The official newsletter of the Land Stewardship Project
JUNE/JULY/AUGUST 1999 VOL. 17, NO. 3
BEHIND EVERY GOOD FOOD, IS A GOOD FARMER
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This issue of the Land Stewardship Letter features 15 examples of eaters and producers joining forces to forge strong, sustainable links in the food chain.
Collaboratives, co-ops and cookbooks won’t send the Cargills and ConAgras of the world packing anytime soon. But these initiatives show what can happen when consumers know where their food comes from, and farmers know where it’s going.]
By Brian DeVore
Putting a face on food
At a time when food is fast becoming an anonymous commodity, Annette and Kay Fernholz are putting a friendly, competent face on it. They are sisters in both the biological and religious sense. They were born on the same Madison, Minn., farm they now produce vegetables on, and left more than 40 years ago to pursue lives as teachers and nuns through the School Sisters of Notre Dame order.
Since returning to western Minnesota four years ago, the Fernholzes have set out to prove that ministering in the name of the land isn’t exclusive to the pulpit, and that rural residents can have a real impact on making our food system more sustainable.
They are doing this with a simple, straightforward message that is not heard much in the corn, soybean and sugar beet country they produce food in the midst of.
"We keep inviting members out to ‘your garden.’ We say ‘your garden,’ " says Kay.
The Fernholzes mean what they say. Their vegetable operation, called Earthrise Farm, is a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm. CSA farming allows "subscribers" to buy a share in an operation. That purchase allows eaters to share in the rewards, as well as the risks, of a growing season. The CSA model is becoming popular in metropolitan regions, where concrete-bound consumers increasingly desire contact with the land and people that produces their food. But rural residents have traditionally been hesitant to join such operations. After all, they already live near the land, right? Surely residents of small towns would already have close connections with their food and how it’s produced.
Earthrise, which serves people from towns of just a few hundred or so, many of them elderly, are proving that a CSA operation can thrive in a rural area. The operation has grown from seven members to 45 in four years. And it’s more than a weekly source of local vegetables. The farm has also become a gathering spot and source of inspiration for other area residents interested in putting a face on food. The sisters host Earth Sabbaths, invite other sustainable farmers over for field days, and work closely with the Easy Bean, another CSA operation which has recently started up in the area. The Fernholzes also help consumers hook up with area farmers who are producing everything from antibiotic-free meat to organic bread mixes.
Part of the reason the farm, as well as the sisters, have become such an agrarian epicenter of sorts is that they are just so fun to be around. Kay is 61, and Annette 59, but on a day when rain is blowing sideways at a 45-degree angle, they skip about the farm like teenagers. At one point, Kay pulls on a polka dot hat and belts out "Singing in the Rain" with a twinkle in her eye. And as the sisters pass a rather elderly rooster keeping a rain-soaked vigil at the top of the farm’s driveway, it’s clear they have an affinity for the animal.
"He’s not afraid of anything. That’s why he lives so long," says Annette as she walks by the feathered sentinel. "It’s amazing how not being afraid can help you live."
But there is an edge to the sisters that comes out periodically through the elegantly written newsletter which goes to farm subscribers. It’s a combination of farm chitchat and recipes. But the Fernholzes also pull together facts that blast the corporate control of our food and the, as they put it, "giant experiment" called genetic engineering being foisted upon people. The sisters’ criticisms carry a certain weight because every time they step into the gardens they prove there is a viable option. It is clear that while the nuns have infinite patience for the comings and goings of the land, as well as its visitors, they are not as tolerant of agribusiness rhetoric, weekend environmentalists or safe sermons about the wonders of nature. They are more interested in applied theology, even if it requires allowing nature to call the shots .
"Some sermons talk about, "Let us be thankful for the beautiful birds and clouds,’ " says Kay. "That’s a safe way to think about it."
Annette says they prefer to take such an appreciation of the land’s beauty and translate it into action: in the garden, as well as the supper table.
"We try to instill in our members an idea that they are part of a major change in the food system."
Ice cream dream
On a hot summer afternoon, a stainless steel box of a machine grunts and grinds in the back of a corner shop as it works on making the day a little cooler for Minneapolis residents. This is the ice cream maker at Melody Livingston’s shop. Customers who walk into her coffee shop can’t miss seeing the secondhand machine, and they sure can’t miss the noise. In fact, as a tongue of vanilla ice cream starts its slow motion flow down the front of the machine, it becomes clear that Livingston likes to do everything out in the open, where people can see exactly how their summer treat is being made. The ice cream represents Livingston’s small contribution to supporting organic dairy products that are locally produced on a family farm.
"Isn’t it good?" the enthusiastic Livingston asks as she hands out samples. Before she can get a response, the self-professed lover of premium ice cream answers her own question: "Oh it’s sooo good. It’s just like Håågen Dazs, but because it’s organic and local, it’s better."
That’s important to Livingston. She wants her customers’ first taste of organic, locally produced dairy products to be a positive experience. The milk that goes into the ice cream is produced by Minnesota dairy farmer Mike Hartmann. This spring, after 18 years in the hair cutting business, Livingston revamped her shop into a coffee shop and ice cream store. Signs on the inside and outside of the shop tout the fact that the milk which goes into her ice cream and various coffee drinks is produced by a local, organic farmer. The milk, called MOM’s (Minnesota Organic Milk) is produced without chemicals, hormones or drugs on carefully managed pastures. Livingston likes that, but she also likes the fact that there is nothing to hide with MOM’s Milk. What you see is what you get. She followed that strategy when cutting hair for a loyal clientele that wanted a basic trim at a fair price. Now, Livingston is serving up ice cream based on the same principle. She even sells it by the ounce so customers won’t feel cheated by a light-handed scooper.
"It just isn’t about organics, it’s not just about your body," she says. "It’s about how you treat each other. You treat the land and each other with respect."
Better value for the dollar
A sort of mini farmers’ market sets up behind a community center at a Twin Cities public housing complex. An old bread delivery truck full of food anchors this enclave of agriculture. A pickup truck loaded with a freezer packed with meat sits under a shade tree on one side, while a small van carrying vegetables flanks the other. Residents of the housing complex start trickling into the area, picking up pasture-raised, drug-free meats, organic produce and grass-based dairy products.
This is yet another in a series of deliveries being carried out by the Community Food Project, an initiative of the Sustainable Resources Center and Minnesota Food Association. This project, funded by the Minnesota Legislature in 1998 and 1999, is helping to prove that sustainably raised food is not some sort of boutique item that can only be purchased by well-heeled yuppies. Each year, $167,000 in vouchers are distributed to low income residents of Minnesota public housing — three urban sites and three rural sites are targeted. These $5 vouchers can then be used to order food produced by a couple dozen farmers who are using sustainable methods.
Jan O’Donnell, director of the Minnesota Food Association, says that the goal of the Community Food Project is to get quality, sustainable food into the hands of people who may not have the opportunity to shop at a natural foods co-op or visit a farm that sells food directly.
Although $167,000 annually is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, between 5,000 and 6,000 low income residents have been reached through the program. And the money goes straight to the participating farmers. It’s unknown if the program will be funded by the Legislature after this year, but O’Donnell says one way or another it could lead to long-term relationships between two groups of people who normally don’t have contact with each other. It could also serve as a model for distributing public assistance to people who need a leg-up, she says.
"A lot of public assistance just goes out with no assurance that the clients are getting good local food."
Whole food, whole farms
For almost two years, Whole Farm Cooperative has been proving that direct marketing of sustainable products does not have to be a lonely affair. This group of some 30 farm families in central Minnesota is using e-mail, an old bread delivery truck and a lot of word-of- mouth to set up a distribution system that would be the envy of any food retailer.
The cooperative has grown from a handful of eaters who received regular e-mails on what products were available for buying, to more than 100 customers at 11 drop sites in the Twin Cities area. By this fall, six church congregations will be receiving Whole Farm Co-op food as well. The customer base has expanded so much that Whole Farm recently had to move into a distribution center. The farmers also had to buy the delivery truck to haul some 40 different products, including meat, cheese, milk, ice cream, vegetables and wild rice.
The cooperative has a marketing coordinator who is in charge of collecting orders from customers through e-mail and over the telephone, and then gathering together the products into an order. Deliveries are usually made monthly and farmer-members of the cooperative take turns doing the driving.
E-mail has proven to be a particularly efficient way to spread the word about the cooperative, as well as to handle orders; it allows customers to easily expand the customer base by forwarding the product list to friends and family with a flick of the computer mouse.
Ironically, what was supposed to be Whole Food’s original customer base — the food services of three local colleges — fell through early in the co-op’s history. Fortunately, individual consumers have proven to be much more reliable, says Tim King, a Long Prairie farmer who helped found the co-op and served as its first marketing coordinator.
