The official newsletter of the Land Stewardship Project
By Brian DeVore
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first of a two-part series on the loss of biodiversity in our agricultural systems. This installment examines the problems simplified cropping systems have created in the Red River Valley and other parts of farm country.
KISS, short for "Keep It Simple, Stupid," has a nice, no-nonsense ring to it. But for residents of the Red River Valley these days, such a phrase leaves a bitter taste on the lips. For more than a century, replacing complicated biodiversity with a handful of crops made the region the stuff of agricultural lore. Soils deep enough to bury a man upright in helped make this 300-mile flattened trough of former tallgrass prairie a world class wheat and barley producer.
But five years ago, this simplified system proved to be the perfect environment for a fungus called Fusarium graminearum - wheat scab - to thrive in. Year after year of the same crops planted to contiguous sections of farmland have made it easy for the fungus to survive and spread. That's no surprise to University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman, who has studied the effects of replacing biodiversity with monoculture. "When we set out a huge part of the landscape to a single plant species, the pathogens have it easy. If we want agriculture to survive, we have to outsmart pathogens," he says. "We're not outsmarting them right now. We're playing the dumb game."
It's proving to be an expensive game as well. Small grains growers in the region have lost $4.2 billion worth of income since 1992, mostly because of the scab. About one-fifth of the Valley's farmers went out of business in 1997, and 1998 doesn't look much better, even though favorable weather conditions late in the growing season headed off another huge scab outbreak. On the Minnesota side of the Red River of the North, wheat plantings were down almost 30 percent in 1998. The region - it covers parts of Canada, North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota - is no longer one of the most productive small grains producers on the planet. In fact, some agronomists are beginning to wonder if cereal grain crops will have any role to play in this region's future. "The ideal situation is that wheat and barley don't disappear from this area," says one small grains expert, mustering all the optimism he can.
The Red River Valley entered the 20th Century a prime example of the good that can come from focusing a plant ecosystem's energies; manipulating it so that instead of producing a little of everything, it produces a large quantity of just a few things. But it will depart this millennium with a different legacy: as an example of the bad that results from destroying all that biodiversity.
And as reports of crop failures, disease outbreaks and super-pests begin emerging from other parts of farm country, agronomists and ecologists are expressing concern that the Valley's dire situation is not an anomaly. Rather, it's a harbinger of the disastrous, widespread consequences of simplifying plant biodiversity out of the picture. These consequences are not limited to agronomic or even ecological failures, by any means. As the bankruptcies mount and Main Streets shut down, it's become clearer than ever that biodiversity and human well-being are intricately entwined.
This spring, a 60-member task force consisting of Minnesota farmers, as well as representatives of agribusiness, public agencies and nonprofit organizations, concluded that the crisis in the Red River Valley was a prime example of technological fixes failing to make up for a lack of biological and genetic diversity.
"Our current agricultural cropping systems have less biological diversity than at anytime in history," the task force report concluded. "The cause is continued simplification of farming leading to production of a few crops over large acreages. It is increasingly clear that simplified farming is causing a crisis in rural Minnesota."
"It isn't just an environmental tragedy that's developing," says Don Wyse, a weed scientist and director of the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA). He is one of the coordinators of the task force. "It's also an economic, family, quality of life thing as well. The resilience is being lost in terms of the environment, but it's also being lost in terms of the people. It's fragile all the way through."
Bio-diverse universe "Biodiversity, " a combination of the words "biological" and "diversity," is a term tossed about pretty loosely these days. On a simple level, biodiversity is defined as the number of species present in any given area. But biodiversity is also measured in terms of how much genetic diversity is present within a given species.
Discussions about agriculture's relationship with biodiversity usually center around how much damage farming inflicts on the number of species present in the environment. There's little doubt that food and fiber production are by far the biggest contributors to loss of biodiversity. For example, being the buckle on the Corn Belt has made Iowa, once the home to tallgrass prairie lands containing hundreds of species of plants, the most changed landscape in the United States, according to a recent World Bank report. Until recently, scientists have neglected to apply the principles of biodiversity back in the other direction: How does farming (and farmers) suffer from lack of diversity in the system?
Within the past four years or so, some excellent studies on the complicated relationship between biodiversity and agriculture have been done. What these studies have shown is that to be sustainable long into the future, agricultural production must be quite dependent upon a biodiverse environment.
For example, for a dozen years ecologist David Tilman and his colleagues studied 207 grassland plots under varying conditions. Their research showed a direct correlation between the stability of a plant system, and the amount of diversity present. That may come as a surprise to anyone who associates increased biodiversity with a teeming Technicolor jungle supposedly ruled by chaos. But think about it this way: If you have a plot of land planted to all the same species of plants, they will all react to, let's say, dry weather in the same way. What if that species is not drought tolerant? When a season of adequate moisture comes, all the plants in the plot thrive. And when the rains stops, all the plants suffer. Such a lack of diversity exposes that plot to extremes in productivity: it's feast or famine time, no middle ground.
But if there are a variety of plants present in that plot - some drought tolerant, some that thrive under wet conditions - there aren't as many extremes overall. Individual plants may suffer depending on the weather that year, but the plot as a whole does well. In a sense, it's a plant's version of team work. Just how much diversity is enough is still a mystery. In Tilman's case, he found when a plot had fewer than 10 species of plants present, it was six times more susceptible to drought than when it had 10 or more species. In a year of normal precipitation, having up to 20 species in a plot made that plot twice as stable.
Productivity of the plots, measured by how much biomass could be harvested off them, also increased with diversity. Tilman's research showed that diverse plots of up to 24 species had a 60 percent greater biomass yield when compared to simplified monocrop systems.
This study tells us a lot about the advantages of increasing biodiversity in a grassland ecosystem, says Tilman. He concedes that an acre of corn - an annual row crop harvested for its grain - is quite different from a patch of perennial plants that measure productivity in terms of biomass. Row-crop agriculture's drive to optimize yields of specific commodities can't tolerate a system that produces something as general as "biomass." Weeds may add diversity - and thus biomass - to a grain field, but they can also dramatically reduce the bushels of wheat, corn or soybeans produced on that acreage.
But the ecologist maintains that such research holds an important message for all of agriculture, from wheat production to raising hogs: diversity can take many forms, and in the end it spawns stability and strength.
Dunce caps
That lesson is being taught in many real-world ways in farm country:
Mono-genetics
In recent memory, the most infamous example of a simplified cropping system going awry occurred in 1970, when southern corn leaf blight wiped out 15 percent of the nation's corn crop at a cost of $1 billion. That resulted from two kinds of biodiversity problems: the planting of too much of one species - corn in this case - that allowed the pathogen to travel long distances unfettered, and the planting of too much of one variety of that species.
That latter problem is of concern to Don Duvick, who for four decades worked as a plant breeder for Pioneer Hybrids. He says the lack of genetic diversity within crop species has been a problem since the first hybrid corn varieties were introduced in the 1940s.
"The farmers all switch to one variety and that variety works great. And all of a sudden you have fields and fields of that one great variety that are susceptible to one pest adapting to that one variety." Until recently, people like Duvick and Tilman have worked in parallel worlds on a problem that has common roots. In fact, the Center for Agriculture, Science and Technology, a think tank based at Iowa State University, recently sponsored a paper on the subject. As a sign of the political/disciplinary/philosophical boundaries this problem crosses, it was co-authored by Tilman and Duvick.
