 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Daring to Drop DrugsIndustrial ag says ending the use of antibiotics as livestock growth-promotants would bring about radical changes in farming. Guess what? Industrial ag is right (last in a series). By Brian DeVore It's an overcast, unseasonably cool July morning in the northwest corner
of Iowa, with stop and go rain showers delaying the small grains harvest
yet again on the Wilson farm. Such weather can bring a lot of frustration
and stress to the land, as farmers watch the value of their crop diminish
with every falling raindrop. But Colin Wilson seems to be unconcerned
about the rotten weather as he stands in a roomy shed holding a speckled
baby pig. Other piglets, along with their mothers, are sleeping, feeding
or playing in the deep-straw bedding that covers the building's floor.
The shed is full of contented, muffled sounds. Stress and frustration
aren't present in this particular scene, and, Wilson explains to a visitor,
that's a major reason these baby pigs will not need antibiotics during
their lifetime on the farm. Less stress means less of a need for drugs
that can help keep pigs healthy and productive. "Our philosophy is that if that sow is real comfortable and content,
she'll do a good job of taking care of her pigs, raising pigs, and that's
been proven out," says Wilson as he returns the piglet to its mother. This scene isn't just fodder for an Americanized James Herriot story.
It's proof that through good genetics, revamped housing and management
based on solid animal husbandry, hogs can be raised without pharmaceuticals. The Wilson pigs certainly are not the norm. In fact, during the past
50 years, antibiotics have nothing short of revolutionized meat, poultry
and dairy production (see March/April 2002 Land
Stewardship Letter). In fact, large-scale total confinement livestock
production is possible because of the development of pharmaceuticals that
can be administered to animals living under less than optimal conditions.
This isn't just a case of treating sick animals for specific illnesses.
In fact, U.S. livestock are fed more than 24 million pounds of antibiotics
annually for purposes other than to treat disease, according to the Union
of Concerned Scientists. These "subtherapeutic" dosages are
being used to increase feed efficiency and put pounds of meat on faster.
Physicians, scientists and, Large livestock producers, along with the feedstuffs and pharmaceutical
industries, respond that even minimal antibiotic restrictions would lead
to the demise of animal farming, as we know it. But a growing number of farmers across the country are now producing
pork, beef, poultry and milk without putting subtherapeutic dosages of
antibiotics in the feed to promote growth. In the case of Colin Wilson,
many of his pigs are raised with no antibiotics-therapeutic or subtherapeutic.
How do these farmers do without a tool that some think is as integral
to livestock production as tractors are to grain farming? It all goes back to that quiet scene in the Wilson farrowing shed and
everything the farmer has done to relieve the animals' stress levels (the
ventilation fans are even placed in such a way to reduce mechanical noise,
leaving more acoustic room for "pig noises"). It sounds simple.
But when one examines what has to be done to reduce that stress, it becomes
apparent that, indeed, the livestock industry at large may be right: animal
farming cannot be done without the use of antibiotics. Animal farming
that requires total confinement on a large scale, that is. Smaller-scale,
management-intensive operations able to respond more to the needs of the
animals have an edge when it comes to drug-free production. Nowhere is
that being seen more clearly than in the hog industry, which is second
only to poultry in the amount of antibiotics it uses. Reversing the Wash Cycle Paul Willis, an Iowa hog farmer who also serves as a field coordinator
for Niman, says the biggest challenge for farmers considering drug-free
production is overcoming "the brainwashing they've had over the years."
Any problem, any shortcoming in management, can be fixed with a pharmaceutical,
goes this old way of thinking. But Willis is careful not to make dropping
drugs sound too easy. "We hardly ever find a farmer who meets all of our criteria right
away," says Willis. "There almost always is a transition period." Niman only buys animals that are raised in a low-stress, humane, environment.
That means they have to be raised on pasture or in deep-straw systems
and given plenty of room to move around and do all the things pigs love
to do. The company also requires that the pigs be raised on small and
medium sized family farms. The company's producers range in size from
five to 500 sows. Even top-notch hog farmers who have long toyed with alternative production
methods find it's difficult to go antibiotic-free right away. Indeed,
for the Wilsons there was a significant period of transition, even though
the family had never used a whole lot of antibiotics in their swine enterprise.
