Scholarship & Research
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/1
Browse
35 results
Search Results
Item Registration of ‘StandClear CLP’ hard red winter wheat(2020-06) Berg, Jim E.; Kephart, Ken D.; Lamb, Peggy F.; Davis, Edward S.; Eberly, Jed O.; Miller, John H.; Chen, Chengci; Pradhan, G. P.; Torrion, Jessica A.; Ramsfield, Ron; Smith, Vincent H.; Nash, Deanna L.; Holen, Doug L.; Cook, Jason P.; Gale, Sam; Jin, Yue; Chen, X.; Bruckner, Phil L.‘StandClear CLP’ (Reg. no. CV-1162, PI 693236) hard red winter (HRW) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) was developed and released by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station and exclusively licensed to Loveland Products, Inc., in 2020. StandClear CLP is a two-gene Clearfield, semisolid-stem wheat intended for use with the selective imidazolinone (IMI) herbicide imazamox. StandClear CLP resulted from a cross of MTS0531 to an IMI herbicide tolerant F1 plant from a population segregating for two acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) genes [TaAHAS1D and TaAHAS1B]. Original herbicide tolerance donors were IMI ‘Fidel’ (TX12588*4/FS2, BASF) for allele TaAHAS1D via descended experimental lines MTCL0309 and MTCL0510, and proprietary hard red spring wheat line CDC Teal 11A (BASF Corporation) for allele TaAHAS1B. StandClear CLP was selected as a F6:7 headrow in 2014 following multiple cycles of phenotypic mass selection for IMI herbicide tolerance and stem solidness. StandClear CLP was tested under the experimental number MTCS1601 from 2016 to 2019 in Montana for field performance, herbicide tolerance, and end-use quality. StandClear CLP is a high-yielding, Clearfield HRW wheat cultivar with intermediate stem solidness, moderate host plant resistance to wheat stem sawfly, and acceptable milling and baking quality.Item From biology to behavior: a cross-disciplinary seminar series surrounding added sugar and low-calorie sweetener consumption(2019-06) Sylvetsky, A. C.; Hiedacavage, A.; Shah, H.; Pokorney, P.; Baldauf, S.; Merrigan, K.; Smith, Vincent H.; Long, M. W.; Black, R.; Robien, K.; Avena, N.; Gaine, C.; Greeberg, D.; Wootan, M. G.; Talegawkar, S.; Colon-Ramos, U.; Leahy, M.; Ohmes, A.; Mannella, J. A.; Sachek, J.; Dietz, W. H.Introduction This report presents a synopsis of a three‐part, cross‐sector, seminar series held at the George Washington University (GWU) in Washington, DC from February–April, 2018. The overarching goal of the seminar series was to provide a neutral forum for diverse stakeholders to discuss and critically evaluate approaches to address added sugar intake, with a key focus on the role of low‐calorie sweeteners (LCS). Methods During three seminars, twelve speakers from academic institutions, federal agencies, non‐profit organizations, and the food and beverage industries participated in six interactive panel discussions to address: 1) Do Farm Bill Policies Impact Population Sugar Intake? 2) What is the Impact of Sugar‐sweetened Beverage (SSB) Taxes on Health and Business? 3) Is Sugar Addictive? 4) Product Reformulation Efforts: Progress, Challenges, and Concerns? 5) Low‐calorie Sweeteners: Helpful or Harmful, and 6) Are Novel Sweeteners a Plausible Solution? Discussion of each topic involved brief 15‐minute presentations from the speakers, which were followed by a 25‐minute panel discussion moderated by GWU faculty members and addressed questions generated by the audience. Sessions were designed to represent opposing views and stimulate meaningful debate. Given the provocative nature of the seminar series, attendee questions were gathered anonymously using Pigeonhole™, an interactive, online, question and answer platform. Results This report summarizes each presentation and recapitulates key perspectives offered by the speakers and moderators. Conclusions The seminar series set the foundation for robust cross‐sector dialogue necessary to inform meaningful future research, and ultimately, effective policies for lowering added sugar intakes.Item An Introduction to Federal Crop Insurance Products for New and Beginning Wyoming Farmers and Ranchers(2019-02) Johnson, James B.; Smith, Vincent H.; Hewlett, John P.Federal crop insurance products have been available to farmers in the United States for 80 years. Beginning in the early 1990s, the range of products offered by the USDA Risk Management Agency expanded, and today farmers have access to federal crop insurance for most of the crops they grow. Currently, nationally farmers can obtain insurance for over 140 crops and forages. Over the past several years, coverage has become widely available for crops produced under organic practices at price elections based on prices that reflect organic premiums.Item Wyoming Barley Production: Opportunities to Manage Production Quality and Revenue Risks(2017-03) Johnson, James B.; Smith, Vincent H.; Hewlett, John P.Barley is an important crop in Wyoming that may be raised as animal feed or for malting. Different varieties are typically used for feed barley and malt barley and malting barley yields are generally lower than feed barley yields. Some farmers may choose to raise organic barley to serve