Dumb luck
In many ways, the incredible biological diversity present when row crops were first introduced to this country has helped stave off a major agronomic collapse. Consider corn and soybean country for example, which could be considered even less diverse than the Red River Valley (in addition to small grains, Valley farmers grow potatoes, sugar beets and oil seeds such as sunflowers and canola). One wall of a large meeting room at the Southwest Minnesota Experiment Station tells, in graphic detail, the story of a region becoming one of the least biologically diverse areas on earth within a span of a few decades. Fifty sheets of blue paper use computer- generated charts and graphs to show a two-crop monoculture of corn and soybeans methodically replacing a system that at the turn of the century included wheat, oats, barley, rye, alfalfa and pasture in the rotation.
By the time one finishes looking at this wall of agronomic history, it's not a shock to learn that 91 percent of the cropped acreage in a nine-county area of Minnesota is now planted to either corn or soybeans. Sixty-seven percent of the region's total land area is growing one of those crops. This wall of statistics also tells the story of how diverse cropping systems stopped being a key farming tool and evolved into a modern farming liability. After World War II, it was assumed by most farmers that synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides made the fertility-building, pest-killing abilities of diverse cropping rotations superfluous. At the same time, the government was paying farmers to plant corn and wheat, not alfalfa, rye and pasture. As the diversity declined, it became easier to farm more acres. This also tracked a trend of livestock being taken off crop farms and being raised by specialist producers, sometimes in other regions. Gradually crops like hay and oats had little use in corn and soybean country.
"What we really have here with corn and soybeans is a two-crop monocultural system, because both are row crops, even though one is a legume," says Elizabeth Dyck, a weed ecologist who does research at the Experiment Station's Elwell Agroecology Farm. "The idea of a non- legume teamed up with a legume crop is excellent. But corn and soybean are both row crops, you can't deny that."
But this two-crop monoculture has remained amazingly viable all these years, mostly because of a soil system that can withstand an incredible amount of abuse while still responding to applications of petroleum-based fertilizers. Agronomists express amazement at the amount of abuse prime Corn Belt soil can take and still be productive. Crop yields may have deeper valleys than ever, but when they peak, they really peak.
"We can show there's been a drop in organic matter all across the Midwest and yet at the same time look at our yields and consider the trend," says Paul Porter, another researcher at the station. "It's not obvious that we are plateauing yet. This soil is just too good."
Even so, Dyck, Porter and other scientists are concerned that the lack of diversity in the area is eventually going to wear on the system in other ways. After all, the soil a couple of hundred miles north in the Red River Valley is still relatively deep and fertile, and consider what's happening there. Corn still seems to be thriving, but numerous recent disease problems in soybeans - cyst nematode, white mold, etc. - have researchers concerned about the stability of that crop.
Monocropped mortgages
And even if the rich loam could continue producing monocultures of corn, soybeans and wheat in perpetuity without signs of going biologically bankrupt, Main Streets in farm country are a different story. Record low prices for just about every commodity produced in the Midwest is a sign of yet another danger of forcing the ecosystem to produce one or two plants at the exclusion of all others: overproduction of those one or two plants. A financial crisis descended upon rural America in 1998. The Red River Valley is showing the worst of it, but corn and soybean country is in trouble too. Small town economies throughout the Midwest are in a tailspin. A Federal Reserve survey released in October showed that agricultural bankers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota are concerned the farm economy is headed toward a full-blown crisis a la the 1980s. More than 40 percent of the 107 banks surveyed said their farm customers had reached their credit limits. Some 80 percent reported that farmers they worked with had incomes below normal levels. The accrual net income for the average member of the Southwest Farm Business Management Association dropped more than 140 percent between 1997 and 1998 to negative $16,230, according to agricultural economist Kent Olson.
Anti-simplicity movement
What can be done? Agriculturists - perhaps mindful of the mess simple answers have gotten farming into - say it will have to be a combination of things.
"To bet on one horse at this point in the game is stupid," says Jochum Wiersma, a small grains specialist at the Northwest Experiment Station, which is located in the heart of the Red River Valley.
The fight against wheat scab provides a microcosmic look at the futility of betting on one horse. The fungus has been documented in this country for at least 100 years. In 1917, the disease was found in 31 of 40 wheat producing states surveyed. But in the Red River Valley during the past five years, the disease has evolved from a controllable concern to a devastating nemesis as a combination of factors came together to take advantage of lack of biodiversity in the region.
Cool, wet weather that moved into the region in the early 1990s is given as one reason the scab got such a solid foothold in the first place. In addition, the popularity of soil-saving tillage practices that leave a lot of crop residue on the ground through the winter has also been blamed. Because of the short growing season that far north, plant residue in general does not break down easily. That residue serves as a perfect home for the fungus. And in recent years more corn has been grown to maturity in the Valley, thanks to some unusually late frosts in the fall, shorter season hybrids and less demand for silage in the area (due to a loss of dairy and beef operations). Corn, it turns out, is a prime carrier of the fungus.
In addition, wheat varieties bred to resist the scab are proving to be vulnerable to a leaf disease that can be just as devastating. Wiersma is telling farmers in the Valley to spray fungicides on their small grains every year in an attempt to keep the scab in check. But he concedes spraying isn't a cure-all, and it adds more expense to raising a crop already selling for less than what it costs to produce. Some agricultural scientists and policy makers are treating wheat scab as an isolated disease problem to be "cured" with technology. For example, couldn't we just develop a super strain of wheat resistant to disease? The Minnesota legislature apparently thinks so. It has provided millions of dollars for research into using bioengineering to battle wheat scab.
But any breakthroughs in this area are at least 15 years off. And veteran plant breeders like Duvick say bioengineered plants may be just as prone to being ambushed by super-pests. In fact, because biotechnology is so precise, it may limit the number of genes a pathogen or insect has to adapt to.
"This fast solution that may be offered by biotechnology is a great big step forward," he says. "But at the same time, it's much easier for the [pest or disease] to make a great big step forward as well."
Diversity, diversity, diversity
The bottom line is that biodiversity-friendly efforts which take a big picture view of the situation must be a major part of any strategy to make our cropping system more resilient, say agronomists and ecologists. No one is suggesting that the Midwest be returned to wall-to-wall tallgrass prairie. But diverse rotations - planting different crops on the same land in subsequent growing seasons - are a good place to start. Simply rotating corn and soybeans (both row crops), or wheat and barley (both small grains) won't cut it, say agronomists. Even rotating corn and wheat, very different crops in many ways, seems to have only exacerbated the scab problem in the Red River Valley.
And in Illinois, farmers have made the troubling discovery that certain western corn rootworm beetles are able to survive a season in a field planted to soybeans. That's not suppose to happen: as their name implies, these beetles normally die when fed anything but corn. In fact, soybeans rotated with corn every other year has traditionally been used as a way of breaking up the breeding cycle of this pest. It appears that strategy is failing. Thanks to the fact that corn and soybeans are planted on literally hundreds of miles of land beyond the Illinois border, this new super-beetle is expected to move north and west into other parts of the Midwest. Scientists say situations like this point to the need for complicated rotations that put different crops on the same land three or four years in a row and beyond.
A lot of this is old news. Pre-World War II farms were relatively diverse, making it more difficult for pests to hightail it from one end of a region to another without being tripped up by varying plant habitats. But that type of diversity has been made unprofitable, due to the loss of an infrastructure that supported a variety of crops. Raising a crop like flax as part of a rotation does little good for today's farmer if there's no place to sell it. There's a reason corn, soybeans and wheat are still planted, even in the midst of price and agronomic disasters: once they're harvested, these crops can be hauled into town and sold at the local elevator. In short, a cropping system based on a few crops has produced a transportation, processing and marketing system based on a few crops.
