The official newsletter of the Land Stewardship Project
DECEMBER 1999 VOL. 17, NO. 6
Bigger is Better…and 3 other agricultural myths
By Brian DeVore
Industrial agribusiness doesn’t just produce corn, eroded soil and poor farmers. It also cranks out a bumper crop of myths, misstatements and outright lies.
This issue of the Land Stewardship Letter features a few farming and food fictions, and some diamond-hard facts to deflate them. This list is far from complete. During the coming year, the LSL will periodically feature other agricultural myths…and ways of countering them.
If you’d like to get more involved in shooting down some of the myths of agribusiness, see LSP News for information on a new series of fact sheets we are offering to farmers, consumers and anyone else concerned about the harvest of hopelessness agricultural misinformation produces.
Myth #1
Bigger is Better
Perhaps one of the most repeated myths in American agriculture is that larger farmers are more efficient than smaller ones, and thus expanding to mega-size is the only way to compete. However, the economic evidence shows that production-wise small operations are quite efficient, and the main driving force for getting bigger is to maintain access to size-biased markets.
When only yield of one or two crops is considered, larger farms are more productive, simply because they can take advantage of economies of scale to produce thousands of acres of one crop, such as corn. However, when economists look at the total output — sum of everything a farm produces: grains, fruits, animal products, forage, etc. — of a particular farm, smaller, more diverse operations win hands down.
U.S. farms of around 238 acres on average net $56 per acre annually, according to the 1992 U.S. Agricultural Census. That figure drops as farm size increases: a 694-acre farm nets $51, a 1,364-acre farm $39 and a 6,709-acre farm $12.
In fact, small farmers worldwide produce from two to 10 times more per unit area than do larger, corporate farms, according to the Institute for Food and Development Policy. An analysis done by the Institute found that the greater total productivity of smaller farms can be explained by many factors. For one thing, smaller farms tend to raise more high value crops such as vegetables and fruits. But they also tend to make better use of the land by utilizing multiple cropping and livestock management strategies. Smaller farmers are more likely to intercrop on the same field, utilize livestock waste efficiently and involve labor that is more personally committed to the efficiency of the operation.
When factors such as quality of land and management, the contribution of the farm dwelling to output and the impact of off-farm employment on output and production costs are taken into consideration, small family and part-time farmers are at least as efficient as larger commercial operations, according to a 1997 analysis by University of Minnesota agricultural economist Willis Peterson.
Using a formula based on the "long run average total cost curve" ("total cost" in this case is defined as out-of-pocket expenses less interest payments and property taxes plus a charge for capital), Peterson examined the efficiencies of farms ranging in size from $2,500 in annual sales to $500,000 and over in annual sales. The larger farms had higher than average total costs, while smaller operations had lower than average costs.
"In fact, there is evidence of diseconomies of scale as farm size increases," concludes Peterson.
Mike Duffy would agree with that. The Iowa State University agricultural economist has studied records of the Iowa Farm Business Association (3,000 commercial farmers) for several years.
For row crop farmers, the cost of production starts to lose its efficiencies of size advantage somewhere between 400 and 600 row crop acres, says Duffy.
For hog farmers, efficiencies of scale advantages are lost when they market beyond 1,000 head per year, he says.
In case studies conducted by the Land Stewardship Project and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Program, it was found that four farms using sustainable methods were more than three times as profitable on a per-acre basis as their larger, more conventional, neighbors.
One 350-acre southeast Minnesota crop and livestock farm studied as part of a LSP/MDA case study used pasture farrowing, straw-bedding and other low-cost, sustainable hog production techniques to produce pork for about 28 cents per pound. Large factory farms do it for closer to 40 cents per pound.
In Nebraska, data from the Swine Enterprise Records and Analysis Program also indicates that bigger isn’t necessarily better. In 1993-94, the most profitable one-third of the operations had 145 sows, compared to 187 for the one-third that were least profitable.
The largest farms lost the most money during 1998, according to an analysis of the records of the Minnesota Southwestern Farm Business Management Association. The largest farms — those with gross income of at least half a million dollars — had a net farm income of minus $12,955. The average net income for all 210 farms in the association was $8,616.
Myth #2
Factory farming is good for the economy
Losing independent family farmers and dirtying the environment are the costs of economic development that creates wage-earning jobs, argue factory farm boosters. For example, a 1992 University of Missouri study found that for every $5 million in new investment in contract swine production, between 40 and 45 new jobs would be created throughout the state’s economy.
However a follow-up analysis by University of Missouri agricultural economist John Ikerd found that the creation of those new jobs would come at the cost of three times that number of independent farmers. This is just one example of what happens when the other side of the "factory farming is economic development" argument is examined.
A 1992 University of Minnesota examination of the spending patterns of 30 farmers selected from the membership of the Southwest Minnesota Farm Business Management Association revealed that for livestock intensive operations, the percentage spent locally (defined as within a 20-mile radius of the farm) declined dramatically with an increase in the size of the operation.
During the 1940s, sociologist Walter Goldschmidt compared two rural California communities and found the one supported by diverse, family-sized farms was significantly better off socially and economically, while the town surrounded by large corporate operations had a much lower quality of life.
