• COVER STORY: Freedom to Farm…as a Good Steward: It takes creativity to break out of a commodity-based system of agriculture. Farm policy that nurtures such innovation must be creative as well. (second of a two-part series).
• COMMENTARY: Thinking like a watershed; Is drainage a plus for sustainable cropping?; Oxen farming isn’t history
• LSP NEWS:Pork checkoff voting in under way: NPPC charged with trying to rig vote; CURE becomes independent; Opitz to speak at grazing school; Board changes; Marsha Neff leaves LSP; Sustainable food label inspection/certification system developed
• LIVESTOCK CONCENTRATION UPDATE: Investigation of dairy decision requested; Too many hogs, too little land
• OFFICE UPDATES: : West—A healthy bridge made of food; Southeast—What’s cooking in southeast?
• BOOK REVIEWS: : Willard Cochrane and the American Family Farm; The Essential Aldo Leopold: Quotations and Commentaries; Aldo Leopold: For the Health of the Land
• FOOD & FARM CONNECTIONS: Local Foods Banquet Oct. 7
• MEMBERSHIP UPDATE: Upgrading membership
• STEWARDSHIP CALENDAR

COVER STORY

Freedom to Farm…as a Good Steward

It takes creativity to break out of a commodity-based system of agriculture. Farm policy that nurtures such innovation must be creative as well (second of two articles)

By Brian DeVore

How can farm policy reward agriculture for producing something other than high crop yields? Perhaps it’s fitting that such a discussion starts literally in the boyhood backyard of Norman Borlaug. Born in 1914 on a farm near the northeast Iowa community of Cresco, Borlaug went on to become an agronomist and won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in developing high-yielding varieties of grains for the Third World. Depending on who you talk to, the father of the "Green Revolution," who now lives in Texas, either: a) saved a billion people from starvation, or b) introduced an unsustainable system of food production to countries all over the world.

But that debate is for another day. Right now, on a bright July afternoon within shouting distance of the Borlaug farm, the question at hand is, "What’s that small rise of land in the middle of Mike Natvig’s pasture?" At first glance, the grass-covered hump seems to serve no purpose. Only when you are almost on top of it does it become clear that it is in fact a low-slung dam that traps just enough water in the wet pasture to create a quarter-acre wetland. As Natvig walks into the shade of a burr oak growing next to the marsh, a startled duck wings its way from water to sky too quickly to be identified. Meanwhile, dragonflies helicopter from plant-to-plant, a bullfrog does a test of the amphibian broadcast system and a kingfisher rattles from the branch of a burr oak on the far side. With all the noise and activity, one wonders how such a biological hot spot could not be noticed, even from a distance. This little oasis of water and plants won’t be winning any corn yield contests this fall, but it is definitely there for a purpose.

After checking on some chest-high big bluestem growing near the wetland, Natvig makes his way through the richly diverse pasture. In 1995 he used a no-till planter and the hooves of dozens of beef cattle to seed the 10-acre pasture to native prairie—it is now home to some 45 species of plants. The farmer crosses a fence and heads toward the Borlaug family farmstead. Natvig rents the land surrounding the neatly kept house and outbuildings (the farm is now owned by the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation), and he wants to check out a small, spring-fed creek running through it.

He settles his lanky frame down next to the creek at a spot where it winds behind a brilliantly white farmhouse and barn. The creek runs fast and pebbles can be seen on its silt-free bottom, despite the fact cattle were grazing on its banks just a few days prior. Minnows dart at tiny tufts of shredded grass Natvig tosses at them. The creek flows through a living-room sized fen just a few yards downstream. A type of marsh that forms peat, fens are super-rich in nutrients. Such a habitat provides a home for a diverse community of plants. These plants can serve as efficient bio-filters, cleaning contaminants out of water as it passes through. This particular fen looks and smells clean: fragrant mountain mint is sprouting among the ferns.

"Basically I just farmed based on what I thought was best for the land," says Natvig. " I didn’t base it on any government decisions."

That’s obvious. Today’s federal farm program rewards producers who plant field after field of crops like corn, soybeans and cotton, not big bluestem and wild rice. Overflowing bins of commodities are the result of this narrowly-focused policy. And these gluts come at a high economic, environmental and social cost.

Even when the government does try to address "conservation," it does so by rewarding farmers for certain practices—establishing a no-till system to make corn less erosive, for example. Such prescriptions might help in the short term, but they just temporarily prop up a monocultural cropping system that in the long term is an ecological disaster.

Paul Johnson, former head of the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, told the Iowa Farmer Today newspaper in July that some farmers have destroyed grassy buffer strips, let the land "suffer" for two or three years and then received government money to install new buffers. Meanwhile, farmers who have maintained such structures all along, or who are farming in a way that otherwise keeps water clean, receive nothing.

In a three-year study of the U.S. farm commodity subsidy system, the World Resources Institute used sophisticated computer modeling to conclude that under such a system, "...tax dollars are being wasted twice: once on crop subsidies and again to clean up environmental damage caused by subsidized farming practices."

An agriculture that does more
A narrowly-focused farm policy begets a narrow agriculture. A look at the corn and soybean fields that dominate the rest of Natvig’s state proves that. But as a walk through his prairie pasture will reveal, agriculture has the potential to produce multiple benefits to society. Clean water flowing off fields that are not eroding and full of chemicals is one. Another is wildlife habitat. Then there is the ability of that organic matter in the soil to tie up carbon, helping to reduce problems associated with global warming. There are also non-land based benefits such as the economic resiliency and high social capital—both well-documented—diverse family-sized farms offer a community.

In 2002, Freedom to Farm will expire, and lawmakers will be faced with some important decisions as to the future of agriculture in this country. As the clock runs down on current farm policy, there are signs that a narrowly focused commodity system could give way to one that allows farmers to do what they do best: use creativity and management skills to solve problems related to the environment, economics and their local communities. From Washington, D.C.’s halls of governing and lawmaking, to local watersheds, people are starting to talk about farm policy that recognizes the "multiple benefits" agriculture can offer society. And when it comes to offering up models for what multiple benefit agriculture can bring about, there is no better place to start than Norman Borlaug’s neighborhood.

Daily conservation
Natvig, 35, says good land stewardship has always taken a priority in his management decisions. His favorite tree is the burr oak and he has taken pains to preserve the ones that dot his pastures. He also enjoys canoeing and camping. But Natvig’s farm isn’t some sort of untouched wildlife refuge and prairie preserve. He makes a living on the land he farms with his parents, Godfrey and Theodora. He produces hogs, corn, soybeans and beef cattle on some 400 acres. For his crops, he uses diverse rotations involving small grains and forage crops. He raises organic hogs in a low-cost pasture-farrowing system. Since 1988, he has used management intensive rotational grazing to produce cattle on his pastures, including the one planted to native prairie.

Not all of his strategies to manage the land in an environmentally sound manner are as "flashy" as the pasture prairie and its wetland. For example, this spring he planted oats around the first of April. In May he disced the foot-high oat plants into the soil as he prepared it for planting organic soybeans. Soon heavy rains came—six and a half inches in one week. Erosion was rampant in the area, even though the land in Natvig’s neighborhood is relatively flat. But his field of disced up oats held onto its soil.

"If that had been a conventional field without a cover crop there would have been major washing," says the farmer.

Lessons learned
Down the road near the town of Ridgeway, John and Joan Lubke are also proving day in and day out in their own quiet way that a farm can be economically viable as well as produce general societal benefits like clean water. That becomes clear just in the time it takes to travel down their long driveway.

On a recent summer day, running along one side of the roadway, is a strip of hay that’s a few hundred feet wide. Parallel with that is a swatch of corn and alongside that is soybeans. A big side-hill of pasture rises up as a backdrop to these layered, contoured fields, dominating the landscape, putting a capstone on this nice piece of diversity.

This mix of crops can be seen from the Lubke kitchen table as the couple takes a break from harvesting oats (actually the break wasn’t voluntary; their combine broke down, forcing a delay). The couple farms abut 550 acres and have a 100-head beef cow brood herd. In contrast to Natvig’s farm, almost all of the land the Lubkes farm is steep enough to be considered highly erodible.