"The experience shows that even if institutions aren’t ready to change, many people within those institutions want to buy organic or sustainably produced food from farmers trying to protect the environment and rural communities."
Cafeteria plan
The Local Food Project at the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) has had better luck getting local farm products into institutions. Since 1997, this initiative has significantly increased the amount of local produce and meat served at the university (from nothing to 11 percent), as well as a local hospital (from nothing to 22 percent). In addition, a Waterloo restaurant, Rudy’s Tacos, has become a steady customer for locally produced food as a result of the effort. Rudy’s was buying 37 percent of its food locally in 1997 and 47 percent in 1998. Local Food Project coordinator and UNI teacher Kamyar Enshayan estimates that this year that figure will reach 65 percent.
Why has this initiative met initial success where others have failed? Part of it is because UNI had a policy of not relying on one single vendor for its food. The trend in institutional food service is to contract out all services with one vendor, leaving no room for other suppliers to sneak in between the cracks. In the case of Rudy’s, the owner was already open to the idea of buying locally, and because the restaurant was not part of a chain, that decision could be made on the spot.
But a lot of hard work has gone into this effort as well. Enshayan, working with a student intern, had to prove to the institution’s food buyers that there was a consistent, local source of produce and meats available. Working with about a dozen area farmers, they have developed a network of suppliers. The intern "forages" among the involved farmers for what the institutions want and helps fill their orders. It’s up to the farmers to arrange deliveries.
"The key to making a long-term difference in institutional buying is persistence and sometimes ignoring conventional wisdom," says Enshayan. "For example, people think institutions always go for the lowest price. At least with the institutions I’m dealing with, they will pay a decent price for decent produce. But first you have to get the idea of buying local on their radar screen."
This project has helped spawn a statewide task force that is examining ways of establishing local food systems, The Iowa Secretary of Agriculture, Patty Judge, has thrown her support behind such an initiative, which stands out at a time when "rural development" usually consists of adding value to corn through ethanol. Enshayan, who serves on the task force, would like to see a time when there is a "food agent" in every Iowa county. This agent would help residents and local businesses connect with farmers and hometown food processors.
Chicken mileage
"A Tale of Two Chickens," is one reason the importance of locally produced food is getting on more radar screens in Enshayan’s area. This paper, written last year by Laura Brainbridge as part of her degree requirements at UNI, offers insights that cut to the bone of the issue.
Brainbridge traced the two paths taken by two very different kinds of chickens before they ended up on dining tables at Rudy’s Tacos. Chicken "I" was bought by the restaurant from a distributor in West Union, Iowa. The distributor bought the chicken from an Oskaloosa, Iowa, company which is a division of ConAgra Broiler Co. A 180,000 bird-a-day ConAgra slaughterhouse in Georgia processed the chicken. That plant receives its chickens from about 160 contract chicken growers. A ConAgra hatchery in Alabama provided the chicks. The feed, which contained antibiotics as a routine ingredient, came from a ConAgra feed mill. And who knows where the corn and other crops that went into the feed came from? The chickens were raised in confinement with a density of 0.7 square feet per chicken. Total miles traveled: 1,000.
Chicken "II" is what Rudy’s serves its customers now. That chicken is raised by Bill Welsh and his family near Lansing, Iowa, and processed at a 6,000 to 7,000 bird a day plant in Decorah, Iowa. After being shipped to cold storage in Minneapolis, Minn., the chicken goes straight to Rudy’s. Welsh buys chicks from a hatchery in Rudd, Iowa. The feed is raised on the farm under careful crop rotations, without pesticides. No antibiotics are added to the feed. The chicken density at the Welsh farm is 2.5 square feet. Total miles traveled: 500.
With the help of the UNI teacher, Rudy’s has switched to locally produced chicken and is on its way toward replacing its other meat products with locally produced items. The restaurant, which is no white table cloth establishment, now displays placards on its tables that tell diners why local food is better.
"And this is just one small restaurant in one Iowa town," says Enshayan.
Community-supported food
For six years, people who own shares in a CSA operation called Rolling Prairie Farmers Alliance have been making their weekly pick-ups at Community Mercantile Cooperative Grocery in Lawrence, Kan. Rolling Prairie, like other CSA operations, offers consumers a chance to buy a share in a farm. In return, subscribers receive a weekly bag of produce during the growing season. But unlike many other CSA operations, the Alliance is made up of eight different farms. That can make the logistics of getting the shares to members a nightmare.
So the farmers approached the Mercantile as a possible pick-up spot each Monday during the growing season, and, somewhat surprisingly, the co-op agreed. On the face of it, one would think the CSA farms and the Mercantile would be in competition, at least in the area of produce marketing.
"We told the Mercantile people that we felt we could bring some different people through the co-op," says Paul Johnson, who raises berries for Rolling Prairie. "In fact, Mondays went from a down time for the co-op to a big sales day."
Indeed, the store’s overall sales have doubled during the past three years. That’s not all due to the CSA members coming into the store, but it’s clear the relationship between the CSA farms and the store has created a positive synergy.
"This has not hurt our produce sales," says Nancy O’Connor, Mercantile’s marketing outreach coordinator and store nutritionist. "If anything it has been very positive for the produce section. There’s always something missing from the recipes provided to CSA members in their bags and so they buy those ingredients from the Mercantile."
It hasn’t always been smooth sailing. Having 200 CSA members traipse through the store (the pick-ups are near the delicatessen department) for three hours each Monday during the growing season can make for quite a hurly-burly.
But a common enemy that emerged in the town a few years ago has made such inconveniences worthwhile, says O’Connor. In 1993, a new Wild Oats natural food store, part of a national chain, opened six blocks from the co-op. It became clear early on there was not room in the college town for two natural food stores. Mercantile began struggling, and almost went bankrupt twice. But local residents rallied around the co-op, which has been part of the community for more than two decades, and "going local" became a rallying cry. The relationship with the CSA farms became part of that campaign.
"The CSA pick-ups breathe vitality into the store once a week and infuse us with that community feel," says O’Connor. "Wild Oats couldn’t buy that."
In October 1996, Wild Oats left town.
A recipe for success
One other outcome of the relationship between the CSA farms and Mercantile is the Rolling Prairie Cookbook. This is a compilation of O’Connor’s recipes that have been included in the Rolling Prairie CSA produce bags over the years. The book of 130 recipes, which was self-published by O’Connor, has turned out to be a smashing success: the first printing of 3,500 almost sold out in less than a year. Part of its success is that the recipes focus on items found in any Midwestern garden. O’Connor was able to refine the recipes over the years by having taste-testing sessions at the store during the CSA pick-up sessions.
O’Connor wrote the book especially with local produce in mind. Often, new subscribers to CSA operations get frustrated when they open their bags and don’t know how to use whole foods. The book is also born out of respect for both the consumer and producer of the food.
"I respect the people who subscribe to CSA operations as much as the farmers," she says. "I like to think of the cookbook as being the bridge between the subscribers and farmers."
Speaking of recipes, what do you do with a whole chicken? Pasture raised chicken has become a wildly popular product with both farmers and consumers in recent years. But many consumer find once they get their whole bird home, they don’t know what to do with it in this boneless, skinless, chicken McNuggeted world. People who buy pasture-raised birds from sustainable farmers in southeast Minnesota now have a resource: The Whole Chicken Cookbook: 61 Nifty Thrifty Ways to Eat Homegrown Chicken. Written by Wisconsin chicken farmer Patrick Slattery, this 54-page booklet does exactly what it promises. It takes the consumer step-by-step through thawing, quartering and storing of whole chickens. It even provides short definitions of terms like "capon" and "giblets." Then there are recipes for everything from "Basic Southern Fried Chicken" to "Jamaican Chicken Curry."
The Sustainable Farming Association of Southeast Minnesota published the book with funding from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Program.
"Now we should have one for beef," says beef and chicken producer Mike Rupprecht, who has been distributing the booklets to his customers.
The more the merrier
When Vicky Cox and her family finally joined a CSA operation this year, she brought several of her friends and neighbors along for the ride. The operators of Foxtail Farm near Afton, Minn., said they would make a weekly delivery to the Twin Cities suburb of White Bear Lake, where Cox lives with her husband Gary and four year-old son Ethan, if there were at least four shareholders to deliver to. So she recruited 14 households, with each one owning half a share. Many of the households have young children and busy lives, so half a share is a perfect fit.
Cox said it wasn’t difficult to do the recruiting. Most of the shareholders are friends and neighbors who, like Cox, have long wanted to forge closer relationships with the people who raise their food but never got around to it.
"Our farmers are our lifeblood," says Cox. "Why should they go it alone?"
