Nebraska Winery and Grape Growers Forum and Trade Show

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this 11th annual Nebraska Winery and Grape Growers Forum and Trade Show. I'm John Owens, University of Nebraska Vice President and Harlan Vice Chancellor of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. I'm delighted to be with you on this second day of a very fine and informative conference.

Applications and Potentials for Biogenic Methane Recovery Operations in Nebraska Agriculture, Industry, and Economic Development

ABSTRACT: This thesis report illustrates the applications and potentials of biogenic methane recovery in Nebraska’s agricultural and industrial sectors and as a means for increasing sustainable economic development in the state’s rural communities. As the nation moves toward a new green economy, biogenic methane recovery as a waste management strategy and renewable energy resource presents significant opportunities for Nebraska to be a national and world leader in agricultural and industrial innovation, advanced research and development of renewable energy technology, and generation of new product markets. Nebraska’s agricultural economy provides a distinct advantage to the state for supporting methane recovery operations that provide long-term economic and environmental partnerships among producers, industry, and communities. These opportunities will serve to protect Nebraska’s agricultural producers from volatile energy input markets and as well as creating new markets for Nebraska agricultural products. They will also serve to provide quality education and employment opportunities for Nebraska students and businesses. There are challenges and issues that remain for the state in order to take advantage of its resource potential. There is a need to produce a comprehensive Nebraska biogenic methane potential study and digital mapping system to identify high-potential producers, co-products, and markets. There is also a need to develop a web-based format of consolidated information specific to Nebraska to aid in connecting producers, service providers, educators, and policy-makers.

Politics and Trade in the Former Soviet Union

Fifteen independent countries emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-91. Aside from the Russian Federation, the former Soviet Republics lie in four geographic regions: the Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia); Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan); the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania); and Eastern Europe (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine).

The Effects of Processing Non-Timber Forest Products and Trade Partnerships on People's Well-Being and Forest Conservation in Amazonian Societies

This study evaluated whether processing non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and establishing trade partnerships between forest communities and companies enhance the outcomes of NTFP commercialization. In particular, we evaluated whether product processing, partnerships, or their combination was associated with a number of outcomes related to the well-being of forest inhabitants and forest conservation. We based our analyses on ethnographic and quantitative data (i.e., survey and systematic observations) gathered at seven communities from five societies of the Brazilian and Bolivian Amazon. Our results indicated that product processing and partnerships do not represent a silver bullet able to improve the results of NTFP commercialization in terms of well-being and conservation indicators. Compared with cases without interventions, households adopting partnerships but not product processing were most often associated with improved economic proxies of well-being (total income, NTFP income, food consumption and gender equality in income). In comparison, the combination of product processing and partnerships was associated with similar outcomes. Unexpectedly, product processing alone was associated with negative outcomes in the economic indicators of well-being. All of the investigated strategies were associated with less time spent in social and cultural activities. With respect to forest conservation, the strategies that included a partnership with or without processing produced similar results: while household deforestation tended to decrease, the hunting impact increased. Processing alone was also associated with higher levels of hunting, though it did not reduce deforestation. Our results indicate that establishing partnerships may enhance the outcomes of NTFP trade in terms of the financial outcomes of local communities, but practitioners need to use caution when adopting the processing strategy and they need to evaluate potential negative results for indicators of social and cultural activities. With respect to conservation, the three strategies are promising for reducing deforestation, but more pervasive impacts, such as hunting, might increase.

Decentralized or centralized production : impacts to the environment, industry, and the economy

Since product take-back is mandated in Europe, and has effects for producers worldwide including the U.S., designing efficient forward and reverse supply chain networks is becoming essential for business viability. Centralizing production facilities may reduce costs but perhaps not environmental impacts. Decentralizing a supply chain may reduce transportation environmental impacts but increase capital costs. Facility location strategies of centralization or decentralization are tested for companies with supply chains that both take back and manufacture products. Decentralized and centralized production systems have different effects on the environment, industry and the economy. Decentralized production systems cluster suppliers within the geographical market region that the system serves. Centralized production systems have many suppliers spread out that meet all market demand. The point of this research is to help further the understanding of company decision-makers about impacts to the environment and costs when choosing a decentralized or centralized supply chain organizational strategy. This research explores; what degree of centralization for a supply chain makes the most financial and environmental sense for siting facilities; and which factories are in the best location to handle the financial and environmental impacts of particular processing steps needed for product manufacture. This research considered two examples of facility location for supply chains when products are taken back; the theoretical case involved shoe resoling and a real world case study considered the location of operations for a company that reclaims multiple products for use as material inputs. For the theoretical example a centralized strategy to facility location was optimal: whereas for the case study a decentralized strategy to facility location was best. In conclusion, it is not possible to say that a centralized or decentralized strategy to facility location is in general best for a company that takes back products. Each company’s specific concerns, needs, and supply chain details will determine which degree of centralization creates the optimal strategy for siting their facilities.