• COVER STORY: Why Did the Hog Farmer Cross the Road? …To seek out a way of producing pork that’s economically viable and environmentally sound.
• MYTH BUSTER
• STACKS OF FACTS
• COMMENTARY: Are you a farmer or an investor?
• LSP NEWS: Innovative conservation farm policy is introduced in Congress; Summary of the Conservation Security Act; Multiple Benefits of Ag; Busy field day season; DeVries leaves LSP; New pasture chapter; Thanks to our MWFA grocery store volunteers; New sustainability calculator for farms now available on-line
• THE LAND STEWARDSHIP LETTER FOLLOW-UP
• BOOK REVIEWS: An American Mosaic; The Memory of Old Jack
• THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS
• HELP LSP SECURE A STRONG FUTURE
• OPPORTUNITIES/RESOURCES
• STEWARDSHIP CALENDAR

COVER STORY

Why Did the Hog Farmer Cross the Road?

…To seek out a way of producing pork that’s economically viable and environmentally sound.

By Brian DeVore

Dawn is just breaking on a summer morning in northeast Iowa’s Chickasaw County, and TomFrantzen is already hustling. The 47-year-old farmer wants to wrap up hog chores before going to the field to make hay. But between scooping feed and hauling straw bedding, he takes a moment to point out to a visitor a tangled pile of metal and concrete heaped behind a shed. This is all that’s left of a system of confinement hog production he and his wife, Irene, used for 14 years.

"Those days are gone," says Frantzen without a hint of regret.

Those days consisted of raising hogs in closed buildings with concrete floors. The floors had special slots in them so that urine and feces could drain down into a pit below. All this liquid manure had to be pumped out and disposed of. Such a system was bad for the stressed-out animals (they fought each other and required lots of antibiotics) and the environment (liquid manure often finds its way into waterways), as well as members of the Frantzen family (who had to work in facilities full of dust and toxic gases). In short, says Frantzen, this system treated animals as machines, manure as waste, and farmers as barnyard janitors.

But three years ago the Frantzens junked the trappings of confinement and started raising hogs in deep-straw bedding in open-ended, Quonset-hut like structures called hoop houses. The family was already raising hogs on carefully managed pastures in the summer, but producing pork during harsh Midwestern winters meant the hogs had to be confined—or so the Frantzens thought until they visited Sweden. There they saw pigs being raised under natural conditions using deep straw bedding.

The family was sold on the system from the start. For one thing, it could be set up for about one-fourth to a third of the cost of a confinement facility. In addition, the pigs were healthier because they were allowed to follow their natural instincts to socialize and nest. Finally, when the manure mixed with the straw, it created a composting "pack" that kept the animals warm and served as a valuable fertilizer for crops.

Still, Tom was apprehensive about making such a significant switch from a system that had the agri-science seal of approval. His concerns were put to rest in 1997 after he turned those first pigs loose in a just-completed hoop house.

"I peeked into the hoop house to see 180 pigs in one massive straw nest—snoring. I laughed until I cried. Their stress was gone, and so was mine. I know I’ll never go back to confinement. Once you cross that road, there is no way you can go back."

Against the grain
To factory farming’s boosters, people like Tom Frantzen have done more than cross a road—they’ve traveled to a galaxy far, far away and landed on Planet Goofball. The current megatrend in American livestock production is an industrialized system that packs tens of thousands of animals into totally enclosed buildings run by computers and low-wage employees. This system looks good on paper to Wall Street investors, but on the farm level it’s an economic and ecological barnyard bust.

So many farmers are taking a different route: combining some old-fashioned animal husbandry with new, low-tech facility design and sophisticated ideas about the relationships between livestock and the land. In many ways, hoop houses help accommodate such a change in livestock management. Not only are they cheap to build, but they are not "single use" structures like their confinement counterparts. When hog prices are in the dumps, hoops users have greater opportunities for getting out of the business temporarily. That’s because they can clean the bedding out of their hoop building and use it to store hay, machinery, or as a shelter for other types of livestock. Owners of specialized hog confinement buildings don’t have such an option; they often must raise hogs no matter what the market is paying just to make the loan payment on the facilities.

Thousands of hoop structures have been erected in the Midwest in the past half-dozen years by small farmers like the Frantzens, who market about 1,200 pigs annually. Mark Honeyman, an Iowa State University animal scientist who researches hoop house hog production, says before 1996 there were virtually none of the structures in his home state. Since then, roughly 2,000 of the structures have been built in Iowa alone.

The technology behind hoop hog houses has its roots in Japan, where farmers use modified greenhouse structures for pork production. The hoop unit is actually a woven polypropylene tarp pulled over a tubular frame, which is fastened to a wooden or concrete wall. A short concrete pad is at one end, providing a stable flooring for feeders and waterers. Usually, no additional heat is provided. Instead, the hogs maintain their own micro-environment by burrowing into the deep bedding.

The research that Honeyman and a handful of other animal scientists are doing has been a factor in kick-starting the mini-boom in alternative swine production. However, such research is far from common on university campuses. Indeed, perhaps the most amazing thing about sustainable hog production is that it has gained a hoofhold with little support from the land grant university research system, that traditional purveyor of "progressive" farming techniques.

"Farmers are leading the researchers on this one," says western Minnesota farmer Jim Van Der Pol. He has been raising hogs in hoop houses for four years, and recently helped his local university experiment station launch an alternative swine research program.

Informal farmer-to-farmer information exchanges and research done in Sweden and Canada have been the main vectors for this system’s spread. And now that a few land grant researchers are finally turning their attention to these methods, they’re surprised to find them quite competitive economically, mostly because of low facility construction costs. In fact, a hoop structure with deep straw bedding can produce pigs for about $1.50 per hundred pounds cheaper, according to Iowa State University research and results from Canadian hog trials.

But Honeyman says now more than ever animal scientists need to get involved in alternative swine production research. For example, research shows that operating costs for a deep straw system can be higher because of the seasonality of the hogs’ feed use (they need more feed in the winter to stay warm, and turn more of their feed into fat during the summer), as well as the increased labor needed to haul bedding as much as twice a week.

The ecological benefits of these systems are already evident. Because they rely on a solid manure system, hoops don’t have the inherent environmental risks associated with large liquid waste pits and lagoons. Once a straw/manure pack is scraped out of a hoop house and piled up, composting can reduce the mass to half its former size. It can then serve as a biologically rich, organic manure for farm fields.

An environmental audit done last year on the Frantzen farm by the University of Northern Iowa found the operation was producing between only 20 and 30 pounds of excess nitrogen per acre annually, a sign that it’s extremely efficient at keeping wayward nutrients from becoming pollutants. In comparison, nitrogen loss on liquid manure-based factory operations is measured in the hundreds of pounds per acre.

In a 1999 study conducted for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, a hoop barn had a hydrogen sulfide emissions rate that was 10 times less than a finishing barn with a concrete manure pit underneath. That could be a significant finding: hydrogen sulfide emissions from large manure lagoons pose a major threat to human health.