"Wouldn't it be better if you have more than just corn and soybeans in Iowa or wheat and barley in the Red River Valley?" Duvick asks. "The answer is yes it would - if you could find someone to buy these other new crops."
| The next issue of the Land Stewardship Letter will describe how a dismal farm economy, environmental concerns and new opportunities are prompting farmers to seek ways of bringing diversity back into their cropping systems. |
The crisis that monocropping built By Paul Sobocinski Between 1984 and 1990, I had the opportunity to organize farmers and rural residents hit hard by the farm crisis of that period. High interest rates were already taking their toll on farmers' cash flows by the early 1980s. Then, a panic to recover debt (that in my opinion was led by the Farm Credit System) caused land values to drop by half overnight. That instantly cut the financial legs out from under thousands of family farmers. The amount of stress on farmers, their families, small businesses and rural communities in general was incredible. Many organizers like myself were in the same situation, so we saw no other option than to join forces with our neighbors in an attempt to ride out this storm.
We also worked to provide public demonstration of the need for policy change at the state and federal levels. In 1985, on one of the coldest days in January, 15,000 farmers marched on the steps of the state capitol in St. Paul, calling for a moratorium on farm fore-closures. Months later, thousands of farmers surrounded the sheriff at Glenwood, Minn., shouting down the foreclosure sale of Jim and Gloria Langman's farm. In 1986, a tractorcade that started from all corners of Minnesota and involved thousands of Minnesota farmers descended on the state capitol.
These organized efforts had some positive impacts. In 1986, Minnesota passed laws related to farm interest buy downs, credit mediation, right of first refusal, a farmer crisis hotline, key funding for a farm advocate program and other relief measures. At the federal level, mediation was also passed in regards to Farmers Home Administration loans. In addition, the Farm Credit System was bailed out and ordered to provide restructuring to its farmer-members.
Problem solved, right? Wrong.
As I was driving to Worthington, Minn., on a beautiful Saturday morning this fall to help with the Great Upper Midwest Farm Price Crisis Rally, I couldn't help but think back to the 1980s. Why are we in this mess again? In all the years I have farmed, I have never seen such a good crop, truly a blessing from God and a time to celebrate. But my neighbors are going out of business at an incredible pace. A bumper harvest has again become a bittersweet experience as commodity prices drop well below costs of production and farm income falls to a low not seen in decades.
Two crises: one root
Two farm crises within two decades. The end result is the same: fewer families on the land and more food production in the hands of larger and larger entities. What else do these crises have in common? As I looked out my car window on that September day at endless acres of corn and soybeans while listening to radio reports of dropping commodity prices, it occurred to me that we farmers are shackled to a monocultural commodity system that's sinking fast. Whether it be huge debt or lethargic bank accounts, we are made all the more vulnerable by a single culprit: lack of diversity. When Asia stops buying soybeans and all you raise is soybeans, guess what? Raising more of the same in response to low prices only makes the problem worse.
A 60-member task force on plant diversity consisting of farmers, agribusiness, public agencies, and nonprofit organizations has concluded that our current agricultural cropping systems have less biological diversity than at any time in history The task force determined that simplified farming is causing a crisis in rural Minnesota. Production of single, low-value commodities does not add substantially to the economic base of the community and creates a high level of biological and environmental risk for farmers and society, say these experts.
Where I farm here in southwestern Minnesota, almost 70 percent of the land is now planted to corn and soybeans. This threatens to put us in the same position as Red River Valley farmers. Signs of that trouble are European corn borers, soybean cyst nematodes, white mold, root rot and more and different weeds. Each year it costs my neighbors and me more to stay on top of the problems caused by biologically impoverished farming.
Bankrupt farm policy
How did our farming system get into such dire straits? Much of it can be blamed on the half-century-old government commodity programs that rewarded farmers for planting a few select crops such as corn and wheat. This generally kept the farm level price for commodities stable and low, just the way the international grain traders like it. It also gradually eliminated diversity from the landscape.
But it has proven to be a bust both as a way of controlling production and as a way of taking care of our environment. Here's one example: A few years ago the farm program provided incentives for farmers to idle 10 percent of their program crop acres. What happened? Farmers set aside a portion of their land, but then applied more fertilizer on their best remaining crop acres to boost yields. We still ended up with overproduction and those extra ag chemicals on fewer acres didn't help the environment.
In general, the farm program's love affair with raising as much corn or wheat as the land can bear (and then some), has taken away all financial incentives for having a variety of crops in a long-term rotation. This has resulted in more erosion and reduced the soil's ability to build and sustain its own fertility.
It has also increased our dependence on costly inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers. Because farmers stopped using rotations that included small grains and alfalfa, they found out that the short rotation of just corn and soybeans caused greater weed and pest problems. As weeds and insects became resistant to herbicides and pesticides, the answer has become more or newer chemicals. I'm not opposed to using chemicals; in fact they are a part of my operation. However, I am constantly striving to reduce my farm's reliance on these expensive and sometimes harmful inputs. Monocropping hinders those efforts significantly.
This treadmill of monoculture trapped many farmers like myself because if we varied one iota from the farm program we wouldn't receive price supports or be eligible for disaster payments. In a business as vulnerable to bad weather and roller coaster-like markets as farming is, working without such a safety net can be disastrous. Increasingly, our "farm policy" has become more beneficial to multinational grain traders looking for steady supplies of cheap commodities. It long ago ceased being a policy that benefited farmers.
Then came "Freedom to Farm" in 1996. According to Congress, this law was supposed to bring diversity back to agriculture by allowing farmers to "plant for the market." But in my opinion, it just swaps one master for another. Now, instead of Washington, D.C., telling us what to plant, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland are giving the marching orders by controlling the very processing, transportation and marketing infrastructure that was set up indirectly by the government over the years.
The bottom line is that all these years of farm programs have created a production, processing and marketing system based on a few crops. As politicians scramble to make points with rural constituents by suggesting all sorts of Band-Aid solutions to the current crisis, we need to make it clear to them that the old way of thinking isn't working. What is that old way of thinking? It goes something like this: there's nothing wrong with rural America that a higher price for corn or wheat won't fix.
Unfortunately, we saw that old-fashioned thinking in action this fall when Congress gave farmers advances on their loan deficiency payments (LDP) to tide them over. The trouble is, I can't collect LDPs on alfalfa and pasture or any other plant system that protects the soil and diversifies my operation. I can only collect LDPs on my corn and soybeans. My alfalfa fields and hog pastures have become an economic liability, when in fact I should have been rewarded for adding diversity to the landscape in a way that makes me more economically and environmentally sustainable.
New farm policy
Suddenly cutting the strings of government control won't work. There must be a transition out of a system that promotes a few commodities at the exclusion of all others. We must get out of the mindset that new international markets (what happened to those in 1998?) will suddenly make an old tired system of crop production lucrative.
Sustainable farming is our best opportunity to be successful and profitable. Diversity in our cropping patterns provides us with a unique opportunity to unhook from the control of the grain trade and gives farmers the opportunity to match supply and demand. By taking steps now as farmers and developing long term crop rotations, we have the real potential to not only protect the environmental sustainability of our farms, but to reduce the overabundance of commodities that are selling for next to nothing. We as farmers need to start making the decision of what crops we produce, not just what the grain traders or the government tells us to plant.
But how do we do that without going broke? In terms of public policy, we must seize the opportunity and build the political will that rewards diversity and creates stable rural communities with a good quality of life. Government payments should not be tied to program crops, but rather to farming practices that improve the environmental sustainability of a farm. And economic development initiatives such as agricultural processing cooperatives should be flexible enough to add value to a variety of niche commodities. We also need to find ways to encourage dispersed livestock production that can take advantage of a diverse cropping system. After all, pork, beef and milk production on many small- and medium-sized independent family farms is an extremely efficient way to add value to grain and forage while keeping wealth in our communities.
