 |
|||
 |
" I heard it |
||
May 24, 2010
· Food fight pits producers vs. local farms
· Ag groups oppose EPA greenhouse regs
· Science academy defends climate policy
· Big tobacco snuffing out US growers
· Server farms look to lasso mooo power
Food fight pits producers vs. local farms
(McClatchy
Newspapers)
Organic small potatoes.
Big ones, too — as well as peas, beans, beef, poultry and melons. Just about anything, in fact, that’s farm-raised and edible.
Three Republican senators have complained that a USDA effort to educate the public about where food comes from slights “conventional farmers who produce the vast majority of our nation’s food supply.”
Sens. Pat Roberts of
Or, to put it bluntly: Take your arugula and shove it.
The USDA calls the program “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food.” It has no money of its own, but the agency has spent other federal agricultural dollars to further its goals, including farm bill funds to aid locally grown food projects.
These include grants to support farmers’ markets in
Bruce Babcock, an economist and the director of the Center
for Agricultural and Rural Development at
“We should welcome alternative producers if we want to see
entrepreneurship grow in rural
Supporters of Know Your Farmer, such as Dan Nagengast, the executive director of the Kansas Rural Center, said that critics have ignored the program’s larger goals: To spread the word about the economic value of local food production and thereby preserve America’s rural heritage.
“Cultivating these new markets — not replacing old ones — is
critical to revitalizing rural
Local food ‘myths’
About 40,000 mid-sized farms disappeared between 2002 and 2007, according to the U.S. Census. For many, it’s too costly to compete with conglomerate farms.
The USDA’s efforts reflect a growing movement toward healthier eating and fresh-from-the-farm cooking. It embraces more than just foodies who scour farm stands for the perfect baby eggplant and devour issues of Bon Appetit.
Followers include everyone from public school officials who
want to cut fats and sugar out of their cafeteria menus, to restaurateurs such
as Jane Zieha, whose Blue
Bird Bistro in
“I am working very hard to change the myth that local food — you know what you’re consuming and who’s growing it — is only for the affluent,” she said. “My customers come from all walks of life.”
The local food movement has no bigger symbol than first lady Michelle Obama, who started a kitchen garden on the South Lawn of the White House and leads a campaign against childhood obesity.
Last week, for instance, several major food manufacturers, spurred by her efforts, agreed to start offering more healthy choices.
Roberts is a former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and currently sits on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee along with Chambliss, the panel’s ranking Republican.
He said that they never meant to sound dismissive of small farmers and niche producers, or their customers.
“The more people that go to the farmers’ markets, the more
people understand agriculture and they eat a better diet,” Roberts said.
“There’s nothing wrong with that. As a matter of fact, it ought to be
encouraged. ... But you can’t go back to Walden Pond agriculture and expect to
feed
Diana Endicott, who runs a 400-acre naturally raised cattle ranch with her husband, Gary, near Fort Scott, Kan., said she doesn’t expect to feed America, nor do the 100 or so other organic farmers in a local growers’ alliance she helped organize.
But what’s wrong, she asked, with giving a boost to farmers who aren’t interested in tilling 10,000 acres?
“Know Your Farmer is not saying we support only small-scale agriculture,” said Endicott, who sells her beef and organic tomatoes to several local supermarkets and a food cooperative. “We need to be educated about our food and we need to know how to make wise choices. We have a new generation of farmers coming, and people who want to be reconnected to land. It’s trying to find the right balance for everyone to be able to participate.”
Ag groups oppose EPA greenhouse regs
(Wire Services) – United Fresh has joined a coalition of close to 50 agriculture groups in signing onto a letter in support of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski's resolution to oppose the Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
After publishing its "tailpipe rule" impacting mobile greenhouse gas emitters, it became apparent that EPA would next look toward stationary emitters. It has been announced that regulation of stationary sources will begin January 2, 2011, when these sources will be affected through such programs as Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V operating permits.
"If Congress does not take action to halt these EPA actions, these emissions regulations could have a significant impact on the bottom lines of many agricultural producers because they will see their input costs increase as a result of the regulation on other sectors," said Robert Guenther, United Fresh senior vice president of public policy. "Agriculture could really see an indirect impact."
There have also been signs that EPA does not only intend to regulate large operations, but wants to begin phasing in standards for smaller emitters as well, which could mean regulating companies that emit between 100 and 250 tons of greenhouse gas annually.