Hoop buildings, or any other off-farm products for that matter, aren’t environmental silver bullets. Honeyman points out that indeed, if one were to concentrate enough hoop houses in one place, environmental problems would surely crop up. Rather, they just happen to dovetail nicely with a system of farming that considers all of an operation’s enterprises and resources as part of a larger whole. The compost produced by the hoop house system is a biologically rich fertilizer, which farmers like the Frantzens use on their crops. Those crops are then fed to the animals and cycled back to the land as manure, helping to produce more feed crops. In addition, the straw itself comes from small grains such as oats, a soil-conserving crop that can naturally break up weed and insect pest cycles. And pasture-farrowing hogs during the summer—along with grazing cattle—helps the Frantzens economically justify having a large portion of their farm in perennial grasses, which add biological diversity to the landscape. As the university study of Frantzen’s farm has shown, striking such a balance between land, animals, and crops produces a closed nutrient cycle, rather than one that imports a lot of inputs and pumps out even more waste.

But all the low-cost sustainable livestock production in the world means little if farmers can’t get paid a fair price. The good news is that several farmers, including the Frantzens, are now receiving a premium price for sustainably produced pork through labeled products or direct marketing. These alternatives are in their infancy, and the majority of family farmers are still being denied profits in a market controlled by corporate operations. But Frantzen sees a glimmer of hope every time he delivers more pork to a local natural foods co-op and consumers use their pocketbooks to show him how much they appreciate his efforts to raise hogs sustainably.

"When people make a buying choice they are casting a ballot for the type of food system they want. That sends a tremendously powerful message back to rural America about what sort of farming is valued."

Technology is still technology
But even if they can help pork producers gain access to lucrative niche markets, hoop houses are not going to save the small independent family farmer. After all, Van Der Pol points out, it’s still just a technology, albeit a low technology. It’s often easy for a farmer to talk about adopting an isolated technology. It’s much harder to adopt management changes that require major shifts in philosophy. Even the most benign technological change can cause problems if not wielded with a changed attitude toward the land.

For example, consider the role biodiverse plant growth can play in sustainable swine production. Unfortunately, instead of diversifying their cropping systems to provide the straw bedding, some farmers are covering their hoop house floors with corn stalks. This allows them to maintain their mono-cropping ways.

"We always focus on technology instead of management. That’s just a given in American agriculture," says Van Der Pol. " The Midwest is full of people running around saying, ‘I can build hoop houses and I don’t have to change a thing. I can continue to raise corn and use corn stalks.’ Then they build 15 hoop houses on one site."

But there are an increasing number of farmers who see hoop houses, or any other aspect of alternative swine production for that matter, as more than just another piece of technology that temporarily makes their farms environmentally correct. They say by integrating it into a diverse farming system, it can help them reach a goal that goes far beyond nutrient cycles or cents per pound: maintaining a good quality of life.

"It’s a fun way to raise pigs, a healthy way to raise pigs and it’s profitable," says Preston, Minn., farmer Dave Serfling, who, along with his wife, Diane, has participated in studies that show their small, sustainable enterprise is quite competitive economically. "It’s a size that I can raise my kids on, keep my bills paid, and have a good life."


SIDEBAR

Alternative swine research advances in Minnesota

Years of efforts on the part of the Land Stewardship Project to promote alternative swine research in Minnesota are beginning to pay off.

Last spring, the construction of four hoop houses was completed at the University of Minnesota’s West Central Research and Outreach Center near Morris. Two of the hoops are to be used for finishing hogs for market, one is for gestating sows, and one for storing straw bedding as well as the sorting and handling of hogs.

The two finishing hoops are already well into producing their second group of pigs, and the sow hoop is almost ready to be put into use. No official research is being done in the hoops yet, according to Jim Van Der Pol, a Kerkhoven, Minn., hog farmer and LSP board member who has been serving as a consultant to the experiment station’s alternative swine research efforts. Rather, the experiment station staff has used the summer and fall to learn how to manage the facilities. Van Der Pol says the first group of pigs that went through the hoops seemed to do well, and the station staff was able to quickly overcome management challenges such as hauling in new straw bedding a couple of times a week.

And the four gray-colored Quonset-style buildings are catching a lot of attention on the flat prairie near Morris.

"A lot of people that are driving by see the hoops and stop by to ask questions," says the farmer.

The station hopes to eventually conduct research on everything from the impact of different feed rations in hoop systems to the effect of composted bedding on local water quality. Such research efforts will be coordinated by Rebecca Sargent, who this fall was named the "Sustainable Swine Scientist" at the station. Sargent, who will begin work sometime after March 1, has done extensive research on alternative swine systems in her native Australia.

All of these efforts to do alternative swine research at Morris have their roots in the 1997 and 1998 sessions of the Minnesota Legislature. Because of work on the part of LSP members and staff, Minnesota lawmakers agreed to fund the alternative swine facilities, as well as the Sustainable Swine Scientist position. Although the vast majority of the University of Minnesota’s swine research efforts continue to focus on the high-input industrial model, this one serious foray into alternative hog production is a good sign, says Van Der Pol. Perhaps the most positive trend is that some university personnel are starting to consider this project as part of the institution’s research agenda, rather than an initiative thrust upon them by outside forces, he says.

"We could talk endlessly about the need for such research and not get anywhere without the university taking this on as their own."

For more information on sustainable hog production research at Morris, contact Wayne Martin, coordinator of Alternative Swine Production Systems, at 612-625-6224.


SIDEBAR

The scoop on hoops…& other forms of alternative hog production

Here are a few resources for farmers interesting in learning more about alternative swine practices, including the use of deep straw bedding in hoop houses, as well as pasture production.

Hogs Your Way: Choosing a Hog Production System in the Upper Midwest is finally available. It’s designed to assist farmers considering adding or changing their hog production system. This 80-page publication begins with a worksheet designed to stimulate thinking about personal goals and values. It then provides an overview of four hog production systems (Swedish deep-straw farrowing, deep-straw hoops, pasture production and confinement) and includes profiles of farmers who have used those systems. It also provides a list of programs, organizations, and other sources of additional information.

This publication was developed jointly by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA) at the University of Minnesota’s College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, as well as the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Program, in cooperation with the University of Minnesota Extension Service.

A price had not been set as of this writing. For ordering information, call the Extension Service at 800-876-8636, or MISA at 800-909-6472.

An Agriculture That Makes Sense: Making Money on Hogs is a Land Stewardship Project publication that focuses on the 50-sow enterprise of one Minnesota crop and livestock operation. The case study compares the farm’s production records to the averages of the top performing hog operations as reported in a regional Minnesota Farm Business Management Program annual report. The case study farm minimizes expenses through such production practices as outdoor farrowing and low-cost housing. For a copy of this eight-page publication, send $4.00 ($3.60 for LSP members) to: LSP, 2200 4th Street, White Bear Lake, MN 55110.

Swine Source Book: Alternatives for Pork Producers is packed with information on just about every aspect of setting up a sustainable hog enterprise. The chapter titles are:

* Sustainable Swine Production
* Hoop Structures
* Swedish Deep Bedding
* Pasture Systems
* Low Antibiotic Production
* Marketing
* More Ideas

This publication combines scientific articles and real-world, on-farm examples. The chapters are contained in a three-ringed binder and are set up so farmers can remove individual sections for photocopying. The Swine Source Book is sponsored by the Alternative Swine Production Systems Program, a joint program of the University of Minnesota College of Agriculture’s Department of Animal Science, MISA and the Minnesota Extension Service.

