 |
|||
 |
" I heard it |
||
October 4, 2007
·
Specialty crops losing out to ‘old-time power
politics’
·
World War II veggie returns as a superfood
· USDA hands out $1M to promote farmers markets
· Drip irrigation helps control unwanted weeds
·
Alternative sweetener produced in GM
tomatoes
Specialty crops losing out to ‘old-time power politics’
(The New York Times)
A new farm bill is on the drawing board in
But confronting what a
“We have a voice in
Farming may conjure up images of red barns
and
Those policies come up for renewal about
every five years. What is emerging this time, in legislation that has passed
the House and is pending in the Senate, looks a lot like the system that has
been on the books for decades.
It would spend about $14 billion a year on
payments to farmers, with billions going to growers of big commodity crops like
feed corn and cotton, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would spend
little on crops that most people recognize as food, like carrots, peaches,
almonds or spinach.
Such crops, along with nuts and nursery
plants, generate almost half the nation’s crop receipts, $55 billion out of a
total $120 billion in 2006. But the industry is fragmented and growers have
never had much political clout.
Senator Judd
Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, is a veteran of the farm wars.
He summed up the way things work on the Hill this way: “You scratch my back and
I’ll scratch your back, and we’ll save programs that are worthless.”
Commodity farming groups and their advocates
in Congress beg to differ, of course.
Their crops occupy most of the nation’s
farmland, and they point to the crucial role of those crops in supporting rural
economies and in strengthening the
“If we don’t support agriculture in this
country, people are going to be faced with more and more imported foods, many
of which are largely unregulated,” said Dwight Roberts, chief executive of the
United States Rice Producers Association. “You can’t stay in business at the
cost of equipment and production costs without some kind of support in times of
low prices.”
American farmers provide safe and inexpensive
food at home, and they supply crucial food aid
abroad in times of crisis, Mr. Roberts said. “They aren’t going to feed those
people off table grapes and bell peppers,” he said.
Farm subsidies were created during the Great
Depression as a temporary measure to lift farmers out of poverty. They have
been around in one form or another ever since.
In the 2006 budget year, the federal
government issued almost $22 billion in farm payments, including money for
conservation programs, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That number
that is expected to decline significantly in coming years because prices for
commodities like corn and wheat are high these days. (Some government payments
are made only when prices are low). In the 2007 budget year, which ended Sept.
30, the federal government is estimated to have spent about $14.8 billion on
subsidies.
The biggest beneficiaries of farm payments
are the growers of a handful of commodities, primarily corn, cotton, soybeans,
wheat and rice, which received a total of $7.4 billion in the 2007 budget year.
Of that, $3.2 billion went to corn farmers and $1 billion to wheat farmers.
Cotton farmers received $2.4 billion, even as global trade courts ruled that
some American cotton subsidies were distorting trade and advocacy groups
protested their effect on African farmers.
The House version of the 2007 farm bill would
keep most of the subsidies for commodities like corn and cotton intact.
Specialty crop farmers would get $1.6 billion over five years, or about $320
million a year, for the programs they favor, which do not include direct
subsidies. Under existing law, they get $65 million to $100 million a year. One
reason commodity subsidies are so durable is that farm politics are regional,
not Republican or Democratic. The strongest subsidy advocates in Congress come
from rural states where commodity agriculture is a potent economic force, like
Another reason is that the farm lobby has
sought allies to broaden its coalition beyond rural states. For instance,
nutrition programs such as food stamps were added to the farm bill more than
three decades ago in part to ensure support from urban lawmakers. The authors
of the farm bill try to spread enough money among nutrition programs, crop
subsidies and farm-related conservation programs to secure the votes for
passage.
For decades, even as commodity growers
collected hundreds of billions from the government, produce farmers wanted
nothing to do with
But in recent years, the industry has confronted
unprecedented challenges. Outbreaks of food-borne illness from contaminated
lettuce and spinach created an urgent need for research to safeguard the food
supply. Foreign competition and labor shortages, meanwhile, have decimated some
produce sectors like garlic, tomatoes and apricots.
Produce farmers argue that consumers have a
stake in their success, and should therefore support their requests for farm
bill dollars. Without a strong and competitive produce industry in the
And the industry wants government money to
promote consumption of fruits and vegetables. For instance, the House version
of the farm bill would expand a program that provides free fruits and
vegetables as school snacks to all 50 states.
Produce growers first decided they needed
help the last time the farm bill was up for revision, in 2002. They debated
whether to ask Congress for subsidies but ultimately decided to seek money for
research and marketing instead, mostly to help farmers compete with an
onslaught of foreign competition.
With little experience lobbying Congress, the
industry’s campaign fell flat.