If we don't take action now, perhaps there will be yet one more farm crisis rally sometime around the year 2008. But this time it will take the form of a wake, instead of a wake-up call.
Paul Sobocinski raises crops and livestock near the southwest Minnesota community of Wabasso. He worked as a family farm organizer for Groundswell during the 1980s and is currently a Land Stewardship Project staff member.
Pesticides
The July/August Land Stewardship Letter reported on the possible connections between agricultural pesticide exposure and increased birth defect rates in humans.
In late October, a report was released that added further fuel to the "development toxicology" fire. The report, published by the Natural Resources Defense Council, concludes that children living on or near U.S. farms face "disproportionately high exposure to dangerous pesticides."
Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up With Pesticides in Agricultural Communities cites evidence from several studies to conclude that more than 500,000 children under the age of six are regularly exposed to insect and weed killers in their homes.
For example, the herbicide atrazine was detected in 100 percent of the houses of Iowa farm families sampled during the application season. The chemical was detected in only 4 percent of non-farm homes included in that study.
A copy of the report is available through the Natural Resources Defense Council's web site. Copies can also be ordered by sending $13.95 (that covers shipping) to: NRDC Publications, 40 West 20th St., New York, NY 10011. California residents must add 7.25 percent sales tax.
Mutants in the muck
In September, it was reported that Canadian scientists are finding huge numbers of deformed frogs in close proximity to areas where pesticides are used. The incidence of limb deformities in animals undergoing metamorphosis between tadpole and frog was 7 percent overall in agricultural habitats, and 1.5 percent in non-agricultural areas, according to a new study released jointly by researchers at the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Redpath Museum at McGill University and the Ontario Veterinary College. The results are based on examinations of nearly 30,000 frogs. Some ponds that are producing deformed frogs are next to corn fields sprayed with the herbicide atrazine and the insecticide carbofuran.
Scientists worldwide began studying whether amphibians had higher than average deformity rates in 1995 after a group of school children found disfigured frogs near the southern Minnesota town of Le Sueur.
Swine Center
An expert on swine nutrition and management is the new director of the University of Minnesota Swine Center. Jerry Shurson was named to replace Robert Morrison, who resigned this summer after it was revealed he failed to report financial ties he had with the hog industry (see April/May/June 1998). The Swine Center, which is home to more than 40 faculty members exploring the many facets of pig production, sets the tone for swine research at the university. Shurson was an animal scientist at Ohio State University before coming to the University of Minnesota in 1990.
Although university officials found that Morrison did not violate the institution's conflict of interest rules, they did concede that some of his actions fell through the cracks of what was considered appropriate. Michael Martin, who until recently was dean of the agriculture college, told the Land Stewardship Letter last summer that a "Public-Private Partnership Committee" would examine the issues brought up by the Morrison affair. However, this fall Chris Roberts, a University of Minnesota spokesperson, said no commitment had been made to have the standing committee examine issues brought up by the Morrison case. It is up to the university's vice president for research to decide what issues the committee deals with. Christine Maziar took over that position on June 1. However, when her office was contacted in mid-November, a staff member said Maziar was not aware of any recommendations to have the committee examine issues related to the Morrison issue and that "unfortunately this is something that fell through the cracks with the transition" between Maziar and the former vice president for research, Mark Brenner. Maziar has promised to look into the matter, said the staffer at the time.
Grass farming
The Jan/Feb/Mar cover story examined whether grass-based milk production could help maintain a viable family-farm based dairy industry in the Midwest. New statistics out of Wisconsin provide even more evidence that such thoughts aren't pure fantasy.
Between 1993 and 1997, the number of Wisconsin dairy operations using management intensive rotational grazing (MIRG) techniques increased by 60 percent to more than 3,600, making them roughly 15 percent of all dairies in that state, according to the University of Wisconsin. That increase is particularly impressive in light of Wisconsin's losing 18 percent of its dairy farmers during the same period.
Putting E. coli out to pasture
And the news has been full of reports about the health benefits of drinking milk and eating beef produced on grass. For example, a forage-based diet for cattle appears to make Escherichia coli susceptible to being destroyed in the human stomach. Commonly known as E. coli, these microbes cause 20,000 cases of food poisoning in the U.S. annually. Roughly 200 of those cases are fatal. But the Sept. 11 issue of the journal Science contained the results of a Cornell University study which added various amounts of forage to the diets of 61 cows that had been eating mostly corn. The researchers found that replacing the grain ration with as much as 40 percent forage for a few days dramatically reduced the number of acid-resistant E. coli microbes.
In addition, cows who graze exclusively have dramatically higher levels of a "good acid" (conjugated linoleic acid) in their milk, according to scientists at the USDA's Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, Wis. Laboratory animal studies on conjugated linoleic acid have shown it can help prevent breast cancer and malignant growths.
Organic rules
Round two of the battle over national standards for organic food has begun.
The Jan/Feb/Mar Land Stewardship Letter reported on the fire storm of protest the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed organic rules had ignited. There were concerns over proposals that would have allowed food produced and processed with the help of sewage sludge, irradiation and genetically engineered organisms to be labeled organic. These practices came to be known as the "big three," although there were plenty of other problems with the 499 pages of proposed rules. By the April 30 deadline, more than 270,000 people submitted comments to the USDA, the vast majority expressing outrage that the big three were even being considered. As a result, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman agreed to remove those practices from consideration. But concerns have been raised that the jettisoning of the big three will only serve as a smoke screen for other egregious production methods.
Those critics appear to be on to something. The proposed rules contain provisions that would allow meat to be labeled organic even if it was produced using livestock confinement as well as antibiotics and parasiticides. The USDA is also proposing eliminating the current system of decertifying a farmer who is found to not be following accepted organic rules. Right now, private organic certifiers have the power to revoke a farmer's license the same day a violation is discovered. The USDA is proposing taking that over and allowing the courts to get involved. Concerns have been raised by private inspectors and certifiers that this will greatly slow down and complicate the procedure for decertifying farmers who are violating organic standards.
In October, the USDA published three issue papers on livestock confinement, antibiotics and parasiticides, as well as the decertification process. The public was allowed to comment on them until Dec. 15. After that, there will be even more wrangling with the rules.
The bottom line? Rules that were mandated by law more than eight years ago will probably not see the light of day until the new millennium.
On the bright side, it was reported by Datamonitor in November that the organic foods and beverages market grew more than 26 percent to $4.5 million in 1997.
Lagoons
The first major test of Minnesota's new hydrogen sulfide regulations has gotten off to a rocky start. Between April 23 and Aug. 19, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency documented 46 violations of the state hydrogen sulfide standard at a facility operated by ValAdCo. The cooperative operates several large hog production factories in Minnesota's Renville County.
Three years ago, Renville County residents living near mega-hog operations began showing symptoms of being exposed to high levels of hydrogen sulfide. In 1996, Land Stewardship project staff and members helped set up a citizen testing program in the county, and used its results to convince the Minnesota Legislature to fund an official monitoring program (July/August, 1996 LSL; June/July 1997 LSL).
During the summer, MPCA officials made repeated "requests" that ValAdCo take steps to reduce the amount of hydrogen sulfide its lagoons were producing. Specifically, they wanted the lagoons in question to be covered with a geotextile fabric, with straw thrown on top to absorb emissions. The MPCA also wanted ValAdCo to implement a continuous air monitoring plan.
By late August, it was clear that ValAdCo had not followed through on requests to place the straw on top of the fabric. As a result, MPCA Commissioner Peder Larson issued an "administrative order" calling on ValAdCo to put the straw cover in place and institute a continuous air monitoring plan by Sept. 14, according to an agency press release. Issuing an administrative order is considered a fairly serious regulatory step.
