Search is not available for this dataset
text
stringlengths 0
383k
| industry_type
stringclasses 18
values | text_length
int64 0
383k
|
|---|---|---|
Higher wheat yields, better breeding to follow genome mapping?
David Bennett
• The discoveries by teams of scientists in England, Germany and the United States could also provide guideposts to dealing with diseases like UG99 and mitigate alarming claims about coming climate change-caused food catastrophes.
wheat-genome-yields.gif
Higher yields and better breeding of wheat — which accounts for some 20 percent of the earth’s population calorie intake — are promised in the wake of researchers recently unlocking the genome of the crop.
The discoveries by teams of scientists in England, Germany and the United States could also provide guideposts to dealing with diseases like UG99 and mitigate alarming claims about coming climate change-caused food catastrophes.
(For more on the wheat genome, see Wheat genome breakthrough will help U.S. growers, world population).
One of the research teams involved is at New York’s Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. To meet the challenge, according to a statement from the lab, “they used ‘next-generation’ sequencing techniques, in which the DNA is broken up randomly into numerous small segments and assembled into longer sequence reads by identifying the overlapping ends.
The sequence ‘reads’ generated for bread wheat were then compared to those from the known sequences of a diverse range of grasses, including rice and barley.”
“We wanted to know whether we could use next-(generation) sequencing on large complex genomes in what was almost a worst-case scenario for challenging the technology,” said Richard McCombie, who headed the lab’s wheat genome work. “We wanted to do it using an agriculturally important crop.”
McCombie recently spoke to Farm Press about the lab and how the findings could be used. Among his comments:
On the lab...
“The lab has been around for over 100 years and is a bit unusual in that we really focus on genomics.
“The lab, as a whole, has always had a strong tradition of plant genetics — as well as human genetics in cancer. (Nobel Laureate) Barbara McClintock did her maize research here.
“We were actively engaged in the first plant genome to be sequenced. That was a small weed genome sequenced in the 1990s as part of an international consortium. The weed was about one-sixteenth the size of wheat genome. We were also involved in the rice and corn genomes.”
Note:The first plant genome done was a member of the mustard species — generally termed a ‘weed.’ It’s used by plant scientists to study various things, although it has no agricultural value.
“Our biggest area of research is actually the genetics underlying major psychiatric illnesses.
Focus on applying technology
“To some extent I think it’s fair to say our forte is focusing on how to apply the technology to challenging problems, whether a big genome or a complex genetic problem in humans.”
Was UG99 a driver behind the research?
“No, it really wasn’t driven from a particular agricultural problem. It was driven from the standpoint that having this basic information would help breeders with any problem they approach. It will provide them with more detailed markers within the genome to help them evaluate sensitivity — or resistance in the case of rust.
(To see more about the threat of UG99 to wheat, see UG99: A future threat to U.S. wheat growers).
“So, the reasons for getting into the research were broader.
“I’m a chemistry and computational guy — not a breeder. But, in general, when people do crosses they’ll identify strains that are more or less resistant. Being able to more precisely understand the mechanisms of that in terms of what genes are involved and where they are.
“One of the things the study did is provide a good, although not perfect, view of the wheat genome. It’s certainly the best view we have so far.
“That will help identify the genes contributing to resistance. It will also provide around 100,000 markers for more precise mapping locations within the genome when crosses are made. That way breeders can tell which component genome is present in each of the crosses.”
Did the sheer size of the genome surprise you?
“We actually knew that going in.
“To be candid, I was surprised it worked as well as it did. I knew it was a tremendous challenge and we’d get a pretty good, valuable view of the total gene content. The work done by the computational people, particularly in Germany, really gave a much better view of the genome.
“Wheat is a hexaploid genome, so it came from three precursor diploid genomes about 10,000 years ago when it was domesticated. The computational team was able to do a much better job than I expected at separating the three copies of each of the genes. They compared the diploid relatives of the wheat and other species.
“I knew that would work somewhat — it was a great idea. But the success they had was marvelous.”
Wheat has five times the amount of DNA in the human genome?
“The weed we worked with in the 1990s has about 135 million bases. Rice has about 400 million bases. Humans and corn are both, roughly, around 3 billion bases.
“Wheat has about 16 billion bases. So, it’s much bigger than the human genome. The fact that it has three copies of a related 5 billion base genome that was hybridized to domestic wheat was a real technical challenge to separate those out computationally.
“The other thing that was difficult with the wheat genome is that about 80 to 90 percent is made up of repeats of a relatively small number of sequences. Those are very difficult to deal with computationally, as well.”
Did that happen because of breeding through the centuries?
“That’s an interesting question that no one really has an answer for. Theories have been floated but no one knows.”
On further agricultural research at the lab…
“We’re continuing with wheat research, having recently completed the sequencing on a couple of other related subspecies. Those include durum wheat and we’re just now working on the computational side of that.
“We want to improve the view of the wheat genome. This is a very valuable first step but it isn’t at the same level of precision as, say, the corn genome.
“We also have an ongoing (collaborative) project to study the evolution of very primitive plants. That has implications for seed development and understanding that process.”
“We put all the data from my lab in a public database. Anyone can access it freely and I’m a big proponent of that. It drives the field ahead for everyone because no one is smart enough to figure everything out.
“Our lab has millions of dollars worth of sequencing instruments. Other labs don’t have that but do have really smart people who can use data we provide to work on something we haven’t thought of.”
[email protected]
Related Media: USDA reports provide some price direction for corn, soybeans and wheat
Wheat market has bullish reaction to USDA report
Dry weather in Southwest could support wheat prices
Mark Article As: News
Source URL: http://southeastfarmpress.com/grains/higher-wheat-yields-better-breeding-follow-genome-mapping | 农业 | 7,027 |
/ USDA invests new conservation funds to improve Lake Erie water quality
USDA invests new conservation funds to improve Lake Erie water quality
Sarah Maxwell
(202) 720-0693 WASHINGTON, August 19, 2014-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today that $2 million in conservation funds will be sent to Ohio to help implement conservation techniques that will help improve water quality. The Secretary said USDA is also partnering with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to expand "boots-on-the-ground" capacity in the area and will be contributing an additional $1 million in technical assistance which will in turn be leveraged by the NFWF along with other public and private entities. Earlier this month, water service in Toledo, Ohio was disrupted by algae blooms in Lake Erie.
The new funding is the latest contribution of resources to the Lake Erie watershed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which has invested $46 million in the watershed since 2009.
"The voluntary conservation efforts supported by this new funding will help improve water quality in Lake Erie," Vilsack said. "Many farmers have consistently stepped up to the plate on efforts to protect our water and we want to provide support and incentives for continued action. Along with these resources, we will be offering technical and financial assistance through our direct relationships with farmers, and by partnering with private and public groups on continuing conservation efforts in the Great Lakes basin."
The Ohio Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is accepting applications from farmers this week for resources that will help with the planting of cover crops, which experts agree offer the best protection to prevent soil and nutrient erosion in the next season. The funding will be allocated to the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) to help farmers and partners accelerate water quality conservation activities to benefit Lake Erie. NRCS will be providing up to $2 million in Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) funds in Ohio for a targeted, one-week signup. This signup will be focused on planting cover crops on vulnerable soils this fall in order to reduce soil and nutrient loss from farm fields.
A number of factors contribute to algae blooms. Warm water, lack of agitation, rainfall and runoff from farms, lawns, and other sources can all contribute to the problem. Members of the scientific community believe that global warming is contributing to earlier blooms, not just in waterways in the United States but elsewhere. Conservation practices such as no-till reduce the amounts of sediment and nutrients in run-off, which is also influenced by the amount of precipitation and the time precipitation occurs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the USDA are working together to assist producers in efforts to reduce runoff by planting cover crops, controlling drainage and constructing systems like anaerobic digesters to reduce the amount of untreated effluent entering ditches, streams, rivers and lakes.
Last week, NRCS leadership met with more than 100 farmers, agricultural groups and fertilizer dealers in Ohio to talk about the expertise USDA can offer and to spread the word about the best conservation practices for the watershed.
"Farmers understand how recent events may impact them and are motivated to work with us to reduce phosphorus run-off, starting now with the planting of additional cover crops," NRCS Chief Jason Weller said. "We created this opportunity for farmers who want to get cover on their fields quickly, and we will continue to create complete nutrient management plans for long-term water quality and sustainability practices."
Along with its ongoing conservation efforts that have contributed $46 million since 2009, in May the Great Lakes Basin was also designated by Vilsack as a critical conservation area, or CCA, in the new 2014 Farm Bill Regional Conservation Partnership Program. That new program will invest $1.2 billion in innovative conservation efforts through partnerships with non-federal entities, who are expected to match the federal investment for a total of $2.4 billion in conservation resources.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users) | 农业 | 4,610 |
HomeFinancial PostNewsCommentPersonal FinanceInvestingTechSportsArtsLifeHealthHomesDrivingClassifiedsJobsSubscribeLifeFood & DrinkWine
TrendingJunos 2015 | Oscars 2015 | National Post Sessions
A la Okanagan: Is one of the country’s most fertile regions developing a cuisine to call its own?Valerie Berenyi, Postmedia News | April 29, 2012 9:00 AM ETMore from Postmedia News
British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley has always been known for its bounty: the cherries, peaches and apples that thrive in the irrigated, fertile soil; the more than 65 grape varietals that ripen in the hot summer sun before being turned into award-winning wines; the astonishing cornucopia of vegetables, meats and cheeses found in local farmers’ markets.
Those lucky enough to live in the valley eat well; many grow prolific gardens, canning, drying and freezing their own tomatoes, peppers and plums, or turning them into salsa and jam. There is so much food, residents almost take it for granted. But while home cooks have long turned out amazing dishes for appreciative guests, the idea of a formal Okanagan cuisine is relatively new.
Rhys Pender is a master of wine who trained as a chef. When he moved to the Okanagan 12 years ago, he says you could count the valley’s good restaurants on one hand: “Now you’d need both hands and feet.”
The burgeoning wine industry, going from 17 wineries in 1990 to nearly 200 in 2011, is “attracting high-calibre chefs who are embracing local products and produce,” says Pender, a transplanted Australian who teaches, judges and writes about wine.
Willi Franz, co-owner and executive chef of Grapevine Restaurant at Gray Monk Estate Winery south of Vernon, B.C., dubs the distinctive cuisine that’s taken root alongside the region’s mushrooming wineries “wine country cooking.”
Based on the local harvests and their ability to pair beautifully with the region’s wines, the Okanagan’s version of wine country cooking is simple, fresh and relatively free of garnishes and sauces.
“I’ve been in the valley now for 35 years. When I first came here, the tourism was family oriented. People came in the summer, they went to the beach and to [tourist attractions such as] Flintstones Park,” says Franz, who was named Canadian Chef of the Year in 2011 by the Canadian Culinary Federation, and 2010 Chef of the Year by the Okanagan Chefs Association.
While tourists flocked here for fruit by the boxful, few came for the valley’s cuisine.
“You went to a nice hotel and they served the food of the day. There was no local wine,” says Franz, who was born in Germany and started very young in the family business, a country inn and farm near Frankfurt that served its own version of wine country cuisine.
He brought fine European dining to Kelowna when he founded the Williams Inn in the late 1970s. By the early ’80s, he carried two Okanagan wines on a wine list of 120 selections that were mostly French, Italian and German. The local wine selections grew gradually, as the area’s vintages improved.
In the mid-’80s, Franz participated in the valley’s first winemakers’ dinner with vintners from Quails’ Gate, Gray Monk, Cedar Creek Estate Winery and Gehringer Brothers’ Estate Winery. “They actually rolled in barrels and we did a barrel tasting. It was very new then. That’s when we really got into it,” he recalls.
“At every wine festival we ran up to six events with different wineries. We thought it was good marketing, good business and we liked doing it. We had the winemakers come in to talk about their wines; we paired the food. That’s how I really connected more with the wineries.”
He loved the challenge of doing something new and different beyond changing a restaurant’s menu once or twice a year. “Anyone who’s passionate about food doesn’t want to do the same thing all the time. It gets boring.”
It wasn’t until Mission Hill Family Estate winery in Westbank, B.C., claimed the title of Best Chardonnay Worldwide in 1994 at a competition in London that the valley’s wine industry and the cuisine growing up alongside it really gained confidence, Franz says.
Today, tourism goes year-round, the Okanagan Wine Festivals run four times a year and Flintstones Bedrock City is long gone.
Darin Paterson, the chef-owner of Bogner’s of Penticton, arrived in the valley five years ago. An Edmontonian who did his Red Seal training through NAIT, he’d lived for a few years in Sweden before returning home. When he couldn’t get the permits for the kind of patio-based, open-air resto he wanted to open in his hometown, he decided to look in Vancouver. On the way there, he and his wife drove through Penticton and discovered that Bogner’s, begun in 1977, was for sale.
“We never made it to Vancouver,” the 36-year-old says.
His restaurant serves “fine European farm-to-table cuisine,” using the crops that surround him. Paterson has leased one hectare in Naramata to grow produce for his restaurant. In spring, his kitchen staff help on the farm, which has apple, pear and plum trees. Grass-fed, organic lamb, chicken and eggs come from nearby Cawston.
He’s formed a good relationship with Noble Ridge Vineyard & Winery in Oliver, and does the winery’s annual harvest dinner during the fall wine festival. In October, the menu featured dishes such as organic fire-roasted Moroccan tomato soup, grilled marinated chicken and lamb skewers served on couscous with zucchini relish and grilled vegetable salsa and organic plum cake. Chef Franz thinks of his “foodshed” as including fish from the B.C. coast, and beef and pork from Alberta. In season, he buys 90% of his produce locally, most of it from a farmer “up the road.”
“I want to know who grows the food I use. We never question the price. We want good quality and we are willing to pay for it.”
He’s also committed to growing young culinary talent and getting junior chefs excited about the bounty that surrounds them.
“We have to instill that in them.”
The valley is home to one of the fastest growing and active chapters of the Canadian Culinary Federation, he says, adding that Okanagan College is playing a vital role in developing wine country cuisine with its culinary arts program and “good, passionate instructors.”
“A lot of juniors went to Calgary or Vancouver for school. Now they’re staying here. It’s really exciting.”
Topics: Food & Drink | 农业 | 6,317 |
Insect Experts Issue 'Urgent' Warning On Using GM Seeds By editor
Mar 9, 2012 ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email Originally published on March 9, 2012 2:28 pm For America's agricultural biotech companies, the corn rootworm is threatening to turn into their worst nightmare. Last year, we reported that a major insect pest, the corn rootworm, had "found a chink in the armor" of genetically engineered crops. In several different places across the corn belt, the insects have developed resistance to an inserted gene that is supposed to kill them. Now, in a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released this week, 22 of the nation's top experts on corn pests lay out some of the implications of this discovery, and they are potentially profound. In order to slow down or prevent the spread of resistance, the scientists are calling for big changes in the way that biotech companies, seed dealers and farmers fight this insect. The scientists urge the agency to act "with a sense of some urgency." The rethinking that's laid out in this letter, in fact, goes beyond what the EPA is able to do under current law. For instance, the researchers want seed companies to stop routinely inserting anti-rootworm genes into their most productive hybrid seed lines. According to the letter, this practice means that farmers "often have few options" apart from rootworm-protected seeds — even in some areas where rootworms don't pose a serious problem. When farmers plant hybrids that contain the same gene, year after year, it dramatically increases the chances that this gene quickly will become useless, because insects will become resistant to it. The researchers are calling on farmers in some parts of the country to stop planting corn with anti-rootworm genes altogether, or to plant such corn only intermittently. Patrick Porter, of Texas A&M University, who coordinated drafting of the letter, tells The Salt that some of these recommendations will be dismissed as "impractical" by many farmers and seed companies. But the group's credentials are impressive. It includes most of the non-corporate researchers who are currently trying to evaluate the extent and consequences of corn rootworm resistance. If the recommendations in this letter were, in fact, put into practice, it would compel wrenching changes in the way that major seed companies like Monsanto and DuPont breed and market their corn seed. Monsanto issued a statement responding to the scientists' letter, asserting that rootworms has caused excessive damage on just 0.2 percent of the acres where farmers planted Monsanto's rootworm-protected corn. This year, scientists from the companies and also universities plan to monitor fields for rootworm damage much more carefully than in the past. So far, researchers have found insects that are resistant to just one of the three different anti-rootworm genes currently on the market. (For those of you who care about the details, it's called Cry3Bb1.) New corn hybrids now are on sale that combine two different anti-rootworm genes. In theory, if the toxins produced by these genes kill rootworms in different ways, this "pyramid" of genes should dramatically reduce the chances of insects developing resistance. So the EPA is allowing corn growers to plant this new "SmartStax" type of corn on a larger area — up to 95 percent of a grower's corn acres. Many scientists think this is a big mistake. They've collected data showing that the two genes, working together, are indeed more effective than any single gene — but the combination is not nearly as effective as people had hoped. In addition, "SmartStax" corn is being planted in areas where some insects may already be resistant to one of the genes, so it's not a true pyramid. "It raises real questions about how stable this house of cards is," says Kenneth Ostlie, from the University of Minnesota. The economic consequences of widespread corn rootworm resistance to genetically engineered crops could be enormous. Farmers who want to plant corn on their fields every year — and even farmers in some areas who rotate corn and soybeans — would be forced to rely on chemical insecticides. But Paul Mitchell, at the University of Wisconsin, says those insecticides don't work very well, and yields could suffer. Any significant dip in the corn harvest, Mitchell says, could produce "a huge spike" in the price of corn. Some farmers could adopt other ways to control rootworm, rotating their fields into crops where corn rootworms cannot easily survive, such as wheat or alfalfa. But Porter says that's simply not an option for many farmers; they have to plant the most profitable crop — corn — in order to compete economically. "A lot of the time, farming is run by bankers now," he says. Two experts who were not part of the group that sent the most recent letter, Fred Gould of North Carolina State University and Bruce Tabashnik, at the University of Arizona, have called on the EPA to require farmers to plant much larger "refuges" of corn that is not toxic to rootworms. They say it's the only reliable way to slow down insect resistance. But Porter says that's not possible, at least this year. There's simply not enough conventional corn seed for such large refuges. He's wary of sudden regulatory shifts that could fundamentally disrupt production: "If we do the wrong thing, we could see corn at $15 per bushel." That's more than twice what corn costs today. Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread. © 2015 Tri States Public Radio | 农业 | 5,566 |
Family farmers head to Washington to battle Monsanto in court
By Leigh Goessl Jan 7, 2013 in World
- Dozens of farmers are traveling across the country to Washington, DC to battle Monsanto in a U.S. Court of Appeals. The journey is to fight for the right for farmers to grow crops without interference from the corporate giant.
This week family farmers from across the U.S. travel to Washington in order to fight for the right to farm without interference from Monsanto and its GMO seeds in a U.S. Appeals Court. The plaintiff is fighting a battle to maintain farming enterprises through the planting, growing and harvesting of natural foods without contamination from GMO seeds. This lawsuit includes both organic and non-organic farmers who seek court protection for farmers who are contaminated by Monsanto's patented and genetically modified seeds. "Plaintiffs in this matter represent farmers and seed businesses who do not want to use or sell transgenic seed. Plaintiffs are largely organic farmers and organic seed businesses, but also include nonorganic farmers who nonetheless wish to farm without transgenic seed. Plaintiffs are increasingly being threatened by transgenic seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it," the lawsuit [PDF] states.
The case was filed on behalf of hundreds of thousands of organic and non-GMO farmers. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff represents 36 agriculture and food safety membership organizations, 14 seed businesses and 33 farms and farmers. The case was originally initiated in early 2011, but in Feb. 2012 was dismissed by U.S. Federal Court.
Monsanto has historically brought legal action against some farmers for patent infringement of its seeds. One of the problems is that the patented seeds literally blow into neighboring farms that are not using these specially formulated seeds. The lawsuit refers to this as Monsanto committing "trespass" on the property of farmers not using the GMO seeds.
Monsanto says on its website, the company's "primary reason for enforcing its patents is to ensure a level playing field for the vast majority of honest farmers who abide by their agreements, and to discourage using technology illegally to gain an unfair advantage."
Many farmers say they are not interested in Monsanto's technology.
"Our farmers want nothing to do with Monsanto," said Maine certified organic seed farmer, Jim Gerritsen, President of lead Plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), in a recent press release. "We are not customers of Monsanto. We don't want their seed. We don't want their gene-spliced technology. We don't want their trespass onto our farms. We don't want their contamination of our crops. We don't want to have to defend ourselves from aggressive assertions of patent infringement because Monsanto refuses to keep their pollution on their side of the fence. We want justice."
Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now! said it is time to end Monsanto's campaign and legal threats against farmers.
"Farmers have planted and saved seeds for more than 10,000 years without interruption until Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds entered the market in 1996. Almost immediately Monsanto began a campaign of harassment against America's farmers, trespassing on their land and launching frivolous patent infringement lawsuits," said Murphy.
Monsanto claims that there are farmers who have admitted to saving the seed illegally. "The vast majority of farmers who are presented with facts showing infringement admit the violation and pay a settlement," according to the company's website.
The hearing is scheduled to take place on Thurs., Jan 10 in the 10th US Court of Appeals. A Citizen's Assembly to support the family farmers is scheduled to take place at 10 a.m. in Lafayette Square, the same time the Oral Argument is scheduled to begin.
Please visit this page for more Digital Journal coverage on Monsanto and GMO foods.
Monsanto, gmo seeds, US appeals court, OSGATA, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association More news from
gmo seeds
US appeals court
OSGATA
Organic Seed Growers... | 农业 | 4,139 |
FFA selling American-Made Rubber Ducks Tools
Nov 4, 2012 at 9:05 PM EDT
Future Farmers of America has gone to the birds - well, rubber ducks anyway.
The FFA, the group that brings us the annual AdironDUCK race on the Oswegatchie in Croghan, is now selling American-made rubber ducks in a fundraising effort for the organization.
The FFA specialized ducks are made by one of the only American companies making rubber ducks.
All profits from the duck sales will support New York's FFA members and that's why officials say it's a great thing to buy:
"All of the proceeds go to support developing our agricultural leaders for the future," said Todd Lighthall, NYS FFA Executive Director.
"And I think it's just a fun thing to own. It's going to be one of those collectible pieces," he added. The collectable ducks cost $20, and can be purchased on the FFA's website. But hurry, because they're flying off the shelves.
If you'd like to purchase a duck, here's the link.
Next Article Watertown's Concert In The Park Moved To WHS, Fireworks Postponed | 农业 | 1,043 |
North Platte Bulletin - Grass fire stops near North Platte Feeders
Grass fire stops near North Platte Feeders
by The North Platte Bulletin - 9/10/2012
Thanks to the combined effort of eight fire departments, a grass fire was contained Monday afternoon at the southwest edge of North Platte Feeders, the largest cattle feed yard in Lincoln County. Firefighters from Maywood, Curtis, Wellfleet, Wallace, Hershey, Sutherland, Maxwell and North Platte made an all-out effort to stop the wildfire at Echo School Road, Lincoln County Emergency Mangaer Dan Guenthner said. The temperature pushed into the upper 90s and southwest wind was blowing 15-25 miles per hour, with gust to 30 mph, Guenthner said.A motor grader dug a path to bare soil two times to try to contain the racing fire. The fire jumped it both times as it raced north for about a mile, he said. "We made an all-out stand at Echo School Road," Guenthner said. "We wet down as much ground ahead of the fire as we could." A tractor and disc also turned up bare soil near the paved road. Fire crews moved in behind the headfire and other crews waited in front of it. Part of the fire jumped the paved road but was quickly extinguished and the fire was contained. The fire began along U.S. Highway 83 about 14 miles south of North Platte. The call came in at 1:45 p.m. At the time, the fire was a couple acres in size on the east side of the road, Guenthner said.Winds pushed the blaze north and slightly east and it grew to a width of about three-quarters of a mile, he said. Some 600 acres of grass burned. Firefighters were able to protect about 40 bales of hay east of the fire. The fire was in the Maywood-Wellfleet fire district, North Platte Fire Department Capt. Trent Kleinow said.North Platte was summoned at 1:48 p.m. and sent four vehicles, Kleinow said.The fire was under control and mop up began around 4 p.m., Guenthner said. The North Platte fire crew was headed home by 5 p.m.The cause has not been officially determined. Take care"We are in extremely hazardous conditions," Guenthner said. "In this drought, any little thing can start a fire." A fire near Lake McConaughy burned all the way to U.S. Highway 30, started by a bad wheel bearing on a boat trailer. A fire in Logan County started when a tire blew. The rim hit the pavement and made sparks, Guenthner said."Everyone needs to take precautions," he said. "We can't stress that enough." This report was updated and corrected Tuesday. -Editor. Like this story to send to your facebook
The North Platte Bulletin - Published 9/10/2012 | 农业 | 2,563 |
Industry Julie Borlaug says biotech is necessary in fight against hunger
By Texas A&M AgriLife
Julie Borlaug, granddaughter of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug and associate director for the Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture, delivers the keynote address advocating science and biotechnology as important tools in addressing global food security at the recent Ag Issues Forum in San Antonio. Photo by Texas A&M AgriLife Research
Julie Borlaug, granddaughter of Nobel Peace prize laureate and father of the Green Revolution Dr. Norman Borlaug, recently presented the keynote address to 165 U.S. and foreign newspaper, television, radio and Internet journalists at the 9th annual Ag Issues Forum in San Antonio.
The forum, presented by Bayer CropScience, was held in advance of the annual Commodity Classic, which is touted as the “nation’s largest farmer-led and farmer-focused convention and trade show.“
In her address, Borlaug, who is associate director for external relations at the Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture, part of the Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University System, said her grandfather was a strong proponent of science and biotechnology as “weapons in the fight against world hunger.” She urged forum attendees to help “educate and inform the public” about the need for continued scientific and biotechnological advances in agriculture to feed a growing world population.
“In my view, advocates of biotechnology desperately need to do a better job of explaining to the public why it is so important to the future of humanity and why we should not deprive millions, even billions, of people from its promise,” she said. “Science has spoken and the consensus is that genetically modified foods are safe and have the same nutritional value as organics.”
Borlaug noted that the world population, currently estimated at 7.2 billion, is expected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050.
“Almost all of that growth will be in undeveloped or underdeveloped countries and in locations where smallholder farmers are already struggling to raise sufficient crops,” Borlaug said. “I wonder how many opposed to biotechnology have ever been to an undeveloped country where agricultural workers, many of whom are women, spend their days pulling weeds, hauling water and fighting against crop loss from insects, viruses, bacteria and fungi.
“Without the life-changing and life-saving innovations of science and biotechnology, such as crops that are more drought, pest or disease resistant, how can these small-landholder farmers hope to advance beyond mere subsistence, much less provide food to feed others?”Borlaug said she hoped scientists, journalists and others either directly involved in or communicating about biotechnology would find more practical and uncomplicated terms and “jargon” to describe its benefits and make a better case for the necessity of agricultural advancements.
She noted some of the benefits of the application of proper science and biotechnology to agricultural crops included reducing the need for chemical inputs such as pesticides and herbicides, a smaller carbon imprint from less need for mechanized plowing and tilling, and the ability to specifically modify foods to contain more nutrients and grow in difficult environments.
“Opponents of what are termed GMOs or genetically modified organisms often use emotional and anti-corporate arguments to state their case,” she said. “But the real emotional appeal should be toward the vital and practical need for such innovation in the face of global food insecurity and the social instability this can cause.
“Most people in developed countries seem to have the perspective that food is somehow grown in the grocery store and is plentiful because they’ve never seen a shortage in their lifetime. They somehow feel, in spite of extensive research showing there is no nutritional difference between genetically modified foods and ‘organics,’ that non-modified foods are the only ones people should eat.”
She added that her grandfather was a scientist, but like many scientists he had “some difficulty in explaining why science is important.”
“But his innovation of developing a dwarf wheat triggered the Green Revolution — a true agricultural quantum leap that saved more than a billion lives,” she said.
She noted that March 25 of this year would have marked her grandfather’s 100th birthday, and that Dr. Norman Borlaug passed away in 2009 at age 95 after spending most of his life searching for ways to address world hunger.
“It’s ironic to me that some people would like to somehow go back a hundred years, to the time when my grandfather was born, in terms of agriculture and agricultural advancement,” she said. “But my granddad was not only a scientist and humanitarian, he was also a realist who understood that agriculture must always keep moving forward, not backward. He knew that science could and should be used to meet the challenges of farmers and others involved in agriculture throughout the world.”
She noted the recent destruction of a field of genetically engineered golden rice by protesters in the Philippines as an example of misdirected social conscience.
“This rice was to provide a new source of vitamin A, an essential nutrient whose absence causes blindness in a quarter-million to a half-million children, as well as about 2 million deaths, in Africa and Asia each year. It’s hard to believe anyone would want to deny this important food source to those who would so profoundly benefit from it.”
The key is choice, Borlaug said.
“We wouldn’t want to tell people not to eat organic foods, even if they’re paying more for something that’s nutritionally no different from genetically modified foods or because there’s no real ‘standard’ for organic production,” she said. “Conversely, we feel people should certainly be allowed to choose foods that have been improved and enhanced through biotechnology.”
However, she added, this is not to imply that biotechnology is the cure-all for world hunger.
“Multiple, integrated solutions are needed,” Borlaug said. “Farmers in underdeveloped countries need drought-resistant seeds, fresh water from improved irrigation, enhanced post-harvest storage and better roads for getting their crop to market. Biotechnology is just one of the tools the world needs to ensure adequate food security for this generation and the next.”
dr. borlaugbiotechnologygenetically modified About the Author:
Texas A&M AgriLife | 农业 | 6,513 |
The purpose of The Garden Club of America is to stimulate the knowledge and love of gardening, to share the advantages of association by means of educational meetings, conferences, correspondence and publications, and to restore, improve and protect the quality of the environment through educational programs and action in the fields of conservation and civic improvement.
Founded in 1913, The Garden Club of America is a volunteer, nonprofit 501(c)3 organization comprised of 200 member clubs and approximately 18,000 club members throughout the country.
The 2015 Annual Report of the GCA
The 2015 Annual Report on The Garden Club of America is now available. Inside is a recap of the GCA's previous year of activities and events covering such areas as Improving and Protecting the Environment, Educating the Public and Ourselves, Stimulating the Love and Knowledge of Gardening, Recognizing Outstanding Achievement, the Annual Meeting and the Advantages of Association.
The Garden Club of America receives OSI’s 2016 Land Conservation Award
On June 8, 2016, The Open Space Institute awarded its 2016 Land Conservation Award to The Garden Club of America (GCA). The award was accepted by President Anne Copenhaver for the GCA’s long and storied support of land conservation and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). “Conservation is a founding principle of our 103 year-old organization, from its beginning, working to ban billboards and protecting the redwoods, to its ongoing and current fields of endeavor – clean air, clean water, climate change, national parks, native plants,” Mrs. Copenhaver said in accepting the award.
The GCA Opposes Smithsonian Proposal to Destroy Haupt Garden
In comments submitted on May 11, 2016, The Garden Club of America joins a growing number of organizations opposed to the Smithsonian’s proposal to destroy the Enid A. Haupt Garden in the heart of the nation’s capital. Noting that the Haupt Garden is a joyous introduction to Victorian and other garden design, the GCA calls on Smithsonian planners to undertake further study before moving forward 1) to assess and address the period of significance for this garden; 2) to revisit whether the garden should indeed be included on the National Register of Historic Places and 3) and to honor the terms of Mrs. Haupt’s gift. Because the Smithsonian depends upon the generosity of donors, remaining true to donor intent should be an essential consideration. To read the full comments, click Read More below. Read more
The GCA’s Sarah Carey Receives Royal Horticultural Society’s Veitch Medal
The Garden Club of America is pleased to announce that Green Spring Valley Garden Club member Sarah Carey today received the 2016 Royal Horticultural Society’s Veitch Memorial Medal. RHS awarded the Medal in London in recognition of Sarah’s “outstanding contribution to the advancement of the science and practice of horticulture.” She was one of five recipients of the Medal including Marco Polo Stufano and Dr. Ken Thompson. Read details in the full article.
The Garden Club of America’s Plant of the Year: The Montine McDaniel Freeman Medal
Symphyotrichum oblongiflolium var. angustatus ‘Raydon’s Favorite’ has been named the 2016 Plant of the Year by The Garden Club of America (GCA). Read more to learn about this aster, the award and previous plants that have been recognized.
Scholarship Opportunities Available
The GCA offers 27 merit-based scholarships and fellowships in the areas of horticulture and its related disciplines which include medicinal and tropical botany, native bird habitat, conservation and ecological restoration, desert studies, landscape architecture, urban forestry, garden history and design, coastal wetlands, and pollinator research. Club-sponsored awards are given to recognize outstanding volunteer outreach that nurtures children in the appreciation of nature.
In March of 2016, 91 scholars were awarded over $360,000 to study and research a variety of horticultural and conservation topics ranging from summer environmental study and field work, to graduate level research projects. This class of scholars represents institutions throughout our nation and some will participate in related field work around the world.
GCA Scholarships - supporting the best and brightest and furthering knowledge of our natural environment.