A University of Minnesota study conducted in 1995 used economic statistics, census figures and interviews with residents of the Green Isle, Minn., area to examine the impact of dairy farming on a local community. The study showed that between the 1970s and 1990s, the number of farmers serving the local creamery dropped from 1,400 to 960. The larger dairy farms (more than 300 cows) that started dominating the area bypassed local suppliers, reducing the need for Main Street businesses.
"Meanwhile, economic and social activity in Green Isle declined, retail sales dropped by 81 percent between 1979 and 1989, the public dance hall closed, and the grade school adjourned permanently. Today, a collection of main street stores, feed mills, and a manufacturing plant remain idle," reported the study’s author.
Myth #3
Factory farms are needed to support ag infrastructure
One rationalization for allowing factory-style livestock operations to proliferate is the argument that they will help keep large meat and dairy processors in business, and even attract new ones into a state. These processors will supposedly provide markets for all farmers, big and small.
In Killing Competition with Captive Supplies, a special report on how the packing industry uses exclusive, size-based contracts to procure its hogs, LSP documented example after example of family-sized farms being locked out of the market because they didn’t have large numbers of hogs to sell.
North Carolina, the second biggest hog producer in the country, increased its hog inventory by more than three million in less than a decade. That growth was accompanied by the construction of several packing plants, but family-sized farms were all but locked out of those facilities. In the fall of 1993, corporate-owned hogs were receiving $51 per hundredweight at North Carolina packing plants, while local buying stations were paying $39 per hundred pounds to independent farmers.
When IBP officials announced in January 1998 that they were closing their packing plant in the southwest Minnesota community of Luverne, they said lack of cattle in the market prompted the action. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Commissioner Gene Hugoson chimed in with the argument that this was a classic example of why we must not have a moratorium on factory farms, and instead must forge full speed ahead with expanding Minnesota’s livestock production to keep the packers here.
But cattle production in the 10 Minnesota counties nearest to the Luverne plant was up — not down — from 1994 (49,600 cattle were raised in those 10 counties in 1994; that number was 51,800 in 1997).
Myth #4
Small-scale sustainable agriculture will starve the world (or poison it)
The world simply can’t afford to have an agricultural system made up of ecologically sound, family-farm based enterprises, say apologists for the industrial system. Without the factory model of agriculture, not enough food would be produced to feed all those billions of mouths, goes this argument. And so without hyper-productive farming, we would need to plow up every last rain forest just to meet current needs. Such environmental destruction would make the current ecological costs of farming look insignificant indeed. But such alarmist talk is usually fueled by large agribusiness firms that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.
Dennis Avery, for example, is a strident critic of sustainable agriculture. He writes a regular newspaper column that is syndicated throughout the country and has written a book with a self-explanatory title, Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic. Avery works for a think tank called the Hudson Institute, a fact that is often noted whenever he is published or quoted. However, what is not publicized widely is that the Institute is funded by many agribusiness heavyweights.
In 1997, the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture published an analysis of various studies that examined the economic costs of reducing pesticide use. It found that such studies seldom take into account the many crop protection alternatives now available to farmers seeking to reduce or eliminate pesticide use. Several field trials and on-farm research studies have shown that once a sustainable cropping system is established, its yields are comparable to conventional production.
A Cornell University study did a similar analysis and concluded that with our present knowledge of alternative farming methods, chemical use could be reduced by half with only a slight increase in food costs (0.6 percent).
Even if we manage to produce enough food through sustainable methods to keep people’s bellies full, they’ll die of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria poisoning. At least that’s what Dennis Avery thinks, and what he’s convinced the Wall Street Journal and Associated Press to report. During the fall of 1998, Avery wrote an article claiming that people who consume organic food are eight times more likely to suffer food poisoning due to the E. coli bacterium.
Avery claimed the information about E. coli was based on a study conducted by the Federal Centers for Disease Control. His claim was dutifully reported as fact by many media outlets.
One problem: the Centers for Disease Control has never conducted any studies on organic/natural foods and E. coli (or other food borne pathogens). Avery’s claim has no basis in fact.
In the end, it’s industrial agriculture that’s becoming increasingly unaffordable, according to a study summarized in the Dec. 18, 1999, New Scientist magazine. The cost of cleaning up pollution, repairing habitats and coping with sickness caused by Britain’s industrial farming system costs that country more than $3 billion annually, according to the study, which was conducted by the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex. That amount should sound familiar to British economists: it’s about equal to the income that country’s agriculture produces each
year.
COMMENTARY
Why I continue farming (and why you should care)
By Dave Serfling
I feel very blessed that I can continue to live my dream and be a full-time family farmer. I have known many people who had to give up their dream or perhaps only farm on the weekends and in the dark while holding down a job in town. The decision to quit farming is the most gut-wrenching change a farmer can go through, especially when it is a multi-generational family farm.
On the average over the past five years, our farm has been able to produce a gross revenue of $150,000, with a net profit of $30,000. We’re not setting the world on fire, but it’s enough to live on and have a decent quality of life. With the help of low overhead and my wife, Diane’s, part-time job, we have been able to provide for our two children, Hannah and Ethan.