When asked whether water quality is a an issue in the area, John answers quickly: "It is to me."

The farmer, 59, explains that early in his farming career he saw a hillside of land get plowed up and planted to corn. The topsoil was seriously eroded in just a few years.

"I saw what could happen in three or four years. That lesson stuck with me."

It stuck with him even as the government made it increasingly attractive to plant corn and nothing else on those steep hillsides. But being able to see these fields from the kitchen table also means dealing with the not so positive messages it sends at times. John and Joan explain how much it pains them that a recent gully washer gouged out a few yards of raw erosion in those soybeans (the erosion would have been even worse if there wasn’t the pasture above the soybean field). Indeed, a bit of the erosion can be seen from the kitchen, a rude reminder that the land doesn’t always cooperate with even the most well intentioned production practices.

"It made me sick," says John, "and you have to look at it everyday."

But despite such short-term setbacks, the couple knows that by using a diverse rotation and reducing chemical usage as much as possible, they are improving the life of the soil in the long term.

"We have lots of worms and lots of ladybugs," says Joan. "People say, ‘Well, we have earthworms.’ But I ask, ‘Do you see baby earthworms?’ "

Creativity, not cookie-cutter
There is no doubt the Lubkes know what their primary commodity is: on both the pickup truck and the family car the letters EAT appear on the license plates. Joan is the food service coordinator for the local school district and the couple was involved with a sustainable food event in nearby Decorah this summer.

Natvig, for his part, is proud that the hogs he raises receive a premium price from Coulee Regional Organic Produce Pool (CROPP), an organic, farmer-owned cooperative.

But these kinds of farms also know they are producing other benefits. Fashioning agricultural policy that rewards farmers for producing these benefits on various levels is more difficult than it sounds. It must at once allow farms to practice their own creativity, while at the same time producing the kinds of results taxpayers feel are worth their investment. No one wants a cookie-cutter approach to policy. Indeed, farmers like the Lubkes and Natvig say they should be allowed to continue using their creativity to farm, something they wouldn’t be allowed to do if certain prescribed "best management practices" were mandated.

For example, John Lubke says for environmental and personal health reasons, he’s never been a big fan of heavy chemical use and is always looking for ways to reduce pesticide applications. One way he has done this is by mixing soybean oil emulsifiers with his herbicides. This reduces runoff because the biodegradable oil keeps the chemical right on the plant it is applied to. And because more weed killer stays in place, less is needed to do the job. In fact, Lubke has found that by using this method he can cut his herbicide rates in half and still control weeds.

Natvig has an experiment this year that could have big multiple payoffs. In a one-acre field he pastured sows on last year, he has planted corn interseeded with pole beans. By mid-July this year, pole bean tendrils were gently wrapping themselves around every third or fourth stalk of corn. In the end-rows pumpkins were growing. This fall, Natvig will turn pigs out into the corn, allowing them to hog-down the corn, beans and pumpkins. The beans will provide more nutrition to the mix, while pumpkin seeds are thought by some to be natural wormers.

If this experiment works, it will be a grand slam of benefits: no fertilizer was used to raise the corn—the hog manure from the previous year provided that. In addition, Natvig won’t have to crank up field equipment to harvest, transport, store and process the crops. Finally, if the pumpkin seeds do naturally worm the hogs, that helps produce drug-free pork, a health benefit sought after by those concerned about antibiotic resistance in meat.

It’s a bit of creativity that could bring about benefits no government program can directly produce.

Can’t organic just save the day?
But how is such creativity sparked and encouraged in an agricultural system generally dominated by simplified, monocultural production systems? In little ways, such support is already there. Half of the cost of Natvig’s wetland—built in 1994—was covered by a local game conservation group. His pasture prairie seeding was made possible by a grant from the Leopold Institute for Sustainable Agriculture.

But on a large scale, what incentive do farmers have to practice good stewardship? Agrobiodiversity is apparently not in Cargill’s interest, and so it won’t pay farmers for producing it. But is it in American society’s best interest?

Raising crops and livestock without the use of chemicals, antibiotics and hormones has become a popular niche in recent years. No wonder, prices paid to farmers for chemical-free crops like soybeans, for example, have approached $20 a bushel. In contrast, farmers are lucky to get $4.50 for a bushel of conventionally raised soybeans these days. Sales of organic commodities are expected to grow 20 to 24 percent annually for the next decade. Indeed, both the Lubkes and Natvig receive premiums for organic crops and livestock. Can’t such a lucrative market niche make it so consumers are supporting the kind of agriculture that produces positive benefits all around? Not necessarily, say farmers.

John Lubke says he sold his first certified organic soybean crop for $19 a bushel three years ago. Recently, that price was $12. That’s still a nice premium over the conventional price, but the trend line is a little troubling.

Besides, a farmer who is certified organic is just guaranteeing that certain practices are not being used: no chemicals, no total livestock confinement, etc. That’s good, but it doesn’t necessarily promote the planting of a prairie or stewardship of a stream.

And what happens if price premiums disappear? The farmers who are turning to diversified, chemical-free production out of financial desperation may not have the deep ecological roots needed to stick with it through thick and thin. What incentives are there for the individual farmer to increase diversity then?

Not many, say economists, agronomists and ecologists. Although the argument can be made that increasing diversity on a region-wide basis benefits all farmers, it’s difficult for an individual farmer to see an immediate pay-back. In the book Biodiversity in Agroecosystems, economists Douglas Gollin and Melinda Smale argue that crop diversity is a "public good" that can’t always be promoted via the free market.

Ultimately American consumers may have to find a way to support this public good via subsidies, says University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman, who has done extensive research showing the importance of plant diversity.

How do we reward something that doesn’t register in dollar signs or bushels per acre? That’s a question that has plagued farmers, scientists, policy analysts and environmentalists for decades. Writing in the June-July issue of Agricultural Outlook, USDA researchers pointed out that a traditional agri-environmental gauge like the Universal Soil Loss Equation uses six variables to estimate annual erosion rates. In contrast, just measuring something like nutrient and pesticide runoff is far more complex, often requiring dozens of variables.

The government has copped out by rewarding farmers for practices (conservation tillage) or structures (terraces, grassy waterways, etc.). Such a reward system may work on a limited basis, but it doesn’t guarantee overall good results for the environment. For example, conservation tillage may save soil, but reduced mechanical cultivation may result in more chemicals to control weed pests, releasing more toxins into the environment.

How do we put a value on Natvig’s wetland, or his diverse pasture prairie? How about the diverse, soil-building rotations used by the Lubke family? There’s no Dow Jones index for baby earthworms. Even more important, if a farmer makes management decisions that take into consideration all aspects of the farm—natural resources, people, economics and impacts on the local community—isn’t that a more valuable asset to society than dealing with one isolated problem using one isolated solution?

That and other questions will have to be answered before a farm policy can be developed that truly breaks out of the narrow, commodity-driven system of carrots and sticks. Perhaps policy makers should start looking for answers on farms that are already proving that narrowly targeted "conservation" measures are no replacement for a good stewardship ethic and creativity.

"When I got started farming I wanted to feel like I could keep the woods and keep places for wildlife," says Natvig, gesturing toward the prairie pasture and its small wetland. "I may not use conservation tillage, but I do have a conservation farm."

Sidebar:

Gauging changes
There’s no magic bullet solution for determining what farms are worthy of being rewarded based on stewardship principles. However, some farmers themselves have a better idea of the ecosystem impacts their management decisions are having thanks to an increased awareness of a kind of monitoring that goes beyond measuring crop yields.

For example, when Cresco, Iowa, farmer Mike Natvig started grazing cattle on a farm he was renting in 1997, he wanted to know what impact the animals would have on the creek that winds its way through the land. The ante was raised when he discovered a fragile type of marsh called a fen is also part of the creek.