Nominations for the Montine McDaniel Freeman Horticulture Award will be accepted by the GCA Horticulture Committee between March 1st and Dec 1st for the following year.
Nominate a Plant - recognize a plant that is under-utilized but worthy of preservation, propagation and promotion.
GCA Position Papers 2015 | 农业 | 4,655 |
Farm Horizons, August 2009
Feedlots: balancing farmers, homeowners, and the environment
By Ivan Raconteur
The subject of feedlots can be confusing and, in some cases, controversial, but, according to the people who regulate the process in Carver County, there are resources available to help people navigate through the process, which can include registration, permits, and a variety of regulations related to setbacks and the number of animal units that are allowed.
The rules vary from county to county, and officials advise farmers to seek advice from their own county feedlot office.
One Carver County resident has been dealing with feedlot issues for several years. His case may not be typical, but it involves many of the same issues that other feedlot operators and their neighbors face.
Jim Kieser runs a 160-acre farm in Hollywood Township that is owned by his parents, who retired in the mid-1990s. Kieser said at one time, the number of cows on the farm ranged from 80 to 100.
Kieser continued to run the farm after his parents retired and moved to an assisted living facility.
In 2002, Kieser was seriously injured in an automobile accident. He underwent two spinal surgeries, and was unable to work.
He said he sold most of his cows after the accident, because he was unable to take care of them, but he always kept eight or nine cows, and friends helped him while he was unable to work.
According to Kieser, a new challenge emerged in 2004, when his neighbor, Harlan Dobratz, sold off a 10-acre portion of his farm as a building site. Dobratz is a former Hollywood Township supervisor, Carver County planning commission member, Carver County commissioner, and current soil and water conservation district board member.
Mayer resident Korinne Kramer purchased the property, which was adjacent to Kieser’s feedlot. Kramer said she does not recall any discussion about feedlots or setbacks from feedlots when she bought the property. She said the township told her that she could build a house anywhere on the 10-acre parcel (she has not built a house, and has since put the property up for sale).
At about that same time, Kieser’s health was beginning to improve. He wanted to expand his herd so he could once again make a living on the farm. In order to do this, he said he needs a maximum of about 60 cows, which is fewer animals than were there when his father was running the farm.
Kieser said that was when his trouble began. He said he received conflicting information from the county.
He said he was told that his was not an existing farm. He was confused by this, because it had been a farm as far back as he could remember, and he is 48 years old. He said Dobratz had worked for his father for many years, filling silo, and two current Hollywood Township supervisors, Ron Kassulker and Kent Kassulker, had milked cows on the farm in the past. Kieser said it was no secret that this had been a working farm.
Mike Lein, manager of the land and water division of Carver County’s office of environmental services, which oversees the county feedlot program, said this illustrates one reason why the county wants operators to register their feedlots.
“Because he wasn’t registered, he didn’t get the protection of prohibiting that lot split,” Lein said.
He explained that the regulations are designed to protect both farmers and home owners.
Lein said people can’t build a new house within 1,000 feet of a feedlot. On the other hand, farmers can’t put a new feedlot within 1,000 feet of an existing house.
The county uses a figure of 30 or more animals to define a “working” feedlot (as opposed to a hobby farm). This is more restrictive than the state law, which uses 50 animal units.
Lein said the initial registration process for feedlots began between 2000 and 2002. “We’ve been to every known feedlot in the county,” Lein said. “We’ve done mailings and run ads, and we’ve been telling people to register their feedlots.”
In spite of this, Lein said some operators have chosen, for whatever reason, not to register.
Kieser said he dealt with multiple people at the county, including Scott Weinzierl and Rachel Matthews. He said every time the county staff changed, he had to start the process all over, explaining his situation to the new staff members and providing information about his operation. He said this went on for several years.
Lein disputed these allegations.
“We’ve been very clear with Mr. Kieser,” Lein said. He added that he and his staff have explained the issues and the options to Kieser.
“This is nothing new for us,” Lein commented. “We always try to keep the farmer in business.”
Another challenge that Kieser faces is that his feedlot is located in two shoreland districts, as defined by the Department of Natural Resources. There is the creek that runs through the ditch along Carver County Road 33 on the east side of Kieser’s property, and a larger wetland area that is located on the west side of his property.
Lein said no new or expanded feedlots are allowed within the shoreland areas, which are generally within 1,000 feet of a lake, or 300 feet of a stream.
Some townships are even more restrictive, Lein said, and township regulations are also enforced by his office.
Because feedlots in a shoreland area cannot be expanded, Kieser is limited to the maximum number of animals that have been on the farm in the past five years. He said this is unfair, because he was restricted in the number of animals he could have during that period. He said it seems like the county is trying to prevent him from earning a living.
Lein said that, based on his observations from driving by the farm, it has been many years since there has been a major feedlot operation on the property. Nonetheless, he said in cases like this, if a farmer can provide records such as purchases and sales of animals to document the number of animals that have been on a farm, this can be taken into account.
“When we find an issue, we bring in the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to come up with a fix,” Lein said. He added that the SWCD has access to resources, including cost-sharing programs, that can help farmers implement changes to allow them to operate within the regulations.
Greg Graczyk, program coordinator with the SWCD, recommended changes that Kieser could make that would help to increase the number of cows allowed on his land. These changes included moving his cows further back from the ditch that runs along Carver County Road 33, and planting grass in this area to increase the buffer between the feedlot and the ditch.
He also recommended that Kieser add more fencing to the west of his existing feedlot to move the cows further in that direction, which Kieser has done.
Graczyk also told Kieser that by moving his cows off of the feedlot and onto pasture land for part of the year would help the situation.
Graczyk explained that the SWCD provides technical assistance to the county on matters such as the Wetland Conservation Act and feedlots. It also helps with feedlot evaluations.
When evaluating a feedlot, Graczyk compiles information including the lot size, the number and size of the animals, how long they are on the lot (part of the year or all year), the distance to receiving water, size of the buffers, and the amount of clean water that runs over the lot, such as from a barn roof.
Graczyk inputs the data into a computer model called MinnFARM (Minnesota Feedlot Annualized Runoff Model). This helps him identify options for farmers.
“We put our heads together and try to come up with solutions. We try to help them get what they want, and stay within the regulations,” Graczyk commented.
He explained that in Kieser’s case, he previously was just under the 10-animal limit. When he started to talk about expanding beyond that, this was when the county became involved.
A feedlot permit is required:
• when a new feedlot is to be constructed.
• when a feedlot is expanded or modified.
• when an existing feedlot is restocked after being abandoned for more than five years.
• when there is a change in ownership (including from father to son).
• when a complaint is filed and an inspection reveals that the site is creating a potential pollution hazard.
In addition to different rules between counties, some rules change within a county.
For example, in the western portion Carver County, a conditional use permit is required for feedlots of 600 or more animal units. However, in the eastern portion of the county, where the population density is higher and residential development is beginning to replace farmland, a conditional use permit is required for feedlots of 300 animal units, making the east side of the county twice as restrictive as the west side.
On May 20, Lori Brinkman, assistant feedlot administrator for Carver County, and Graczyk inspected Kieser’s operation and gathered information about current animal units, his future plans, and the number of animals he would like to have.
In June, Graczyk inspected Kieser’s operation again.
In a June 30 letter to Kieser, Brinkman said the May 20 inspection was conducted for three purposes. First, because Carver County environmental services received a complaint about how the feedlot was being managed. Second, to gain an understanding of the current management of the feedlot, and third, to discuss Kieser’s future management plans to determine the feasibility of these plans.
Brinkman said her goal was “to assist you to develop a feedlot plan that will align your plans with feedlot regulation requirements.”
Brinkman also wrote, “Many of the requirements to eliminate the open lot pollution hazard are currently in the process of being implemented by you, which is a great benefit and is greatly appreciated.”
Among the findings that Brinkman noted in her letter were the following:
Future expansion must occur to the west.
Buffers below the feedlot must be expanded to filter runoff (Kieser has already moved his fences back and planted grass).
The final requirement is for Kieser to bring his feedlot into compliance with Minnesota Feedlot Rule 7020 and the Carver County feedlot ordinance, including registration of his feedlot.
Brinkman stated in her letter that the “feedlot must be registered based on the maximum number of animals that have been maintained on the site at any one time in the past five years.”
Kieser said does not want to sign the registration form, because he believes this will prevent him from expanding his operation.
He also said he believes there is conflicting information, because Graczyk told him he could have the animals he wants if he completes all the changes to his operation that the SWCD has recommended, but the office of environmental services is still limiting the number of animals he can have to the number he has had in the past five years.
“I’m not trying to buck the system. I’m just trying to make a living here,” Kieser said.
He added that working on the farm is “his only chance” because he can adjust the work to his health conditions. He said that as a result of his injuries from the accident, he is not able to work a “regular” job.
Regardless of what has happened up to this point, it appears that Kieser will have to work with the county to come up with a plan that will allow him to complete the expansion that he wants within the existing regulations, and despite the challenges with the property being in two shoreland districts, the county has not yet ruled out this possibility. Lein said Kieser still has some options.
“He must come in with a specific plan,” Lein said. This plan will have to show how Kieser will limit the pollution issues from his feedlot.
Lein said his department strives to find balance between the needs of farmers and homeowners. It must also preserve air and water quality while working within state guidelines.
The final advice Lein had for farmers was to encourage them to call or stop by his office when they are thinking about new feedlots or modifying existing ones.
“There are people here who can help,” Lein said. “Don’t assume that you will get a permit,” he advised. He said any plans should be reviewed by his office prior to any work being done.
Lein said he sometimes receives calls from Realtors who are looking at a piece of property and want to know what setback requirements are involved. He appreciates when they call, because this can eliminate problems later on in the process.
In summary:
All feedlots with 10 or more animal units should be registered.
A feedlot with 30 or more animal units is considered a “working” feedlot, and which provides the benefit of prohibiting new homes within 1,000 feet (but also prevents new feedlots of 30 or more animal units from being built within 1,000 feet of an existing home.
Any feedlot with 600 or more animal units (300 on the east side of Carver County) also requires a conditional use permit (Laketown Township and Watertown Township are even more restrictive).
Any feedlot of any size located in a shoreland area also requires a conditional use permit. Existing feedlots in shoreland areas that have been in place since before the requirement was implemented will require a conditional use permit if they are expanded or modified in any way.
Any questions regarding feedlots or required setbacks should be directed to the feedlot office in the county where a property is located.
Farm Horizons: Main Menu | 2009 Stories
Guides | Sitemap | Dassel-Cokato Home | Delano Home | HJ Home | 农业 | 13,478 |
Philadelphia Home: Inside Drew Becher’s Chestnut Hill Home
Tucked on a rolling two acres in Chestnut Hill, the 1926 English Tudor home of Pennsylvania Horticultural Society president Drew Becher is a mix of crisp modernity and enchanting country charm.
By Emily Goulet | March 26, 2012 comment on this post
Drew Becher is walking around his sun-dappled two-acre Chestnut Hill property. He’s wearing a crisp blue shirt with epaulets, a colorful striped belt, khakis, and laceless white Converse All-Stars. Two small fountains—one on either side of two adjacent back patios—gurgle in a babbling-brook sort of way, masking the hum of traffic on nearby Germantown Avenue and making the scene feel more English countryside than middle-of-the-city. “I love boxwoods,” Becher says, pointing to an impeccably groomed hedge in the backyard. Then he notices the maple. “Oh, Japanese maple, with a dash of red. One of my favorite plants.” A few steps later: “Lavender, that’s my favorite. I love the way it smells, the way it looks.” But then he sees the hydrangea: “White hydrangea. That’s my total favorite.”
When you’re Drew Becher, president of the renowned Pennsylvania Horticultural Society and a self-proclaimed “nursery shopaholic,” it’s difficult to choose just one favorite plant—especially when there are so many to choose from. The same can be said of the houses he’s lived in. There was the converted funeral home, the suburban cottage, the glass-walled Chicago penthouse, the Victorian rowhome in D.C., and now the stately 1926 English Tudor where he lives with his partner, Eric Lochner, CEO of a Wayne-based human capital management firm. At first, the sprawling half-timbered stucco-and-fieldstone home was a country house for the globe-trotting couple; almost immediately after they made settlement, Lochner was transferred to London, and Becher was summoned to New York by Bette Midler to head the New York Restoration Project. Now, after four years, a thorough interior renovation of the house and a total landscape overhaul of the property, the couple has at last planted firm roots. Meanwhile, Becher has been busy transforming Philadelphia into a world-class horticulture destination, starting with the Flower Show, which flourished in splendid tropical fashion last month. But he’s already on to the next project.
“I told Eric over dinner that I really want to inject purple into our plantings this year,” he says thoughtfully. Like all matters of design, introducing a new color into the landscape isn’t a decision he takes lightly. He laughs. “It’s a big day at the Becher-Lochner household.”
Click here to see photos of Drew Belcher’s Chestnut Hill home. 1 2 3Next >View as One Page | 农业 | 2,698 |
Cerca solo in Sala stampa
About FAOIn ActionCountriesThemesSala stampaPublicationsStatisticsPartnerships
Contatti per i giornalistiArchivio notizieAppuntamentiAudio & videoPodcastBroadcast downloadWebcastingInfographics
Home > Sala stampa > News Article
Questo articolo non è disponibile in italiano.Cliccare qui per chiudere il messaggio.
A new deal to rid Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia of obsolete pesticides
The EU and FAO invest in model for hazardous waste management and sustainable crop protection
A partnership to protect human health and the environment12 April 2012, Rome - Twelve countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia will start working with the European Union (EU) and FAO to manage their vast stocks of obsolete pesticides in a partnership that was launched at FAO's headquarters in Rome. It is estimated that around 200 000 tons of obsolete pesticides, nearly half the world's stockpiles, can be found in twelve former Soviet Union republics. Kept in tens of thousands of unprotected sites, they pose a serious threat to the health of the people around them and to the environment.For the next four years, the EU and FAO will invest €7 million to assist these countries — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan — in managing obsolete pesticides and reducing the risks of current stocks. At the same time, the project will build capacity to reduce risks from pesticides used in agriculture and avoid build-up of additional stockpiles in future."In the past decades, we were able to increase food production significantly, but at a huge toll on the environment," said José Graziano da Silva, Director-General of FAO. "One of the consequences of this chemical-input, intensive agriculture we adopted are the barrels of obsolete pesticides lying abandoned around the world."Pesticides may be an important input for farming, but they need to be used responsibly while protecting human health and the environment from their adverse effects. In our quest for sustainability and to meet the challenge of feeding a growing population while preserving our environment, we also need to take a good look at the different options we have to protect crops and improve productivity. This includes using natural means to protect and improve crop yields through sustainable crop intensification, or 'save and grow' techniques as we call it at FAO," Graziano da Silva added.Catalyst"The EU has an established policy dialogue and co-operation on environment related issues with its eastern neighbours and Central Asian partners," said the EU Ambassador Laurence Argimon-Pistre."In its new Neighbourhood Policy, the EU will continue to pursue a higher level of environment protection with its eastern partners and be committed to combat environmental degradation," she added. "This includes obsolete pesticides and other hazardous chemicals, whose environmental and health risks are not only at stake for the region but also for the EU".The EU is contributing €6 million to the initiative, and FAO, which is to act as implementing agency, has allocated €1 million in funding. This initiative aims to act as a catalyst for the development of obsolete pesticide and hazardous waste management in the region, by helping provide the resources needed for technical and policy support to enable countries to help themselves.Work togetherAlthough activities will include the actual disposal of stockpiles, the priority lies in building capacities, for example in the areas of legislative reform, pesticide registration processes, the promotion of alternatives to the most hazardous chemicals in use and the development of communication strategies to raise awareness among farmers and the public.Another important goal is to establish a regional forum geared to the mobilisation of the additional resources needed for full-scale clean-up and the constitution of a region-wide system capable of dealing with future challenges posed by pesticides. Other cross-cutting activities include a survey of regional waste management capacity and the creation of a regional training centre.Key to achieving the overall aim of removing toxic materials from the region is the development of linkages between initiatives already active to ensure that all partners are working together.In this initiative, FAO and the EU are working together with partners such as WHO, UNEP, the Secretariats of the Convention of Rotterdam, Stockholm and Basel, international NGOs, including the Green Cross and the International HCH and Pesticide Association and the private sector, among others.
Related linksFAO-EU partnershipDocumentsStatement by FAO Director-General José Graziano da SilvaPrevention and disposal of obsolete pesticidesHalf a million tonnes of obsolete pesticides are scattered throughout the world. FAO's Programme on the Prevention and Disposal of Obsolete Pesticides is working to inform the world about the dangers of obsolete pesticide stocks. It collaborates with countries to prevent more obsolete pesticides from accumulating and assists them to dispose of their existing stockpiles.Disposing of obsolete pesticidesContactMaarten RoestMedia Relations (Rome)(+39) 06 570 56524(+ 39) 346 50 10 [email protected]
Contact us Terms and Conditions Scam Alert Report fraud Employment Procurement Governing Bodies Office of the Inspector General Evaluation Legal and Ethics Office Dipartimenti ed uffici della FAO Agriculture and Consumer Protection Economic and Social Development Fisheries and Aquaculture Forestry Technical Cooperation Regional Office for AfricaRegional Office for Asia and the PacificRegional Office for Europe and Central AsiaRegional Office for Latin America and the CaribbeanRegional Office for the Near East and North AfricaCountry Offices
Seguici su Scarica la nostra App | 农业 | 5,919 |
Is Tyson Foods' Chicken Empire A 'Meat Racket'? By Dan Charles
Feb 19, 2014 ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email Chickens gather around a feeder in a Tyson Foods poultry house in Washington County, Ark.
April L. Brown
Originally published on February 24, 2014 2:38 pm Christopher Leonard's new exposé on the chicken industry, The Meat Racket, doesn't devote much ink to the physical object on our plate, the chicken meat itself. Instead, Leonard focuses on the economic machinery that delivers the meat to us, or, as he puts it, "the hidden power structure that has quietly reshaped U.S. rural economies while gaining unprecedented control over the nation's meat supply." His book aims a spotlight at Tyson Foods, which helped create the modern chicken industry. And it recounts the stories of people, mostly farmers, whom Leonard contends Tyson has chewed up and cast aside since its incorporation in 1947. Leonard, now a fellow at the New America Foundation, once worked for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, covering business news in Tyson's home territory. And there's a note of admiration in Leonard's description of Don Tyson, the man who drove the company's rise to global superpower of meat after taking over the company when his father, John, died in 1967. "I think he was a genius," Leonard tells NPR's Renée Montagne on Morning Edition. "Don Tyson had the ability to see the world as it did not yet exist. He saw that chicken would soon replace beef or pork as the most popular meat in the United States." (For more, listen to the entire interview.) Leonard has no admiration at all, though, for the system of chicken production that Tyson built, which "keeps farmers in a state of indebted servitude, living like modern-day sharecroppers on the ragged edge of bankruptcy." Leonard's criticisms are not new. Activist groups devoted to farmers' rights, such as Rural Advancement Foundation International and the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, have been fighting against concentration in the poultry and meat-packing industries for many years. In the early days of the Obama administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Justice Department held public hearings on alleged abuses by companies that dominate the meat business. Just a few weeks ago, the Pew Charitable Trusts released its own critique of the broiler industry. Leonard's book, however, is probably the most detailed account of the inner workings of Tyson, as well as the relationship between poultry companies and the not-so-independent farmers who actually raise the birds. That relationship is often called "contract farming." It was invented by the poultry industry, but is now gaining ground in the pork and beef industries, too. In this system, the farmer owns the chicken houses, but the poultry companies are very much in control. They deliver the chicks on their own schedule — in fact, they aren't required to deliver any flocks at all. They supply the feed, and the feed additives. Leonard depicts that relationship as something like a con game run by the companies for their own benefit. "Almost invariably, from everything I've seen, the farmer loses," he told Morning Edition. "The farmer takes the brunt of the volatility; the farmer swallows the worst of the losses when there is a problem with their chickens." Leonard tells the stories of farmers who've fallen into bankruptcy, and implies that this outcome is almost inevitable. The National Chicken Council, an industry lobbying group, responded with two pages of quotes from poultry producers who stoutly defend the contract growing systems. It also pointed out that when grain prices spiked a few years ago, chicken companies ate huge losses, while contract farmers, who didn't have to pay directly for the feed, were protected. Tyson, in a separate statement, said "we depend on [contract farmers] and want them to succeed. Some of them have been raising livestock and poultry for us for decades, and in some cases, for multiple generations." The Meat Racket's description of the problems with contract farming is more convincing than its ideas for how to build a better, more equitable alternative. Leonard, for instance, endorses the modest reforms put in place in Iowa, which guarantee farmers certain rights, such as the right to share contract information. But those reforms don't touch the basic shape of the system. His more ambitious hope is for a revival of free markets in meat production instead of vertically integrated supply chains run by big companies. Yet it's unclear whether this would really improve things. Competition among farmers is a brutal reality of commodity production; as farmers push to become more efficient, it drives down prices and pushes the weakest out of the business. In poultry, the companies run that competition; in many other commodities, free markets do the job. Few American consumers seem to care very much about that. After all, if competition keeps prices low, why should they complain? Leonard thinks the situation has changed, and that poultry superpowers now are using their power to raise chicken prices, squeezing consumers as well as farmers. Yet the industry's ability to protect its profits still seems limited. Five years ago, one of the biggest poultry companies in the country, Pilgrim's Pride, actually went bankrupt when feed prices soared. Pilgrim's Pride was snapped up by JBS, a Brazil-based multinational. It's now the biggest producer of meat in the world, ahead of Tyson. Increasing concentration in the meat industry, once fueled by Don Tyson's ambition, continues even without him.Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. Transcript RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST: A trip to the grocery store offers what appears to be an abundance of chicken choices - from patties to pot pie, tenders to Cornish hens. The selection can almost be overwhelming. But you can count on just one hand the number of food companies producing those choices. In his new book, "The Meat Racket," author Christopher Leonard investigates the handful of companies that have taken control of the meat supply, focusing especially on Tyson Foods. Behind that household name was a man Leonard calls a genius, Don Tyson. CHRISTOPHER LEONARD: Don Tyson had the ability to see the world as it did not yet exist. And the most important thing he saw, back in the 1960s, was that chicken would soon replace beef or pork as the most popular meat in the United States. MONTAGNE: The idea was not common wisdom at the time. Up until the 1940s, chicken was reserved for special occasions. LEONARD: It was a specialty meat. It's what you would cook for a nice Sunday dinner. Back then, you would typically cook a whole bird. It was a luxury item. I mean, when people talked about having a chicken in every pot, that was sort of a marker for affluence. But that really changed in the '40s and '50s, when these farmers in the South figured out how to raise chicken more efficiently. MONTAGNE: Well, you refer to raising chickens, especially in the early days, as a casino. LEONARD: Yeah, absolutely. The market was very volatile. When supply outstripped demand even by a little bit, the price of chicken would just drop through the floor. And it was hard to gauge production exactly right. MONTAGNE: Well, this has to do with the fact that with a cow, you're talking anywhere from many months to a couple of years. I mean, you can raise a chicken and get it ready to be slaughtered in six weeks. LEONARD: That's right. You can almost respond to the market in real time with a chicken. And in the early days, that's exactly what the industry looked like - this boom-and-bust-type cycle of people seeing good prices, ramping up production, creating an oversupply; and then prices would fall again. MONTAGNE: So this is what the Tysons - John Tyson and son Don Tyson - figured out, that other companies copied - or tried to copy, but that they helped start; this idea that you had to count for this volatile market in the chickens themselves by doing what? LEONARD: Well, this company, Tyson Foods, started in John Tyson's living room in the 1930s in rural Springdale, Ark. This was a hard place. Don Tyson did not grow up rich. And one thing he focused on relentlessly was keeping down costs - because what he learned was that the market would get good, and everybody would jump in and companies would get fat, and everybody made a lot of money but inevitably, the market would crash again. And the companies that survived were the low-cost producers. MONTAGNE: OK. Nice thought. I suppose everybody, in a way, thought that. What Don Tyson figured out to do was to buy up every stage of production, even including the eggs that created the chicks. They had the feed. They had the slaughterhouses. They had the delivery systems. But the one thing they chose not to own were the farms. Why, exactly? Give us a little economics lesson here. LEONARD: First of all, you have to have a lot of land to have an industrial chicken complex. I mean, farm is kind of a bad word for these meat factories - is really what they are. They're these giant, automated warehouses that can hold maybe 25,000 or more chickens at a time. And Tyson Foods realized that it was kind of a rotten investment to build chicken farms. So Tyson developed a system over time, that's really called contract farming. And here's how it works: A person in a small town will borrow hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars from the local bank. They'll build a giant industrial footprint of chicken houses; and then they sign a contract with Tyson Foods, which will deliver the chickens to their farm, deliver the feed to their farm. And the farmer grows the birds to Tyson's exacting specifications. MONTAGNE: Well, you describe the system - which, by the way, is not exclusive to Tyson - as something close to modern-day sharecroppers. LEONARD: That's exactly what it is - a high-tech form of sharecropping. And the farmers in this kind of contract system have almost zero autonomy over their operations. They can't control the quality of the chicks that arrive. They can't control the quality of the feed. When things go wrong, they depend on Tyson Foods to tell them what goes wrong. But you point to a critical outcome of this, which is that the farmers do not keep the majority of the income from their farm. MONTAGNE: But how many other companies in the meat industry follow this example? LEONARD: Just three firms produce almost half the chicken in the United States. Back in the '70s, you know, nearly 40 companies controlled that much of the market. So what that means is, these companies act as regional monopolies. You can go to any chicken town, and you'll find that a farmer will have a choice between one, maybe two, chicken companies to sign a contract with, if they're lucky. So that's one of the key reasons why the terms of these contracts have become less and less advantageous to farmers over time. MONTAGNE: I mean, isn't the beauty of this system, though, that the chicken's cheaper, and that's a good thing for consumers? LEONARD: No, it's not. (Laughter) MONTAGNE: OK. LEONARD: Chicken is not cheaper today. Meat prices have been rising very fast since 2008. MONTAGNE: But chicken, not as much as other kinds of meat, right? And also, wouldn't it have gotten more expensive if this industry wasn't so centralized? LEONARD: Chicken is relatively cheap today. It's cheaper than it was many, many decades ago, even though it's at nominal record-high prices right now. But you're right, the American food system is a technological marvel. I mean, it does an incredible job at giving us meat that is more or less safe, at a predictable price, that's relatively cheap to our incomes. But I can say, chicken would be cheaper today if this industry was not so consolidated. You've got these giant companies whose reach spans out across 22 percent of the entire market. So a single company can cut its production and keep prices higher than they would be. A highly consolidated and monopolistic industry is not good for consumers. MONTAGNE: I wonder how difficult it is for any person to opt out of the system; to steer clear of buying and eating meat produced by these enormous meat companies. LEONARD: I have concluded that the only way to truly opt out of the system is to become vegetarian. If you're eating meat today, unless you know the farmer and that's the only meat you eat, you're participating in this industrial system. All of the unlabeled meat that is served in our restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals, at the grocery store - it all comes from industrial companies. And so I think we need to take a hard look at this system that delivers most of our meat to giant cities seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. MONTAGNE: Thank you very much for joining us. LEONARD: Thanks so much for having me. (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) MONTAGNE: Christopher Leonard is the author of the new book "The Meat Racket." We reached out to Tyson Foods before our interview, and you can find their written statement at NPR.org. (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) MONTAGNE: This is NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.View the discussion thread. © 2016 WFAE | 农业 | 13,220 |
Farmers' Market opens with tractor day 07.14.2010
Posted in 2010 July
Fayette’s farmer’s market will take on a little more of the farm Friday with the addition of antique working tractors.
To celebrate the return of the Farmer’s Market on the Opera House Square, areas residents who have restored vintage tractors and tools will pull up their lawn chairs and show off the equipment they have grown up with, and in many cases, continue to operate.
“We want to add to the Friday event by sharing our enjoyment of this hobby with others who are intrigued with the tools of the farming community,” said Fayette Arts Council director Tom Spiess.
The show was inspired by Don Sly when he suggested that others might enjoy seeing his restored 1943 John Deere B and a working model of a 1945 Oliver Cletrack.
Spiess decided he would bring his 1953 Ford 8-N’s and Allis-Chalmers WD 45s to broaden the display for tractor aficionados. The list of interested exhibitors has expanded.
The show is open to all who wish to show off their tractors on and around the Square from 10 a.m. through 5 p.m. There are no entry fees and a concessions stand will be available.
For the several years, the Fayette Arts Council has sponsored many events on the Opera House Square—the former site of the old Hotel Central, Treat’s Hotel and the Sohio Filling Station.
The council purchased the land—“at risk” and vacant following the demolition of the service station—with the goal of transforming it into a green space, a place where people could gather for community events and activities.
One strategy was the development of a farmer’s market, Spiess said, and Friday was chosen to capitalize on the large number of people who travel on weekends from the east and south to lake properties in Indiana and Michigan.
Spiess noted that Fayette is the only village in Fulton County whose Main Street (U.S. 20) is a coast-to-coast Highway. Fayette has the only business district on that route between Toledo and Angola, Ind.
Several summers ago, local farmer Rick Brehm and his family set up a produce stand on the square. Featuring everything from sweet corn and green beans to squash and melons, the family enterprise has become a Friday fixture on the square during the summer season.
“The Brehm’s have developed quite a following” Spiess said. “They offer a wide variety of fresh, locally grown produce for both local consumers and the thousands of vehicle that pass daily through Fayette on their way east and west.”
Following Brehms’ success, the Arts Council invites others to join in.
“If you raise it, grow it, bake it or build it and hope to sell it in an open air market, the Opera House Square offers a location that is hard to beat,” Spiess said.
The market was expected to open earlier in the summer, but weather and scheduling difficulties pushed back the opening to July. Spiess said that there had been some hope that producers of bedding plants and shrubs, and early crops such as rhubarb, strawberries and asparagus might take advantage of the opportunity to set a stand.
“That simply didn’t happen” said Spiess. “The marketing for the early event was not in place and without that, few could be expected to participate.”
With produce now being harvested, the array of vegetables for sale will rapidly grow. | 农业 | 3,295 |
Posts Tagged: glassy-winged sharpshooter
UC biological control scientist Marshall W. Johnson retired in June
After a successful tenure as an entomology professor and researcher at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, Marshall W. Johnson added a 10-year capstone to his career as UC Cooperative Extension specialist and research entomologist in the Department of Entomology at UC Riverside, based at the UC Kearney Agricultural Research and Extension Center. He retired at the end of June.
Johnson traces his interest in insects to a visit with a family friend on the outskirts of his hometown, Roanake, Va., when he was 10 years old. He was intrigued by a copy of “A Golden Guide to Familiar American Insects,” and the friend gave it to him. “That’s how I got started,” Johnson said. He never looked back.
Johnson earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in entomology at North Carolina State University and in 1974 completed a Ph.D. in entomology at UC Riverside. After conducting short stints of entomological research at two locations on the mainland, he moved to Hawaii in 1983 to serve as a professor and focus his research on biological control.
In Hawaii watermelon production, Johnson was able to help farmers reduce pesticide use by 90 percent by showing that pesticide applications were killing natural enemies of a Liriomyza leafminer pest they were trying to control. He also worked on biological control of pests on cucumbers, tomatoes, green onions, pineapple, papaya and coffee.
In 1995, Johnson took a six-month sabbatical leave to UC Davis and realized how much he missed living on the mainland. He started looking for a new job and eventually was offered the combined extension and research position at his alma mater, UC Riverside, based at the off-campus research center in Parlier, Calif.
Johnson’s arrival coincided with the introduction of olive fruit fly in California, a serious pest that has devastated olive production in the Mediterranean region for more than 2,000 years. Olive fruit fly was detected in Los Angeles in 1998, and by 1999 had made its way into the San Joaquin Valley, the leading producer of the state’s olives.
To the great relief of valley olive growers, Johnson and his biological control colleague Kent Daane, UCCE specialist in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at UC Berkeley, found that hot summertime temperatures in the valley depress olive fly populations. But that didn’t provide a statewide solution.
Johnson and Daane worked together to introduce exotic natural enemies of the pest from Africa. The beneficial insects have been released from quarantine and introduced at several locations in California, with recovery of one species in the San Luis Obispo and Redwood City areas.
“We think it’s on the way to establishment. That’s a good sign,” Johnson said. “Now we're waiting to see if the parasite’s presence will have an impact on olive fly populations.”
Johnson was also involved in research that showed the Central Valley isn’t as hospitable to glassy-winged sharpshooters as other parts of the state. When it gets very cold, GWSS cannot move or feed. They either starve or get dehydrated.
“About every 2 out of 10 years, it gets cold enough in the valley that glassy-winged sharpshooter populations are reduced 90 to 95 percent,” Johnson said. “It is unlikely glassy-winged sharpshooters would ever become well established in the Sacramento Valley or the northern San Joaquin Valley. But it is well established in the Bakersfield area.”
Johnson ended his career with a video production project designed to raise awareness about integrated pest management. Posted on the website Extending Orchard IPM Knowledge in California, the videos include interviews with IPM practitioners, researchers and farmers plus overviews of specific pest control techniques, such as biological control, cultural practices and pheromones.