“We put together a nice little booklet for
the farm bill. We were so proud of it,” said Robert L. Guenther, senior vice
president of public policy for the United Fresh Produce Association. “We didn’t
work the Hill much.”
Having learned from those mistakes, industry
leaders began planning for the current farm bill in May 2005. They set their
sights much higher, $8.5 billion for marketing, research and grants, but no
direct subsidies. They built an alliance that included winemakers, nurseries
and other groups, and started cultivating ties on the Hill.
Simultaneously, the industry sidled up to a
coalition seeking huge cuts in subsidies for commodity groups. But some groups,
including the specialty crop industry, abandoned that coalition after House
negotiators offered money for their programs.
Industry leaders acknowledge they used the
reform coalition to gain leverage. After winning $1.6 billion in the House,
they noted it was bigger than any previous appropriation — but also said it was
far less than they wanted.
“We would not have been able to support it if
it was any lower,” Mr. Guenther said.
The industry tactics angered some longtime
critics of farm subsidies.
“If there is a cheaper date in town, I’d like
to meet them,” said Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group,
an advocacy group that backs changes in farm policy. “We would never trust them
to work with again.”
Whether the specialty crop industry’s
political strategy will pay off should become apparent in coming weeks.
The Senate agriculture committee is dominated
by senators from the Midwest, the
The specialty crop industry has put out a
letter from 36 senators promoting its size and importance and seeking $3.2
billion, twice the amount in the House bill.The industry also brought farmers
and the watermelon queens to
“We all came, and we all got separated into
groups and did the lobbying thing,” Emily Frey, the 20-year-old watermelon
queen from
World War II veggie returns as a superfood
(DailyMail.co.uk) – A green that helped
sustain the nation through the dark years of World War II is making a comeback
as a fashionable superfood.
Kale was included in the Dig for Victory
campaign as a vegetable that was easy to grow and provided important nutrients
to supplement meagre diets during rationing.
A relative of the cabbage, it faded from the
meal table and recipe books after the war, not least because of its somewhat
metallic taste and the fact that it turned into an unappealing green mush when
boiled.
Sixty years on, however, kale is being
relaunched following the development of a sweeter, more attractive variety.
The experts behind baby leaf curly kale say
it is tastier than the wartime version, which was grown in many of the 1.4
million allotments which sprang up across
It retains the rich mixture of vitamins,
minerals and anti-oxidants that made it a vital ingredient in keeping the
nation healthy in troubled times.
There is a growing body of evidence showing
those raised on a wartime diet, where many fatty and sugary foods were either
unavailable or rationed, were considerably healthier and fitter than their
modern-day counterparts.
Wiltshire farmer Rob Corlett, who has 12
years of experience growing baby leaf salads, hopes his development will become
a household and restaurant staple, rivalling broccoli and spinach as a
supermarket superfood.
'Curly kale's baby leaves are sweet and
tender and can be cooked in two minutes which makes it a very attractive
vegetable,' said Mr Corlett. 'There is nothing like it on the market.
'It is quite a difficult plant to grow as it
is prone to disease and insect attack, particularly in its early stages. The
key is daily care and attention from the moment the seeds are sown until
harvest six weeks later.'
Baby leaf curly kale, which has been launched
under the slogan 'BLCK is the new Green', has the support of the National
Osteoporosis Society because it is a good source of calcium, needed for a
bone-healthy diet.
Mr Corlett said: 'The heritage of kale is
important to the nation but baby leaf curly kale is a fantastic vegetable. I'm
very proud we've been able to bring a great British vegetable back to the
dining table.'
Older varieties of kale are occasionally
available in larger supermarkets and are served in some upmarket restaurants,
but the green has nevertheless fallen out of favour.
Traditionally it was boiled, like cabbage,
and served with the main meal of the day, perhaps boiled bacon and potatoes.
It might also have been combined with mashed
potatoes and leeks in a version of colcannon.
More modern recipes include Kale Nicoise,
where it is combined with green beans, olives, boiled eggs, canneloni beans and
French dressing, and Penne pasta with kale, roast onions and gorgonzola.
'Kale was an important vegetable during
wartime and it was promoted because it was easy to grow and provided lots of
nutrition,' said John McPherson, of the
The museum, which is staging a Dig for
Victory exhibition at the Cabinet War Rooms, has cultivated a wartime allotment
in St. James's Park this year.
USDA hands out $1M to promote farmers markets
(USDA) – Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner today
announced 23 grants totaling $900,000 under the Farmers Market Promotion
Program. The awards will aid local governments, nonprofit and economic
development corporations and agricultural cooperatives in 16 states and the
"Farmers markets are increasingly becoming a larger and more integral part
of our rural and urban communities," Conner said. "We support this
community spirit that helps increase farmer revenues, and provides consumers
with fresh, local farm products."
