On the surface, entrepreneurs and farmers might not seem to have much in common. One is many times associated with technology, finance, and innovation, and, unfortunately, the farmer is often construed as some kind of country bumpkin. However, both of these groups are forced to take very high risks, innovate within the context of implementation, and navigate across a whole spectrum of activities ranging from accounting to marketing.
I spend a lot of time talking with entrepreneurs that are working towards commercializing new green technologies, new crops, and biobased products. In fact, most of what I have learned in ten years of working in this field has been during my own time in the trenches, actually planting and harvesting a variety of crops, dealing with the challenges of packaging and labeling new products, and trying to reason with my accountant and investors. I can truly say that I have learned the most from the various challenges of a new product or idea with the people that have sweated it out over the last decade or longer.
I have mentioned a few of these before such as Tom Rymsza at Vision Paper, Kim Kristoff of Gemtek, Geof Kime of Stemergy, Brent Brasher of Kengro, and Ed Lehburger of PureVision. Talking with them over the years has taught me virtually everything I know about the complexities of an emerging solar/plant-based economy.
One of the common frustrations that these leaders face is that the research and government organizations come to them for ideas or product samples, but instead of treating them as the drivers of innovation, they are treated as one of the cogs in the wheel. This is unfortunate because the entrepreneurs and farmers are going to be the ones that solve the thousands of interrelated problems and opportunities as new biofuels and biobased products technology comes into the marketplace.
A few years ago at the World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology conference in Toronto, I raised this same point on behalf of the farmers, who are continually viewed as "providers of cheap feedstocks" – but rarely as tactical partners. The following are a few of the many reasons that farmers should be seen as more than just bubbas that can make inexpensive replacements for petroleum feedstocks:
• Farmers will have an integral role in working out the incredibly complex logistics of harvesting and handling the massive amounts of biomass needed to fulfill the goals of the recently passed Energy Bill (21 billion gallons by 2022).
• They understand the inherent variables involved in growing plants.
• Quality control and identity preservation.
• Sources of new ideas and innovations.
• Willing partners and effective voices.
The effective voice component has been used to the advantage of the entire biobased products industry, as "rural development" is widely touted as a reason for policies to support the development of renewable products such as biofuels. Interestingly, polls by the National Corn Growers Association and Farm Bureau both indicate that individual, family farmers are ranked with teachers, clergy and firefighters, while corporate farmers and agribusiness ranked as low as trial lawyers and politicians. In fact, 89% of the American public said they would believe a family farmer in an advertisement. This fact has not been lost on the large businesses who are promoting the bioeconomy as an answer to rural development while also looking for ways to boost incentives for farm-based products.
As the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed with its significant RFS focusing on cellulosic biofuels (21 billion gallons by 2022), the hope is that the farmer's role as a major contributor will be recognized as both the supplier of materials at the farm gate as well as the developer of an entire new value chain for both biofuels and chemicals.
Similarly, as the Energy Bill focuses on bulk biofuels and energy, the Senate version of the Farm Bill includes some focus on specialty crops and other new innovations. The same inadequate view of the farmer's potential contributions trickles to the entrepreneurs. I have heard many complaints and concerns about the university and government's lack of understanding of the way products move from idea to the marketplace. Many times there is the impression that some of these entities are more focused on getting funding for projects than fostering the commercialization of new biobased products. It is important that these institutions take some leadership from the people who understand the ins and outs of building successful businesses.
I would encourage the institutions, universities, NGOs and government agencies to avoid the perception that the emerging bioeconomy will simply be an offshoot of the current agricultural production system involving corn and soybeans. Rather, it will be an extremely elaborate, interrelated system of new crops, existing crops, animals, new biological processes, trees, and a variety of innovations. It will not be a one-size-fits-all approach; the flexibility and on-the-fly innovation of both entrepreneurs and early-adopting farmers will be a profound contributor.
Please feel free to contact Peter Nelson of BioDimensions at pnelson@biobased.org to discuss this article.