For his research and extension efforts, Johnson received numerous awards and honors over the years. Most recently, he was named “Distinguished Scientist of the Year,” by the International Organization for Biological Control. He is an elected fellow of both the Entomological Society of America and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He was author or co-author of more than 200 peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and extension publications.
During retirement, Johnson plans to spend more time pursuing the art of photography, mainly landscapes and seascapes, which he captures during travels around the United States. Johnson also plans to continue cataloging the history of the family of his mother, whose maiden name was “Marshall.” He has already traced his lineage back to a 1729 immigrant from Ireland. An earlier ancestor, a member of the provincial council in Pennsylvania, was governor for one day when William Penn was absent from the colony, Johnson said. Marshall W. Johnson
Posted on Friday, July 19, 2013 at 8:24 AM
Author: Jeannette E. Warnert
Tags: glassy-winged sharpshooter (2), Integrated Pest Management Systems (1), Olives (1), retirement (1)
Glassy winged sharpshooter a continuing threat to grape industry
Anaheim boasted a thriving wine industry in the late 1800s, before an unnamed affliction killed 40,000 acres of the grapevines and put 50 wineries out of business. The problem was later found to have been Pierce’s disease of grapevines. Would Anaheim be wine country today if it weren’t for Pierce’s disease? Probably not, but the sad fate of this Southern California wine industry underscores the importance of controlling the disease and the insects that spread it in California’s thriving grape growing regions.
Glassy-winged sharpshooter adult.The bacterium that causes Pierce’s disease has always existed in California, affecting a wide variety of plants, from oleanders to almonds. But the problem shot to prominence in the 1990s with the inadvertent introduction into California of the glassy-winged sharpshooter. The insect is native to the southeastern United States and was most likely brought into California accidentally as egg masses in ornamental or agricultural plant foliage.
GWSS has turned out to be a very efficient vector of Xyella fastidiosa, the bacterium that causes Pierce’s disease in grapes. When GWSS made their way to places where scientists believed the bacterium didn’t exist, such as Kern County, grapevines began to express symptoms of the disease. The county agricultural commissioners in the San Joaquin Valley have been working tirelessly over the last 10 years to keep glassy-winged sharpshooters out of grape growing regions to protect a very valuable economic driver. In Fresno County alone, where grapes are the No. 1 agricultural commodity, the crop was worth $961 million in 2011.
Despite the efforts to contain GWSS in Fresno County, the pest is spreading very gradually south and east of the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area into commercial vineyards and orchards.
“Cooperation by urban residents where we find GWSS has been great,” said Fred Rinder of the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner’s office. Nevertheless, in 2012, GWSS was found spreading out in Kerman, Parlier, Sanger and Kingsburg.
Stephen Vasquez, UC Cooperative Extension advisor in Fresno County, fears local grape farmers have become complacent about glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce’s disease, even though all grapes are susceptible. The best way to control its spread, he said, is to monitor and manage sharpshooter vectors and remove and replace vines that have tested positive for Xylella fastidiosa.
“Be vigilant. Learn the symptoms and train crews and workers,” Vasquez said. “Pierce’s disease has been around for a long time and GWSS has been here more than a decade, but we still haven’t had that marriage of the two. That is potentially devastating.”
The UC IPM website has extension information on glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce’s disease. Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 8:48 AM
Tags: glassy-winged sharpshooter (2), GWSS (1), Stephen Vasquez (1) | 农业 | 8,051 |
Allium Species - the Perennial Onions
Español UK Portuguese This genus contains a number of species that are commonly cultivated as food plants. Most people who grow their own vegetables will grow onions and leeks, they will often also grow garlic, shallots and chives, whilst those who are more adventurous might be growing garlic chives, tree onions, everlasting onions and welsh onions. These are all very worthwhile and productive crops but there are also many other members of this genus that are more than worthy of a place in the food garden. Many of these alternative species are also very ornamental and are often grown in the flower garden. Edible Uses
All members of this genus are, at least theoretically, edible. Their flavours range from mild onions and leeks right through to strong onion and garlic. All parts of the plants are edible - we normally confine ourselves to the leaves and the flowers, but many species produce bulbs and these can also be eaten, though they will be much smaller than cultivated onion bulbs. The flowers tend to have a stronger flavour than the leaves and the young developing seed-heads are even stronger. The leaves and flowers can be eaten in salads, and you can have a plentiful supply all through the year. The leaves can also be cooked as a flavouring with other vegetables in soups etc. or they can be used as a cooked green, though this is probably too much of a good thing for most people. Other uses
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate the health benefits of including Alliums in the diet. Garlic, for example, has a very long folk history of use in the treatment of a wide range of diseases, particularly ailments such as ringworm, candida and vaginitis where its fungicidal, antiseptic, tonic and parasiticidal properties have proved of benefit. It is also said to have anticancer activity and demographic studies suggest that garlic is responsible for the low incidence of arteriosclerosis in areas of Italy and Spain where consumption of the bulb is heavy. The compounds that make garlic so medically potent (and give it its distinct flavour) can also be found in most other members of the genus, though usually in rather lower concentrations. In large concentrations these same compounds can actually be harmful to the health. It would take an awful lot of onions to cause problems for most people, though cases are occasionally recorded. Most mammals can be affected by them and, for some reason, dogs seem to be more susceptible than most. As well as being beneficial for our health, alliums are also good companion plants to grow in the garden. They grow well with most plants, especially roses, carrots, beet and camomile, but they inhibit the growth of legumes. When grown close to other plants they tend to increase that plant's resistance to disease and reduce insect infestation. For example, many gardeners grow onions with carrots in order to reduce damage by the carrot root fly. By no means 100% effective, it reduces carrot fly attacks because the smell of the onions masks the carrot smell. Any carrot flies that come within viewing range of the carrots, however, will not be fooled. You can make a very good tonic spray from onion or garlic bulbs that will also increase the resistance of plants to pests and diseases, and garlic bulbs have in the past been used as a fungicide. Simply chop up the bulbs and soak them overnight in cold water - a few cloves in a pint of water should be adequate, and adding some camomile flowers if available seems to increase the effectiveness. The juice of the common onion is used as a moth repellent. It can also be used as a rust preventative on metals and as a polish for copper and glass. It is possible that other members of the genus can also be used in these ways. Cultivation
Most members of the genus prefer a sunny but sheltered position in a light well-drained soil, though they are surprisingly tolerant of other conditions. Many species will thrive in quite heavy soils, so long as they are broken up by the addition of plenty of organic matter. In theory at least, most species do not grow well in areas with heavy rainfall. Therefore you are more likely to be successful if you garden on the eastern side of Britain for example. But in practice, this is not always the case - there is an excellent collection of Allium species growing in Cumbria, for example, where the annual rainfall should really spell the death of most of them. The trick is to make sure that the soil is very well-drained, if you get standing water then the plants will rot. There are exceptions to every rule and, of the species mentioned later in this section, A. ursinum is a native woodland species that will often be found in quite wet soils. Plants are generally quite free from pests and diseases. But in wetter climates slugs are likely to be a problem, particularly with the onion-flavoured species. Ken Fern found that the Welsh onion (A. fistulosum) and varieties of the common onion (A. cepa) were worst affected. Measures to encourage hedgehogs and frogs may help to reduce damage by slugs. Unless the text says otherwise, all of the species mentioned below should be ??? (key word missing), so long as their cultivation needs are taken care of. The majority of species in this genus come from areas with quite distinct seasons and a dry spell for at least part of the year when they and most other plants become dormant. In the wetter climate of Britain, where weeds tend to grow all year round, the Alliums do not compete well and most of the plants mentioned below will quietly disappear in the course of a year or so if they are not weeded occasionally. Exceptions to this include A. ursinum, which was mentioned earlier and can form a large carpet of plants in a woodland. The British native A. ampeloprasum and the naturalised A. triquetrum grow wild in hedgerows and they will also tolerate quite a lot of weed competition. Propagation
Propagation is quite a simple matter. If seed is the method used, then this should be sown in late winter or in early spring in a cold greenhouse - sow thinly and only cover the seed lightly. Germination is normally quite quick and good. So long as you do not sow the seed too thickly, it should be possible to grow the seedlings on without transplanting for the first season. Apply a liquid feed occasionally to make sure that the plants don’t get hungry. Then pot the seedlings up as soon as they are large enough to handle, putting three plants in a three inch pot. Although this is more work, you usually end up with larger plants at the end of the season. A number of species from Mediterranean-type climates usually come into growth in the autumn, flower in the spring and then die down for the summer. Sow the seed of these species in the early autumn and grow them on over the winter. You do have to be careful that they don’t damp off. A. neapolitanum, mentioned below, is a good example of this. Some species grow very vigorously from seed and can be planted out in the summer of their first year. But others are slower and appreciate at least their first year in a greenhouse; they will then be planted out in late spring of their second year of growth, or sometimes a year later if the plants are still small. Alliums are very easy to divide. This can be carried out in the spring for the winter-dormant species, or in the late summer for the summer-dormant species. The evergreen species can be divided at almost any time of the year, though spring is probably best. The method of division depends largely on the growth habit of the plant. In some species, like chives, the bulb is constantly dividing and a clump of bulbs is formed. It is a simple matter to dig up this clump, break it into smaller sections (which can be as small as one bulb) and then replant. In other species, a number of small bulbs, or offsets, are produced at the base of the parent bulb. For rapid increase, it is possible to dig up these plants every year to plant out these offsets - if they are rather small then you will probably have better results if you pot them up at least until they are growing away well. Alternatively, you can leave the plants for a number of years to let a large clump develop, digging them up and dividing them when the fancy takes you or if they seem to be losing vigour. Any spare bulbs can, of course, be eaten. A number of species do not form clearly defined bulbs, but form a clump of rhizome-like roots. In this case you dig up the clump in the spring, cut it into sections with a sharp knife (making sure that there is at least one leaf- growing point on each section) and replant in situ. A number of species also produce small bulbs, or bulbils, at the top of the flowering stem. Sometimes these are produced together with flowers, sometimes instead of flowers. Possibly the best known example of this is the tree onion (A. cepa proliferum) though many gardeners will have also seen bulbils on garlic plants. These bulbils afford a very easy means of increase -merely pot them up or plant them out as soon as they part easily from the flowering stem. A word of warning here: some allium species can become noxious weeds and it is usually those with bulbils that are the culprits. You need have no fears about tree onions or garlic going on the rampage, but if you grow a species that forms bulbils then do view it with some caution.
The Species
This section includes some of the species grown successfully by the Ferns in Cornwall. Allium ampeloprasum: The wild leek is a native of Britain, growing in hedgerows. The leaves are a bit on the tough side, but the plants come into growth in the autumn and can therefore be harvested in the winter and spring. There are two forms of the wild leek that are probably of more interest to the food grower. Elephant garlic looks like a gigantic garlic bulb with four huge cloves. It is much milder in flavour than the true garlic, you might be relieved to hear, and makes a nice flavouring in food. The cultivar ‘Perlzwiebel’ is grown in Germany for the bulbils it produces instead of flowers. These bulbils are solid rather than made up of layers and are popularly used for making pickles. Allium canadense : Called wild garlic in N. America, though not to be confused with the British native wild garlic, A. ursinum. This species grows about 18 inches tall and can spread quite freely when well sited. There is a form that produces bulbils and this is a pernicious weed in America. The form available in this country, however, is much better behaved. Both leaves and flowers have a delicious mild flavour whilst the bulb is crisp and mild with a pleasant flavour that is a leek or garlic substitute, according to taste. Allium cepa: As well as the common onion and the shallot, this species also includes a number of other interesting forms. Allium cepa ‘Perutile’ is the everlasting onion, an evergreen form that is capable of supplying fresh leaves all winter. These taste much like spring onions. Allium cepa proliferum is the tree onion, it produces bulbils instead of flowers, these bulbils have a nice onion flavour and can be used raw, cooked or pickled.
Allium cernuum: The Nodding Onion grows about 18 inches tall. Not only is it an exceedingly beautiful plant, but both flowers and leaves have a delicious strong onion flavour - the flowers look especially attractive in a mixed salad. The leaves are available from quite early in the spring until late autumn, and the flowers in mid-summer. The cultivar ‘Major’ is a more vigorous form with larger flower clusters. Allium fistulosum: The Welsh Onion is a very hardy species that is sometimes cultivated in the garden for its edible leaves and small bulbs. These are used as a spring onion and can be produced throughout the winter if the weather is not too severe. This is a very popular cultivated vegetable in the Orient, the forms grown there are known as bunching onions and tend to be hardier and more robust than the Welsh Onion. Allium moly: This bulb grows about 1ft tall and is often grown in the flower garden. It is probably not hardy in the colder parts of the country, though the dormant bulbs will withstand soil temperatures down to at least -10 c. The bulbs are rather small but are very freely produced and have a pleasant mild garlic flavour. Some forms of this species, especially A. moly bulbiferum, produce bulbils in the flowering head and can be invasive. The species type is sometimes also considered to be invasive, though it has not proved so with most people and in at least one wet garden has proved to be useful for naturalising between shrubs, and also grows well at the base of a beech hedge. Allium neapolitanum: Daffodil Garlic is only hardy in the milder parts of the country, tolerating temperatures down to somewhere between -5 and -10 c. This bulb grows about 1ft tall, coming into growth in the autumn and providing edible leaves all through the winter so long as you do not over-crop it. A pleasant mild garlic flavour, the flowers are produced in the spring and have a stronger flavour. In favourable conditions it can self-sow, both by bulb and seed, to the point of nuisance. Allium sativum: Garlic is well known so it is not necessary to say much about it here. However, it is not only the bulbs that can be used. The Chinese often cultivate garlic especially for the leaves, which can be produced in the middle of winter in mild winters and have a mild garlic flavour. The flowering stems can also be used as a flavouring, whilst the sprouted seed can be added to salads. Some of the plants non-edible uses include the juice from the bulb, which is used as an insect repellent. This does have a very strong smell - some people might prefer to be bitten! If you do get bitten, then the juice can also be applied to any stings in order to ease the pain. In the past, 3 - 4 tablespoons of chopped garlic and 2 tablespoons of grated soap were infused in 2 pints of boiling water, allowed to cool and then used as an insecticide. An excellent glue can be made from the juice, which is used in mending glass and china. Allium schoenoprasum: Chives is another well-known plant that is well described in mainstream gardening books. You may like to try a more vigorous sub-species A. schoenoprasum sibiricum. These plants can provide an abundance of leaves from early spring right round to late autumn.
Allium triquetrum: The three-cornered leek grows about 1ft tall and is naturalised in hedgerows and woodland edges in parts of Britain. It provides a very good source of edible leaves from autumn to spring, plus its flowers in the spring and its small bulbs at almost any time of the year. The plant is not hardy in the colder areas, tolerating temperatures down to about -10 c. Allium tuberosum: Garlic Chives is widely grown in the East for its leaves and flowering stems, there are many named varieties. It is becoming more widely known in Britain, but is still not grown anywhere near as widely as it should be. A very adaptable plant, garlic chives succeeds in tropical and in temperate climates - it appears to be fully hardy in temperate areas. Plants remain green until temperatures fall below 4 - 5 C, then they die down and come into new growth in spring when temperatures go above 2 - 3 C. In warmer maritime parts of Britain that means you may be able to harvest the leaves for most of the year. Allium ursinum: Wild Garlic, or Ramsons, is a native woodland plant growing about 1ft tall that often forms large dense green carpets of growth in the early spring. You do not normally need to cultivate it - give it the right conditions and it can more than look after itself. The leaves have a mild garlic flavour and appear in late winter; they can be eaten both raw and cooked. As the leaves grow old in spring you could then eat the flowers, and finally the much hotter young seed-pods as spring turns into summer. (See our leaflet on Wild garlic for more information about this plant.)
The database has more details on these plants: Allium ampeloprasum, Allium ampeloprasum porrum, Allium canadense, Allium cepa, Allium cepa aggregatum, Allium cepa ascalonicum, Allium cepa proliferum, Allium cernuum, Allium fistulosum, Allium moly, Allium neapolitanum, Allium sativum, Allium schoenoprasum, Allium schoenoprasum sibiricum, Allium triquetrum, Allium tuberosum, Allium ursinum.
You can download this page as a PDF
Search: Plants For A Future Page Content | 农业 | 16,497 |
HomeNewsAGCO Developing Biogas-Powered Tractor
AGCO Developing Biogas-Powered Tractor
AGCO will present a new tractor model that runs on biogas. AGCO’s Nordic brand Valtra will show the concept technology on the Valtra N101 tractor for the first time in Sweden.
AGCO’s Valtra brand and AGCO Sisu Power, AGCO’s engine division, have developed the biogas tractor and are currently testing it in Sweden. Without making any changes to the original diesel engine, 70 to 80 percent of power is generated by biogas. The dual-fuel engine functions like a diesel engine. The gas is injected with the intake air, and combustion occurs when a small amount of diesel fuel is injected into the cylinder. If biogas is not available, the engine can run completely on diesel fuel.
The Valtra N101 tractor has 110 horsepower, is equipped with a front loader, front linkage and front PTO. It is intended as an all-purpose tractor for farms, municipalities and contractors that have the possibility of refuelling with biogas while working. The demonstration tractor was created by Valtra in collaboration with Afcon Oy, Alt-Control Oy, RAP Clean Air Systems, Turku University of Applied Sciences and Ecocat Group. Valtra's sister company AGCO SISU POWER Genpowex was also involved in the project and helped develop a dual-fuel generator that can also be seen at the Borgeby Fältdagar event. Valtra's partners in the project from the start have been Biogas Syd and Lantmannen Maskin. The tractor will undergo further testing in Skåne, while the dual-fuel engine will continue to be developed in the engine lab.
AGCO is committed to supplying progressive farmers with high-tech solutions and to develop environmentally friendly technologies. AGCO has recently been selected by the U.S. Department of Energy for a grant for the efficient collection and transportation of biomass to biofuel production plants. In 2009, AGCO was the first agricultural company to introduce the industry-leading SCR emissions treatment in its products.
For more: Valtra | 农业 | 2,027 |
Patty Ritchie
Agriculture Committee Chair, Legislative Commission on Rural Resources Chair
Ritchie Now Accepting Nominations for “Veterans Hall of Fame”
Oswego, Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties Invited to Participate
State Senator Patty Ritchie is now accepting nominations from veterans’ posts, family members and community leaders in Central and Northern New York for induction in the New York State Senate’s "Veterans Hall of Fame” program. The online Hall of Fame pays tribute to New Yorkers who have served their country in the US Armed Forces and made significant contributions to their communities.
“Central and Northern New York are home to so many veterans who essentially gave their lives for their country—and continued to give even after serving by making a difference in their communities,” said Senator Ritchie.
“In the past we have been able pay tribute to so many brave men and women who served in our Armed Forces and I’m thrilled to recognize and thank even more of our veterans for making the ultimate sacrifice.”
Each State Senator can induct one veteran annually, who will be honored at a special ceremony in Albany on May 21st. All nominees from Oswego, Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties will be recognized locally at an event to be held at Ft. Drum on May 10th. The New York State Senate Veterans' Hall of Fame was created to honor and recognize outstanding veterans from the Empire State who have distinguished themselves both in military and civilian life. Their meritorious service to our nation deserves the special recognition that only a Hall of Fame can provide, as a fitting expression of our gratitude and admiration.
To download a nomination form, click here. To learn more about last year's nominees, click here.
All nominations must be received by April 19th. share this press release
Ritchie Announces Major Steps Forward in Plan to Transform Vacant Psych Center Landsto Boost the North Country
Ritchie Joins CNY Lawmakers, Local Leaders to Rally in Support of Nuclear Power
Ritchie: Central and Northern New York to Benefit From More than $179 Million in Support for Improvements to Roads and Bridges
Senator Ritchie's Summer Reading Program
RITCHIE CALLS ON PSC TO PRESERVE NUCLEAR ENERGY, PROTECT FITZPATRICK
RITCHIE UNVEILS “PLANTING SEEDS” INITIATIVE TO SUPPORT FARMERS AND GROW NY’S AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY
THE 2016-17 EXECUTIVE BUDGET PROPOSAL | 农业 | 2,388 |
European Agriculture: Its Time for a Revolution
The hope for a form of European agriculture that is more attentive to the environment, both for taxpayers and for those who produce in a sustainable way, has recently suffered a setback. Last week Brussels took a definitive step backwards in the procedures that will give us the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2014, the instrument with which the future of our food will be decided.
It is not easy to explain to the common man what is happening, but it is fundamental to try. For the last 50 years the CAP has taken over almost half of the European budget, our money. Its reform is the chance to change a paradigm, towards a form of agriculture that is less oriented towards productivism and more respectful of territories, natural resources, farmers and citizens. To date, harmful agricultural practices that destroy the fertility of the land, the environment, the landscape, the intergenerational transmission and biodiversity have been favored, which is profoundly unfair toward the poorest third world countries. And thus Europeans have found themselves, many unconsciously, supporting harmful production methods for which they are paying twice: once for subsidies and again to repair the damages of these destructive agricultural practices. In short, the old CAP has been a disaster.
On January 23 and 24, the European Parliament’s Agricultural Committee (COMAGRI), voted on the amendments to the proposal for the CAP reform which was presented more than a year ago. They decided to block, impoverish or cancel the majority of measures which were put in place to improve the sustainability of our food production system. Now its up to the various governments which, in February, will decide the new budget dedicated to the CAP. More importantly, the European Parliament in March will still be able to correct the path that we have taken thus far, but they must act. For example, there is the possibility of introducing so-called “greening” measures, those dedicated to the environment. The largest part of the CAP’s budget has almost always been determined by a company’s surface area. Over time this has led to the rewarding of the largest companies that generally are not the most attentive to sustainability. Greening, on the other hand, would be revolutionary in its own small way: it would force even the largest companies to enact sustainable practices. Rather, with the amendments that were voted on last week they have made greening “flexible”, taking it apart piece by piece and thus creating so many loopholes as to render it useless. They have transformed greening into greenwashing: a mere cleaning up of the façade. With the new standards 82% of European companies would be exempted from these obligatory eco-friendly practices, and many other critical points as well. For example, companies would have the possibility of being paid twice for a single type of environmental measure, and the obligation to reserve seven percent of the company’s surface area for ecological purposes would be reduced to a mere three percent. In the end there are too many negative elements that outweigh the few good things that have been kept, like incentives for young people who decide to enter the agricultural business, the introduction of a cap of € 300,000 on subsidies for the largest land holders and a better definition of “active agriculture”, which helps to avoid the financing of places like airports and golf courses.
From March 11 to 14 the European Parliament will have the historic opportunity to reverse course and therefore we must put pressure on our deputies so that they don’t make the mistake of supporting that old paradigm that awards those who produce in the worst way and that is certainly not in our collective interests. It is not right to dedicate public resources to the benefit of the few. A European mobilization has begun, which Slow Food is a part of, named “Go M.A.D.”. Through this tool we can contact our members of parliament and explain to them how important the assembly in March will be. Citizens can become protagonists in this debate and it will be of the utmost importance for us all to participate. At stake is the future of our food, the places where we live and our very well being.
Slow Food President Article first published in La Repubblica on January 29, 2013. Photo: Alberto Peroli | 农业 | 4,389 |
The Masser AdvantageHistorySterman Masser TributeVision & ValuesQuality & Food SafetyOne-Stop ModelInnovationAmerica's Favorite VegetableNutrition FactsHistory of the PotatoPotato VarietiesOnion VarietiesOur ProductsCorporate ResponsibilityFood SafetyEnvironmental StewardshipCommunity EngagementContact Us History of the Potato It was in South America, between three and seven thousand years ago, when scientists believe the potato was first cultivated. According to genetic patterns, the potato most likely originated between the south of Peru and the northeast of Bolivia. The crop was sown from this area into the rest of the Andes and beyond.
The "tuber" was of significant importance to the Incan Empire. Learning how to preserve the potato by dehydrating and mashing them into a substance called chunu, the Incas could store potatoes in this form for up to 10 years, which helped to guard against possible crop failures.
The Spanish conquistadores first encountered the potato when they arrived in Peru in the early 1500s in their search for silver and gold. By the latter part of the century, Spanish farmers began to cultivate them mainly as livestock feed. Potatoes became a major food source during the Revolutionary War, when food shortages prompted the English government to promote potato cultivation.
According to history, the "tuber" was first introduced to the colonies in the early 1600s by the British governor of the Bahamas. Spuds became widely accepted in the northern colonies when Thomas Jefferson served potatoes to guests at the White House. From that point on, the potato steadily grew in popularity and has since become one of the most widely used foods in world cultures today.
Source: Chapman, Jeff. "The Impact of the Potato." History Magazine The Masser AdvantageHistorySterman Masser TributeVision & ValuesQuality & Food SafetyOne-Stop ModelInnovation | 农业 | 1,884 |
Prairies Under Siege: New Threats to Ducks & Waterfowling
North America's Prairie Pothole Region is facing the greatest potential loss of habitat in decades
by Bruce Batt, former DU chief biologist
Wetland protection is at a critical juncture in North America. The United States and Canada have already lost 70 percent of their prairie wetlands. Despite the habitat conservation gains made with duck hunter investments over the past 60 years or more, new, unexpected forces and changes threaten much of the remaining waterfowl habitat. What's at risk? The most productive wetlands and grassland nesting areas still found in both countries, especially in their prairie regions.
In the United States, damaging changes have occurred as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in January 2001 in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, commonly referred to as the SWANCC decision (details at http://www.ducks.org/conservation/404_report.asp). To summarize, the SWANCC decision disallowed the use of the so-called "migratory bird rule" to extend protection to many isolated wetlands that are important to waterfowl and other birds. Thus, federal protection was severely threatened for prairie potholes that have been under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) since 1972. Ducks Unlimited authored a technical analysis of the potential impact of the loss of CWA protection for isolated wetlands and concluded that most of the remaining wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) were at great risk.
With more than two-thirds of the prairie's wetlands already lost, the remaining basins are critical to future waterfowl production. The PPR produces 75 percent of the annual fall flight of some species of waterfowl. And the potential damage extended beyond the PPR, as there are isolated wetland systems in other regions of the country that are critical to waterfowl at other times of the year.
Sportsmen have anxiously awaited a decision from the Bush administration on how the Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency would implement the Supreme Court's decision. DU provided comprehensive comments and suggestions that entirely new rules were not needed and that that process could actually weaken current protection for wetlands in the United States (see http://www.ducks.org/news/DUcomments.PDF). In early November, draft materials were leaked indicating that possible rules were going to remove protection from most isolated wetlands as well as other waters throughout the United States. With this dark cloud on the horizon, DU was delighted when President Bush, on December 16, instructed the agencies to abandon new rule making. DU was also pleased that he reaffirmed his commitment to achieve a "no net loss of wetlands" under his administration.
"We applaud the administration's wetland-protection decision," said DU Executive Vice President Don Young. But we must remain vigilant. Since the SWANCC decision in 2001, regulatory authority guidance has allowed many wetland acres to be lost. Furthermore, there are still some outstanding issues, including pending cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, regarding isolated wetlands and the Clean Water Act. Therefore, DU will continue to devote time and attention to the topic in an effort to conserve and protect this country's critical wetland resources.
Farm Bill threats
The waterfowl conservation community was happy with the passage of the 2002 Farm Bill, as it contained several important provisions that promise great benefits for waterfowl and other wildlife. But, the devil is in the details.
The 2002 Farm Bill also contained commodity subsidies for grain producers. Those subsidies have prompted some speculators to purchase native prairie ranchlands (which contain grasslands vital to nesting waterfowl) and convert them to crops. New strains of wheat and soybeans can now be seeded directly into prairie soils at relatively low cost. This allows some new landowners to, in effect, "farm the Farm Bill," because these crops qualify for subsidies paid to growers based on acres planted and guaranteed base prices. Once converted to cropland, however, the former grasslands can never again be returned to their native state with the full complement of plants and wildlife species. Their loss is permanent.
Waterfowl biologists credit much of the last decade's duck population recovery to production on the U.S. portion of the prairies. Most people feel the driving force was the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which, since its inception, has returned more than 10 million acres of cropland to better nesting habitat. Where CRP covers the landscape, waterfowl nest success is much better than in areas where habitat is fragmented.
However, a second surprise in the 2002 Farm Bill is in the regulations that determine which landowners can receive CRP payments. CRP is the most important U.S. program affecting duck production on the prairies. Nonetheless, in the recent sign-up of new CRP contracts, almost none of the acres were awarded to the prairie pothole states. The bulk of the new contracts are going to provide habitat buffers along streams and the edges of fields outside the PPR. Habitat buffers are good environmental practices, but they don't benefit nesting prairie waterfowl. In 2003, the total new enrollment in the PPR dramatically decreased from annual levels over the past 15 years. (In fact, in 2003 only 57,000 acres were enrolled in CRP in North and South Dakota, compared to a peak enrollment of 2.8 million acres a few years ago.) Correcting this change by regulators will require diligence and another campaign by duck hunters and others who have an abiding interest in the prairies and all the wildlife that its wetlands and grasslands provide.
Quietly in the background, yet another battle over CRP in the prairies is being sorted out. This time, the issue is the frequency of allowable management by grazing, burning, or haying of the cover on CRP fields. One emerging formula allows management every three years, which is good for quail in some regions but results in lost waterfowl habitat every three years. Prairie grasses do not need to be managed that frequently, so DU and its partners are heavily engaged with the Farm Services Agency to help develop rules that allow a more beneficial management schedule on prairie CRP fields.
Ducks Unlimited, other conservation groups, and public agencies have focused their waterfowl conservation efforts in the PPR for more than 60 years. Many substantial accomplishments have resulted from those efforts. The most significant evidence of those accomplishment is the dramatic recovery of the birds during the mid- and late 1990s, when duck numbers increased by a remarkable 69 percent from their low in 1993.
That recovery was possible because, as changed as the prairies appear to the human eye, enough underlying productivity of the land remains to allow the birds to multiply when good water conditions return following dry periods. Ducks Unlimited's fundamental philosophy regarding these landscapes is to aggressively restore, manage, and protect the habitat, through wet and dry years, so that when water conditions allow, the birds will be highly productive once again.
The productive prairie
Duck hunters have been core supporters of DU and of federal programs benefiting the prairies. The federal duck stamp program, which was created in 1934, has resulted in more than 5.4 million acres of critical wetland habitat being conserved. The majority (approximately 55 percent) of these acres have been in Waterfowl Production Areas, 95 percent of which are in the prairie pothole states. The remainder of the habitat that has been conserved by the duck stamp program has been wetland and related upland habitat in national wildlife refuges in other parts of the country. This inventory and legacy of conservation continues to grow each year and clearly demonstrates what can be accomplished when well thought-out programs to protect habitat are maintained. On top of these accomplishments, Ducks Unlimited expanded its breeding grounds work from Canada into the U.S. prairie pothole states in 1984, and has since conserved more than 600,000 acres of wetland and upland habitat in these prairie states.
Canada and the United States share the largest undefended border between any two countries in the world. They also share the entire prairie pothole habitat on the continent. However, many of the similarities stop there as the history of resource use, government policy, farm practices, and rural economic development has matured under very different political and economic circumstances in each country.
Ducks Unlimited in Canada worked exclusively on the Canadian prairies for the first 30 years of its existence. To this day, DU's Canadian operations allocate nearly 70 percent of conservation expenditures to the Canadian Prairie Provinces. As a result, 5,500 DU projects on the prairies have conserved 3.5 million acres of waterfowl habitat in Canada. In some waterfowl-important regions of Canada's prairies, DU has protected most, or portions of, all the major wetlands. This is an enormous legacy to the millions of DU supporters and the 16,000 Canadian landowners who own the land that they have enrolled with DU. This is a large portion of the habitat infrastructure that has been secured for waterfowl in the prairies of Canada, inasmuch as there is no Canadian counterpart to the government-managed wildlife areas in the United States.
About 15 years ago, DU Canada hit a crossroads with the realization that the magnificent wetland legacy it had accumulated was not enough. Historically, wetland loss had posed the greatest threat to waterfowl populations in Canada. However, it had become clear that the new threat was loss of upland nesting cover and reductions in waterfowl nest success rates. DU refined its focus to include entire landscapes of habitat, not just the wetlands. Landscapes with the highest densities of wetlands and the highest production potential have been the focus of this work.
Despite the new focus and the near complete redirection of effort, much remains to be accomplished in prairie Canada for the long-term future of prairie ducks. And, a basic fact of life in prairie Canada is that it is mostly excellent farmland—and it will continue to be farmed. As such, waterfowl conservation must be directed towards farming practices that are beneficial to waterfowl and encourage agricultural policies that make it beneficial to landowners to remove some parts of the land from cultivation or to simply farm it differently. A CRP-type program that encourages farming practices that are more beneficial to waterfowl is needed in Canada.