To go totally drug-free, the brothers had to make significant adjustments
to their genetics. Hogs bred for confinement lack many of the traits needed
to do well in a more natural environment. "For example, it takes a sow that's very sensitive to the pigs around
her," says Wilson, adding that it took about three years for them
to get their genetics right. What they found was that sows bred for confinement
relied on narrow farrowing crates to keep from crushing their pigs. The
Wilsons needed sows that knew how to keep their pigs alive in the more
open environment found in a straw-bedded building or pasture hut. "You
can't just go out and buy new genetics, you have to develop it." That calm atmosphere in the farrowing shed on the rainy July day is a
sign that one aspect of their transition into drug-free production has
succeeded. These sows fairly ooze with maternal instinct, even as they
get along well with the other sows in the communal housing. But the Wilsons also had to relearn what they knew about such basics
as housing and pig movement. Dan Wilson went to Sweden six years ago to
check out the deep straw system farmers use to raise pigs during the winter.
He learned how the Swedes grouped litters so that so much labor and time
wasn't spent moving pigs. To supplement their pasturing farrowing enterprise,
the Wilsons established deep straw systems in a pole shed and built a
"hoop house"-a Quonset hut-shaped structure constructed of metal
arches and fabric. On a per pig basis, the Wilsons' deep straw system
cost them about a third of what it would to build a total confinement
operation. Today, the Wilsons are consistently producing pigs throughout the year
without the use of antibiotics. Still, it's not without its hitches. Last
summer they ended up treating a whole hoop house full of pigs with antibiotics
after the animals came down with a couple of different intestinal and
respiratory bugs. The sickness came at a time when the family did not
have the time or labor available to treat individual pigs as they have
in the past (treated pigs are tagged, separated out and marketed through
conventional channels when it comes time to ship a batch off to Niman).
That means the whole batch was ineligible to receive the Niman price premium. "So that was a case where a broad spectrum antibiotic pretty much
took care of it," says Colin. "But you're going to have situations
like that. And you're going to have to make a judgment call as to which
direction you're going to go." The real cost of a ban Part of the reason is that so many producers feel their only choice is
to stop using antibiotics within the framework of current production systems.
Faced with that choice, drug-free production doesn't look so attractive. Banning over-the-counter antibiotics for swine farming would increase
production costs per pig by $6.05 initially, and by $5.25 at the end of
10 years, according to a 1999 Iowa State University analysis. That's a
major hit, particularly with pork prices at record lows. However, the analysis, which was funded by the National Pork Producers
Council, assumed antibiotic-free hogs would still be raised in total confinement.
For total confinement to pay, it must make the most use of every square
inch. That's because it is so expensive to build such facilities and to
manage the liquid waste they produce. The Iowa State researchers concluded
that the way to produce hogs without subtherapeutic antibiotics in total
confinement was to provide more space. Just adding 10 percent more floor
space would cost $115 per head in a nursery and $165 per head for a finishing
facility, according to the analysis. But there's one thing wrong with this scenario: it does not consider
the Dan and Colin Wilsons of the world. What would happen if hogs were
raised in an alternative system that utilized deep-bedded straw and pasture
farrowing, for example? The Wilsons do not use confinement crates, so
their sows are running in an area of 30 to 35 square feet, about double
the space found in a confinement operation. Because of their low infrastructure
costs, the brothers can get away with not treating space as such a dear
commodity. More research University of Illinois researchers recently found that feeding five different
antibiotic-free rations produced rates of gain equal to what can be gotten
with medicated rations. A scientist in the United Kingdom has reported
that adding a sugar found in pig's milk to feed promotes the growth of
beneficial flora in a pig's gut. As a result, the pigs do just as well
as if they were fed antibiotics, but no resistant bacteria develop. Wilson is excited that more private companies, seeing the market potential
farmers like him offer, are developing probiotics and other products that
promote naturally healthy animals, thus reducing the need for medication.
"Because of programs like Niman I can now buy commercial pig starter
that has no animal by-products in it. So some of the smaller feed companies
are starting to gear up because they've found a market. If we're going
to be sustainable that's what we've gotta have. All the way down the chain
you've got to have people working together." Not just a niche "I guess I hope we don't get to the point where it's antibiotic
free and that's it. That's the only distinction. Everything else is the
same," says Wilson. His swine production enterprise isn't a benefit to society simply because
of the lack of drugs. It is part of an integrated system that focuses
on minimizing other environmental impacts as much as possible. For example,
the straw bedding is made from small grains straw. Small grains such as
barley and oats reduce soil erosion while naturally breaking up pest cycles
in crop rotations. Between batches of pigs, the Wilsons push the straw
bedding, which is now mixed with manure, out of the buildings for further
composting. That compost is later used to fertilize the crops the family
raises on 800 acres of farmland. Studies show composed manure improves
soil quality while cutting erosion rates. And all of this is part of a
diverse farming operation that supports two families. That's why Niman Ranch has as part of its criteria that the hogs are
raised by independent family farmers using humane methods. The Midwest
Food Alliance, a sustainable seal of approval developed by the Land Stewardship
Project and Cooperative Development Services, has similar stipulations. Niman's Willis says that consumers respond to the idea that their meat
is being raised by family farmers who are treating the animals well. However,
there's something even more practical behind the criteria: Food writers
for such respected publications as the New York Times have raved about
the outstanding taste of Niman pork. And it's quality based on well-rounded
sustainable production that will keep consumers coming back even when
the factory farm producers figure out how to cut drugs. "Our criteria are good welfare, antibiotic-free and family farmer
raised," says Willis. "In combination these things happen to
produce a good tasting product. I think it's more than a coincidence."