Copies of the Source Book can be examined at LSP’s offices in Lewiston, Montevideo and White Bear Lake. Copies are also available for review at Minnesota Extension offices. To order your own copy, send a check or money order for $17.50 (add $4 for shipping) to: Distribution Center, 20 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108-6069. You can also call 800-876-8636. When ordering, ask for item number PC-7289-S.

Iowa State University animal scientist Mark Honeyman will send out information packets on research he has done in relation to alternative swine production. He can be contacted at: 201 Kildee Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1050; phone: 515-294-4621; fax: 515-294-6210; e-mail: honeyman@iastate.edu.

Midwest Plan Service offers two, 16-page publications about hoop houses for hogs. You can order these by contacting the Service at: 122 Davidson Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3080; phone: 800-562-3618; www.mwpshq.org/catalog.html.
The publications:
1) Hoop Structures for Gestating Swine summarizes information about hoop structure use and design. It discusses some of the differences in management techniques that hoop structures require, and it presents economic factors that can be used to analyze design layouts and construction alternatives. The cost is $4. When ordering, ask for publication "AED-44."

2) Hoop Structures for Swine Housing helps producers and designers resolve some of the issues involved in using a hoop structure to finish pigs.

This publication summarizes information about hoop structure use and design. It discusses some of the differences in management techniques that hoop structures require, and it presents economic factors that can be used to analyze design layouts and construction alternatives. The publication contains a sample budget comparing the costs of hoop structures to the costs of more traditional confinement housing. The cost is $4. When ordering, ask for publication "AED-41."

Back to top

MYTH BUSTER

An ongoing series on ag myths & ways of deflating them

Myth: Large-scale factory hog farming creates strong local economies.

Fact: Just the opposite is true, according to one preliminary study done on 1,106 Illinois towns. For the study, detailed annual sales tax data covering the period between 1981 and 1997 were obtained for the towns by researchers at Illinois State University. The researchers were then able to track trends in retail spending in these towns, a good sign of the economic vitality of a community.

During the study period, towns of "moderate" hog concentration experienced real per capita spending increases of 1.93 percent annually. Communities experiencing "rapid" concentration in hog production had a real per capita spending increase of 1.2 percent annually ("rapid concentration" communities are those in which the percentage of hogs sold annually by farms with sales of 3,000 or more animals increased by 30 percent or more during the study period). The difference in economic growth was particularly striking in the 1990s, a time when average swine farm size increased dramatically.

The researchers then went one step further to address the concern that factors other than changing structure in swine production might explain the differences. They developed a statistical model to measure the effect of increasing hog concentration while holding other determinants of a town’s economic growth constant. But it made no difference: the preliminary results of this research confirm the inverse relationship between size of swine farms and local economic growth.

"The results reject the hypothesis that large swine farming contributes to the vitality of local economies," wrote one of the researchers, agricultural economist Miguel Gómez. "On the contrary, the several models developed here consistently indicate a negative relationship between large swine farms and economic growth in rural communities."

These findings were presented at the 2000 meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association. A copy of the paper can be downloaded from http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/aaea00/sp00go03.pdf. For more information, contact Gómez at 309-438-2925, or migomez@ilstu.edu

Back to top

STACKS OF FACTS

The Land Stewardship Project has available a series of myth-busting fact sheets. Subjects are: Bigger is Not Better * Grass-Based Beef & Dairy Production * Factory Farming’s False Promise * Corporate Consolidation in Food and Agriculture * The Real Hog Revolution * Hometown Factory Farm Fighting * When the Manure Hits the Water * Hydrogen Sulfide & Factory Farms * When Chemicals Are Cut * Biodiversity & Agriculture * Buying Directly From the Farmer * Writing a Letter to Your Newspaper * Cutting Through Talk Radio Static * Genetically Engineered Crops.

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: 651-653-0618.

Back to top

COMMENTARY

LSP NEWS

Innovative conservation farm policy is introduced in Congress

The new Conservation Security Act proposal is a landmark in farm policy that will benefit the environment, taxpayers and rural communities, say farmer-members of the Land Stewardship Project’s Federal Farm Policy Committee.

"This legislation is based on the idea that good farming can produce a wide array of benefits like clean water, soil conservation and strong rural economies," says Dave Serfling, a Preston farmer and LSP Federal Farm Policy Committee member. "That makes it a win-win situation. Money will go to farmers who need and deserve it the most, producing benefits that the public has been demanding."

The Act, which was introduced this fall with bi-partisan support in the U.S. House and Senate, marks an important shift in agricultural policy. It emphasizes the environmental benefits that sustainable management of farmland can provide, rather than focusing on land retirement and payments for massive production of a handful of commodity crops. It rewards farmers for producing societal benefits such as clean air and water, improved soils, carbon storage and restoration of wildlife habitat.

Both versions of the bill would set up a system where farmers would enter into contracts with the USDA and choose from one of three "conservation classes." Farmers who achieve positive environmental results by implementing such practices as conservation tillage or improvement of water quality by controlling runoff would qualify for one class of conservation payment. Farmers achieving the most environmental benefits through the implementation of a comprehensive conservation plan would qualify for the highest class of payments. The legislation sets the top level of payments at $50,000 maximum per farm operator.

Along with the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, several members of the Land Stewardship Project’s Federal Farm Policy Committee helped develop the concepts behind the proposed legislation. LSP is a member of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which represents Midwestern farm, rural and environmental groups on federal ag policy.

During a trip to Washington, D.C., in early 1999, during which they met with Congressional agriculture leaders and USDA officials, LSP members emphasized how much damage past farm policy has done to rural communities and the environment, and the benefits that could be generated by rewarding stewardship farming. Some members of Congress have followed up by visiting Minnesota farms owned and operated by LSP members.

"Apparently, our message got through," says Wabasso farmer and LSP Federal Farm Policy Committee member Paul Sobocinski.

In the Senate, Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa and Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon are the lead sponsors of the bill, which will be considered by Congress in 2001. Democrat David Minge of Minnesota was the lead sponsor of the House version of the bill, which had more than two-dozen co-sponsors, representing both political parties. With Minge’s defeat—pending a recount—in the November elections, sustainable ag groups are working with other potential lead House sponsors.


Summary of the Conservation Security Act

The Conservation Security Act (CSA) of 2000 provides financial assistance to help farmers and ranchers find viable solutions to agricultural, environmental and economic concerns. The CSA helps agriculture respond to site-specific environmental challenges on a voluntary basis with a flexible program designed to address these challenges in a cost-effective and results-oriented fashion. The CSA rewards producers for good stewardship in appreciation of the many non-market environmental and social benefits that these practices provide society. The Act balances federal funding for conservation on working lands with existing funding for land retirement, providing farmers access to payments for whole-farm resource planning.