Mothers of good intention
Betsy Lydon was helping answer phones at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) during the "Alar apple" scare of 1989. For better or worse, this incident highlighted society-wide concerns related to pesticides in food. But the majority of calls Lydon and others fielded were of a very practical nature.
"Again and again people were calling and saying, ‘My gosh what do I buy for dinner tonight?’ " Lydon recalls.
People can pontificate all they want about how unsustainable our food system is, but when it comes down to it, we all want to know what we’re going to buy for dinner tonight. Lydon has since helped start an environmental group, Mothers and Others for a Livable Planet, that is working to prove that "big picture" changes in the food system start with small, practical, incentive-based modifications on the farm.
For four years the group has been working with Northeastern apple growers who are using integrated pest management techniques to reduce chemical use. Farmers who work with Mothers and Others to develop a pest management plan receive a "Core Values Northeast" label that can be affixed to their product, helping them receive a premium price at the supermarket. The organization has developed fact cards that explain what integrated pest management is and why and it’s important to support local farmers. In fact, the "buy local" angle of this initiative is just as important to Mothers and Others as the production practices. The program now has 44 apple growers involved, and they recently convinced school districts in New York to buy apples with the Core Values label.
Keep in mind Mothers and Others has its origins in the NRDC, which alienated the apple industry for sounding the alarm on Alar. So the fact that any apple growers have agreed to work with Lydon’s group is a testament to its ability to get farmers rewarded for producing food sustainably.
But such initiatives have not always been popular with activists who don’t think a group like Mothers and Others should be working with any farmer who uses chemicals. Lydon says to fixate on just going chemical-free misses the big picture in our food and fiber system.
"When you talk about our food, you talk about everything, whether it be soil erosion, rural communities, transportation, water quality or food safety."
The eater’s dictionary
Producing food in the harsh climate of northeast Minnesota and northwest Wisconsin can be difficult at best. But once you’ve proven you can raise produce and meats in that part of the country, the next biggest challenge arises: convincing local consumers that food is available. The Sustainable Farming Association (SFA) of Northeast Minnesota has taken on that second challenge.
The chapter’s Bayfront Harvest Festival, which is now in its sixth year, has introduced thousands of north woods residents to locally produced foods. Such outreach also means explaining some terms to people. Like many groups, the chapter puts out an annual directory of farmer-members who offer sustainably raised food for direct sale. This year’s edition features a cover with definitions of terms used to describe farming practices such as "integrated pest management" and "certified organic."
"We’re trying to reach a broader public and not limit ourselves to preaching to the choir," says chapter coordinator Jennifer Buckley.
Supermarket sustainability
As a market gardener and operator of a CSA farm, Ben Larson knows there is a demand for sustainably raised food in the Red River Valley. But he also realizes that reaching more consumers means bringing this food to where the majority of buyers are: the supermarket.
"We wanted to go beyond that relatively limited CSA clientele to reach customers not willing to change their life-style," he says. "We need to reach those mainstream consumers who desire high-quality, earth-friendly foods."
Hence was born the Red River Organic Growers, a group of organic farmers located in the Fargo-Moorhead area. With the help of a $40,000 grant from the USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, the dozen or so farmers have set up a marketing network with six local grocery stores. It’s nothing fancy: just a nice looking letterhead with a logo, some business cards, access to a fax machine and a part-time coordinator in the person of Larson. On a regular basis, he faxes a list of what the growers have on hand and in what form and quantities. He then follows up with phone calls to the stores to find out what the managers need off that list. Those orders are then forwarded to the farmers, who are responsible for their own deliveries.
The key to this initiative is that the produce managers only have to deal with one person when ordering. Because of the perishability of fruits and vegetables, much of the produce business is still based on personal relationships. Larson helped build such a relationship last winter, when he acted as a go-between for the stores and an organic potato producer. That gave the growers a foot in the door when they began deliveries this spring.
"We didn’t come in June or July with a truckload of stuff begging them to take it off our hands," says Larson.
The chicken lady
When Jean Johansson stands up at her South Minneapolis church on Sundays to make announcements, some of the other members of the congregation start make soft clucking sounds. After all, she is the Chicken Lady.
"It will probably stay with me always," says Johannson with a tone of mock resignation.
But that’s the price one pays for bringing congregation members and a southwest Minnesota farmer together. For about nine years, Johansson has been taking orders for frozen chickens from Larry Olson, who, along with his wife Carolyn, produces crops and livestock near Granite Falls. Olson, who also serves as a pastor at a small rural parish, served with Johannson on a rural ministry committee in the late 1980s. That was a time when farm country was still reeling from the farm crisis of the early part of that decade. Johannson, who was the only urban resident on the committee, wanted to go beyond hand wringing about the dire rural economy and do something useful. She approached the congregation about buying the Olsons’ pasture-raised, antibiotic-free chickens, and they enthusiastically went for it. Now, Johannson regularly takes orders from church members for half and whole chickens. She passes those orders on to the Olsons, who then make deliveries to the parking lot of the Lutheran Church of Christ the Redeemer.
Such deliveries can turn into mini-events where the members of the congregation connect with the producers of their chickens. The congregation members like the fact that the chickens are raised in natural conditions. But they also like knowing exactly who is raising those birds. Last fall, the delivery was made during a snowstorm, but members of the congregation still hung around afterwards to "connect with Larry and talk about his operation," says Johannson.
Passover pork
John Carrier’s family ate pork on Easter Sunday this year. Carrier, who is a pastor at the Lutheran Campus Center in Winona, Minn., says his family normally eats lamb at that time of year, but record-low pork prices paid to farmers, combined with no comparable drop in retail prices at the supermarket, prompted him to buy half a hog. After processing, the Carrier family donated half of that to charities.
In a column Carrier wrote for the Winona Daily News, he used this example of buying and sharing as a way to inform his readers of the unfair market situation that has forced efficient family hog farmers out of business. But he did it in an upbeat manner that left the reader with a hopeful option for helping out. Carrier summed up the entire process succinctly: "We benefited, the farmer got what he thought was a fair price for all his hard work, the processing plant (also a family owned and operated deal) made money, and those who have too little money for food, ate."
Bonding agents
Mike and Rob Lorentz call their initiative "Branding Your Beliefs: Adding Value to Livestock by Connecting With Your Community."
In other words, the meat processing brothers believe there are ways for farmers to get rewarded for producing livestock, while improving the community environmentally. That’s why for the past few years the Cannon Falls, Minn., meat processing facility they own and operate has done more than butcher hogs, cattle and chickens. For interested farmers, they provide advice on everything from how to design a marketing brochure, to what greetings to leave on an answering machine to how to handle product guarantees. It’s mentoring aimed at that direct-to-consumer meat marketer who is somewhere between slaughtering a few cull cows each year and having specially seasoned brats packaged under a name brand label.
"The customer is bonding with the farmer and the farmer is bonding with us," says Rob. "We try to be the facilitator."
SIDEBAR:
Want more information?
"A Tale of Two Chickens," Kamyar Enshayan, Physics Building, UNI, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0150; phone: 319-273-6895Community Food Project, MFA, 1916 2nd Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55403; phone: 612-872-3298Earthrise Farm, Kay & Annette Fernholz SSND, RR-1, Box 498, Louisburg, MN 56256; phone: 320-568-2191Livingstons, 2037 Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55454; phone:612-333-5692Lorentz Meats & Deli, 305 West Cannon St., Cannon Falls, MN 55009; phone: 1-800-535-6382Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet, 40 West 20th St., New York, NY 10011-4211; phone: 212-242-0010; web site: http://www.mothers.orgNancy O'Connor, Community Mercantile Cooperative Grocery, 901 Mississippi, Lawrence, KS 66044; phone: 785-843-8544Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota, RR-1, Box 4, Aldrich, MN 56434; phone: 218-445-5475Red River Organic Growers, Ben Larson, P.O. Box 5636, NDSU, Fargo, ND 58108-5636; phone: 701-231-7466The Whole Chicken Cookbook, Patrick Slattery, Sweet Ridge Farm, W692 Hwy. 33, Rockland, WI 54653; phone: 608-486-2605UNI Local Food Project, see reference to "A Tale of Two Chickens"Whole Farm Co-operative, 33 2nd Street South, Lower Level, Long Prairie, MN 56347; phone: 320-732-3023; e-mail: whlefarm@rea-alp.com
SIDEBAR:
LSP’s links in the food chain
Here are various initiatives the Land Stewardship Project is working on to bring farmers and consumers together:
The Southeast Minnesota Farmer to Consumer Directory. This booklet, which is published annually in conjunction with the Sustainable Farming Association of Southeast Minnesota, features descriptions and contact information for farm families in southeast Minnesota who are producing sustainable food and selling it direct to consumers. For a free copy, call 507-523-3366.West Central Minnesota Farmer to Consumer Directory. This is a western Minnesota counterpart to the southeast Directory. For a free copy, call our Montevideo office at 320-269-2105.The Montevideo Farmers’ Market was established last year with the help of our staff in the western Minnesota office. It features local, fresh foods during the growing season. For more information, call 320-269-2106.Twin Cities Region Community Supported Agriculture Farms Directory. This directory, which is updated annually, lists more than two dozen CSA operations that are serving the Twin Cities region.