top
top |
|
|||||
|
A Modest Proposalfor removing the burden of animal wastes upon the country and making them beneficial to the publicBy Ray Kirsch It is a sad truth that we are in this modern age up to our elbows with
difficulties of excess. One can hardly throw a brick without hitting some
young scribe or singer drabbling out the too much of this and the overflow
of that. Particularly distressing of late in this river of discontent
is the overflowing of animal manures in the kingdom. The number of livestock farms in the country is reckoned to be very near
one million. And in an indication of the depths to which we're being submerged,
these farms are home to 95 million "animal units," excreting
2.2 trillion pounds of manure each year. By most any estimate, a goodly
amount of excrement. And here good reader, the author is sorely tempted to pursue a digression
on "animal units." In lieu of such a lengthy and involved pursuit,
let us resolve.... with the following. Beyond any modicum of accounting usefulness, these "units"
are far more an indication of the gross failure of one species, homo sapiens,
in its evolutionary contract with the other species of the earth. As Mr.
Kundera sums, "In this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental
debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it."
So braced, let us proceed then and return to the subject at hand. Given this tremendous excrement burden, let not the gentle reader jump
too far to a conclusion. Most of this manure poundage is put to good use
fertilizing and improving the country's land. Indeed the manure is a treasure
of nutrients, most particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. And when used
on farms, these nutrients produce a bounty that keeps the urban citizenry
at bay, though they whine and complain the dollar day through. Nonetheless, there is an excess, a leftover slice of this 2.2 trillion
pounds that must be dealt with. A primary reason for this slice is the
demise of the farm and the rise of the confined animal feeding operation.
The alert reader will note that the latter is not a farm. Not in a literal
or figurative sense. It is a feeding operation. And thus (let us proceed
together, do not fear) an excrement operation. These operations and their like are not, as a farm may be, in nutrient
balance. Indeed, because of the confining of animals (not to mention our
ferocious appetite for animal flesh), the country has an excess of 1.4
billion pounds of nitrogen and 900 million pounds of phosphorus. And here
"excess" means these operations don't own or control enough
land to appropriately use these manure nutrients. To be thorough in our analysis, however, we must go one step further.
What about the neighbors? Couldn't the neighbors use some of these excess
nutrients? And the answer is-a qualified yes. Yes, they can use some of
the nutrients. But even here there are whole counties that cannot absorb
these wastes. Counties submerged in manure. Counties that to date have
survived only by hauling these wastes to terra incognita within the union.
Or over-applying excrement to the lands and streams of terra locale complete
with aquatic dead zones of all shapes and sizes. These rivers of excrement, these counties submerged, these hauling endeavors-to
be sure-they have not gone unnoticed. The brightest minds and patriots
of the kingdom have turned their attentions bootward. Proposed solutions
include energy production, industrial uses and central facilities for
treatment and processing. And indeed, as these are biological nutrients
of the first-order, practical, effective solutions are in demand. Therefore, I shall now humbly propose my own solution which I hope shall
meet with little objection. In light of the valuable nutrients involved and the poor nutrition of
the citizenry, particularly those whose poverty of time subjects them
to the miseries of fast food, I suggest that these nutrients be consumed
as a nutritious, wholesome food under the guise of the popular burger.
Thus, with approximately 290 million citizens in the land and roughly
2.3 billion pounds of excess excrement nutrients, the dividend is eight
pounds per person each year. Or in the more familiar language of quarter-pound
sandwiches-32 manure burgers. Granted, burgers composed completely of manure may be off-putting for
even the hungriest of scribes. Thus, I propose, that the manure be mixed
with real meat and other constituents in proportions that are practical.
If we assume a modest goal of 25 percent manure in our burgers, we have
a total of 128 burgers per year, or a little over two burgers per week
per person. For all parties concerned, an almost ideal rate of consumption. And certainly I draw here on the work of others who have proposed central
processing solutions of one sort or the other. Already food corporations
in the land are mixing lean, foreign meats with fatty, domestic meats
to create burgers Now I am certain there are readers who are skeptical of the solution
I propose. That it may not, among other concerns, be safe or acceptable
to the general public. And I must confess that I too had my initial doubts.