Conservation Purposes
The Conservation Security Program (CSP) created by the CSA addresses the full range of conservation concerns related to agriculture, including:
o Conservation of soil, water, energy and other related resources.
o Soil, water and air quality protection and improvement.
o On-farm conservation and regeneration of plant germplasm.
o Wetland and wildlife habitat restoration, conservation and enhancement.
o Greenhouse gas emissions reduction and carbon sequestration.

Participation
Participation in the program stipulates that land practices must achieve resource and environmental benefits, but does not require the removal of land from production. In addition, practices do not need to be newly introduced to the farm/ranch; producers can be rewarded for good stewardship practices implemented prior to enrollment in the CSP. Participants are responsible for developing conservation security plans that identify targeted resources, practices and implementation schedules. Participants are granted maximum flexibility for choosing land management practices suitable for individual farms. In certain instances, the plan may include an on-farm research or demonstration component.

Tiers
Participants have the choice of enrolling in one of three tiers:
Tier I participants address priority resource concerns on all or part of their farms/ranches. Practices may include soil and residue management, nutrient management, pest management, irrigation management, grazing management, wildlife habitat management, contour farming, strip cropping, cover cropping and related practices.

Tier II participants address priority resource concerns on the whole farm/ranch and meet applicable resource management system criteria. Tier II practices entail adoption of land use adjustment practices such as resource-conserving crop rotations, rotational grazing, conversion to soil-conserving practices, installing conservation buffer practices, restoration of wildlife habitats, prairies, and/or wetlands, as well as other related practices.

Tier III participants satisfy the requirements of Tiers I and II, while integrating land use practices into a whole-farm, total-resource approach that fosters long-term sustainability of the resource base.

Payment and Eligibility
Payments are based on the natural resource and environmental benefits expected from plan implementation, the number and timing of management practices established, income forgone due to land use adjustments, costs related to on-farm research, and several other factors.

Bonuses are also offered to beginning farmers, joint participation by operators within a small watershed, and plans that optimize carbon sequestration and minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Payments may not exceed $20,000, $35,000, and $50,000 for Tier I, II, and III contracts, respectively. Payment contracts are for five years for Tier I and from five to 10 years for Tier II and III.

Funding
The program is funded out of the Commodity Credit Corporation and all eligible producers will receive contract payments for the requisite number of years.

Multiple Benefits of Ag
The Multiple Benefits of Agriculture newsletter is now on the Land Stewardship Project Web site. To see the issues, click here.

This publication provides updates on the Multiple Benefits Project, which is estimating and comparing the benefits of various kinds of agriculture operations in two watersheds in Minnesota. This research will be used to develop agriculture policy options that reward farmers for producing public benefits such as enhanced soil and water quality, improved wildlife habitat, healthful food and stronger rural economies.

For more information, contact Project Coordinator Caroline van Schaik by calling 612-722-6377, or e-mailing caroline@landstewardshipproject.org.


Busy field day season

Late summer 2000 was a busy time for field days and other events. Here’s some of the on-farm events the Land Stewardship Project co-sponsored:

* Grazing Alfalfa and Innovative Watering Systems, Dan and Don Struxness farm, Milan, Minn.
* Organic Market Gardening, Lonny and Sandy Dietz farm, Altura, Minn.
* A Look at Sand Creek Rehabilitation Project, Dave and Florence Minar farm, New Prague, Minn.
* Marketing Pasture Silage, Manure Management and Pasture Management, Ralph, Phyllis and Dennis Stelling farm, Millville, Minn.
* Using Cover Crops to Conserve Soil on Canning Crop Fields, Hart Farm, Elgin, Minn.
* Prairie Establishment and Management, Jodi Dansingburg and Kevin O’Brien farm, Rushford, Minn.
* Riparian Grazing Schools, Kellogg, Minn., and Cobb, Wis.

For information on field days and other LSP events, log onto the LSP website Calendar.

New sustainability calculator for farms now available on-line

Do you want to "calculate" your farm’s sustainability? The Land Stewardship Project’s Web site is now host to an innovative new cyber tool for doing just that. This is an electronic version of the calculator that appears in Monitoring Sustainable Agriculture with Conventional Financial Data, the popular publication written by agricultural economist Dick Levins in 1996. A pdf version of the entire publication is also available on LSP’s Web site.

Levins presents four financial indicators to evaluate the sustainability of farming operations:

1) reliance on government programs;
2) use of equipment, chemicals and non-renewable energy;
3) creation of jobs; and
4) balance between feed use and feed production.

The Web site calculator is designed to be used with "Financial Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture" worksheets that are found on pages nine and 10 of Levins’ book. The Calculator is easy to use, allowing users to enter concrete dollar amounts in various categories, and then crunching the numbers.

Support for putting Monitoring Sustainable Agriculture with Conventional Financial Data and the accompanying on-line calculator on LSP’s Web site was provided by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA and the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. It was made possible with a grant to the Michigan Agricultural Stewardship Association.

Monitoring Sustainable Agriculture with Conventional Financial Data is in its second printing. A paper copy of the 30-page publication can be purchased by sending $7 ($6.40 for LSP members) to: LSP, 2200 4th Street, White Bear Lake, MN 55110. Call 651-653-0618 for more information.

DeVries leaves LSP

Brad DeVries has left the Land Stewardship Project to become the associate director of media for the Defenders of Wildlife conservation organization.

Since joining LSP in 1994, DeVries has been based in Washington, D.C. While there, he did media and outreach work for LSP’s Policy Program and was the public information coordinator for the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. DeVries also worked with the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. LSP belongs to both groups. Most recently, DeVries has been working on economic analysis for the Multiple Benefits of Agriculture Project.

"Brad is noted for his fine writing, his wit, and for his effective outreach to the farm media in D.C. and across the country," says LSP Executive Director George Boody.

In his new position, DeVries will continue to be based in D.C.


New pasture chapter

The new chapter on pasture vegetation for the Monitoring Tool Box is off the presses and in the hands of Tool Box owners who have registered their binders with us. If you have multiple binders and need additional copies of the new chapter, please contact Caroline van Schaik at LSP’s Metro office, 651-653-0618; caroline@landstewardshipproject.org.

Remember, for us to be able to send you Close to the Ground newsletters and other Tool Box communication, you must send us your registration card.

Another new development is that the Close to the Ground newsletter is now on the Land Stewardship Project Web site. To see all issues, click here.


Thanks to our MWFA grocery store volunteers

The Land Stewardship Project would like to thank all of its Minnesota volunteers who helped out with in-store demonstrations of Midwest Food Alliance-approved apples this fall. Volunteers spent their Saturdays handing out samples and talking about sustainable food production with shoppers in Kowalski’s Markets in the Twin Cities and in Coborn’s stores in the St. Cloud area.

The St. Cloud volunteers included Sister Ruth Lentner, Janice Welle, Sister Loretta, Denfeld, Luke Meyer, Derrick Schroeder, Lyz Anderson, Lancell Grobe and Ken Virnig.

