|
|
 
|
Save family farms, save America; other news
(Friday, April 28, 2006 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. Save family farms, save America 1. Save family farms, save America Willie Nelson, AlterNet It's time to abandon the failed model of industrial agriculture and
join
the Good Food movement: embrace healthy, delicious food that makes the
entire country stronger. http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/35404/ 2. Overhaul U.S. farm policy By Jim French There was a time when investing in rural America meant something
personal to
most Americans. Many of us are only two or three generations away from
a nation
of farmers and rural communities.
It was a time when people drank milk delivered to their doorsteps by
local
dairies, or ate bread baked within a hundred miles, or purchased meat
from the
neighborhood butcher.
But rural America has changed. And so, too, Washington must change the
way it
invests our tax dollars in agriculture and rural communities. Consider:
-- The Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service last year
showed a
correlation between counties receiving the highest crop subsidies and
those
that suffered the most rapid population decline.
Soon Congress will fashion the 2007 farm bill. Big decisions need to
be
made. Grain and cotton growers have seen their market prices steadily
decline since
1996, while their expenses have grown. Public subsidies help keep these
farmers
afloat. When the price farmers receive falls below the cost of
production, the
subsidies cover the difference. Because there effectively is no limit
on the
number of bushels that can receive a subsidy, farmers have an incentive
to
produce as much as possible. This causes surpluses that drive down
prices and
fuel the need for continued subsidies -- a vicious cycle.
And let's not forget the effect our production subsidies have on the
farmers and
rural residents of the poorest nations of the world. In the case of
cotton, for
example, U.S. subsidies have caused surpluses that have led to a lower
world
price. This means lower incomes for millions of cotton farmers in West
Africa
-- and less money to dig a new well, or build school rooms and medical
clinics.
U.S. corn subsidies have had a similar effect on farmers in Mexico.
When incomes
go too low, these people often must migrate to cities to find work, and
end up
in places like Dakar or Cairo, maybe Milan or London, or even Los
Angeles or
Wichita.
Reforming U.S. farm programs is not a silver bullet for the problem of
poverty
and rural decline in the world. The farmers of poor nations also must
have
improved crop genetics and agricultural education. Nevertheless, reform
could
contribute to a world where rural people can earn honest livings and a
better
life.
What might be a recipe for an improved farm bill in 2007? First, public money should not be linked to production, a practice
that only
distorts the market place. Instead, our tax dollars should be invested
in ways
that deliver broad public benefits, stabilize farm numbers and rural
communities, and do no harm to poor farmers in other countries.
One way is to provide more money for conservation. If fully funded and
implemented, the Conservation Security Program could help support U.S.
farm
income by encouraging farmers to protect our air, water, soil and
wildlife
habitat. This program could also encourage energy conservation on the
farm and
the use of new, cleaner forms of energy.
Second, we need to invest more in rural development. A recent Farm
Bureau report
said, "Farmers are more dependent on rural communities than rural
communities
are dependent on farmers."
Farmers today need off-farm income. If they are to keep their farms and
stay in
their communities, they need jobs nearby. Let's promote such jobs by
providing
incentives that encourage entrepreneurs to build businesses in small
places.
Growth in rural jobs and population can in turn provide new and local
markets
for a greater diversity of local food production, which also should be
promoted
in the new farm bill.
Rural America has been the wellspring of this country's leadership and
values.
We have drawn from and benefited from that source. Now it is time to
replenish
farm country in wise and sustainable ways.
### Jim French farms and ranches in Reno County, Kan., and works as U.S.
lead
field organizer for Oxfam America, an international development agency.
He
wrote this for the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina,
Kan.