Using the Land Stewardship Project’s Monitoring Tool Box as a guide Natvig sampled the stream for macroinvertebrates (small bugs that are key links in an aquatic food chain). At that point, the stream banks had not been grazed for at least 10 years. So it was not surprising to find that more than 80 percent of the insect larvae he found there were species you only find in streams with high quality habitat. Since then he has grazed the stream banks twice a year, for two days at a crack.

The result? The grazing appears to be having no negative impact on the quality of the stream, and in some ways may be improving it. Natvig knows this because he goes back each year and takes newjmacorinvertebrate samples with a small net. He’s marked his netting spots with fence posts to make sure he gets samples that can be compared from year-to-year. Recent samples show at least 82 percent of the larvae found in the stream like high water quality. He has also noted that the banks seem to be less sharp and more gently sloped since they were exposed to periodic grazings.

For information on obtaining the Monitoring Tool Box, or on-farm monitoring in general, contact Caroline van Schaik in LSP’s Twin Cities office, 651-653-0618; caroline@landstewardshipproject.org


Sidebar:
Rewarding farm results, not farm tools
LSP’s Federal Farm Policy Committee develops a ‘Farm Results Index’ for stewardship ag

The Land Stewardship Project’s Federal Farm Policy Committee has hammered out an initiative that shows promise for rewarding farmers for stewardship practices. This proposal calls for calculating a "Farm Results Index" (FRI) annually for each farm. Choices of farming practices can make big differences in water quality, wildlife habitat, energy conservation, biodiversity and carbon sequestration, as well as quality of life, public health, recreation in nearby areas and economic vitality of communities. FRI points would be rewarded to each farm according to its effectiveness in producing these and other benefits.

Let’s say each FRI point is worth $1. A farmer with 25,000 FRIs would receive $25,000. Currently, farm commodity payments are tied to the land’s history of program crop payments. FRIs would be recalculated each year based on last year’s results.

Several farm programs are currently using a similar calculation. For example, when farmers bid land into the Conservation Reserve Program, an EBI (Environmental Benefits Index) is calculated. It looks at soil erosion, wildlife habitat, wetland protection, ground water and surface water protection. An application is awarded points based on how many environmental benefits will be produced by setting the land aside in the Conservation Reserve Program.

"We need to really stress the fact that if we are going to pay farmers it needs to be for something," says Dan French, a Dodge Center, Minn., farmer and member of LSP’s Federal Farm Policy Committee.

Under such a program, taxpayers will save twice: initially on less money given to those who don’t need it, and secondly when they don’t have to clean up messes caused by promotion of industrial agriculture. And farmers will be given a lot of latitude in how they choose to garner FRI points.

"Let’s let every farmer have a creative component," says Dave Serfling, a Preston, Minn., farmer who is also on the Federal Farm Policy Committee.

Farms that are small, family-sized operations that pay taxes and are otherwise good community "citizens" would also rate high under the index.

"Our culture has to realize that if they want to keep people on the land who are the best managers stewardship wise, it’s going to have to be a family-sized farm with a vested interest in taking care of the land," says Greg Koether, a member of the Policy Committee who farms in northeast Iowa.

Rewarding multiple benefits
The concept of FRI dovetails with the Multiple Benefits of Agriculture Project, a two-year initiative coordinated by LSP and conducted in cooperation with Bemidji State University, the University of Minnesota, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Program.

Economic studies in farming have tended to focus on cost-benefit analyses of potential regulations, pollution credit trades between agriculture and urban areas and trade-offs between water quality and farm profitability.

In contrast, the Multiple Benefits Project will value non-market benefits either as willingness to pay or avoided mitigation costs. In other words, will consumers pay a farmer to set up a cropping system that locks up carbon, helping to reduce the greenhouse effect? What economic value is a grass-based livestock production system that doesn’t produce stream-killing manure spills?

LSP’s policy committee, working with the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, will use this data to make a compelling case for farm policies that reward farmers for good stewardship and the production of multiple benefits for society.

An initial step toward reaching policy-makers has already been made. A group of LSP members traveled to Washington, D.C., in March 1999 and presented the concept of using the FRI to reward agriculture that produces multiple benefits.

In meetings with top U.S. Department of Agriculture officials and Congressional ag leaders, the committee members emphasized how much damage past farm policy has done to rural communities and the benefits that could be gotten by rewarding stewardship farming.

There are signs the concept of rewarding farmers for other than commodity production is starting to sink in inside the Beltway. One example is federal legislation expected to be introduced this fall by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. Under his "Conservation Security Act," farmers would enter into three to five year contracts with USDA and choose from one of three classes of conservation practices, for which they would receive a payment. Farmers who do such conservation basics as implement conservation tillage or install runoff systems would qualify for the lowest payment, while a comprehensive conservation plan that considers all aspects of the air, land, water and wildlife when making management decisions would result in the highest reward. As it stands now, the proposed program would not have a size bias: a farmer with 160 acres could qualify for the same amount of stewardship money as one who is much larger.

This legislation is undergoing significant changes even at this writing, and farmers and sustainable agriculture supporters were cautiously optimistic about its potential.

LSP Federal Farm Policy Committee member Paul Homme says the first two parts of the proposed legislation are too focused on practices such as conservation tillage and putting in terraces. But "we are starting to see that the third part of the Conservation Security Act bill is almost tailor-made for FRI to be plugged in."

Members of the LSP Federal Farm Policy Committee are
o Dwight Ault, Austin, Minn.
o Dan French, Dodge Center, Minn.
o Paul Homme, Granite Falls, Minn.
o Jeff Klinge, Farmersburg, Iowa
o Greg Koether, McGregor, Iowa
o Mark Schultz, Minneapolis, Minn.
o Dave Serfling, Preston, Minn.
o Paul Sobocinski, Wabasso, Minn.
o Dan Specht, McGregor, Iowa
o Sister Kathleen Storms, Mankato, Minn.

For more information on the Committee, or the Farm Results Index, contact Mark Schultz in LSP’s Policy Program office, 612-722-6377; marks@landstewardshipproject.org.

Back to top

COMMENTARY

LSP NEWS

Pork checkoff voting is under way
NPPC is charged with trying to rig vote

Hog farmers from across the country are currently voting on whether to end the mandatory pork checkoff. The voting will conclude Sept. 21.

Paul Sobocinski, a hog farmer and Land Stewardship Project organizer, says chances look good that farmers will vote to end the mandatory tax.

"Thousands of producers have contacted us in the last few weeks, telling us that they are going to vote to end the mandatory pork tax," he says.

The pork checkoff is a mandatory fee paid by hog farmers on every hog sold in the U.S. It generates $45 million to $55 million annually for the National Pork Board and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). LSP is a founding member of the Campaign for Family Farms, which collected signatures from more than 19,000 hog farmers calling for a vote to end the checkoff.

Farmer-members of the Campaign say the checkoff has done little to help the independent family hog farmer, and in fact has mostly benefited large corporate operations, as well as pork processors and retailers. More than 250,000 hog farmers have gone out of business since the checkoff was made mandatory in 1986. The pork tax has generated more than half a billion dollars, yet hog prices have hit historic lows and hog farmers’ share of the retail dollar has plummeted from 46 cents to less than 20 cents.

Hog farmers know that it is going to take a lot of work to win this vote, and they’re up against the NPPC’s $4 million public relations machine, says Monica Kahout, an Olivia, Minn., hog farmer and LSP member.

"The NPPC and their corporate allies have tried to stop this referendum at every turn and they haven’t succeeded," she says. "In the end, the votes of independent pork producers are going to make the difference."

Attempted vote rigging
The NPPC put some of that $4 million to work in late July—in clear violation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s referendum rules, according to Lynn Hayes, an attorney with Farmers’ Legal Action Group. Telemarketers started calling hog farmers, telling them that the NPPC (or its state affiliates) could send them ballots for the upcoming pork checkoff referendum. Hog farmers were called in a number of states including Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, South Dakota, Missouri, Minnesota and Texas.

According to the USDA’s rules, independent hog farmers can either vote in person or request an absentee ballot for themselves from their local FSA office. USDA officials have stated that attempts to send ballots to producers or request ballots on their behalf would violate these rules, says Hayes.

