 |
|||
|
.
Regional Farm & Food Project Summer 2007 News If you believe now is the time to act, these news stories should interest you! 12 news stories...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 1. The 2007 Farm Bill is Now Being Written, Here's What You Can Do At the end of this article are the names and phone numbers of all the members of the House Agriculture Committee. We want a Farm Bill for the Northeast that fosters healthy, local food, protects the environment, and provides equitable access to agriculture programs. Our 24 Senators and 100 Representatives constitute a powerful block. Their votes will shape the next Farm Bill. Visit http://www.healthyfarmbill.org. One click allows you to send letters to your representatives in Congress. You simply enter your name and address, and the message is automatically sent to your Representative and Senator. You'll see the text of the message -- it reflects Northeast priorities (http://www.nesawg.org/pubs/northeast_farm_bill_agenda_one_pager.pdf), yet it does not lobby for any specific bill or proposal. This website is sponsored by the Farm and Food Policy Project (http://www.farmandfoodproject.org). For every 100 messages from your state, FFPP will hand deliver a basket of local food to your representatives. Let's start counting! Farm Bill Action Items from the Community Food Security Coalition... I. Action Needed During July 4 Congressional Recess (July 2-5) With Members of Congress in their home districts this week, it is an important time to contact your Member at a local event or at the district office, and request his or her support for maintaining the $30 million mandatory authorization of Community Food Projects, and the inclusion of geographic preference language in the final version of the Farm Bill. This is an important moment to emphasize the value of our healthy and local food priorities for a cross section of groups now interested in the Farm Bill -- farmers, urban districts, rural communities, etc. -- all this at fairly low cost legislative requests. As the Farm Bill process becomes increasingly complex, we must emphasize the value of policies to support healthy food systems to our legislators. Talking points on CFSC main issues—for Community Food Projects, Geographic Preferences, and Healthy Food Enterprise Development program—will be available shortly on our website: <http://www.foodsecurity.org/policy> . Language in the recent Resolution from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and a letter from four governors to the Congressional Agriculture Leadership (see below) is supportive of these priorities, and can be used as a guide for conversations with Congressional offices as well as media outlets. II. New Timeline - Two Farm Bills Chairman Peterson announced last Friday, June 29, that there will be two Farm Bills drafted by the House Agriculture Committee to account for the lack of new funding included in the budget. One bill will include all of the items that fit in to the existing Farm Bill budget, and the other will include other items that are contingent upon offsets being found. The Chairman has indicated that he hopes this will make the process of moving a bill out of committee easier. For more information about the 2 Farm Bill proposals, see this week’s Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Weekly Update. Both bills will be released by Chairman Peterson on Friday July 6th, and the committee will meet on July 17th to debate the proposals, with space reserved for the Farm Bill on the House floor the week of July 26th. The Senate schedule has not been released, but it is expected that the Senate Agriculture Committee will likely meet in mid-late July to review their own draft of the Farm Bill. III. Groups Weigh In on Farm Bill a. Last week, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution sponsored by 12 Mayors from around the U.S. which resolved their support for reforming U.S. agricultural policy in support of health and nutrition for citizens and communities. The text of the Resolution is available at http://usmayors.org/75thAnnualMeeting/resolutions_full.pdf Several groups are working to capitalize on the momentum of the resolution via a press release and coordinated op-eds with quotes from Mayors around the country. b. Additionally, a letter to the Congressional Agriculture leadership from the Governors of Texas, New York, Florida and California outlined similar goals for a reformed Farm Bill to support the health of communities and farming. Click here for Press Release and the text of the letter: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2007-06-26.5150 c. A group of interested organizations and individuals has been working on bringing a health-based perspective to support healthy food and communities provisions in the Farm Bill. A series of calls during the past several weeks has helped to steer the IATP sign-on letter from health professionals that was released several weeks ago, and will be organizing a series of meetings with target Congressional staff next week. Please contact Thomas@foodsecurity.org or aliza.wasserman@gmail.com for more information or to get involved with this coordinating group. Other Farm Bill News a. According to the National Journal’s Congress Daily, Senate Agriculture Chairman Harkin said last Tuesday he intends for Congress to pass a new Farm Bill with moderate reform, wanting to find money for conservation, rural development and nutrition priorities by limiting individual farm subsidy payments and by cutting back the program of direct payments to farmers. b. With the expiration Saturday of the Fast Track Presidential authority over international trade negotiations, Rep. Kaptur says she will introduce legislation in July that would suspend NAFTA. c. With the failure of the Senate immigration reform bill, according to Congress Daily last week, Senator Feinstein hopes that the AgJobs agricultural worker provisions may be potentially attached to the Farm Bill, although Congressional Agricultural leadership has expressed reservations about adding any additional components to an already complicated Farm Bill. 110th CONGRESS: HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE Democrats
Republicans
2. Excerpts from Time Magazine's "The Growing Dangers of the China Trade" From Time Magazine, July 9, 2007 Excerpts:
3. U.S. Apple Growers Brace for China Rivals By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press Writer, June 24, 2007 GETTYSBURG, Pa. - Farmers have been growing apples here since before the Civil War, and as times have changed, they have changed with them, planting smaller trees to speed up harvests and growing popular new varieties to satisfy changing tastes. Like farmers in the bigger apple-producing states, they are becoming increasingly anxious about the prospect of China flooding the U.S. market with their fresh apples — an event many believe is inevitable, even if it could be years away. With the Farm Bill up for renewal this year for the first time since 2002, apple growers are pressing for an unprecedented amount of federal funding to develop technologies to make harvesting less costly, and aid to develop overseas markets. "We‘re facing a threat that we‘ve never faced before in terms of their ability to come in and essentially replace every apple that we produce in this country numerically and at a much lower cost," said John Rice, a seventh-generation grower whose grandfather made money in the Depression era by gathering apples from area growers and shipping them to England in 100-pound barrels. "We have to lower our costs and we have to do what other successful business have done in the face of Chinese competition and that is to innovate, to stay ahead, to either grow new varieties that they don‘t grow in China, or whatever it takes," Rice said. China‘s advantage is its cheap labor. A picker makes about 28 cents an hour, or $2 per day, according to the U.S. Apple Association. In 2005, workers in Pennsylvania made about $9 to $10 per hour, and those in Washington state about $14 per hour, the association said. To gain access to the market here, China must prove that it meets U.S. standards for pest and disease control. The U.S. Apple Association said the Department of Agriculture‘s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service sent a list of more than 300 insects and diseases of concern to the quarantine inspection agency of the Chinese government in 2003. The Chinese government responded the next year, and then the United States asked for information on 52 pests from the list. Already, U.S. apple growers compete with Chinese growers for sales in parts of Southeast Asia and India. "It was an uproar within the industry," said Jim Allen, president of the New York Apple Association. "What can we do? It just takes the bottom right out of our market when the product is being delivered to New York City for less than we can process and harvest it here in the United States." Third-generation Pennsylvania grower Dave Benner, 61, like most growers, has slowly replaced older larger trees in his orchard with smaller dwarf ones that are close together. That makes the fruit easier and faster to pick. He also pays close attention to consumer demand and to the world market. "Business is still business whether you‘re in agriculture production or you‘re in commercial manufacturing," Benner said. "When people want small economical cars then the automobile industry had to change. When people say they like the flavor of Gala or Fuji apples ... that‘s what I have to be growing." Because more than half of the cost of growing apples goes toward labor, researchers have been working to develop technology and practices that will help cut labor costs. Among the concepts under development are machines that will allow apples to be mechanically picked without bruising, and platforms that lift up pickers so they don‘t have to climb ladders. The apple industry is working with other fruit and vegetable industries to seek, in the 2007 Farm Bill, about $1 billion annually for research, a state block program, a program that helps it develop overseas markets and for expansion for a program that provides fruits and vegetables to school kids. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, called these "basic nuts-and-bolts" items that would improve competitiveness. The current Farm Bill, which was worth about $100 billion, passed in 2002 and expires in September. In it, country-of-origin labeling was mandated, but its implementation has been delayed until September 2008 because of opposition by retailers and others who say it is too burdensome. Most apples already carry the labeling, but Mark Barrett, 52, a grower in Washington‘s Yakima Valley, said full implementation is the best way to help U.S. apple growers. "I believe if we had country-of-origin labeling that the consumers would buy U.S. all the time," Barrett said. Allen, the head of the New York apple growers group, said it would be hard to promote U.S. apples as being better than foreign-grown apples if consumers can‘t be sure where they have been grown. One bad apple, he said, might give all apples a bad name. For more information visit U.S. Apple Association. 4. NH State Law Makes Homemade Goods Safer, Easier to Sell (Nashua Telegraph) - Summer’s arrival on Thursday marked the opening of farmers markets across the region, venues for nature’s harvest and the ever-popular homemade pies, jams and jellies long associated with outdoor shopping. Selling and buying homemade products that don’t require refrigeration will be easier and safer this year thanks to a new, two-tiered state law that regulates home production in most communities across the state. The law, which doesn’t apply in Nashua because of its status as a self-inspecting community, affects sales of products sold at farmers markets and farm stands, which have established farmers markets. By city law, Nashua farmers markets aren’t allowed to sell homemade products. The new regulation was designed to protect the public from food-borne illnesses while encouraging the development of small businesses, said Jack Potter, a Sanbornton farmer who helped write the law. 5. Will Congress Vote to Support Small Scale Meat Processors? Background: The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) agency provides approximately $43 million dollars annually to support the 28 state Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) Programs currently operating. State Meat and Poultry Inspection Programs are an integral part of the nation's food safety system. FSIS provides up to 50% of the state's MPI operating funds, as well as training and other assistance. About 2,100 meat and poultry establishments are inspected under state MPI programs. All of these establishments are small or very small. State MPI programs are characterized as providing more personalized guidance to establishments in developing their food safety operations. State MPI programs operate under a cooperative agreement with FSIS. Under the agreement, a state's program must enforce requirements "at least equal to" those imposed under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Establishments have the option to apply for federal or state inspection. However, product produced under state inspection is limited to intrastate commerce. Here is the latest news: NEW INTERSTATE BILL INTRODUCED. On June 27, Rep. Zach Space (OH) introduced H.R. 2876 which would allow interstate sales of state-inspected meat and poultry. H.R. 2876 takes a different approach than other bills to allow interstate meat sales. Specifically, the bill would require USDA to verify that state inspection programs are equal to the federal inspection program. If USDA determines that an individual state plant does not meet the “equal to” federal inspection requirements, then that state plant would not be eligible to ship meat and poultry in interstate commerce. 