However, the dark clouds have been cleared away for me by the most fascinating
application of nuclear age technology-irradiation. I must confess that I had not intentionally pursued this breath of fresh
air. However, one can hardly avoid of late stumbling over what is certainly
an irradiation brouhaha on the streets and in the press. And such a stumble
I have taken. And though it seems there are competing views of this technology
that have brought its particular use with meat-like products to a zero
sum standstill, it is my intention to rise above this slinging, to proceed
upon that highest of plains-the public good. And here, as is frequently the case, the public is far ahead of the punditry.
It turns out that citizens of this great land are already participating
in an unscientific study of consuming irradiated manure burgers. Safety-conscious
fast food-eating consumers are gobbling up burgers that are zapped with
electron beams to kill lurking E. coli bacteria. And here good
reader, I pray, do not accept euphemisms. This is the real deal-excrement.
As Mr. Schlosser succinctly lassoes the subject, "There's shit in
the meat." The E. coli is not part of the animal; it's part
of the manure. The good news is that the irradiation is effective at neutralizing the
detrimental effects of the manure and loathsome manure-riding bacteria.
Granted, current manure levels are very low, mere droplets here and there.
Research will be necessary to examine the safety of burgers as the manure
level is increased. I propose rigorous studies at 5 percent increments
until we reach our goal of 25 percent manure content. Certainly safety
will be the focus of these studies. However, I see no reason why food
scientists could not also focus on other attributes-e.g. the possible
flavorful marinade effects that the manure might impart. Some consumers are wary-drawing the conclusion that irradiated burgers
might be radioactive or in some manner full of unhealthy by-products.
However, initial consumer survey results show this to be a small, over-educated
faction. Moreover, most customers feel that if the radiation has sufficiently
pummeled the manure and associated fiendish life forms into submission,
then the burger is most likely sterilized and safe for consumption. As for the taste or general acceptability of manure burgers, fast food
consumers are once again quashing all naysayers. Indeed, the primary concern
of fast food operators is that the burger tastes good. Fortunately, the
consumer response to date is just that-the burger does indeed taste good.
Here again, more research is needed. These burgers contain small manure
amounts and flavors may change as manure levels are increased. By all
means, we want to avoid any undesirable epicurean experiences. Again,
food scientists may aid our cause. Certainly there are tinctures and compounds
that could elevate an irradiated manure mélange into a mouth-watering
sandwich. I must remark that current efforts focused on fast food consumers are
directly on target. It should be noted that whereas the grocer must display
these irradiated manure products with a symbol to indicate their sterilization,
no such notice is needed at restaurants. Restaurants may sell all manner
of manure-laden products with nary a squeak. And at fast food restaurants
we combine this freedom with the most advantageous of consumers. For here
we find children and parents whose concern for their children's health
is ambivalent at best, providing what is almost certain to be a positive
response to these manured products and thus a springboard for further
societal acceptance, even acclaim. Thus, I believe the proposal here put forth has great promise and many
advantages. First, it will unburden our lands of animal excrement-especially those
counties currently hauling furiously to remain above the brown. Secondly, the bounty of nutrients in these manures shall be put to good
use nourishing the citizens of the kingdom. And here we might also include
our heartfelt concern for the poor and hungry in developing counties to
whom we may be able to export those products deemed inedible in our own
land. Thirdly, this proposal draws upon technologies already in use-namely
irradiation and the central processing of meat and related products. Indeed,
we should not be limited to manure in our thinking about burger constituents.
As I have previously noted, this is an age of excess. Certainly there
exist other looming crises that might be averted by piggybacking on this
proposal. Examples that quickly (and most unfortunately) come to mind
include heavy metals, sewage sludge and radioactive waste. The last is
a particularly interesting case as one can imagine a specific matching
of radioactive waste content to manure content such that the process of
irradiation may be unnecessary. The logistics and economics of such a
scheme are worthy of investigation. Fourthly, by appealing to fast food operators and consumers we sidestep
bothersome labeling requirements and those factions charged by such indicators
and instead engage time-challenged consumers-consumers who need not know
beyond taste and price. Thus, we greatly increase our chances for solving
a truly vexing problem in the kingdom. Finally, I am not so wedded to my own solution as to reject others proposed
by wise patriots of the union that are equally innovative, cheap and effective.
