kind of fence would be used instead of whether or not one was needed.”

“Some of why it’s so quiet is if you go back 100 years, we had more grazing, cattle, and prairie. Quite a bit of livestock has left the state, and we’re seeing more confinement and feedlot-type activity, so that may be some reasons why we haven’t see a lot of land use conflict,” said Kleven.

“Just think of the Dakotas. Miles and miles of fences, and we just don’t have that here.”

Kleven did find one exception to the state Statues. “The local Township Board, by resolution, may exempt adjoining landowners or occupants from this Statute when their land is less than 20 acres,” he said. “That can get into your suburban landowner who moves a couple miles out of town and only has five acres. They can take it to the town board and get an exemption.”

Minnesota Organic Conference draws nationally known speakers

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is excited to announce two outstanding keynote MDA logospeakers will headline the 2015 Minnesota Organic Conference in January.

Environmental Working Group Co-founder and President Ken Cook will speak Friday, January 9, while David Montgomery, a geological scientist and author of the award-winning book Dirt: The Erosion of Civilization will speak Saturday, January 10.

Cook is widely recognized as one of the environmental community’s most prominent and influential thinkers of industrial agriculture, the food system, and farm policy. He has written dozens of articles, opinion pieces and reports on environmental, public health and agricultural topics, and is a highly sought public speaker. Organizers expect Cook’s talk to promote lively debate at the conference.

Montgomery will talk about every organic farmer’s best friend: soil.  He is a professor at the University of Washington, where he researches and teaches about how geological processes affect ecological systems and human societies. In his book Dirt, “We see how soil has shaped us and we have shaped soil—as society after society has risen, prospered, and plowed through a natural endowment of fertile dirt,” according to Montgomery was named a MacArthur Fellow in 2008.

The Minnesota Organic Conference will be held January 9-10, 2015 at the River’s Edge Convention Center in St. Cloud. Learn about the event’s educational sessions and trade show at Registration for the conference will open in mid-November, but the public can sign up now at this web site to receive conference information and updates.

David Montgomery

David Montgomery is the author of “Dirt: The Erosion of Civilization.” He’ll speak at the Minnesota Organic Conference on Saturday, January tenth. (Photo from the Minnesota Department of Ag)

Ken Cook

Ken Cook is the President and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group. He’s speak at the Minnesota Organic Conference on January Ninth. (photo from the Minnesota Department of Ag)


Minnesota cropland rents rising

Cash Rent paid for non-irrigated cropland in Minnesota during 2014 averaged $185.00 per acre, an increase of $8.00 from 2013, according to the latest report released by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Crop land rental rates continue to rise in Minnesota, according to a new survey from the National Ag Statistics Service (Photo from

Crop land rental rates continue to rise in Minnesota, according to a new survey from the National Ag Statistics Service (Photo from

Non-irrigated cropland rents ranged from an average of $14.00 per acre in St. Louis County, to $276.00 per acre in Nicollet County. Six counties had average rents greater $270.00 per acre and 10 counties had average rents less than $40.00 per acre.

Cash rent paid for pasture in Minnesota averaged $26.00 per acre in 2014, down $2.00 from 2013. Average cash rents ranged from $8.60 per acre in Carlton County to $61.50 per acre in Brown County.

Cash rent rates for irrigated cropland and other states are available online at:

Here are some of the cash rents for southeast Minnesota:

Minnesota Farmers are shelling out an average of $8 more per acre for cropland than they did last year, according to a survey from the National Ag Statistics Service (photo from

Minnesota Farmers are shelling out an average of $8 more per acre for cropland than they did last year, according to a survey from the National Ag Statistics Service (photo from

Olmsted County: Cash rents on non-irrigated cropland average $246 per acre, up from $220 last year.  The average cash rent for pasture is $29 an acre, up from $26 last year.

Wabasha County: Cash rents on non-irrigated cropland average $222 per acre, up from $206 last year.  Cash rents for pasture average $44.50 per acre.

Dodge County:  Cash rents on non-irrigated farmland average $274 per acre, up from $264 last year.  Cash rents for pasture land average $45 dollars per acre, up from $41 last year.

Fillmore County: Cash rents for non-irrigated farmland average $236 per acre, and that’s actually down from $245 last year.  Cash rents for pasture land average $43 per acre, up from $41 dollars an acre last year.

Winona County:  Cash rents for non-irrigated cropland average $222 per acre, up from $206 last year.  Average cash rents for pasture land is $26 per acre, and that’s down from $40 per acre a year ago.



Commodity prices may head even lower

There are still opportunities for profits come harvest time, but experts say farmers will have to work harder for them (photo from stance

There are still opportunities for profits come harvest time, but experts say farmers will have to work harder for them (photo from stance

There’s no question that commodity prices have taken a pretty big tumble in the last several months. That doesn’t mean profitability has left agriculture, but it does mean farmers will have to work a little harder for it than they did in recent years.

“We’ve had opportunities over the last 5 to 6 years where if you ride the market, you could hit a home run with your marketing by selling at $6.50 or $7 a bushel,” said Arlan Suderman, the Senior Market Analyst for Waterstreet Solutions in Peoria, Illinois. “Now you’re going to have to hit a lot of singles.”

In agriculture, what goes up has to come down. Marketing experts and financial analysts looked at the recent high commodity prices with wonder, and more than a little trepidation.