The good news is, large tracts of the Canadian landscape are still in native grasslands, and these are typically good areas for waterfowl production. Fortunately, because of a collection of economic and political forces in the last few years, a significant number of Canadian farmers have switched to cattle production and have converted land back into pasture and forage. This is a positive turn of events, as it is driven by market factors that are widespread and are more sustainable. However, an unexpected problem has emerged. Last spring, a single cow in Alberta was diagnosed with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as Mad Cow Disease. The outbreak was quickly dealt with and confined to the single animal. Nevertheless, Canada's beef was immediately banned from many world markets, most importantly the United States and Japan, and it is still banned as this is written. This change threatens the progress being made towards increasing the more duck-friendly acreages of pastureland in western Canada as, with severely reduced movement of cattle across international borders, farmers have much less incentive to switch from raising crops to raising cattle.
Progress in Canada
Despite the BSE crisis, significant and positive progress is being made with agricultural policy in Canada. The Canadian federal government's new Agriculture Policy Framework (APF) is set up to allow producers to safeguard the environment by improving grassland management practices, thus protecting water quality and wildlife habitat while supporting their own farm interests. A key component of the APF is Greencover Canada. This is the first year of a five-year $110 million program to convert environmentally sensitive land to perennial grass cover. Other components of Greencover Canada focus on shelterbelts and technical assistance. The Canadian government consulted organizations such as Ducks Unlimited during its development.
This is a momentous first step towards assuring that as much of the Canadian prairie as possible will be sustained in permanent cover that is the most beneficial for nesting waterfowl and other wildlife.
"This program has the potential to improve wildlife habitat on more than two and a half million acres of land in the next five years. If it is well received by producers, we are hopeful that an even bigger program will be developed to follow this one," says Dr. Brian Gray, DU's director of conservation programs in Canada.
One of the most significant shifts in prairie agriculture in the United States and Canada occurred in the 1980s when farmers greatly reduced the amount of land tillage to conserve soil and water resources and to reduce the costs of cultivation. This resulted in millions of acres of unplowed stubble persisting on the land each spring. This stubble is a preferred nesting cover for pintails and is used by some other ducks. Unfortunately, new crops and cultivation systems have also moved most prairie farmers to continuous cropping, so most of this stubble cover is seeded most springs before the early nests have a chance to hatch. As a result, cultivation machinery destroys tens of thousands of nests every year. This is especially detrimental to pintails, as they are the earliest nesters. This factor alone is thought to be the driving force behind the record low numbers of pintails over the past few years.
DU has conducted research that confirms this stubble cover can be very productive for nesting waterfowl if it is seeded in the previous fall under a zero-tillage scheme. DU-supported research at the University of Saskatchewan has helped develop better strains of winter wheat for fall seeding, but there are major challenges in getting wider use of fall-seeded cereals on the prairies. In Canada, DU has adopted a goal of having winter wheat replace a majority of the 16 million acres of spring wheat that is currently planted each year. DU has developed expertise in agriculture, specifically in winter wheat production, and in developing strategies to accomplish landscape-level change. There are many hurdles, but few agricultural practices hold more promise for the future improvement of prairie agriculture for both wildlife and producers.
Waterfowl conservation on the prairies must take place in a complex matrix of farmland, ranches, and protected areas. DU is centrally involved in resolving these issues and in directing its conservation programs to the wildlife management and agricultural practices that have long-term promise for breeding waterfowl. DU is fully engaged with provincial, state, and federal governments in developing water- and land-use policies that will sustain the agricultural community while, at the same time, providing for the long-term needs of waterfowl and other wildlife. By helping to resolve these issues through the development of forward-thinking programs such as the APF in Canada and Farm Bill regulations in the United States, DU is part of a landscape-altering movement that will provide lasting environmental, economic, and societal benefits to waterfowl, wildlife, wetlands, and people for generations to come.
The challenges and the landscapes are still enormous. If the long-term future of prairie ducks is to be secured, much remains to be accomplished on the prairies. DU has a top priority goal of protecting an additional 4.5 million acres of critical duck nesting habitat in the prairies. This work is well under way as members, foundations, agencies, and others are supporting DU's plan.
Despite the accomplishments of the past, the prairies remain under siege from many directions. We must quicken the pace and expand our habitat conservation efforts to assure the long-term health of prairie pothole landscapes if we are to continue to repeat the great story of waterfowl recovery following the inevitable dry periods of the future.
This article is part two in a four-part series, "Prairies Under Siege." Read part three here or go back to part one. | 农业 | 16,774 |
6 Celeb-Inspired Hairstyles That Hide Scalp Psoriasis
10 Simple Swaps to Save 100 Calories at Breakfast
8 Must-Have Ingredients to Make Healthy Meals on the Fly
Read Next Do Men Get Eating Disorders?
Green Health
What is Community Supported Agriculture? Don't Miss This
10 Easy Ways to Green Your Home
12 Ways to Save Water
In an era of disappearing family farms, consolidation of the food industry and food that travels an estimated 1,500 miles "from farm to table," consumers are increasingly seeking alternatives to what many see as an impersonal food system. An increasing number are wondering how their produce is grown, where it came from, and how it got to the supermarket. At the same time, small farmers are increasingly exploring a broad range of "alternative" marketing mechanisms, such as direct marketing, as a means of increasing their viability by capturing a larger percentage of consumer food dollars. An increasingly popular means of creating direct linkages between small farmers and local consumers is Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). CSA first appeared in the United States in 1986, with the simultaneous but independent formation of the Indian Line Farm in Massachusetts and the Temple-Wilton Community Farm in New Hampshire. The Robyn Van En Center for CSA Resources describes CSA in the following manner: CSA is a relationship of mutual support and commitment between local farmers and community members, who pay the farmer an annual membership fee to cover the production costs of the farm. In turn, members receive a weekly share of the harvest during the local growing season. The arrangement guarantees the farmer financial support and enables many small- to moderate-scale organic family farms to remain in business. Ultimately, CSA creates "agriculture-supported communities" where members receive a wide variety of foods harvested at their peak of ripeness, flavor and vitamin and mineral content. CSA rests on a number of important principles, primarily community building through direct marketing between farmers and consumers, capitalization of production on the part of members, "shared risk" between consumers and farmers, environmentally sustainable farming and food that is produced locally by family farmers. CSA members generally pay for all or part of the season's produce in advance, thereby providing farmers with a guaranteed income and an important source of capital. At the same time, by purchasing "shares" in the CSA, members partake in the farm's fortunes: when harvests are bountiful, shares are large and when harvests are poor shares are correspondingly small. The CSA movement has resonated with American consumers seeking a more direct connection with local food and family farmers. The number of CSA farms in the U.S. has grown from approximately 60 farms in 1990 to an estimated 1,700 in 2004. CSAs are now located in all 50 states, with the largest concentrations in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Washington. Learn more in the Everyday Health Green Health Center.
Source: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Green Health Do Greener Neighborhoods Produce Healthier Babies?
5 Easy Ways to Save Money on Health Food
7 Detox Tips From Scientists Who Actually Tried Them | 农业 | 3,263 |
What do you need to create a green revolution in Africa? Women and fertilizer
Christine Gorman Sunday, Sept. 17, 2006
Fertilizer doesn't apply itself, of course, which is why it's so important to involve the women of Africa from the start. It isn't just that women cultivate most of the food crops, like maize and cassava, while men typically focus on cash crops, like tobacco. Women--for better or worse--have generally stayed behind in rural communities, while men migrated farther and farther afield in search of employment and educational opportunities. Fortunately, the proportion of women plant breeders and agricultural scientists has grown in recent years in places like Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. Most African women scientists who are 40 or older "come from the land," says Margaret Karembu, director of the Nairobi office of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. "Our lives really revolved around the village and food production. We know what it means to have to collect water, to have to harvest all day. When you have more women like that being exposed to technology, it helps because they are more likely to work on ways to help their sisters back in the village." No one expects success to come easily. One of the reasons the green revolution flourished in Asia back in the 1960s and 1970s was that it focused on just a couple of crops--rice and wheat. But Africa depends on dozens of crops scattered across hundreds of different regions at different times of the year. "You're not going to develop a single crop that revolutionizes African agriculture," says Paula Bramel, a researcher who works in Tanzania for the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. "This is a much more diverse place." West African scientists have made significant progress in that regard since the 1990s by creating high-yielding varieties of rice that are well adapted to the dryer conditions of upland regions. Dubbed NERICA (New Rice for Africa), the plants were created through conventional breeding of a high-yield Asian variety with a hardier African one--something that had been tried many times before without success. Asian farmers, however, have had more access to transportation, irrigation and robust regional markets in which to sell their products. (The Gates-Rockefeller initiative will start with developing markets and address the other issues later.) If there is a greater sense of optimism for Africa this time, it is at least partly because a number of African governments are taking the lead, promising to increase spending on agricultural development and earmarking money for improvements in infrastructure and research. Even if the governments and farmers do everything right, it could take decades to see widespread improvements. But the countries of sub-Saharan Africa may have no choice. If they are ever to get their houses in order, they must first start with their fields. Previous Page | 农业 | 2,953 |
The truth about tilapia
By Sky McCarthyPublished April 09, 2014FoxNews.com
Print This popular fish is cheap and tasty … but is it good for you? (iStock)
Tilapia has risen to the top as a seafood staple on American dinner tables. According to the National Fisheries Institute, the mild fish has climbed to become the fourth most eaten seafood in the U.S., behind only shrimp, salmon and canned tuna. “We never intended to paint tilapia as the cause of anything bad. Our goal was to provide consumers with more information about their fish.”
- Dr. Floyd Chilton, professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest
Mike Picchietti, president of Americas Tilapia Alliance, believes the fish’s popularity comes from the fact that it’s easy to farm, so it’s inexpensive and it goes down easy. “This fish gives you a lot of leeway to farm. It’s a very hearty variety that is adaptable to different types of feed. It tastes pretty good too,” he told FoxNews.com. It’s cheap, easy to find, and it’s fish – so it’s good for you, right? Maybe not. There are some disturbing allegations about the fish, and one is particularly surprising: Some nutritionists have been touting a study that they implies that eating tilapia is worse than eating bacon. Yes, bacon. In 2008, researchers at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine released a study comparing fatty acid levels among popular fish. It found that tilapia contained far less omega-3 fatty acid than other American favorites, such as salmon and mackerel. According to the paper, salmon also has a “more favorable” omega-3 to omega-6 ratio. While both fatty acids are important, omega-3 has anti-inflammatory properties that play a critical role in brain development and cognitive function and may prevent diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer’s. The report said that the “inflammatory potential of hamburger (80 percent lean) and pork bacon is lower than the average serving of farmed tilapia (100 g).” That set off alarm bells among nutritionists. The report caused further concern when it stated that farmed tilapia contains high levels of arachidonic acid, an omega-6 fatty acid that, while necessary to help repair damaged body tissues, has been linked to brain disorders like Alzheimer’s disease and may exacerbate inflammation. Dr. Floyd Chilton, the professor of physiology and pharmacology who directed the Wake Forest study, says the comparison of tilapia to pork bacon was taken out of context. “We never intended to paint tilapia as the cause of anything bad. Our goal was to provide consumers with more information about their fish,” Chilton said. “If your doctor or cardiologist is telling you to eat more fish, then you should look for varieties that have higher levels of omega-3 and avoid those with high inflammatory potential.” The truth is, tilapia has as much omega-3 as other popular seafood, including lobster, mahi-mahi and yellowfin tuna. Tilapia is also very low in fat. A 4-ounce serving of tilapia has about 1 gram of saturated fat, 29 grams of protein and around 200 mg of omega-3. By comparison, a 1-ounce serving of bacon (about 4 strips) contains 4 grams of saturated fat, 10 grams of protein and 52 mg of omega-3. So people may not want to eat tilapia every day, but that doesn’t mean it has to be avoided altogether, nutritionists say. “I tell my clients not to just eat one type of fish, no matter what, to reduce your risk of contamination,” says registered dietitian Melainie Rogers, founder of Balance Nutrition, a treatment center specializing in eating disorders in New York City. “Not all fish have the same fatty acid profile, but tilapia in moderation is fine. It has lower cholesterol than red meat – plus it’s easy to cook.” So eating tilapia isn’t the same as eating bacon, but there’s another rumor going around the Internet: that farm-raised tilapia from China are fed animal feces. A 2009 study conducted by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture cited some alarming facts about Chinese farm-raised seafood. Researchers noted that “many of China’s farms and food processors are situated in heavily industrialized regions where water, air and soil are contaminated by industrial effluents and vehicle exhaust.” The report also stated that it “is common practice to let livestock and poultry roam freely in fields and to spread livestock and poultry waste on fields or use it as fish feed.” The USDA report was based on documents obtained from the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees seafood inspections. After the study was released, news organizations, including Bloomberg and MSN.com, reported the rampant use of animal feces as food in Chinese aquaculture – specifically calling out the practice on tilapia farms. But the original USDA report did not specifically cite tilapia. Asked for comment, neither the FDA nor the USDA could confirm that it is common practice in China to feed animal feces to farm-raised tilapia. FDA spokeswoman Theresa Eisenman said the agency was “not aware of evidence to support the claim that this practice is occurring.” But if it is, the next question is: How much farm-raised tilapia are we eating from China? The answer is: A lot. According to Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch, over 95 percent of tilapia consumed in the U.S. in 2013 came from overseas, and 73 percent of those imports came from China. One reason is that the fish thrives in a subtropical climate, making it a difficult fish to farm in most of the U.S. In 2006, Seafood Watch listed farmed Chinese tilapia as “Avoid.” Senior science manager Wendy Norden and science analyst Brian Albaum at Seafood Watch told FoxNews.com that the recommendation was due to poor food quality enforcement and high levels of chemicals, antibacterial drugs (nitrofurans) and malachite green (used to dye silk, leather and paper) in fish samples. They said that the “Avoid” rating at that time was not due to what the fish were fed, although they did note that “in aquaculture, usually wastes from one animal are unfit to be fed to other animals.” Today, Seafood Watch gives farmed tilapia from China a “Good Alternative” rating, due to improved enforcement of food legislation. But it cautions that the fish currently tests in the “red zone” for the presence of banned or illegal chemicals such as antibiotics, malachite green and methyl testosterone hormones used in Chinese tilapia production. The group says tilapia raised in Ecuador, the U.S. or Canada is the best choice. Americas Tilapia Alliance’s Picchietti told FoxNews.com that he is not aware of the practice of feeding animal feces to tilapia in the U.S., and he said he has not witnessed the practice in China. But he pointed to a 2004 paper, “Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries,” that cites the practice of using properly treated wastewater as a sustainable, and ultimately profitable, farming technique. So what do you do if you’re looking to avoid tilapia, or tilapia that comes from certain countries? It’s not always easy with current labeling standards. Since 2005, country of origin labeling (COOL), which is overseen by the USDA, requires seafood and shellfish retailers to label product origins. But labeling exceptions and a lack of enforcement make it hard to know exactly what’s on your plate. Processed seafood such as fish sticks or other prepared food sold at supermarkets and seafood retailers is exempt from labeling. Whole fish sold at grocery stores is required to have a country-of-origin label and to indicate whether the fish has been farm-raised or caught wild, but not everyone does it. The USDA conducts supplier inspections, and stores in violation have a mandated timeframe to correct the problem. Another thing to keep in mind, especially if you’re looking for farm-raised fish fed with non-GMO feed: The USDA does not currently have guidelines for classifying seafood as organic. Even though the FDA has consumer guidelines for buying fresh fish, the lack of basic information has some scratching their heads. The best way to know for sure is to ask a fishmonger directly. | 农业 | 8,108 |
South Carolina cotton, peanut meetings set for Jan. 24, 26 Jan 12, 2017 Should we rethink fertility for new, higher-yielding cotton varieties? Jan 12, 2017 Big farm-related tax changes proposed by Republicans, Trump Jan 10, 2017 Peanuts versus enough off-target dicamba can cost yield, timing matters Jan 10, 2017 Tobacco lawsuit features new twists, turns
Jim Hudson | Nov 01, 2000
Just a few months ago most flue-cured tobacco growers were barely listening as a handful of their peers went on the attack against cigarette manufacturers. Grower meetings with almost an evangelical flair, led by the growers' lawyer, Al Pires, enticed several thousand growers to pay $100 each and join the suit. At that point, the complaint sounded simple enough. Pires proclaimed that tobacco companies had left growers and quota owners out of the Master Settlement Agreement. He further alleged that companies were responsible, among other things, for the nearly 50 percent drop in flue-cured quota over the last three years. The suit was promoted as a way to collect enough money to pay quota owners eight dollars per pound for their quota and growers four dollars per pound for the tobacco they grew. As of sometime late this summer, that suit has taken quite a turn. Growers are now working with a Washington, D.C. law firm, Howry, Simon, Arnold and White. This is the largest group of anti-trust lawyers in the country. As one tobacco leader told me, "These are not lightweights. They are not ambulance chasers or so-called plaintiff's attorneys. This firm is taking on the suit because they see it as a slam dunk. This is not just about the money for them. They were heavily involved in gathering the evidence that led to the eventual breakup of AT&T. They are familiar with the 1911 antitrust breakup of the American Tobacco Company. They are convinced they can win this case in court, and they are willing to negotiate a settlement without going to court." They are charging the tobacco companies with conspiracy to fix prices, which is a violation of anti-trust laws. The lawyers have filed the suit as a class action on behalf of all tobacco farmers and quota owners. Lawyers from the firm met with tobacco leaders in Raleigh back in October, to lay out the basis of their case. They reiterated their belief that they have enough evidence and witnesses to prove price fixing and anti-trust law violations. The lawyers have concluded that the way tobacco is currently bought and sold is illegal. Buyers from most tobacco companies must illegally agree on the prices they will pay. How else, they reason, can anyone explain why the maximum price paid on any given day on a market in Virginia will be exactly the same as the price paid on a market in Georgia? How else can the top price paid for a given grade be the same for all buyers in the warehouse? "They have people who will testify to conversations about price fixing. They have evidence of meetings in hotels and testimonies of warehouse ticket markers and company people who will tell the judge what goes on at our tobacco markets. They say they can show the judge why a farmer has no say so in who gets his tobacco in the case of a tie bid. That is evidence enough that there is no auction, just an allocation system. The companies are being charged with conspiracy to allocate the tobacco rather than actually bidding on it," says one tobacco industry insider who has listened to the lawyers' presentation. If there is a good side to this issue of producers suing buyers, it is that lawyers for the growers seem to be working with tobacco leaders to develop an out-of-court settlement. According to individuals in the meeting with lawyers and tobacco leaders, the lawyers intend to push for several changes in the way tobacco business is conducted in the future. And, they are asking the tobacco leaders to help formulate the changes that will be imposed through any settlement of this suit. This is an opportunity for tobacco leaders to fix the things that are wrong with our current tobacco program and marketing system and to influence the way this industry functions in the future. Grower leaders over time have made lists of changes that need to occur. Among other things, they want to get the quota into the hands of active growers. They want to fairly compensate quota owners for any quota they will have to give up. They want to compensate growers for income lost because of dramatic cuts in quotas over the last three years. In addition, they want to radically change the way tobacco is bought and sold in the U.S. to make the system fairer to buyers and sellers. What should growers do at this point? Stay in touch with tobacco grower leaders. Representatives of most tobacco grower groups have met with the new lawyers and heard their presentations. It is rapidly becoming clear that this is a very serious lawsuit. Most leaders I've talked with believe that significant things will happen by December. Meanwhile, any growers who intend to grow and sell tobacco in 2001 and who have not yet installed heat exchangers in their bulk barns should put retrofits on their high priority lists. We don't yet know exactly how individual growers will be affected by this lawsuit, whether it goes to court or is settled out of court. But we do know that every domestic cigarette manufacturer has said they will purchase low nitrosamine tobacco next year. Growers who are not prepared to certify that their cured leaf has not come into contact with the products of combustion from curing oil or gas could find it nearly impossible to sell next year's crop. | 农业 | 5,610 |
NPR food Rooftop Farming Is Getting Off The Ground
By Eliza Barclay September 25, 2013
Stacey Kimmons and Audra Lewicki harvest lettuce at the Chicago Botanic Garden’s 20,000-square-foot vegetable garden atop McCormick Place West in Chicago. Photo: Courtesy of the Chicago Botanic Garden
Post by Eliza Barclay, The Salt at NPR Food (9/25/13)
From vacant lots to vertical “pinkhouses,” urban farmers are scouring cities for spaces to grow food. But their options vary widely from place to place.
While farmers in post-industrial cities like Detroit and Cleveland are claiming unused land for cultivation, in New York and Chicago, land comes at a high premium. That’s why farmers there are increasingly eyeing spaces that they might not have to wrestle from developers: rooftops that are already green.
The green-roof movement has slowly been gaining momentum in recent years, and some cities have made them central to their sustainability plans. The city of Chicago, for instance, boasts that 359 roofs are now partially or fully covered with vegetation, which provides all kinds of environmental benefits — from reducing the buildings’ energy costs to cleaning the air to mitigating the urban heat island effect.
Late this summer, Chicago turned a green roof into its first major rooftop farm. At 20,000 square feet, it’s the largest soil-based rooftop farm in the Midwest, according to the Chicago Botanic Garden, which maintains the farm through its Windy City Harvest program.
Uncommon Ground, a certified green restaurant in Chicago, hosts an organic farm on its rooftop. Photo: Zoran Orlic of Zero Studio Photography/Uncommon Ground
“We took a space that was already a productive green roof, and we said, ‘Why not take that one step further and grow vegetables on it?'” says Angie Mason, director of the Chicago Botanic Garden’s urban agriculture programs. That required adding lots of soil amendment, or nutrients, to the rocky medium already up there.
The farm sits atop McCormick Place, the largest convention center in North America, and the goal is for it to supply the center’s food service company, SAVOR… Chicago, with between 8,000 to 12,000 pounds of food a year — more than 10,000 servings. It sounds like a lot, but SAVOR serves about 3 million people a year at McCormick Place.
In the first season, Mason says the Windy City Harvest farmers, which include underemployed ex-offenders, will be growing kale, collards, carrots, radishes, peppers, beans, beets, cherry tomatoes and various herbs at the McCormick Place farm. The project’s coordinators chose these crops because they’re well-suited to a rooftop setting and they’re fast-growing.
Over the next few years, Mason says, the plan is to expand the farm to other sections of the McCormick Center roof for a total of 3 acres of cultivation. That would make it the biggest rooftop farm in the U.S., bigger than Brooklyn Grange, which operates a farm of 2.5 acres, or 108,000 square feet, on two roofs in New York City.
Joe Nasr, with the Centre for Studies in Food Security at Ryerson University in Toronto, says projects like these are part of a larger trend toward expanding food production in cities.
“Rooftops will be part of the mix of urban spaces that will be increasingly used to ‘scale up’ urban agriculture,” Nasr told The Salt in an email.
And roof farms in particular can offer a wide array of perks to the building owners.
“When it is feasible to do so, you would be adding benefits to whatever the green roof [already] provides: food, space for community gathering and teaching in many cases, increased biodiversity (depending on the roof) and care for the roof — many green roofs fail because they are out of sight, out of mind, thus neglected,” Nasr says.
So why don’t we see more of these rooftop urban farms?
According to Mason, urban farmers are just beginning to figure out how to make them work. And they’re learning that not every green roof is well-suited for farming.
“You’re looking at liability and insurance risk of having people on a rooftop, and then you’ve got to make sure it’s structurally sound enough to withstand the extra soil weight for production,” says Mason. “And you’ve got to make sure that you’re training people so that they aren’t compromising the rooftop membrane” and damaging it.
Nasr agrees that there are many obstacles to transforming more green roofs into farms: from permitting, to delivering soil and water to the roof, to dealing with growing conditions that are typical of roofs (sun, wind, snow).
But for urban farmers who can find a roof and building owners who will get on board, the potential benefits are worth pursuing, he says. And Mason says she sees plenty of opportunity in Chicago to convert more green roofs into farms — and plenty of building owners interested in burnishing their green credentials.
Of course, you don’t have to go as big as a farm to take advantage of the space and sunlight on a roof to grow food. People have been container-gardening on roofs for a long time, and as we reported, this form of micro-gardening is taking off. Copyright 2013 NPR. PRINT
Explore: DIY, foraging, urban homesteading, economy and food costs, farmers and farms, food trends and technology, gardening and urban farming, NPR food, rooftop garden, the salt, urban farmering, urban gardening, urban gardens
2014 San Francisco Zagat Guide Surveys Restaurants, Residents' Eating Preferences
How Sensitive Do We Need to Be to Gluten-Sensitivity? | 农业 | 5,473 |
Five More Questions About the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition Posted by Tjada McKenna and Jonathan Shrier September 26, 2012 Women Gather Green Beans in Ethiopia In May 2012, we answered a few of the most common questions about the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in the blog post Five Questions about the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. This blog post follows with additional answers to other common questions about the New Alliance and progress.
1. What has happened with the New Alliance since the G8 announced it at the Camp David Summit in May 2012?
While it has only been a few months, we're excited about the progress and momentum of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, which is a unique partnership between African governments, members of the G8, and the private sector to work together to accelerate investments in agriculture to improve productivity, livelihoods and food security for smallholder farmers. This New Alliance aims to raise 50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years through sustained and inclusive agricultural growth.
In May, President Obama launched the New Alliance with three initial countries -- Ethiopia, Ghana and Tanzania. Each partner country developed a Country Cooperation Framework outlining key commitments by governments, donors, and the private sector. These commitments totaled more than $3 billion from more than 45 African and multinational companies.
Over the past four months, 21 additional private sector companies, most of them African, signed letters of intent, committing themselves to invest an additional $500 million in African agriculture -- and more companies are lining up to sign letters of intent.
We've been very encouraged that despite some unexpected and difficult leadership transitions in Ghana and Ethiopia, the governments of all three initial New Alliance countries demonstrated continued country ownership, hosting New Alliance planning meetings. A wide range of stakeholders, including senior government officials, the private sector, and civil society met to discuss:
(a) The alignment of New Alliance activities with existing country plans, processes and institutions.
(b) Progress against policy reform commitments to create a positive enabling environment for the private sector.
(c) Coordination of all partners to achieve shared objectives.
(d) Priority-setting to show tangible outcomes and progress in the near term.
(e) A way forward with tracking New Alliance implementation in each country.
And three more African countries have developed -- jointly with private sector and G8 partners -- their own Country Cooperation Frameworks. Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire and Mozambique officially announced these new frameworks on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly meetings in New York City in September 2012.
2. What is the relationship between the Feed the Future initiative and the New Alliance?
The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition is a commitment made by the G8 leaders to work in close partnership with African governments and the private sector toward a common goal to raise productivity and address global food security, nutrition and poverty. As a G8 member, the United States contributes to this new global partnership through whole-of-government efforts such as President Obama's global hunger and food security initiative, Feed the Future.
Feed the Future embodies many of the core principles of the New Alliance, including:
(a) Strengthening and building upon existing country plans and processes.
(b) Coordinating and collaborating with other donors to create transformative change in a country.
(c) Leveraging innovation and private sector investment to transform agricultural value chains for smallholder farmers, especially women.
3. How does nutrition factor in to the New Alliance?
The United States and other G8 members are committed to improving global nutrition, especially for women and children. And we recognize that nutrition interventions historically have high rates of return on impacting development.
In the context of the New Alliance, the G8 committed to:
(a) Actively support the Scaling Up Nutrition movement and welcome the commitment of African partners to improve the nutritional well-being of their populations, especially during the critical first 1,000 days from pregnancy to a child's second birthday.
(b) Improve tracking and disbursements for nutrition across sectors and ensure coordination of nutrition activities across sectors.
(c) Support the accelerated release, adoption and consumption of biofortified crop varieties, crop diversification, and related technologies to improve the nutritional quality of food in Africa.
(d) Develop a nutrition policy research agenda and support the efforts of African institutions, civil society and private sector partners to establish regional nutritional learning centers.
4. How will the New Alliance ensure that partners uphold their commitments?
In order to implement and track progress of the New Alliance over time, we are implementing a new approach to development that enlarges the development sphere beyond the donor and partner government paradigm to include private sector and civil society actors and build upon existing effective and collaborative accountability initiatives. Impact for smallholder farmers and women at the country level drives this new approach.
The New Alliance is committed to mutual accountability of all partners, and partners have expressed a strong desire to ensure that activities and investments are consistent with the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security and the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment.
The New Alliance intends to build on the accountability work of the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program and L'Aquila Food Security Initiative, which respectively track the commitments, investments and impacts of African governments and donors. At the Camp David Summit, the G8 agreed to convene a Leadership Council to drive and track implementation. This Council will report to the G8 and African Union on progress toward achieving the commitments under the New Alliance, including commitments made by the private sector.
The G8 also agreed to report to the 2013 Summit on the implementation of the New Alliance (including the actions of the private sector) in collaboration with the African Union. The Leadership Council convened its first meeting in September 2012 and continues to discuss options about how to best ensure mutual accountability.
5. Why does the New Alliance focus on Africa? What is the United States doing to improve food security elsewhere in the world?
As part of our commitment to do development differently and work in partnership behind country-led plans, the New Alliance is working in partnership to strengthen African commitments to promote and protect food security and nutrition -- articulated in multiple settings since 2003 and validated by tremendous progress made in Africa since 2009.
Africa is home to seven of the world[s 10 fastest-growing economies and the rate of return on foreign investment is higher in Africa than in any other developing region. Doing business in Africa makes good business sense. It is a growing place of opportunity for both business and agriculture. The New Alliance is combining smart assistance with leveraged private sector investments in African agriculture to benefit both resource-poor smallholder farmers and increase private sector growth.
While the New Alliance focuses on Africa, the U.S. Government also works to improve food security -- in partnership with countries -- throughout the world through the Feed the Future initiative.
Read more about the New Alliance on the Feed the Future website.
Previous: Water Should Be a Priority in Every Nation's Foreign Policy »« Next: Putting 21st Century Statecraft Into Action .
My Quest To Learn How the United States and United Nations Are Working To #EndHunger A Note of Gratitude: Progress In the Fight to End Hunger Executive Order Prioritizes Our Shared Global Health Security Story Tags
Global Women's Issues 508 Food Security 274 UNGA 112 G8 26 Latest Stories | 农业 | 8,304 |
Industry U.S. says science should settle farm debates in trade with EU
By Philip Blenkinsop, Reuters
June 17, 2014 | 12:21 pm EDT
A planned EU/U.S. trade deal needs to sweep away "non-scientific barriers" that prevent U.S. farmers from selling many genetically modified crops and some meat from hormone-treated animals in Europe, the U.S. agriculture secretary said on Tuesday. The two sides aim to create the world's largest free-trade pact, whose advocates say it could boost their economies by $100 billion a year each. But after a year of talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), agriculture is emerging as one of the most difficult areas.
The European Union has ruled out importing meat from animals injected with hormones and said that it will not simply open the door to GM crops.
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said difficult issues needed to be addressed, with the common goal of opening markets and eliminating "non-scientific barriers".
"Science is a common language ... We will be working towards making sure that whatever agreements are reached, they are consistent with sound science," he told a media briefing during a visit to Brussels.
In the case of GM crops, the EU has cleared for import some 50 of about 450 commercial strains. The bloc takes in about 30 million tonnes a year for its cattle, pigs and poultry, but EU retailers hardly stock any GM food because of widespread consumer resistance.
Vilsack said it was not acceptable that it took four years or more for GM strains to gain access to European markets after winning clearance from the European Food Safety Authority. That compared with a U.S. norm of about 18 months.
The United States is demanding the regulatory process be harmonised.
Safety argument
Ecological group Greenpeace says GM crops are part of large-scale intensive farming which degrades soils and pollutes water. It says they create herbicide-resistant superweeds that require more pesticides and are not proven to be safe to eat, with much of the research funding coming from industry.
Vilsack said the U.S. government was very concerned about suggestions that GM products posed a safety risk, which he said was not borne out by science.
Labelling, suggested by some in Europe, would not be a solution, he said. U.S. labels, he said, typically concerned nutritional information or carried a specific warning, for example to alert those with a peanut allergy.
Insisting on a label indicating a foodstuff contained a GM product risked sending a wrong impression that this was a safety issue, he said.
Vilsack said smartphones might offer an eventual solution by allowing consumers who wanted extensive information, such as on GM content, to gain access to it by scanning a barcode in a supermarket.
Vilsack said the European Union should also rethink its current bans on chlorine-washed chicken and beef from cattle raised with growth hormones.
Only last month German Chancellor Angela Merkel ruled out imports of the former. But Vilsack said the chlorine treatment was a safe way of reducing pathogens.
He added that a deal struck with the EU to allow in a quota of hormone-free U.S. beef to settle a dispute at the World Trade Organisation was not a permanent solution.
"We are still going to have to have some conversation about the beef question," he said.
tppgmogenetically modified organismsimportexporteuttipvilsackusda About the Author:
Philip Blenkinsop, Reuters | 农业 | 3,452 |
Calculate Your Body Fat Percentage
How Flexible Are You? Sit and Reach Test
Assess Your Active and Resting Metabolic Rate Calculate Your Real Age & Life Expectancy
How Many Calories DoYou Burn While Walking
Calculate Child or Teen Body Composition
Have You Posted Pictures on the Internet? Invasive Surveillance Awaits
MSG Lurks As A Slow Poison In Common Food Items Without Knowing
Avoid Ice Creams With Toxic Ingredients Cure Tooth Decay Naturally By Identifying The Real Cause of Cavities
Why is Glycemic Load More Significant Than Glycemic Index?