3. Biofuels: Who benefits? Small growers or big business? Source: Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0414-22.htm SYNOPSIS: Ethanol could be a huge boost to small farmers and the
rural
economy. But unless we are vigilant, the big winners could be the usual
suspects. When President Bush suddenly embraced wood chips and biofuels on
national television, renewable energy producers received a prime-time
injection
of hope. Ethanol
backers forecast a boon for farmers and the environment. Yet
serious questions remain about whether ethanol merely enables our
addiction to an unsustainable auto-centered society -- unless it's part
of a broader shift in consumption and production. Equally critical is the matter of what a carbohydrate economy means
for
America's two million farmers (by no means a monolithic lot), and for
the future of sustainable agriculture. Will biofuels benefit smaller
growers, or just large-scale producers and agribusiness? How will
pressures for increased production and reduced energy prices effect
farmers?
Would small and mid-sized growers fare any better
in the energy economy than they have in a rapidly consolidating food
economy that has driven so many off the land and into poverty?
The stakes are significant: Protecting smaller-scale, diversified
farms
is intrinsic to ecological stewardship and rural economic health,
sustainable farming advocates (and some biofuels proponents) argue. A
major biofuels expansion could spur yet more large-scale industrial
agriculture, which often relies heavily on petroleum -based
fertilizers and pesticides and deploys fuel-guzzling farm machinery.
Pressures
for large-volume
production and cheap energy might ultimately harm smaller farmers and
the environment -- unless there are explicit policies to protect both.
The exploding ethanol market has brought U.S. corn growers -- and
agribusiness firms like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Cargill -- a
harvest of fresh cash: a crop of 1.25 billion bushels in 2004
(projected
to be 1.6 billion by the end of this year), worth more than $3 billion,
according to a study prepared for the Renewable Fuels Association.
Ethanol's direct and spin-off effects, the trade group says, include an
estimated 147,206 jobs created, $14 billion added to the U.S. gross
domestic product, and a trade benefit from reducing oil imports by 143
million barrels. Ninety-five plants across the country, 46 of them
farmer-owned, now produce 4 billion gallons a year (1 billion gallons
of
it by ADM alone) of ethanol. Another 31 plants are under construction.
A growing portion of America's corn harvest -- roughly 18 percent,
up
from just 8 percent in 2000, according to USDA data -- is now funneled
to fuel production. With corn prices consistently below the cost of
production and fuel prices marching upward, ethanol has provided
flexibility to some growers, particularly those in farmer-owned
cooperatives. "Even at the small farm level you can see real
opportunities to improve the farm economy by creating new markets and
new ownerships," says Patrick Mazza, research director for Climate
Solutions, a renewable-energy group based in Washington state. "What's
nice for the ethanol farmers in those co-ops is that when corn prices
are high they can make money on corn and when corn prices are low they
can make money on ethanol." The epicenter of farmer success so far is Minnesota, where
clean-fuel
standards and producer incentives have spurred an ethanol boom led by
12
farmer co-ops. In Minnesota's southwestern corner, the small city of
Luverne is home to the farmer-owned Cornerstone Co-op, which churns out
more than 20 million gallons of corn ethanol annually. Launched in
1998,
the cooperative has attracted 220 area farmers who must pony up an
initial investment of at least $10,000 and deliver 5,000 or more
bushels
of corn each year. According to manager David Kolsrud, the plant
produces a healthy return of 30-plus cents per gallon, and "through the
first eight years of operation [farmers] have gotten back over five
times their original investment ... From a rural development standpoint
we feel very strongly that community-based plants with farmer ownership
have a more significant value to the area than having outside
ownership." But as ethanol undergoes an inevitable process of industrialization,
and
capital requirements intensify, small and medium-sized farmers could be
squeezed out unless policies are explicitly designed to promote them.
Kolsrud warily observes that "the industry trend is toward larger
facilities which are either owned by farmers, or, as in many cases, are
owned by Wall Street investors and other bigger entities getting into
the business." Kolsrud remains optimistic that small co-ops can survive
-- "for a while" -- by selling ethanol through larger marketing
alliances, but the long-term picture for farmers is unclear. This corporate presence is nothing new, says John Crabtree, analyst
for
the Center for Rural Affairs, a Nebraska-based farm advocacy group.