It can be downloaded from our website or you can call our Twin Cities office for a free copy at 651-653-0618.prairiefare.com allows consumers to take a virtual tour of six western Minnesota farms that sell everything from antibiotic-free, grass-based pork and beef to organic produce. The site, http://www.prariefare.com is a co-project of LSP’s western Minnesota office and the Sustainable Farming Association of Western Minnesota.Java River is a coffee shop on Montevideo’s Main Street that is owned and operated by Patrick and Mary Moore. Patrick is an LSP organizer, and he uses the shop as a venue for bringing farmers and other local citizens together to work on issues of food, watershed protection and sustainable rural development. Java River, which was opened during the summer of 1998, features a computer kiosk that gives people direct access to prairiefare.com. For more information, call 320-269-7106Food Choices. For more information on this new initiative, see George Boody’s commentary.LSP’s policy program is working with consumers to educate retailers as to the environmental, economic and social justice problems associated with factory-produced livestock products. This summer we are focusing on getting pork produced by hog giants Premium Standard Farms and Murphy Family Farms out of Twin Cities grocery stores. Consumers are being encouraged to ask their local retailers for sustainable pork that comes from real family farms. For more information, call 612-722-6377.LSP’s southeast Minnesota office is organizing a collaborative of hog farmers to supply sustainably-raised pork to Twin Cities members of Clean Water Action, an environmental group. For more information, call 507-523-3366.
SIDEBAR:
Sustainable marketing lessons from across the pond
In the case of sustainable marketing, places like England and the Netherlands offer up examples of just how bad, and good, the food system can be. In recent years, the outbreak of mad cow disease and other food scandals have shown what happens when the farmer and the consumer become separated by a wall of industrial production, processing and marketing. These disasters have sparked European consumer demands for more open information on where and how their food is produced. They often don’t like what they see: chemical intensive production, products that could be raised locally being transported thousands of miles and factory-like livestock facilities that rely on large amounts of antibiotics, as well as feeds filled with contaminants. Consumers are craving relationships with farmers who can offer alternatives.
"It’s a distinctive aspect of Euro-culture to know the source of one’s food," says Audrey Arner, a Land Stewardship Project organizer who recently traveled to Europe. Arner and husband Richard Handeen raise crops and livestock near Montevideo, Minn. "People care deeply about directly supporting local farmers and the wonderful tastes that accompany that."
Arner and Handeen accompanied other farmers, activists and agricultural experts on a 10-day tour of England and parts of Europe last November. The trip, sponsored by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, focused on examples of farmers effectively getting rewarded for producing sustainably raised food.
Like farmers here, producers in other countries have access to such sustainable marketing tools as organic certification. In fact, on average 1.33 percent of farm acreage in member countries of the European Union is certified organic. Organic production across Europe will likely increase to 5 percent of farmland by 2000, and 10 percent by 2007, according to the Soil Association, an organic farming organization based in the United Kingdom. In some countries, farmers are given government payments for making the transition from conventional to organic production methods. In other areas, private water companies pay farmers for protecting natural resources, says Arner.
"That’s a direct acknowledgment that farmers are doing a public good by farming in a sustainable manner."
However, in many areas supporters of sustainable marketing have taken steps beyond rewarding farmers for being chemical-free. For example, in England there are meat shops that specialize in "traditional breeds" of livestock. These shops allow consumers to not only pick out meat based on taste (British eaters’ love of beef rivals that of their U.S. counterparts), but also on its origin, all the way back to the county that animal’s ancestors hailed from. Perhaps it’s no surprise that a group like the Soil Association would offer educational materials on how to set up farmers’ markets, food co-ops, Community Supported Agriculture farms, and various other systems for supporting local, sustainable production. But what is surprising, says Arner, was the emphasis everyone from local governments to tourism groups put on local production.
"In Europe, a lot of regional identity has been preserved and honored," says Arner. "That produces a strong connection to the way it was raised and what the farm looks like."
This bias is not just country-based, it’s also rooted within countries. France has long been known for its wine and Switzerland for its cheese. But consider this description of a type of hog available at a specialty shop in England: "Glousestershire Old Spots — An old breed from the vale of the River Severn, they were traditionally kept in orchards. Local folklore has it that the spots were caused by windfall fruit. The meat is well marbled and delicious, whether as pork or bacon, and is how traditional meat should be."
Such an emphasis on local food production is seen in many areas as a rural development issue. Arner and Handeen saw regional food initiatives working closely with local labor groups in promoting regional vitality.
The Minnesota farmers also learned the limitations of reaching consumers through direct relationships.
"We recognized on the trip that a lot of people are only going to shop at supermarkets," says Arner.
As a result, food labeling becomes a key way to make connections between farmers and consumers. In Germany, some good items carry numerous labels, each telling the consumer a different story about the production process: "chemical free," "pasture raised," "low mileage traveled," "humanely raised," etc. In Denmark, some foods carry a bar code that allows the consumer to walk up to an in-store computer kiosk and see pictures of the farm that produced the item. Arner and Handeen also ran into some innovative ways of reaching consumers without resorting to labels. In England, "box schemes" (in that country, the word "scheme" does not carry the same negative connotation that it does here) deliver a variety of foods straight from farms right to consumers’ doorsteps. The deliveries are made throughout the year, with each box representing several farms that are a part of the "scheme."
Arner and Handeen have already put into practice some of what they learned on their trip. If people can identify with a river valley in Germany when buying their food, why can’t the same connections be made between food buyers and the upper reaches of the Minnesota River? In fact, Arner and Handeen’s farm, called Moonstone Organics, is just a few miles from this waterway, which has the dubious distinction of being the biggest contributor of pollutants to the Mississippi.
Moonstone is part of prairiefare.com, a website featuring farms from the Upper Minnesota River that produce food in a sustainable manner. Arner and Handeen recently revamped an old chicken house, dubbed the Broodio, on their picturesque farm, making it into a comfortable "bed and bagel" spot for guests visiting the region. In the future, they may provide a grill at the guest house, so guests will be able to cook grass-based, antibiotic-free beef they’ve purchased from the farmers. Perhaps these relaxed, well-fed guests will then take the opportunity to ask about Moonstone’s organic cropping enterprises. This is part of a strategy to help people make connections between the health of the river and the source of their food, says Arner.
"There is no better way to teach about sustainable agriculture than by meeting people’s basic needs of eating and being entertained."
SIDEBAR:
European marketing
Marketing Sustainable Agriculture: Case Studies and Analysis from Europe describes innovative marketing initiatives seen firsthand by an international group of farmers (including Audrey Arner and Richard Handeen), retailers and agriculturists who visited several European countries in November 1998.
Chapter titles include: Direct Marketing; Cooperative Marketing; Vertical Integration and Ownership; Farmer-owned Retail; Marketing Nature and the Environment; Marketing the Region; Agri-Tourism; Retailer Initiatives; Industry Initiatives; and Successes, Challenges & Agenda for Action.
For a copy of the 57-page publication, send a $15 check payable to Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy to: Ven M. Tran, IATP, 2105 First Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55404. For information on credit card orders, call 612-870-3411.
COMMENTARY:
Farms, food & Food Choices
By George Boody
Since its founding in 1982, the Land Stewardship Project has been dedicated to developing and promoting a stewardship ethic on our nation's farmland.
As is evident by the pain present in our rural communities today, we still have a long way to go if we are to develop an agricultural system that is truly sustainable. But we've made progress. The impact of groups like the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota is a testament to the breakthroughs we can make when farmers learn from the land and each other. Meanwhile, university researchers and government policymakers are beginning to recognize the viability and benefits of farming systems that rely on whole systems management and application of technology in ways that is in harmony with ecological processes.
But the most environmentally sound production practices in the world mean little if they don't provide a good income, one that can allow families to survive and thrive on the land in the long term. The mainstream food processing, transporting and marketing system does not reward farmers for being good stewards of the land. It rewards them for producing commodities, often at the expense of the long-term viability of our land and our rural communities. In short, marketing has proven to be the weak link in our sustainable agriculture system.
That's why it's become clearer than ever that producers are going to have to partner with consumers to create a marketing system that rewards farmers for producing food and fiber in a sustainable manner. We can't have one without the other. Because LSP's membership has its roots in both farming and non-farming communities, we are in an excellent position to help create such a relationship.