But before such authors advance their own schemes, I ask them to consider
thoroughly the merits of this proposal and the dire situation in the countryside
calling for direct and early action. I must profess that I offer this proposal with no other motive than the
public good of my country-to see our land and people freed of this excrement
excess and provided for with safe and nutritious foods. I myself have
no conflicts of interest, no financial stake in any processor, meat packer,
irradiator, or fast food operation, and no stocks of animal manure seeking
shelter. Thus, I ask the reader to look kindly upon this proposal and recommend
it as they see fit. Ray Kirsch is the Farm Coordinator for the Midwest
Food Alliance and a member of LSP's staff. Kirsch is chock-full of
modest proposals, and received inspiration for this particular one from
writer Jonathan Swift, who satirized in 1729 that the Irish could deal
with poverty by eating their children. For more on Swift and other references made in this essay, check out: top |
|
|||||
|
Farm Beginnings to start new classes in October & NovemberClasses for the 2002-2003 Farm Beginnings program begin Oct. 26 in southeast
Minnesota and Nov. 2 in the western part of the state. The deadline for
applying is Oct. 1 in western Minnesota and Oct. 9 in the southeast. The
classes usually fill by early fall, so those interested should apply soon. This is the sixth year the Land Stewardship Project has offered Farm
Beginnings classes in southeast Minnesota, and the third year for the
western Minnesota program. Farm Beginnings provides participants an opportunity
to learn firsthand about low-cost sustainable methods of farming. Of the more than 90 people who have graduated from the program, more
than 60 percent are involved in farming, according to Karen Stettler,
who coordinates the southeast Minnesota program. The program offers training
through a series of sessions during the fall and winter. Topics covered
include Goal Setting, Decision Making, Establishing a Business Plan, Money
Management, Biological Monitoring, and Innovative Marketing. But the foundation of the program is a mentorship component that links
established farmers with course participants through on-farm educational
tours. This farmer-to-farmer networking has proven immensely successful,
and Farm Beginnings participants have drawn on the expertise and experience
of farmers who are doing everything from management intensive rotational
grazing to commercial vegetable production. Farm Beginnings is again this year offering a zero-interest livestock loan program, made possible by a generous $250,000 grant from Heifer Project International. Through this program, LSP offers livestock to beginning farmers who have successfully completed the Farm Beginnings program, demonstrated financial need, and are prepared to care for the livestock. Want to participate? For the western Minnesota program, contact Amy Bacigalupo in LSP's Montevideo
office by calling 320-269-2105 or e-mailing amyb@landstewardshipproject.org. Hog farmers hail beef checkoff rulingHog farmers are applauding a June 21 ruling by a South Dakota Federal
judge that the mandatory beef checkoff program is unconstitutional and
should be terminated. They say the decision will help their fight to end
the mandatory pork checkoff, which is being challenged in Federal court
on similar grounds by the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF). The Land Stewardship
Project is a founding member of CFF. In the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Kornmann said the beef
checkoff violates cattle producers' basic rights under the First Amendment.
Kornmann's ruling said, "cattlemen should not be required to pay
for commercials-a form of speech-that they oppose...and that cattle producers
are being forced to pay for ads that benefit others that sell beef such
as restaurants and other retail outlets." Judge Kornmann also ordered
a halt to collections of the beef checkoff, into which cattle producers
pay approximately $80 million annually. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals
in Minneapolis granted the USDA a stay on Kornmann's order, pending appeals.
That means, for now, beef producers are still required to pay the checkoff. "It's unconscionable that the Bush administration's USDA continues
to require farmers to pay the pork and beef checkoff after nationwide
democratic votes and court decisions have made it clear it's time to stop
forcing farmers to pay," says Mark Schultz, LSP's Policy Program
Director. The CFF has a First Amendment lawsuit pending in Federal District Court
in western Michigan against the mandatory pork checkoff program. The group
says the pork checkoff violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on
hog producers' right to free speech by forcing them to pay into a program
that supports factory-style hog production and corporate control of the
industry, and is detrimental to their interests. "We don't support the mandatory pork checkoff program. Our checkoff
dollars help packers and retailers, not hog farmers," says Renville
County, Minn., hog farmer Monica Kahout, a member of LSP's Board of Directors.
"That's why our share of the pork dollar has declined, while packers'
profits are up. Even after a majority of American hog farmers voted to
end the pork checkoff, we're still being forced to pay it. It's just plain
wrong. We shouldn't be forced to pay for a program that works against
us." The pork checkoff program was started in 1986 after Congress passed a
law mandating that hog farmers pay into the fund. It generates about $45-$50
million annually. Money collected under the program goes to the National
Pork Board. In recent years, most of that money ended up in the coffers
of the National Pork Producers Council. In 1998, the Campaign for Family Farms initiated a national petition
drive calling for a hog farmer referendum to decide if the program should
be ended. After 19,000 hog farmers signed the petition, the USDA conducted
a vote in August-September 2000. Fifty-three percent of the over 30,000
U.S. hog producers who voted chose to terminate the mandatory pork checkoff.