"The final referendum rules and the recent Notice AO-1217 ‘Assisting in the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Referendum’ make it clear that each individual voter must request his or her own ballot," wrote Hayes in a July 31 letter to Kathleen Merrigan, administrator of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service. "This process allows NPPC to have undue influence over who will receive checkoff referendum ballots and must be stopped immediately."

However, Merrigan declined to stop the NPPC’s campaign of telling producers they would request ballots for them. On Aug. 7, the Campaign for Family Farms made a formal demand that Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman intercede. At press time, no action had been taken by USDA.


Checkoff referendum facts

Who’s eligible? Anyone who sold at least one hog that they own between Aug. 18, 1999 and Aug. 17, 2000.
How do you get a ballot? Producers can now request an absentee ballot that they can use to vote by mail. Farmers can also request a ballot by calling their Farm Services Agency (FSA) office, sending a letter or fax to FSA, or stopping by the FSA office. Mailed ballots must be received by FSA by Sept. 21.
Vote in-person by going to your local FSA office between Sept. 19-21. The ballot will read, "Do you favor continuing the Pork Checkoff program? Yes or No."
For more information, call LSP at 612-722-6377.


CURE becomes independent

Clean Up our River Environment (CURE) has become independent of the Land Stewardship Project, effective July 1. CURE was founded in LSP’s western Minnesota office in 1992 by organizer Patrick Moore. Since the beginning, it has focused on bringing citizens together to clean up and protect the environment of the Upper Minnesota River Valley.

CURE is considered one of the most effective citizen watershed groups in Minnesota and has notched many accomplishments in the past eight years. The group’s emphasis in bringing various watershed residents together around music, recreation and special events is also widely recognized in the environmental community. CURE-sponsored spring observation float trips and annual clean-ups have become a mainstay in the Upper Minnesota River Valley.

Lynn Lokken, who started with LSP in 1996 as an organizing intern, will continue as CURE organizer. She says the CURE board felt it was a "natural evolution" to become independent as the group become stronger and even more focused on Minnesota River issues.

Audrey Arner, who is the administrator of LSP’s office in Montevideo, says, "There is plenty of room in the Upper Minnesota River Valley for the kind of good work both CURE and LSP can do."

CURE can be reached at 114 1st Street West, Montevideo, MN 56265; phone: 320-269-2984; fax: 320-269-5624; e-mail: cure@info-link.net

Opitz to speak at grazing school

Well-known Wisconsin grazier Charlie Opitz will be the keynote speaker at a special riparian grazing school Sept. 13-14 in southwest Wisconsin and southeast Minnesota. Opitz is a pioneer in management intensive rotational grazing and has been featured in various national magazines, including The New Farm and National Geographic.

Organized by the Land Stewardship Project in coordination with researchers and agricultural agencies in both states, the two, one-day trainings will address the growing interest in both the environmental and financial benefits of grazing. Riparian situations will receive special emphasis, as will teaching observation of environmental indicators. There will be breakout sessions to cover riparian/streamside issues and finances, as well as pasture management with a focus on rest, recovery, and weeds.

The Sept. 13 school will be near Cobb, in Wisconsin’s Iowa County. On Sept. 14, the school will be held near Kellogg, in Minnesota’s Wabasha County.

Participants must pre-register by calling toll-free 1-800-385-3103. The fee is $10, which covers lunch and all materials.

For more information, contact Caroline van Schaik at LSP’s Twin Cities office.

Board changes

Jim Erkel and Paul Homme are leaving the Land Stewardship Project Board after a combined 16 years of service. Both joined the board in 1992, and served two consecutive terms.

Erkel served as secretary-treasurer and vice-chair and was instrumental in working with Lee Ronning to launch LSP’s urban sprawl program, which later became 1000 Friends of Minnesota. He is now on the board of 1000 Friends and works as the Forestry Director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. Homme, a retired veterinarian and beef farmer, has long been involved in factory farm and watershed issues, particularly in southwest Minnesota. In 1996 he played a key role in setting up a citizen monitoring program to determine how much hydrogen sulfide factory farms in Renville County were emitting. This testing led to stricter laws governing such emissions. Homme serves on LSP’s Federal Farm Policy and Livestock Concentration committees and is active with various LSP-related initiatives near his farm in Granite Falls, Minn.

JoAnne Rohricht and Jim Van Der Pol were recently elected to the LSP board. Rohricht lives in St. Paul and has long been active in environmental issues. Most recently, she has worked to get a local grocery store to stock locally-produced sustainable food. She has also been active in encouraging consumers to connect directly with farmers and consider how their food buying choices affect the environment.

Van Der Pol farms near the southwest Minnesota community of Kerkhoven. He, along with his wife Lee Ann, raises crops and livestock. They direct market pork and chickens locally and in the Twin Cities. Van Der Pol recently occupied one of the School of Agriculture (Minnesota) Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems positions. He also writes a popular syndicated newspaper column called "Conversations with the Land."

Marsha Neff leaves LSP

Marsha Neff has left the Land Stewardship Project to work as a grants writer for the Mercy Medical Center Foundation in Mason City, Iowa. Neff joined LSP in 1996 and served as administrator of the organization’s southeast Minnesota office in Lewiston. She was instrumental in forging links between farmers and consumers and helped develop several new LSP programs in the southeast Minnesota that reached out to a broad spectrum of rural and non-rural residents.

In her new position, Neff will telecommute from her home in Winona.

Sustainable food label inspection/certification system developed

An innovative sustainable food marketing initiative is one step closer to getting products on Minnesota grocery store shelves.

Once in place, the Midwest Food Alliance will offer consumers labeled products that they know are raised sustainably and locally. The Land Stewardship Project is working with Cooperative Development Services and the Organic Alliance to develop this labeling and marketing system. Originally conceived as "Food Choices," the program has recently signed a marketing agreement with The Food Alliance, a successful sustainable labeling and marketing program in the Pacific Northwest. Thus, the name has changed to reflect this opportunity to create a nationally recognizable regional, sustainable label.

"This partnership will bring a breadth of experience and a synergy of efforts to our work, making stewardship and regionality key pieces of our food systems," says Ray Kirsch, Farm Program Coordinator for the Alliance.

"The partnership will also address one of the most significant obstacles to the success of sustainable labels in the marketplace: a lack of message clarity," says Jim Ennis, Project Director for the Midwest Food Alliance. "Having one label, with regional identification, that is clearly promoted and recognized as the seal of approval for sustainably produced agricultural products will move us toward minimizing consumer confusion in the marketplace."

Only approved products will carry the Midwest Food Alliance label, which will be test marketed in a handful of Minnesota grocery stories this fall. Products to be featured in this test market include pork, beef, apples and fall squash.

A key component of the Midwest Food Alliance is providing a guarantee that when consumers see the label, they know certain practices that are friendly to the environment as well as the local community are being used by the farmer. For example, hogs raised in well-managed systems that utilize deep straw and/or pasture production systems could be eligible for the label. In contrast, pork produced in total confinement utilizing liquid-based lagoon manure systems could not be called a Midwest Food Alliance product. In addition, the label will ensure that the farmers participating in the program treat employees well and are active in their local community. Creating a label consumers can trust means developing a reliable inspection and certification system, says Kirsch.

The first inspector training was held June 1 at the Dennis and Sue Rabe farm near the southeast Minnesota community of Lake City. Participants were taken on a tour of the crop and livestock operation and given an opportunity to question the Rabes on everything from how the hogs are housed to what kind of weed control is used when producing feed for the livestock. The participants, all of whom are farmers themselves, took notes and got a chance to use the new Alliance certification standards "in the field."

Dennis Rabe also explained how he uses "whole farm planning" to take into account all of his enterprises and resources when making decisions.

"Whole farm planning allows you to plan other than for your banker, to look at all aspects of the farm—environmental, quality of life and economic," he said.

