 |
|||
 |
" I heard it |
||
April 29, 2011
· Soggy fields put grain farmers on tight deadline
· Calif. budget woes affect farmland protection
· USDA encourages school-farm partnerships
· Farm life attracting young entrepreneurs
· What does sustainability really mean?
Soggy fields put grain farmers on tight deadline
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Incessant rains have turned Indiana farmer Larry Winger's grain fields into ponds, making it impossible for him to seed his corn crop.
"Historically, we would like the work to be done by the first of May, and research shows the optimal planting time is the last week of April," said Winger, who plants half of his 2,500 acres with corn, and the other half with soybeans.
"Prospects are OK until May 10, but after May 10, we start losing bushels," he added.
Similar scenes of waterlogged fields stretch from
Delays in seeding pushed new-crop December corn futures at the Chicago Board of Trade about 7 percent higher in the past month, with prices climbing on fears that planting delays will reduce this year's crop at a time when corn stocks are at their tightest in 80 years.
Just 9 percent of the
That data heightened concerns that farmers in many states would miss the deadline for seeding and end up with poor yields -- keeping stocks low next year and raising the need to curb demand from ethanol makers and livestock feeders.
Tight corn stocks and the subsequent price rally have been
instrumental in the rise of food inflation in countries like
Analysts are closely watching planting progress in
rain-soaked North and
Grains analyst Rich Feltes of R.J. O'Brien said the odds of below-average corn yields increase to 50 percent with late planting. Across all other years, the odds of below-trend corn yields are only 25 percent, he said.
He said even a one bushel-per-acre cut in the U.S. Agriculture Department's February yield forecast would push corn stocks next summer to an "intolerably tight" 514 million bushels and a record low stocks-to-use ratio of 3.8 percent.
SWITCH TO SOYBEANS AN OPTION IF POOR WEATHER CONTINUES
Some analysts speculate that further delays in seeding the corn crop could lead some farmers to switch to soybeans.
But the price ratio between corn and soybeans still favors the planting of corn over soybeans, analysts said.
The new-crop corn/soybean price ratio usually is 2.5 to 1,
which means it takes 2 1/2 bushels of corn to equal 1
of soybeans, said Karl Setzer, a commodity trading
advisor at MaxYield Cooperative in
Currently that ratio is about 2 to 1, he said.
The Department of Crop Sciences at the
Using prices gathered from grain elevators and other
delivery points, the university estimated corn profitability in
Bob Nielsen, a
However, Nielsen was quick to add that a late planting date does not necessarily mean lower yields in a given year. Final yields also depend on conditions after planting -- weather, disease and insects.
An even slower planting start in 2009, with just 5 percent
of the
Winger is guardedly optimistic he will be able to plant his crop in the next two weeks without any loss in yields. If he and many other farmers are able to pull it off, the risk premiums built into December corn futures could wither.
December corn futures fell on Thursday 4.5 percent on
outlooks for drier weather in parts of the
Grains analyst Dan Basse of AgResource Co in
Winger said he still has time to seed his crop, although he is nervous. "If you call me back in 10 days," and if the corn still is not planted, "my nervousness will go up," he said.
Calif.
(The Associated Press) FRESNO, Calif.—Where grape vines and fruit trees once unfolded to the horizon on the southeast edge of Fresno, some fields have now been paved over and replaced by hundreds of houses with scrawny lawns and small, immature trees.
Farmers, environmentalists and local government officials
say more swaths of
The state had been spending nearly $38 million a year to protect about 16 million acres, but it mostly eliminated that funding starting two years ago because of budget problems. While other states have farmland preservation programs, the issue is more pressing in California because it's the nation's largest food producer and agricultural land is being lost an a staggering rate -- an average of 50,000 acres a year.
Rapid population growth and high housing prices in major cities have created intense pressure to build.
"
The state had been providing money to counties through a 46-year-old program known as the Williamson Act, and in turn, counties gave tax breaks to land owners who agreed to keep farming for a decade or more. But the state reduced the program's funding by 10 percent in the 2008 budget year and cut all but $1,000 for it in 2009. The current budget originally included $10 million for the program, but Gov. Jerry Brown eliminated that last month.