"People need to understand that ethanol production is already an
incredibly concentrated market. Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill
control the lion's share of ethanol production." Ethanol leader ADM's market share has actually declined from a
stunningly high 60 percent to a still-worrisome 25 to 30 percent in
recent years. But a recent analysis by USDA agricultural economists
concluded, "The fuel ethanol industry may very well be in transition
toward an inevitable concentration of ownership into the hands of a few
large processing firms." The market is driven by large-scale gasoline
refining firms, which "don't want to deal with all these small plants,"
and a "virtual consolidation of ethanol processing" is taking place.
(ADM didn't respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.)
New biorefinery developments are trending away from farmer
ownership. In
1999, farmers owned all new plants being constructed, but by 2006 "they
owned just 19% of the 1.7 billion gallons that will flow from 29 new
plants going up or expanding," according to Successful Farming
magazine.
"You have some of the same players as in the food sector, Cargill
and
ADM, whose interest is in buying low and selling high," points out
George Boody, executive director of the Minnesota-based Land
Stewardship
Project, who wants to ensure that biofuels are grown sustainably.
"Massive production of a few crops is the best way to get there, and
that typically doesn't bode well for small to mid-sized farmers because
the margins get too tight and the acreage requirements grow and grow."
Farming expert and author Marty Strange, a onetime director of the
Center for Rural Affairs, says ethanol's growth, like the rest of
agricultural industrialization, brings little hope for smaller
producers. "There's no question that large-scale ethanol production
depends on large-scale grain production. The small-scale diversified
grain farmer is not what the ethanol industry relies on." Another dilemma: By edging out diversified farming, large-scale corn
mono-cropping could weaken local food security, requiring more
long-distance transport of foods (already averaging roughly 1,800 miles
per item) -- thus more diesel pollution from the trucks that haul
foodstuffs. Meanwhile, EPA efforts to repair the Gulf of Mexico's
10,000-square-mile hypoxic zone, a massive oxygen-killing algae bloom
created in good part by runoff from fertilizers and pesticides applied
to corn and other grain crops, may call for less corn -- not more.
Likewise, some advocates emphasize the need for more localized ethanol
(and biodiesel) production, to support farmers and avoid the ironies of
cross-country shipping of renewable fuels. These economic and ecological tensions are generating increased
collaboration between sustainable farming and clean-energy advocates.
Jim Kleinschmit, rural communities program director for the Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy, cites a growing concern that biofuels
"be produced in a way that's sustainable for the landscape, for the
farmer's pocketbook, and for the community." Patrick Mazza and others
say that ethanol and other biomass energy can be produced in a way that
sustains farmers and the environment, if policy incentives are designed
to promote both. An array of ideas are afloat to encourage a more sustainable
biofuels
expansion: a diversified renewable energy policy that, rather than
expanding corn crops, promotes more wind power and cellulosic energy
from switchgrass and crop residues (which may favor localized,
small-scale production); a federal version of Minnesota's model,
creating targeted incentives for farmer co-ops; and increased research
spending by the USDA and Department of Energy to develop smaller-scale
biofuels processing plants. Negotiations for the 2007 federal farm
bill,
already simmering, will feature a battle between agribusiness' push for
monocropping of cheap commodities, and family farm groups' efforts to
raise crop prices and rein in corporate control. Iowa corn and soybean farmer George Naylor, president of the
National
Family Farm Coalition, warns that without proper supports, intense
pressures for cheap energy will further imperil farmers' frayed
pocketbooks. "It's an absolute must that there be public policy to make
sure that the environment is taken into account, how land is being
used,
and whether family farmers benefit at all from it." Such policy, says
Naylor, must incorporate the intertwined concerns of small farmers,
sustainable agriculture, and clean energy -- "so it isn't just a matter
of everyone going out and plowing the hell out of the countryside
thinking there's going to be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."
Christopher D. Cook's writings have appeared in Harper's, The
Economist,
the Christian Science Monitor and elsewhere. He is the author of Diet
for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis
| |