For more information, contact Ray Kirsch at LSP’s Twin Cities office by calling 651-653-0618 or e-mailing rkirsch@landstewardshipproject.org

Back to top

LIVESTOCK CONCENTRATION UPDATE

Investigation of dairy decision requested

A group of more than 30 Land Stewardship Project members has requested that the Minnesota Attorney General investigate the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) unexplained reversal on whether an extensive environmental study of a controversial dairy expansion in Forestville Township should be conducted.

Accompanying a three-page letter sent by the LSP members to Attorney General Mike Hatch was an MDH e-mail memo dated March 30 showing that during a March 29 meeting MDH staffers were pressured to consider withdrawing their involvement in an environmental review of a proposal by Reiland Farms to build a 7.3 million gallon manure lagoon system. According to the memo, which was obtained by LSP through the Minnesota Data Practices Act, that meeting was attended by several state legislators, as well as top officials at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).

"In this case the Minnesota Department of Health decided to protect themselves instead of our air and water," says farmer and LSP member Jeff Tart, whose land sits across the road from the site where the lagoon is proposed for construction. "Their decision was based on political pressure, not science."

The Fillmore County citizens are requesting that Hatch investigate, among other issues, whether political pressure exerted by legislators caused the MDH to withdraw its request for an (Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and whether anyone from the MPCA attempted to force the Health Department into reversing its stand on the issue.

On March 22, the Minnesota Department of Health sent a nine-page letter to the MPCA recommending that an EIS be conducted before Reiland Farms is allowed to build in an ecologically sensitive area near Forestville State Park. The nine-page analysis concluded that there was a "high potential" the expansion project would contaminate drinking water supplies in the area. In addition, the letter listed 23 specific areas of concern. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is also recommending that an EIS be done.

However, on May 16 Patricia Bloomgren, Director of the MDH’s Environmental Health Division, sent a two-paragraph memo to the MPCA withdrawing the request for the EIS. The May 16 memo gave no explanation for the sudden reversal, other than to refer to a May 8 meeting between MPCA and MDH officials. However, minutes show that during the May 8 meeting none of the 23 concerns originally raised by the Health Department were resolved. In fact, Bloomgren wrote in the March 30 e-mail that it "…would be hard to find a worse place to put this facility… ."

According to the March 30 e-mail memo, during the March 29 meeting a "high" level of "hostility" was shown to both MDH and DNR staffers. The March 29 meeting was called by Sen. Kenric Scheevel of Preston. It was attended by, among others, Sen. Dallas Sams of Staples, Sen. Steve Dille of Dassel, Sen. Dan Stevens of Mora and Rep. Gregory Davids of Preston. The meeting was also attended by Minnesota Agriculture Commissioner Gene Hugoson and Harold Stanislawski, Dairy Development Specialist for the Agriculture Department. In addition, MPCA Deputy Commissioner Lisa Thorvig attended, as well as MPCA staff members Kevin Kain, Beth Lockwood and Rod Massey. DNR Commissioner Alan Garber and Tom Balcom, supervisor of the DNR’s Environmental Planning and Review Section, were also present.

In referring to some of the lawmakers present, Bloomgren wrote: "Their primary goal…seemed to be to threaten us into submission so that we do not do our job (protecting public health and groundwater)."

On May 23, the MPCA’s Citizens Board voted 5-2 against requiring Reiland Farms’ proposed lagoon to undergo an EIS. The board was following the advice of MPCA staff members, but going counter to overwhelming evidence provided by scientists such as University of Minnesota geologist Calvin Alexander, experts at the DNR and local farmers. The Fillmore County citizen’s group is challenging the MPCA’s decision in court.

"That decision might have been different had the MDH stuck to the science and maintained its request for an EIS," wrote the citizens in their letter to Hatch. "So not only did the MDH receive undue pressure, but its decision to knuckle under played a major role in a decision affecting the health and well-being of citizens of the state."

To view government memos and documents related to the Reiland proposal, go to the Press Releases section.

Too many hogs, too little land

How many times have you heard that a large factory farm is safe because it has a government-approved "manure management" plan? In fact, a new study out of Iowa has concluded that such plans do not safeguard water resources.

"People worry about lagoon spills and accidents," says Laura Jackson, a University of Northern Iowa associate professor of biology and a Land Stewardship Project member, "but [our study was] more interested in normal, everyday practices."

Jackson, along with Elizabeth Gilbert and Dennis Keeney, former director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, looked at public records on the manure management practices of 10 large confined animal feeding operations in a six-square-mile area in north central Iowa. According to Iowa state regulations, confinement operations with space for more than 1,333 market-weight hogs (weighing up to 250 pounds each) must submit a manure management plan to secure a construction permit. The researchers used these plans, which are public records, to study the balance between hogs and land. They compared the plans to the most recent recommendations of Iowa State University agricultural engineers.

They found that too much manure from the operations was being applied to too little land. Three times as much land would be needed for the nitrogen in the manure, and 10 times as much land would be needed for the phosphorus content, according to Jackson.

The results of the study, funded by the Iowa Legislature and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Fund for Rural America, have been published in a recent issue of the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

Back to top

OFFICE UPDATES

Western Minnesota—A healthy bridge made of food

By Audrey Arner

With the days shortening and the big bluestem seeding out, these luscious summer days are to be embraced and cherished. Grassland songbirds seem to be done nesting. The county fairs are starting. We continue to be grateful for the rich opportunities of life at Land Stewardship Project on the western prairie.

Here’s a few examples of these "rich opportunities":

* We recently had the privilege of helping to host a busload of Hmong elders from St. Paul at Earth Rise Farm near Madison, Minn. These knowledgeable, displaced agrarian people’s medicine and spiritual practices are so aligned with the bounty of the natural world and with farming. They loved Larry Olson’s pasture-raised chicken and the array of vegetables from Earth Rise and other neighborhood gardens. We look forward to more interchange with this community, which values sustainable production methods and rural life.

* Along with the Chippewa River Watershed Project, we invited students, canoeists, farmers and policy makers to "discover the Chippewa" on Aug. 5. This celebrated the anniversary date in 1838 when the French astronomer, explorer and map maker Joseph Nicollet penned the following entry in the journal of his expedition through the Dakotas, western Minnesota and the Minnesota River Valley: "Ascended the Chippewa River for nearly 2 miles this morning, having left camp at its mouth. It is 70 feet wide, 3 to 4 feet deep, a strong current, waters quite transparent on a sandy bottom."

As the river reflects the treatment of the land in its watershed, the Chippewa is not at all transparent today. At the Aug. 5 event, farmers, graziers, water monitors, historians and a hydrologist shared their stories on its banks in the ongoing effort to change the way we grow our food and care for the landscape.

* This is grazing season for the Sustainable Livestock Systems Project. The dairy, beef and sheep producers who are part of this work are responsible not only for managing their livestock, but logging their time and expenses. Some beef animals are being weighed monthly to monitor rate of gain in groups that are exclusively grass-fed, while others are supplemented with grain. Within each group, half are implanted with hormones and half are not. The grazing dairy heifers are being compared to those in a conventional feedlot in terms of weight gain and body condition scoring. Stay tuned for the results of this work next year at this time. The University of Minnesota staff at the West Central Research and Outreach Center in Morris have demonstrated openness, leadership, patience and dedication in this collaborative on-farm research initiative. Wynne Wright, the rural sociologist on the team, is helping us all to better understand how relationships between farmers and researchers might be even more mutually beneficial.

* Building relationships may be just the key to survival as agribusiness continues to gain control over the food supply. Every year in Montevideo the communities of faith, along with Church World Service, sponsors the CROP Walk to raise funds primarily to address international hunger alleviation projects. For the past 10 years the local committee has chosen to contribute a portion of the proceeds to LSP. This year, with these hard-earned dollars, we have once again published and distributed our western Minnesota Farmer to Consumer Directory, which is now available online at Food and Farm Connections.

All of this work reminds me of a quote recently dug up by LSP intern Lynn Mader, who is working to connect sustainable agriculture and nutrition. The quote comes from Buck Levin, a scientist who wrote Environmental Nutrition: Understanding the Link between Environment, Food Quality and Disease: "The further we extend nutrition out into the environment, the closer we’re going to get to molecular events inside our cell. And the more we think about nourishment as a process directed at the planet as well as the body, the healthier we’re all going to be."