As negotiations on the 2011 budget continue, there's little expectation the program will receive much, if anything.
Some counties had been continuing the program themselves
while they waited to see what the state would do. But one major agricultural
county,
The program boosts the state's agriculture industry, which generates about $35 billion in sales each year, by reducing farmers' costs and helping them remain profitable. Landowners are taxed on their property's agricultural value, not its free market value. Farmers save an estimated 20 percent to 75 percent their annual property taxes, with prime farmland getting the bigger breaks.
Farmers said at best, elimination of the program would force them to pass their higher costs on to consumers, affecting fruit and vegetable prices. At worst, those already operating on the edge would be forced to quit.
"People would go out of business. Some folks would not be able to withstand that," said Ross Borba Jr., who grows tomatoes, cotton and almonds on 4,000 acres in Riverdale with his brother. His land is enrolled in the program.
Environmental groups say the program is not just about farming. The Williamson Act also protects open spaces from urban sprawl, helps mitigate global warming and protects endangered species habitat and watersheds.
But officials in cash-strapped counties said they're not
sure they could afford the program without state support. A survey done last
year by the California State Association of Counties found most counties were
considering ending farmers' conservation contracts. Nine counties have stopped
accepting new applicants, including
"If it's lost, that's money that helps support public
safety, the sheriff's department and probation," said John Navarrette,
Not everyone agrees the Williamson Act is worth saving. A report by the nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst's Office suggested the program should be phased out over 10 years, due to high costs and an inherent weakness. The report found the state hadn't been able to determine which land was at risk and handed out tax breaks for some properties that would never have been developed anyway.
The report also found that the program didn't stop development in the long run, because landowners could cancel their contracts, and developers often paid the hefty fine. Farmers also could just not renew.
"If it pays you $10,000 per acre to grow tomatoes, but $100,000 per acre to build a shopping center, then the Williamson Act is not going to stop you from selling," said Daniel Sumner, a agriculture professor at the University of California, Davis. "The shopping center always wins."
USDA encourages school-farm partnerships
(minnesotapublicradio.org) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture just announced a new rule to encourage schools to partner with nearby farms as a way to get more healthy, locally-grown fruits, veggies, and more into school lunches.
Agriculture Under Secretary Kevin Concannon says the rule is "an important milestone that will help ensure that our children have access to fresh produce and other agricultural products."
But access to healthy food doesn't help much if kids won't
eat it, warned Alice Waters, the chef-owner of Chez Panisse
in
The "buy local" rule is just one part of the massive Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act President Obama signed into law last December. That bill is about the biggest thing to happen to school meals since the microwave.
It sets new nutrition standards and bans whole milk. It boosts funding for meal programs by about 6 cents a meal - a hard won provision in a long battle where food stamps lost out. And it's controversial, garnering over 130,000 public comments so far.
Per Wednesday's announcement, the law encourages schools to bring in more "unprocessed locally grown and locally raised agricultural products" by allowing schools to give local providers preference when they bid for school food contracts.
By "unprocessed" the department means it's fine to chill, freeze, peel, slice, cold pasteurize, butcher, or dehydrate the food. But cooking it or adding a bunch of preservatives is not encouraged.
The definition of "local" seems a bit more flexible.
But it's all just one tiny step on the road to addressing
obesity and poor nutrition, said Waters at the Atlantic Food Summit in
"We should certainly try to improve diets by make school lunches more nutritious and by getting the vending machines out of the hallways," Waters said. "But we can't be sure that kids are even eating — let alone understanding — what nourishment is all about. Kids are wary of unfamiliar foods, besides they can always buy packaged junk before and after school."
Waters says schools need to offer credit for edible
education the way they do for phys ed,
science and math. They need mandatory lunch programs, like the one in
There are some pilot programs and funding available for these programs in the new law, but nowhere near enough, Waters says.
(More research is needed on this growing concept, for sure, but I can tell you, growing kale with a kid at my house is no guarantee it gets eaten by said kid.)
Also a bit skeptical of the USDA "buy local" rule for other reasons are the big food companies that supply school meal programs.