Volunteering in the Twin Cities were Kristin Mercer, Kristen Cornelius, Jennifer Kompelien, Howard Markus, Lynne Markus, Carey Erkel, Joy Curtin, Bryon Carlson, Lori Wellman, Angela Anderson, Jay Lyons, Ann Fox, Mary Kopet, Larry Hampel, Mary Ann Litfin, Lois Braun, Jean She, JoAnne Rohricht, Kari Kleven, Mary Stadick, Rick Meierotto, Joan Meierotto, Diane Judd, Susie Judd, Kristy Mitchell, Amy Enger, Kurt Rentschler and Dean Stynsberg.

The Midwest Food Alliance (MWFA) is a joint effort of LSP, Cooperative Development Services and the Organic Alliance. Through an on-farm certification system, the MWFA seal of approval is being granted to food that is produced by local farmers who use sustainable methods and adhere to social justice guidelines.

This fall, apples were featured under the MWFA program. More products will be added to the label once the certification, processing and distribution system is expanded.

For more information, contact Jim Ennis at 651-265-3684, or Ray Kirsch at 651-653-0618.
You can also learn more about the Midwest Food Alliance by checking out the Food and Farm Connections department on the LSP website.

Back to top

LAND STEWARDSHIP LETTER FOLLOW-UP

A periodic update of articles that have appeared in the Land Stewardship Letter

•July/August 1996
LSP’s sulfide tests prompt officials to investigate manure lagoon toxins
When people living near a lagoon holding millions of gallons of liquid livestock manure say they are sick more often than not, is it real or imagined? A study done by the University of North Carolina’s School of Public Health has found that in the case of three rural communities, such health complaints are very real.

Researchers conducted 155 interviews in the three North Carolina communities. One set of interviews was done in the vicinity of a 6,000 head hog operation, one near two large scale cattle feeding operations and a third set in a farming area without livestock operations that use liquid manure waste management systems.

People near the large hog operation reported increased occurrences of headaches, runny nose, sore throat, excessive coughing, diarrhea and burning eyes as compared to residents of the community with no large-scale confinement livestock operations. Quality of life, as indicated by the number of times residents could not open their windows or go outside even in nice weather, was greatly reduced among people who lived near the hog operation. More than half of the respondents in the hog community, as compared to fewer than a fifth in the other two areas, reported not being able to open windows or go outside even in nice weather a dozen or more times over the previous six months, according to the study, the results of which were published in the March 2000 edition of Environmental Health Perspectives.

In an interview-type study like this, one big question emerges: How many of these symptoms are due to the residents’ overall negative feelings toward large-scale livestock operations? Steven Wing, one of the epidemiologists who conducted the study, says if that was the case then there would have been higher than normal reports of most symptoms, not just some that were on the questionnaire.

"In fact, the eight symptoms in the miscellaneous category, none of which were expected to be related to exposure to airborne emissions, occurred with about the same frequency in the hog and control communities," says Wing. "This suggests that there was not a tendency for over-reporting among residents of the hog community."

•August/September 1997
Anatomy of a Manure Spill
Dennis Kingstrom and manure handling just don’t mix. In August, the man behind Minnesota’s largest documented manure-caused fish kill had yet another accident. This time a hose he was using to pump out a lagoon leaked, flooding an entire acre of a sugar beet field with liquid manure. The incident prompted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to scrape six inches of topsoil off the field in order to control groundwater contamination.

This is Kingstrom’s third spill in as many years, and it serves as an example of how accidents like this can bring about a kind of harmonic (or should it be "manuric?") convergence. The lagoon Kingstrom was pumping (he runs a manure hauling business on the side) is owned by ValAdCo, a large hog cooperative that has been an environmental disaster since it started operating in Renville County. The sugar beet field Kingstrom flooded is owned by Mike Tisdale. Tisdale was one of the original investors and promoters of ValAdCo, and spent the mid-1990s fighting local citizens who were concerned about the environmental impacts of hog factories. Tisdale is now involved in a lawsuit against ValAdCo, charging, among other things, that the cooperative is violating laws that regulate corporate control of Minnesota agriculture.

Meanwhile, Christiansen Farms and Feedlots, for whom Kingstrom was raising hogs when his facility killed more than 690,000 fish in 1997, is now the eighth largest hog producer in the country, according to Successful Farming magazine. That’s up from 15th place in 1999.

•November 1998
Biodiversity & Agriculture: A House Divided
A massive experiment in China has shown that biodiversity in agriculture is more than a nice concept—it’s a doable reality that can have some significant payoffs.

By planting a mixture of two different kinds of rice in the same plots, farmers in that country were able to slash the incidence of rice blast, a devastating disease in that part of the world. In fact, by the second year of the experiment, the participating farmers were able to drop their use of chemical fungicides, according to the study, the results of which were published in the Aug. 24, 2000, edition of the scientific journal Nature.

The study, which is ongoing, covers 100,000 acres and involves tens of thousands of farmers. The participating farmers have been planting disease-resistant rice alongside rice that is blast-prone (the blast-prone rice is a sticky variety that sells for a higher price). What the farmers found was that a row of disease resistant rice could block airborne blast spores.

Researchers also found a "multiplier effect" with this type of biodiversity. As the New York Times describes it: "Resistant plants did block the airborne spores in a field, but as more and more farmers became involved in the study, these positive effects began to multiply across the region. Not only were disease spores not blowing in from the next row, they were no longer coming from the next farmer’s field either or the next or the next, rapidly damping the spread of the disease on a grand scale."

•January/February/March 1999
The Thing That Ate Agriculture
When attempting one of the largest takeovers in agribusiness history, a guy needs some good advice from a savvy insider.

Joseph Luter III knows this. So when Luter, who is the chairman and chief executive of Smithfield Foods Inc., made a bid this fall to buy meat giant IBP Inc., he hired one of the most "inside" insiders available: Joel Klein. Before his recent resignation, Klein was the head of the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust division. In fact, he came to South St. Paul, Minn., in April 1999 to hear complaints from nearly 1,000 farmers who were concerned about the consolidation of agriculture. The meeting, which the Land Stewardship Project helped organize, brought to a head discussions over the threats agribusiness mergers pose to a fair and competitive food marketing system.

Klein said at the meeting that "…when we have the facts, we are not afraid to act" in terms of enforcing antitrust laws. However, despite an unprecedented run of mega-mergers in the months following the meeting, Klein took little action.

Perhaps the antitrust expert didn’t want to ruin any future employment opportunities. In an article that ran in the Nov. 17 Des Moines Register, Luter said he had hired Klein to take a look at his proposal to buy out IBP for an unsolicited $4.1 billion. According to Luter, Klein feels the buyout would pose no antitrust problems.

"It will all pass muster," Luter told the Register.

That’s an amazing conclusion, considering the circumstances: Smithfield is already the world’s largest pork producer and processor, and IBP is the top U.S. beef processor. IBP is number two in pork processing. One estimate is that if Luter is successful in buying out IBP, Smithfield will control 36 percent and 33 percent of U.S. pork and beef processing respectively.

LSP, working with the Campaign for Family Farms, has vowed to fight the merger.

"First Smithfield bought out John Morrell, then Dakota Pork, then Murphy Farms, and now they want IBP," says Mark Schultz, LSP’s Policy Program Director. "That means family farm hog producers are being systematically excluded from the market. This needs to stop now."