“It’s kind of like a storm you see on radar. You know something’s coming, you’re just not sure what it’s going to be,” said Bob Campbell, Vice President of the southwest territory, which includes Nebraska and Wyoming, for Farm Credit Services of America (FCS).

Campbell said, “We knew that prices couldn’t sustain themselves at the 7 or 8 dollar level, and really, even over 6.” He added, “In agriculture, the best cure for high prices is high prices.”

Campbell said the downturn in prices is going to hurt producers this year. “It’s happened fast enough that, in this cycle, producers will not have had the ability to adjust their cost structure yet, so we expect producers to incur a loss this year. However, that’s coming on the heels of several years with profits that they’ve never seen before.”

As a result, going into the downturn in prices, Campbell said, “Financially, they’re generally really strong, so they’ll be able to weather the price decrease in this cycle.”

Campbell said, “If there’s any upside at all, we know that low prices are coming, and will continue if you forecast prices on the Board. Producers have some time to really evaluate their cost structure going forward, and find out if they can handle a two or three year window of low prices.”

Campbell said FCS built forecast models in case prices began to drop in land prices during the run-up, and they’ve been doing the same thing with commodity prices.

He said, “We saw the real estate prices escalating, we started a model that said we’re not going to start lending money to producers as this land market escalates. We figured out what land could service on $4 to $4.50 corn, and what kind of debt service it could handle from that point.”

“We created models in our four states that said, based on the production, and based on the area and it’s proven yields, this is the amount of debt we’re willing to extend on that acre of ground,” said Campbell.

Campbell said, “In an area where we thought the land could handle $4,500 of debt over the long term, if someone wanted to pay 10 to 12,000 dollars, that’s fine, because they’re coming in with a lot more equity. Without the equity, we knew in the long term that wouldn’t be sustainable.”

He did notice caution among lenders during the recent run-up in commodity prices. Campbell said, “What we saw going forward is most lenders didn’t follow the rising prices with increased levels of lending or credit. They kept their level of lending pretty moderate.”

Going into the price downturn, Campbell said most grain producers shouldn’t be over-leveraged. “All they really have to figure out now is what’s their cost structure. For fixed cost structure like payments, rent, your land taxes, can you do anything to lower those so we can lower the break-even point?”

Market experts are worried commodity prices may continue lower yet before we see a price floor.  (Photo from

Market experts are worried commodity prices may continue lower yet before we see a price floor. (Photo from

They’re even advising their clients to lower their family-living costs. Campbell said, “We know those costs have gone up because they could. Can you bring those back down to some degree?”

Suderman, the Senior Market Analyst at Waterstreet Solutions, said it’s going to be important for farmers to take Campbell’s advice into consideration, because he doesn’t see prices rising in the short term.

“Given outside factors pressuring the markets, and the lack of outside money in the commodity markets, we’re looking at December corn in the area of $2.85, which is lower than the market fundamentals justify.” He added, “I could see November or January soybeans going to the $9.60 area, and if it’s a really big crop, maybe $8.80.”

“Farmers are going to have to be more careful, watch their expenses, and recognize profit opportunities when they come,” said Suderman. “They have to be able to make a business decision and lock in that profit, because opportunities are not going to last very long.”

Here’s an interesting video from KRCG TV in Missouri that may support what the experts are saying about lower commodity prices as we head into the harvest season:







Faribault County Farm Family of the Year

“There’s been a lot of changes in agriculture,” said Duane Erich, a farmer from the Blue Earth area, who began farming full time in 1967.

Duane and his wife, Joyce, have been selected as the 2014 Fairbault County Farm Family of the Year.  Farming has been a part of Duane’s life since growing up on the family dairy farm with his parents and two younger brothers.

“I grew up working on my dad’s dairy farm, which was only about three miles from where I live now,” said Erich. “We usually milked 20 or 30 cows.”  He said, “It was a great experience growing up on a farm.”  Erich said the work ethic he learned during those years was the biggest factor in any success he’s had in life.

The Erich family receives it’s Fairbault County Farm Family of the Year award at the Fairbault County Fair (photo courtesy of the U of Mn Extension Service)

The Erich family receives it’s Fairbault County Farm Family of the Year award at the Fairbault County Fair (photo courtesy of the U of Mn Extension Service)

The Erich’s raise corn and soybeans on their 1,300-acre farm in Fairbault County, and they feed out roughly 300 cattle a year.

Erich said he’s known they were the County Farm Family of the Year for about a month now.  “The Extension Office in Blue Earth called and talked to my wife, and she accepted.  Then I came in, she told me, and I said they must have been running out of names,” said Erich.

“The Fairbault County Fair was last week, and we got our award there,” said Erich.  “When the kids heard we were getting this at the County Fair, they all came home.  All three kids brought their spouses, and we had a good time.”

The oldest Erich sibling, Tim, had the shortest trip home to Blue Earth, as he lives in Mankato.  The other two children had a significantly longer trip to get back home.  “Jon, he’s in Florida at the moment, and Mary is in Nevada,” said Duane.

Duane said agriculture has changed a great deal since he began full-time farming in 1967.  “There’ve been a lot of big changes,” said Erich.  “The prices of our inputs, the prices of our machinery, crop yields have increased, and there’s been a lot more government regulation too.”

There have been a lot of positive changes too.  “Herbicides are a lot better thank what we had then,” said Erich.  “The only herbicides we had back then were a hoe and a cultivator.”