2007 FARM BILL EXPECTED TO INCLUDE INTERSTATE. The House Agriculture Committee is expected to include provisions in the 2007 Farm Bill legislation that would allow interstate meat sales. The Committee plans to consider the Farm Bill the week of July 17. CONTINUE GRASSROOTS EFFORTS. Many lawmakers will be in their home states and districts during the congressional recess next week (July 2-8)---this is a great time to let them know the importance of interstate meat sales legislation. Please take a few minutes to call, fax or write your House Representatives--especially if they serve on the House Agriculture Committee--they need to hear from us! Ask them to support and cosponsor interstate meat sales legislation---and to include it in the Farm Bill. The list of House Agriculture Committee members is in the first article of this newsletter. - - - P E T I T I O N - - - Support Legislation For Local Economic Growth, Fair Markets, Small Business and Consumers Support Interstate Meat Sales Legislation An outdated and unfair law from the 1960s prohibits the sale of state inspected meat products (beef, poultry, pork, lamb and goat) across state lines. There are 2,000 state-inspected meat processors–mostly small, family-owned businesses–who are prevented from competing in the national marketplace. Legislation has been introduced in the House—H.R. 1760 by Rep. Ron Kind (WI),H.R. 2315 by Reps. Earl Pomeroy (ND) and Roy Blunt (MO), and H.R. 2876 by Rep. Zach Space (OH). All of the bills would allow state-inspected meat and poultry to be sold nationwide. We urge Congress to take action now because: Meat and poultry products from 34 foreign countries can be freely shipped and sold anywhere in the U.S.—but our domestic small businesses and processors cannot. Why are small businesses in the U.S. denied the same opportunities given to companies in foreign countries? Our locally produced, state-inspected meats are some of the best specialty products in the country. It doesn’t make sense to say consumers in Iowa can enjoy these products while consumers across the state border in Missouri cannot eat and enjoy the same products. No other state-inspected food commodities are prohibited from being shipped across state lines. Other state-inspected food products (milk, dairy, fruit, vegetables, fish) are freely marketed across the country. Why aren’t the same marketing options available for meat and poultry? The restriction on interstate meat sales does not apply to products such as venison, pheasant, quail, rabbit and others. It doesn’t make sense to allow these products across state lines while beef, pork, lamb and goat cannot be shipped interstate. Where’s the logic in this? Interstate meat sales legislation will provide economic fairness and open markets. Increased markets will not only benefit producers, processors and small businesses, but it also gives consumers more choices at the supermarket. It’s just common sense and it’s the right thing to do! 6. A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech By DENISE CARUSO THE $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded. Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of how genes function. The exhaustive four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a “tidy collection of independent genes” after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, such as a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease. Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists “to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do.” Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans. With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built. Innovation begets risk, almost by definition. When something is truly new, only so much can be predicted about how it will play out. Proponents of a discovery often see and believe only in the benefits it will deliver. But when it comes to innovations in food and medicine, belief can be dangerous. Often, new information is discovered that invalidates the principles — thus the claims of benefit and, sometimes, safety — on which proponents have built their products. For example, antibiotics were once considered miracle drugs that, for the first time in history, greatly reduced the probability that people would die from common bacterial infections. But doctors did not yet know that the genetic material responsible for conferring antibiotic resistance moves easily between different species of bacteria. Overprescribing antibiotics for virtually every ailment has given rise to “superbugs” that are now virtually unkillable. The principle that gave rise to the biotech industry promised benefits that were equally compelling. Known as the Central Dogma of molecular biology, it stated that each gene in living organisms, from humans to bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein. Proteins are the cogs and the motors that drive the function of cells and, ultimately, organisms. In the 1960s, scientists discovered that a gene that produces one type of protein in one organism would produce a remarkably similar protein in another. The similarity between the insulin produced by humans and by pigs is what once made pig insulin a life-saving treatment for diabetics. The scientists who invented recombinant DNA in 1973 built their innovation on this mechanistic, “one gene, one protein” principle. Because donor genes could be associated with specific functions, with discrete properties and clear boundaries, scientists then believed that a gene from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into a larger design — one that products and companies could be built around, and that could be protected by intellectual-property laws. This presumption, now disputed, is what one molecular biologist calls “the industrial gene.” “The industrial gene is one that can be defined, owned, tracked, proven acceptably safe, proven to have uniform effect, sold and recalled,” said Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Biosafety. In the United States, the Patent and Trademark Office allows genes to be patented on the basis of this uniform effect or function. In fact, it defines a gene in these terms, as an ordered sequence of DNA “that encodes a specific functional product.” In 2005, a study showed that more than 4,000 human genes had already been patented in the United States alone. And this is but a small fraction of the total number of patented plant, animal and microbial genes. In the context of the consortium’s findings, this definition now raises some fundamental questions about the defensibility of those