When contacted on October 16, MPCA spokesperson Stacy Casey said that ValAdCo had met the agency's demands for placing straw on one lagoon. The hog producer had also put in place continuous air monitoring. But the hog production cooperative was having problems getting a second lagoon covered with straw. Its immense surface area - 600 x 440 feet - made it difficult to get straw all the way into the center of the geotextile covering.
As a result, ValAdCo officials had asked for a 30-day extension on the Sept. 14 deadline. As of Oct. 16, the MPCA and state attorney general's office were still considering the request. What must be kept in mind is that Oct. 16 is two days after a 30- day extension would have expired - if it had been granted in the first place. ValAdCo was later granted the original extension request, as well as another 30-day stay.
ValAdCo did not meet the new deadline (Nov. 14) either. Instead, ValAdCo officials sent a letter to the MPCA arguing that since there had been no hydrogen sulflide violations at the facility since September, the problem was in effect solved. MPCA officials agreed, and decided ValAdCo would not be required to finish covering the second lagoon.
In the meantime, plans were made to work up a "stipulation agreement" between the MPCA and ValAdCo. This is a way of negotiating any fines or other penalties imposed on a pollution violator before court action becomes necessary. MPCA officials declined to discuss what penalties would be considered as part of these negotiations.
LSP hires two new organizers Caroline van Schaik has joined the Land Stewardship Project as a program organizer. Van Schaik recently completed a master's degree in soil science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She holds undergraduate degrees in agronomy and journalism. Van Schaik was also a Rotary Scholar in Middle East Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. She has worked for Colorado State University Extension, the Colorado Seed Growers Association and at the Women's Community Bakery in Washington, D.C. During the early 1990s, van Schaik worked in small enterprise development as a Peace Corps volunteer in Mali, West Africa.
Van Schaik is coordinating LSP's Sustainable Farming Systems project in the Sand Creek watershed near the Twin Cities. She will also introduce on-farm monitoring and whole farm planning to farmers participating in the Green Corridor Project. Van Schaik lives in St. Paul, Minn., and is based in LSP's Twin Cities office.
Karen Stettler has joined LSP as a community organizer. Stettler has worked as a marketing coordinator for the Forest Resource Center in Lanesboro, Minn., and director of Community Education in St. Charles, Minn. She also worked with rural youth and community development projects as a U.S. Peace Corps Volunteer in Thailand.
Stettler has degrees in Asian studies and history from St. Olaf College. She is currently enrolled in the Experiential Education master's program at Mankato State University. As an organizer with LSP, she will focus on livestock concentration issues. Stettler, a resident of Fountain City, Wis., is based out of LSP's southeast Minnesota office.
Volunteers fight trash & hunger The first weekend in October saw Land Stewardship Project staff and members continuing a long-running tradition: pulling trash out of western Minnesota waterways. LSP's Lynn Lokken and a group of volunteers worked with the local National Guard on a section of the Lac qui Parle River. Over on the Minnesota River, LSP organizer Patrick Moore and a Cub Scout troop picked up garbage near Montevideo.
Also that weekend, LSP's Audrey Arner helped put on the 13th annual Chippewa County CROP Walk. This event, which attracted 65 walkers and 17 local sponsors this year, is aimed at fighting hunger and raising awareness of local food systems.
LSP provides 'Taste' again More than 200 people attended the fifth annual Taste of Lewiston celebration on Nov. 5. This event, which is put on by the Land Stewardship Project's southeast Minnesota office, has become a major social occasion in the Lewiston area within the past couple of years.
This year's Taste, which was themed "Everything Under the Sun," included a community dinner featuring performance of drama and vocals by local students, story telling, a scenic slide show and a display of art contest entries.
Arner travels to Europe Land Stewardship Project organizer Audrey Arner traveled to England and Denmark in November to learn more about sustainable food marketing and labeling initiatives being undertaken there. During the trip, Arner, along with her husband Richard Handeen, met a variety of people involved in Europe's sustainable agriculture movement.
Arner and Handeen farm near the western Minnesota community of Montevideo. They market antibiotic- and hormone-free grass-fed beef through the prairiefare.com web site. They also sell chemical-free row crops through organic markets. Watch future issues of the Land Stewardship Letter for a summary of the educational tour. Hey LSPers! Do you have questions about your Land Stewardship Project membership? Contact our new membership coordinator, Cathy Eberhart, at 651-653-0618; e-mail: velaeber@MNINTER.NET.
On a warm afternoon this past June, western Minnesota farmer Dennis Gibson stood on his deck and pointed proudly to a livestock enclosure on the other side of his well-kept lawn. Contained in the pen were llamas and deer, examples of Gibson's attempt to diversify his large sugar beet and cash grain operation. Llamas have a reputation for nasty aggressiveness. Mindful of that, a visitor asked Gibson if the two species got along in their close quarters.
"They have to," said the farmer without elaboration. Indeed, that day Gibson was hosting a group of people that are learning a great deal about how to evolve from just "getting along" because they are penned in together by geographical and environmental circumstances. The Chippewa River Whole Farm Planning and Monitoring Team is a group consisting of farmers, scientists, environmental and agricultural government agency staffers, as well as environmental advocacy organization personnel. Brought together by the Land Stewardship Project's western Minnesota office and supported by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, the Minnesota Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources and the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, this group represents just about any constituency that is affected by the meanderings of the Chippewa River, a major tributary of the Minnesota River. The Minnesota has the dubious distinction of being the greatest contributor of pollution to the Mississippi River, and land use decisions at the head of the watershed play a major part in that.
The team of 18 people was developed four years ago when it was recognized that just about everyone agreed the Chippewa had problems with siltation and runoff. However, when it came to developing strategies for correcting these problems, the agreeing stopped faster than a tractor hitting a mud hole. A typical meeting of the team brings together people who traditionally may not agree on land use issues - farmers, environmentalists and government officials. But the team has also made allies of farmers who may not always see eye-to-eye. For example, on this particular June day at the Gibson farm, joining a soil scientist, water quality expert and university grazing specialist were a pair of dairy farming brothers, three young partners in an Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) vegetable operation, three members of a beef and sheep production family, and a farmer who raises a vast variety of livestock, from lop-eared goats to tumbling pigeons. Farm acreages from 2,000 acres to 40 acres were represented.
"The diversity of this group is key," says Terry Van Der Pol, an LSP organizer and member of the team. "Solutions can have a depth of quality that would be impossible if we all thought alike." The team's focus is figuring out ways of helping each other manage land as a whole, rather than as separate enterprises unrelated to each other. Such a big picture view of things means looking beyond the farm's financial bottom line and considering what enterprises will support a healthy environment and a good quality of life.
"They first look at what quality of life they would like to support, and then figure out what production means are needed to support that," says Audrey Arner, a local farmer and team member. That's a reversal of the way decisions are often made on farms: Allowing the means of production to determine an operation's quality if life and ecological sustainability. Arner is an LSP organizer who has taught courses in Holistic Management, a goal-setting and decision-making model used by many farm families to balance economic well-being with environmental and quality of life considerations.
One thing Holistic Management teaches is that to be truly sustainable a family must look beyond its farm's borders and determine how its practices are impacting, and impacted by, neighbors. Those neighbors include farmers and non-farmers alike - down- creek, as well as throughout a large watershed like the Chippewa.