LSP has taken baby steps in this direction in recent years. Now, at a time when American family farmers are facing one of their darkest periods ever, LSP, along with sister organizations in Minnesota and the region, are stepping up efforts to bring together farmers who are treating the land well and consumers who want to support that type of agriculture with their food dollars. This special issue of the Land Stewardship Letter and its launching of the Stewardship Food Network is one such example. Another exciting initiative I'd like to discuss here is a new LSP program called Food Choices. This is a joint effort of us, Cooperative Development Services and staff from the Organic Alliance.
Food Choices is launched
At its most basic level, Food Choices is developing a system that is based on sustainably and regionally produced foods. But it's much more than that. I view Food Choices as a way to help farmers systematically, to look at all components of our food system — marketing, processing and promotion — and determine how to create a system that rewards sustainable production. Just as a farm family trying to manage from a whole farm perspective is more environmentally and socially viable, marketing systems also need to take into the account the big picture — production methods, transportation, fair labor rules, etc. — if we are to achieve true sustainability.
There are always ways of responding to an individual marketing opportunity: Providing drug-free meat to a consumer who has just heard about the latest studies related to antibiotic resistance, for example. But how can we create a system that consistently rewards farmers for producing food, as well as other societal benefits such as community resilience, fair labor practices, wildlife habitat and reduced energy use? How can we create a system that is dependable for farmers and retains a farmer's power to negotiate a price as the product moves into the distribution and retail parts of the food system? How can we give the children of farmers the incentive to stay on the land?
That's what Food Choices is trying to figure out. This initiative is a recognition that farmers need many avenues for reaching consumers. We have numerous examples of farm families who have used direct marketing or the Community Supported Agriculture model to their advantage. But that's not for everyone. For whatever reason — location, lack of expertise or time constraints — not all farmers can engage in such activities. Food Choices recognizes that and is trying to develop a system that combines the best of direct "relationship" marketing with widespread distribution of food. There is a lot of product to be moved into the marketplace, and not all of it can be consumed locally. There will continue to be exports out of the region and imports into the region. That's fine, but we need to make trade something that compliments an economy based on local and regional production-consumption, rather than controls it.
How can we give consumers the opportunity to walk into their local grocery store and pick up a pound of beef that was raised locally on grass? How can we provide the opportunity for that same consumer to pick out a couple of tomatoes in the produce aisle that weren't transported 1,000 miles?
One recent success story related to the marketing of products raised in a sustainable manner is the growth of organic foods in our retail outlets. The market for organic food grew 40-fold between 1986 and 1996, and itÕs estimated that organic foods will grow from 1 percent to 10 percent of the total market between now and the early part of the next century. Organizations like the Organic Alliance (formerly called the Midwest Organic Alliance) have increased organic consumption through advertising and consumer education campaigns. The organic marketing boom shows there is a huge consumer market waiting to be tapped. It is an example of consumers themselves pushing significant change in the food industry and production agriculture.
We want to develop a system that continues to foster the purchase of organic foods, but that also broadens the marketplace to include sustainable and regional production.
We need environmental standards and social standards. For example, it is important to know that a gallon of milk is produced without the use of inorganic pesticides or drugs. But was that milk produced on a family-sized farm? How far was it transported? Were the cows confined in a system that relies on the feeding of highly erosive row crops and the storage of large amounts of liquid manure? As an example of how multi-faceted the issues are, one of the largest organic dairies in the country, Horizon, uses factory-type confinement methods to produce milk.
On the other end of the spectrum, broccoli purchased at the typical farmers' market carries with it the implicit assumption that it was produced locally, probably by a small family farmer. But what chemicals were used in its production? Were the workers who helped raise and harvest that vegetable treated fairly?
Food Choices wants to offer consumers an explicit opportunity to support family farms that are seeking sustainability. The first steps in that process have been completed. Food Choices has just published four extensively researched reports. These reports contain some exciting findings that should guide us as we work to create a sustainable food system.
For example, as LSP staff member Audrey Arner found while visiting Europe last fall, consumers in that part of the world have many choices when it comes to supporting sustainable food production. There are labels that allow shoppers to support everything from "organic" to "transition- to-organic" to "whole farm management" to "regionally produced."
An interesting concept that has emerged in our research is that farmers see flexibility as a major advantage to sustainable production practices. They don't want to be constricted by farming practices that prescribe what facilities, tools and management methods they use — a situation that has led us to many of the problems we have today. But farmers are also aware that consumers need specifics when it comes to choosing their food. Calling something "sustainable" or "organic" may not be enough. Consumers want to know more. Food Choices will try to balance farmers' need for flexibility with consumers' demand for specificity.
During the next several months, Food Choices will be working to develop a set of standards that will form a special whole farm "seal of approval." We are going to use as our guide the organic certification process, as well as seal of approval systems developed by groups like the Food Alliance and Mothers and Others. We are partnering with two retailers, as well as Cooperative Development Services, to develop a model sustainable marketing campaign for meats and produce (followed by dairy) based on this new whole farm seal of approval. We are also trying to determine what sustainable marketing efforts have already been successful. We're not trying to reinvent the wheel here.
So will you be able to walk into your local grocery store someday and buy a pork chop that you know was produced by local family farmers who protect wildlife and water quality while being good members of the community? We hope so. And when that day arrives, it will be the result of a true partnership between farmers and consumers.
George Boody is LSP's executive director.
SIDEBAR:
Food Choices reports
To order a copy of one of these reports, contact LSP's Twin Cities office: 2200 4th Street, White Bear Lake, MN 55110. Minnesota residents must add 6.5 percent for sales tax when ordering. These prices cover postage and handling. Sorry, no LSP member discounts.
Food Choices: Moving Toward a Sustainable Food System in the Upper Midwest, by E.G. Nadeau. This report summarizes results of the research carried out in Phase I of the Food Choices project. It also outlines the planning and implementation steps that are to be taken over the next five years by this initiative. 1999; 75 pages; $22.Marketing Sustainably Produced Foods: International Examples and Lessons for the United States, by E.G. Nadeau. This report provides a review of ecological and sustainable marketing programs in Europe and the United States. 1998; 55 pages; $22.Talking to Consumers about Sustainable Products, by Sandra Strawbridge Senn. This report is based on four focus group discussions. 1998; 39 pages; $22.Talking to Farmers about Sustainable Production and Marketing, by Anne de Meurisse. This report summarizes interviews conducted with several farmers involved with sustainable agriculture. 1999; 21 pages; $8.
LSP NEWS:
Two new LSP board members
Ron Kroese and Joe Rolling have joined the Land Stewardship Project Board of Directors. Kroese co-founded LSP in 1982 and served as its first executive director until 1993, when he left to take a similar position with the National Center for Appropriate Technology. He recently became president and executive director of the St. Croix Valley Community Foundation, which is based in Somerset, Wis. The Foundation is a charitable community group that funds projects which improve the quality of life in the St. Croix River Valley.
Rolling farms near Arco, in southwest Minnesota. He has served on the board of the Sustainable Farming Association (SFA) of Minnesota and helped found the Coteau Ridge SFA chapter and the Coteau des Prairie Natural Food Co-op. Rolling studied agriculture at South Dakota State University and served in the Air Force and Peace Corps. He has worked as an agronomist in Panama
Leaving the board is Larry Olson, who served two full terms, including a stint as chair. Olson raises crops and livestock on 383 acres with his wife Carolyn near Granite Falls, Minn. He is also a Lutheran pastor.
LSP staff changes
Deborah Munson has joined the Land Stewardship Project as a policy intern. Munson is a junior at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn., where she is majoring in environmental studies, with a political science minor. She has worked as a field manager for the Fund for Public Interest Research and has volunteered in the St. Thomas Tutor Mentor Program.
As part of her LSP internship, Munson will be doing street organizing for the Policy Program this summer.
Fran Bockenhauer has left LSP’s southeast Minnesota office to pursue other interests. She had served as an office manager with the organization since 1995. Bockenhauer lives on a farm near Utica, Minn.
Gina Sperry has left LSP’s Twin Cities office to spend more time with her family. Sperry joined LSP’s staff in 1995 and most recently served as an office manager.
Tornado strikes Lewiston
Many of you may have seen Lewiston, the home of the Land Stewardship Project’s southeast Minnesota office, in the news in early July. That’s when a tornado swept down the middle of town, destroying or damaging many businesses and homes. Fortunately, LSP’s office was unharmed. Unfortunately, many LSP members and friends were affected by the storm. For information on helping storm victims, call 507-523-3366.
Western LSP 15th anniversary
All Land Stewardship Project members are invited to attend the 15th anniversary celebration of the western Minnesota LSP office on Sept. 18. The event, which is being held in Watson, Minn., will feature music, readings, discussions, food and worship services. People are also welcome to camp overnight and attend the CURE River Revival the next day.