With EPA estimates that show more than 37,000 farms emitting above the Clean Air Act threshold, agriculture could be impacted directly with these new regulations. These employers will eventually be required to obtain operating permits under Title V, but below the 25,000 tons per year threshold that EPA had proposed as a starting point to phase in permit requirements. The final EPA "tailoring rule" estimates the average cost for these permits is $23,200 per permit, which would cost farmers more than $866 million, simply to obtain the required permits.
Many in the agriculture community view Congress as the ones who should debate the climate proposals impacting greenhouse gas emissions, in lieu of EPA issuing costly regulations.
"These dramatic increased costs serve to show that EPA should be the ones leading this process," argues Guenther. "But Congress should not defer to a regulatory agency on a matter that could have such a dramatic impact on the economy."
For more information or questions about this resolution or EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, contact Guenther at 202-303-3400, ext. 409.
Science academy defends climate policy
(McClatchy via Yahoo! News) – WASHINGTON — The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific body, issued a strong defense of the science of climate change and called for a long-lasting national policy to limit its effects.
One of its surprising findings was that the
The long-planned reports come as the Senate could be weeks away from discussing a draft bill that would put a price on emissions from large polluters such as power plants and refineries.
The scientific panel didn't analyze the draft bill, but it supported its main approach. It recommended that the government put a price on emissions of greenhouse gases and said the Senate bill's goal of an 80 percent reduction by 2050 was in the right range of what would be needed.
During the administration of President George W. Bush , Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences to issue the three-part report that it unveiled Wednesday. The report deals with what's known about climate change and what further research is needed, what the country should do to limit its damage and how it should adapt to changes that are unavoidable.
"These reports show that the state of climate change science is strong," Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences , said in a statement. "But the nation also needs the scientific community to expand upon its understanding of why climate change is happening, and focus also on when and where the most severe impacts will occur and what we can do to respond."
The report that summarizes the scientific understanding of climate change says that there's a "strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing, and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities." It goes on to say that the "core phenomenon, scientific questions and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."
It sums up that understanding by saying that Earth's average surface temperature has risen, and says the cause over the last several decades has been human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Most of these gases are produced when coal, oil and gas are burned for energy, but some result from agriculture, forest clearing and industry.
The scientists reviewed information from research over the past five years that was too recent to have been included in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The
The new report was intended to be a readable, concise update on what scientists have learned, she said. "We hope our presentation of what is well-known, what we have high confidence in, will help us in this public discourse."
Scientists consider membership in the National Academy of Sciences a high honor. The academy elects members who've made distinguished achievements in research.
In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the order that established the National Academy of Sciences , and the organization has advised the government ever since. Its scientists and engineers volunteer to serve on committees that study questions posed by Congress and the White House.
Big tobacco snuffing out US growers
(AP via journalgazette.net) CYNTHIANA, Ky. — After years of faithfully supplying leaf to tobacco giant Philip Morris International, farmer Jess Burrier received a postcard, thanking him for his contributions and telling him his service wasn't needed this year.
"They were very courteous, but a Dear John letter's still a Dear John letter," said Burrier, who has seen the amount of tobacco he grows under contract shrivel from about 600,000 pounds two years ago to 20,000 pounds this year with another leaf buyer.
The cutbacks mean farmers who've lost contracts might not be able to pay mortgages and rural communities could lose jobs and income as farmers have less money to spend.
Some top tobacco companies acknowledged cutting contracts but wouldn't say by how much.
"When volumes go down, you don't need as much leaf
across the board to manufacture the product," said David Sutton, a
spokesman for Altria Group Inc. — parent of Philip Morris USA, the nation's top
cigarette maker, which produces the top-selling Marlboro brand. But even with
cutbacks, he said Altria will buy leaf valued at more than $100 million this
year from thousands of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. spokesman David Howard said the
nation's second-largest cigarette maker, whose brands include Camel and Pall
Mall, is buying less burley through contracts because
"We are simply doing what any business would have to do, and that's keeping supplies in line with demand," Howard said.
Philip Morris International, which is no longer tied to
Philip Morris USA, also is buying less
The amount of contracted tobacco may plunge by 40 percent
this year in
"Every day, people were calling saying, 'I lost my pounds,'" Hinton said. "It was a month there that was just true heartache for people."