The Farmers Market Promotion Program is designed to provide assistance to local
farmers markets, roadside stands, and community supported agriculture in an
effort to increase domestic consumption of agricultural commodities and improve
farmers' income. The grants are authorized under the amended Farmer-to-Consumer
Direct Marketing Act of 1976.
In this second year of funding, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),
which administers the program, will grant awards for the following projects:
ARKANSAS - $45,666 to the East Arkansas Resource Conservation and Development
Council, Inc., Jonesboro, Ark., to research farmers' and customers' needs and
create educational programs for farm vendors at the ASU Regional Farmers Market
on business practices and crop planning.
CALIFORNIA - $49,275 to the Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association,
Salinas, Calif., to develop four new farmers markets and four church-based farm
stands which target culturally diverse and health distressed communities. Funds
also will be used to provide training and technical assistance to
limited-resource farmers and implement outreach and education programs to
expand demand for direct-marketed products.
$35,617 to the Mendocino County Farmers' Market Association, Fort Bragg,
Calif., to establish community supported agriculture at five farmers markets,
expand two existing ones and implement an outreach and educational campaign to
broaden the customer base at the Association's eight farmers markets.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - $41,312 to the Food Research and Action Center,
Washington, DC, to develop EBT (electronic benefits transfer) infrastructure
for four farmers markets in the District, and provide EBT training to farmers
market staff.
HAWAII - $29,300 to the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, Honolulu, Hawaii, to
establish and promote a new producer-only farmers market in Waianae, Oahu, that
will offer fresh fish and agricultural products, which will provide farmers and
fishers in the area a new direct-to-consumer market channel.
INDIANA - $38,000 to the City of West Lafayette, Ind., to establish a
"Green and Lean" marketing program at the Sagamore West Farmers'
Market that will include an advertising campaign with educational materials for
vendors and consumers to promote healthy eating, physical fitness and personal
safety.
$15,844 to the Plainfield Chamber of Commerce, Plainfield, Ind., to establish a
second farmers market at the Metropolis Mall, with promotional advertising,
consumer-based education to attract customers and enhance the viability of the
new market location.
IOWA - $8,128 to Golden Hills Resource Conservation and Development, Oakland,
Iowa, to establish and promote the new Riverside Farmers Market through
advertising to consumers, farmer recruitment and training and educational
events linking fresh food with community health and wellness.
MISSOURI - $70,150 to Top of the Ozarks Resource Conservation &
Development, Inc., Houston, Mo., to assess the needs of 12 farmers markets in
10 South Central Missouri counties; determine how to best meet these needs; and
improve visibility of the markets through advertising, product mix,
infrastructure improvements, vendor training and communication.
OHIO - $32,572 to the Small Farm Institute, Fresno, Ohio, to help grass-based
beef producers market their products directly to consumers at farmers markets
by conducting a series of workshops to identify strategies for production,
processing, preparation and marketing grass-fed beef products.
OKLAHOMA - $62,270 to the Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, Inc.,
Wewoka, Okla., to establish, promote and manage the Eastside Farmers Market in
an inner-city Oklahoma City neighborhood, and train more than 250 small,
limited-resource farmers in 44 counties to market their produce at farmers
markets throughout the state.
$66,200 to the Oklahoma Food Cooperative, Oklahoma City, Okla., to enhance its
distribution system with better transportation and computerized recordkeeping
equipment so it can expedite the delivery of produce using a web-based
marketing and ordering system for regional producers.
OREGON - $26,500 to the Rogue Initiative for a Vital Economy, Ashland, Ore., to
locate and design two permanent Jackson County farmers market sites based on
surveys of vendors, as well as current and future customers, in order to meet
customer demand and increase direct farm sales in Southern Oregon.
$47,236 to Adelante Mujeres, Forest Grove, Ore., to purchase and implement
EBT/debit/credit technology, provide training and marketing support to Hispanic
and other minority farmers and vendors and develop a marketing plan to attract
low-income and senior citizen customers.
$23,091 to the Food Trust, Philadelphia, Penn., to implement a pilot program
that will develop and evaluate a model for EBT/credit/debit sales and train
vendors in its use at the Clark Park Farmers Market in west Philadelphia, and
implement a marketing campaign to increase patronage by food stamp recipients
and other underserved consumers.
RHODE ISLAND - $50,000 to Farm Fresh Rhode Island, Providence, RI, to
standardize market branding and applications at nine farmers markets; create a
market manager's guide that will include standardized market operational tasks
and rules; and purchase wireless EBT terminals, bilingual signage,
advertisements and other promotional material to help increase farmers' sales
to customers.