The 9 Personalities Which Are Changing The World
10 Signs You Should Stop Eating Gluten Immediately
Everything Is A Lie: The Deliberate Intent To Deceive People Is At An All Time High
The Facts, Stats and Dangers of Soda Pop
Soy Lecithin: How It Negatively Affects Your Health And Why You Need To Avoid It VO2 Max: How Fit Is An Athlete?
Hogwash Alert: One Flu Shot To Protect All Humans From All Flu Strains For Ten Years?
Awaken Your Brain: Coming Alive to Vibrant Well-being and a New Reality
Free Energy Is An Absolute Imperative For The Future Of The Earth And Humanity How Dangerous Is Fluoride To Your Health?
Never Be Sick Again: Understanding Disease Email Address Genetically Engineered Food:
A Cause For Great Concern
- Video Documentaries
- List of GM foods
An issue that has entered the mainstream media in a lot of countries (except western) is Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM) of food. A lot of food that we eat today contains genetically modified ingredients and usually without our knowledge. Supporters of this technology maintain that it ensures and sustains food security around the world as the population increases.
As time goes on, the science behind genetic engineering is no doubt improving. Biotechnology could be the wave of the future and genetically modified foods could really provide alternatives to help increase food production. However, there is a growing wave of concern from citizens, farmers and scientists who question the way the research is currently being handled by a few large, profit-hungry corporations. That is, as well as scientific debates on the merits of genetically engineered food, there are equally, if not more important, debates on the socioeconomic ramifications of the way such science is marketed and used. Critics believe:
The problem of food shortages is a political and economic problem.
Food shortages and hunger are -- and will be -- experienced by the poorer nations.
GE Food is an expensive technology that the farmers of the developing nations would not be able to afford easily.
Patenting laws go against the poor around the world and allow biotech companies to benefit from patenting indigenous knowledge often without consent.
This is a very young and untested technology and may not be the answer just yet.
Crop uniformity, which the biotech firms are promoting, will reduce genetic diversity making them more vulnerable to disease and pests. This furthers the need for pesticides (often created by the same companies creating and promoting genetically engineered crops).
Hence this leads to questions of the motives of corporations and countries who are using the plight of the developing world as a marketing strategy to gain acceptance of GE food as well as dependency upon it via intellectual property rights. That they are against any labeling or other precautionary steps and measures that states may wish to take is of paramount concern.
The way in which we reach the answer to the question, "are GE foods safe?" is where a lot of the problem lies. A quick acceptance of GE foods without proper testing etc. could show corporate profitability to be very influential, while a thorough debate and sufficient public participation would ensure that real social and environmental concerns are in fact adhered to. And this pattern would probably indicate to us how other major issues in the future ought to be dealt with.
A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture could lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material.
The Following Are Some of the Facts: Unnatural gene transfers from one species to another are dangerous. Biotechnology companies erroneously claim that their manipulations are similar to natural genetic changes or traditional breeding techniques. However, the cross-species transfers being made, such as between fish and tomatoes, or between other unrelated species, would not happen in nature and may create new toxins, diseases, and weaknesses. In this risky experiment, the general public is the guinea-pig. Biotechnology companies also claim their methods are precise and sophisticated. In fact, the process of inserting genes is quite random and can damage normal genes. Genetic research shows that many weaknesses in plants, animals, and humans have their origin in tiny imperfections in the genetic code. Therefore, the random damage resulting from gene insertion will inevitably result in side-effects and accidents. Scientists have assessed these risks to be substantial. (Refs: Palmiter, R.D. et al (1986) ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENETICS 20: 465; Inose, T. et al (1995) INT. JOUR. FOOD SCIENCE TECH. 30:141.) Unpredictable health damaging effects. When genetic engineers insert a new gene into any organism there are "position effects" which can lead to unpredictable changes in the pattern of gene expression and genetic function. The protein product of the inserted gene may carry out unexpected reactions and produce potentially toxic products. There is also serious concern about the dangers of using genetically engineered viruses as delivery vehicles (vectors) in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. This could destabilise the genome, and also possibly create new viruses, and thus dangerous new diseases. (Refs: Green, A.E. et al (1994) SCIENCE 263:1423; Osbourn, J.K. et al (1990) VIROLOGY 179:921.) Genetically engineered products carry more risks than traditional foods. The process of genetic engineering can thus introduce dangerous new allergens and toxins into foods that were previously naturally safe. Already, one genetically engineered soybean was found to cause serious allergic reactions, and bacteria genetically engineered to produce large amounts of the food supplement, tryptophan, have produced toxic contaminants that killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 more. (Refs: Nordlee, J.A. et al (1996) THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 688; Mayeno, A.N. et al (1994) TIBTECH 12:364.) Increased pollution of food and water supply. More than 50% of the crops developed by biotechnology companies have been engineered to be resistant to herbicides. Use of herbicide-resistant crops will lead to a threefold increase in the use of herbicides, resulting in even greater pollution of our food and water with toxic agrochemicals. (Ref: Goldberg, R.J. (1994) WEED TECHNOLOGY 6:647.) Health-damaging effects caused by genetic engineering will continue forever. Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, genetic pollution is self-perpetuating. It can never be reversed or cleaned up; genetic mistakes will be passed on to all future generations of a species. Inadequate government regulation. Biotech companies claim that government regulatory bodies will protect consumers. However DDT, Thalidomide, L-tryptophan, etc. were approved by U.S. regulators with tragic results. Recently it was found that 80% of supermarket milk contained traces of either medicines, illegal antibiotics used on farms, or hormones, including genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH). The facts show that regulators are not protecting the public adequately. (Ref: Epstein, S.S. (1996) INT. JOUR. HEALTH SERVICES, 26:173.) Ethical concerns. Transferring animal genes into plants raises important ethical issues for vegetarians and religious groups. It may also involve animal experiments which are unacceptable to many people. Gene transfer across species and competition from new species damaging the environment. When new genetic information is introduced into plants, bacteria, insects or other animals, it can easily be passed into related organisms, through processes such as cross pollination. This process has already created "super weeds". Existing species can also be displaced from the ecosystem with disastrous effects, as happened with genetically modified Klebsiella soil bacteria. (Ref: Holms, M.T. and Ingam, E.R. (1994) Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America (Supplement), 75:97) Crops are now being engineered to produce their own pesticides. This will promote the more rapid appearance of resistant insects and lead to excessive destruction of useful insects and soil organisms, thus seriously perturbing the ecosystem. In addition, the pesticide produced by the plant may be harmful to the health of consumers. (Refs: Union of Concerned Scientists (1994) GENE EXCHANGE, 5:68; Mikkelsen, T.R. et al (1996) Nature 380:31; Skogsmyr, I. (1994) THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS 88:770; Hama, H. et al (1992) APPLIED ENTYMOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY 27:355.) Global Threat To Humanity's Food Supply Giant transnational companies are carrying out a dangerous global experiment by attempting to introduce large numbers of genetically engineered foods widely into our food supply. Because genetic manipulations can generate unanticipated harmful side-effects, and because genetically engineered foods are not tested sufficiently to eliminate those that are dangerous, this experiment, not only jeopardizes the health of individuals, but could also lead to national or even global food shortages and large-scale health threats. There is no logical scientific justification for exposing society to this risk, nor is it necessary to take this risk for the purpose of feeding humanity. It is only of benefit to the biotech industry, which will obtain short term commercial gains at the expense of the health and safety of the whole population. Tampering with the genetic code of food is reckless and poses a serious threat to life. It could easily upset the delicate balance between our physiology and the foods that we eat. There is already ample scientific justification for an immediate ban on genetically modified foods in order to safeguard our health. What Leading Scientists and Public Figures Have To Say:
'We simply do not have enough reliable scientific evidence on their safety to be able to make a valid decision as to whether there are potential health effects or not.'' Charles Saunders, chairman of the British Medical Association's public health committee
"The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into."
Professor Philip James (author of the "James" report on the structure and functions of the proposed UK Food Standards Agency to oversee national food safety standards), Director of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, on genetically engineered food.
Rowett Research Institute 'Science' magazine - Dec 2000 - GM risk-benefit analysis has not been done
"There is... a need to develop more effective and appropriate screening methods to alert companies and government agencies to the unexpected consequences of the often random insertion of genetic traits into plants."
From Professor Philip James' evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, March 1999.
GM warning over dangerous chemicals entering food chain
USDA has not done GMO risk assessments
"If one is going to introduce a particular protein genetically one can look at the structure of the protein and ask if we know that this type of structure causes allergies. But if you say the structure may be slightly modified in this particular plant, how on earth are we going to assess whether that is going to induce in a very small subsection of the population an unknown allergenic response? I am not sure how we are going to cope with that yet."
From Professor Philip James' evidence to the House of Lords European Communities Committee, January 1999
Soya allergy rates skyrocket -- Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soy Blamed
Fox BST suit
"The experts [at the Royal Society of Canada] say this approach [of'substantial equivalence'] is fatally flawed for genetically modified, or GM, crops and exposes Canadians to several potential healthrisks, including toxicity and allergic reactions."
Toronto Star, 5 Feb 2000, on Royal Society of Canada report on Biotechnology
Toronto star on Royal Society of Canada Report
Download full CRS report
Canadian 'U-turn' Exposes Poor GM Safety Testing in US - Aug 2000 "Biotechnology relies to a large extent on our ability to introduce foreign genes into cells. A major problem with present day technology is the non-predictability of the integration of such transgenes. DNA introduced into plant cells mostly integrates at random, i.e. at non-predetermined positions of the genome. The biological process ultimately responsible for random integration is known as illegitimate recombination. DNA integrated at random frequently contains multiple copies and often copies are scrambled. Multiple copies also often induce gene silencing and hence instability in the expression of the introduced genes. In addition, the DNA integrates at loci of unknown stability and capacity for expression and randomly integrated copies may induce unpredictable and undesirable mutations in the host genome.....Although our understanding of the general biology of recombination in plants is constantly improving, we still lack the knowledge for precision engineering of plants' genes."
Study on behalf of the European Commission on GM food safety from Universit� Blaise Pascal Aubi�re (FR), Max-Planck-Institut f�r Z�chtungsforschung K�ln (DE), University of Ghent (BE) European Commission lacks confidence in own GM safety tests - More Details
".....there is no precise harmonisation of methodologies to assure the safety of transgenic food products, it being difficult to use traditional animal feeding studies for toxicological assessments. This clearly raises biosafety issues for the use of GM products in food. In vivo and in vitro validated nutritional-toxicological testing procedures are urgently required. .....if the testing procedure investigated in this project does not allow assessment of the toxicity of the gene products introduced into the food product via the GM plants, the whole strategy for the safety assessment of novel foods from GM plants will need to be revised". Study on behalf of the European Commission on GM food safety from Institute of Food Safety and Toxicology
S�borg, Denmark (DK) European Commission lacks confidence in own GM safety tests - More Details
"One of the key issues in the risk assessment of GM crop plants is whether unexpected hazardous metabolic perturbations (so-called unintended effects) may have taken place in the organism due to genetic modification, that could affect its food or nutritional status. It is recognised that no adequate and effective animal models to identify and trace the sources of potential unintended effects are currently available. The objective of this project is to develop new methodologies that are of sufficient sensitivity and specificity to assess risks from this possible food-borne hazard. Implicit in this objective is the need to develop new knowledge which will serve as a basis to understand the implications of the genetic modification process on metabolic pathways in plants. ........The project is highly pertinent to EU legislation on Novel Foods and GM food crops in particular. It is especially relevant to underpin Community policies. The new methodology will also be of use for the agro-food industry as it contributes to a more informed awareness of the 'real risks' related to GM foods by providing an objective scientific data package directed towards a holistic view of the genetic modification process." Study on behalf of the European Commission on GM food safety from State Institute for Quality Control of Agricultural Products (RIKILT) Wageningen, Netherlands European Commission lacks confidence in own GM safety tests - More Details
"We all wish there was a test where you plug in a protein and out pops a 'yes' or 'no' answer." Sue MacIntosh, a protein chemist with biotechnology company AgrEvo, on the difficulties of carrying out allergy testing on GM foods.
Scientists call for tougher GM tests
FDA scientists question soy safety - but where is GM testing?
"Well, I agree with you in the sense that when you use these methods you don't know what part of the chromosome that the new gene is being introduced into and that is, you know, what I would say is a drawback to the technology."
Professor Bevan Mosely, former head of the Institute of Food Research, Reading, and a current member of the United Kingdom's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) responsible for reviewing the safety of genetically modified foods, in a response to the question - "So how can we know that something isn't really going to go horrendously wrong?" - put to him by Charles Colett of Radio Wey Valley, Hampshire, United Kingdom, February 1998.
UK soya allergies increase dramatically - GM soya is suspect - March 99
"Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in Genetically Modified Foods." Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition and formerly an ardent advocate of food biotechnology (A year earlier Dr Chesson chaired the audit committee which ruled there was no evidence to support Dr Pusztai's claims on the toxicity of GM potatoes).
Horizontal GM crop gene transfer to bacteria in guts of bees
GM cover ups - Pusztai interview in 'The Hindu'
"I personally think that the chance of creating some novel food problems with the GM product is there. I think it is unlikely but I wouldn't put my hand on my heart and swear it was not so."
Sir Robert May, President of the Royal Society (and Chief Scientific Officer to the UK Government 1995-2000)
"These findings demonstrate the fragmentary nature of current knowledge of genome structure and function and regulation of gene expression in general, and the limited understanding of several physiological, ecological, agronomical and toxicological aspects relevant to present-day and planned genetic modifications of crops"
Plant Research International (No. 12) 70 pp, 2000
"I don't think any of us would disagree that, if an alternative exists to a GE solution, it's to be preferred"
Mr Hodson QC acting on behalf of the Life Sciences Network at the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 8th Feb 2001, p3480 or proceedings - line 2 "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." Dr. Linda Kahl US Food and Drug Agency compliance officer - internal memorandum
Full memorandum - click here
"A genetically engineered plant may contain an identical profile of expected plant toxicant levels (ie expected toxicants) as is normally found in a closely related, natural plant. However, gentically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants. The presence of high levels of toxicants in the bioengineered plant food could occur by two or more mechanisms.........
The unexpected toxicants could be closely related chemicals produced by common metabolic pathways in the same plant genus/species; however, unexpected toxicants could also be uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants.... The task of assessing the presence or the abscence of expected and unexpected toxicants in plants and the control plant could be very difficult, because thousands of plant biochemicals have been shown to have toxic effects on animals and microorganisms."
Dr. Edwin J. Mathews Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service US - memorandum to the FDA Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group
"At this time it is unlikely that molecular and compositional analysis can reasonably detect or predict all possible changes in toxicant levels or the development of new toxic metabolites as a result of gentic modifications introduced by the methods of biotechnology."
Dr. Samuel I. Shibko Director of Division of Toxicological Review and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service US - memorandum to Dr. James Maryansksi, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator
"There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document..... Unexpected Effects - This is the industry's pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA's level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to backup their contention, while the scientific literature does contain many examples of naturally occurring pleitropic [multi-response] effects. When the introduction of gene's into [a] plant's genome randomly occurs, as in the case of the current technology (but not traditional breeding) it seems that many pleiotropic [multi-response] effects will occur. Many of these effects might not be seen by the breeder because of the more or less similar growing conditions in the limited trials that are performed...
.......introduced proteins (enzymes) that while acting on one specific, intended substrate to produce a desired effect, will also affect other cellular molecules, either as substrates, or by swamping the plant's regulatory/metabolic system and depriving the plant of resources needed for other things. It is not prudent to rely on plant breeders always finding these types of changes (especially when they are under pressure to get a product out)."
Dr. Louis Priybl of the US Food and Drug Administation Microbiology Group - internal memorandum on FDA GM food safety testing policy document
"In addition to the human food safety and environmental concerns outlined in the appendices to the Notice, CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerens .....
Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems. For example, increased levels of glucosinolates or erusic acid in rapeseed may produce a residue problem in edible products."
Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject: "Regulation of Transgenic PlantsFDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology." Full memorandum - click here
"The scientific case put forward for this GM maize is not adequate. If the GM maize was approved for commercial growing in the UK then people would be justified in turning their back on consuming milk derived from it. As a scientist I wouldn't drink milk from cows fed GM maize with the present state of knowledge." Professor Bob Orskov, director of the International Feed Resource Unit in Aberdeen, Scotland at UK MAFF hearings in London, October 2000, concerning proposals to allow Aventis's GM forage maize, Chardon LL onto the National Seed List.
Transgenic Animal Feed Could Affect Dairy Products
"As hon. Members have said, some of the new [genetically engineered] wonder drugs have been accepted, and I think rightly so. There is some comfort in the regulatory process for medicine which, I admit, is not in place for food and agriculture."
Jeff Rooker, Minister of State for Food Safety, House of Commons, July 30 1998
Six Gene Therapy Deaths Kept From NIH
GE insulin class action suit
"Why don't we require a pharmaceutical type analysis of the safety of these foods with proper trials?" Jack Cunningham, UK cabinet minister with overall responsibility for biotechnology, raising a variety of issues in relation to GM crops and food in a leaked internal memo to one of his civil servants, February 1999 Ministers 'ignoring public' on GM food
"Almost everything we grow, everything we eat is the root result of human intervention, human breeding and so on. But this is unnatural in a different sort of way from the kinds of breeding programs that have characterized humanity for ten thousand years....
So the question which people have, I believe, not only a right but a duty to ask, is how wisely will we use these unprecedented new powers? What are the risks associated with doing something this new and this profound at the very wellsprings of life? How are they going to be managed? How will we have credible oversight? How will we have credible and effective monitoring of the introduction of this technology? Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging....
We have not yet identified, yet alone cloned, the gene for wisdom, and some skepticism about our ability to manage powerful new technologies is appropriate.... " Robert Shapiro,Chief Executive of Monsanto - speech on genetic engineering presented at State of the World Forum, Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, CA , October 27, 1998.
Monsanto and the regulators - Ecologist magazine
Contaminated
'From the provocative Gorilla News Network (GNN), "Contaminated" presents a brief overview of how the world's food supply is slowly being transformed by a radically improvised agricultural paradigm. The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods This is a lecture presented by Jeffrey Smith (author of Genetic Roulette), in which he summarizes the health risks of genetically engineered foods. Entertaining and very informative. (Part 1)
The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods (Part 2)
Secrets in Your Food
Genetically Modified Cows On The Horizon
Reference Source 156, 157, 158, 160
...............................................................................................................
VIEWER RELATIONSAbout Us | Contact Us | Write For Us | Advertise | Services | Media Inquiries | Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy StatementSTAY CONNECTEDNewsletter | RSS | FaceBook | Twitter | YouTube | Bloggers | Volunteer | MagneticoThis site is owned and operated by PreventDisease.com � 1999-2016. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details. aaa InteractStay Connected With Our Newsletter | 农业 | 27,243 |
USDA Extends Dairy Margin Protection Program Deadlines
Enrollment Continues Through Dec. 5; Comments Accepted Until Dec. 15
GRAPEVINE, Texas– Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, speaking at the National Milk Producers Federation annual meeting, today announced extended deadlines for the dairy Margin Protection Program. Farmers now have until Dec. 5, 2014, to enroll in the voluntary program, established by the 2014 Farm Bill. The program provides financial assistance to participating farmers when the margin – the difference between the price of milk and feed costs – falls below the coverage level selected by the farmer.
"We want dairy producers to have enough time to make thoughtful and well-studied choices," said Vilsack. "Markets change and the Margin Protection Program can help protect dairy producers from those changes."
Vilsack encouraged producers to use the online Web resource at www.fsa.usda.gov/mpptool to calculate the best levels of coverage for their dairy operation. "Historical scenarios also can be explored to see how the Margin Protection Program would function should poor market conditions occur again in the future," said Vilsack. The secure website can be accessed via computer, smartphone or tablet.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also extended the opportunity for public comments on both the Margin Protection Program and the Dairy Product Donation Program until Dec. 15, 2014.
"USDA is committed to creating strong opportunities for the next generation of farmers and ranchers. When dairy producers bring new family members into the business, these changes could affect safety net coverage," said Vilsack. "If our current rules hinder intergenerational changes or if improvements are needed in these programs, then we want to hear from dairy producers."
Agriculture’s leading role in the international marketplace
By Bob Stallman
President, American Farm Bureau
Washington—Farmers and ranchers have a long history of promoting American strength and goodwill through international trade. Thanks to our ability to satisfy demand here and abroad, U.S. agriculture is one of the few sectors that can boast a positive trade balance, overall shipping out more than we bring back in. The balance could shift, however, if political barriers stand in the way of agricultural trade. Getting markets open for business U.S. agriculture is ready for a boost in activity in the Asia/Pacific region. This area holds great promise, and it makes no sense to limit access to food here or anywhere else. The Trans Pacific Partnership promises to open up trade among the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan. But the real success of TPP negotiations rests on an agreement between the U.S. and Japan, which would require Japan to resolve its long-standing tariff and non-tariff barrier issues. Price restrictions and high tariffs have been the standard for too long, and Japan will have to play on the same terms as other participants for the TPP to work. The European Union is also primed for growth. Last year, U.S. agricultural exports to the EU totaled $11.5 billion compared to $17.3 billion in EU agricultural exports to the U.S. American farmers and ranchers are ready to be competitive here, but the EU system has stubbornly held to guidelines that are based in politics rather than science. Although the U.S. and the EU both follow the safety guidelines set out by the World Trade Organization, the EU tacks on a “precautionary principle,” which allows it to add non-scientific guidelines to risk management. Match this with its snail’s pace for approving biotech products, and it is not surprising that we’ve seen a significant drop in corn and soybean exports. For U.S. food products that do make it over to the EU, the use of geographic indications can put some at an unfair disadvantage, limiting their marketability. Standing firm in negotiations No trade agreement can be fully successful without the support of agriculture. In September, AFBF’s Trade Advisory Committee met with EU officials in Brussels, where we urged them to remove unnecessary trade barriers once and for all and to move forward with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. A free trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU can bring a serious boost to U.S. agriculture, but only if politics are set aside. AFBF also met with several ambassadors and the WTO director-general in Geneva where we affirmed U.S. support for completing the Trade Facilitation Agreement, an accord that would eliminate many antiquated customs procedures that serve no useful purpose. The agreement is currently on hold thanks to India—which originally signed on with all other WTO countries back in December but is now delaying the ratification. U.S. agriculture is ready for ambitious trade negotiations. Hanging onto failed ideas that place certain agricultural sectors at a disadvantage or create special exemptions for developing countries is no way to move forward in today’s marketplace. Waiting for trade negotiations to conclude can feel a bit like watching paint dry, but persistence pays off. A recent agreement between the U.S. and Brazil has resolved Brazil’s complaint to the WTO and ended years of uncertainty for America’s cotton growers. Thanks to the support of the U.S. government, the current structure of commodity programs remains intact. We must continue to hang tough in trade negotiations to keep the marketplace open to the American farmer. Posted by
Initiatives attacking ag biotech on the ballot in Colorado, Oregon and Maui
Washington—Voters across Colorado and Oregon and in Maui County, Hawaii, will weigh in on biotech-related ballot measures at the polls next week. Colorado and Oregon will consider labeling measures, while Maui County voters will face a proposal to adopt a moratorium on the use of GMO seeds. “All three ballot measures are a threat to biotechnology and its many benefits to farmers, consumers and the environment,” said Andrew Walmsley, American Farm Bureau Federation biotechnology specialist. “These ballot initiatives will only create more bureaucracy and make people afraid of the food grown in these states and elsewhere across the country.” Another point of concern is the cost of complying with state-by-state labeling laws. “A vote in favor of any of these initiatives is a vote in support of higher grocery bills because food companies will inevitably pass these labeling compliance costs onto consumers,” Walmsley cautioned. GMO foods have been deemed safe by USDA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association and major scientific and health organizations worldwide. “The FDA has determined there is no nutritional or material difference between food ingredients made from GMO plant varieties and their conventional counterparts,” Walmsley pointed out. “So any label indicating GMO ingredients would not only be unnecessary, it would lead many consumers to wrongly believe there’s something wrong with food produced using GMOs.” Colorado’s Proposition 105 asserts that “consumers have the right to know if the food they are consuming has been genetically modified.”
If approved, any genetically modified foods would be required to be labeled “Produced With Genetic Engineering” starting on July 1, 2016. Animal feed, meat from animals that ate genetically modified foods, alcoholic beverages and medically prescribed foods would be among the products exempted from the labeling law. Proposition 105 is “so badly written and so full of exemptions that [the required labels] would not really tell customers which foods are made with GMOs and which aren’t,” said Don Shawcroft, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, which has joined dozens of other organizations to form the Coalition Against the Misleading Labeling Initiative. Similarly, Oregon Farm Bureau is a key figure in the No on 92 Coalition, which was formed to oppose a statewide GMO labeling initiative, Measure 92. If Measure 92 passes, beginning Jan. 1, 2016, all raw food and packaged food that is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering must be labeled as such and is otherwise misbranded if that fact is not disclosed. Specifically, raw food would have to carry a label that includes the words “Genetically Engineered.” Packaged foods would be labeled “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” The measure would require farmers and food producers to separate, re-package, and re-label their products unless they are specially re-made with higher-priced ingredients just for Oregon, warns the Oregon Farm Bureau. The costly new bureaucratic requirements would impact farmers whether or not they grow biotech crops. Voters in California and Washington rejected similar ballot initiatives in 2012 and 2013, respectively. In Maui County, voters will decide whether to adopt a “Moratorium of the Cultivation of Genetically Engineered Organisms,” affecting two local biotech seed farms that contribute tens of millions to Maui’s economy and employ hundreds of local residents, according to Chris Manfredi, Hawaii Farm Bureau president. If approved, the measure would indefinitely prohibit any growth, testing or cultivation of genetically modified or engineered crops until environmental and public health studies declare the practices “safe and harmless.” While ignoring numerous existing studies, the measure includes severe fines and prison time for anyone who grows even one Rainbow papaya (a variety genetically modified to resist the ubiquitous and devastating ring spot virus).
“Although the endless flow of propaganda confounds the issues, we are hopeful that people in Hawaii and on the mainland will choose to support farmers by allowing us continued access to the tools we need to keep on farming,” Manfredi said in a recent Focus onAgriculture column.
- See more at: http://fbnews.fb.org/Templates/Article.aspx?id=39168&utm_source=Oct.+29%2C+2014&utm_campaign=Oct.+29%2C+2014&utm_medium=email#sthash.q7llS6CP.dpuf
Just in from Latah County
Latah County holds Farm Bureau Candidate Forum Moscow--The Latah County Farm Bureau held a candidate forum with county president Tom Chamberlain moderating. Attending were state legislative candidates from legislative district 5 and it was well attended. Candidates fielded a wide range of questions ranging from questions on the Ag. Interference Bill to minimum wage, taxes, and state management of public lands. Pictured above John Carlson (former Latah County Farm Bureau president) responding to a question. John is running for state senate against Senator Schmidt from Moscow. The forum was held at the 1912 Center in Moscow.
(Bob Smathers, story and photos)
GOVERNOR OTTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL WASDEN URGE EPA TO WITHDRAW PROPOSED WATER RULE
Boise– Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden are urging federal environmental officials to withdraw a proposed rule clarifying how streams, ditches and other waters will be defined under federal law.
The Governor and Attorney General recommend in a letter today that the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers start the rulemaking process over again – this time with more involvement and input from the state.
The proposed rule is overreaching, carries potential risks for Idaho’s agriculture industry and private property owners and aims to give the federal government authority over waters that are not now subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, according to the letter signed by Otter and Wasden.
“The Environmental Protection Agency claims it only wants to ‘clarify’ what waterways and bodies of water fall within its regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. But that’s just semantics. In reality, the EPA is checking every nook and cranny of the United States for opportunities to expand its influence in the name of protecting us,” Governor Otter said.
“Protecting our water is every bit as important to survival of the Idaho I know and love as protecting the Constitution is to the survival of the republic. Public policy should be grounded in values that reflect what we hold most dear. In Idaho, those values include private property, individual liberties, and our water.”
Governor Otter and Attorney General Wasden expressed their concerns in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Jo Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
“Idaho’s water resources are too valuable and integral to simply just hand over to federal authority under a rule that is too broad, risky and confusing,” Wasden said. “It’s time for federal regulators to start the process over and actively consult with state experts and stakeholders to craft a rule that is clear, consistent and adheres with federal court precedent.”
In the letter, the Governor and Attorney General recommend formation of a state-federal working group to revamp the rule.
Federal officials contend the new rule they are drafting is needed to clarify the scope of jurisdiction for the 1972 Clean Water Act. But Otter and Wasden argue that the proposed rule would do just the opposite, and could be interpreted as expanding federal jurisdiction to waterways that now fall outside the scope of federal water law.
The proposed rule also lacks agricultural exemptions carved out in the existing law, including groundwater, irrigation ditches and farm and stock ponds, the letter states.
The proposed rule now is subject to public comment, with a deadline of November 14. If federal officials deny the request to withdraw the rule, Otter and Wasden want additional time to submit comments.
“As always, Idaho stands ready to work with the EPA and the Corps’ to support further dialogue and consultation between your agencies and Idaho regarding this rule and any and all other issues involving the protection of our waters,” the Governor and Attorney General wrote.
Study confirms EPA’s proposed carbon regs will fuel spike in energy costs
Washington—New analysis predicts that compliance with EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas regulations could total upwards of $366 billion. As jarring as the numbers are, they’re of little surprise to farmers and ranchers who have been warning that the regulations would greatly jeopardize the availability of an affordable and reliable supply of energy. The analysis, provided by NERA Economic Consulting, also finds that 43 states will have double-digit electricity price surges, with 14 states potentially facing peak-year electricity price increases that exceed 20 percent. Much of NERA’s cost projection is based on consumers having to spend more than $500 billion to reduce their use of electricity. Last June, President Barack Obama issued an executive memorandum directing EPA to put in place new rules to limit carbon emissions from both new and existing power plants. These two regulations set the stage for similar regulations directed at other sectors of the economy like refining, chemicals, natural gas development, iron and steel, livestock operations and pulp and paper. In addition to the staggering $41 billion-plus annual price tag, NERA analysis also finds that the proposals could shutter 45,000 megawatts or more of coal-based electricity, which is more than the entire electricity supply of New England. The proposed rules , which the administration has dubbed its Clean Power Plan, fail to take into account farmers’ and ranchers’ leadership in producing and using clean, renewable fuels, said Andrew Walmsley, American Farm Bureau Federation energy specialist. “The Clean Power Plan would be punishing one sector – agriculture – that is doing more than its part in supporting energy independence and reducing fossil fuel use,” Walmsley said. “Farmers and ranchers are leading the way to a cleaner renewable energy future through increased and more innovative ethanol and biodiesel production, the installation of methane digesters, support for the greater use of wind energy and many other efforts along these lines.” Further, while the administration’s proposals come with significant costs for all consumers, they’ll provide very few, if any, environmental or health benefits. “Unfortunately, this plan does little to address the problem it seeks to solve,” Walmsley said. “Merely reducing fossil fuel emissions without producing a measurable impact on world temperature or climate cannot be regarded as a success.” “Instead, EPA’s plan will affect all Americans negatively, and farmers and ranchers will be especially hard hit because of the energy intensive nature of producing food, feed, fuel and fiber,” he added. For farmers and ranchers in a large part of the country, coal supplies all or most of their electricity. As coal plants in these areas age and are de-commissioned, these proposed rules will prevent the construction of a reliable and affordable source of electricity to take their place. “At a time when our country needs to consider all types of energy, the proposed standard appears to eliminate one of the most widely used and inexpensive sources of energy,” Walmsley cautioned. “Any standard for utilities should be realistic and achievable for all sources of energy.” In addition, EPA’s proposals for new and existing power plants have the potential to send energy costs soaring for farmers and ranchers when utility companies pass the costs of compliance on to their customers. While other businesses will have the option of passing those costs down the line, growers can’t do that. “Farmers and ranchers are price takers and not price makers, so they lack the ability of many other sectors to recoup their costs by passing them on to customers,” Walmsley said. Farmers will face not only higher electricity prices, but the higher input prices that will follow. Increases in other energy prices, fertilizer and machinery will have a negative effect on the farm level while at the same time making U.S. farmers and ranchers less competitive internationally. To let EPA know how its Clean Power Plan and the skyrocketing energy costs that come with it will hurt you, your family and your livelihood, go to AFBF’s FBAct website here: http://www.fbactinsider.org/action-center/action-alert-ghg-epas-greenhouse-gas-regulations-will-hurt-all-americans Posted by
USDA to Launch New Farm Bill Program to Help Provide Relief to Farmers Affected by Severe Weather
WASHINGTON – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the implementation of a new Farm Bill initiative that provides relief to farmers affected by severe weather, including drought.
The Actual Production History Yield Exclusion, available nationwide for farmers of select crops starting next spring, allows eligible producers who have been hit with severe weather to receive a higher approved yield on their insurance policies through the federal crop insurance program.