USDA officials, as well as members of Congress, have expressed concerns about the buyout proposal. But at this writing, there was no word on whether the government would take action to stop it.

•April/May 1999
Selling the Farm Down Contract Creek
It was announced in September that 16 state attorneys general have drafted model legislation that would give farmers more protection when negotiating production contracts.

Led by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, the effort is an attempt to curb the abuses farmers say they are receiving under contracts for production of commodities crops and livestock. For example, there are documented cases of farmers who raise hogs for a processor actually getting into a position where they owe money to the processor at the end of a contract period. In addition, farmers who raise poultry on contract have sometimes found the agreement is pulled after they’ve already made major investments in buildings and equipment.

The model legislation would, among other things, require contracts to be in plain English and contain disclosure of material risks, while prohibiting confidentiality clauses that prevent farmers from discussing and comparing the terms with their neighbors, lawyers or bankers. Producers could also not have contracts terminated "capriciously or as a form of retribution" if farmers have already made a sizable capital investment required by the contracts.

Besides Iowa, the model legislation was drafted by the attorneys general of Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It’s hoped legislatures in those states will use the model law as a guide for implementing contract protections. In October, a federal version of the "Agricultural Producer Protection Act" was introduced into Congress by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin.

For more information on the model legislation, as well as copies of more than 30 real contracts being used today, check out www.iowaattorneygeneral.org. Click on "Farm Advocacy," and then go to "Contracts."

Contract salaries
Speaking of contracts, a troubling trend emerged in a recent analysis of financial returns for contract hog producers. The analysis, done by University of Minnesota economist Bill Lazarus, found that in 1997, contract hog producers earned on average $10.92 per hour. But in 1998 they made $10.27, and by 1999 their hourly income was $6.36.

Lazarus, who believes in general that contracting can be a good tool for reducing risk, was quoted in an Extension Service press release as saying that such a downward trend is "worrisome."

•June/July/August 1999
Behind Every Good Food, is a Good Farmer
In a rare recognition of the importance of local food systems, the USDA is spending $65,000 to help promote links between Iowa farmers who direct market and institutional buyers of food such as hospitals and schools. The matching grant, which was awarded to that state’s agriculture department, will, among other things, create guides on institutional marketing for producers and buyers and develop two new local-foods projects.

•September/October 1999
The 3 F’s: Farming, Fertilizing & Fishing
When it comes to the rate of nitrate-nitrogen runoff, there’s no comparison between row crops like corn and perennial plants like hay or grass, according to an ongoing tile drainage study that’s been taking place in southwest Minnesota since 1973.

Nitrate-nitrogen runoff in row crop fields is 30 to 50 times higher when compared to fields planted to perennial plants, according to University of Minnesota soil scientist Gyles Randall. About 70 percent of the annual nitrate-nitrogen losses in drainage occur in April, May and June.

Back to top

BOOK REVIEWS

An American Mosaic: Prose and Poetry by Everyday Folk
Edited by Robert Wolf
Illustrations by Bonnie Koloc
1999
328 pages
$17.95 (paperback)
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016

Reviewed by Pat Deninger

Robert Wolf has been a life-long wanderer. A runaway at 16, he traveled back and forth across the United States for years, emulating his heroes—John Muir, Woody Guthrie, Jack Kerouac. Fueled by their stories and inspired by the "sinewy, eternally moving" images of Thomas Hart Benton, Wolf relentlessly sought out Americans to put faces to the writers’ stories, text to the painter’s images.

By 1990, Wolf found himself in Nashville, Tenn., hired to teach high school-level classes to life-hardened homeless men and women—many with diplomas, some with college degrees. He quickly scrapped his lesson plans and hit upon a way to bring story and experience to him, rather than to perpetually seek it out.

The result is An American Mosaic, an impressive first volume of what he hopes will be a quarter-century of volumes of people sharing their work and lives.

Wolf drew out their stories through a writing workshop format that encouraged oral storytelling first, written accounts later. He continued this program when he moved to eastern Iowa and found that "farm families … needed a public voice as much as the homeless."

He was able to transplant the format to a wholly different group of people because, as Wolf says in the introduction to the "Rural America" section, fragmentation seems to be a central component to American life. The wealthy ignore the needs of the homeless and mentally ill. Urban dwellers and federal lawmakers tacitly ignore the needs of rural citizens and their crumbling communities. Many of us move away from home, searching for ill-defined wealth (when often our greatest riches are to be found at home.)

Repairing that fragmentation, restoring vibrant rural economies, mending social divisions and including all people may never occur, Wolf admits. But he believes his writers’ contributions are an effort in that direction.

American Mosaic is not political, but the total of so many voices decrying the current barriers and recounting rich, community-minded pasts, can’t help but focus a reader’s attention on a better way.

Lean & mean
The book is separated into sections: "Poetry and Prose by the Homeless"; "Rural America: The Midwest"; "Communal Life"; and "The River and the Delta."

The snatches of prose and poetry by the homeless, Iowa farmers and their spouses, Mississippi River towboat captains and life-long residents of a place are straightforward and unadorned.

And to be honest, some accounts, especially in the "Rural America" section, might even seem a bit too familiar for Midwestern readers used to farm history. But to skip them would be a shame, because there’s much here that surprises and illuminates.
Wolf begins with the homeless writers’ contributions. Their work is charged with more force, more immediacy. It’s truly... hungrier.

Former prisoner Joe Goller wrote a brutal poem called "When My Life is Gone":

When my life is gone
Don’t even bury me
Don’t want no flowers
Or trees growing over me

When my life is gone
Keep my name forever silent
Lest the winds carry it
And destroy my eternal peace

When my life is gone
Shed no tears for me
It would be such a waste
To weep over your enemy

When my life is gone
Set my soul aflame
Lest it get away from me
And hinder my escape

Among the rural-life stories, organic farmer Greg Welsh’s story is among the best. He recounts how eagerly leaving the farm at high-school graduation introduced him to a world less repetitive and physically exhausting.

"My world expanded with each new possibility, each new friend, each new bit of knowledge … even as it shrank from the lack of intimacy with the people and things that formed my heart."

Eventually he returned to the farm and now makes a living with a closer bond to family, community and land.

"… the true quality of both the soil and the spirit, of all life, should not be judged on what it is at any given moment … but should be loved for the emergent things they are."

There’s also a good deal of humor. In "The Midnight Watch Change," towboat captain Jack Libbey talks about river life. As background, he notes that "My first trip on a tug was as a deckhand. I wanted to explore the possibilities of becoming a pilot. If it turned out to be dead-end trail, I would attend medical school and become a dermatologist." (A natural career progression, to be sure.)

There are flickers of real literary beauty here. Barb Mitchell conjures a lovely image in an essay on aprons: "[My mother] played peek-a-boo with many babies with her apron. If it was a bad day she threw it over her face to cry ..."

Farm wife Esther Welsh summarizes a life—perhaps all our lives: "As time goes by, our hopes and dreams may change a bit, our ambition may fade, but we continue to see God in the things we do and in the people we meet, and we know that we all need one another."