Team members meet about once or twice a month to discuss issues such as how soil health and water quality are related, or how what kind of livestock system one uses affects the kind of crop farming needed. Within the past year, the team has tied all this together using on-farm monitoring as a focus point. Using resources developed by the Biological, Financial and Social Monitoring Project (see July/Aug LSL), the team's approach is a combination of homegrown monitoring and utilization of the expertise of scientists and Extension Service experts. But even when tapping the knowledge of PhDs, the team is ever mindful of how their advice can be used practically, says Van Der Pol.
"The bottom line is that monitoring and planning processes have to be usable for the farmer. They have to help that farm family move toward their goal."
For example, at the Gibson farm meeting, the focus was monitoring soil quality. University of Minnesota soil scientist Deborah Allen explained to the dozen team members present how to measure aggregate stability using a quart jar and dishwasher detergent, as well as a soil's percolation rate using a coffee can. Then she explained that to monitor the presence of earthworms - another indicator of the state of the soil - one must dig up a cubic foot of land and count each worm present. She said this is about as accurate as the alternative: spreading mustard on the ground and counting the worms that are forced up.
That sparked a spirited discussion. Some farmers raised concerns that the coffee can percolation test is too subjective. Others pointed out that earthworms are often too deeply burrowed to count by digging them up.
Livestock farmer Don Struxness explained to Allen how the mustard system has worked well for him on his pastures and he talked about the nuances of getting an accurate count and what it tells him about his soil.
"It looks like we have our earthworm expert right here," said Allen with a smile, pointing at Struxness.
That interchange is an example of how the "whole team concept" can function in the midst of such diverse viewpoints. It's based on the idea that outside experts have just as much to learn from farmers and other rural residents as vice versa. Scientific expertise refined in the laboratory and classroom is fine, but it must be useful in the crop fields and pastures of farm country as well. The Chippewa Monitoring Team is reaching out to a wider group in the watershed. They are working with the Chippewa River Diagnostic Study, which is enlisting some 35 volunteer citizen monitors to collect and record water quality and quantity information, adding more eyes to the watershed health team.
During the recent meeting, team members visited one of Gibson's fields where a special water sampling meter has been sunk several feet into the ground. University of Minnesota water quality expert Christopher Iremonger explained to team members that the instrument will tell scientists and landowners a lot about the state of the water flowing over and under the soil. Three other team farms have similar devices installed.
But the group knows monitoring can only take a farmer so far. "It's one thing to monitor, it's another to change it for the better," says Gibson.
That's why the group holds workshops and field days on various farming practices that help protect water quality. And at each meeting the discussion invariably turns to such issues as how to use government cost-share money to develop sediment filtering plantings along waterways or establish watering systems for management intensive rotational grazing systems. Participants swap ideas and share tips on how to make a living in the watershed without destroying its ecological foundations. How does one get rewarded for raising livestock in an environmentally friendly way? Will a CSA operation that relies on consumers becoming partners in a produce farm work in such a rural area?
There are also disagreements. Killdeer call out around the Gibson farm during this particular meeting, a sign that this is low-lying, flood-prone farm country, farm country that has been made farmable by a labyrinth-like system of drainage that would put an urban sewage network to shame. Is all that drainage helping or hindering efforts to reduce flooding? What farm chemicals actually make it to the Chippewa and eventually the Minnesota through this system?
Those questions are discussed, often heatedly, but always with the overriding thought on the part of team members that they have a leg-up on many of the other groups who are arguing about the same issues from opposite sides of the room.
At one point in the meeting, Allen, the soil scientist, explained that the best monitoring happens when a farmer has a stable place to check back on year-after-year. Only then can one gauge if progress is being made. It has become clear within the past few years that for a team like this to work, a stable group of neighbors is also needed - neighbors that can check back with each other long into the future.
"It's kind of fun," says Struxness. "It's fun to see what you can do to improve things."
|
For more information on the Chippewa River Whole Farm Planning and Monitoring Team, contact Audrey Arner or Terry Van Der Pol at: Land Stewardship Project, 103 W. Nichols, Montevideo, MN 56265; phone: 320-269-2105; e-mail: aarner@MAXMINN.COM. |
|
The Monitoring Tool Box is now available to the public. Packaged in a three-ringed binder, this 115-page guide covers the monitoring of quality of life, farm sustainability with financial data, birds, frogs, soils and streams. For a copy of The Monitoring Tool Box, the Close to the Ground video and a one- year subscription to the Close to the Ground newsletter, send $35 ($31.50 for LSP members) to: Land Stewardship Project, P.O. Box 130, Lewiston, MN 55952. Add $7 for shipping and handling. There are discounts for bulk orders. Call 507-523-3366 for information. |
You Can Farm:
The Entrepreneur's Guide to Start & $ucceed
in a Farming Enterprise
By Joel Salatin
Chelsea Green Publishing
1998
480 pages
$30.00
Reviewed by Jill O'Neill
The prerequisite to a successful farming enterprise is to believe it is possible. Anyone who has heard Joel Salatin speak knows this sustainable farming pioneer has that kind of confidence - by the wagon-load. And if you've read any articles on this energetic man (publications as diverse as New Farm and National Geographic have covered him), then you already know this confidence has resulted in some great successes for him and his family in the field of sustainable food production and marketing.
His latest book, You Can Farm: The Entrepreneur's Guide to Start & $ucceed in a Farming Enterprise, is an excellent companion for anyone searching for the confidence to take that first step down the farming path. Even established farmers looking for new options would profit from reading this comprehensive work. The book has an inspirational and energetic quality, taking readers through a step-by-step thought process in beginning a farm business. Salatin is quick to address the sacrifices and the realities. Throughout the book, this pioneer in low-cost grass-based livestock production cites stringent guidelines for success and makes it perfectly clear that it won't be easy. He is so honest that at first the book can be a little overwhelming. In fact, by the end of chapter four, entitled "Do it Now," I was ready to give up the idea of getting started in farming. Even grass farming guru Allan Nation points out in the foreword that after having read the book many people might be discouraged from trying farming.
But by the time I finished the book, I found it to be a healthy, low-risk way to help answer that burning question: Is farming really for me? It doesn't hurt that the author himself offers such an excellent role model of sustainable farming success. His diverse family farm, highlighted throughout the book, proves to readers that earning a comfortable living on the land is not a pipe dream. Written in a folksy if somewhat preachy tone, the book is as much about becoming a creative entrepreneur as it is about farming. While most of the book is devoted to planning a successful farm business, Salatin does an intriguing job of laying out his philosophy and how it relates to a successful, sustainable farm operation. He talks about the need for environmentally-enhancing agriculture and bioregional food sufficiency.
To do all this, farmers must reconnect with consumers. Modern American agriculture is responsible for many of the current barriers that exist between rural and urban people. Salatin suggests that direct marketing of farm products to consumers will create relationships and begin bridging the gap between people and their food source. Surveys show Americans are increasingly concerned about the safety of food. There is a growing market of health-conscious consumers waiting to be tapped. Salatin promotes respectable incomes for people who produce healthy, high quality food. And perhaps most importantly, Salatin believes that sustainable farming can provide an emotionally exhilarating life-style for individuals and families. His bottom line is that a farming enterprise succeeds or fails primarily on its philosophical foundation, not on the basic how-to information.
But there is plenty of how-to information present in You Can Farm. Salatin insists that the ticket to success for any farm business is to establish a market, preferably a local one, and sell products at full retail or even premium prices. He warns about putting production before marketing. This advice fits well for someone who is thinking about transitioning into farming. A full or part-time job can be maintained while building up a customer base and production skills.