Following the announcement of the results in January 2001, then-U.S. Secretary
of Agriculture Dan Glickman ordered the termination of the program. However, in a move that shocked hog farmers, the industry and various
members of Congress, newly appointed Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman
cut a backroom deal with the National Pork Producers Council in February
2001 to throw out the results of the democratic vote and force hog farmers
to keep paying the checkoff. This action led to the Campaign's lawsuit
against USDA, which includes a specific claim that the mandatory pork
checkoff violates hog producers' constitutional rights by infringing on
the First Amendment. LSP staff changes
|
|
|||||
|
Beat the (Farm Bill) devilBy Caroline van Schaik The devil may be in the details of the new Farm Bill, but the devil will
have to contend with Land Stewardship Project staff who are working at
the state level to help shape rules for Minnesota that are friendly to
family farms and the environment. Federal rule makers will send national rules to each state for conservation
programs that are part of the 2002 Farm Bill signed by President Bush
in mid-May. However, there is room to implement the programs according
to individual state priorities, which are set by those on the State Technical
Committee (STC) and its numerous subcommittees. In Minnesota, the STC is directed by Bill Hunt, state conservationist
and head of the state's National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
This year, there are 15 subcommittees to address a host of specific conservation-oriented
aspects of the farm bill. LSP will participate on at least three of them-Conservation
Security Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
and Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)-as well as on the STC
itself. Staff members have already attended a STC meeting and an EQIP
subcommittee meeting. During the last round of STC recommendations for the 1996 Farm Bill,
LSP and its allies on the EQIP subcommittee won a significant battle to
prevent large-scale confinement livestock operators (with 1,000 animal
units or more) from receiving Federal cost-share dollars for manure management
and storage. In the wake of the new farm bill, the subcommittee met this June and
one of the few positive outcomes of this initial meeting is that EQIP
dollars will not fund new and expanding confinement livestock operations
of more than 1,000 animal units. Nothing was clarified about the availability
of EQIP funds to existing large-scale livestock operations. Hunt made it clear at a recent STC meeting that he wants to hear from
farmers and more specifically, that family-sized farmers have an equal
voice in all conversations. The committees represent a range of organizations
and agencies that feel they have a vested interest in the direction of
NRCS work as it pertains to Federal farm program dollars and making the
Farm Bill work on the ground. Although the new Farm Bill allocates a record 10 percent of funding to
environmental or conservation efforts, early signs indicate a need to
pay close attention to how the programs will actually work. For example,
proponents of factory farms would like to subsidize farm expansions with
EQIP dollars. According to hog producer and LSP organizer Paul Sobocinski,
who is an active participant on the subcommittee, the Federal program
is still paying lip service to promoting environmental quality but the
overall trend appears to be away from conservation as a priority in action.
In another example, the precedent-setting Conservation Security Program
will need diligent attention to safeguard the spirit of stewardship incentives
paid on a national scale. The subcommittees allow us to work collaboratively in advancing social and environmental priorities in agriculture along with sound production practices. Caroline van Schaik is an organizer in LSP's Twin Cities office and
is a member of the Minnesota technical subcommittee of the Conservation
Security Program. She can be reached at 651-653-0618 or caroline@landstewardshipproject.org.
top |
|
|||||
|
Holistic Management & LSP-multiple benefitsEDITOR'S NOTE: For more than a dozen years, the Land Stewardship Project has been involved with bringing the principles of Holistic Management to Midwestern farmers. Throughout that time, LSP has worked closely with The Savory Center in New Mexico. Here, Ann Adams of the Center describes some of the benefits that can be derived from Holistic Management. By Ann Adams The Allan Savory Center for Holistic Management (The Savory Center) and
The Land Stewardship Project have been working for many years to achieve
the similar goal of educating others about sustainable agriculture through
different approaches. While LSP has focused on supporting its members
locally, the Savory Center has worked on an international level to help
farmers and ranchers around the world improve their land, their profits,
and their lives. At the Savory Center, we see LSP as one of those success stories. As
a staff, we are too small to take on very many local projects. Our focus
is to help others learn about Holistic Management. Organizations like
LSP can then help people in their own communities by sharing their knowledge
of Holistic Management. In turn, we contribute to those communities through
the development of educational materials used by groups like LSP, and
the training of Holistic Management Certified Educators. While there is a certain amount of competition between nonprofits for
the philanthropic dollar, many nonprofits also have seen the value of
collaboration. To that end, the Savory Center and LSP have agreed to share
with our memberships what our connection is and why we want each other
to succeed. Without LSP, the knowledge and practice of Holistic Management
would not be what it is today in Minnesota. Without the Savory Center,
there would be no Holistic Management to help producers achieve the outcome
they want from their land, whether in Minnesota or in Mali. Many of you may already know what a difference Holistic Management has
made in people's lives. But I thought a summary of a paper (see below)
reporting the multiple benefits farmers and ranchers have created through
practicing Holistic Management would be enlightening. Please take the
time to read what follows and share this news with those you know who
are concerned about our food, our land, and our rural communities. I also ask you to become a Savory Center member, if you aren't one already.