patents. If genes are only one component of how a genome functions, for example, will infringement claims be subject to dispute when another crucial component of the network is claimed by someone else? Might owners of gene patents also find themselves liable for unintended collateral damage caused by the network effects of the genes they own? And, just as important, will these not-yet-understood components of gene function tarnish the appeal of the market for biotech investors, who prefer their intellectual property claims to be unambiguous and indisputable? While no one has yet challenged the legal basis for gene patents, the biotech industry itself has long since acknowledged the science behind the question. “The genome is enormously complex, and the only thing we can say about it with certainty is how much more we have left to learn,” wrote Barbara A. Caulfield, executive vice president and general counsel at the biotech pioneer Affymetrix, in a 2002 article on Law.com called “Why We Hate Gene Patents.” “We’re learning that many diseases are caused not by the action of single genes, but by the interplay among multiple genes,” Ms. Caulfield said. She noted that just before she wrote her article, “scientists announced that they had decoded the genetic structures of one of the most virulent forms of malaria and that it may involve interactions among as many as 500 genes.” Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the consortium’s findings. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals. “The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an incomplete understanding of genetics,” said Professor Heinemann, who writes and teaches extensively on biosafety issues. “Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently,” he said, “regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network effects.” Yet to date, every attempt to challenge safety claims for biotech products has been categorically dismissed, or derided as unscientific. A 2004 round table on the safety of biotech food, sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, provided a typical example: “Both theory and experience confirm the extraordinary predictability and safety of gene-splicing technology and its products,” said Dr. Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution who represented the pro-biotech position. Dr. Miller was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the Food and Drug Administration, and presided over the approval of the first biotech food in 1992. Now that the consortium’s findings have cast the validity of that theory into question, it may be time for the biotech industry to re-examine the more subtle effects of its products, and to share what it knows about them with regulators and other scientists. This is not the first time it has been asked to do so. A 2004 editorial in the journal Nature Genetics beseeched academic and corporate researchers to start releasing their proprietary data to reviewers, so it might receive the kind of scrutiny required of credible science. ACCORDING to Professor Heinemann, many biotech companies already conduct detailed genetic studies of their products that profile the expression of proteins and other elements. But they are not required to report most of this data to regulators, so they do not. Thus vast stores of important research information sit idle. “Something that is front and center in the biosafety community in New Zealand now is whether companies should be required to submit their gene-profiling data for hazard identification,” Professor Heinemann said. With no such reporting requirements, companies and regulators alike will continue to “blind themselves to network effects,” he said. The Nature Genetics editorial, titled “Good Citizenship, or Good Business?,” presented its argument as a choice for the industry to make. Given the significance of these new findings, it is a distinction without a difference. Denise Caruso is executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute, which studies collaborative problem-solving. E-mail: dcaruso@nytimes.com. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company 7. U.S. Farmers Plant Largest Corn Crop in 63 Years Washington, June 29, 2007 – U.S. farmers planted 92.9 million acres of corn in 2007, exceeding last year’s planted area by 19 percent and surpassing the March projection by 3 percent, according to the Acreage report released today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The actual planted acreage is the highest since 1944, when farmers planted 95.5 million corn acres. Driven by favorable prices, growing ethanol demand and strong export sales, farmers in nearly all states increased their corn acreage. They set state records in Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and North Dakota, while Iowa continued to lead all states in total corn acres. The increase in corn is offset mainly by fewer acres of soybeans in the Corn Belt and Great Plains, and fewer acres of cotton in the Delta and Southeast. Nationwide, NASS estimates planted soybean area at 64.1 million acres, down 15 percent from last year’s record high and down 5 percent from the March forecast. Area planted to cotton totals 11.1 million acres, marking a 28 percent drop from 2006 and the lowest level since 1989. The Acreage report shows that the nation’s farmers continued to embrace biotechnology. Corn growers planted 73 percent of their acres with biotech seed varieties, an increase of 12 percent from 2006. Cotton farmers planted 87 percent of their acres with biotech varieties, up 4 percent from 2006, and soybean producers planted 91 percent of their acres with biotech seed, up 2 percent from 2006. NASS’s acreage estimates are based on surveys conducted during the first two weeks of June on approximately 11,000 segments of land and from a sample of approximately 88,000 farm operators across the United States. Acreage and all other NASS reports are available online at www.nass.usda.gov. 8. Corn Causes 50 Times More Soil Erosion Than Sod Crops PEAK SOIL Excerpts: Part 1. The Dirt on Dirt. Ethanol is an agribusiness get-rich-quick scheme that will bankrupt our topsoil. Nineteenth century western farmers converted their corn into whiskey to make a profit (Rorabaugh 1979). Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), a large grain processor, came up with the same scheme in the 20thcentury. But ethanol was a product in search of a market, so ADM spent three decades relentlessly lobbying for ethanol to be used in gasoline. Today ADM makes record profits from ethanol sales and government subsidies (Barrionuevo 2006). The Department of Energy hopes to have biomass supply 5% of the nation's power, 20% of transportation fuels, and 25% of chemicals by 2030. These combined goals are 30% of the current petroleum consumption (DOE Biomass Plan, DOE Feedstock Roadmap). Fuels made from biomass are a lot like the nuclear powered airplanes the Air Force tried to build from 1946 to 1961, for billions of dollars. They never got off the ground. The idea was interesting -- atomic jets could fly for months without refueling. But the lead shielding to protect the crew and several months of food and water was too heavy for the plane to take off. The weight problem, the ease of shooting this behemoth down, and the consequences of a crash landing were so obvious, it's amazing the project was ever funded, let alone kept going for 15 years. Biomass fuels have equally obvious and predictable reasons for failure. Odum says that time explains why renewable energy provides such low energy yields compared to non-renewable fossil fuels. The more work left to nature, the higher the energy yield, but the longer the time required. Although coal and oil took millions of years to form into dense, concentrated solar power, all we had to do was extract and transport them (Odum 1996) With every step required to transform a fuel into energy, there is less and less energy yield. For example, to make ethanol from corn grain, which is how all U.S. ethanol is made now, corn is first grown to develop hybrid seeds, which next season are planted, harvested, delivered, stored, and preprocessed to remove dirt. Dry-mill ethanol is milled, liquefied, heated, saccharified, fermented, evaporated, centrifuged, distilled, scrubbed, dried, stored, and transported to customers (McAloon 2000). Fertile soil will be destroyed if crops and other "wastes" are removed to make cellulosic ethanol. "We stand, in most places on earth, only six inches from desolation, for that is the thickness of the topsoil layer upon which the entire life of the planet depends" (Sampson 1981). Loss of topsoil has been a major factor in the fall of civilizations (Sundquist 2005 Chapter 3, Lowdermilk 1953, Perlin 1991, Ponting 1993). You end up with a country like Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia, where 75% of the farm land became a salty desert. Fuels from biomass are not sustainable, are ecologically destructive, have a net energy loss, and there isn't enough biomass in America to make significant amounts of energy because essential inputs like water, land, fossil fuels, and phosphate ores are limited. Soil Science 101 -- There Is No "Waste" Biomass Long before there was "Peak Oil", there was "Peak Soil". Iowa has some of the best topsoil in the world. In the past century, half of it's been lost, from an average of 18 to 10 inches deep (Pate 2004, Klee 1991). Productivity drops off sharply when topsoil reaches 6 inches or less, the average crop root zone depth (Sundquist 2005). Crop productivity continually declines as topsoil is lost and residues are removed. (Al-Kaisi May 2001, Ball 2005, Blanco-Canqui 2006, BOA 1986, Calvino 2003, Franzleubbers 2006, Grandy 2006, Johnson 2004, Johnson 2005, Miranowski 1984, Power 1998, Sadras 2001, Troeh 2005, Wilhelm 2004). On over half of America's best crop land, the erosion rate is 27 times the natural rate, 11,000 pounds per acre (NCRS 2006). The natural, geological erosion rate is about 400 pounds of soil per acre per year (Troeh 2005). Some is due to farmers not being paid enough to conserve their land, but most is due to investors who farm for profit. Erosion control cuts into profits. Erosion is happening ten to twenty times faster than the rate topsoil can be formed by natural processes (Pimentel 2006). That might make the average person concerned. But not the USDA -- they've defined erosion as the average soil loss that could occur without causing a decline in long term productivity. Troeh (2005) believes that the tolerable soil loss (T) value is set too high, because it's based only on the upper layers -- how long it takes subsoil to be converted into topsoil. T ought to be based on deeper layers -- the time for subsoil to develop from parent material or parent material from rock. If he's right, erosion is even worse than NCRS figures. Erosion removes the most fertile parts of the soil (USDA-ARS). When you feed the soil [with organic matter], you're not feeding plants; you're feeding the biota in the soil. Underground creatures and fungi break down fallen leaves and twigs into microscopic bits that plants can eat, and create tunnels air and water can infiltrate. In nature there are no elves feeding (fertilizing) the wild lands. When plants die, they're recycled into basic elements and become a part of new plants. It's a closed cycle. There is no bio-waste. Soil creatures and fungi act as an immune system for plants against diseases, weeds, and insects -- when this living community is harmed by agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, even more chemicals are needed in an increasing vicious cycle (Wolfe 2001). There's so much life in the soil, there can be 10 "biomass horses" underground for every horse grazing on an acre of pasture (Wardle 2004). If you dove into the soil and swam around, you'd be surrounded by miles of thin strands of mycorrhizal fungi that help plant roots absorb more nutrients and water, plus millions of creatures, most of them unknown. There'd be thousands of species in just a handful of earth -- springtails, bacteria, and worms digging airy subways. As you swam along, plant roots would tower above you like trees as you wove through underground skyscrapers. Plants and creatures underground need to drink, eat, and breathe just as we do. An ideal soil is half rock, and a quarter each water and air. When tractors plant and harvest, they crush the life out of the soil, as underground apartments collapse 9/11 style. The tracks left by tractors in the soil are the erosion route for half of the soil that washes or blows away (Wilhelm 2004). Corn Biofuel -- Especially Harmful Corn Biofuel (i.e. butanol, ethanol, biodiesel) is especially harmful because: Row crops such as corn and soy cause 50 times more soil erosion than sod crops [e.g., hay] (Sullivan 2004) or more (Al-Kaisi 2000), because the soil between the rows can wash or blow away. If corn is planted with last year's corn stalks left on the ground (no- till), erosion is less of a problem, but only about 20% of corn is grown no-till. Soy is usually grown no-till, but [leaves] insignificant residues to harvest for fuel. Corn uses more water, insecticide, and fertilizer than most crops (Pimentel 2003). Due to high corn prices, continuous corn (corn crop after corn crop) is increasing, rather than rotation of nitrogen fixing (fertilizer) and erosion control sod crops with corn. The government has studied the effect of growing continuous corn, and found it increases eutrophication by 189%, global warming by 71%, and acidification by 6% (Powers 2005). Farmers want to plant corn on highly erodible, water protecting, or wildlife