The book highlights a multitude of potential farming opportunities and complementary enterprises: everything from grass-based dairying to home bakeries to agrotourism. Readers are encouraged to brainstorm and plan proposed enterprises on paper. Whatever the enterprise(s), Salatin stresses not to do something just for the money. It should be something that you and your family really enjoy doing. Included in his criteria for choosing an enterprise are: low initial start-up costs relative to the ability to generate income, high gross profit margin, low maintenance requirements, high demand with low supply in the current marketplace and relatively size-neutral profit potential.
Finally, the "Examining Your Ideas" section of Salatin's book should be posted on every refrigerator door in farm country. It presents the top 10 pitfalls among farmers and lays out 10 commandments for the successful farmer. On the negative side, the list includes things like: being too independent, lack of capital, too much time spent in non- farm offices, impatience, spending money on things that do not create income, and disagreements over vision between family members. The commandments for success include: stay at home, be honest about luxuries, build relationships with neighbors, invest in money-making things, be committed, always do something, write down a plan, fully utilize your resources, and surround yourself with competent counsel.
Taking that last commandment to heart, one could do worse than to use You Can Farm as a key source of advice.
Jill O'Neill works with the Land Stewardship Project's Farm Beginnings program in southeast Minnesota.
Metropolitics:
A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability
By Myron Orfield
Brookings Institution Press
Washington, D.C.
1998 (paperback edition)
224 pages
$18.95
Reviewed by Meg Malde-Arnosti
Those of us living in the charming older neighborhoods of Minnesota's Twin Cities may believe we are immune from urban blight and sprawl. Our neighborhoods are filled with well-kept houses, nearby shops and quiet parks. However, Myron Orfield, a Minnesota state representative and attorney, illustrates graphically in his book Metropolitics how urban sprawl threatens the entire metro area. How can we maintain the high quality of life in our inner cities, so vital to preventing urban sprawl?
Using what The Nation magazine calls "part social science, part policy prescription, part hard-nosed politics," Metropolitics clarifies the problem, offers specific solutions, and outlines the arduous political process required to implement change. The first two-thirds of the book should be required reading for anyone interested in urban sprawl and inner city vitality.
A series of colorful demographic maps at the beginning of the book broadens our view beyond local neighborhoods to show regional patterns. For example, two maps show a dramatic increase in poverty in Minneapolis and St. Paul between 1979 and 1989. Another map shows that hotbeds of serious crime in the Twin Cities include St. Paul and Minneapolis, but also, surprisingly, the suburbs of Roseville, Brooklyn Park, Fridley and Maplewood. In 1990, the number of children enrolled in the Afton and Minnetrista school districts increased 89 percent and 216 percent respectively, while schools in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and inner suburbs such as Golden Valley lost as much as 57 percent of their students.
In addition to maps, Orfield lists some illuminating discrepancies between the inner core and the outer suburbs. The Twin Cities region, he notes, is 92 percent white, but extreme poverty tracts are 48 percent white. Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, two outlying suburbs, have one-third the population of St. Paul, but their tax bases are the same as the capital city. New minimum-wage jobs are created where workers can't afford to live, so roads become clogged with traffic moving back and forth. New suburbs thereby benefit from a labor force without the social costs associated with lower income. The inner core, in contrast, bears great social costs and responsibilities with a poor resource base. Older communities are taxed to support infrastructure for outlying communities, which speeds socioeconomic decline.
The gloom of this first section becomes oppressive and makes us wish for a white knight on his charger to save the day. If Orfield is that knight, he must slay many dragons along the way, because his solutions require regional thinking and an attitude of responsibility for the whole. He says, "The only real solutions involve a new metropolitan compact - to plan a common future, share benefits and responsibilities, reinvest together in older areas, protect forests and farmland, conquer social prejudice, and in general foster sustainable, interdependent regions."
Metropolitics offers three ways to equalize districts and thereby curb urban sprawl:
The last section of the book goes into exhaustive detail about recent legislative sessions and Orfield's battles for reform. This is too much for all but political insiders, though the basic points are interesting.
Briefly, his strategy has been to facilitate a regional coalition among central cities and the inner-ring suburbs. Much of the task has involved demonstrating to groups like the North Metro Mayor's Association that they actually have much in common with the central cities when it comes to issues of urban sprawl. The coalition-building process has been slow, and met with much resistance. For example, a bill to get developing suburbs to pay a larger part of new sewer construction was defeated by heavy lobbying from builders, developers, real estate agents and growing municipalities.
Nevertheless, there have been some recent successes both within and without the legislature. Metropolitics makes an important contribution to such efforts. It outlines issues which affect all of us living in a metro area, makes graphically apparent that there are disparities in our cities which demand regional reforms, and helps us see problems comprehensively.
And perhaps most importantly, it outlines creative and reasonable solutions which offer hope for more dynamic, livable and humane cities.
Land Stewardship Project member Meg Malde-Arnosti is a master's degree student in landscape architecture at the University of Minnesota.
Ecology of the Red River Valley Valley of Grass: Tallgrass Prairie and Parkland of the Red River Region, is a new book now available from the Nature Conservancy of Minnesota.
Through words and pictures, the book explains why our northern tallgrass prairie has all but disappeared and what is being done to save the birds, mammals, plants and insects that depend on these grassland habitats for their survival. Written by Kim Alan Chapman, Adelheid Fischer and Mary Kinsella Ziegenhagen, this 122-page book weaves together sound scientific information and stories told by residents of the Red River Valley region.
For a copy, send $14.95 to: The Nature Conservancy, 1313 5th St. S.E., Suite 320; Minneapolis, MN 55414-1588. That price does not include shipping and handling. For information, call 612-331-0750. Factory farm overview Spotlight on Pork III is third in a series of publications that provides a state-by- state account of the fight against large-scale hog facilities. Spotlight III, written by Nancy Thompson of the Center for Rural Affairs, reports on the environmental and social problems of industrialized pork production.
For a copy of the 16-page report, send $3 (make checks payable to the Center for Rural Affairs, to: Center for Rural Affairs, PO Box 406, Walthill, NE 68067-0406. Managing cover crops Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 2nd Edition describes practical, field-proven practices for making cropping operations sustainable. This 212-page books contains range maps for 18 cover crops and seven pages of comparative charts. It covers methods for getting started using cover crops and provides economic, nitrogen credit, soil building and rotation information.
For a copy, send $19 to: Sustainable Agriculture Publications, Hills Building, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405-0082; or call Andy Clark at the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Network at 301-504-6425. Marketing report Emerging Markets for Family Farms: Opportunities to Prosper Through Social and Environmental Responsibility is a 45-page report published by the Center for Rural Affairs. Written by Kelly O'Neill, it provides the results of a national sustainable marketing survey on what it takes to be successful, barriers to overcome, products with the greatest potential and how to develop markets.
For a copy, send $7 (that covers shipping and handling) to: Center for Rural Affairs, PO Box 406, Walthill, NE 68067; phone: 402-846-5428. Make checks and... money orders payable to the Center for Rural Affairs. Sustainable ag/forestry resources A Guide to USDA and Other Federal Resources for Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry Enterprises is a comprehensive listing that covers everything from new technologies and financing businesses to marketing and community development. This 159-page publication is free.
For a copy, contact Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), P.O. Box 3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702; phone: 1-800-346-9140; e-mail: askattra@NCATARK.UARK.EDU. This guide is also available on the internet at www.attra.org. Sustainable ag education grants Nearly $500,000 in grants are available to experienced educators interested in teaching sustainable agriculture in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota or Wisconsin.
This money is available through the USDA's North Central Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Professional Development program. In the past, individual grants through this program have generally ranged from $10,000 to $80,000 each. Priority areas for the 1999 grant portfolio are: marketing and value-added processing, farming and ranching systems-level education, economics of sustainable agriculture, sustainable weed and pest management, measuring soil quality and soil health, and emerging issues.