As the only organization that specifically focuses on the development
of Holistic Management products and services, the Savory Center needs
your support to bring this knowledge to other organizations like LSP.
Call The Savory Center at 505-842-5252 or visit our Web site at www.holisticmanagement.org. Mention that you are an LSP member and you can purchase a Savory Center membership at the discounted annual price of $25. As a member you will receive Holistic Management IN PRACTICE, our bimonthly publication. Most importantly, you will be supporting an organization that has profoundly influenced sustainable agriculture by providing key insights about how nature functions, teaching others how to manage holistically, and reporting the extraordinary results of Holistic Management practitioners. Ann Adams is the editor of IN PRACTICE Biodiversity, agriculture & Holistic Management The following is a summary of "Biodiversity as an organizing
principle in agroecosystem management: Case studies of holistic resource
management practitioners in the USA," by Deborah Stinner and Benjamin
Stinner (Department of Entomology, Ohio Agriculture Research and Development
Center, The Ohio State University, and Edward Martsolf (A Whole New Approach),
in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 62, pages 199-213 (1997).
For this paper the authors interviewed 25 farmers and ranchers practicing
Holistic Management across the U.S., and made some interesting discoveries: • While only 9 percent of the interviewees reported having considered
the issue of biodiversity in their operations before having learned about
Holistic Management, after integrating Holistic Management into their
operations, 95 percent of the interviewees considered biodiversity to
be important and had noted improvement in this area. • These agricultural producers also reported positive changes in
other ecosystem processes on their land: an increase in the amount of
sunlight energy trapped by plants and converted to feed; enhanced nutrient
cycling; and a more effective water cycle. • Moreover, these producers also increased their profits by 80 percent
and noted improvement in their quality of life due to better time management. The scale of the operations researched ranged from 18 acres to 222,300
acres. The agricultural producers had been practicing Holistic Management
for 1.5 to 17 years with an average of 5.6 years. While Stinner et al. provide detailed information in their paper on the
results these farmers and ranchers produced, they highlight these results
at the beginning as evidence of improved ecosystem processes, quality
of life, and profit: • A farmer/rancher in North Dakota who had practiced Holistic Management
for 10 years had increased his soil permeability and infiltration from
2 inches to 20 inches. • All ranchers west of the Mississippi River reported a greater
frequency of perennials and the return of many native tall and short prairie
grasses. • 52 percent of the producers (especially the ranchers) noted that
their labor requirements decreased by 40-60 percent despite the extra
time necessary for planning and monitoring. • One producer said, "Not only do I have time to go out to
eat with my family one night a week now, but I can pick which night."
• These ranchers believe that their investments of time and money
to improve their land have resulted in increased profits because the land
has a higher carrying capacity with lower costs. In some cases the increased
profit reported was as much as 1,400 percent, with many averaging 300
percent. Case Study: Windy Slope Farm The Fichtner family moved to the 79-acre Windy Slope Farm in Leon, W.
Va., in 1981. At that time the farm was overrun with multiflora rose,
and the soils were severely eroded. At one time this land had been fire-maintained
savanna, and more recently it had been plowed for corn and then put into
sod that supported a few horses and cattle. In 1990 the Fichtners began Holistic Management-planned grazing using
a diversity of livestock (dairy goats, sheep, cattle, donkeys, hogs, chickens,
geese, ducks and turkeys) to improve farm management. The hogs were used
to break up and compost manure in the barn. The ducks controlled flies.
The Scottish Highlander cattle were rugged browsers and cleared brush
efficiently. The donkeys kept coyotes at bay. The cattle broke the parasitic
cycle by grazing after the sheep. In 1990 they had eight pasture plant species and needed five acres to
carry one animal unit. Their net profit per acre was negative $16. By
1995, they had 32 pasture plant species (including more perennials, a
higher successional plant) and needed only one acre to carry one animal
unit. Because they had more plant species, they had a longer growing season
with a variety of warmer and cooler weather grasses. In the past their growing season had been mid-April to late October.