Land Stewardship Project member Pat Deninger lives and writes in southwest Wisconsin.

The Memory of Old Jack
By Wendell Berry
1999
170 pages
$13.50 paperback
Counterpoint Press
10 E. 53rd Street, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10022
www.counterpointpress.com

Reviewed by Tim King

Wendell Berry’s 1974 novel, The Memory of Old Jack, could be seen by careless readers as being about some quaint old style of agriculture no longer relevant. After all, Berry, a Kentucky farmer and philosopher, first published the book a quarter of a century ago. But the 1999 reissue of this book by Counterpoint Press demonstrates that the publishing world believes there is an audience for the more lasting message Berry had in mind.

The broader message of The Memory of Old Jack is about the ability of a strong man to triumph in the face of crushing failure.

Berry’s story is written in a nearly Biblical style and many of its characters—Ruth, Ben and Mat—are of biblical stature. Jack Beechum, the "Old Jack" of the title, is a Job-like character who is strengthened, and who then becomes magnificent, in a quiet sort of country way, by his suffering.

It was Jack’s growing faith that made him strong. But he didn’t abide by the pretensions of churches, although he met his wife at a country church. Beechum’s faith, which he fell away from and was born to again, was in his relationship to his land and his toil. His faith was also in the neighbors who shared this way of life and way of thinking.

We first meet Jack Beechum, the old man, standing on the porch of a town where he has recently moved from his farm to await death. Jack is standing on the hotel steps listening, not to the waking of the town, but to the waking of Matt Feltner’s farm and the other farms that are so close to and a part of the intertwined farm community of Port William. Throughout the book Jack, in town, is watched over by and watches the farm and the farmers. In this day of apparent but tragic severance between farm and city, the umbilical connection between the two in The Memory of Old Jack suggests a different possibility.

Writes Berry: "Alert, absent in what he knew, the old man stood on the porch in the chill whitening of the dawn, empty of himself as a public statue while all in him that had kept most alive lived here in the waking barn with Matt.

"And he has continued to stand there while the cries of roosters have flared and flared again across the ridges, and the daylight and then the sunlight have come. He has heard the waking of other farms, the summoning of stock from the pastures, the occasional bawling of a cow. He has heard the tractors start, the wagons lumbering to the fields."

These sounds bring forth Jack’s first memory of the book: the purchase of a team of fine, high-stepping mare mules in 1888. Jack, like any good farmer, remembers who he bought them from: Graham Forsee, in September of that year.

Readers spend the day with Old Jack, wandering from hotel to general store to barber shop to dinner at Matt’s farm to shady bench back in town back to supper at the hotel. And Jack, who tries to ward off the torment of the memories of his life and its wrong turnings, cannot accomplish this task.

We see Jack at his youngest when, as a boy, he watches his two brothers ride off to die in the War Between the States. When news of the brothers’ death reaches the farm, his mother never recovers from her grief. The house becomes a permanent monument to her suffering, and young Jack, in search of life, turns to the fields and woods. It is there that he is born, lives and dies.

When Jack is in his late twenties he pays off the money be borrowed to buy his father’s farm. Jack was a vital specimen of a young man. But he was full of himself and unaware of his limits. From his early triumphs he falls.

His courtship of Ruth is luscious. But his marriage to her is immediately a disaster. His attempt to expand his farm ends in a vicious fight with his hired hand, whom he loves, and financial ruin and a heavy mortgage on his farm. He is estranged from his daughter and falls in love with a woman who is not his wife. An arsonist burns his barn. He nearly drowns himself and his team of horses. But again, he clears his farm of debt. On the day he goes to the bank to pay off the mortgage he returns home with a new vision and looks out over his farm: "After such grievous spending, enough, more than enough, remains. There is more. He lost his life, and now he has found it again."

It was then, overlooking his farm with a new understanding, that the meaning of the psalm his sister had taught him became clear: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies; thou annointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over."

Amidst the suffering and failure of Jack Beechum’s life he only had to have faith and turn his head slightly to see his cup was full to overflowing. That is the triumph of The Memory of Old Jack and its creator, Wendell Berry.

Tim King writes and farms near Long Prairie, Minn.

Back to top

THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS

Courtesy of Mega-Livestock Corporations

1. On the First Day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
A water testing kit for our well

2. On the Second Day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well

3. On the Third Day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Three fly swatters, two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well.

4. On the fourth day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Four sets of waders, three fly swatters, two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well

5. On the fifth day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Five moving signs, four sets of waders, three fly swatters, two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well

6. On the sixth day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Six health notices, five moving signs, four sets of waders, three fly swatters, two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well

7. On the seventh day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Seven shops closing, six health notices, five moving signs, four sets of waters, three fly swatters, two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well

8. On the eighth day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Eight crying farm wives, seven shops closing, six health notices, five moving signs, four sets of waders, three fly swatters, two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well

9. On the ninth day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Nine depressed farmers, eight crying farm wives, seven shops closing, six health notices, five moving signs, four sets of waders, three fly swatters, two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well

10. On the tenth days of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Ten doctors’ bills, nine depressed farmers, eight crying farm wives, seven shops closing, six health notices, five moving signs, four sets of waders, three fly swatters, two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well

11. On the eleventh day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Eleven prescriptions for Valium, ten doctors’ bills, nine depressed farmers, eight crying farm wives, seven shops closing, six health notices, five moving signs, four sets of waders, three fly swatters, two gas masks and a water testing kit for our well

12. On the twelfth day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
A plane ticket to another state!!!!!!!!

— Submitted by Karen Hudson, an Illinois farmer and founding member of Families against Rural Messes (F.A.R.M.). Hudson and F.A.R.M. can be contacted at 309-742-8895, or www.farmweb.org.

Back to top

HELP LSP SECURE A STRONG FUTURE

Act now to take advantage of these great opportunities

Enjoy the benefits of giving securities
Planning to make an end-of-the-year contribution to LSP? Save your cash and make a charitable gift of securities to LSP and reap a double tax benefit. If you hold marketable securities that have increased in value, you can avoid paying capital gains that you would pay if you sold the stock. Also, you will get a federal income tax deduction based on the current fair market value of the security you give, regardless of what it originally cost. To make the gift, ask your stockbroker to supply the form you need to fill out, and then contact Ron Rengel in LSP’s White Bear Lake office about your plans.

Double your gift to LSP on the WWW
The Land Stewardship Project’s Web site now accepts secure credit card donations on-line. Go to the Join Us—Get Involved section. From now until December 31, 2000, donations up to a total of $1,000 received through our Web page will be matched by contribute.com.

Take this opportunity to renew your membership, give a gift membership, or give an additional donation to further LSP’s work.

Back to top

OPPORTUNITIES/RESOURCES

Sustainable education
Educational and Training Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture lists contact information for nonprofit organizations, schools and government agencies that provide opportunities for learning about alternative farming methods. There are listings for Canada as well as the U.S.

For a free copy of the directory’s 2000 edition, contact: Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, National Agricultural Library, Rm. 304, 10301 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705-2351; phone: 301-504-6559; Web site: www.nal.usda.gov/afsic.