Spring crops eligible for APH Yield Exclusion include corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, grain sorghum, rice, barley, canola, sunflowers, peanuts, and popcorn. Nearly three-fourths of all acres and liability in the federal crop insurance program will be covered under APH Yield Exclusion.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency and Farm Service Agency staff worked hard to implement several 2014 Farm Bill programs ahead of schedule, such as the Agricultural Risk Coverage, the Price Loss Coverage, Supplemental Coverage Option and Stacked Income Protection Plan. USDA is now able to leverage data from the Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage to extract the information needed to implement APH Yield Exclusion earlier than expected.
"Key programs launched or extended as part of the 2014 Farm Bill are essential to USDA's commitment to help rural communities grow. These efforts give farmers, ranchers and their families better security as they work to ensure Americans have safe and affordable food," said Vilsack. "By getting other 2014 Farm Bill programs implemented efficiently, we are now able to offer yield exclusion for Spring 2015 crops, providing relief to farmers impacted by severe weather."
The APH Yield Exclusion allows farmers to exclude yields in exceptionally bad years (such as a year in which a natural disaster or other extreme weather occurs) from their production history when calculating yields used to establish their crop insurance coverage. The level of insurance coverage available to a farmer is based on the farmer's average recent yields. In the past, a year of particularly low yields that occurred due to severe weather beyond the farmer's control would reduce the level of insurance coverage available to the farmer in future years. By excluding unusually bad years, farmers will not have to worry that a natural disaster will reduce their insurance coverage for years to come.
Under the new Farm Bill program, yields can be excluded from farm actual production history when the county average yield for that crop year is at least 50 percent below the 10 previous consecutive crop years' average yield.
IFBF Range Specialist Wally Butler passes away
Boise—Wally Butler, 68, died October 21 near Fairfield, Idaho. The long-time range expert was doing what he loved, inspecting allotments near Fairfield when he died of an apparent heart attack.
Butler served as the Idaho Farm Bureau range and livestock specialist for 15 years before retiring last year. He had continued range consultation and took part in the Salmon-Challis Range Tour earlier this month.
Butler graduated from the University of Idaho with a bachelor of science, animal science and a masters degree in range management.
During Butler’s long career he ranched for more than 15 years in the Kendrick area before working his way back into the range consultant business, sold insurance and landed his dream job with the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation. At the IFBF Butler also served as a salaried lobbyist and worked closely with Farm Bureau members who as a perk of membership, got his political, dog, horse and range expertise year round. Butler had maintained his office at Farm Bureau’s Boise headquarters, he leaves behind his wife of many years Bonnie, too many friends and horses to count, and many prized Australian shepherd dogs.
Senator Crapo Awarded Friend of Farm Bureau Award
Idaho Senator Mike Crapo Awarded AFBF Friend of Farm Bureau Award
Boise--Idaho Farm Bureau Executive Director Rick Keller and Legislative Affairs Director Russ Hendricks awarded Idaho Senator Mike Crapo the American Farm Bureau's coveted Friend of Farm Bureau Award Tuesday afternoon in Boise.
"I'm honored, I look forward to each and every award," said Senator Crapo. "I've won the award every term and proudly display it in my office."
Executive Director Rick Keller told the Senator that Farm Bureau members appreciate the Senators Service. "We appreciate all that you do, you've helped us in the past and we look forward to working with you in future."
The "Friend of Farm Bureau' award is given at the end of each Congress to those members of Congress who were nominated by their respective state Farm Bureaus and approved by the American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors.
The award is base on voting records on AFBF's priority issues established by the Board of Directors, number of bills that member has sponsored and co-sponsored, specific leaderships role for Farm Bureau priority issues and how accessible and responsive that member is to Farm Bureau members and leaders. In addition, the state Farm Bureau lists any other specific reasons why that member should receive the bill.
Just in from Boise
Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson awarded Friends of Farm Bureau Award
Boise--Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson was awarded his 8th consecutive Friend of Farm Bureau Award this morning in Boise.
Idaho Farm Bureau Executive Director Rick Keller and Legislative Director Russ Hendricks awarded the Congressman the coveted award. "We appreciate all you do for the Farm Bureau," said Keller. "I've won the award through each term, I hope to keep that streak alive," said Congressman Simpson.
Salmon-Challis Range Tour
USDA Invests $1.4 Billion to Improve Rural Electric Infrastructure WASHINGTON – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced $1.4 billion in USDA loan guarantees to improve the delivery of electric power to rural communities in 21 states.
"With the help of investments such as these from USDA, rural electric utilities have delivered reliable and affordable electricity for nearly 80 years," Vilsack said. "Upgrading the electric grid will bring jobs and increased economic opportunities to rural communities."
Today's announcement includes $106 million for smart grid technologies and $3 million for renewable energy programs and systems. The funding will help diversify energy portfolios and decrease our nation's reliance on carbon-based fuel sources, Vilsack noted.
Smart grid helps rural electric utilities manage power use more effectively. For fiscal year (FY) 2014, USDA's Rural Utilities Service provided more than $186 million for smart grid technologies.
USDA has worked with rural electric cooperatives since 1935 to provide electricity for rural consumers. Through the years, these investments have delivered new economic and social opportunities and have enhanced the quality of life in the nation's rural communities.
Upper Midwest rail delays roll on, oil only partly to blame Washington—There’s more oil than anyone expected being shipped by rail from North Dakota, but that’s hardly the only reason farmers in the Upper Midwest are facing big delays in getting their wheat, soybean and corn crops to storage facilities and on to market. Coal, for one, is also competing with grain and oil for rail cars, locomotives and track space. Growing demands on intermodal transport—where freight is moved using multiple modes of transportation—has been an ongoing issue, and last year’s big grain crop and the harsh winter are all part of the problem. “With the continued backlog of rail cars in the Upper Midwest, coupled with elevators still holding some of last year’s grain crop, farmers in that region are legitimately concerned that this year’s record crop will create a grain storage crisis. This grain has got to move, and the only way to do it is by rail,” said Andrew Walmsley, American Farm Bureau Federation transportation specialist. The one thing moving forward at a good clip is criticism of the rail industry. Farmers, Upper Midwest governors, the Surface Transportation Board and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack have all put Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway on notice. While CP has a ways to go to earn back its farmer customers’ and the government’s trust, BNSF officials are doing their best to address the few things under the company’s control. “BNSF has invested more than $5 billion in new locomotives, and added new capacity and staff,” said Andrew Walmsley, American Farm Bureau Federation transportation specialist. “They’ve also been communicating with Farm Bureau and other stakeholders about these concerns since the beginning of the delays a year ago.” While there is little the federal government can do to fix the backlog, the STB this spring started to require railways to report on fertilizer shipments, which were behind at the time, and are now doing the same for grain shipments. On Capitol Hill, Farm Bureau is backing the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2014 (S. 2777), which would increase STB’s investigative authority to launch its own investigations before a complaint is filed, improve rate review timelines to make it easier for board members to communicate, improve alternative dispute resolution practices and more. In addition, one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), was joined by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) in asking USDA to conduct an economic analysis of the rail service challenges agricultural shippers face. - See more at: http://fbnews.fb.org/Templates/Article.aspx?id=39131#sthash.eJqURvEk.dpuf
Keeping Sage Grouse off Endangered Species List: A Challenge
Twin Falls-The U.S. Secretary of the Interior says it will be a challenge keeping sage grouse off the endangered species list, but not unsolvable.
Sally Jewell visited Idaho's best sage grouse habitat south of Twin Falls and heard reports from ranchers, biologists and agency personal on what they’re doing to save grouse habitat.
Idaho Senators Risch and Crapo were at the first part of the tour for a sit down meeting in Rogerson. Just last year Senator Risch grilled Jewell during her 2013 confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill.
“Are you still in agreement that this is the best way to pursue how we do what all of us want to do, and that is preserve, protect and rehabilitate the greater sage grouse? Are we still singing off the same sheet of music?” asked Risch.
The tone of Tuesdays sit down meeting was positive.
“We do have time and we do have knowledge and we have partnerships that we didn’t have a decade or two decades ago so I think that is very encouraging,” Jewell said. “But we also have increasing risk with a longer, hotter wildfire season.”
Biologist briefed the Secretary on the massive wildfires that swept the area two years ago, they said there’s been habitat loss due to the fires, development and invasive species on the range.
Semi-Finalists Named in First National Rural Entrepreneurship Challenge
Washington-–The American Farm Bureau Federation together with Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business Global Social Enterprise Initiative and the Georgetown Entrepreneurship Initiative’s StartupHoyas today announced the 10 national semi-finalists of the first-ever Rural Entrepreneurship Challenge. The challenge provides an opportunity for individuals to showcase ideas and business innovations being developed in rural regions of the United States.
AFBF President Bob Stallman made the announcement at the National Summit on Rural Entrepreneurship at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. The semi-finalist businesses, chosen from more than 200 applicants, will advance to the next phase of the challenge. They include:
Pulaski Grow (Pulaski, Virginia), an aquaponics facility to provide local youth with job training. Team lead: Lee Spiegel;
ScoutPro (Lone Tree, Iowa), software to assist farmers with crop maintenance. Team lead: Michael Koenig;
Shelf Life (Arlington, Tennessee), a hydroponic growing system for small producers. Team lead: Glenn Cunningham; and
StopFlood Appliance Systems (Inkom, Idaho), a product to prevent floods caused by washing machine hose failures. Team lead: Brent Singley.
“The outstanding group of entrepreneurs selected as semi-finalists reflects the depth and diversity of rural business ideas in cultivation across the nation,” Stallman said. “They are proof that great business ideas can be generated anywhere.”
After a series of virtual team interviews, judges will choose four finalists to continue in the challenge. The four challenge finalists will each win $15,000. They will pitch their business ideas to a team of judges at the AFBF 96th Annual Convention in January in hopes of winning the Rural Entrepreneur of the Year Award for an additional $15,000, and the Peoples’ Choice Award for $10,000 more, totaling prize money of up to $40,000 to implement their ideas. The Farm Bureau Rural Entrepreneurship Challenge is a key component of the Rural Entrepreneurship Initiative, a joint effort between AFBF and Georgetown McDonough.
“Rural entrepreneurs face unique challenges and more limited options when exploring new business ideas. But just as in Silicon Valley, great ideas combined with the proper support and funding can be transformational,” said Jeff Reid, founding director, StartupHoyas at Georgetown.
The Rural Entrepreneurship Initiative is a joint program of the American Farm Bureau Federation and Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business Global Social Enterprise Initiative and the Georgetown Entrepreneurship Initiative’s StartupHoyas. The Rural Entrepreneurship Initiative is directly tied to AFBF’s mission of building strong and prosperous agricultural communities.
For more information about the challenge or the semi-finalists, contact Cyndie Sirekis [email protected] or Brynn Boyer at [email protected].
Farm Bureau on Latest Harvest Projections from USDA
WASHINGTON – The Agriculture Department’s much-anticipated October report on agricultural supply and demand for the 2014-2015 marketing year delivered few surprises today, the American Farm Bureau Federation said.
With planting numbers rolled into the latest USDA report, projections are honing in on the final harvest numbers.
“We’re seeing corn and soybean yields round out to what we have anticipated for this year’s bumper crop,” AFBF Deputy Chief Economist John Anderson said. Corn yield expectations are up to 174.2 bushels per acre and soybeans are at 47.1 bushels per acre. Both numbers are slightly higher than last month’s estimate, but remain well within anticipated ranges. Estimates on harvested acres of corn, now at 83.1 million, are down several hundred thousand acres from last month. With harvest expectations totaling 14.475 billion bushels of corn, the industry is certain to see the record crop expected.
According to Anderson, the interesting numbers from this month’s report came from the world wheat projections, where ending stocks came in lower than expected.
“The good news here,” Anderson said, “is that global demand for grain is holding strong, making this latest report on a record harvest season as positive as it can be at this point.”
President Obama Designates San Gabriel Mountains National Monument
Los Angeles - President Obama will use his authority under the Antiquities Act to establish 346,177 acres of national forest land in the San Gabriel Mountains in southern California as a national monument, permanently protecting the popular outdoor recreation destination to increase access and outdoor opportunities for the area's residents. This monument designation builds on more than a decade of public support from business, tourism, environmental justice, conservation, academic and cultural preservation communities and on the leadership from members of Congress. For many residents of Los Angeles County -- one of the most disadvantaged counties in the country when it comes to access to parks and open space for minorities and children--the San Gabriel Mountains provide the only available large-scale open space. In addition to permanently protecting this land, the monument designation will create new opportunities for the Forest Service and local communities to work together to increase access and enhance outdoor opportunities.
Building on the monument designation, leading philanthropies are also announcing commitments to help jump-start public involvement and restoration of high-priority projects in Los Angeles County and the new San Gabriel National Monument. The National Forest Foundation announced that they will commit $3 million for the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Fund to respond to community priorities and support restoration and stewardship of the new national monument. In addition, the Hewlett, Wyss, Packard, and California Community foundations, the California Endowment, and the Resources Legacy Fund are working to establish a $500,000 San Gabriel Partnership Fund to support recreation and habitat improvement projects in the monument and surrounding communities. Secretary Vilsack and the Forest Service are also stepping up by investing more than a million dollars in additional education staff and maintenance work on the monument's trails and picnic areas.
More than 15 million people live within 90 minutes of the San Gabriel Mountains, which provides 70 percent of the open space for Angeleños and 30 percent of their drinking water. The 346,177 acre site contains high-quality wilderness areas, habitat for rare and endangered animals like the California condor, and a rich array of cultural and historical features.
Today's action builds on steps the Administration has taken over the past five and a half years to expand access to millions of acres for recreation, make historic investments in restoring critical landscapes through the President's America's Great Outdoors initiative, and permanently protect areas significant to our Nation's rich history and natural heritage. All of these efforts support an annual outdoor economy that includes approximately 9 million jobs and $1 trillion in economic activity, according to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The new monument area overlays about half of the Angeles National Forest, which hosts more than 4 million visits each year. Based on 2012 data, the U.S. Forest Service estimates that the Angeles National Forest alone contributes more than $39 million to the local economy each year.
Since President Theodore Roosevelt designated Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming in 1906, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16 presidents to protect unique natural and historic features in America, including the Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, and Alaska's Admiralty Island National Monument. President Obama has previously used his authority under the Antiquities Act to create or expand 12 other National Monuments across the country, including the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the south-central Pacific Ocean last month - the largest marine reserve in the world that is completely off limits to commercial resource extraction. With this designation, President Obama has now protected more than 260 million acres of land and water, nearly three times more than any other President since the Antiquities Act became law in 1906.
About the San Gabriel Monument & Southern California Community:
The peaks of the San Gabriel Mountains frame the Los Angeles skyline and offer hundreds of miles of hiking, mountain biking, motorized, and equestrian trails as well as campgrounds to the area's diverse residents. In addition to providing drinking water, the San Gabriels' rivers support rare populations of native fish, while the vegetation found in the monument supports native wildlife and insect species, including pollinators important to farmers. The area is also rich in cultural and scientific history. More than 600 archeologically and culturally significant sites are found within the new monument, such as the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest Area, which features rock art and cupules that exemplify more than 8,000 years of Native American history. The new monument is also home to the Mt. Wilson Observatory, where Edwin Hubble discovered galaxies beyond the Milky Way and Albert Michelson provided the first modern measurement of the speed of light.
Improving public access and recreational opportunities within the monument will help address the region's public health challenges. Studies have shown that increasing recreational access to public lands translates to higher levels of youth activity and lower youth obesity rates. National monuments also play an important role in supporting local economies. A recent study by the independent and nonpartisan research group, Headwaters Economics analyzing the impacts of over a dozen monuments found that, without exception, local economies grew following the monument's designation.
The San Gabriel Mountains National Monument will be managed by the U.S. Forest Service and will be the eighth national monument under Forest Service management. There are more than 100 national monuments across the country managed by the Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador awarded Friend of Farm Bureau Award this morning in Boise. Executive Rick Keller along with Russ Hendricks and Dennis Tanikuni. Labrador supported key legislation on Capitol Hill during the past year that benefited Idaho Farmers.
Idaho Senator Risch recieves the Farm Bureau's Friend of Agriculture award this morning in Boise. IFBF Executive Rick Keller and Russ Hendricks presented the award for the Senators support of Ag issues on Capitol Hill. Posted by
AFBF unveils online grassroots biotech toolkit
Washington—The American Farm Bureau Federation’s recently launched biotech toolkit is a guide for farmers and ranchers who want to share the many positives about biotechnology with policymakers, community members and others. Accessible at www.fb.org/biotech, this free online resource includes an overview of biotechnology; an explanation of biotechnology’s benefits to consumers, the environment, farmers, the U.S. economy, and more; links to credible sources for biotech information; and avenues for getting active on social media. “From Capitol Hill to the tiniest town in California, there is a lot of misinformation out there about biotechnology,” said Andrew Walmsley, American Farm Bureau Federation biotechnology specialist. “Whether meeting with community leaders or government officials and their staff, AFBF’s new toolkit offers farmers and ranchers the resources to set the record straight.”
Among the many resources the site offers are one-pagers focusing on the numerous benefits of biotechnology that can be accessed anytime online or printed off to share to at a community event, town hall gathering or a meeting with a lawmaker or candidate in any city or in any town. Social media, too, is a key part of outreach. “One of the most pervasive sources of misinformation on biotechnology is social media,” noted Walmsley. “This biotech toolkit offers guidance on who to follow on Twitter and which messages should be shared to raise awareness and answer questions.” The walls against biotechnology were built over time, and we can’t wait any longer to start chipping away at them, especially as many voters, state legislators, candidates and congressional lawmakers are now being asked to take a position on GMO labeling and other biotechnology-related issues, warned Walmsley. “People have valid questions about where their food comes from, how it’s grown and why it’s grown that way. Unfortunately, the answers all too often come from those with anti-biotech agenda who are having an increasingly negative influence on policymaking and making people afraid of their food,” he said. Early next year, Congress could consider a bill similar to the Farm Bureau-supported Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which would make it clear that the Food and Drug Administration is the nation’s foremost authority on the use and labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. “Now is the time to lay the groundwork for passage of this legislation by sharing the information provided in this toolkit with congressional lawmakers. By the time the bill is on the House and Senate floors, lawmakers will already have had an earful from their anti-biotech constituents,” Walmsley said. - See more at: http://fbnews.fb.org/Templates/Article.aspx?id=39124#sthash.y55iUmHV.dpuf
SBA, EPA at odds on proposed Clean Water Act rule
Oct. 3, 2014—It’s not all smooth sailing for the Obama administration as the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy is urging EPA to sink its proposed “waters of the U.S.” rule. In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the SBA warned the rule would hurt small businesses, a concern shared by farmers and ranchers and many others across the country. “The SBA’s frankness may surprise some, but it does not surprise us. The EPA has been heedless and cavalier in its disregard for the American farmers who would be most affected by this unworkable proposal,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. The SBA also took issue with EPA’s failure to conduct a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel prior to releasing the rule for comment and said because of this, the rule should be withdrawn. The SBA directed EPA to conduct an SBA Review Panel prior to re-proposing the rule. While farmers and ranchers have been focused on the proposed rule’s direct impacts on their livelihoods, Stallman said Farm Bureau agrees with SBA’s findings that EPA did not do all it was obligated to under law before the rule was made public. “Once again, we say it: It’s time to ditch this rule,” Stallman said. To help Farm Bureau members and others across the country express the need for EPA to “Ditch the Rule,” Farm Bureau launched a website at ditchtherule.fb.org . Focused on topics and analysis related to the “waters of the U.S.” proposed rule, the easy-to-navigate site includes several sections: Take Action, Go Social, Find Answers and Get Resources. Visitors may also sign up to learn more, comment on the proposed rule and send tweets using the hashtag #DitchTheRule. The comment period on the proposed rule ends on Oct. 20. You can submit your comments here: http://www.fbactinsider.org/action-center/legislative-action-center - See more at: http://fbnews.fb.org/Templates/Article.aspx?id=39112#sthash.kfR4LzEK.dpuf
Congressional Delegates To Receive Friend of Farm Bureau Award POCATELLO – All four members of Idaho’s congressional delegation have earned the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Friend of Farm Bureau Award for their efforts during the 113th Congress.
Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, along with Representatives Mike Simpson and Raul Labrador will receive awards in the coming weeks at various locations.
The Friend of Farm Bureau award is given at the end of each Congress to those members of Congress who were nominated by their respective state Farm Bureaus and approved by the American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors.
This award is based upon voting records on AFBF’s priority issues established by the Board of Directors, number of bills that a member has sponsored and co-sponsored, specific leadership role for Farm Bureau on priority issues, and how accessible and responsive that member is to Farm Bureau members and leaders.
“The members of our congressional delegation understand the importance of agriculture to our state’s economy and to our nation’s security,” said Idaho Farm Bureau President Frank Priestley. “It’s a pleasure to work with these fine gentlemen.”
USDA Expands Access to Credit to Help More Beginning and Family Farmers
Changes Increase Eligibility and Financing Options for Hard Working Families
WASHINGTON – Agriculture Deputy Secretary Krysta Harden today announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will improve farm loans by expanding eligibility and increasing lending limits to help more beginning and family farmers. As part of this effort, USDA is raising the borrowing limit for the microloan program from $35,000 to $50,000; simplify the lending processes; updating required “farming experience” to include other valuable experiences; and expanding eligible business entities to reflect changes in the way family farms are owned and operated. The changes become effective Nov. 7.
“USDA is continuing its commitment to new and existing family farmers and ranchers by expanding access to credit,” said Harden. “These new flexibilities, created by the 2014 Farm Bill, will help more people who are considering farming and ranching, or who want to strengthen their existing family operation.”
The microloan changes announced today will allow beginning, small and mid-sized farmers to access an additional $15,000 in loans using a simplified application process with up to seven years to repay. Microloans are part of USDA’s continued commitment to small and midsized farming operations.
USDA Invests Nearly $118 Million to Support America's Specialty Crop Producers
MIAMI– Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced nearly $118 million in grants to strengthen markets for specialty crops, such as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, horticulture and nursery crops. The grants were authorized through the 2014 Farm Bill as part of an effort to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops and provide resources to strengthen American agriculture. The Secretary made the announcement in Florida.
"Specialty crop grants provide a major boost to the rural economies," said Secretary Vilsack. "Today's announcement is another example of how USDA is implementing the Farm Bill to deliver critical tools producers need to successfully grow, process and market high-quality products."
Sales of specialty crops total nearly $65 billion per year, making them a critical part of the U.S. economy. The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture'sAgricultural Marketing Service (AMS), will provide $66 million to state departments of agriculture for projects that help support specialty crop growers, including locally grown fruits and vegetables, through research and programs to increase demand. In addition, USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is awarding $51.8 million in grants through its Specialty Crop Research Initiative(SCRI). SCRI supports the specialty crop sector by developing and disseminating science-based tools to address the needs of specific crops.
All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. Territories were awarded Specialty Crop Block Grants that will fund a total of 838 projects. The project also educates the public about consumption of specialty crops to improve nutrition and publicizes the availability of specialty crops at local markets.
"These Specialty Crop Block Grants support hundreds of projects that address issues ranging from food safety to research needs to increased access to fruits and vegetables, all benefiting specialty crop producers and consumers across the country," said AMS Administrator Anne Alonzo. "With additional funding from the 2014 Farm Bill, we are able to do even more to help specialty crop growers increase profitability and sustainability."
Through SCRI, USDA is awarding $51.8 million to fund research and extension projects for specialty crop production. The grants fund a wide variety of efforts, including research to improve crop characteristics, identifying and addressing threats from pests and diseases, improving production and profitability, developing new production innovations and technologies, and developing methods to respond to food safety hazards.
Range Tour
Ranchers Open lines of Communication with Forest Service on the Salmon/Challis
Mackay--Custer and Lemhi Counties held a range tour of the Double Springs allotment on the Yankee Fork District of the Salmon/Challis National Forest.
The ranchers wanted to show fellow ranchers and the Forest Service the condition of their allotments. The US Forest Service asked the permit holders to move cattle off the land 30 days early, on short notice. That move drastically impacted rancher Troy Olson who says that he's out tens of thousands of dollars. "It's been a communication problem. I think it's been the transfer of long term employees within the agency. We’ve addressed the problem with them and it seems like shortly thereafter we have somebody new to deal with. There’s no continuity, we never have the same people to deal with, so every issue has to be re-addressed, then readdressed and readdressed," said Olson.
"The range shows the effect of drought and damage around riparian areas," said range expert Wally Butler.
"Overall, despite the drought, I think its in pretty good shape," said Butler. "Theres probably room for improvement and that would be great, but its mostly a water distribution problem. Cattle tend to bunch up around available water and thats the problem here."
Butler says giving the cattle more areas to drink, adding pipelines could solve problems on that stretch of rangeland.
Katie Wood of the Forest Service went on the tour and visited a spring that was declared an archeological site. Ranchers put up an electric fence at their expense to protect the site, water in the area is scarce, they want to put in a pipeline to spread the cattle out to protect the riparian area but also want the Forest Service to pitch in and help. Wood said their budgets are spread thin.
"Its a zero-sum game, I have little staff and little money. When I look at all the projects that people come to me with on this allotment or others or other projects that I have going on, we can't always do it all," said Wood.
The Forest Service noted each and every problem and took part in lively but positive discussions.
"We've spent the day working on the positives and building communication," said Butler. "The overall purpose for having this tour is to heighten and awareness level for the agencies and the ranchers are going through. The whole idea with this tour was to develop a line of communication, I think we did it."
Forty-five fellow ranchers showed up to support fellow ranchers. They visited four sites and at the end of the day asked the Forest Service to listen, be mindful of economic impacts and short deadlines imposed on Ranchers.
"We're trying to improve the Range for future use and continued use," said RJ Hoffman. "I feel it probably cost me somewhere between $12-15 thousand in feed loss to go home early, but we're trying to improve the Range and we want that consideration."
USDA Designates Eight Counties in Idaho as Primary Natural Disaster Areas
BOISE – Aaron Johnson, Acting State Executive Director for the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) in Idaho, announced today that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has designated eight counties in Idaho as primary natural disaster areas due to losses and damages caused by excessive rain, flash flooding and hail that occurred from July 25, 2014, through Sept. 1, 2014. Those counties are:
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said, “President Obama and I are committed to ensuring that agriculture remains a bright spot in our nation’s economy by sustaining the successes of America’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities through these difficult times. We’re also telling Idaho producers that USDA stands with you and your communities when severe weather and natural disasters threaten to disrupt your livelihood.”
Farmers and ranchers in the following counties in Idaho also qualify for natural disaster assistance because their counties are contiguous. Those counties are:
In order to receive an agricultural disaster designation FSA County Executive Directors meet with local leaders to access damages to crops and submit a report to the FSA State Executive Director (SED). After meeting with the state emergency board the SED sends a recommendation of approval to Secretary Vilsack.
In September, Mr. Johnson submitted requests for three other counties with the following results: On September 3, 2014, Jerome and Twin Falls counties received designations due to excessive rain that occurred Aug. 3-7, 2014 and Clearwater County was designated due to high winds and hail that occurred Aug. 14, 2014. This qualified Idaho counties contiguous to these three primary counties as well as those counties in neighboring states that border a county with a primary designation. You can view a map that shows all counties in Idaho that have current disaster designations at www.fsa.usda.gov/id .
Farmers in eligible counties have eight months from the date of the declaration to apply for loans to help cover part of their actual losses. FSA will consider each loan application on its own merits, taking into account the extent of losses, security available and repayment ability. FSA has a variety of programs, in addition to the EM loan program, to help eligible farmers recover from adversity.
“During 2014 Idaho has had disaster declarations for everything from drought to hail and too much moisture,” said Johnson. “We want producers to know that FSA is doing all they can to help Idaho’s farmers and ranchers when these natural disasters impact their operations.” | 农业 | 56,026 |
7 years to address the issue of bee health: the clock is ticking
Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and Rapporteur for the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) hosted a conference on ‘Bee Health in Europe’ at the European Parliament in Brussels on Tuesday 26 February 2013. The conference was organised by the European Parliament Intergroup “Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development” run jointly by IUCN and IUCN Member European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD).
Views on the issue of bee health are divided in Europe. Some speakers and participants in the event echoed a call for better dialogue between beekeepers, farmers and science in order to ensure a positive future for bees. All parties showed willingness to promote the health of bees, while recognising that there is no single cause nor single solution.
"The problem of bee health is a very serious one,” said the MEP Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos: “Fortunately, European society is becoming increasingly aware of the problem and policy-makers have it at the top of their agendas to finding the right solutions.” MEP Capoulas Santos also emphasised the fact that the problem linked to the health of bees is not only economic but also environmental.
The first session of the conference gave an overview of the current scientific analysis of the threats to bee health. Dr. Ettore Capri (OPERA Research Centre) presented the latest OPERA report that seeks to provide comprehensive data on this complex issue. It was argued that there is wide agreement in the scientific community on the fact that bee health is influenced by a number of factors, among which highly damaging pathogens like the Varroa mite but also other anthropogenic causes, which are very much related to agricultural and beekeeping practices.
It was argued that no clear evidence from the field shows a positive correlation between the use of pesticides and bee colony losses. Dr. Helen Thompson (FERA) underlined the necessity to take levels of exposure into account when assessing the impact of pesticides on bees and argued that the toxicity of pesticides can be altered by several factors including diet and co-exposure to other chemicals. Dr. Stephen Martin, researcher at the University of Salford, co-authored a study in 2012 that confirmed the crucial role of the parasitic Varroa mite, particularly in relation to the spreading and impact of the deformed wing virus. “Our study proved that there is a strong and unquestionable link between the Varroa mite, the deformed wing virus and the death of bee colonies,” confirmed Dr. Martin.
Peter Maske, representing the German beekeepers said that improvement of food supply is the greatest support that can be provided to bees. Generally, the speakers called for more studies and data reporting to be carried in order to improve knowledge and to ensure that adequate decisions are taken.
In the second session addressing policy measures, MEP Csaba Tabajdi Rapporteur on honeybee health and the challenges of the beekeeping sector raised concerns on the problems of monoculture and the general decline of biodiversity in Europe. He called for standards, rules and regulations for professional beekeepers like for any other sector. “It is the right application of pesticides that is the key,” he argued. “In Hungary, there is no direct effect of using pesticides and decline of colonies for instance.”
European Commission Directorate-Generals in charge of the Environment (DG ENV) and of Health and Consumers (DG SANCO), also represented in the panel, recognised the difficulty to convey key messages to the over 700,000 beekeepers in Europe. “We need the full support and understanding of the problems from all beekeepers in order to address the factors impacting bee health,” underlined Alberto Laddomada while noting that pathogens were indicated as the major cause for mortality reported by beekeepers and reference laboratories. François Wakenhut called for a comprehensive approach to bee health and for a complete picture of the overall state of pollinators in Europe. “We cannot look at the issue of bee health as a segmented one. We need to look at this in the overall context of pollinators' and pollination state and health. Pollination is a vital ecosystem service. We committed ourselves in 2011 to maintaining and enhancing ecosystems and their services by 2020. We therefore must deliver on pollination. We have 7 years to address the issue: the clock is ticking,” he said referring to the biodiversity objectives set in 2011 by the European Commission.
IUCN is currently working on reviewing the conservation status of pollinators in Europe, as commissioned by the European Commission. See here for more information on the European Red List. Read more here
The views expressed at the events organized by the European Parliament Intergroup on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or EBCD. The Integroup brings together parliamentarians and stakeholders to debate and form ideas and policies in a cross-sectoral and cross-party manner by allowing exchanges of different and sometimes divergent opinions. Related Link
EP Intergroup on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development
European Red List of Pollinators
European Parliament Intergroup on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development
Photo: Intergroup
Page last updated: March 1, 2013. © All photos/graphics remain the copyright of IUCN | 农业 | 5,543 |
Does DuPont’s GM Technology Deal With Monsanto Make Sense?