In
In
John Rose, 45, a tobacco farmer in northern Middle Tennessee
who has a Phillip Morris International contract, now must take his burley to
Some
"That really scares me," said Gary Carter, the ag extension agent in
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported in late March that farmers in all the burley states combined intended to plant 97,800 acres, 4 percent less than a year ago.
Burrier, 52, said he'll scale back from 110 acres of tobacco
last year to 12 acres. Just two years ago, he planted 200 acres on his farm
just outside Cynthiana, about 30 miles northeast of
"This is the least amount of tobacco that I have ever raised on this farm," said Burrier, who traces his family's tobacco-growing heritage back a century.
The small contract won't pay his mortgage, and the money he invested in tobacco setters and sprayers will largely go to waste. In the fall, he'll only need two of his 15 tobacco barns for curing leaf; he'll rent a few others to farmers who snagged larger contracts.
Still, Burrier doesn't hold any grudges with Philip Morris International. Having prepared for this day, he has a sod business and grain production to fall back on, although he likely won't earn as much without the tobacco contract.
"Philip Morris (International) is doing what they should do as a business," Burrier said. "They're taking care of their stockholders. If they did any differently, they wouldn't be in business."
Todd Clark, a tobacco grower from
He eventually landed a contract to supply 75,000 pounds —
his smallest crop ever — to Philip Morris International.
About a month after he learned he had lost his contract,
He'd rather have his contract back.
Server farms look to lasso mooo power
(The New York Times via Omaha.com) – Hey diddle diddle. Guess what the cow has done this time?
While not immediately intuitive, the idea plays on two trends: the building of computing centers in more rural locales and dairy farmers’ efforts to deal with cattle waste by turning it into fuel.
With the right skills, a dairy farmer could rent out land and power to technology companies and recoup an investment in the waste-to-fuel systems within two years, Hewlett-Packard engineers say in a research paper.
“Information technology and manure have a symbiotic relationship,” said Chandrakant Patel, the director of HP’s sustainable information technology laboratory, which wrote the report. “And having these data centers locally will give farmers a new opportunity.”
Companies have historically tended to build their large computing centers often called server farms in or near large cities and industries. As this practice has continued over the years, it has become difficult for companies building the largest data centers to find enough cheap electricity and real estate to meet their needs.
The rise of higher-speed data transfer networks, however,
has given technology companies a chance to move farther from large populations
and still be able to get information to them as quickly as they need it. So
companies like Google, Yahoo, Amazon.com and Microsoft have been engaged in a
mad dash to find spots in the
As a result, more data centers have been built in states
like
If those locations are near dairy farms, so much the better.
Rather than being an alternative energy convenience, this
approach could benefit companies operating in countries like
Back on the farm, dairy producers have increasingly been looking to deal with their vast collections of smelly cow waste by turning it into something called biogas.
To make biogas, a farmer needs to buy specialized equipment that runs the manure through an anaerobic digestion process, which results in a large quantity of methane that can be used as a natural gas or diesel replacement.
“The average cow makes enough waste per day to power a 100-watt light bulb,” said Michael Kanellos, editor in chief at Greentech Media, a research and publishing firm.
According to HP’s calculations, 10,000 cows could fuel a one-megawatt data center, which would be the equivalent of a small computing center used by a bank. Kanellos has tracked both the data center and green technology industries and agreed that there was some convenient overlap.
Computing equipment produces a lot of heat as a waste product, and the systems needed to create biogas require heat. So a virtuous cycle of sorts is possible.
“The cows will never replace the hydroelectric power used by a lot of these data centers,” Kanellos said. “But there is interest in biogas, and this presents another way to make manure pay.”
While many strapped farmers initially tried to create their own biogas plants, they have since found that it’s more economical to sell their manure to a shared biogas producer.
“It turned out that the small projects didn’t make sense,”
said Rocky Costello, the president of R.C. Costello & Associates of
Still, Costello cautioned that this form of alternative energy faced familiar practical challenges.
“This just becomes less enticing as the price of natural gas gets lower,” Costello said. “Natural gas is so easy to get.”
HP has long experimented with different ways to operate data centers more efficiently, including having robots that travel around buildings keeping tabs on the temperatures of computers.
Patel said his grandfather in
It would cost a dairy farmer about $5 million to buy the equipment needed for the biogas system and $30,000 to run it each year, Patel said.
HP has yet to construct its own manure-burning system, it
but may consider one for data centers in
“Stay tuned,” Patel said. “We are pushing ahead.”
End Transmission