We make our living by raising cattle, hogs, sheep and chickens. All of the crops — corn, oats, hay and pasture — that we raise on our 350 acres are fed to our animals. This diversity is key to our needs and goals. We feel that a diverse system that blends livestock and crops helps us stay economically and environmentally healthy. Being small and diverse gives us the kind of flexibility larger, more specialized farms can’t attain. When beef prices are down, for example, perhaps one of our other enterprises will help get us through. The manure produced by our animals is used on the land that grows their feed, creating the ultimate form of recycling.
But I don’t raise livestock just for economic and agronomic reasons. Working with animals has always been one of my loves. I get an adrenaline rush when I play doctor and help a cow deliver a calf successfully. It is a race against life or death. It tears me up when I lose and gets me very excited when I win.
Don’t get me wrong: everything isn’t rosy in agriculture. Farming for me is the most mentally and physically challenging vocation that I know. Trying to find profit in today’s agriculture is extremely difficult, but it helps that we incorporate our values into our economic decisions. I get pretty excited (just ask Diane) when I find a practice that gives me profit and also is good for the environment, my family and society. All the while I have to keep in mind that I have no boss — it is up to me to get the most critical things done first and to keep my schedule intact and have time for my family and the causes that I believe in. It is a true juggling act.
One of the acts we juggle is to purposely keep some jobs labor intensive. We’re not sadists, but this has allowed us to keep our overhead low and teaches my kids not only how to work, but how to sweat. We push ourselves so hard sometimes that we fill our caps with cold water and empty them on our heads. It feels so refreshing after a hot summer afternoon of making hay. We work hard, play hard, eat well, and sleep deep on this farm. Our kids are learning a sense of accomplishment for a job well done.
Nine out of 10 days I enjoy having an outdoors job. To see the seasons change, the lambs playing tag, the cattle contentedly grazing and the pigs rutting in the straw are all visual pleasures that I have daily on the farm. My favorite landscape is a sea of deep green corn just before it tassels contrasted with fields of golden oats ready for harvest. It only lasts a few days but it is very pretty.
As you can probably tell, I love farming. But I have seen agriculture changing. When I was growing up, the small family farm was the foundation of agriculture. The land was cared for by owner-operators. The schools and churches in our rural communities were full. Our social fabric in our rural area was supported by middle class family farmers. But now farming has split into three main sectors. There are still independent, multi-generational family farmers like myself, but there is also a fast growing segment of part-timers.
The third segment is mega-farms, where the owner simply manages many employees to do the work. These employees get paid whether or not the land is eroding, the water is polluted, or the neighbors don’t like the smell. But they are not being paid well enough to support the small town Main Street businesses.
I am a big supporter of an agriculture that is characterized by caring, independent, small family farms. I believe in my heart that it is possible. I said earlier that it is a gut-wrenching experience for a farmer to quit. But I also believe all of society loses when a family leaves the land. The urban and suburban people I talk to say they like the kind of farming that relies on independent owner-operators like myself. They tell me that’s the kind of agriculture they want producing their food and caring for the land across Minnesota. This isn’t a pipe dream: there are many other families like mine out on the land producing food and feeling positive about their future.
But we face many difficult barriers. For example, I’ve crunched the numbers and I know I can produce quality hogs just as efficiently as the big guys. But all that means nothing if I don’t have a market for those animals. It’s very frustrating to see packers pay more for hogs raised on mega-sized factory farms based on volume, not superior quality.
We need public policies that target the type of farm that society says it wants and needs: family owned and operated, as well as economically and biologically diverse. We need to keep markets open for family farms. Believe it or not, there are many young farmers just champing at the bit to get established on the land. We need low-cost, viable ways of getting them started. We need organizations like the Land Stewardship Project, which is bringing farmers like myself together with non-farmers to work toward making family-sized operations the foundation of our food system.
The corporate takeover of American farming is not a given. If we can come together and make a commitment to having more small family farmers on the land, we can achieve such a goal. That’s what democracy and freedom of choice is all about: not being chained to the wall of inevitability.
Land Stewardship Project members Dave, Diane, Hannah and Ethan Serfling farm near Preston, in southeast Minnesota.
LETTERS
Proactive work
Dear Editor:
Just to comment, I think the publications I’ve been getting lately are showing great vitality within LSP. The outreach you’re doing is wisely proactive. Keep up the excellent work.
— Larry Pyers
Minneapolis, Minn.
Off-farm income
Dear Editor:
When defending the pork checkoff, the National Pork Producers Council tries to convince hog farmers that this mandatory tax is putting more money in people’s pockets. This argument perplexes me, since my share of the retail pork dollar has been cut by more than half during the lifetime of the checkoff.
But after reading the March issue of The Farmer magazine, I know what they’re talking about. According to that magazine, NPPC Chief Executive Officer Al Tank is pulling down an annual salary of $148,581 (plus $10,233 in annual benefits). Michael J. Simpson, Tank’s counterpart at the National Pork Board (which collects our checkoff money and then turns it over to the NPPC), has an annual salary of just over $100,000.
Well I declare, the checkoff is putting more money in someone’s pocket after all! The trouble is, Tank and Simpson get paid no matter who’s raising those checkoff-generating hogs: Smithfield Foods or Linda Noble. They also get paid whether hogs are going for 7 cents a pound or 60 cents a pound.