March 28th, 2013 by Trefis Team
DuPont, Monsanto strike a $1.75 billion deal to put an end to ongoing litigations against each other
DuPont gets access to two of Monsanto’s new GM technologies in return for a minimum of $1.75 billion in royalties over the period of next 10 years
The deal reduces uncertainties for both the companies, as DuPont gets assured access to pioneer technology in the field while Monsanto gets access to DuPont’s huge customer base and fixed minimum royalties for its future technologies
Concentration set to increase in the seed industry as a result of this deal between the two largest players
DuPont, (NYSE:DD) the chemical giant that owns the world’s second largest seed company Pioneer, has struck a deal with the world’s largest seed company and its biggest competitor, Monsanto, settling the ongoing litigations between the two companies outside the court. According to the deal, DuPont is expected to give at least $1.75 billion in royalties to Monsanto over the period of next 10 years in return for access to two of its genetically modified (GM) seed technologies, RoundupReady 2 Yield and Xtend and regulatory data rights for the soybean and corn traits previously licensed from Monsanto, enabling it to create stacked trait combinations. The deal also scraps the $1 billion penalty, the U.S. federal court in St. Louis had imposed on DuPont as it found the company misusing Monsanto’s RoundupReady technology as well as DuPont’s anti-trust litigation against Monsanto. (See more on this:The Success Of New Seed Varieties Is Critical For DuPont). Here, we take a look at the potential impact of this deal on DuPont’s seed business and its stock price. [1]
What does the deal mean for DuPont
The advent of GM seeds has changed the agricultural landscape completely by providing farmers with higher yields, lower susceptibility to weeds and insects and increased tolerance to extreme climatic conditions, such as drought. We believe that this trend will only flourish even more going forward due to the advancements in biotechnology as the economic benefits clearly outweigh suspected disadvantages of the use of GM seeds. In such an environment, DuPont could not afford to go against the leader in GM seed technologies, Monsanto. Monsanto’s RoundupReady introduced in 1996 now covers more than 80% of soybean produced globally and more than 90% of the of the crop produced in the U.S. As apparent from these statistics, it has been hugely successful and DuPont has also gained because of the license to this technology and its broad customer base. In 2012, DuPont controlled more than 36% of the U.S. soybean market and it realizes the need to access Monsanto’s latest technology in the field to sustain its leadership in the market. Monsanto, on the other hand will benefit from assured access to DuPont’s broad customer base and a minimum amount of future licensing revenues. [2]
There are two broad benefits to DuPont’s Pioneer seed business out of this deal. Firstly, it reduces the risks associated with the company’s future revenues from its seed business as it would now have access to the latest technologies in this evolving industry. Secondly, DuPont can sustain and increase its existing market share in the industry as the concentration in GM seeds industry is expected to increase further due to this deal.
With access to the latest technology in the industry and its own experience in advanced breeding technologies, DuPont is betting on reduced growth opportunities for smaller players in the field to increase its market share. However, it will be interesting to see if these benefits can translate into positive incremental cash flows to the company going forward. Here, is a short analysis to provide a clearer picture of the potential tangible benefits of the deal to DuPont.
We currently forecast DuPont’s share in the global corn, soybean and other seeds market to increase from around 19% in 2012 to over 21% in the long run. However, if we adjust the forecast to increase the company’s market share to around 25% in the long run using our interactive chart, it results in additional $2.50 to our estimate of the company’s stock price.
Now, according to the deal, DuPont is expected to pay annual royalties totaling $802 million to Monsanto over the four years period ending 2017. Over the next 6 years ending 2023, the company is expected to pay a minimum of $950 million to Monsanto. If we spread these payments across the time line evenly assuming a hypothetical scenario, it would come out to around $1.2 billion today or $1.30 per share, assuming a discount rate of 8%. Under this scenario, the net impact of this deal translates to an upside of just under 5% to our price estimate of DuPont’s stock.
While the actual impact of this deal on DuPont’s business will unfold with time, ultimately, you need to believe the company will be able to create at least $1.30 per share in value as a result of increased access to the GM technology of its biggest competitor and the leading player in the field; otherwise, you should not be get excited about the deal.
Notes:DuPont and Monsanto Reach Technology Licensing Agreements on Next-Generation Soybean Technologies, www.pioneer.com [↩]DuPont sends in Former Cops to Enforce Seed Patents, November 2012, www.bloomberg.com [↩]
, Deere | 农业 | 5,399 |
Rep Cmte Appropriations
Chairman Aderholt Statement on H.R. 4800, the Fiscal Year 2015 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
Washington, Jun 11 - House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture Chairman Robert Aderholt today gave the following statement on the House floor today in support of H.R. 4800, the Fiscal Year 2015 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill:
"I yield myself such time as I may consume.
"I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 4800, making appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The bill before us is unique in that the programs supported in this Bill will impact every American, every day of the year. We support America’s farmers and ranchers, who are vital to our Nation’s economy and our health and well-being. We support those at home in need with food and housing and provide rural businesses with low-interest loans and grants to help them sustain local economies.We help others around the world that face starvation and malnutrition. We support research and development in agriculture to improve productivity and stability.We support the oversight of commodity markets, providing confidence for businesses, traders, investors, and the public. We support a safe food supply and safe and effective drugs and devices. We are fortunate that as a Nation we can support these vital programs. "The bill before us today reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for FY 2015 spending levels for the departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have had to carefully prioritize the funding in the bill and make hard choices about how to spend limited resources.
"I want to thank Chairman Rogers for supporting us with a very fair allocation and for helping us to move the bill forward. I want to thank the subcommittee ranking member from California, Mr. Farr, who has been a valuable partner and colleague. I appreciate his commitment and his understanding of the wide variety of programs in this bill, and I thank him for his help. While I and the other Subcommittee members have a wide array of agriculture in our districts, Mr. Farr represents an area of California sometimes referred to as the "salad bowl of the world. I want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance and also thank Mrs. Lowey, the ranking member of the full committee. I want to thank the majority staff for their hard work -- Tom O’Brien, Betsy Bina, Pam Miller, Andrew Cooper and Karen Ratzow. I also appreciate the professionalism and cooperation of the minority staff. In particular, I want to thank Martha Foley and Hogan Medlin for their help during all of the long hours spent putting this bill and report together as well as Rochelle Dornatt, Troy Phillips, and Katie Whelan of Mr. Farr's staff.
"When the Subcommittee began the FY 15 appropriation process, I asked my colleagues to keep in mind three guiding principles. They were: ensuring the proper use of funds through robust oversight; ensuring the appropriate level of regulation to protect producers and the public; and ensuring funding is targeted to vital programs. "These three principles guided us from the first review of the President’s budget request to the content of the bill in front of you. This basic framework helped us set priorities during our 10 budget and oversight hearings, which covered all of USDA’s mission areas, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. "They also formed a framework for us to consider the many requests we received from our colleagues. Specifically, we received more than 3,900 requests from 326 Members to support, reduce, or amend funding levels in the numerous accounts in the bill. Of course, we could not meet every request, but we have tried to address these requests in a bipartisan manner in the bill or report in accordance with House rules. As such, there are no earmarks in this bill.
"Total funding in this bill equals $142.5 billion. This is $1.5 billion below the President’s request and $3 billion below the FY 2014 enacted level. The bill includes $20.88 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is the same as the FY 2014 enacted level. Mandatory spending totals $122 billion or $3 billion below the FY 2014 level. These mandatory funds support USDA’s farm, conservation, crop insurance, and nutrition programs.
"I would like to briefly mention a few highlights of the bill:
"We provide a total of $2.8 billion for agricultural research. We received many, many letters requesting support for the land-grant colleges and universities. We were able to provide level funding for them. We also provided $325 million, as requested, for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, USDA’s premier competitive research grants program. "We provide $870 million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. This agency works to eradicate plant and animal diseases and keep the bad bugs out of the country. I’m pleased we were able to increase funding to combat citrus greening disease and the viral epidemic affecting hog producers. This funding will supplement the emergency funding that the Administration announced last week for research and surveillance purposes. "The bill includes more than $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. This is approximately the same as the FY 2014 level but $3.8 million above the request. It will maintain more than 8,000 inspectors at the more than 6,400 meat, poultry, and egg product facilities across the country. "The bill provides $1.5 billion for the Farm Service Agency and does not allow the closure of county offices. This proposal made no sense when the 2014 farm bill is still being implemented in county offices across the country. We also fully fund the various farm loan programs. "For the Natural Resources Conservation Service, we provide $869 million to help farmers, ranchers, and private forest land owners to conserve and protect their land and increased funding to help rehabilitate small dams.
"This bill is the only one of the 12 appropriations bills that truly focuses on rural areas. It provides a total of $2.6 billion for rural development programs. This includes funding to support $881 million in business and industry loans, $1.3 billion in loans for rural water and waste programs, and $6.2 billion for rural electric and telephone infrastructure. We also provide more than $1 billion for the single family direct loan program, $1.1 billion for rental assistance, and $30 million for the Mutual and Self-Help program. "This bill includes both discretionary and mandatory funding for USDA’s food and nutrition programs. "Specifically, it provides $6.6 billion for the Women, Infants, and Children program. This is $93 million below the FY 2014 enacted level and $200 million below the budget request. I want to be clear the decreased funding is because of a declining caseload and large carryover balances from the previous year. Every person who is eligible for the program will receive benefits under this funding level. "The bill includes $20.5 billion in required mandatory funding for child nutrition programs and $82.3 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. This funding level helps more than 47 million Americans each month.
"To support those at this time of need in places like Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, the bill provides $1.7 billion for overseas food aid. We were able to provide a $66 million increase for Food for Peace grants and $13 million more for the McGovern-Dole education and child nutrition programs offset from savings elsewhere.
"The Food and Drug Administration receives almost $2.6 billion in discretionary funding in this bill. This is an increase of $23 million over the FY 2014 level. When the user fees are included, FDA will receive $4.5 billion in FY 2015. "Within the total, the Committee provides a $25 million increase, the full amount requested for food safety activities in the President’s budget and drug safety activities are increased by $12 million.
"The bill provides $218 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is an increase of $3 million above last year’s level and is intended to address information technology needs.
"Before I close, I would like to address one issue that has opened up a necessary dialogue in local cafeterias and schools across the country. This is the provision that would allow schools to seek a temporary waiver from the current school lunch standards if a school district has lost money over a six-month time period as a result of trying to implement the new regulations. "I have had a constant stream of letters, calls, e-mails, and meetings this past year from school nutritionists, teachers, school administrators, parents, and students concerned about rising costs, increased waste, and declining participation. Well, to tell the truth, the students have been concerned about taste, variety, and quantity of the meals. This is a very real problem in many school districts across the country. The bill acknowledges the concerns of schools and responds to their request for flexibility. It only allows schools more time if they need it. In fact, it provides something very similar to the flexibility USDA recently announced for whole grain requirements. "The benefits to farmers, ranchers, consumers, businesses and patients provided for in this bill far outweigh any one or two objections a Member may have about this bill. The bill represents our best take on matching needs with limited resources. We have tried hard to produce the best bill we possibly could within the resources we had to work with.
"Thank you for your attention and I urge all Members to support this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to passing this bill today." ##### | 农业 | 10,088 |
Peanut market better, but take care in how you sell and plant for it Feb 15, 2017 (Correction) Bayer may divest assets in Monsanto merger Jan 24, 2017 Resistance management even more critical with new herbicides Feb 06, 2017 EPA approves Syngenta’s Minecto Pro insecticide for specialty, vegetable crops Feb 22, 2017 Public opinion important to future of farming
Farming is a global business these days — what happens on the far side of the world often impacts what farmers in the Southeast plant and how they market their crops. Farming is also a local business and how the public perceives agriculture goes a long way toward influencing state and federal elected officials, who make the laws that govern agriculture. For the most part our elected officials don't really understand what farming is all about and don't have unified voice to explain it to them. Food safety is a big public issue, yet the estimated 6-7 million tons of potentially toxic municipal waste that goes on farm land each year is not a public issue — at least not yet. In Virginia, for example, there are about 8.5 million acres of farmland, but only 55,000 acres are treated with biosolids, a legal, but euphemistic term for municipal sludge. Mike McEvoy, chairman of the Virginia Biosolids Council, says there is a five-year waiting period for farmers to get in on the practice of applying biosolids to farm land. In my time with the Farm Press I have interviewed several farmers in Virginia who use biosolids on their land. The results have been good, the input-savings have been good. They understand public concern, primarily over the odor, and the farmers I know who use biosolids use it carefully and on land not adjacent to urban areas. Then there is the case of Georgia farmers Bill Boyce and Andy McElmurray who say they lost productive farming operations and have had their personal lives turned inside out because of the use of biosolids from the municipal waste disposal plant operated by the City of Augusta, Ga. Their story and the emotional, gut-wrenching way they tell it is as scary as any horror story you'll ever want to hear. Andy McElmurray has become a self-made expert on the use of biosolids on farm land. He is an out-spoken critic of the biosolids industry and of local, state and federal agencies that regulate the use of biosolids, which he refers to as municipal waste. Andy has become a sort of Erin Brockovich and Jeffery Wigand rolled into one. Erin Brockovich brought to life by Julia Roberts' award winning portrayal in the movie indirectly played a role in McElmurray's woes. Brockovich's efforts created a public outcry that forced the government to ban hexavalent chromium (chrome 6) from being used in industrial cooling systems. The replacement, molybdenum, is a primary cause of the loss of their dairy cattle, McElmurray says. Jeffery Wigand portrayed in the movie, The Informer, by Russell Crowe, blew the whistle on the tobacco industry. An afternoon conversation with Andy left me mad as hell about what the use of municipal waste has done to his family and that of his neighbor Bill Boyce. Like most emotional stories — there are two sides to this one, too. There has been plenty of finger pointing going on for over 15 years between the Georgia farmers and an array of legal opponents who oppose the farm families. The cruelest irony may be that a Federal judge ruled in their favor, but forbid them from growing food chain crops on their land. The McElmurrays and the Boyces aren't suit-happy crusaders — far from it. They are good, law-abiding country folks who have had their lives shredded by a seemingly unending stream of legal blockades, hazy regulations, and unscrupulous public officials. Just a cursory look on the Internet will provide hundreds of cases of individuals who blame health problems on the use of biosolids. Look a different way and you'll find just as many proclaiming the benefits of biosolids on farm land. In terms of revenue generated, the tobacco industry is a small, maybe miniscule part of U.S. agriculture and water treatment plants barely a dot on the radar screen compared to our farm industry. Public opinion, spurred on by Hollywood movies, brought both to their knees. If the McElmurray case in Georgia, the Nancy Holt case in Burlington, N.C., the Ellington case in Gladys, Va., or one of hundreds of other equally poignant and gut-wrenching stories make it to 60 Minutes or a Hollywood movie, what impact would that publicity have on the entire agricultural industry? I don't know! I doubt those of us involved directly or indirectly want to find out. It is wise counsel I believe for farmers to know exactly what they are getting into when they agree to have biosolids, regardless of the source, applied to their land. Somewhere between the horror stories of the McElmurrays and Boyces of the world and the success stories of the biosolids industry there must be some common ground. For the well-being of the agricultural industry, I suggest we find it. | 农业 | 5,014 |
Organic farm offers fresh, local options July 15, 2011 By ANGIE CARNATHAN
For owners of Old Well Organics Sarah and Phil Otto, starting an organic farm in Mississippi was the beginning of an ongoing adventure.
The Starkville couple, who moved here in August 2009, said they had grown accustomed to having easy access to organic fruits and vegetables in their former home state of North Carolina. When Sarah accepted a job as an assistant professor of sociology at Mississippi State University, Phil said he decided the change of location might be a good time to change occupations as well.
“I was a very burned out social worker, and I wasn’t happy being part of the system,” Phil said. “Back in North Carolina there was literally a farmer’s market in our backyard, so that kind of got the idea started.”
The couple’s previous experience with local agriculture spurred on the development of their own farm here.
“We were part of a CSA (community supported agriculture) in North Carolina, and when we would go to pick up our vegetables we would sit and talk to the farmer there. He was just like us,” Sarah said. “For me it made it seem like a very natural thing; it didn’t seem outlandish, this idea of having an organic farm. So when Phil asked me what I thought of him being a farmer in Mississippi, I was happy.”
Sarah and Phil operate a booth almost every Saturday at the Starkville Farmer’s Market.
“In North Carolina everybody was already eating organic, so nobody at the farmer’s market was using any kind of chemicals, herbicides or pesticides,” Sarah said. “Here, the expectations can sometimes be very different. I think the social worker in Phil is very aware that you can’t just go up to people and tell them ‘What you’re doing is wrong or bad.’ He’s very good at just presenting it as ‘This is what we’re doing and why we’re doing it’ and then we let them make their own choices.”
The label organic is often used, but the couple says there are still big differences between what they grow and what is sold at the grocery store with an organic sticker on it.
“That is what some call ‘big organic,’ which is similar in structure to industrially grown conventional produce — they just don’t use pesticides or herbicides,” Phil said. “But there are some things that are allowed, such as BT (Bacillus thuringiensis), a bacteria used to control insects. And it’s still a very mechanized process — there is a lot of gas and oil around.”
Advantages to shopping locally for vegetables include the freshness provided by the proximity of the product.
“The tomatoes are gonna be picked green and then ripen in the truck on the way here,” Sarah said. “It’s not as fresh as produce that is grown locally.”
Instead of conventional chemicals or pesticides, the Ottos rely on the experiences of other farmers to keep their crops healthy.
“There’s a tremendous amount of knowledge (about farming) that wasn’t lost so much as pushed aside around the time of World War II,” Phil said. “I learn from people from that were growing a hundred years ago, and I learn from people who are growing today.”
Phil uses this information to find natural remedies for his gardening challenges. For instance, the Ottos planted Printer-friendly version | 农业 | 3,229 |
Brussels, 25 January 2013
Agriculture and Fisheries Council, 28 January 2013
The Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting of January 2013 will take place in Brussels on 28 January 2013, under the presidency of Mr Simon Coveney, Irish Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The Commission will be represented by Maria Damanaki, Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Dacian Cioloş, Commissioner for Agriculture & Rural Development and Tonio Borg, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy. Fisheries points will be dealt with on Monday morning, while the afternoon will be dedicated to Agriculture and Health issues. A press conference will be held for each session at the end of the discussions. The public debates and the press conferences can be followed by video streaming: http://video.consilium.europa.eu/ .
Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
This first Council under Irish Presidency will discuss the Common Fisheries Policy Reform Package, presented by the Commission in July 2011. In particular, the discussions will focus on setting a calendar for the next steps. More specifically, the Council will discuss the Proposals for: a) the main Regulation for the Reform,
b) the Regulation on the Common Organisation of the Markets in Fishery and Aquaculture Products c) the Regulation on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).
The objective of the reformed fisheries policy is to end overfishing and make fishing sustainable - environmentally, economically and socially. The new policy aims to:
bring fish stocks back to sustainable levels by setting fishing opportunities based on scientific advice,
provide EU citizens with a stable, secure and healthy food supply for the long term,
bring new prosperity to the fishing sector, end dependence on subsidies and create new opportunities for jobs and growth in coastal areas. (IP/11/873). The new fund, EMFF, will help deliver the ambitious objectives of the reform and will help fishermen in the transition towards sustainable fishing, as well as coastal communities in the diversification of their economies. The fund will finance projects that create new jobs and improve quality of life along European coasts. It will replace the existing European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and a number of other instruments. The proposed envelope amounts to € 6.5 billion for the period 2014 to 2020 (IP/11/1495). EU-Norway
The Commission will inform the Council on the fisheries negotiations between EU and Norway and the Council will exchange views on the Proposal for a Regulation on certain technical and control measures in the Skagerrak, proposed by the Commission in August 2012 (see http://europa.eu/rapid/midday-express-29-08-2012.htm )
Under the proposal, the EU and Norway are to harmonize technical and control measures for fisheries in the Skagerrak to ensure long-term sustainability of fish stocks. It notably features an obligation to land all catches of certain fish species – to stop the practice of discarding.
Multi-annual management plans
During lunch, there will be a ministerial debate on the Multi-Annual Management Plans. The Commission’s proposals on the Reform of the CFP gave Multi-Annual Plans a central role in the new CFP; however, the adoption of new plans has been blocked for three years over a disagreement between the institutions on the powers to adopt legal acts under Article 43 of the Lisbon Treaty. Agriculture
The new Irish Presidency will present its Presidency work programme including its roadmap for reaching a political agreement on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. This will be followed by an exchange of views. In October 2011 the Commission presented its proposals for reforming the Common Agriculture Policy after 2013 (See IP/11/1181 and MEMO/11/685). The reform aims to make the CAP greener, fairer and more sustainable so as to guarantee European citizens healthy and quality food production, to preserve the environment and to help develop rural areas. Among the key axes proposed are for example a better targeted income support, the conditioning of 30% of direct payments to an improved use of natural resources, a more competitive and balanced food chain, agri-environmental initiatives and support measures specifically targeted at young farmers. The Council takes place in the wake of the European Parliament Agriculture Committee vote on the reform proposals on January 19 & 20.
the Commission will present its Report on the implementation of the European School Fruit Scheme the Commission will inform Member States on the draft Free Trade Agreement negotiated with Singapore
the Commission will inform Member states on the status of free trade agreement negotiations with Canada and the status of World Trade Organization negotiations Health and Consumer Policy
Items for discussion –Any other business
Compliance with the Welfare Pig Directive in the Member States: Implementation of Group housing of sows
Commissioner Tonio Borg, will brief participants on compliance with the Directive on the welfare of pigs in Member States (implementation of group housing of sows) and inform the Council about the updates on the compliance. The intention is to remind Member States to take their responsibilities to ensure full compliance with the Directive on the protection of pigs in view of the implementation of group housing of sows. the Dutch delegation will present an information note on the European Food Safety Agency 's conclusions on the risk assessment for bees for three neonicotinoids | 农业 | 5,535 |
A Battle Over Antibiotics In Organic Apple And Pear Farming
Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By editor Originally published on Sun April 14, 2013 11:31 am
Note: We've updated the headline on this post for the sake of clarity. To be clear, it's the apple and pear tree blossoms that get sprayed with antibiotics, not the fruit itself. Apples and especially pears are vulnerable to a nasty bacterial infection called fire blight that, left unchecked, can spread quickly, killing fruit trees and sometimes devastating whole orchards. "It's basically like a gangrene of your limbs. It's hard to stop" once it takes hold, says Ken Johnson, a plant pathologist at Oregon State University. It's such a big threat that for decades, growers have seen two antibiotics, streptomycin and oxytetracycline, as vital weapons in the fight to control the disease — even on organic apples and pears. But their use has raised questions about transparency in organic labeling, amid concerns about the overuse of antibiotics in food production. "This isn't what consumers expect out of organics," says Urvashi Rangan, the director of consumer safety and sustainability at Consumer Reports. "Organic is supposed to be consistent in meaning," she tells The Salt. Here's the back story. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture's national organic labeling standards went into effect in 2002, the two antibiotics were listed as synthetic materials approved for use in organic apple and pear production. Items on that list are revisited on a periodic basis. The notion behind the exemption for these two fruit crops was that, in between reviews, growers would devise effective non-antibiotic-based methods for controlling fire blight. But the antibiotic exemption is set to expire in October 2014. This week, the National Organic Standards Board is meeting in Portland, Ore., to decide on a petition from organic growers to extend that exemption. Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, is among the groups who say the answer should be a resounding no. Antibiotics have been used in American plant and livestock agriculture since the mid-20th century. About 80 percent of all antibiotics used in the U.S. go to livestock — not just to treat disease and prevent infections, but also, primarily, to help animals put on more weight. That heavy usage has been widely blamed for promoting the spread of antibiotic-resistant bugs. And resistance can jump from bacteria that infect livestock to microbes that sicken people. The problem of drug resistance has led to widespread calls for reining in the use of antibiotics on farms, in order to preserve the medicines' effectiveness in treating human disease. But antibiotic use in plant agriculture is far more limited — just a little over one-tenth of 1 percent of total agricultural use, according to Virginia Stockwell, a plant pathologist at Oregon State University who studies fire blight management. Put another way, about 30 million pounds of antibiotics were used in livestock in 2011. By comparison, 36,000 pounds of antibiotics were sprayed on fruit trees — mostly on pears and apples, according to data she compiled from the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service. In the U.S., up to 16 percent of all apple acreage and up to 40 percent of all pear acreage get sprayed with antibiotics each year, she says, citing data from NASS. That's including all organic and conventionally grown fruit. Not every orchard gets sprayed every year. "There have never been any cases where we've been able to link an antibiotic-resistant pathogen in humans to orchards," says Stockwell, who recently conducted a review of the literature on the subject for the National Organic Standards Board. Research suggests both of the antibiotics used on fruit crops are rendered inactive in soils, she says, minimizing concerns that residues that drift to the ground after spraying would be a problem. Any residue on fruit, she says, is minuscule. That said, fire blight resistance to streptomycin is a concern for growers — it's now pretty common in orchards in the Pacific Northwest. That's one reason why growers have scaled back their spraying over the past two decades, Stockwell says. "Everybody is committed to eliminating this use," says David Granatstein, a sustainable agricultural specialist with Washington State University, who works with organic farmers in his state. But before all organic growers can completely give up antibiotics, he says, they need to have effective alternatives for preventing the devastation of fire blight. Aggressive pruning has helped reduce reliance on antibiotic spraying. So has the use of biological controls, like bacteria that compete with E. amylovora, the microbe that causes fire blight, for nutrients on blossoms. But it's not enough. Oregon State's Ken Johnson is one of several researchers overseeing field trials of two promising antibiotic alternatives. "I'd say we're fairly close," Johnson tells The Salt. He's set to testify about these alternatives before the National Organic Standards Board on Wednesday. One option, called Blossom Protect, is a yeast-like fungus that blocks the fire blight bacteria from colonizing the blossom. It was registered for use with the Environmental Protection Agency late into last year's growing season, so this will be the first year lots of farmers can try it. The other alternative, a copper sulfate that can be applied during bloom times without harming the fruit, has yet to be registered with the agency. Both are highly promising, according to Johnson — but they need more testing. So 2014, he says, is still a bit too soon to say goodbye to antibiotics. "Most people," he says, "when their livelihoods depend on it, want to see a few years of positive data before they're convinced that it is the right thing for them."Note: We've updated the headline on this post to avoid the potential for misinterpretation. To be clear, it's the apple and pear tree blossoms that get sprayed with antibiotics, not the fruit itself. Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread. | 农业 | 6,128 |
Regulatory [1]>Legislative [2] Crop insurance likely a key component of new farm bill
"When we talk to folks in Washington, it seems to be their message that crop insurance is going to be the part of the commodity title that is most likely going to be maintained and not touched, while direct payments is the part that is most likely going to be most at risk in terms of continuation in the future,” says Keith Coble, professor of agricultural economics at Mississippi State University. Hembree Brandon 1 [3] | Feb 13, 2012
As discussions move forward on the 2012 farm bill, crop insurance is expected to be a major component of the legislation that is developed, says Keith Coble, professor of agricultural economics at Mississippi State University.
And, he says, farm programs continue becoming increasingly complex.
“I don’t think we hear as much about crop insurance in this part of the country as in the Midwest, the Plains, or other areas,” he said in a panel discussion at the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation’s annual commodity conference.
“But when we talk to folks in Washington, that seems to be their message — that crop insurance is going to be the part of the commodity title that is most likely going to be maintained and not touched, while direct payments is the part that is most likely going to be most at risk in terms of continuation in the future.”
Coble, who has many years of experience in farm policy and programs, says “Our region is in something of a unique situation in the coming farm policy debate, in that one of the big issues is going to be: Do we have a common program, or do we let different commodity groups go their own way?
“In the debate last fall, there wasn’t time to coalesce on one plan, but a lot of attention was given to different plans for different commodities.
“Almost every day, we read that, across the country, commodity groups are saying their No. 1 priority is crop insurance, that their No. 1 priority is a safety net.”
That suggests, Coble says, that Mississippi Farm Bureau to “was wise, more than a year ago, to sit down and start talking about risk management programs and crop insurance, and how to address those issues in this region.
“Crop insurance is different than our traditional countercyclical payments and other programs in that it is delivered through a private sector group. A lot of people are talking about commodity programs in terms of, do we want shallow loss or deep loss programs, but I think another part of this question is going to be, who delivers? And that’s not a very popular topic.”
With crop insurance, Coble says, “There are premiums to be paid and rates to be set, and there are a lot of nuances as to how this is done. I would suggest that everyone needs to become more attuned to these issues and more educated on them, so they can effectively communicate with those who are writing the programs.
“I would suggest, too, that you focus on the big things rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae of these issues. It’s really easy to get lost in the minutiae of a complicated program.”
And Coble says, the U.S. has moved into “an era of very, very complicated programs. ACRE was unbelievably complicated. Crop insurance is very complex, as well.
“This means there is a challenging learning curve for farmers and farm organizations, and it will be worth your while to invest the time and effort to figure out the facts, to understand the basics of the program, and what the choices are for you, because this is probably where we’re going to be for the next several years.”
Current program is "really working"
Another panelist, William Cole, with the Cole Agency, a crop insurance provider at Batesville, Miss., has been an agent for 17 years, and is a member of the board of the Crop Insurance Professionals Association (CIPA).
“Over the years, crop insurance has had its highs and lows,” he says. “At one point, we were lucky to even have a program — and now it looks like crop insurance is going to be the cornerstone of the next farm bill.
Figures indicate, Cole says, “that our current program is really working, and that we’re going in the right direction.
We had 264 million acres covered nationwide last year —more acres than ever before. Total premiums paid and total coverage slashed all previous records. We had $4.5 billion in premiums paid and total coverage of $114 billion, roughly 20 percent more than the previous record.
“As of mid-January, we’d paid out $9.4 billion in indemnities, and that probably will go over $10 billion for 2011. All this is pretty impressive, considering where we were several years ago.”
Mississippi has consistently lagged behind the rest of the country in utilization of crop insurance, Cole says, “but we’re making big improvements. Since 2007, we’ve added 200,000 acres, now covering more than 3.5 million acres in the state.
“More importantly, catastrophic risk protection (CAT) acres have dropped from 1.6 million acres to in 2007 to 884,000 last year, which means more people are buying up to get higher coverage levels.”
There were 2.6 million acres of buy-up insurance purchased in 2011, he says, representing nearly $1.4 billion in coverage. “We had 1.8 million acres covered in 2007, but only $568 million in coverage.”
The “interesting thing about crop insurance,” Cole says, “is that anyone who has an idea for improving the program can take it before the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board and, if that idea has merit, it can be approved and can be added as a new policy, or as a change or option.
“In 2011, cotton farmers saw a need for an option for cottonseed to cover the entire boll rather than just the lint. That project was worked on for three years by the Plains Cotton Growers at Lubbock, and now all cotton growers are benefiting from their work.”
The USA Rice Federation group has been working with the Crop Insurance Professionals Association on a downed rice endorsement, Cole says, which would cover the extra costs associated when a hurricane hits and lays the rice down. “We’re hopeful that this project will win approval.”
Another project, which he says “could be revolutionary,” is a margin coverage policy for rice, which would address big spikes in input costs. ‘This an entirely new direction for crop insurance, and it will be interesting to see how this develops.’
Also, he says, several groups, including CIPA, are working to improve the Actual Production History (APH) provisions that are “the foundation of all crop insurance programs that we’re working with in our state. We’re trying to address trending yields, especially those that affect our crops — cotton, soybeans, corn, and rice.
“As we move toward crop insurance provisions of the 2012 farm bill, we want to make sure we keep a program that works for everyone. I think the way the trend is working is that they want to try to prevent and protect against shallow losses.
“I think the way Farm Bureau and other groups want to proceed is to base this on similar Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP) policies. We sell GRIP policies, but in Mississippi they just haven’t been well-received. In 2007, we had 97,000 acres covered under GRIP — last year, all the crop insurance agents based in Mississippi sold only 1,300 acres worth of GRIP coverage.”
Among the reasons for that, Cole says, “I think farmers don’t see it as a true risk management, but rather as a gamble that your experience will be exactly the same as the county’s.
“On the other hand, we like a GRIP-type policy that helps with the shallow losses, but keeps the current program in place, similar to the National Cotton Council’s Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX), and feel that’s a wise way to go.
“I think we’ve got a long way to go with the next farm bill,” Cole says, “but I think our Mississippi members of Congress are working for our benefit, and it’s important that we’re all on the same page that the main idea is to ‘do no harm.’”
Risk Management Agency services
Mike Davis, deputy director of USDA’s Jackson, Miss., Risk Management Agency regional office, which serves Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee, says there are now 10 regional RMA offices nationwide.
There are three major divisions of the agency:
• The Product Management Division in Kansas City, Mo., which is primarily responsible for overseeing product develop — “they write the insurance policies, loss adjustment procedures, and all procedures associated with delivery of the programs. They also have overall responsibility for the actuarial filing process, which includes the rating process, and they’re responsible for evaluation of new products.”
• The Compliance Division, which is responsible for compliance with program provisions by both producers and insurance companies writing the policies. There are six regional compliance offices in the U.S.
• The Insurance Services Division, which is responsible for program delivery, managing contracts between RMA and companies writing crop insurance, and for local program administration and support.
“Some of our responsibilities in the Jackson office,” Davis says, “include identifying and rating land that is considered high risk — in this region, that is primarily land that’s in the flood plain and susceptible to substantial flooding during the crop year.
“We also handle requests for changes in the actuarial, or written agreement, process. These include high risk land exceptions, coverage of land that’s considered new breaking, and extending coverage to crops for which there currently is no insurance program. Last year, we processed over 2,600 of these requests.”
The office is also responsible for carrying out functions associated with the filing process, Davis says, including T-yields; review and concurrence of rates issued by the Product Management Division; and establishing program dates, such as final planting dates.
“We’re also involved in the loss claims process; responsible for good farming practices determinations, which is basically an appeals process; collecting disaster information, as with the 2011 flooding; and education and outreach activities and resources.”