Jennifer Grossman, senior VP at the Dole Nutrition Institute, tells Shots she likes the administration's efforts to encourage better school nutrition, but schools have bigger problems.
"For schools that are really very pressed on those
dollars, I think that they need to be able to have access to affordable choices
and sometimes those won't be grown locally... Bananas don't grow in
Bananas are the cheapest items in the produce section, but they don't grow in most of the country. Dole, Chiquita, and Del Monte control about 60 percent of the worldwide banana market.
Farm life attracting young entrepreneurs
(cnbc.com) – A growing interest in small-scale agriculture is beginning to reverse a decades-long flight from the farm.
For nearly 70 years, the number of US farms has been declining, while the average age of farmers has been rising — it's now 57 years old — according to the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture survey.
A
“Generation after generation of farmers were
making less and less money, and were not encouraging their children to farm,”
says Lindsey Lusher Shute, a young vegetable famer in
“The number of young farmers has steadily decreased,” says Shute. “There were 6 million American farmers in 1910. In the 2007 USDA agriculture census, there are 2 million, and 119,000 of them are under the age of 36.”
But new interest in organic farming, farmers markets and restaurants purchasing directly from farmers is turning that trend around, says Shute. “Family farms, through more local purchasing, are able to make a profit and a living. Young people are seeing this as a very rewarding lifestyle and career. For the first time in a long time, young people are interested, after decades of farming not being a very desirable career.
Farmers growing super high-volume vegetables can do quite well on one-acre plots, she said.
The most recent USDA agriculture census backs up some of Shute’s assertions. From 2002 to 2007, the number of farms increased 4 percent, and the new farmers are younger, with an average age of 48. And in one big way, their farms are very different: They're half the size of the past. Farms founded since 2003 are an average of 201 acres, compared to the overall farm average of 418 acres.
“It’s like the craft brewing industry, where once there were
only three big brewers in the country,” says Dawn Thilmany,
an agricultural economics professor at
Consumers tired of tasteless tomatoes and wary of mad cow or e.coli scares have shown a willingness to spend more for healthier organic fare, at farmers markets and natural grocery chains like Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe’s. Many restaurants are boasting more localized food sources. And a new influx of young farmers are disillusioned by a dour urban economy and eager for a lifestyle that promises a measure of independence and, at least for now, a good living.
Fuelling that trend is Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s 2010 clarion call for 100,000 new farmers — and loan programs that start to put money where his mouth is.
Last October, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced recipients of $18 million in 2010 Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program grants.
"These beginning farmer project awards are an important first step toward realizing [Vilsack’s] goal,” says Ferd Hoefner, policy director for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. "Beginning farmers face a range of challenges to successful start up including access to credit, access to land, access to markets and technical assistance."
Thilmany says CSU partnered with
land-grant universities in
“It’s the best-received extension program we’ve put on in 20 years,” Thilmany said. “We help them develop business plans and do followup mentoring, placing them with established farmers. It used to be families passing on information generationally. Now people with non-agricultural backgrounds can benefit.”
She is seeing more people in their 40s enroll in classes, many without agricultural backgrounds, “entering farming as a second career, after an early retirement or a layoff.”
People who own or lease less than 10 acres are earning $20,000 their first year and up to $300,000 within a few years, says Thilmany. “It’s a good option in urban corridors, with very high-volume crops that are grown direct-to-chef or to farmers markets. It’s a model no one saw coming 20 years ago.”
Small family farms — those with annual sales of less than
$250,000 — made up 88 percent of
But things are getting better. This year, income for
Practical Farmers of Iowa received a new USDA grant, and director Teresa Opheim reports more than 300 beginning farmers are enrolled in their network. "It’s growing all the time," she said.
Another grant recipient, the Land Stewardship Project in
A few years ago, Neysa King was in
a history PhD program at
“I became disillusioned with my field,” she says. “At the same time, I became interested in food and the questionable effects of industrial agriculture on our health and environment.”
In May 2009, they left
“We had no background in agriculture,” says King. “We were simply two kids who grew up in the suburbs and went to college. Farming seemed like the intersection of everything important to us — health, sustainability, financial independence, environmental responsibility, and community.”