Watch your mailbox for details or contact our office in Montevideo, 320-269-2105; aarner@maxminn.com
No trace fishing
It isn’t uncommon to walk into a popular fishing spot and find it littered with abandoned strands of monofilament line, discarded bait cartons, beverage cans and even stinky dead fish that have been left to rot on the bank. Clean Up our River Environment (CURE) is out to stop that activity by promoting a garbage-free "No Trace Fishing" ethic on western Minnesota lakes and rivers.
During the next several months CURE will work with fishing equipment suppliers and bait shops to promote the No Trace Fishing concept in the Upper Minnesota River watershed.
CURE, a grassroots group which works to clean up and protect the Minnesota River, was founded by the Land Stewardship Project in 1992. For more information on No Trace Fishing, contact Lynn Lokken in LSP’s western Minnesota office, 320-269-2105; llokken@maxminn.com
New SFA chair
Carmen Fernholz is the new chair of the Sustainable Farming Association (SFA) of Minnesota’s board of directors. Fernholz, who succeeds Glen Borgerding, was elected at the organization’s annual meeting earlier this year. The Land Stewardship Project helped found the SFA in 1988.
Fernholz, who raises crops and livestock, has long been involved in sustainable agriculture research and development. He recently occupied the School of Agriculture Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems.
Fernholz can be reached at: RR-2, Box 9A, Madison, MN 56256; fernholz@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Analysis: Time to call toxic, toxic
When is a farm not a farm, but a toxin-spewing factory? That question is at the center of the debate roaring over factory livestock production in rural America. And it’s being brought up again in relation to a factory dairy operation being proposed for an environmentally sensitive part of southeast Minnesota. In this case, state rules appear to support the argument that manure lagoons of a million gallons or more are industrial facilities.
That’s the conclusion of an analysis of Minnesota’s environmental rules conducted by the Land Stewardship Project and a group of farmers and other rural citizens living near the proposed dairy. Reiland Dairy is proposing to construct a six million gallon lagoon near the Fillmore County community of Spring Valley. The lagoon would service a 500-cow operation. The proposed site is in a "moderate to high probability zone for karst features," according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Areas underlaid with limestone karst geology are recognized throughout the world as hazardous locations for storing toxic materials, say geologists and hydrologists. Furthermore, according to a DNR report, this site drains underground and then re-emerges near the headwater springs of a top trout stream.
However, on May 27, the Fillmore County Planning Commission voted to recommend to County Commissioners that Reiland Dairy be granted a conditional use permit for the lagoon and feedlot. In response, 69 area residents signed a petition calling for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), which is a study that gathers information and evaluates the possible environmental hazards of a proposed project. The MPCA has the final say as to whether or not to grant the petitioners’ request. While the decision is being made, the permitting process is frozen.
However, according to the MPCA’s own rules, the EAW should be automatic because large amounts of liquid manure have proven to be hazardous waste, according to Judy Tart, whose family farms adjacent to the proposed site.
"We discovered that the MPCA has rules for both animal feedlots and for storing hazardous waste," says Tart, who is an LSP member. "The rules for animal feedlots don’t require environmental review in this situation, but the rules for hazardous waste require environmental review for any storage facility over one million gallons. Well, this one is six million gallons."
The analysis, the results of which were sent to MPCA Commissioner Karen Studders, also found that according to MPCA rules a more detailed environmental review called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be required for the lagoon at this proposed dairy. That conclusion is based on Minnesota Rules pertaining to construction of hazardous waste processing facilities in areas characterized by soluble bedrock. According to the Fillmore County Geological Atlas, the site Reiland Dairy proposes to build on is in an area characterized by soluble bedrock. All hazardous waste processing facilities located in areas characterized by soluble bedrock are subject to a mandatory EIS. According to Minnesota Rules, "storage" is included in the definition of "processing."
For a copy of the analysis, contact Bobby King in LSP’s Lewiston office, 507-523-3366.
LEGISLATIVE WRAP-UP:
Minnesota governor stymies attempt to weaken H2S rules
Land Stewardship Project members made their voices heard during (and immediately after) the 1999 session of the Minnesota Legislature. As a result, stewardship and family farm issues fared well, says Mark Schultz, LSP's Policy Program Director. But it was also made clearer than ever during this session that farmers and other citizens concerned about these issues have to keep a constant vigil.
Hydrogen sulfide
A bill that would have basically gutted restrictions on how much toxic gas large livestock operations can emit was vetoed by Gov. Jesse Ventura after the session was complete. This veto came in large part as a result of some 250 calls made to the governor's office by LSP members concerned about manure lagoon emissions. If that last-minute veto hadn't occurred, manure lagoons would have been exempt from meeting hydrogen sulfide air quality standards while they were being agitated or pumped. It is at those times that emissions of the toxic gas can be at their highest.
In addition, this bill would have done away with the "connected action" rule when determining whether a proposed livestock operation should be subject to an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. This rule requires regulators to take into account all of a proposed operation's facilities when determining whether an environmental assessment of its potential impacts in required. Without this rule, a factory operation that has facilities in several different locations could escape doing such an assessment by considering each site as separate.
These initiatives made the bill, which was authored by Steve Dille (R-Dassel) in the Senate and Howard Swenson (R-Nicollet) in the House, very friendly to large factory operations, says Schultz. That point was made by three livestock farmers — Roger Benrud, Galen Lissell and Paul Sobocinski — who testified before the legislative conference committee that hammered out the final bill. Although the committee still approved the weakening of factory farm regulations, the farmers' testimony against the measure impressed three key officials standing in the back of the room: Ventura's commissioners for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Planning and Agriculture.
"We can assume those commissioners had a major influence on the governor when it came time to veto the bill," says Schultz. "This was a prime example of what happens when real farmers make their voices heard. That's the good news. The bad news is this bill wouldn't even have seen the light of day if Senate Ag Chair Dallas Sams [DFL-Staples] hadn't given this pro-factory farm legislation a hearing."
And factory farm supporters are already working to get Gov. Ventura to change the rules administratively, thus skirting the law.
Agriculture that makes sense
An exciting new research project will be launched as a result of funds granted to LSP through the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. This project will evaluate economically various agricultural systems in two Minnesota watersheds in terms of environmental, social and economic benefits. These research results will then be used to develop policy options that support farming practices and systems that produce the most benefits.
Despite the excitement this project has already generated among farmers, environmentalists, economists and policymakers, at one point during the session funding for it was eliminated. Thanks to some quick efforts on the part of LSP members and LSP Executive Director George Boody, key lawmakers were convinced to put the majority of the funding back in.
Prairie Farmers Co-op
The Legislature failed to come through in terms of an innovative pork processing facility trying to get off the ground in western Minnesota. Prairie Farmers Co-op, whose board includes several LSP members, is setting up a facility that would process hogs raised without antibiotics by independent farmers. The Co-op's founders, such as LSP member Dennis Timmerman of Boyd, have been working for several years to develop financial, marketing and processing strategies. The cooperative is entering the final stage before it starts processing hogs: gaining enough members to make the operation viable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has helped out by providing loan guarantees for the building facilities and loans for farmers who are buying into the co-op. However, the Minnesota Legislature failed to provide $750,000 to help buy down the stock price so that more farmers could get involved in the co-op. In fact, the grant was taken out of the Environment, Natural Resources and Ag Finance Bill on the last day of the conference committee at the insistence of Robert Ness (R-Dassel), chair of the House Ag and Rural Finance Committee.
Sobocinski says that again, in the case of Prairie Farmers Co-op, Sams "dropped the ball" and should have been able to use his position to obtain the kind of compromise needed to keep at least partial funding intact.
Price reporting
However, Schultz and Sobocinski say Minnesota lawmakers such as Rep. Ted Winter (DFL-Fulda) showed foresight and leadership in the passage of legislation requiring meat packers to regularly report all prices paid for live animals. Minnesota joined Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota and Missouri in passing such legislation.
What you can do
o Call MPCA Commissioner Karen Studders at 651-296-7301. Tell her staff (or her answering machine) to not give in to the pro-factory farm pressure in relation to the hydrogen sulfide law or the connected actions rule.
o Send your brainstorming ideas for LSP priorities during the next legislative session to: LSP, 3203 Cedar Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55407; phone: 612-722-6377; fax: 612-722-6474.
Price reporting
Land Stewardship Project organizer Paul Sobocinski traveled to Washington, D.C., in late June to deliver a loud, clear message to policymakers: end price discrimination and corporate control in the livestock industry. Working with state lawmakers such as Minnesota Rep. Ted Winter and South Dakota Sen. Frank Kloucek, as well as representatives of several farm organizations such as the Minnesota Farmers Union, he and other Midwestern farmers spoke to members of Congress, USDA officials, Justice Department personnel and White House staffers (see April/May 1999 LSL).