It’s time we stopped supporting the life-styles of commodity group head honchos. It’s time the U.S. Department of Agriculture listened to the wishes of 20 percent of the nation’s hog farmers and gave us the opportunity to vote this checkoff tax out of existence.
— Linda Noble,
Kenyon, Minn.
LSP NEWS
GMO discussion featured Feb. 18
The prickly issue of genetic engineering will take center stage at the Land Stewardship Project’s southeast Minnesota office annual meeting and dinner on Feb. 18 in Rochester.
David Andow, a University of Minnesota ecology professor who is also a LSP board member, will lead the discussion.
Andow has led discussions on this issue in the past and is able to cover just about every aspect of it, from the ecological implications to the economic and social consequences.
The meeting will also feature locally grown food and story-telling by Michael Cotter. Past annual meetings in southeast Minnesota have sold out, so reserve your place now. Call 507-523-3366 for more information.
Interested in CSA farming?
If you are planning on operating a Community Supported Agriculture farm and will deliver the produce in the Twin Cities during the 2000 growing season, contact the Land Stewardship Project to be listed in the directory we are producing in partnership with the Minnesota Food Association. The 1999 directory, which listed 25 farms, was sent to more than 1,000 consumers. Many CSA farmers told us it helped immensely in filling out their subscriptions. CSA farms provide consumers an opportunity to buy a share in an operation. In return, these farm members receive a weekly shipment of natural produce throughout the growing season.
LSP will be mailing the free directory out sometime in late February or early March. If you are a consumer who is interested in joining a CSA farm this year, contact us to be placed on the mailing list for receiving the directory when it comes out. Memberships for many of these farms fill up by late winter so it’s best to act now before the spring thaw arrives.
Contact: Twin Cities CSA Directory, LSP, 2200 4th Street, White Bear Lake, MN 55110; phone: 651-653-0618; e-mail: lspwbl@landstewardshipproject.org
Community Farm Festival
The third annual Twin Cities Local Community Farm Festival will be held April 9 at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn. The 1999 event featured more than two dozen Twin Cities area farms that are direct marketing food through the CSA model or other means. This is a great opportunity for farmers and consumers to meet each other. There will be fun activities for children as well as adults. For more information, contact LSP’s Twin Cities office.
CURE meeting
High School students who canoed the Minnesota River for 13 days last summer will be featured at the eighth annual meeting of Clean Up our River Environment (CURE), Feb. 19, at Shooter’s Bar & Grill, Appleton, Minn. CURE, which works to protect the Upper Minnesota River Basin in western Minnesota, was founded by LSP and is based in LSP’s Montevideo office.
The students, who traveled the river as part of a biology field trip, will share their experiences and show slides. Also featured will be locally grown food, a silent auction and dance. Registration starts at 5:30 p.m., with a buffet meal at 7 p.m. The cost is $15 for CURE members and $20 for non-members.
For more information, contact Lynn Lokken in LSP’s western Minnesota office, 320-269-2105; llokken@maxminn.com
LSP volunteers
Volunteers are a critical part of getting work done in nonprofit organizations like the Land Stewardship Project.
In LSP’s southeast Minnesota office, for example, a dedicated group volunteered a total of 90 hours during 1999 to help with mailings and other projects. The Lewiston staff owes a big debt of gratitude to Jean Larson, Gaye Nepper, Eunice McLeod, Arlis Ellinghuysen, Lorraine Wachholz, Mildred Martin, Jane and Herb Fellows, Frances Ihrke, Steve Braatz, Ardis Helland, Ashley Benson and Fran Bockenhauer.
If you have a few spare hours, contact Karen Benson in Lewiston, 507-523-3366. If you live near one of LSP’s other offices and are interested in volunteering, give us a call: 320-269-2105 in Montevideo; 612-722-6377 in south Minneapolis (Policy Program); and 651-653-0618 in White Bear Lake.
New Food Choices intern
Ray Kirsch has joined the Land Stewardship Project as an intern working with the Food Choices project.
Kirsch has a master’s degree in agronomy from the University of Minnesota and a bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla. He has worked as an assistant agronomy researcher at Minnesota’s Southwest Research and Outreach Center. He has worked on studies of, among others, cover crops, organic systems and wild rice. Kirsch has also worked as a warehouse assistant for Blooming Prairie Natural Foods. He lives in St. Paul, Minn., and is based in LSP’s Twin Cities office.
LSP now offering fact sheets
Tired of not having a handy answer to the farm fiction being slung by agribusiness? The Land Stewardship Project is launching a series of myth-busting fact sheets. These sheets offer quick referenced information that can be used at meetings, in letters to your local newspaper or in a conversation with friends, neighbors and family.
Current fact sheet subjects include:
We will be constantly updating and adding to our fact sheet series. A packet of fact sheets is available to LSP members for $5 (that covers shipping and handling), and $10 for non-members. You can order them through the mail by contacting our Twin Cities office, 2200 4th Street, White Bear Lake, MN 55110; phone: 651-653-9618. Copies of the fact sheets can also be picked up at our southeast Minnesota office (507-523-3366), western Minnesota office (320-269-2105), or Policy Program office in south Minneapolis (612-722-6377).
