Iowa Power Fund Board Project Report Update, July 29, 2009

Amana Farms is using an anaerobic digestion, which is a two-stage digester that converts manure and other organic wastes into three valuable by-products: 1) Biogas – to fuel an engine/generator set to create electricity; 2) Biosolids - used as a livestock bedding material or as a soil amendment; 3) Liquid stream - will be applied as a low-odor fertilizer to growing crops. (see Business Plan appendix H) The methane biogas will be collected from the two stages of the anaerobic digestion vessel and used for fuel in the combined heat and power engine/generator sets. The engine/generator sets are natural gasfueled reciprocating engines modified to burn biogas. The electricity produced by the engine/generator sets will be used to offset on-farm power consumption and the excess power will be sold directly to Amana Society Service Company as a source of green power. The waste heat, in the form of hot water, will be collected from both the engine jacket liquid cooling system and from the engine exhaust (air) system. Approximately 30 to 60% of this waste heat will be used to heat the digester. The remaining waste heat will be used to heat other farm buildings and may provide heat for future use for drying corn or biosolids. The digester effluent will be pumped from the effluent pit at the end of the anaerobic digestion vessel to a manure solids separator. The mechanical manure separator will separate the effluent digested waste stream into solid and liquid fractions. The solids will be dewatered to approximately a 35% solid material. Some of the separated solids will be used by the farm for a livestock bedding replacement. The remaining separated solids may be sold to other farms for livestock bedding purposes or sold to after-markets, such as nurseries and composters for soil amendment material. The liquid from the manure separator, now with the majority of the large solids removed, will be pumped into the farm’s storage lagoon. A significant advantage of the effluent from the anaerobic digestion treatment process is that the viscosity of the effluent is such that the liquid effluent can now be pumped through an irrigation nozzle for field spreading.

Iowa Family Farm Meat Directory, 2007

This directory is for all the meat producers in Iowa.

Integrated Farm/Livestock Management Demonstration Program, 2002

Farm/Livestock Management Demonstration Program produced by Iowa Departmment of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals, March 2000

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis (summarized in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-00). At the request of several members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate, we have continued to analyze the impacts of the Farmers’ Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). Earlier analysis reported in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #04-99 concentrated on the aggregate net farm income and government outlay impacts. The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms in Tom Green County, Texas; dryland wheat farms in Morton County, North Dakota and Sumner County, Kansas; and a corn farm in Webster County, Iowa. We consider additional factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans. 1. Farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios. 2. Additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing. 3. Implications of within-year price shocks. Our results indicate that farmers who buy crop insurance will increase their coverage levels under S. 1580. Farmers with high yield risk find that the 65 percent coverage level maximizes expected returns, but some who feel that they obtain other benefits from higher coverage will find that the S. 1580 subsidy schedule significantly lowers the cost of obtaining the additional coverage. Farmers with lower yield risk find that the increased indemnities from additional coverage will more than offset the increase in producer premium. In addition, because S. 1580 extends its increased premium subsidy percentages to revenue insurance products, farmers will have an increased incentive to buy revenue insurance. Differences in the ancillary benefits from crop insurance under the baseline and S. 1580 would be driven by the increase in insurance participation and buy-up. Given the same levels of insurance participation and buy-up, the ancillary benefits under the two scenarios would be the same.

U.S. Farm Policy and the Variability of Commodity Prices and Farm Revenues, February 2000

A dynamic, three-commodity rational-expectations storage model is used to compare the impact of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 with a freemarket policy and with the agricultural policies that preceded the FAIR Act. Results support the hypothesis that the changes made when FAIR was enacted did not lead to permanent significant increases in the volatility of farm prices or revenues. An important finding is that the main economic impacts of the Pre-FAIR scenario, relative to the free-market regime were to transfer income to farmers and to substitute government storage for private storage in a way that did little to support prices or to stabilize farm incomes.

Integrated Farm/Livestock Management Demonstration Program, 2004

Farm/Livestock Management Demonstration Program produced by Iowa Departmment of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

Integrated Farm/Livestock Management Demonstration Program, 2001

Farm/Livestock Management Demonstration Program produced by Iowa Departmment of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

Integrated Farm/Livestock Management Demonstration Program, 2003

Farm/Livestock Management Demonstration Program produced by Iowa Departmment of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

Get a GRIP: Should Area Revenue Coverage Be Offered through the Farm Bill or as a Crop Insurance Program? 2007

The successful expansion of the U.S. crop insurance program has not eliminated ad hoc disaster assistance. An alternative currently being explored by members of Congress and others in preparation of the 2007 farm bill is to simply remove the “ad hoc” part of disaster assistance programs by creating a standing program that would automatically funnel aid to hard-hit regions and crops. One form such a program could take can be found in the area yield and area revenue insurance programs currently offered by the U.S. crop insurance program. The Group Risk Plan (GRP) and Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP) programs automatically trigger payments when county yields or revenues, respectively, fall below a producer-elected coverage level. The per-acre taxpayer costs of offering GRIP in Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa for corn and soybeans through the crop insurance program are estimated. These results are used to determine the amount of area revenue coverage that could be offered to farmers as part of a standing farm bill disaster program. Approximately 55% of taxpayer support for GRIP flows to the crop insurance industry. A significant portion of this support comes in the form of net underwriting gains. The expected rate of return on money put at risk by private crop insurance companies under the current Standard Reinsurance Agreement is approximately 100%. Taking this industry support and adding in the taxpayer support for GRIP that flows to producers would fund a county target revenue program at the 93% coverage level.

Department of Commerce, Farm Account FY2007

These Facts sheets have been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/departments on a single sheet of paper. The Facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave & benefits information, and affirmative action data. This is the most recent update of information for the fiscal year 2007.

Department of Commerce, Farm Account FY2008

These Facts sheets have been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/departments on a single sheet of paper. The Facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave & benefits information, and affirmative action data. This is the most recent update of information for the fiscal year 2007.

Agency Fact Sheet, Department of Corrections: Farm Account, FY2007

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Agency Fact Sheet, Department of Corrections: Farm Account, FY2008

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Agency Fact Sheet, Department of Corrections: Farm Account, FY2009

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Agency Fact Sheet, Department of Corrections: Farm Account, FY2010

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.