"We were well received, and these people seemed genuinely interested in getting the input of independent livestock producers who desire an open, fair market," says Sobocinski, who raises hogs near Wabasso, Minn.
However, it became clear during the visit that more influential interests have been increasing their whispering in the ears of power lately. And the messages these interests are sending policymakers are bad news for independent livestock farmers, says Sobocinski. The National Pork Producers Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. have been working with the major packers to water down any law that would bring fairness to the livestock markets, he says. In fact, the "industry-backed" price-reporting bill these groups supported at press time would preempt states' rights when it comes to holding packers accountable. In short, they are working to wipe out mandatory price reporting laws passed by legislatures in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota and Missouri earlier this year, says Sobocinski.
"It became obvious to me and other farmers visiting Washington that the packers and commodity groups have written parts of this price reporting bill, and some members of Congress are following their lead," he says.
There is hope. Judging by the reception Sobocinski and others received in Washington, policymakers are willing to listen to independent family farmers and use that input to develop a law with real substance. In fact, Mike Dunn, USDA Undersecretary for Marketing, was impressed with a sample price reporting form developed by LSP members.
"He said this is just what he's been waiting for: A simple reporting procedure that is clear and easy to understand," says Sobocinski.
But there are no guarantees that officials will follow-up on their words. Sobocinski says LSP members should contact their representatives in Congress and tell them to end packer discrimination against independent family farmers. That means a price reporting bill that, among other things: requires continuous, on-the-spot reporting of all cash and contract transactions for livestock; requires immediate and strict enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act; prohibits price preferences based on size; bans packer ownership of livestock; and continues to allow states to enact stricter legislation than the federal government has in place. For a complete copy of what this team of farmers, state lawmakers and family farmer organizations is calling for in the price reporting bill, contact LSP at 612-722-6377.
Checkoff vote?
The mandatory pork checkoff is going to a vote, but it's still unclear when. As was reported in the April/May issue of the Land Stewardship Letter, more than enough farmer signatures were collected by LSP and other members of the Campaign for Family Farms to bring the tax system to a farmer vote. In fact, the final signature count was 19,043, representing 20 percent of all the hog farmers in the U.S., and 27 percent more than what was required by law.
However, the USDA is dragging its feet on moving ahead with the vote. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service officials met with Campaign for Family Farm members in June. At that meeting, officials agreed with the Campaign that a major goal should be to get the highest farmer participation possible during the vote. However, hog farmers who attended the meeting were dissatisfied with the USDA's "go slow" approach.
"Apparently they are bending to pressure from the National Pork Producers Council, which obviously doesn't want the vote at all," says Minnesota hog farmer and LSP member Monica Kahout, one of four hog farmers who attended the meeting. "They're using all kinds of excuses to drag this process out as long as possible — maybe until enough farmers have gone out of business that such a vote will be pointless."
What you can do
Call USDA head Dan Glickman (202-720-3631) and tell his staff that a fair vote on the mandatory pork checkoff is needed no later than Nov. 15, 1999.
New policy HQ
LSP's Policy Program has moved to a new office. Mark Schultz or Mike McMahon can be reached at: 3203 Cedar Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55407; phone: 612-722-6377; fax: 612-722-6474; e-mail: schul072@gold.tc.umn.edu. The new office needs a few items to make it complete, such as filing cabinets, a wall clock, folding chairs, tables, shelving, microwave or toaster oven, farm/rural art and general office supplies. If you have any items like that to donate, contact Mike or Mark. Financial contributions are also welcome.
OFFICE UPDATE:
SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA: LSP & Heifer Project team up
By Marsha Neff
Over three years ago, the Land Stewardship Project worked with a group of southeastern Minnesota farmers to launch the Farm Beginnings program. Our goal was to counteract the continuing decline of independent, family farmers by helping prospective and beginning farmers meet the daunting challenge of establishing environmentally sound and profitable family operations. During the past two years, Farm Beginnings has assisted 19 beginners in pursuing their dreams by providing a year-long, educational, apprenticeship. This program trains participants in goal setting, planning, business management, alternative marketing and low-cost, environmentally- sound farming practices.
Farm Beginnings participants attend classes and conferences and receive many resource materials. They also apprentice and network with a variety of successful, innovative farmers, and develop thorough business plans. LSP also helps to connect beginning farmers with retiring farmers, private land owners, and organizations who have farmland, buildings, or equipment for sale or lease. Farm Beginnings participants tell us weÕre offering extremely valuable skills, experiences, resources, connections and support. But we know that in todayÕs farm economy, with its low profit margins and high land, livestock, and equipment costs, many beginners need an additional boost in order to succeed.
This fall we are strengthening and expanding the program by offering exciting new program components which will help beginners overcome one of their biggest obstacles: access to capital. Through a generous $250,000 grant from Heifer Project International (HPI), we will establish a no-interest living livestock loan program. LSP will offer livestock to beginning farmers who have successfully completed the Farm Beginning program, demonstrated financial need, and are prepared to care for the livestock. Over the next two years, 27 qualified beginners will receive dairy or beef heifers; gilts and a boar; ewe lambs and rams; dairy does; or chicks, feed, and equipment for a pastured poultry operation. These living livestock loans will provide a crucial financial base to allow financially limited people to become independent farmers.
Beginners will pay back their loans within three to six years by "passing on" animals to other beginners. Within seven years, over 80 beginners will receive high-quality animals through the living livestock pool.
HPI is a 55 year-old, international, nonprofit organization which combats hunger, alleviates rural poverty, and restores the environment by providing appropriate livestock, training and related services to small-scale farmers worldwide. The organization is mostly known for its support of poor farm families in other countries, but it has also worked extensively in the American South and on Native American Indian reservations. Jerry Aaker, an HPI trainer based in Kenyon, Minn., says the Farm Beginnings initiative is definitely "breaking new ground" for the organization as far as its Midwestern presence goes. But, he says, in some ways it fits naturally with the groupÕs ongoing work, considering the dire financial straits many family farmers are in right now.
"We have a priority on helping smaller, family farms," says Aaker. "I think LSP offers a lot of promise in the area of supporting these kinds of farmers, so in a way itÕs natural for us to team up."
Some of the beginners will be personally and financially prepared to use the livestock in their own independent operations. But others will use their livestock in on-farm partnerships which LSP will help to arrange. We will help beginners establish formal, three- to five-year "equity building partnerships" with innovative and successful established farmers.
The beginners enter the partnerships with a small number of animals and receive compensation based on some portion of the farmÕs income. While gaining top-notch experience they also gradually build up equity in animals and possibly equipment. At the end of the equity-building partnerships, the beginners may leave and start their own farming businesses, begin to purchase their partnersÕ farms, or continue in a financially agreeable partnership with the experienced farmers.
These partnerships also benefit the experienced farm partners in several ways. First, they profit from gaining motivated, high-quality, partners. Second, they can more easily expand their own farming operations, give more time to non-production aspects of their business, or simply reduce their day-to-day work loads. Finally, for some older farmers, the partnerships can help them ease into retirement.
To date, LSP has helped to arrange one of these partnerships on a dairy farm, and has begun working with two more possible partnership teams. The new revolving livestock loan program will enable LSP to arrange many more partnerships in the future.
Marsha Neff is the director of LSP's southeast Minnesota office.
How you can help
o Spread the word about Farm Beginnings.
o Donate a high quality animal or money to purchase an animal.
o Let us know about land, buildings or equipment which might be available to beginning farmers.
o Mentor a beginner.
o Join the Steering Committee or Livestock Loan Committee.
o Invite a Farm Beginnings participant to speak to your church or community group.
o Develop a Farm Beginnings Partnership.
TWIN CITIES: Surprising land protection foes
By Caroline van Schaik
The effort to avoid the paving over of Minnesota's beautiful Chisago and Washington counties received a welcome green light when the state Legislature recently approved funding for another two years of the Green Corridor Project. We — the eight-member collaborative of which LSP is a part — did not get the whole of our request, and certain legislators certainly made us dance for what we did get. Yet, a series of public meetings we held at the same time made me aware that long-term land conservation stumbling blocks aren't just ornery politicians or even lack of money.
In some cases it's farmers.
The aim of the Green Corridor Project is to help shape a more intentional growth plan in two counties where growth and development are off the charts. Its main tools are conservation easements; and while they are, yes, "forever," they also are voluntary.
As voluntary as federal commodity payments and with far fewer strings attached, I might add.
Easements, clearly, are not the answer for all landowners, and in our public meetings, we make this clear. But explosive growth in Chisago and Washington counties makes these land protection tools a viable option for maintaining productive farms and their considerable contributions to both the landscape and rural communities. Unlike paving, easements do not put productive land out of the business of farming.