We also welcome any ideas for future fact sheet subjects. You can pass those along to Brian DeVore; phone: 651-653-9618; e-mail: bdevore@landstewardshipproject.org
OFFICE UPDATES
POLICY: How to eat an elephant
By Brad DeVries
Thinking about changing the course of federal agriculture policy in this country is a bit like the prospect of eating an entire elephant. It is all well and good to counsel "one bite at a time," but the undertaking itself seems so huge, and the results so far in the future, that it is difficult just to get started. One good way to overcome this understandable reluctance is to invite a large crowd of friends over for dinner, and to think of the "elephants" you have polished off together in the past before tucking into the next one.
When the Land Stewardship Project sets out to move the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the U.S. Congress in a more sustainable direction, it comes to the table with several good friends. We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with other members of several powerful coalitions, like the Campaign for Family Farms that fights for the rights of family livestock farmers, or the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which works in Washington, D.C., for federal policies that promote stewardship on American farms.
In fact, it is difficult to think of an "inside the Beltway" group that does as much with as little as the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. Have you ever used or heard of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE), which uses farmer-led on-farm research to investigate alternative farming practices, and disseminates the results to other farmers in the region? How about the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Water Quality Incentives Program? The Fund for Rural America (a three-year, $300 million investment in agricultural research and rural business and infrastructure development), the Conservation Farm Option (allowing innovative use of conservation programs in whole farm approaches), streamside buffers and partial field enrollments in the Conservation Reserve Program, or the inclusion of real, diverse options including livestock production in the cropping flexibility provisions of the "Freedom to Farm" bill?
Amazing as it may seem, every one of those programs that do so much to promote farming alternatives that are good for the land and good for farmers began life as initiatives of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. In fact, the single most sweeping reform of USDA conservation programs in the 1996 re-write of federal farm statutes, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), grew out of a proposal by the Coalition to consolidate a patchwork of conservation programs into one coherent whole with a substantial funding base.
LSP can take considerable pride in the achievements of the Coalition, as one of the central players that worked to bring it together, along with the Center for Rural Affairs, the Minnesota Project and the Wisconsin Rural Development Center. These groups and others saw the need back in 1987 to bring together farmers, environmental advocates, religious groups and rural people to formulate practical, effective policy approaches to tough agricultural problems. They set up a structure that not only maximizes the voice of sustainable agriculture in Washington, but also allows member groups to participate at different levels to improve federal farm policy.
The Coalition is a subgroup of the broader Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (MSAWG) and, while the lines sometimes blur between the separate functions of the two, each serves an important purpose. The MSAWG acts to network groups around the region to share ideas and information about federal programs, agency activities and pending legislation. When LSP decided in early 1999 to bring several farmer members of our National Policy Committee together in Washington to formulate a new approach to farm programs and present it to legislators, we looked to our MSAWG allies to work with us. The "Farming Results Index" a coalition of farmers hammered out as a result found receptive audiences on Capitol Hill, and remains the foundation of the Working Group’s discussions of the future for federal support of agriculture (see sidebar at the end of this story).
The Working Group has a Grassroots Coordinator who helps member organizations work together and comment on legislation or other actions of the federal government. The SAWG meets three times a year around the Midwest, and does most of its heavy lifting through four issue committees: Research and Extension, Marketing and Rural Development, Conservation and Environment, and Family Farming Opportunity and Risk Management.
National Campaign
The 12 organizations in the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, all of which are SAWG members, take the additional step of working to formulate common policy positions, which the staff of the Washington office work to promote within Congress or federal agencies. The Coalition takes these positions by consensus of the membership.
Our efforts are also important within the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, which works to knit together the efforts of the other regional Sustainable Agriculture Working Groups — the Northeast SAWG, Southern SAWG, Western SAWG and California SAWG. Each of these has a different style of work, policy focus, and even organizational "personality," but all work together to promote an agriculture that is economically profitable, environmentally sound, family farm based and socially just.
This structure gives a tremendous amount of flexibility and power to the work of the organization, and offers a geographic reach that allows the Working Group to speak to the Congress through home-state constituents of key lawmakers. This effort also demands and rewards a high degree of trust and cooperation among all of the participants, which lays the foundation for a coherent, persuasive message in
Washington.
So, to say the least, we come to the table with powerful allies. It helps to keep that in mind when elephant is on the menu.
Brad DeVries is a LSP staff member based in Washington, D.C., where he works as the public information coordinator for the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. He also works with the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. He can be reached by calling 202-547-5754, or e-mailing him at bdevries@msawg.org
SIDEBAR:
New farm conservation program guide released
The Land Stewardship Project has recently produced a follow-up to its popular Making the Most of Freedom to Farm, which sold out within a few months of being published in 1997. Making Sense of Federal Farm Conservation Programs offers basic information on initiatives such as the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. These are federal programs designed to be used by farmers who are looking for financial and/or technical help when establishing conservation measures on their land.