sustaining Conservation Reserve Program land. Farmers are paid not to grow crops on this land. But with high corn prices, farmers are now asking the Agricultural Department to release them from these contracts so they can plant corn on these low-producing, environmentally sensitive lands (Tomson 2007). Crop residues are essential for soil nutrition, water retention, and soil carbon. Making cellulosic ethanol from corn residues -- the parts of the plant we don't eat (stalk, roots, and leaves) -- removes water, carbon, and nutrients (Nelson, 2002, McAloon 2000, Sheehan, 2003). These practices lead to lower crop production and ultimately deserts. Growing plants for fuel will accelerate the already unacceptable levels of topsoil erosion, soil carbon and nutrient depletion, soil compaction, water retention, water depletion, water pollution, air pollution, eutrophication, destruction of fisheries, siltation of dams and waterways, salination, loss of biodiversity, and damage to human health (Tegtmeier 2004). Why are soil scientists absent from the biofuels debate? I asked 35 soil scientists why topsoil wasn't part of the biofuels debate. These are just a few of the responses from the ten who replied to my off-the-record poll (no one wanted me to quote them, mostly due to fear of losing their jobs): "I have no idea why soil scientists aren't questioning corn and cellulosic ethanol plans. Quite frankly I'm not sure that our society has had any sort of reasonable debate about this with all the facts laid out. When you see that even if all of the corn was converted to ethanol and that would not provide more than 20% of our current liquid fuel use, it certainly makes me wonder, even before considering the conversion efficiency, soil loss, water contamination, food price problems, etc." "Biomass production is not sustainable. Only business men and women in the refinery business believe it is." "Should we be using our best crop land to grow gasohol and contribute further to global warming? What will our children grow their food on?" "As agricultural scientists, we are programmed to make farmers profitable, and therefore profits are at the top of the list, and not soil, family, or environmental sustainability". "Government policy since WWII has been to encourage overproduction to keep food prices down (people with full bellies don't revolt or object too much). It's hard to make a living farming commodities when the selling price is always at or below the break even point. Farmers have had to get bigger and bigger to make ends meet since the margins keep getting thinner and thinner. We have sacrificed our family farms in the name of cheap food. When farmers stand to make few bucks (as with biofuels) agricultural scientists tend to look the other way". "You are quite correct in your concern that soil science should be factored into decisions about biofuel production. Unfortunately, we soil scientists have missed the boat on the importance of soil management to the sustainability of biomass production, and the long-term impact for soil productivity. This is not a new debate. Here's what scientists had to say decades ago: Removing "crop residues...would rob organic matter that is vital to the maintenance of soil fertility and tilth, leading to disastrous soil erosion levels. Not considered is the importance of plant residues as a primary source of energy for soil microbial activity. The most prudent course, clearly, is to continue to recycle most crop residues back into the soil, where they are vital in keeping organic matter levels high enough to make the soil more open to air and water, more resistant to soil erosion, and more productive" (Sampson 1981). "...Massive alcohol production from our farms is an immoral use of our soils since it rapidly promotes their wasting away. We must save these soils for an oil-less future" (Jackson 1980). ... Part 7. Where do we go from here? Subsidies and Politics How come there are over 116 ethanol plants with 79 under construction and 200 more planned? The answer: subsidies and tax breaks. Federal and state ethanol subsidies add up to 79 cents per liter (McCain 2003), with most of that going to agribusiness, not farmers. There is also a tax break of 5.3 cents per gallon for ethanol (Wall Street Journal 2002). An additional 51 cents per gallon goes mainly to the oil industry to get them to blend ethanol with gasoline. In addition to the $8.4 billion per year subsidies for corn and ethanol production, the consumer pays an additional amount for any product with corn in it (Pollan 2005), beef, milk, and eggs, because corn diverted to ethanol raises the price of corn for the livestock industry. Worst of all, the subsidies may never end, because Iowa plays a leading role in who's selected to be the next president. John McCain has softened his stand on ethanol (Birger 2006). All four senators in California and New York have pointed out that "ethanol subsidies are nothing but a way to funnel money to agribusiness and corn states at the expense of the rest of the country" (Washington Post 2002). "Once we have a corn-based technology up and running the political system will protect it," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, a board member at the Energy Policy Research Foundation. "We cannot afford to have 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol in 2015, and that's exactly where we are headed" (Barrionuevo 2007). 9. Check Out New Food Safety Technology Approved by the USDA http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/New_Technology_Table_Feb_06/index.asp
10. For Your Amusement: A Short History of Gastronomy Here’s an amusing food-for-thought video entitled "A Short History of Gastronomy" created by Roger Doiron and posted on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkloPHbJJHc 11. The Healthy Food Enterprise Development Program A new program, Healthy Food Enterprise Development program, spurs innovation and entrepreneurship in the food supply chain by providing feasibility grants and direct USDA loans and loan guarantees. The program would be administered by the Market Services Branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service. The financing structure of the loans and loan guarantees are based upon existing USDA programs which, for every federal dollar appropriated secure 20 times more in private sector capital. First introduced in HR 2364, the Healthy Food Enterprise Development program provides through up to $42.5 million in mandatory funds:
Incentives for food marketing entrepreneurship and meeting public needs:
Why? Gaps in the food supply chain, from lack of access to financing capital, severely limit the development of entrepreneurial businesses needed to link food service companies, retail food stores, and public institutions with local and regional agricultural producers.