SOUTH DAKOTA - $34,884 to Downtown Brookings, Inc, Brookings, So.Dak., to
provide annual training to vendors in food safety, advertising, display,
transportation and marketing at farmers markets; offer seasonal training and
demonstrations to consumers in food handling and nutrition; and conduct surveys
of vendors and customers to assess the effectiveness of project activities.
UTAH - $15,893 to the Downtown Alliance, Salt Lake City, Utah, to pilot an
alternative purchase program to purchase and utilize EBT and food stamp payment
systems and design and implement a training and educational program for farmers
market managers, more than 100 farm vendors, and food stamp recipients, to
increase fresh food access and farmer sales.
WASHINGTON - $31,695 to the Spokane Farmers' Market Association, Spokane,
Wash., to use promotional activities to establish on-site consumer nutrition
education, particularly to low-income families and improve vendor sales through
the establishment of EBT/credit/debit technology.
Drip irrigation helps control unwanted weeds
(AgAlert) – Weed control is one of the most difficult issues for growers who are trying to use a low-impact system.
Growers who seek to reduce the number of tractor passes are very limited in their use of cultivation to manage weeds.
And there are no known weed control materials available to organic growers that are both effective and economical.
One method that can go a long way toward reducing weeds, where crop rotations and soil conditions allow, is subsurface drip irrigation.
“If you use subsurface drip irrigation, the annual weeds
don’t have any way of germinating,” said Tom Lanini,
Lanini discussed weed control options with the growers at the 19th annual Sustainable Farming Systems Field Day sponsored by the UC Davis Agricultural Sustainability Institute’s Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems Project at Muller and Sons Farm this summer.
There are many reasons to be cautious about investing in a buried drip irrigation system, the speakers said.
But even growers who are skeptical about the system agree that it is an effective way to reduce weeds.
“Buried drip is an advantage on the weeds,” said Scott Park,
who farms 1,600 acres in the
Park said he is skeptical about permanent drip both because it discourages rotation out of higher value crops and because it limits the area of the soil that is used for growing.
In some situations, flames can be used to control weeds as a substitute for cultivation.
But flaming is effective only under certain conditions.
“Flames don’t work on winter weeds, but they can be effective in the summer if you pre-irrigate and flame while the weeds are still small,” Lanini said.
Lanini is still working to find improved organic weed control materials.
A vinegar-based material at a 30 percent concentration at 70 gallons per acre achieved pretty good control of mustard weeds at the two- to three-leaf stage in his most recent trials.
But that concentration is far too much acis to put on the soil.
Matran gave pretty good control at 10 percent concentration. But that would still be too expensive to be practical. Matran is a combination of clove oil, wintergreen oil, butyl lactate and lecithin.
Another option for the future could be using precision agriculture to bring the cost of controlling weeds organically within reason.
Whatever means growers use to manage weeds, Lanini urged them to use more than one technique or material.
“When you go to conservation tillage, you’re relying on methods other than cultivation to control weeds,” Lanini said. “That means you can have herbicide resistance. If you do the same treatment repeatedly to control weeds, resistance will develop.”
Alternative sweetener produced in GM tomatoes
(CropBiotech Update) – Transgenic tomatoes
expressing the taste modifying protein, miraculin, was developed by a group of
Japanese researchers. Miraculin was first isolated from the miracle fruit, the
red berries (Richadella dulcifica), a shrub native to
Miraculin itself is not sweet, but can turn a
sour taste to a sweet taste. The sweetness induced by citric acid after exposure
to miraculin has been estimated to be around 3000 times that of sucrose on a
weight basis. This unique property, including the possibility of being used as
an alternative low-calorie sweetener for diabetic and obese individuals, led to
increasing interests in this protein. Nine taste modifying proteins are known,
but as with miraculin, the commercial feasibility of these proteins is limited,
since their natural sources are tropical plants that are difficult to grow
outside their normal environments. Although previous attempts have been made to
produce miraculin in foreign hosts such as E. coli, S.
cerevisiae and transgenic tobacco, resulting recombinant miraculins do not
have taste-modifying activity.
The miraculin gene was introduced to tomato
cotyledons and recombinant miraculin accumulated at high levels in both leaves
and fruits of up to 102.5 and 90.7 µg/g fresh weight, respectively. They
found that the choice of plant species is an important factor in the
stable production of miraculin, with tomato being a more suitable host than
lettuce for miraculin production. This successful production of
recombinant miraculin in transgenic tomatoes is thus a new method to make it
more available for mass production of low-calorie sweetener and flavor
enhancer.
The paper published by the Plant Biotechnology Journal is available to
subscribers at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00283.x
End Transmission