Making Sense was written by Brad DeVries, an LSP staffer based in Washington, D.C. Copies of this nine-page guide are free if you pick them up from LSP’s southeast Minnesota, western Minnesota or Policy Program office. If you need it mailed, the charge is $2 to cover postage and handling. Please make mail orders through our Twin Cities office by writing: "Making Sense," LSP, 2200 4th Street, White Bear Lake, MN 55110; phone: 651-653-0618.
SIDEBAR:
Get involved with the 2002 Farm Bill
The 2002 Farm Bill will be an opportunity to promote policies that stress the sustainability of family farms, natural resources and food security, as well as social and economic justice.
The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture has begun working to build the infrastructure needed to have an impact. You can make a difference by adding your voice to the thousands who will eventually join the effort. Although it seems far away, deliberations on the 2002 Farm Bill have already begun and policy options are beginning to take shape. Campaign participants are working for the following goals in the 2002 Farm Bill:
* Revise farm programs so they benefit small and moderate-sized family farms.
* Stem the concentration and industrialization of agriculture and the food system.
* Increase assistance for environmental stewardship and whole farm planning to enhance clean water, biodiversity, climate change mitigation, long-term soil productivity, farmland preservation and wildlife habitat.
* Direct research and funding sources to increase the farm share of profit in the food system, create new markets, support rural community development and enhance community food security and urban agriculture.
* Redirect research and extension program and technology development to promote sustainable family farming systems.
* Promote access to farm ownership for minority and beginning farmers.
* Promote just and humane working conditions for farmers and farm workers.
To get involved, contact: National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, P.O. Box 396, Pine Bush, NY 12566; phone: 914-744-8448; fax: 914-744-8477; e-mail: Campaign@magiccarpet.com; web site: www.SustainableAgriculture.net
SIDEBAR:
Stewardship policy sparking interest
One Land Stewardship Project policy initiative, rewarding farmers for being good stewards (Jan./Feb./March LSL), is gaining supporters in the nation’s capital.
In December, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman said it was time to look at the multiple environmental benefits good stewardship farming can offer.
"We’ve been paying farmers for decades to grow certain crops or not to grow certain crops," he said in an Associated Press news story. "One... commodity we have not looked at is the land."
In addition, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has proposed a Conservation Security Program, which would compensate farmers for such efforts as improving air and water quality.
OPPORTUNITIES/RESOURCES
LSP positions open
The Land Stewardship Project is looking to fill two positions as soon as possible:
o The Farm Production and Verification Coordinator will work with the Food Choices program to develop an inspection and certification system for sustainably raised food in the Upper Midwest. Candidates should have good rapport with farmers and retailers and be knowledgeable about sustainable and conventional agriculture.
o The Manager of Administration and Finance will manage all aspects of LSP’s financial workings. Candidates should have at least two years experience in nonprofit accounting, fiscal management and budgeting. They must also be able to work with Great Plains software and spreadsheets and be knowledgeable about personnel policies and employee benefits.
To apply for either of these positions, contact George Boody, Executive Director, LSP, 2200 4th Street, White Bear Lake, MN 55110; phone: 651-653-0618. LSP is an equal opportunity employer.
Natural lawn signs: Keep on the grass
Are you concerned when you see lawns in your neighborhood sprouting little green pesticide postings? You know the ones — they usually say something like, "This area chemically treated. Keep children and pets off until..." If you don’t treat your lawn.. with chemicals, there is now a colorful way to send an alternative message with your own postings.
These 5.5 inch square, all-weather signs come in four versions: "Yards for Kids," "Yards for Nature," "Yards for Pets and "Yards for Health." All four versions carry the wording: "No Lawn Pesticides Used Here" as well as bold illustrations of children, pets, wild flowers and insects — things verboten on a freshly sprayed lawn.
To order, send a check payable to UNI/CEEE for $2.50 each to: Kamyar Enshayan, Physics Building, UNI, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0150; phone: 319-273-6894; web site: www.wplwloo.lib.ia.us/yardsforkids. That price includes stakes, as well as shipping and handling.
Organic research grants deadline 7/15
The Organic Farming Research Foundation has a competitive grants program for promoting study of alternative production systems. Up to $150,000 in grant money will be available in 2000. The next deadline for grant application is July 15.
For application guidelines and a list of reports on past projects the Foundation has funded, contact: OFRF, P.O. Box 440, Santa Cruz, CA 95061; phone: 831-426-6606; web site: www.ofrf.org
Establishing goals on the farm
How to Establish Goals: A Group Project for Farmers and their Families, is a 14-page guide recently published by the Minnesota Project and the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture’s Whole Farm Planning Interdisciplinary Team. It includes an easy step-by-step process for setting goals, reasons to have goals and a self-assessment work sheet.
For a copy, send $3 to: Minnesota Project, 1885 University Ave. W., Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55104; phone: 651-645-6159.
The Minnesota Project also has a new whole farm planning web site. It contains whole farm planning news, information and web links: www.misa.umn.edu/~mnproj/wfp
Sustainable Farming Systems fact sheets
The Sustainable Farming Systems Project researches farm sustainability as reflected by farm economics, environmental impact and the quality of home and community life. Through this project, farmers and researchers have teamed up in three Minnesota regions: the Chippewa River Valley, the Sand Creek watershed and the Coteau and Lamberton areas.