Many mid-sized farmers are interested in the success of direct markets, but have no way to get their high volume, high value products into the food service and retail markets. Call or fax a letter of support to bill co-sponsor, Representative Gillibrand's ag aid, Brooke Jamison 202 225 5614, or Representative Hinchey's contact, Moira Campion 202 225 6335, or Senator Clinton’s (bill S 1432) contact, Trevor Dean 202 224 5643. Track the bill’s progress at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill./xpdbill=h1102364. For more information contact the New York State Small Scale Food Processors Association. 12. New DVD Features Farmers & Their High Tunnel Technology Free copies available for ag educators and service providers "High Tunnels: Using Low-Cost Technology to Increase Yields, Improve Quality, and Extend the Growing Season," is a 43-minute DVD that features six farmers from five northeastern states explaining how and why they constructed their high-tunnel system, what they grow in it, and how it helps sustain their farming operation. The DVD was produced by Ted Blomgren of Cornell Cooperative Extension and Tracy Frisch of the Regional Farm and Food Project, and was funded by the Northeast SARE Professional Development Program. Free copies of the DVD are available until September 15 2007 – or until supplies run out – to people who conduct agricultural education programs, including Cooperative Extension and nonprofit staff, teachers, or farmers who give presentations to others. If you qualify for a free copy, please send an e-mail to sustainable.agriculture@uvm.edu containing the following information: Your name, your organization, your main professional role, postal mailing address with zip, telephone(s), briefly describe how you plan to use the video, and estimate the number of people that will view it in one year. By accepting a free video you agree to respond to a brief e-mail survey that will take place in 2008 to evaluation how the video was utilized. Copies of the DVD are also available to people generally interested in the topic but not in a teaching or service role as described above. The cost is $15, including postage, and the order form is at: www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/Videos/hightunnelvideo.html; credit card orders can be placed by calling (802) 656-5459. A free companion High Tunnel Manual is available on line at www.uvm.edu/sustainableagriculture/hightunnels.php. This manual can also be requested in print for an additional $15, including postage. If placing an order by mail for the manual or DVD please make checks payable to 'UVM' and mail to: Center for Sustainable Agriculture * * * Cayuga County Grazing Group Pasture Walk - Tuesday, July 10th - 6:30 to 8:30 pm - Matt Schiavi Farm, 316 Bird Cemetary Rd, Locke. Topics will include a discussion of how the farm has planned and implemented their grazing strategy and how they incorporate grazing into their ration. Karen Sullivan, NRCS NY Animal Scientist, will answer questions about the fine points of formulating a dairy ration to include grazed forages. For more information on location, and to register, call Cayuga County CCE at 315-255-1183. Pasture Walk - Wednesday, July 11th - 12:00 noon to 2:30 pm - Windy Gale Farm, Marty & Melody, Charlie & Maxine Peterson, 1036 Oak Hill Road, Frewsburg (Chautauqua County) - The Peterson family has been successfully rotationally grazing their 115 cow dairy herd for the past 10 years. They graze their lactating cows, dry cows, and breeding age heifers on 100 acres of pasture divided into numerous paddocks. The herd is supplemented in the barn with a TMR throughout the summe and the amount fed varies with quality and quantity of pasture available. Typically 60% or more of the herd's forage dry matter comes from pasture. We will start with a light lunch sponsored by Lottsville Milling and Upstate Farms, Inc. Further funding support provided by NYS GLCI. Registration is requested to plan for lunch - please contact David Munsee at 716-664-9502 ext. 202 by Friday, July 6th. Pasture Management for Milk Production - Wednesday, July 11th - 1:00 to 3:00 pm - Dove Tales Farm, Dan and Karen Dove, Truxton (Cortland County) - Dan and Karen will share their experiences grazing their 180 cow dairy herd. They are a successful dairy that does a good job of utilizing pasture, and have been grazing since 1998. A heifer grazing system was just installed this spring. Guest speakers will be Darrell Emmick and Karen Sullivan from USDA-NRCS. Darrell will share his research on the behavior of cattle on pasture and how to use behavior for optimum milk production. Karen will discuss general grass-based nutrition principles for grazing dairy herds. The program is sponsored by Cortland County SWCD with support from NYS GLCI and the NYS Agricultural Environmental Management (NYS AEM) program, and is free, but please call to register at 607-753-0851 ext. 3 by July 9th. Saturday, July 14 The New York Nut Growers Association will hold its summer meeting in Trumansburg and Dryden. In the morning we will visit the Carpathian walnut plantings on John Wertis' BWW Farm, 8144 Searsburg Road, in Trumansburg, and do some fence building to protect against deer damage. In the wooded section of the farm, an agroforestry staff member from Cornell will demonstrate mushroom inoculation of logs. Select your lunch at the Hazel Nut Cafe: mild goat curry, hazelnut broiled trout, or vegetarian pasta. In the afternoon Janet Hawkes, of RPM Ecosystems, will make a presentation about their tree propagation system in the Trumansburg Village Hall (across from the café). Then we will drive to Dryden, about a half hour away, to visit RPM's greenhouses and field plots. Registration includes a light breakfast and lunch -- all for $15. Please mail a check, made out to "NYNGA," to Tom Potts, NYNGA Treas., 26 Willets Ave., Belmont, NY 14813. Drop-ins are welcome, too. Questions &/or directions, call Tom at (585) 268 - 5588. Wednesday evening, July 18 from 6 to 9 p.m. New Yorkers can celebrate food, exulting in the bounty and superior flavor of locally grown ingredients at the 100 Mile Menu fete, benefiting two food focused organizations, The Sylvia Center and Just Food. While indulging in a buffet of dishes made from ingredients sourced within a 100-mile radius of New York City, guests will savor edu-taining interactive activities that reflect the evening’s