Our first public forum was held in Cottage Grove in southern Washington County, which is where most of the county's farming community works and lives. Sadly, it's also a region of intense development. In situations like this, one expects to hear two discussions taking place. Discussion number one goes something like this: "We must have unlimited ability to develop this land." And discussion number two goes along these lines: "Unlimited development of land has created traffic problems and brought with it urban and suburban refugees who complain of smells, noise, dust and slow farm equipment clogging the roads. It's impossible to farm under these conditions."
Imagine my surprise when I realized on that rainy evening in Cottage Grove that those making the sales pitch were also complaining about the consequences.
Some 18 people came to the Cottage Grove meeting, and most of them farm in the area. They sat together around the back tables encased in a collective armor of apparent defeat. They spoke of "farmers" and "people" as two separate groups.
There were those among the farmers who acknowledged selling parcels of their farmsteads for development and then buying more as an investment — to be sold for another house, three more cars and another family who does not know where its food comes from.
One forum participant particularly cynical about the "forever" nature of an easement felt such a conservation tool would only last until the next official with a different agenda reversed the decision. And to my chagrin, I grant him his point. The next day brought a phone call from an area farmer whose land, which was supposedly protected under the Agricultural Preserve program, was being forcefully bought from him for a county road, and at the now-lower valuation. It's a hard sell, the reality of sustained conservation, when opposing forces continue to undermine public confidence in the idea. On the other hand, is a perpetual conservation easement any less of a guarantee than a livelihood from corn in the ground?
When I asked the forum participants, "What else if not easements?" their answer was, in some cases, "Sell out and move south." And in fact, Washington County farm statistics tell a story of medium- and large-sized crop farms losing dominance in the region. Smaller farms producing horticultural and niche market crops are the money-makers these days. Those farmers stuck with the traditional corn-soybean cash crop system are finding it difficult to stay viable. This last fact, of course, contributes to the "nest-egg" frenzy of farmers who approach retirement with a sad sigh — because their pension now rests in the corner lot, not in the rows leading up to it.
It doesn't help matters that the dominant farmers' organization in Washington County opposes the Green Corridor work, and says no one is interested in giving conservation easements to a trust in order to preserve the unpaved nature of the landscape.
If I was in despair after the Cottage Grove gathering, my spirits were revived at our last public meeting, held in Marine on St. Croix in the northern reaches of the same county. In a crowd reflective of the area's diverse population, participants recommended that land conservation efforts take into account the value of sustainable agricultural practices. This was a vote for farming, for the open space a field provides and for the long-term management of a resource that pavement kills. This kind of protection may not be forever, but it will be viable for a long time; and, we hope, regardless of politics and money.
Being open-minded about the landscape and respectful of farmers does not preclude an honest appraisal of a bad situation. I don't argue that farmers have had it hard. There are a lot of farmers out there who have no other assets but the land they've worked so hard on over the years, and that's a very serious problem when it comes time to secure a future after retirement. But it is not responsible to lash out at and take advantage of the same situation. If you sell land for development, you've bought traffic headaches.
No one can have it both ways.
Caroline van Schaik is an LSP organizer who is working with the Green Corridor Project. She can be reached at 651-653-0618 or caroline@landstewardshipproject.org
BOOK REVIEW:
Going Local: Self-Reliant Communities in a Global Age
By Michael H. Shuman
1998
The Free Press, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020
306 pages
$25.00
Reviewed by Brian DeVore
I'll be honest. This spring I started reading Going Local: Creating Self-Reliant Communities in a Global Age, and after the first few chapters, put it down for several weeks. The subject matter was interesting, but I was a little concerned that author Michael Shuman was going to lead me through a couple hundred pages of academic theories on why we should emphasize local self-reliance.
Such talk is nice, but will remain only so much pleasant conversation until key people in our communities join the conversation.
Then, in June, I had the opportunity to attend one of the "Farm Beginnings" classes being sponsored by the Land Stewardship Project. The subject that night was financing of low-cost farm operations. The half-dozen beginning farmers who attended took copious notes while various hazards, options and opportunities associated with getting farming capital together were discussed.
About halfway through the evening, a local bank president spoke, and what he had to say about knocked me out of my chair. His discussion centered on how we should keep financing local, and reduce our reliance on outside resources to support homegrown businesses like farming. This speaker — did I mention he's a bank president? — even went so far as to argue that lending money in the conventional sense is not always the most prudent way to support a local enterprise. He said sustainable agriculture seems to lend itself (no pun intended) particularly well to locally-based "equity partnerships" that involve people who have more at stake in an enterprise than getting a financial return on their investment. He quoted David Brophy, a professor at the University of Michigan Business School, who uses the phrase "eating our own cooking" as a metaphor for putting our resources into local enterprises rather than national and global investment markets.
That evening in a small southeast Minnesota town's community center gave me the incentive to give Going Local a second chance.
I'm glad I did. It turned out to be full of real-life examples of communities "going local" with varying degrees of success. It covers the failures as well as the successes, and does so in an easy-to-read fashion. Shuman, who is co-director of the Institute for Policy Studies, means for his book to be put to practical use. In fact, almost one-third of the book is devoted to resources for pursuing self-reliance.
Going Local is not some diatribe that calls on people to dig themselves a bomb shelter and withdraw from the modern world. In fact, it's just the opposite. It's a call to action for getting more involved with our fellow human beings than the current "globalized" society allows us. In some circles, "economic interdependence" has become almost a requirement for being a responsible global citizen these days. But such intimate entanglements aren't always good. Writes Shuman: "...economic interdependence is constructive only if power among the players is balanced. Interdependence that surrenders power to outsiders carries long-term economic costs and creates the potential for serious conflict."
That should be no news to our farming communities that produce food. What may be news to some is that every aspect of the food chain — from production to processing to transportation — is fertile ground to be localized. As is described in this Land Stewardship Letter, there are already several good examples of farmers and consumers working together to make the food supply more local. Shuman writes about ways we can formalize such partnerships and take them a step beyond one-on-one marketing. He describes such tools as "local currency" (it's actual printed "money" that can only be spent within the confines of the community), micro loans and sophisticated bartering (using a hourly or by the minute community work ratings system to trade food for accounting or computer services, for example). All of these strategies are based on the idea that it is to a community's benefit to support such activities. That provides the kind of non-financial, moral support that a Wall Street investor, or even a local lender working for a national banking chain, simply can't provide. Outside investors need a return on their money, plain and simple, and they don't care if it comes from factory hog production or sustainable, family farms.
One of the most inspiring Going Local examples of partnering with concerned community residents was the "Deli Bonds" that were issued by a delicatessen in Great Barrington, Mass., in 1989. The deli, a local landmark, needed $4,500 to secure a new lease in a hurry. Working with the E.F. Schumacher Society's Self Help Association for a Regional Economy, the owners issued bonds for $9 a piece to willing customers, and promised to pay them back with $10 worth of food over a one-year period. The effort was so successful that two local farms issued similar bonds to raise money for building projects. The farms were able to raise $7,000 and paid the loans off with vegetables and house plants.
These are examples of not just borrowing money locally, but taking on a partner, a partner who has a great stake in whether you succeed. If one of those Massachusetts farms had failed, the bond holders would have been out more than their investment; they would have lost a source of local food produced by friends. Frankly, farmers in this country are not real fans of taking on partners, no matter how local they are. It contradicts their independent spirit and conjures up images of non-farmers meddling in their affairs. But consider this: every time Monsanto and its like tries to force genetically modified soybeans down European throats, officials there get mad, trade barriers are erected and the futures market goes into a tailspin. This, in turn, slaps every soybean farmer in the country with low prices, whether she or he raises genetically modified soybeans or not.
All of this can take place because of decisions made by people we don't know in places we've never heard of. There's meddling, and then there's meddling.
Brian DeVore is editor of the Land Stewardship Letter.
MEMBERSHIP UPDATE:
Member-to-member
By Cathy Eberhart
The Land Stewardship Project recently finalized an ambitious and exciting Five Year Plan. A key part of this plan is a goal to increase membership to 3,300 by 2004 — this means almost tripling our numbers from where they are today! Although this goal is challenging, we think it is possible — but only with your help. Here are 10 ways that you can help LSP meet its membership goal:
If you are interested in helping out with any of these items, call Cathy at 651-653-0618 or send an e-mail to velaeber@mninter.net.
Just remember, if every LSP member recruited just one additional person, we’d double our membership and be half way to our goal. To paraphrase Kim Klein, a well-recognized grassroots fund-raising expert, "We already know all the people we need to know to recruit all the members we need to recruit."
Cathy Eberhart is LSP's Membership Coordinator.
|
LSPer INTERACTIVE An informational column for LSP members who want to get more involved. New LSP T-shirt design |
Check the Calendar for the latest on upcoming LSP events.
Back to top