Grant proposals are due Feb. 12. For application forms, contact: NCR SARE, University of Nebraska, 13A Activities Bldg., Lincoln, NE 68583-0840; phone: 402- 472- 7081; e-mail: sare001@UNLVM.UNL.EDU; web site.
Looking for farm A Minnesota composer and pianist is seeking a living space to rent on an organic farm. He has farm experience and has skills in the areas of carpentry, sheep production, general farm maintenance, tree farming and woodlot management.
Contact: Carl Witt, 651-228-1456.
Sustainable marketing book Marketing Sustainable Produced Foods: International Examples and Lessons for the United States, is a new publication prepared for Food Choices, a project coordinated by the Land Stewardship Project, Cooperative Development Services and the Organic Alliance. This report provides numerous examples of marketing programs that stress environmental and social attributes of food and non-food agricultural products.
For a copy of this 51-page report, send $22 (that includes shipping and handling; make checks and money orders payable to Food Choices) to: Darcy Klasna, Food Choices, 30 West Mifflin St., Suite 401, Madison, WI 53703; phone: 608-258-4396; e- mail:darcylk@inexpress.net.
Sustainable Farming Association History A New Dawn of Farming: The Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota's Formation and Growth tracks the many accomplishments of the various SFA chapters since the first ones were started by the Land Stewardship Project in the late 1980s. It also describes the challenges these chapters face as this grassroots organization begins its second decade of existence. The book includes special sections on how the SFA - it is now an autonomous organization independent of LSP - is structured, as well as member survey results. It includes a copy of the SFA's chapter charter.
For a copy of the 24-page book, send $4 to cover postage and handling (Minn. residents add 26 cents for tax; make checks payable to Land Stewardship Project) to: LSP, 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110; phone: 651-653-0618.
Night Hawk Song
Swiftly to night's corner
high above gleaming silos,
cries follow like streamers.
Suspend my rigid frame
with moonstrings,
dig craters on my dark side.
Swinging,
falling,
strings humming I spin.
Looping a smooth arc.
Dropping perilously each swing.
Strings humming I spin.
Spinning I fall.
Later, moonlight weaves and wraps
and I sleep,
nestled to barn rafters.
Dust murmurs a lullaby while pigeons
guard this musty darkness.
- Susan Stumm Moore
Albert Lea, Minn.
Barn Lowering
I saw a barn the other day.
It had a big hole in its roof
and it seemed to say:
Help me, don't go away.
If I don't get fixed soon I will be gone and all the memories will go too.
Don't you remember all the cows?
And the calves and the kittens too?
All housed by me.
And the haymow too where children played in the summertime.
And sometimes a barn dance was held by the grown-ups too, it cost but a dime.
Please tell me this is a bad dream and not really true.
Is my life over?
Doesn't anyone farm anymore?
I don't really want to be a part of folklore.
- Phyllis Schieffer Rice Lake, Wis.
JAN. 19 - LSP sustainable farming workshop featuring Joel Salatin, farmer and author of You Can Farm: The Entrepreneur's Guide to Start & Succeed in a Farming Enterprise, western Minnesota (see book review on p. 12; exact location to be announced); Contact: LSP, 320-269-2105
JAN. 20 - LSP sustainable farming workshop featuring Joel Salatin, farmer and author of You Can Farm: The Entrepreneur's Guide to Start & Succeed in a Farming Enterprise, Twin Cities area (exact location to be announced); Contact: LSP, 651-653- 0618
JAN. 20-22 - North American Farmer's Direct Marketing Association Conference, Grand Rapids, Mich.; Contact: 616-887-9008; 810-732-2177
JAN. 21 - LSP sustainable farming workshop featuring Joel Salatin, farmer and author of You Can Farm: The Entrepreneur's Guide to Start & Succeed in a Farming Enterprise, southeast Minnesota (exact location to be announced); Contact: LSP, 507- 523-3366
JAN.-FEB . - Whole farm planning workshops, southeast Minnesota (details to be announced); Contact: Wayne Monsen, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 651-282- 2261;e-mail: WAYNE.MONSEN@STATE.MN.US
JAN. 22-24 - Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (MSAWG) annual gathering, Madison, Wis.; Contact: Dana Jackson, LSP, 651-653-0618; e-mail: danaj@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU.
Workshop on "Soil Building with Organic Matter & Farm Planning for Sustainable Ag," Viroqua, Wis.; Contact: Michael Fields Institute, 414-642-3303
FEB. 4-6 - 1999 Upper Midwest.... Regional Fruit & Vegetable Growers Conference & Trade Show, St. Cloud, Minn.; Contact: 612-434-0400
FEB. 5-7 - Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society annual winter conference, Bismarck, N. Dak.; Contact: Theresa Podoll, 701-883-4304
FEB. 9-10 - "Tools & Rules for Adding Value on the Farm: Value Added & Marketing Conference," Holiday Inn, Eau Claire, Wis.; Contact: Larry Swain, Rural Development Institute, 715-425-3083; e-mail: swain@WISPLAN.UWEX.EDU.
FEB. 12-13 - Wisconsin Grazing Conference, Middleton, Wis.; Contact: Carl Fredericks 608-437-4395
FEB. 12-14 - Workshop on "Farm Planning for Sustainable Ag," Viroqua, Wis.; Contact: Michael Fields Institute, 414-642-3303
FEB. 16-17 - Minnesota Organic Conference, Kelly Inn, St. Cloud, Minn.; Contact: Jan Gunnink, 507-237-5162
FEB. 19-20 - 2nd Annual Minnesota Grazing Conference, Victoria Inn, Hutchinson, Minn.; Contact: Jan Gunnink, 507-237-5162
FEB. 20 - Clean Up our River Environment Annual Meeting, Granite Falls, Minn.; Contact: LSP 320-269-2105
Small Acreage Living Workshop, including sessions on pasture & wildlife habitat management, North Branch (Minn.) High School; Contact: Daryl Johnson, Chisago County Extension, 651-674-4417..
FEB. 23-25 - Workshop on "Advanced Organic-Biodynamic Vegetable Production," Wilder Forest, Marine on St. Croix, Minn.; Contact: Michael Fields Institute, 414-642- 3303
MARCH 4 - The Land Stewardship Project's southeast Minnesota office annual gathering, St. Charles, Minn.; Contact: Fran Bockenhauer, LSP, 507-523-3366; e-mail: lspse@RCONNECT.COM.
MARCH 5-6 - 10th Annual Midwest Organic Farming Conference, featuring the theme "Organic Works - At Home & Around the World" as well as 40 workshops, Sinsinawa, Wis.; Contact: Faye Jones, 715-772-6819; e-mail: fjeoc@WIN.BRIGHT.NET.
MARCH 9 - Workshop on Managing Erosion to Protect Water Quality, Wyoming (Minn.) City Hall; Contact: Daryl Johnson, Chisago County Extension, 651-674-4417
MARCH 12-13 - Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota Annual Meeting, Twin Cities area (details to be announced), Contact: DeEtta Bilek, 218-445-5475
MARCH 20-21 - Workshop on "Cutting Chemicals without Cutting Profits," East Troy, Wis.; Contact: Michael Fields Institute, 414-642-3303
MARCH 25 - Workshop on Protecting River & Stream Water Quality, North Branch (Minn.) Middle School; Contact: Daryl Johnson, Chisago County Extension, 651-674-4417
OCT. 12-15 - National Small Farm Conference, St. Louis, Mo, Contact: Dyremple Marsh, 573-681-5550; e-mail: marshd@LINCOLNU.EDU.
Check the Calendar for the latest on upcoming LSP events.
Back to top