Prairie restoration
Going Native: A prairie restoration handbook for Minnesota landowners, is just what its name implies. Packed within this 52-page manual are the basics of planting a small (up to 20 acres) stand of native prairie. Written by former Land Stewardship Project staffer Rebecca Kilde, Going Native covers how to plan a planting, the best way to obtain seeds and plants, site preparation, planting and maintenance.

For a copy of this free publication, call The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at 651-296-6157 (the toll free number within Minnesota is 1-888-646-6367). You can also download it from the Internet by logging onto www.dnr.state.mn.us and clicking on the "Publications" department.

The Greenbook
The theme of the 2000 edition of the Greenbook is "Marketing Sustainable Agriculture." Besides essays on marketing the products of sustainable agriculture, this 184-page book is full of summaries of 46 on-farm research and demonstration grant projects that are funded by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Program. Research topics covered in this year’s book include Alternative Crops, Cropping Systems and Soil Fertility, Fruits and Vegetables, Learning Systems, Livestock, and Whole Farm Systems. This is a good resource for anyone who is looking for practical information on the viability of basic sustainable production techniques.

For a free copy, call 651-296-7673. You can also view the Greenbook by logging onto www.mda.state.mn.us and clicking on "New Publications."

Sustainable ag trip to Mexico
Sustainable coffee production and fair trade issues will be the subject of a travel seminar to Chiapas, Mexico, March 24 to April 1.

Participants will learn about agronomic and biological aspects of small-scale and organic coffee production, as well as have opportunities to talk to farmers and others about economic and human rights concerns in the region.

The cost of the trip is $490, not including airfare. A $100 deposit is due by Feb. 15. This trip is being coordinated by Cloudforest Initiatives, and is co-sponsored by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA), What’s Up in Sustainable Agriculture (WUSA), Fair Trade Federation and Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

For more information, contact Mya Follansbee by calling 651-592-4143, or e-mailing cloudforest@hwpics.com. You can also get more information by checking out www.cloudforest-mexico.org.


Local schools—local food
A Step-by-Step Guide on How to Bring Small Farms and Local Schools Together is a USDA publication that provides guidelines on how to approach local school lunch officials and convince them to buy locally produced food. It provides very detailed information, down to what speakers and handout materials to include in meetings. This 14-page booklet is based on the experiences of people who have organized "farm-to-school" projects in California, Connecticut, Florida and North Carolina.

A copy can be downloaded from www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch (click on "Small Farms/School Meal Initiative"). It takes a relatively fast modem about eight minutes to download the document. To order the brochure through regular mail, call Ty Couey at 703-605-0765, or e-mail him at ty.couey@fns.usda.gov.

Back to top

STEWARDSHIP CALENDAR

•JAN. 3 — Opening of the 82nd session of the Minnesota Legislature; Contact LSP’s Policy Program at 612-722-6377 for information on legislation that affects rural communities & sustainable agriculture
•MID-JANUARY — Slide Show & Discussion on Watershed Hydrology, Presented by the Sand Creek Watershed Team, New Prague, Minn., area; Contact: Caroline van Schaik, LSP, 651-653-0618; caroline@landstewardshipproject.org
•JAN. 12-13 — Holistic Management course, Rochester, Minn.; Contact: Karen Stettler, LSP, 507-523-3366; stettler@landstewardshipproject.org
•Practical Farmers of Iowa Annual Meeting, Ames, Iowa; Contact: 515-294-8512
•JAN. 16 — LSP’s Dana Jackson will speak on sustainable agriculture at winter meeting of American Association of University Women, St. Paul, Minn.
•JAN. 18-20 — Wisconsin School for Beginning Market Gardeners, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Contact: 608-265-3704; jhendric@facstaff.wisc.edu
•JAN. 19-21 — Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group 10th Annual Conference & Trade Show, Chattanooga, Tenn.; Contact: 225-654-2017; tonihawk@tlxnet.net
•JAN. 21 — An Evening of Storytelling in Southern Minnesota, Wells Theater, Wells, Minn.; Contact: South Central Chapter of the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota, 507-256-4888 or 507-256-4839
•JAN. 24 — Is Grazing and/or Organic Dairying Right for Your Farm?, Alexandria, Minn.; Contact: 320-255-6169; jsalfer@extension.umn.edu
•JAN. 26-27 — 3rd Annual Value Added Conference, Eau Claire, Wis.; Contact: Jody Padgham, 608-262-0705
•JAN. 27 — Local Food Systems Conference, Iowa City, Iowa; Contact: 515-232-5649 or 515-495-6367
•JAN. 27-28 — Profit From Livestock Seminar, featuring Charlie Opitz & Sally Fallon, Minot, N. Dak.; Contact: 800-468-9968
•JAN. 31-FEB.1 — Minnesota Grazing Conference, Morton; Contact: Jan Gunnink, 507-237-5162; dgunnink@prairie.lakes.com
•EARLY FEB. or MARCH — Annual Meeting of LSP members in southeast Minnesota (details to be announced); Contact: 507-523-3366
•FEB. 1 — Governing GMOs: Developing Policy in the Face of Scientific & Public Debate, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Contact: 888-671-6214; www.conferences.umn.edu/mn/policy/
•FEB. 1-3 — Upper Midwest Regional Fruit & Vegetable Growers Conference & Trade Show, St. Cloud, Minn.; Contact: 763-434-0400
•FEB. 2 — Application Deadline for grant proposals to the USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education program (north central region); Contact: 402-472-7081; www.sare.org/ncrsare
•FEB. 2-4 — Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society’s Winter Conference, Aberdeen, S. Dak.; Contact: 701-883-4304; www.npsas.org
•FEB. 8-9 — Minnesota Organic Conference, St. Cloud; Contact: Jan Gunnink, 507-237-5162; dgunnink@prairie.lakes.com
•FEB. 14-16 — Advanced Organic Vegetable Production Workshop, Jefferson City, Mo.; Contact: Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, 262-642-3303; gkahovic@mfai.org
•FEB. 17 — LSP’s Dana Jackson will be a keynote speaker at the Vermont meeting of the Natural Organic Farming Association, Randolph, Vt.
•FEB. 18-20 — Wisconsin Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Conference, Oconomowoc, Wis.; Contact: 920-478-4277
•FEB. 24 — Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota’s 10th Annual Meeting; St. John’s University, St. Cloud, Minn.; Contact: 218-445-5475; deebilek@wcta.net
•MARCH 3 — Keep the Tractors Running—Energy Efficiency & Alternatives (central Minnesota location to be announced); Contact: 320-594-2456
•MARCH 16-17 — Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conference, University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse; Contact: 715-772-6819; www.mosesorganic.org
•MARCH 21-23 — North Central Region Small Farm Conference, University of Illinois-Springfield; Contact: Debi Kelly, 573-882-1905; www.aces.uiuc.edu/~asap/smallfarm
•MARCH 30 — Deadline for SARE program grant applications for the North Central Region, Contact: 402-472-7081; www.sare.org/ncrsare
•JUNE 6-9 — Who Owns America?-III: Minority Land & Community Security, Madison, Wis.; Contact: 608-262-3658
•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 Home Page