3rd Virginia Regional Market Analysis
and Outlook utilizing the Internet as
an Interactive Delivery System
MIKE ROBERTS
COMMODITY MARKETING EXTENSION
AGENT, VIRGINIA
FARM BUSINESS MANAGEMENT EXTENSION
AGENT, SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA
Prince George County Extension Office
P.O. Box 68, 6450 Administration Drive
Prince George, VA 23875
804-733-2686; 804-733-2676 fax; 804-720-1993 cell
mrob@vt.edu
Change is inevitable … Except from a
vending machine … Ron Plain
Whether it is good or bad depends upon your perspective
Funding
 Project funding sponsor:
 This material is based upon work supported by
USDA/CSREES under Award Number 2007-49200-03891
Why?
 Decreasing land grant budgets
 Decreasing number of specialists & field faculty
 Changing extension audiences and delivery tools/methods
 Expanded role of field extension faculty
 Changing teaching/research & extension requirements
 Risk Management more important now than ever before
Project Time Frame
 Pilot project 2006 - $1,000.00
 Outlook 2007/08 - $40,000.00
 Outlook 2008/09 - $50,000.00
 Outlook and County Meetings 2009/10

$44,000.00
Project Summary
 Partnered with:
Community Colleges of Virginia and VDOT
 14 U.S. Land Grants & Universidad Catolica, BA,
SA
 37 Specialists
 US State Department - US Consulate, Buenos
Aires, SA
 CME Group, CBOT, eHedger, LLC, DTN
 Farm Credit / Farm Bureau
 Other Ag. influencers – Elevator operators, input
dealers, etc.

Project Summary
 Presented Risk Management
Information and measured impacts
via:
The Internet
 PolyCom and Tannberg
 Telephone lines for slower hookups
 Presentations – fully interactive
 On-site presentations
 Impact measurement – Focus groups, pre-post
test, internet survey (survey monkey), personal
follow up

Project Summary
 The program was developed from pilot project.
 Presenters were recruited and trained – A MUST!
 IT training – A MUST!
 Seminar sites were identified
 ’07/’08 projects - web site developed to market the seminars,




allow web based registration, post presenter bios, and
meeting proceedings
’08/’09 Project marketing – personal contact, mailings,
brochures, news media, word of mouth
Utilized community college network and marketing channels
Ag. Influencer support promoted project
Local Extension Agent buy in – POSITIVELY a MUST!
Project Summary
 Participant Targets:
 Extension Agents, Producers, Processors, Lenders, Vendors,
Decision Makers, and any other Ag. Influencer that could be
identified.
 500
producers, 200 extension educators, 100 community
influencers, 50 Small or limited resource farmers
 Sequential learners ~750.
 Project Goals:






Present information that helps participants make better decisions
Target different geographic regions
Small farmers and lifestyle farmers
Enlist new collaborators
Make best and highest use of Extension educational resources
Project Summary
 Producer Learning Objectives:





Understand futures and risk management tools
Understand economic outlook sectors affecting participants
Understand where to find more marketing resources
Be able to anticipate market movement and make profitable decisions
Learn about the futures market and other risk management tools and how to
use them to increase farm-gate profits.
 Extension Agent Learning Objectives:



Acquire a broader, up-to-date knowledge of commodity market outlook
Enable them to pass along information to Extension clients
Gain a broader knowledge of:
 Risk management tools
 Current market and Economic conditions
Project Summary
 Ag. Influencer Objectives:





Learn most up-to-date economic and market outlook
Use that information to maximize customer service to clients
Be better equipped to help clients maximize profits
Familiarize them with Outlook project mission, vision, and potential for
future projects
Enlist them as collaborators in order to reach more participants in future
project years
 Project development Objectives:



Show that this type of project would leverage already limited human and
fiscal Extension program delivery resources
Demonstrate the need for this type of program to the delineated program
participants, collaborators, potential funders, and extension administration
Show that this type of educational program could be developed and
expanded in future years with success
Project Results
 Pilot meeting showed a clear need for a good “on-
site/remote” speaker mix.
Interacting with Matias Nardi of Buenos
Aires, SA and Dr. Delton Gerloff, UT
Dr. David Anderson – TAMU – Cattle
Dr. Ron Plain - Cattle
Dr. Emmit Rawles - Cattle
Different room Set ups
Dr. Don Shurley - Cotton
Dr. Gregg Ibendahl - Inputs
Congressman Bob
Goodlatte On-site
Farm Bill Outlook
presentation.
Professor James
Pease On-site Farm
Bill Outlook
presentation.
Small Farmer / Lender Collaboration Meeting, Virginia State University
Small Farmer / Lender Collaboration Meeting, Virginia State University
“FARM” 101 Cattle
Producer Marketing Class
Futures, Assumptions, Risk, and Marketing
Dan Gramza – CME
Group, Chicago
Explaining Candlestick
Charts and trading
strategies.
Good view of room and what Ron Plain saw on his end.
“FARM” 101 Cattle Producer
Marketing Class
Students had homework and old
fashioned handouts to aid distance
presenters
6 classes involved over 270
participants
Impacts
 IMPACT STATEMENT to Date:
 859 producers, 271 Extension agents, 353 agriculture community
influencers, and 1,891 extended learners.
 By respective year:
2006 Pilot: 49 producers, 7 Extension agents, and
23 ag. influencers participated;
 2007: 146 producers, 57 Extension agents, and 94
ag. influencers participated;
 2008: 272 producers, 79 Extension agents, and 139
ag. influencers participated.
 2009: 392 producers, 128 Extension agents, and 97
ag. influencers

Impacts
 Increased Aggregate net profits in the amount of
$2,063,761.50 to date
 2006: $39,500.00 was made in additional profits
 2007: $638,116.50 was added to the bottom line due to
$365,107.50 in additional revenue and $273,009.00 in input
savings
 2008: $899,085.00 / $456,055.00 in nitrogen savings &
$443,030.00 additional revenues from forward commodity
sales and hedging activities.
 2009: $487,060.00 / $135,013.00 in input savings &
$352,047.00 in risk management strategies.
 Savings in speaker travel costs = $166,904.00
 2006: $4,005.00 / 2007: $27,575.00 / 2008: $36,825.00 /
2009: $98,500.00
Project Results
 Producers:
 99% (+2%) of participants said they had a better-to-muchbetter understanding of the current local, regional, and world
market outlook for their relative commodity group or
business interest
 100% said they where better able to find more marketing
resources
 86% (+5%) said they would be better able to anticipate
market movement and make profitable decisions
 95% (+4%) said they gained a better understanding of how
to use the futures market and other risk management tools
Project Results
 Extension Agents:
 96% (+7%) acquired more up-to-date knowledge of
commodity market outlook
 87% (+11%) said they were more comfortable passing
along marketing and outlook information learned in the
seminars to clients.
 93% (+2%) said they gained a broader knowledge of risk
management tools and current market strategies
 95% (+66%) said they would help support another
project via a more active role in advertising and
encouraging clientele to attend. (Only 21% said they
would support future work after year 1).
Project Results
 Ag. Influencers :
 100% Learn most up-to-date economic and market outlook
 100% said information presented in seminars would allow them to
better serve their clients and help them maximize profits
 100% fully endorsed the current Outlook project and expressed a
willingness to participate more pro-actively in future projects
 Unexpected:






Producer collaboration on selling truckload lots
Producer networking on input buying
Producers and brokers collaborated on hedging
Lenders and producers collaborating on retained
ownership and feedlot cattle
One Extension audience consisted of 43 South American
cattle producers in Buenos Aires, SA
I have been invited to collaborate in 3 countries this
summer to develop this technology for several firms
Lessons Learned in over 4+ years
 Must have local Extension agent support
 Must have help in promoting program (letters, web,




personal contact, etc.)
Must give participants something worth their while
besides supper (ie. “Must realize their time is valuable!”)
If you do, they will even pay to attend
Old Extension program model still viable – Give them a
“How To” segment combined with a Risk Management
segment
People still want the Land Grant UNBIASED opinion
and research
Lessons Learned in over 4+ years
 Must have TWO-WAY speaker and participant interaction
 Technology is simple, flexible, and can maximize limited
fiscal and physical resources if “Program Producer” does
homework and puts effort into it
 This can be a new Extension paradigm and way to reach
world-wide audiences in real time
 The Extension “Hey-Day” of the 60’s and 70’s is over.
Audiences are more “Techno-Savvy” and will use
technology to get information – whether Extension
provides it or not
 If Extension and the Land Grants don’t come into the 21st
Century they will be replaced with paid consultants who
are already doing this by the bucket loads
Questions
Virginia Regional Market Analysis
and Outlook utilizing the Internet
as an Interactive Delivery System
MIKE ROBERTS
COMMODITY MARKETING EXTENSION
AGENT, VIRGINIA
FARM BUSINESS MANAGEMENT EXTENSION
AGENT, SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA
Prince George County Extension Office
P.O. Box 68, 6450 Administration Drive
Prince George, VA 23875
804-733-2686; 804-733-2676 fax; 804-720-1993 cell
mrob@vt.edu