theme in the Spring Street kitchen of Great Performances, the leading catering and events company. All proceeds from the 100 Mile Menu celebration will be shared by The Sylvia Center and Just Food. Tickets for the 100 Mile Menu celebratory evening range from $65 per person to $500 for two. At Great Performances, 287 Spring Street (between Varick and Hudson). Tickets can be purchased via brownpapertickets.com/event/17131 or by calling Asya Ollis at Great Performances, 212-337-6058. For more information about Just Food, visit http://www.justfood.org and to find out more about The Sylvia Center, go to http://www.katchkiefarm.com and click on The Sylvia Center page devoted to the non-profit the farm sustains. Great Grass! Pasture Workshops and Walk - Thursday, July 19th - 8:30 am to 3:00 pm - Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, 630 Bedford Road, Pocantico Hills (Westchester County). Two tracks of grazing workshops for horse and livestock owners. Discover the great grass tools, technology and methodologies in fencing, feeding, and pasture management for optimum land use. Registration fee of $23 covers coffee break and Stone Barns picnic lunch - space is limited, so call 914-962-6355 or email croton@nycwatershed.org to register or for more information. Sponsored by the NYC Watershed Ag Council, Lower Hudson-Long Island Resource Conservation and Development Council, NYS GLCI, and Stone Barns. Directions to Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture available at www.stonebarnscenter.org. Cayuga County Beef Discussion Group - DOT Livestock Transportation Regulations - Thursday, July 19th - 6:30 to 8:30 pm - CCE Cayuga County Education Center, 248 Grant Ave., Auburn. A representative from the NYS Department of Transportation will be talking about regulations involving livestock transportation. Refreshments provided. Please RSVP by calling Cayuga County CCE at 315-255-1183. July 24th: 10a - 12p, Voorheesville, NY, Composting Road Kill The Cornell Waste Management Institute is sponsoring workshops demonstrating how to compost road killed animals. The workshops are being held at 5 locations across New York State this summer and fall and are free and open to anyone. The targeted audience of state and local highway workers, health and environmental staff, and local officials will find the workshops useful in deciding whether composting suits theirs needs, and how and where to do it. For more information about the workshops and this project, please call us at 607-255-1187 or go to our web site at: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/roadkillworkshops.htm PA Project Grass Rotational Grazing Field Day - Wednesday, July 25th - 9:30 am to 3:00 pm - Big Horn Ranch, Michael Wright, Pittsfield, PA (Warren County, PA). This field day will include a farm tour of the home farm where Michael will explain his rotational grazing practices as well as barnyard conservation. In the afternoon, we will travel to a rented pasture where Michael will discuss pasture renovation with the use of goats and pigs. There is a registration fee of $8.00 per person to cover lunch expenses, payable to Warren County Conservation District. Sponsored by PA Project Grass, Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program, Northwest Project Grass, Warren County Conservation District, USDA-NRCS. For more information and to register by July 18, contact Warren County Conservation District at 814-563-3117. July 25, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Cornell to Host Fruit Field Day and Equipment Show at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY. This is one of several events that commemorate the 125th anniversary of the Experiment Station, which opened its doors on March 1, 1882. Fruit growers, consultants, and industry personnel are invited to tour field plots and laboratories and learn about the latest research and extension efforts being carried out by researchers on the Geneva, Highland and Ithaca campuses. The focus will be on all commodities key to New York's $300 million fruit industry: apples, grapes, raspberries, strawberries, peaches, pears and cherries. During lunch, equipment dealers will showcase the latest techniques to improve sprayer deposition and reducing drift. Representatives from various companies will advise growers on the latest technologies. The event will be held on the Experiment Station's Fruit and Vegetable Research Farm South, 1097 County Road No. 4, 1 mile west of Pre-emption Rd. in Geneva, NY. Signs will be posted. Attendees will be able to select from tours of apples, stone fruits, small fruits, and grapes, as well as a tour of the Experiment Station’s labs and greenhouses. Admission is free and lunch is provided courtesy of industry sponsors. Pre-registration is encouraged. For sponsorship and exhibitor information, contact Debbie Breth at 585-798-4265 or dib1@cornell.edu. More information will be posted to http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/fieldday/. For additional information, contact Nancy Long at 315-787-2288 or NPL1@cornell.edu. Register on line at: http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/fieldday/index.html Whole Farm Health Pasture Walks - Friday, July 27th and Saturday, July 28th - Dr. Ann Wells, DVM, will be in New York for 4 pasture walks where she will identify areas of farms that are "healthy" and areas that need a "check-up". Dr. Wells is a well-known veterinarian from Arkansas who specializes in animal health practices that integrate soil and plant health as management strategies, and encourages grazing as a foundation principle. She has been highly involved in the development of many of the standards for the National Organic Program as well. The dates, locations, and contact info for additional information are as follows:Friday, July 27th - David Hoover Farm (dairy), Benton Center (Yates County), and (tentatively) Ros Parks Farm, Seneca Falls (Seneca County). Contact Bill Henning at 315-536-5123 or email wrh6@cornell.edu for times and directions. Saturday, July 28th - Tradewinds Farm, Rodney and Janet Aldrich (dairy), Oxford (Chenango County), and Quarry Brook Farm, Adam and Steve Perrin (beef, sheep, pigs, and chickens), Sherburne (Chenango County). Contact Karen Hoffman Sullivan at 607-334-4632 x116 or email karen.sullivan@ny.usda.gov for times and directions. |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