After a season of farming in
“We’ve fallen in with a group of about a dozen folks who came into farming from college,” King says. “The niche we’ve found is direct wholesale to local restaurants. There’s a lot of demand for chard, carrots, spinach, squash and beets. We’re not making a living yet off of our land, but with our jobs as farm workers, we’re getting by.”
Like many beginning farmers, King had romantic ideas about getting in touch with nature.
“Mine were crushed immediately,” she says. “It’s a lot of organization, business sense and science. Getting stuff to grow - on a scale that’s economic - is hard work.”
What does sustainability really mean?
The following was
written by Holy Cross Br. David Andrews, a senior representative at the
Washington-based Food & Water Watch, a consumer lobbying organization.
(National Catholic Reporter) – The word “sustainable” is being used in so many ways today that it is hard to know what it means. It came into increasing use after the 1987 report “Our Common Future” published by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development -- also known as the Brundtland Report, named after the Chair of that Commission.
Its fundamental insight is now well known: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
It has frequently been asserted that sustainable development rests on a three legged stool: social justice, environmental protection and economic well being. In other words it sees three elements: the planet, profit and people as interrelated in any holistic view of sustainable development.
Advocates of sustainable agriculture typically utilize these elements in their vision of sustainability.
In more recent days advocates of sustainability have utilized organic agriculture and local agriculture as close synonyms to sustainable agriculture. At one time it was thought that these definitions would suffice to protect sustainable agriculture as distinct and different from more conventional agriculture with its highly industrialized modes of production.
But the popularity and positive public image of sustainable agriculture has been seen as a welcome brand for food and fiber production. Such is this the case that new branding efforts by industrialized production, processing and distribution systems have now been claiming their own sustainability brands. The evening news programs on public radio frequently carry Monsanto’s claim to represent sustainable agriculture.
The
The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture proposed to use all available technologies to feed the world more “sustainably”, while at the same time being eco-efficient. As part of Keystone‘s framing activities, it pointed to its peer-reviewed, science-based outcomes approach that documented increased efficiency in the production of soybeans, corn, and cotton.
The Keystone project is less open to public participation, making the exercise of structural power in setting the parameters of the standards creation process less contested. An examination of the trade associations, commodity groups, and GMO TNCs listed as members of the Keystone Alliance supports the idea that it is the more preferred model between these two approaches.
Not long ago, The National Research Council published a thick book: Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems In The 21st Century which sought to define sustainability as a goal to be reached in the future, rather than draw any bright lines which would differentiate various ideal types, for example, industrial versus sustainable, agro-ecological versus conventional.
It preferred to identify four sustainability goals:
1.Satisfy human food, feed, and fiber needs, and contribute to biofuel needs.
2.Enhance environmental quality and the resource base.
3.Sustain the economic viability of agriculture.
4.Enhance the quality of life for farmers, farm workers, and society as a whole.
The goals move in a direction but fail to reach or identify a particular end state. Sustainability in farming systems in this model is a process on a trajectory toward greater sustainability. The authors don’t like to differentiate between conventional and sustainable farming systems.
The National Research Council and the Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture emphasize an approach that makes room for every type of farming system since they are all “on the way” toward sustainability. It claims that there are incremental approaches and transformational approaches, but all types of agriculture can be claimed to be “sustainable”. Some are more firmly “on the way” than others.
Once again, the public discourse in these approaches moves in the direction of watering down the meaning of the term “sustainable” so that the term includes most farming systems as going in the direction of sustainability no matter how abusive they are to animals, no matter how dangerous their use of pesticides might be, no matter how poorly compensated their farm workers are and how harmful the physical demands on the laborers are as long as they are “in the process” of moving onto the goals identified.
The
Douglas Constance, a sociologist from
The term sustainable is hardly serviceable today to demark a type of agriculture, it is being replaced by “local”, “agro-ecological” and organic as serviceable alternatives in the nomenclature battles of food and agriculture.
As a brand it still has value, although its definition varies from group to group. Certainly given the status of current branding efforts the consumer needs to be wary of the term without engaging in closer looks to try to ascertain the concrete meaning of the term.
By itself the word “sustainability” has little meaning.
End Transmission