This is part of the bridge-building from the farm to the table. We are beginning to probe the difficult questions about how to make these connections easier for home food buyers and restaurateurs. By surveying our local institutions, the possibilities for purchases of locally grown and sustainably raised foods are being explored. More taste experiences with local cooks and farmers is definitely in our future.

Audrey Arner is a program director in LSP’s western Minnesota office.

Southeast Minnesota—What’s cooking in southeast?

By Marsha Neff

When I started working for the Land Stewardship Project in the winter of 1997, I was told that our office really slowed down in the summer because farmers are too busy to come to meetings during the growing season.

Well, southeast Minnesota farmers are just as busy this spring and summer as they were in the past—but a surprising number of sustainable producers have been willing to participate in several meetings dedicated to working together to reach larger and more profitable markets for their products.

Their long term goal is to develop a thriving, sustainable, local or regional food system in southeast Minnesota. Out of this desire has evolved the "Southeast Minnesota Sustainable Food Marketing Network," which is facilitated by me and supported with funding from the University of Minnesota Southeast Experiment in Rural Cooperation. (I should note here that even though "food" is the focus of this group, the products three of the producers in the marketing network raise and sell are beautiful, fresh-cut flowers.) The Network was formed by Pat Bailey, Jodi Dansingburg (representing Farming with Nature Coop), Lonny and Sandy Dietz, Bonnie and Vance Haugen (representing Pastureland Coop), Jackie Hoch, Larry Johnson, Diane Leonhardt, William and Maxine Morman, Arlene Nelson, Bets Reedy, Jennifer and Mike Rupprecht, Steve Schwenn (representing Full Circle Coop), Trish and Jerry Unger, and Rhys Williams have.

Network members have divided into three, overlapping, sub-groups focused on:

o Marketing to local institutions (such as community centers, nursing homes, schools, hospitals, and restaurants).
o Education to Action (reaching out to and educating churches, religious organizations, environmental groups, and other organizations with the goal of encouraging them to buy local foods from sustainable producers, including forming food buying groups).
o Providing local foods at special events (with multiple purposes of selling and promoting local, sustainably raised foods).

Here’s a few of the Network’s recent accomplishments:
With the support of Sister Marlys Jax and other Franciscan Sisters, they have begun serious negotiations to sell eggs, vegetables and fruits, as well as meats, to the Food Service at the Assisi Community Center in Rochester, Minn.

During the spring, producers talked to several church groups in the Rochester area and plan to contact more Rochester churches in the fall. They hope to form several "Congregationally Supported Food Buying groups," borrowing from and adapting the model the Whole Farm Coop is using successfully with churches in the Twin Cities.

In June, a Food Buyer from Bluff Country Coop in Winona asked to meet with Network members. Bluff Country is moving to a new, much larger location and would like to buy more local farm products from an organized group of producers.

Board members and the food buyer from the "Root River Market," a newly forming cooperative, grocery store in Houston, Minn., (which will be the only grocery store in town) are interested in working with the network.

Several network members helped to plan the "Family Farm Festival and Feast" that was held Aug. 12 at the beautiful, "Earth Be Glad," farm of Mike and Jennifer Rupprecht near Lewiston.

On July 31 and Aug. 1, several producers met with nationally acclaimed chef and restaurant owner Parker Bosley. The goal was to learn more about how local restaurants and sustainable producers can collaborate in buying and serving more high quality farm products. Julia Ness and the Community Design Center helped to coordinate these meetings. On Sept. 25, LSP’s Audrey Arner will visit Bosley in Cleveland and give the keynote at a meeting promoting connections between farmers and consumers.

I have been participating in the "Local Foods Projects Group," of the University of Minnesota’s Southeast Experiment in Rural Cooperation. Through the group, I’ve been able to build supportive relationships and coalitions with other southeast Minnesota groups and organizations working to develop a sustainable food system. The Southeast Experiment has also helped network producers to draw on technical resources from the University of Minnesota. In June, the Southeast Experiment hired a professional marketing group to conduct a consumer marketing survey focused on local, sustainable foods. Study results will be available to the network producers in the fall.

Watch for lots more Southeast Marketing Network project news during the fall and winter. p

Marsha Neff recently left her position as administrator of LSP’s southeast/Minnesota office to work as a grant writer for Mercy Medical Center Foundation.

Back to top

BOOK REVIEWS

Willard Cochrane and the American Family Farm
By Richard A. Levins
Foreword by John
Kenneth Galbraith
2000
96 pages
$30.00
University of Nebraska Press
PO Box 880484
Lincoln, NE 68588-0484

Reviewed by Dana Jackson

Here is a book that clearly and concisely tells us how agriculture was stolen from farmers. Richard Levins has woven his analysis of the theft into an account of the life of agricultural economist Willard Cochrane who, throughout his long career in government and academe, struggled to keep the spirit and form of the family farm pattern of agriculture alive.

When Cochrane began studying agricultural economics in 1935, the United States had 6.5 million farms. By 1997, there were barely 2 million left. In 1929, farmers kept approximately 49 cents of every dollar of gross national farm income. During the Eisenhower years, farmers were keeping just a penny of gross income on the dollar; all the rest was spent on equipment, seeds, chemicals and high priced land. In 1995, farmers kept about $1 out of every $6 of gross farm income.

The capacity to own and operate a family farm was stolen as government policy encouraged concentrated land ownership and fewer farmers, ostensibly to manage surplus production better.

Farm income was siphoned over to agribusiness as farmers began to rely less on integrated systems and purchased the tools of production from rising agricultural industries. Control of markets by vertically integrated livestock production and processing companies took more options and income away from farmers. The last bit of the family farm spirit is now under a big heist with the rise of contract farming, which makes farmers employees on their own land with corporations and investment companies calling the shots.

Government farm programs to save the family farm have consisted primarily of various flavors of the same strategy: regulate supply and demand and pretend that the only players in the farm economy are producers and consumers. Policy-makers seemed blind to the fact that corporate suppliers of inputs and the commodity processors and traders were steadily taking control of agricultural income. Fewer, larger farms and cheap commodity prices worked well for the corporations, especially when the government subsidies gave farmers the income they needed to pay agribusiness for fertilizer, herbicides and equipment necessary to farm more acres and grow bumper crops. Throughout the book, Levins refers repeatedly to Cargill, Pioneer, John Deere and Monsanto as examples of corporate giants that rose to power as family farming declined.

Willard Cochrane knew farmers were on a treadmill, expanding their operations to stay ahead of low prices, then creating surpluses which drove prices even lower, causing them to expand again. He realized that technology was driving it, that new equipment and farm chemicals helped increase the supply of food even though demand remained steady, which pushed prices down. But Cochrane didn’t have a switch to turn off the treadmill.

Cochrane was a professor at the University of Minnesota when John F. Kennedy tapped him to become his agricultural economics and policy advisor just before the 1960 Democratic convention. He went from advising the candidate to advising the President, serving under Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman. Cochrane made saving the independent family farm the keystone of Kennedy’s ag policy, though most agricultural economists at the time thought reductions in the number of farmers were necessary. In the midst of surpluses, USDA scientists were busy then as now, doing research to produce higher and higher yields. And the USDA was a monstrous bureaucracy, soaking up tax dollars while bragging about how cheap food was in the U.S.

Cochrane and Freeman reestablished the Bureau of Economics to get USDA economists under one department again. It became the modern-day Economic Research Service and Statistical Reporting Service. Cochrane also established the Food Stamp Program in its modern form. Even though he knew that food stamps wouldn’t use up surplus production, a USDA goal, Cochrane believed that the government should help those who needed help. But the one program he proposed as a solution to surpluses and low prices did not get any support. It was a plan to issue each farmer a marketing certificate, or quota, that would allow him or her to sell just that amount of product. Cochrane was attacked viciously and branded as a Communist by farm journals. In 1964, a discouraged and defeated Cochrane resigned from government service and returned to teaching at the University of Minnesota.