The project has developed a series of fact sheets about the on-farm water quality research, the economic task force and the work of the project’s three local teams. Free copies are available by contacting Helene Murray at the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, 1-800-909-6472 or 612-625-8235.
Critter cultivating
A Wildlife Manager’s Field Guide to the Farm Bill is a 44-page booklet targeted at wildlife managers, but has considerable information that would be useful to farmers. It includes overviews of agricultural conservation programs that affect wildlife and a summary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies that administer them.
The cost is $4 (that includes postage and handling). To order, send a check to: Wildlife Management Institute, 1101 14th Street NW, Suite 801, Washington, D.C. 20005; phone: 202-371-1808; web site: http://www.jwdc.com/wmi/bookbros.html
Urban farmer needed
The Twin Cities Youth Farm and Market Project is looking for a project assistant/master farmer for the summer of 2000.
The internship, which runs from June 19 to Aug. 28, will involve assisting a group leader in teaching skills such as urban vegetable production, flower production, flower arranging and drying, and composting. Candidates should like to work with kids; some gardening skills are preferred.
The Youth Farm and Market Project was established in 1995 in south Minneapolis to provide meaningful work experiences for low-income urban youth between the ages of 9 and 17. Through this program, youth have grown high quality vegetables and sold them at their own neighborhood markets located at public housing high-rises, local cafes and urban crossroads. They’ve also sold gourmet lettuces and greens to local restaurants and one retail grocer.
For more information, contact Malcom Potek, 612-872-4226.
Nature center farmer wanted
The Dodge Nature Center in West St. Paul, Minn., is looking for a farm specialist/horticulturist. Duties include overall management of the nature center’s educational farm. In particular, the manager will need experience working with farm crops, orchards, gardens and equipment. The manager must also have the ability to develop farm curricula and do occasional teaching.
For more information, contact: Dodge Nature Center, 365 Marie Ave. West, West St. Paul, MN 55118; phone: 651-455-4531; fax: 651-455-2575.
POETRY
Sacred Fruit
The pear waits, blushing,
In its pottery bowl.
I sit with it, warming its cool skin
With my lips,
Imagining musky sweetness.
The blade cuts into the white center,
Revealing the outline of a fat-hipped goddess.
All of its growth, all its ripening,
Has led to this moment.
My moment.
My teeth lever off a piece.
By habit or experience I know to slurp as I bite
Clear earthy sugars.
I consume its power.
In a state of wonder, I know
That I have just closed the loop
of Creation.
The pear becomes my energy,
Its juice, my blood.
The pear has become This poem.
Take, eat, this is my life, given for you.
This do in remembrance
Of soil, of sunlight, of tree
Of farmer, of trucker, of grocer
Of me.
— Beth E. Waterhouse,
Excelsior, Minn.
Dinner Meditation
Let us take time to savor this food that has been prepared for us.
Look at the food — its colors, designs, textures, shapes.
Smell the food, breathe in attentively,
experience the aromas of the seasonings and spices.
Feel the warmth of the sun, the coolness of the rain
falling on the plants and animals that became this food.
Imagine the multiple microbes helping roots take nutrients from the soil.
Hear the hum of pollinating insects.
Imagine the communities of diverse, six-legged creatures,
eating leaves and roots and flowers and fruits (and each other),
seeking a balance of existence.
Think of cows — chewing their cud,
their amazing, switching tails keeping flies at bay.
Envision the bent backs of planters and weeders and harvesters;
feel the aching arms and shoulders of those
who wielded the hoes and steered the tractors.
Hear the knife thump the cutting board,
chopping the crisp flesh of potatoes and carrots,
Hear the rhythmic kneading of bread,
the bump of the stirring spoon on the side of the bowl,
and the boiling, bubbling kettle.
Praise it all.
Praise the life — and death — that is in this food.
Praise the workers and the work that brought it to us.
Bless this food for our use, to give us strength to create a food system
that is environmentally sound and socially just.
Let us savor this food.
— Dana Jackson
Stillwater, Minn.
Deep Tree Knowledge
They talk to each other
deep secrets
hidden in pine scent.
I put my ear to the ground.
If only I knew how to listen, but
they will not open up.
A black crow laughs
at my inability to synthesize the truth
that invites a thousand birds
to nest in my hair.
— Marita Brake
Normal, Ill.
FEATURE
Stewardship shopping
Food buying that supports sustainable family farms is hard…at first
By Cathy Eberhart
There are hundreds of farmers throughout the state and region who in one way or another practice the values of sustainability and land stewardship. It is increasingly clear, however, that farmers using sustainable methods cannot prosper without the help of urban and rural consumers. While farmers are exploring creative new ways to market their carefully grown products, we as consumers need to be exploring creative new ways to purchase those products. By way of example, I humbly offer my own story of changing food buying habits.
Before I go any further, however, I have a confession to make. Until recently, I was a very "conventional" food buyer. My food shopping decisions were made almost entirely by price with some guidance from my family ("don’t ever buy that again!"). I would make a shopping list, load the family in the car and we would spend several hours every couple of weeks wandering around the aisles of the nearest Rainbow or Cub Foods. We would arrive home exhausted, hundreds of dollars poorer.