With increased biodiversity they increased their growing season from early
March to December (an increase of over 10 weeks). Consequently, their
net profit per acre rose to $81. This resulted in a five-fold increase
over the course of five years. Because of the increased profit, Mrs. Fichtner
was able to quit her off-farm job, enhancing the Fichtners' quality of
life. Case Study: The Coffey Ranch The D. Joyce Coffey Resource Management and Demonstration Ranch was a
privately owned 2,600-acre ranch in Marietta, Okla., until 1981 when it
was willed to the Noble Foundation. Historically, it was a typical southern
Oklahoma ranch with cropping in open land and continuous grazing in rough
and wooded areas. In 1987 a management team of crop, forage, soil, livestock and wildlife
specialists, headed by Charles Griffiths, began practicing Holistic Management
on the ranch. At that time the stocking rate had decreased from 300 to
67 animal units per year. The degraded rangeland had a mixture of 60 percent
low successional species (usually weedy annuals with low forage quality),
12 percent mid- successional species, and 5 percent high successional
species (highly desirable forage quality for wildlife and livestock).
From 1987 to 1991 there was no increase in the high successional species
but there was a decrease in low successional species from 60 percent to
32 percent and an increase in mid-successional species from 12 percent
to 43 percent. The stocking rate increased by 30 percent from 110 animal
units to 140 at the same time that the biodiversity increased. Exposed
soils with various degrees of erosion were covered with healthy plants,
and white tailed deer populations increased by 100 percent. By 1994, high successional species had risen to 25 percent and low successional
species were down to 25 percent. The stocking rate had now increased 100
percent from 1987, rising from the original 110 to 200 animal units. Because of improved ground cover, there was less soil erosion. Ponds,
which once had major siltation problems, now had low turbidity, and two
springs, which had dried up, now began running again. Moreover, the nutrient cycle had improved so that manure now decomposed
in five days where it had taken two to three years before Holistic Management.
Griffiths felt that if the management team's knowledge about Holistic
Management had been greater when they started practicing, they could have
made these types of improvements sooner. Case Study: The Rafter F Ranch The 11,808-acre Rafter F Ranch, located in San Jon, N. Mex., usually
receives 16 inches of rain a year, 70 percent of it in the summer. Sandy
loam soils with much soil erosion and mesquite tree encroachment were
characteristic of this land. Roger Bowe first learned about Holistic Management
in 1983 and began using some of the principles to halt the ranch's falling
productivity. In 1986 the Bowes took a second Holistic Management training,
and by 1991 biological monitoring showed marked improvement on the land.
Bowe noted that from 1984 to 1991 perennial grass species tripled on his
land and ground cover increased. Moreover, the stocking rate tripled and
he cut the cost of production in half. Bowe had also been troubled by an infestation of snakeweed, which covered
up to 11 percent of one grazing area in 1986. By 1990, he had reduced
the snakeweed in that area to 1 percent by using his cattle as a land
reclamation tool. Bowe also noted that two new plant species, indiangrass
and Canadian wild rye, appeared on his land, although they usually only
occur at higher elevations. He also saw increased evidence of earthworms
and wildlife. Bowe suggested that the improved water cycle (due to more plant cover
and perennial species) might have contributed to the changed habitat that
was necessary for such species as the indiangrass and rye. Indications
of an improved water cycle was a dry well that filled with nine feet of
water and dry springs that began flowing again on the Bowe property. Bowe sees plenty of evidence that he's headed in the right direction,
including "new grass species, clear water in my stock ponds, minerals
cycling through living organisms, and my banker becoming a stranger." Summary analysis What this article demonstrates is that people who at one point were conventional
agricultural producers can learn to not only appreciate the need for improved
biodiversity and ecological processes, but can actually create those results
while increasing their profits and quality of life by using Holistic Management.
This research and others like it point the way to a truly sustainable
agriculture and concurrently the answer to many other pressing environmental
problems that also balance on the healthy functioning of ecosystem processes.
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
Hog alternatives Natural pork feeding This publication is available for a nominal cost at University of Minnesota Extension Service county offices. It can also be ordered by calling 800-876-8636 or 612-624-4900. When ordering, ask for item 07736-BU. Fighting factory farms It includes tips on the type of information citizens should gather, where
to find it and what to do once all the relevant information has been obtained.
The handbook also contains tips on organizing and working with the media,
as well as an appendix with handouts developed by groups such as the Land
Stewardship Project. For a free copy, log onto www.factoryfarm.org/guide. Free CD-ROM and paper copies of the guide can be obtained by calling 212-726-9161 or e-mailing factoryfarm@gracelinks.org. Factory farming's costs A pdf version of the 28-page report can be downloaded free from www.iwla.org.
For more information, contact the Midwest Office of the Izaak Walton League
at 651-649-1446 or ag@iwla.org. |
|
|||||
|
See the latest calendar of events. |
 |
|||||
|
|||||||