An agricultural economist at the University of Minnesota himself, Richard Levins obviously admires the subject of his book very much. He writes about Cochrane’s childhood in California and connects Cochrane’s experiences on his grandfather’s Iowa farm to the Jeffersonian ideals that influenced him all his life. Levins closes the book with a touching and well-written account of a trip with Cochrane to visit that Iowa farm. The land is not farmed by anyone in the family anymore, and the buildings are falling down. It’s a reminder of what Levins calls the "golden days" of agriculture when farms were independently managed, mostly self-sufficient in food and ran on solar energy.

Today, the treadmill has been cranked up a couple of notches with the almost religious rhetoric about free markets and irrational plunge into production for global markets, a system perfectly suited to international corporations. Biotechnology is the latest corporate tool that steals income from farmers and takes away even more of the independence that used to be associated with farming.

The book left me passionate about Land Stewardship Project’s work to help family-sized farmers set goals and make informed decisions about their land, their choices of enterprises, their farming practices and their markets. We urge farmers to hop off the treadmill, to develop integrated farming systems through diverse crops and livestock, and to think about selling directly to consumers or through locally controlled co-ops. And among farmers we work with, we see inspiring examples of people on the land who are keeping alive both the form and spirit of the family farm.

Dana Jackson is LSP’s Associate Director.

The Essential Aldo Leopold: Quotations and Commentaries
Edited by Curt Meine & Richard Knight
1999; 384 pages; $27.95
University of Wis. Press, 1537 Daniels St., Madison, WI 53718

Aldo Leopold: For the Health of the Land
Previously Unpublished
Essays and Other Writings
Edited by J. Baird Callicott &
Eric T. Freyfogle
1999; 243 pages; $22.95
Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009

Reviewed by Pat Deninger

Ask most readers of Aldo Leopold what is the "essential" Leopold, and they may extract a poetic sentence or two from A Sand County Almanac. A good choice: "One swallow does not make a summer, but one skein of geese, cleaving the murk of a March thaw, is the spring."

Or readers may highlight a Leopold statement about conservation or the natural world: "Land ... is not merely soil; it is a fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plant and animals."

Two new books add to the wealth of writings by and about Leopold, and offer even more ideas to reflect on, share and implement. Each draws on similar, unpublished or less well-known material beginning in Leopold’s earliest days as a forest ranger in the southwestern United States, then later as a University of Wisconsin professor and south-central Wisconsin landowner.

Both dig extensively into material he wrote from 1938 to 1942 for the rural newspaper, the "Wisconsin Agriculturist and Farmer," or WAF. These short essays, in style, content and spirit, became the framework for A Sand County Almanac.

The books complement each other nicely and don’t duplicate each other’s efforts: The Essential Aldo Leopold organizes his work into chapters such as "Agriculture," "Ecological Restoration," and "Leopold’s Voice." Each chapter gives us chronological excerpts from his writings, including the WAF essays. The goal, according to editors Meine and Knight, is to "give the reader a feel for the [life-long] dynamics of Leopold’s ecological conscience at work."

For the Health of the Land offers many of those same essays, each in their entirety and led by an excellent introduction, to provide "a window into Leopold’s outreach" from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. More importantly, editors Callicott and Freyfogle believe theirs is the book of essays Leopold had hoped to publish before his untimely death in 1948. "[The book] fulfills a publishing plan that Leopold himself hatched but was unable to complete."

Common sense, but not a common voice
It never ceases to amaze what Leopold knew, or foresaw, years before most would understand such things, and decades before such concerns would be given a name.

Fifty-five years ago, he wrote this in an essay entitled, "The Outlook for Farm Wildlife":

"It was inevitable and no doubt desirable that the tremendous momentum of industrialization should have spread to farm life. It is clear to me, however, that it has overshot the mark ... it is generating new insecurities, economic and ecological, in place of those it was meant to abolish."

Nature writer Terry Tempest Williams introduces the "Wilderness" chapter by noting that when she discovered A Sand County Almanac, at age 18, Leopold began "tutoring me, sentence by sentence, showing how ecological principles are intrinsically woven into an ethical framework of being."

Readers of A Sand County Almanac recognize this as a given, but years before that book, Leopold was attempting to do the same thing with the WAF essays.

In For the Health of the Land, the editors explain that Leopold’s essays were straightforward, common-sense pieces he hoped his audience would understand, appreciate and undertake. But they also "sought to reshape subtly his readers’ values and aims. He wanted them to develop a historical perspective ... to take pride in owning and nurturing a diverse, beautiful land. And he wanted them to give thought to why they lived in rural areas."

Leopold could attempt these things because he had credibility as a teacher, landowner, hunter and researcher. He was an unwavering critic of wrong-headed government programs at the local, state and national level. He owned up to his mistakes and missteps, especially in his youth. And, by all accounts, was friendly and genuinely curious about landowners’ efforts and knowledge of their landscape.

All those qualities shine through again and again in these two volumes. Turn to any page and Leopold comes alive:

o "Our job is to harmonize the increasing kit of scientific tools and the increasing recklessness in using them with the shrinking biotas to which they are applied."

o "I myself have cooperated in the extermination of the wolf from the greater part of two states, because I then believed it was a benefit. I do not propose to repeat my error."

o "Pasque flower and blazing star are ... prairie symbols. They symbolize the greatest mass effort in evolutionary history to create a rich soil for man to live on."

The Essential Aldo Leopold lends itself to a pick-and-choose approach to reading Leopold’s work, as if it were a "Quotable Quotes" section pulled out of Reader’s Digest. This is a reasonable way to approach both books, especially in our hurried times, but it’s also the wrong way. "The essence of Leopold," editors Meine and Knight remind us, "lay not just in the conclusions he reached but in the process by which he reached them." It’s valuable, then, to invest the time to read complete chapters, if not the entire books.

Leopold wrote that "once you learn to read the land, I have no fear of what you will do to it, or with it. And I know many pleasant things it will do for you." The same can be said for reading Leopold, and these two new valuable collections.

Come to his works thoughtfully, and I have no fear what you will do with them, and what they will do for you.

Writer Pat Deninger lives and works near Trempealeau, Wis. He recently met a man who, while working as a "game warden," bought Aldo Leopold a new pair of boots.

Back to top

Food & Farm Connections

Mark Your Calendar for the LSP Local Foods Banquet! When: October 7, 2000 - 6:00-9:00 pm Where: Judson Memorial Church 4101 Harriet Avenue S., Minneapolis Featuring... Great food grown by LSP member farmers & prepared by LSP member chef Brad Beal; Guest speaker will be LSP member-farmer and board member Jim Van der Pol; Good conversation about the connections between the quality of our food and soil, between consumer choices and farmer livelihood. Get involved... •Mark your calendars now to attend; •Volunteer to help with food preparation or table decorations; •Bring (or send) information about your farm to be displayed at the banquet; •Sponsor the banquet with a special donation to help keep ticket prices low; •Hold your own House/Farm local foods party to promote local farmers and LSP. In addition to this larger banquet, we'd like to hold 10 small dinners in various locations over the next year. Call if you are interested in being a host. Questions about the banquet? Want to get involved? Contact Cathy at 651-653-0618.

Back to top

Membership Update:

Upgrading membership

By Cathy Eberhart

The pace of change in this digital world in which we now live is undeniably faster. Just when we start to feel comfortable using that piece of equipment or software program, an upgrade appears with new features that you just can’t live without. My philosophy on technological change has tended to be one of intentional delay. Don’t be the first to adopt a new technology, but then again, don’t be the last, especially if the technology is truly beneficial.

Here at the Land Stewardship Project, we have decided that it is now time to make a few "upgrades," changes that we hope will benefit our members and our mission. Here’s what’s new:

New ways to give
Envelopes in the newsletter. A change you may have noticed already is an envelope tucked into the fold of this newsletter. This replaces the clip-out coupon that normally appears on this page. We frequently send or hand out sample copies of this newsletter to non-members and we hope that this will make it easier for them to join. If you are already a member, you can use the envelope too: give an additional donation; give a gift in honor or in memory of a friend or family member; give the envelope to someone and encourage them to join; or give a gift membership.