As a member of the Land Stewardship Project, I was aware that most of my food dollars weren’t going to local farmers, and that much of the food we ate was grown using methods that damaged soil and water. As I picked up items in the meat section, I tried not to think of the crowded, inhumane ways in which the animals were raised. Living within a very tight budget and juggling work and a family, I rationalized that I didn’t have the time or the money to shop any differently.
My first venture into changing our family shopping habits was motivated mostly by the selfish hope that I might save a few dollars from our food budget. A friend in church announced that she was interested in starting a food buying group — was anyone else interested? Curious, I attended the first meeting and learned for the first time about the Blooming Prairie Co-op and the concept of a food buying club. Members of the buying club can order a wide variety of products, including many organic and environmentally friendly items, from the Blooming Prairie catalog. By buying in bulk and then splitting things between members of the club, prices are lower when compared to retail stores.
A handful of us gathered that day and decided to give it a try. The first order, I have to admit, was rather grueling — poring through hundreds of pages of very small print, trying to decide among items I had never heard of and couldn’t pick up or see. Thankfully, it has gotten much easier with practice.
Now that I know my way around the catalog, placing my monthly buying club order takes about as long as creating a shopping list. I type up my list and send it off to the designated buyer through e-mail. That person compiles a master list and then e-mails us all back with the items that people would like to split or share. The buyer places the order with Blooming Prairie by phone, fax or e-mail. A day later, someone picks up the order in Minneapolis and divides it by household. Then I pick it up at their house.
Even considering the once or twice each year when it is my turn to place, pick-up or divide the order, I spend far less time on food buying. And instead of wandering around crowded shopping aisles or waiting in the check-out line, I exchange pleasant conversation with my club-mates.
The next step in the evolution of our food buying habits came when I joined the staff at LSP and learned of the Whole Farm Co-op, a group of about 30 farmers in central Minnesota. Beyond purchasing organic food, I wanted to purchase locally grown food and I was excited to learn of this convenient way to get sustainably raised meat, eggs, cheese, vegetables and other items. I place a monthly order, also through e-mail, which is then delivered to a nearby drop-site. It is great to know that my food dollars are actually reaching farmers and that we are eating "happy chickens" (as well as happy hogs and happy cows), as Tim King from the Whole Farm Co-op likes to say.
The Twin Cities Local Food Banquet this past October provided me with yet another opportunity to expand my food horizons. Using the LSP Stewardship Food Network list as a starting point, I contacted farmers to find out what they had to offer. To my pleasant surprise, it was quite easy to find most of the items we needed for our menu. It was also easier than I had hoped to arrange transportation. Many of the farmers on the list already have regular drop-off sites in the Twin Cities. And in those cases where they didn’t, someone on the LSP staff was planning a trip nearby.
The experience affirmed something I heard at a conference recently: that local food buying is really only "inconvenient" the first time. Once you have made the initial connection with farmers, buying food from them becomes very convenient — just a matter of picking up a phone or sending an e-mail and making arrangements to meet. Even driving a few miles out to a farm becomes a fun family adventure or a pleasant escape from the city, compared to the rather grueling chore of weekly grocery shopping. These days, we get most of our dried and canned items in bulk through the buying group. It is a comforting feeling to have a pantry full of flour and sugar and canned tomatoes and pasta. We rely on the Whole Farm Co-op for our meat and cheese and eggs. We’ve purchased chickens and oatmeal and dried beans from the Noordman family, and we wouldn’t do without the butter and ice cream that the Hartmann family sells.
So how does all this work out financially? As we are still living on a rather tight budget, cost is of concern to us. While I haven’t done a complete item-by item-comparison, I did look at our monthly spending on groceries and it has actually dropped a little bit — even though we are purchasing much better quality food. While some items are more expensive, others are actually cheaper, especially when purchased in bulk.
Of course, we still make an occasional trip to the grocery store. We haven’t found a way to buy everything we like to eat through alternative sources… yet. But those trips are quicker and cost us less. Making fewer trips to the grocery store has also reduced unnecessary impulse buying.
I wish I could say I have mastered the art of "stewardship food buying," but I know that I still have much to learn. It is a comfort to me, however, that stewardship is more about "the drama of ordinary or daily behavior," as Wendell Berry writes, rather than grand heroic action. It is about the many small decisions that we make every day — decisions like where to shop and what to buy.
Doris Janzen Longacre writes in Living More with Less, "One tiny decision. Nothing that will change the world. But that’s the kind which form the building blocks of our lives. It’s the sort of decision on which we often falter if we slide unthinkingly in the groove of our society." It’s also the kind of decision, if we make it carefully, that can lead us to more sustainable living.
I’d love to learn from your experiences of stewardship food buying. Please drop me a note.
Cathy Eberhart is LSP’s Membership Coordinator. For a copy of LSP’s Stewardship Food Network list, contact her at 651-653-0618, or cathye@landstewardshipproject.org
|
LSPer INTERACTIVE An informational column for LSP members who want to get more involved. Contact: Cathy Eberhart, 651-653-0618; cathye@landstewardshipproject.org Food Committee Double your money
|
Check the Calendar for the latest on upcoming LSP events.
Back to top