“Farm bill” is a colloquial term for omnibus legislation that authorizes various government programs related to agriculture, food, and rural areas. Some of these programs have their roots in New Deal legislation. Others were initially authorized after the New Deal and subsequently included in farm bills. Some debate exists about exactly which omnibus legislation was the precursor of modern-day farm bills. However, since at least 1973, farm bills have included titles related to farm programs, trade, rural development, farm credit, conservation, agricultural research, food and nutrition programs, and marketing. Beginning in 2008, crop insurance-authorizing language was also included in the farm bill.

Farm bills generally have a life of approximately five years. In the case of farm support programs (typically authorized in Title 1), the farm billtemporarily amends permanent legislation. When the farm bill expires, theseprograms revert to permanent legislation (from the 1930s and 1940s) unless a new farm bill is adopted that again temporarily amends permanent legislation. The permanent legislation would put in place price supports, at extremely high levels, for many agricultural commodities, distorting markets and greatly increasing federal costs. The specter of reverting to permanent legislation has, through the years, been used by Congress to ensure that future Congresses will replace expiring farm bills with new legislation.

The best advice given to me on my first real job was, “The only way you’re not going to make mistakes is if you’re not doing your job” (Laubhan, 1972). Another quote from Henry Ford, “Theonly real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing,” added tomy philosophical base (Ford and Crowther, 1922). Without the wisdom conveyedby Laubhan and Ford, plus Oklahoma State University colleague Phil Kenkel’s (1990) famous quote, “How hard can it be?,” mine could have been just another mediocre career.

As a dairy and farm boy from Muskogee County, Oklahoma, with a new Ph.D. in agricultural economics, I set out to educate producers in the area of marketing and risk management. I noticed that attendance at meetings and workshops was good. Participants were interested and listened. They even triedsome of my ideas. Nearly all of them, if not all, reverted back to decisions and techniques they had used before my meetings or workshops.

Observant and inquisitive soul that I was, I conducted research to determine who was right. The results indicated that the producers were mostly right! If research-based information and education were to be transferred, and management practices were to be changed, either the subject matter and/or the method of delivery had to change.

I begin my presentation at today’s “Southern Agricultural Economics Association’s (SAEA) Lifetime Achievement Award Winners’ Symposium” by thanking those who made this award possible. Thank you to members of the selection committee and to my nominator, Dr. Michael Wetzstein, and recommenders, Drs. Steve Blank, Eduardo Seggara, and GailCramer. These individuals have seen me “grow up” in the agricultural economics profession and I am grateful for their guidance, wisdom,and friendship. I am also grateful to the members of the SAEA and the manyopportunities the Association has provided, including serving as an officer for six years and coeditor of the Association’s Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics with Virginia Tech (VT) colleague, Darrell Bosch, for the past three years.

The Southern Agricultural Economics Association has made great contributions to our profession. In doing so, it has provided a platform for its members to conduct research, teaching, and Extension education that contributed significantly to the economic growth and success of Southern agriculture and rural communities. I am humbled by the honor received through this Lifetime Achievement Award and want to thank the association and the many colleagues across the profession and in my department at Texas A&M University for their partnership and support over the years. I also want to thankmy wife and family for the contributions they have made to my professional career. Their interest and understanding helped me see through some of the difficult choices and times; and they were there for the celebrations as well. In this article, I have chosen a theme that, to me, has defined much of my professional career. We all have stories or life narratives. This is one of mine.

How can farmers engage in, or influence, downstream marketing activities in a way that increases returns for what would otherwise be a simple sale of a commodity at the market price? The idea of design in the context of marketing decisions of farmers evolved in my mind as the result of early experience on the farm and exposure in college to ideas that have influenced my career ever since.

Environmental valuation is the branch of environmental economics in which researchers estimate the economic value of environmental goods and services. Environmental valuation has been practiced for decades. However, there are some ideas in the field of environmental valuation held by many environmental economists and nonenvironmental economists that appear to be outdated. This article discusses three such ideas: 1) that it is better to estimate willingness-to-pay values than willingness-to-accept values; 2) that stated preference valuation methods are questionable because they are based on hypothetical choices rather than real choices; and 3) that it is better to use a repeated-choice question format than a single-choice format in choiceexperiments. We discuss the origins of each idea and why the idea became prevalent in the first place. We then review recent literature, which casts doubt on the idea. We conclude with a reminder for researchers—in environmental economics and in other economic fields—to periodically reassess ideas they currently hold in light of recent research developments and in light of the context in which they are used.

A multiobjective optimization model integrating with high-resolution geographical data was applied to examine the optimal switchgrass supply system in Tennessee that considers both feedstock cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the system. Results suggest that the type of land converted into switchgrass production is crucial to both plant gate cost and GHG emissions of feedstock. In addition, a tradeoff relationship between cost and GHG emissions for the switchgrass supply is primarily driven by the type of land converted. The imputed cost of lowering GHG emissions in the feedstock supply system was also calculated based on the derived tradeoff curve.

Biofuel production from lignocellulosic biomass (LCB) is being advocated as an alternative to fossil-based transportation fuels in the United States. LCB-based biofuel production has the potential to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transportation sector and to enhance rural economic activity through more intense use of agricultural lands (English et al., 2006). The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) established in 2005 and revised in the Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 mandates 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuel (other than ethanol derived from corn starch) available for transportation use by 2022 with 16 billion gallons to be produced from LCB feedstock (U.S. Congress, 2007). Based on the recently revised One Billion Ton Update study (U. S. Department of Energy, 2011), considerable LCB feedstock, including dedicated energy crops, will be required to fulfill this goal. Notwithstanding the potential availability of LCB feedstock to meet the mandate, the cost of LCB feedstock will be an important factor influencing the sustainability of an LCB-based biofuel industrial sector.

Consumer preferences for four livestock products were investigated to determine consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for livestock production process attributes. We use an inferred method of attribute nonattendance (ANA) using the coefficient of variation on individual specific parameter estimates to assess the variability of preference intensity for various product characteristics. We find that accounting for ANA did not significantly impact mean estimates of WT P. Implications of our findings on the reliability of existing work in the area of consumer preferences for animal welfare attributes are discussed.