the needs of niche markets. Insurance products offered by the USDA Risk Management Agency are available for feed barley, malting barley (through a malting barley endorsement), and organic barley. These products are the focus of this briefing paper.Item Risk Management for Wyoming Crop and Livestock Commodities Produced Under Organic Practices through the Use of Risk Management Agency Products and Farm Service Agency Programs(2016-08) Johnson, James B.; Smith, Vincent H.; Hewlett, John P.USDA organic regulations describe organic agriculture as the application of a set of cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that support the recycling of on- farm resources, promote ecological balance and conserve biodiversity. These practices include maintaining and enhancing soil and water quality; conserving wetlands and wildlife; and avoiding use of synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering.Item Risk Management for Specialty Crop and Specialty Livestock Operations through Farm Service Agency Programs and Risk Management Agency Products(2016-08) Johnson, James B.; Smith, Vincent H.; Hewlett, John P.Two questions are central to understanding producer options for risk management and other government programs related to specialty crops and specialty livestock operations. First: what is a specialty crop? Second: what is a specialty livestock operation? Each of these terms has a legal or administrative definition and a common usage definition. We begin by examining the definition and use of the term specialty crop:Item Introduction to Managing Risk and Specialty and Organic Crop and Livestock Operations(2016-08) Smith, Vincent H.; Johnson, James B.; Hewlett, John P.Producers include specialty and organic crops and specialty livestock in their farm’s enterprises for many reasons. Nevertheless, over the longer term, specialty and organic crop and livestock enterprises have to be managed in ways that ensure the farm remains profitable. On many farms specialty and organic enterprises are included because they allow the farm’s human resources to be used more effectively. A specialty livestock operation (for example, producing cheese from goat’s milk) may be introduced because a family member (child, spouse) has particular skills and interests in the enterprise and the time to manage the operation. The enterprise itself may have the added benefit of serving as a financial risk management tool because revenues from the operation are relatively stable. Increasingly, many farms are choosing to focus substantial amounts of their available resources, or even the whole farm or ranch, to specialty and organic crop and livestock enterprises.Item Managing Forage and Rangeland Production Risks on Wyoming Ranches: NAP, LFP, and PRF-VI(2015-07) Johnson, James B.; Smith, Vincent H.; Hewlett, John P.Wyoming ranch managers are increasingly seeking production risk management tools for harvested forage production and grass production on rangeland. Forage production and rangeland production risks can be addressed to some degree by using the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) provided by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under certain drought conditions rangeland forage losses are also covered by the FSA-administered Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP). Also certain crop insurance products subsidized by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), with oversight provided by the USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA), can be used to address forage losses on hayland and grazing land.Item Agricultural Leasing Study(2015-07) Haynes, George W.; Smith, Vincent H.This study describes crop-share and cash leasing arrangements in Montana for calendar year 2013 by surveying land owners, who own dry and irrigated cropland and grazing land. A dataset containing names and address of all land owners in Montana was provided by the Department of Revenue’s Property Assessment Division. A sample of 880 land owners selected from this population completed the telephone implemented by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana. Faculty members in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics at Montana State University were responsible for developing the questionnaire; conducting personal interviews with landlords, tenants, and real estate agents; and, analyzing these data.Item The Supplementary Insurance Coverage Option: A New Risk Management Tool for Wyoming Producers(2015-04) Smith, Vincent H.; Johnson, James B.; Hewlett, John P.Through the provisions of the 2014 Agricultural Act that became law on February 17, 2014, Wyoming farmers have new farm income safety net-related policy tools that can be used to improve the financial performance of their operations. These tools are intended to enable farmers to increase the average incomes they obtain from their operations and, at the same time, moderate the financial risks they face in managing their enterprises. However, the new set of policy tools requires farmers to make choices among the competing alternatives now available to them about which crop specific programs they should use.