Credit card donations. A bit more high-tech than the envelope, LSP is now able to accept credit card payments. This means you can pay for your membership or for LSP resources and publications over the phone (or through the mail) using your VISA or Mastercard.

On-line donations. The next step in high-tech donations is the Internet, of course. Internet fund-raising is a growing area for the nonprofit sector. We feel LSP is well positioned to learn from the experiences of organizations that have tried these new technologies first. Look for this service to be ready in the next couple of months.

New ways to stay in touch
New uses for e-mail. The Internet has also given us e-mail, which LSP has begun using more extensively to stay in touch with our members. If we already have your e-mail address, you should have received action alerts from us recently about various issues. We plan to do action alerts periodically as issues arise (but not more than one per month on average so as not to clutter your inbox). If we don’t have your e-mail address and you would like to get these alerts, send your address to lspwbl@landstewardshipproject.org and ask to be added to the action alert list.

New look for our Web page - www.landstewardshipproject.org. While we are talking about the Internet, we need to talk about the LSP Web site.

If you haven’t been there in awhile you need to check it out. Thanks to our new Web page coordinator, Margie Grilley, a lot of new information has been posted, including information about our programs and resources, and a new Food and Farm Connections section. Press releases are posted almost weekly, and full text versions of past newsletters are also available. We have also contracted with a Web page designer to give us a new look later this year. If you are a member and you’d like to be notified of changes to our Web site, send an e-mail to mgrilley@landstewardshipproject.org and ask to be added to the Web site update list.

New basic LSP membership rate of $35
The last "upgrade" to announce is an increase of LSP’s basic membership rate from $30 to $35. In 1994, LSP’s board of directors set the basic membership level at $30. Over the years, LSP’s expenses have increased as we’ve developed new programs and taken on important new issues. In April 2000, the board approved a modest $5 increase in the basic membership rate as part of a multi-faceted effort to increase contributions from individuals and broaden our base of funding. As always, however, if $35 is not within your budget, give what you can and we will continue your membership. Regardless of how much you can give, we need your voice and support. The more members we have, the more impact we can make in our communities, at the legislature and in the marketplace.

Cathy Eberhart is LSP’s Membership Coordinator.

Sidebar

It all adds up
Your $35 membership is still a great deal. As a reminder, here’s a list of the benefits of an LSP membership.

Members receive a year’s subscription (six issues) to The Land Stewardship Letter.

Members become part of a growing Stewardship Food Network that links LSP member-farmers with consumers. Only members can be listed.

Members receive invitations ton LSP dinners, workshops, meetings and other opportunities to connect with others who share your values.

Members receive a 10 percent discount on LSP resources and events.

Members have access to current research and information on food and agriculture issues.

Members make a difference by supporting the valuable work of protecting soil, water and wildlife; promoting fair markets and economic opportunities for family-sized farms and rural communities; and providing safe and healthful food for all people.

Back to top

STEWARDSHIP CALENDAR

•AUG. 30 — Field day on making pasture silage, manure management & pasture management, Ralph, Phyllis & Dennis Stelling farm, Millville, Minn.; Contact: 507-798-2410
•AUG. 31 — Field day on soil conservation on canning crop fields, Hart Farms, Elgin, Minn.; Contact: Richard Ness, LSP, 507-523-3366
•SEPT. 1 — Deadline for making a donation to LSP that is matched by the McKnight Foundation
•SEPT. 9 — Field day on grazing native legumes and re-establishing native prairie on wetlands, Dancing Meadows Farm, Rushford, Minn.; Contact: LSP, 507-523-3366
•Northeast Sustainable Farming Association of Minn. 7th Annual Bayfront Harvest Festival, Bayfront Festival Farm, Duluth; Contact: 218-727-1414; sfa@skypoint.com
•SEPT. 13 — Field day on grazing stream banks & other riparian areas, featuring Wisconsin grazier Charlie Opitz, Cobb, Wis.; Contact: Caroline van Schaik, LSP, 651-653-0618; caroline@landstewardshipproject.org
•SEPT. 14 — Field day on grazing stream banks & other riparian areas, featuring Wisconsin grazier Charlie Opitz, Kellogg, Minn.; Contact: Caroline van Schaik, LSP, 651-653-0618; caroline@landstewardshipproject.org
•SEPT. 15 — Field day on a low-cost mechanism for inter-seeding cover crops in corn, Willow Lake Farm, Windom, Minn.; Contact: Tony Thompson, 507-831-3483
•Field Day on development of a community based organic growers cooperative & marketing system, Earthway Farm, South Haven, Minn.; Contact: Patty Dease, 320-236-7852
•Field day on 5 steps to better pasture, Harris, Minn.; Contact: Sarah Mold, 651-674-7212
•SEPT. 15-17 — Natl. Audubon Society’s Conference & Celebration of the Upper Mississippi River—its wildlife & people, Sinsiniwa Mound Conference Center, Sinsiniwa, Wis.; Contact: 651-290-1695
•SEPT. 16 — Field day on reviving & enhancing soils for maximizing performance of pastures & livestock, Hutchinson, Minn.: Contact: Doug Rathke & Connie Karstens, 320-587-6094
•Clean Up our River Environment Annual River Revival, southwest Minnesota (details to be announced); Contact: Lynn Lokken, CURE, 320-269-2984; cure@info-link.net
•SEPT. 17 — 15th Annual Farm Aid Concert, Washington, D.C.; Contact: www.farmaid.com or Mark Schultz, LSP, 612-722-6377; marks@landstewardshipproject.org
•SEPT. 19-21 — In-person voting by eligible farmers on the referendum to end the mandatory pork checkoff;
Contact: Paul Sobocinski, LSP, 507-342-2323
•SEPT. 22-24 — 9th Annual Urban-Rural Food Systems Conference, East Troy, Wis.; Contact: Michael Fields Institute, 262-642-3303
•SEPT. 23 — Field day on soil ecology & managed soil surfaces, Ramsey, Minn.; Contact: Peter Seim, 763-753-5099
•SEPT. 25 — LSP’s Audrey Arner will be the keynote speaker at the "Farm to Table event," a fund-raiser for the Cleveland Farmers’ Market, Cleveland Botanical Gardens, Cleveland, Ohio
•OCT. 7 — LSP’s Twin Cities Local Foods Banquet, Minneapolis; Contact: Cathy Eberhart, LSP, 651-653-0618;;...... cathye@landstewardshipproject.org
•OCT. 10 — Field day on improving quality & quantity of pasture forage with rotational grazing, reducing the need to convert forest to pasture, Shevlin, Minn.; Contact: Michael Harmon, 218-657-2592.
•OCT. 13 — Application deadline for 2000-2001 Farm Beginnings class; Contact: Karen Stettler, LSP, 507-523-3366; stettler@landstewardshipproject.org
•NOV. 5-9 — LSP’s Caroline van Schaik will give a presentation on effective collaboration between researchers & farmers or other community participants, Annual Meeting of the American Society of Agronomy, Minneapolis, Minn.
•NOV. 17-18 — Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group meeting, Eagle Bluff Environmental Learning Center, Lanesboro, Minn.; Contact: Dana Jackson, LSP, 651-653-0618; danaj@maroon.tc.umn.edu
•DEC. 7-9 — Acres USA Conference, Minneapolis, Minn.; Contact: 1-800-355-5313; info@acresusa.com
•JAN. 19-21 — Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group 10th Annual Conference & Trade Show, Chattanooga, Tenn.; Contact: 225-654-2017; tonihawk@tlxnet.net
•JUNE 7-10 — Joint Meetings of the Agriculture, Food & Human Values Society & the Association for the Study of Food & Society, Minneapolis, Minn.; Contact: Helene Murray, MISA, 612-625-8235; murra021@maroon.tc.umn.edu


Check the Calendar for the latest on upcoming LSP events.

Back to top

Return to LSL Index

Return to Home Page