Source URL: http://www.southwestfarmpress.com/government/crop-insurance-likely-key-component-new-farm-bill?page=3 | 农业 | 10,268 |
Dairy Groups Praise House Approval of Bill on U.S.-Russia Trade Relations
The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) praised the House of Representatives’ approval this week of H.R. 6156, which would establish permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with Russia. NMPF and USDEC have actively supported approval of PNTR with Russia as part of work necessary to reopen that market to U.S. exporters. The Russia dairy market has been closed to U.S. dairy products for more than two years due to Russian insistence on certain dairy certificate statements and accompanying facility inspection requirements that were not acceptable to the U.S. “This is a significant step forward on the path to reopening one of the world’s largest dairy importing markets,” said Tom Suber, president of USDEC. “USDEC has been working extensively to help provide a firm basis for restoring access for U.S. dairy exporters to Russia. More is needed beyond PNTR to achieve that goal but approval of PNTR is a vital piece of puzzle.” “NMPF hopes that House action today will help to spur swift action by the Senate to also approve PNTR with Russia so that we can move closer to re-establishing exports of U.S. cheese, butter and other products to benefit of America’s dairy producers,” said Jerry Kozak, president and CEO of NMPF. “This is a major market with solid opportunities for our industry and it is critical to ensure we have the same access to it that our competitors around the world enjoy.” Both organizations also stressed the importance of a strong focus by the Administration on resolving the ongoing dairy certificate and related technical requirements that currently block U.S. dairy shipments. NMPF and USDEC believe that it is critical to continue to move forward with active and aggressive efforts to resolve these issues at the same time that Congress works to pass PNTR legislation. 11.16.2012 | 农业 | 1,933 |
China to drive farm commodities for next decade
From Rabobank
Weather extremes an issue
• China has the second largest middle class in the world at 157 million, which will surpass the U.S.'s middle class in the next 10 years, so China's demand for agricultural commodities is going to continue to grow.
• Continued weather extremes will be dominant factor for North American food and agribusiness.
• What factor will most influence acceptance of GMOs? High commodity prices
img2120.gif
China's continued influence on agricultural commodity demand and global economic growth, along with increasing weather extremes, stand out as key issues for North American food, beverage and agribusiness in 2013, a recent poll of Rabobank clients shows.
The poll of over 350 executives from leading companies in the North American food, beverage and agribusiness industry was conducted at Rabobank's recent Markets Forum held in New York City.
Rabobank is a leading bank to the global food and agribusiness industry and premier financial institution to the North American food, beverage and agriculture sector.
China will continue to drive demand for agricultural commodities
Asked to name the country or region which they believe will have the greatest impact on global agricultural commodity demand over the next 10 years, 61 percent of respondents at the Rabobank Forum chose China. That view of China's continued dominance far exceeded views of India (14 percent), Africa (10 percent), Latin America (9 percent), and Southeast Asia (6 percent).
Views mixed on China's long-term economic dominance
Despite recent signs of slowing economic growth in China, the large majority of executives polled by Rabobank see China continuing to be the most important driver of long-term global economic growth. Forty one percent of respondents said China would drive the global economy for between five and 10 more years, while 40 percent said China will remain the primary driver of global economic growth for the next 50 years. Bill Cordingley, Head of Food & Agribusiness Research and Advisory for Rabobank in the Americas, said, "These results are not surprising and reflect the significant impact that China has had on the food and agribusiness industry over the past 10 years, globally as well as in North America.
“China today has the second largest middle class in the world at 157 million, which will surpass the U.S.'s middle class in the next 10 years, so China's demand for agricultural commodities is going to continue to grow. Our North American clients in the food, beverage and agriculture sectors see opportunities to play a role in the Chinese market, not only as exporters but also as investors in the country's domestic growth by bringing technology, know-how and capital to support development of a more modern, safe food system in China."
In addition to their views on China, Rabobank Forum attendees provided opinions on a range of topics they believe will be significant issues for the global and North American food and agriculture/agribusiness industry in the coming years, including production levels, risk management, genetically modified organisms (GMO), social media, and U.S. and European macroeconomics.
Notably, 68 percent of attendees named weather extremes/volatility as the single biggest factor affecting North American food and agribusiness in 2013. That concern far outweighed the next two closest factors — consumer demand (13 percent) and policy/regulation (10 percent).
Geopolitical events, trade/tariffs/exchange rates, and policy/regulation all received votes in the single digits.
"Given that the North American industry, particularly the U.S., is in the middle of the worst drought in over 50 years," said Cordingley, "these views are quite understandable and represent a significant issue that is top of mind for most food industry players as we enter 2013."
Agribusiness increasing risk management in response to volatility
Reflecting the concern over continued weather volatility, 59 percent of respondents said the 2012 drought has changed their views about risk management in their business. Executives at the Rabobank Forum cited an increased focus on financial liquidity (25 percent), increased investment in risk management and insurance (21 percent), and greater diversification (13 percent) as their three leading solutions to hedge against continued volatility in weather patterns and commodity markets.
66 percent expect U.S. corn yield to exceed 200 bushels per acre by 2025
"Corn is a critical input to the North American food industry, and strong and consistent yield growth has underpinned the industry in the U.S. for the past ten years. Despite the enormous gains already made due to precision farming, GMOs, and other technologies, attendees at the Forum were very bullish in terms of their outlook for this trend to continue longer term," said Cordingley.
Over 90 percent of executives at the Rabobank Forum said they expect U.S. corn yields to exceed 170 bushels per acre by 2025: notably, over a quarter (26 percent) forecast yields of over 250 bushels per acre, while 40 percent forecast yields of between 200 bushels per acre and 250 bushels per acre.
Those expectations compare to U.S. trend line yields of between 150-160 bushels per acre in recent years, prior to this year's drought-driven decline to 120 bushels per acre.
Impact of social media on food & agribusiness sector
Social media played a significant role in the news earlier this year about the use of lean finely textured beef (LFTB) in U.S. beef processing.
Causing different approach?
Rabobank asked its Forum attendees if the rise of social media is causing them to adopt a different approach in their business. More than half of executives (51 percent) said the growing influence of social media is changing the way they handle brand and reputation management and business communications. Nine percent said it is driving changes in the way they handle vendor/customer/supply chain management. However, 37 percent said they are not making business changes in response to the increasing prominence of social media. "Social media has introduced a new and widely accessible communications platform to the media mix, and this has created both opportunities and risks for companies in the food industry.
For some parts of the industry, 'business as usual' may not work any longer as social media exercises its potential to be a catalyst for change. However, the social media phenomenon also offers the industry an opportunity to engage in direct discussions with consumers and other stakeholders, to address concerns, to educate, and to clarify fact from rumor or misinformation.
One thing is certain, social media is changing the food business in North America."
What factor will most influence acceptance of GMOs?
While well-established in the U.S. market, GMOs in agriculture remain controversial in many parts of the world and have not had anywhere near the rates of adoption outside the U.S.
Polled on the factors that would most encourage increased global uptake of GMO technology in agriculture over the next decade, 56 percent of respondents cited sustained high commodity prices.
Others said that greater consumer acceptance (34 percent) will be key to higher adoption, but 7 percent said they believe GMO uptake will slow. Three percent said that improved intellectual property rights in developing markets will be the solution to make GMOs more acceptable among consumers and the food industry.
Related Media: Record foreign cotton stocks bolstered by China
Crop shifts in China could influence world wheat market
U.S. soybean farmers celebrate partnership with China
Mark Article As: News
Source URL: http://southeastfarmpress.com/markets/china-drive-farm-commodities-next-decade | 农业 | 7,800 |
Excessive Heat Watch & Hazardous Weather Outlook Details for Central Illinois Community Supported Agriculture: How Big Is Too Big? By Grace Hood
Jul 16, 2013 ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email Grant Family Farms in northern Colorado launched an organic CSA in 2007 and eventually attracted 5,000 members. But it went bankrupt in 2012.
Grace Hood
/ KUNC
Originally published on July 16, 2013 11:43 am The peak of the summer harvest is approaching, which means that if you have a community supported agriculture share, you may be receiving a daunting amount of fresh produce to cook every week. In recent years, the CSA model has been attracting thousands of new farmers and consumers. Farmers like CSAs because they get money to cover the costs of production at the beginning of the season. Consumers who buy in get to connect with local food producers, who provide them with fresh, and often novel, produce items. The price of a share varies significantly, but one 2011 study of CSAs in California's Central Valley found that they average about $25 per week. Most operations are small, serving a few hundred customers or less. But some serve thousands. And last year, an organic CSA of more than 5,000 members — one of the country's largest — went bankrupt in northern Colorado. Which raises the question: Can a CSA program get too big? According to the study of CSAs in California's Central Valley, a big CSA is usually the sign of a highly diversified farm. "Very often the larger farms [with CSAs] actually have a smaller percent of their sales from CSAs," because they have other, bigger points of sales, says Ryan Galt, the University of California, Davis professor who headed the study. "They're more likely to rely on a huge number of different outlets: farmers markets, CSAs, direct to restaurant, direct to retail and also wholesale." And complexity can lead to debt and other problems. In northern Colorado, Grant Family Farms started with just 127 members in 2007 and grew to more than 5,000 in 2012. The share program — which offered customers everything from salad greens, kale, spinach and herbs to rhubarb, squash and beets — was just a small part of the overall operation. Former owner Andy Grant estimates that about 80 percent of the farm's business was growing vegetables for sale in grocery stores and other commercial outlets. The business had its ups and downs, Grant says. After struggling through Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2006 and 2007, Grant accepted a $1.5 million loan from a consortium of investors called Localization Partners. By December 2012, the farm declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy — which effectively ended operations. "The problem with our farm was not its size," says Grant, who remains passionate about organic farming and has already started a new CSA. "In fact, within the farm, the CSA was probably one of the most dynamically well run, profitable things we did." Community connections to his CSA remained strong until the end, he notes. Grant Family Farms had dozens of distribution points across Colorado's Front Range, from Colorado Springs to the northern Wyoming border. That's compared with a smaller operation where members might pick up their share every week from the farm. "If you're going to take seriously the 'community' component of it, and if one of your goals is to have strong ties with your members and have your members have strong ties with you, maybe there is a point where the CSA can't really get any bigger," says John Hendrickson, an outreach specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems who studies small vegetable farms. Hendrickson helped conduct a nationwide study of farms in 1999 using the CSA model to find out the characteristics of farms, operators and income. The survey found that the CSA model worked for a wide range of farm sizes as a primary or secondary enterprise. For Jean-Paul Courtens, who owns Roxbury Farm, a biodynamic farm in New York's Hudson Valley, the focus shouldn't be on size. His farm is primarily focused on CSA memberships and supports 1,100 members — a level he's sustained for the past seven years. "We hit what we called a sweet spot," he says. "If we wanted to expand — which we didn't want to — to 2,000 members, we would have fairly quickly outgrown the equipment we had, and be faced with purchasing equipment that would almost be too big for us." In his mind, Courtens says the question should be about whether CSA farms maintain strong connections with their customers and those who harvest the land. "When size becomes a factor in dehumanizing the whole transaction, yes, you are too big," he says. "Where is that? I don't know." Grace Hood reports from Colorado for KUNC and Harvest Public Media, a public radio reporting collaboration that focuses on agriculture and food production issues. A version of this post appeared earlier on the Harvest Public Media website.Copyright 2013 KUNC-FM. To see more, visit http://www.kunc.org. © 2016 Peoria Public Radio | 农业 | 5,018 |
Food challenges require ‘thinking big’ Written by Gothenburg Times Thursday, 07 June 2012 13:57 Humanity is in a “race against time” to produce enough food to feed itself, hampered by a false sense of comfort that set in over the last few decades when food supplies generally outpaced demand, said a University of Nebraska-Lincoln agronomist who’s one of the world’s leading experts on feeding the world.
Ken Cassman was one of several who reflected Friday on the final day of the fourth annual global Water for Food Conference, hosted by the Robert B. Daugherty Foundation at the University of Nebraska and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
“We really are in a race against time … and humanity doesn’t realize it,” said Cassman, Robert B. Daugherty Professor of Agronomy at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Cassman said the last 40 years or so have been a historical anomaly in much of the world, with food production so great that scientists like him were looking for other ways to use food crops. With the world’s population projected to increase from 7 billion to 9 billion by 2050, and with limited land and water available, attention now is focused on how to increase food production.
The next 5-10 years are critical to grasp the scope of the crisis and develop the tools to address it, Cassman said. Among other things, scientists must get a handle on how much each existing hectare of farmland can produce. A global yield gap atlas, which Cassman is helping develop, is one tool to gather that information. It will determine and make public the gap between existing and potential yield on any piece of cropland in the world.
“We need to think big,” urged Prem Paul, UNL vice chancellor for research and economic development. Research will be critical and two new NU entities—the Water for Food Institute and the Nebraska Innovation Campus, a public-private partnership at UNL—can play major roles.
The 9 billion population number is only a projection, several speakers during the conference noted. Many expect population growth to slow significantly at that point, and others note that societal changes could change the 2050 estimate. One such change could be empowerment of women in developing countries, said Simi Kamal, chief executive officer of the Pakistan-based Hisaar Foundation.
Kamal, who led a Thursday panel discussion on Women, Water and Food, noted that women provide much of the agricultural labor in the world but are not involved in leadership. Educated, empowered women have more choices in life, may not marry as young or have as many children as poor women do.
Cassman’s, Paul’s and Kamal’s comments came in a closing panel discussion moderated by Roberto Lenton, founding executive director of the Daugherty Institute.
More than 550 people from 28 nations registered for the conference to discuss the research, education and policy implications of feeding the growing population.
Earlier Friday, the 40th anniversary of Nebraska’s unique system of natural resources districts was noted in a celebration led by Ronnie Green, NU vice president and Harlan vice chancellor of the university’s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Nebraska’s 23 NRDs are governed by locally elected boards and have local taxing authority, making them attuned and responsive to local needs and challenges, said Ann Bleed, retired director of the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. That’s important in a state where the challenges of managing water are magnified by extreme variabilities in precipitation amounts, soil conditions and other factors from border to border, added Bleed, who moderated panel discussions covering water governance in Nebraska and Brazil. | 农业 | 3,695 |
Rooted in Tenacity: UMD's Farm 100 Years Old
Read More Homepage Stories
The original superintendents home, left, moved to the corners of Martin and Jean Duluth Roads, right, after the Northeast Experiment Station closed
Mildred Kallio reflects while sharing pictures of a striking yellow bungalow, her family’s home from 1968 to 1976. “It’s a very happy house.” Kallio describes it as well built and sturdy, the perfect base for her three little girls as they explored acres of farmland and orchards on their bicycles.
The house was nestled on the end of a cul-de-sac at the Northeast Experiment Station, the Kallio’s home for eight years while Mildred’s husband, Arvo Kallio, was the director. Today you can see the sidewalks where the girls once rode, a heavily patinaed fire hydrant, and a streetlight, the only evidence of residency still remaining. The house is gone. It was moved to the corners of Jean Duluth and Martin Roads when the farm closed 37 years ago. But this isn’t where the story of UMD’s farm ends.
This summer marks the centennial of a legacy of tenacity, tragedy, and triumph; that of UMD’s Farm. From 1913 to 2013, the farm has been created, destroyed, abandoned and reborn.
Its story begins before a single seed was planted. In the 1890s, Duluth was experiencing a boom that resulted in more millionaires per capita than any other city in the country. The only problem? Feeding those who’d flocked here to make it rich in lumber and iron ore. As Duluth State Normal School geographer Eugene Van Cleef declared, “Mineral resources alone do not invite a large population; they must be accompanied by food to support the people who market them.”
Back then, food had to be shipped from far away so the cost of living in Duluth was astronomical. Looking for ways to maintain residents of the Zenith City, leaders with names that would later become iconic parts of Duluth’s history - G.G. Hartley and Sam Sniveley - started small farms in the Woodland area. With their resources, Hartley and Sniveley were successful. The trick was figuring out how ordinary Duluthians could make a go of it. “A northern farm must be created before it is operated.”
The First 25 Years of the Northeast Experiment Station, Duluth
The Northeast Experiment Station in 1925
Without a lot of open space downtown, the Duluth Commercial Club started lobbying for a site to create a working farm. In 1911 it got just that. The legislature appropriated $65,000 for the University of Minnesota to buy land that could be used by farmers in northeastern Minnesota. They found what they were looking for one year later near Jean Duluth and Martin Roads, a site that was being used by Greysolon Farms, a company created in 1910 for “….intensive cultivation, market gardening, and dairy farming under the most modern scientific conditions.” Negotiations as tough as the rugged landscape ensued, as the University of Minnesota leveraged for purchase. One year later, in 1913, the University bought 240 acres at Greysolon Farm’s asking price. The Northeast Demonstration Farm and Experimental Station was established. (“An experimental station is a federally funded farm that’s part of the land grant mission,” explains Randy Hanson, current Director of Sustainability and Agriculture at UMD.)
In The first 25 Years of the Northeast Experiment Station, Duluth M.J. Thompson writes, “Land inventory indicated five acres more or less plowable; 55 acres of contract clearing allegedly ready for the plow. We were actually able to break about ½ acre, less than 1% that spring. The ground was too full of roots chopped off at the surface.”
Armed with ambition and vision, the Northeast Experiment Station team got to work. By mid-July 1913, nine buildings were constructed and the first crop of corn and oats were planted. The farm was officially created and in operation.
In the coming years, orchards were planted, electricity was integrated into the farm, and water mains were laid. But progress came to an abrupt halt in 1918: Farmer inspects damages after Fire of 1918
"The first wave of fire came from the northwest about 3:30 p.m. This passed directly to the rear and about the poultry buildings, but with the entire crew fighting the fire and with a providential shift in the wind, these buildings were saved. The second wave struck about 6 p.m. By 7 p.m. the superintendent’s residence and assembly hall were on fire and, shortly after, the horse barn was in flames. The balsam grove directly behind the first two buildings was the immediate cause of their destruction. Escape to Duluth was cut off from 6 p.m. until after midnight. Men, women, and children took refuge under blankets and in open fields, under bridges, and in streams." 1918 – 1919 Northeast Experiment Station report
It was the worst natural disaster in Minnesota’s history, the Great Fires of 1918. Killing at least 500 people and destroying more than 1,500 square miles, the Northeast Experiment Station was among the losses. Organizers began reconstruction in November and by April the new horse barn, superintendent and herdsman’s cottages were built.
Other buildings were added and construction on the farm continued through 1930. “Regional food production thrived,” says Hanson, until, that is, the 1950s when families started turning away from the farms and instead filling their grocery carts with food that was convenient. The farm started a slow fizzle that went out with its closing in the late 1970s. “In 1976 it was closed for good and the land sat empty,” says Hanson.
But instead of ‘closing for good’ it was the beginning of a new chapter. Just like after the fire, its experiencing a resurgence compliments of Randy Hanson, who is leading the charge, an increased focus from the University on sustainability, and a shift in society’s priorities. Says Hanson, “All around the country people are trying to figure out how do we rebuild these systems so that we can enjoy more of the health, environmental, and socioeconomic benefits that small-scale agriculture brings.”
Today, this same piece of property where the Kallio girls rode their bikes is once again thriving with agricultural activities. One part of this renaissance revolves around the creation of a 10 acre organic farm on the site, where Hanson, his students, and community members are producing fruits, vegetables, and possibly soon, harnessing wind energy. Their efforts combine to provide experiential learning to students and community members around food, farming and gardening, as well as deliver thousands of pounds of produce to the UMD Dining Services who use this healthy, minimally processed food as a step in their own process of 'going local'. The new model for agricultural and food learning, research and production on the site involves many productive partnerships. Internally, UMD Dining Services, the College of Liberal Arts, the Natural Resources Research Institute, and the Office of Sustainability are closely involved, and externally, community groups like the Duluth Public School System, the Duluth Community Garden Program, the Intertribal Agriculture Council, and the Northeast Beekeepers Association are collaborating, to name a few. Most importantly, says Hanson, “Students are getting a lot of hands-on activity and learning how to interact with nature in a respectful and productive way, and in the process of this learning we are helping our institution shift to more sustainable practices. In short, we're doing our part in creating new models for learning and leadership in sustainability."
A special thank you to Pat Maus, UMD Archives, Millie Kallio, Brett Groehler, and Zenith City Online for their help with this story.
Story written by Lori C. Melton, [email protected] Homepage Stories | News Releases
UMD home page editor, Cheryl Reitan, [email protected]
About UMD
[ Desktop
| Mobile friendly ] | 农业 | 7,869 |
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mexico-s-corn-farmers-see-their-livelihoods-2515188.php
Mexico's corn farmers see their livelihoods wither away / Cheap U.S. produce pushes down prices under free-trade pact
Monica Campbell and Tyche Hendricks, Chronicle Foreign Service and Chronicle Staff Writer
Published 4:00 am, Monday, July 31, 2006
"Who wants to work all day in the sun and earn so little?" -- Jose Davila, a Mexican farmer (shown). Photo by Sarah Meghan Lee, special to the Chronicle
2006-07-31 04:00:00 PDT Atlacomulco, Mexico -- Tending his sun-drenched half-acre cornfield, Jose Davila represents a part of Mexico that may fade away as the pressures of free trade intensify. "I'm an antique," said the hunched 90-year-old farmer. "Who wants to work all day in the sun and earn so little? All the younger people now look for jobs in factories or construction. Either that, or they go to the United States." The growing dilemma that Mexico's 2 million corn farmers face as the tariffs that protect them shrink under the North American Free Trade Agreement was an issue in this month's presidential election. And as the United States wrestles with already high levels of illegal immigration, some experts say the demise of Mexico's peasantry deserves serious U.S. attention. "The Bush administration has sought to control immigration at the border, but that's virtually impossible," said Harley Shaiken, director of UC Berkeley's Center for Latin American Studies. "The beginnings of immigration are in the displacement of farmers in Mexico." An estimated 1.5 million agricultural jobs have been lost since NAFTA went into effect in 1994. Tariffs protecting beans and corn, including the white corn Mexicans use for tortillas, which make up a third of their diet, are to end in January 2008. That is exposing Mexican corn farmers -- two-thirds of whom subsist on 12 acres or fewer and 90 percent of whom lack irrigation -- to competition with U.S. farmers who are so highly mechanized they can produce a metric ton of corn with a half-hour's labor, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. American corn exports to Mexico -- now one-fifth of the corn consumed there -- have more than tripled in NAFTA's first 10 years, and the USDA predicts they will double again in the coming decade. "Prices have fallen ever since NAFTA," said Davila's son, Casto, 67, who helps his father tend the cornfield, which depends on central Mexico's May-September rainy season. Some of the corn they grow feeds their livestock, while they sell some and use some themselves. After buying fertilizer, renting a tractor to plow crops and laboring in the fields, the Davilas barely break even with corn prices at a rock-bottom 2.5 pesos, or 25 cents, per kilogram (2.2 pounds). "Farmers here have long felt abandoned," said Casto Davila, who earns the bulk of his income from his small housing construction company. "The signal from the government is that we're better off selling our land." The Mexican government has helped ease the transition to free trade with cash subsidies to farmers, but those, too, are to be phased out in 2008. World Bank economist Daniel Lederman predicted, however, that Mexico's next president will face pressure to continue aiding agriculture, which employs 20 percent of the population. And he said 2008 is unlikely to bring a dramatic economic shock. "In practice, you've had free trade already," said Lederman. "I'm not sure that 2008 is when the sky falls." During Mexico's recent presidential campaign, the two leading candidates, left-leaning Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and conservative Felipe Calderon, disagreed on how to provide relief to the country's struggling corn farmers. Lopez Obrador insisted he would not honor the 2008 deadline, which he said threatened to put corn farmers out of business, and he vowed to increase subsidies and offer growers low-interest loans. Calderon, the election's apparent victor, who comes from the ruling National Action Party, called Lopez Obrador's policies paternalistic and unsustainable. Like President Vicente Fox, Calderon believes Mexico must modernize and diversify its agricultural sector in part by instructing farmers to grow more profitable crops such as organic vegetables and herbs. "We need to consider alternatives that will make life in the countryside more competitive," said Ernesto Cordero, Calderon's economic adviser. "We cannot keep hanging on to programs that depend on subsidies and more subsidies," Cordero said. "Why not test other crops and, at the same time, build up infrastructure in agriculture areas so that producers can transport their products more easily?" Yet cultural resistance and distrust of government may keep some farmers from signing on to a new way of work. "They say we should grow broccoli and asparagus, but where's the training program?" said Casto Davila. "Do they expect us to take on new methods, invest in new tools, and then suddenly find a new market for our goods?" Modernizing peasant agriculture is important, but the effect will be modest at best, said UC Berkeley's Shaiken. "There's no way peasant farmers in Oaxaca are going to be competitive with highly subsidized, very productive farms in Iowa," he said. Cordero said he and others on Calderon's economic team would meet with agriculture leaders in coming months to define how such training programs should work. Meanwhile, Calderon has pledged to extend government programs that modestly subsidize small farmers. He also backs expanding efforts to produce ethanol from corn. Calderon has indicated he won't spend precious political capital pushing the Bush administration to reopen NAFTA. "It's more useful for us to spend our energy on ways to strengthen Mexico's manufacturing sector and build up our infrastructure than to push for changes on the agricultural front," said Cordero. Free-trade advocates say the squeeze that Mexico's peasant farmers are feeling is an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of entering the global economy. "Trade gains are broad, and trade pains are very specific," said Tim Kane, director of international economics at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. "A few people feel the pain, lose jobs, get displaced. That's what Mexico is experiencing. That's the path to progress." The pain actually could be an incentive for farmers like the Davilas to adapt or move on, he said. NAFTA has stimulated growth in factory jobs, especially in border-based assembly plants, said the World Bank's Lederman, and that has helped absorb displaced farmers and deter migration to the United States. But manufacturing growth has not kept pace with the need for new jobs created by a growing population and a shrinking farm sector, said Sandra Polaski, director of the Trade, Equity and Development Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "At the end of the day, most of the migration comes from the countryside," she said, adding that the additional downward pressure on corn prices in 2008 "will be a reason (farmers) send labor outside the household, whether to Mexican cities or across the border." Polaski suggested that the United States borrow a page from the European Union's integration handbook and make major investments in Mexico's economic and educational infrastructure as the richer European countries did to prevent massive migration of workers from poorer countries like Portugal and Greece. "The United States must care," Shaiken said, "because the United States must face the consequences." Latest from the SFGATE homepage: | 农业 | 7,574 |
Holistic approach is a winner
Mandi Smallhorne
The farmer training project has led to the establishment of 15 commercial farmers
Business Award
Xstrata Coal
Xstrata Coal identified the training and development of commercial black farmers, support for community health centres and education about the environment in schools as areas in which the company could make a significant long-term and sustainable impact on the well-being of communities living near its operations.
"The biggest value and benefit we can create is one of a project that is self-sustainable and self-sufficient, even when any of our operations near the project no longer exists. Our drive and goal is to create sustainable communities," says Nico Dooge, general manager: environment and community.
Three projects were considered for the award: the Xstrata Coal farmer training project, the Xstrata Coal health project and the Xstrata Coal ecoschools project.
Started in 2004 at the Ogies Mine, the farmer training project is a comprehensive training and development programme to establish successful commercial black farmers.
Prospective farmers are taught skills, management and agricultural business, and they are mentored.
Run by a service provider commissioned by Xstrata, the project has led to the establishment of 15 commercial farmers in mainstream primary agriculture, the training of 27 commercial farmers and the employment of more than 55 full-time agricultural employees and more than 100 seasonal employees.
Its contribution to the local economy in 2012-2013 was calculated at about R20-million, and the number of fields planted increased by 92%, from 1 236 hectares in the 2011-2012 season to 2 368 hectares in the 2012-2013 season. Livestock numbers increased by 170%.
The health project, started in 2006, arose out of the recognition that people living in many parts of Mpumalanga had limited access to health care. Working with the non-governmental organisation, Re-action, and the Mpumalanga department of health and social development, Xstrata contributed R34.7-million between 2008 and 2011 for the establishment of community health centres in neglected communities.
The ecoschools project programme started in 2003 and Xstrata has been supporting it since 2008. It is an international project that is managed locally by the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa in partnership with the World Wide Fund for Nature-South Africa.
Xstrata currently funds the teaching of sustainable development at 15 schools in eMalahleni and Ermelo, and pays the salary and budget of a provincial project manager, who oversees environmental education in about 120 schools.
Although each of these corporate social investment projects is run day to day by professionals, Xstrata's commitment to them runs deep, says Dooge.
"Many Xstrata employees participate in community initiatives as our involvement and care for local communities is what we want to achieve as a company. We are fully committed to work with the communities in the areas where we operate.
"Employees also initiate their own projects, and through the National Union of Mineworkers and our women in mining programme, employees and union officials participate together in social responsibility programmes."
The projects revolve not only around creating sustainable, self-driving futures but also holistic ones — taking into consideration the immediate goals and the way the projects fit into the surrounding social environment and the wider impact they will have, he says.
For example, the health project with Re-action focuses not only on healthcare provision and access but also on economic empowerment, gender equality and social cohesion, which all play a key role in enabling health.
Setting up a school food garden and composting facilities, the recycling of school waste and the beautification of school property are all an integral part of the ecoschools project, helping to boost food security for the children at participating schools as well as teaching them valuable environmental lessons.
"You need to look at the bigger picture and to ensure projects that can support each other are incorporated. This will also ensure a sustainable outcome," says Dooge.
Core company values are expressed in the choice and implementation of these initiatives, he says.
"We do what we say, we hold ourselves accountable and we act with care. These values govern our interaction with our stakeholders, be they community members, the government or our employees."
The Investing in the Future judges chose the Xstrata projects as winners from the 18 entries in the business award category this year because they demonstrate innovative ways in which companies can use core business strategies to improve the lives of people living in poverty.
"A holistic overview is part of its corporate social responsibility, and it is implementing this in a professional and caring way at a localised level to make a lasting impact," the judges said.
retirement planninginvesting-in-the-futureInvesting in the Future & Drivers of Change | 农业 | 5,066 |
Growing farmers in Southern Maryland
Assistance offered to those interested in getting into the business
Staff photo by REID SILVERMAN Priscilla Wentworth, 26, of California packs Swiss chard in coolers as she works as a part-time apprentice on the farm a couple of weeks ago. She also holds a full-time position at Patuxent River Naval Air Station. Kevin Dvorsky of Calvert County, a part-time worker at the farm, who also works at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, harvests produce at Sassafras Creek Farm two weeks ago.
Sassafras Creek Farm was awarded a contract to produce 1,000 pounds of these Espelette peppers.
A spicy Espelette pepper is ready to be picked at the Sassafras Creek Farm in Leonardtown.
Jennifer Paulk collects produce on a recent Friday morning at Sassafras Creek Farm in Leonardtown.
Jennifer and David Paulk are new farmers, making a small-scale, certified organic farming business work in St. Mary’s County.
Priscilla Wentworth, 26, of California packs Swiss chard in coolers as she works as a part-time apprentice on the farm a couple of weeks ago. She also holds a full-time position at Patuxent River Naval Air Station.
It was a day in mid-September. David and Jennifer Paulk of Park Hall paused from their morning work at their certified organic Sassafras Creek Farm in Leonardtown. Standing next to rows and rows of vegetable plants, they talked about what drew them into farming as a second career.
That morning, they and a couple of part-time workers were harvesting Swiss chard, sweet peppers, hot peppers, cucumbers and sweet potatoes. The farm, which the Paulks purchased in 2010, includes 83 acres, but the Paulks have a little less than three acres of that in production.
They make the most of that space, growing about 90 varieties of vegetables, small fruit and herbs.
The temperature was at that just-right, in-between summer and fall level. The sun was shining. There was a soft breeze. It was quiet and peaceful and green.
No fluorescent lights.
No computer screens.
No neckties, no high heels, no bosses.
It all made farming look pretty good.
The Paulks sell the majority of their produce directly to consumers at local farmers markets. The rest they sell to restaurants and stores in the region that are interested in locally grown fresh foods and/or unusual ingredients that the Paulks agree to grow for them. They have a long row of hot Espelette peppers, normally grown in the Basque region of France and Spain that a chef in Baltimore contracted Sassafras Farms to grow.
“It’s very rewarding,” Jennifer said of their business, which she works at in addition to a full-time job as an environmental scientist in support of the Navy. “The customers — they’re fabulous. They’re so supportive.”
David retired a few years ago after 26 years in the Navy, the last four years of which he was commuting to Annapolis for work as a program manager. It was a job that required long hours and included “a lot of stress.”
While many move into the contracting world as soon as they complete their military service, “that didn’t call to me,” he said.
Instead, he looked to the garden that he and Jennifer had established at every place they lived. It was a hobby that had become increasingly important to the couple. “The more stressful my job got, the bigger the garden got,” David said.
He and Jennifer tried their hand at selling some produce from their garden in Park Hall, where they currently live. They found a market immediately. They could see there is a demand for fresh produce in the area.
A large-scale operation was out of the question. Not only is property expensive, it is difficult to find in the area. So, the Paulks studied the idea of small-scale farming. After visiting small farms at different areas in the country where there is a burgeoning movement of small, sustainable farming businesses, they decided to take the plunge and invest in the property in Leonardtown that is now Sassafras Creek Farm.
“It is super exciting,” David said.
He said people ask, “Can I do that?”
“Yes, you can,” David said. “It’s not easy. It’s hard work. But, it’s achievable.”
Southern Maryland, a region that once was characterized by farmers and farms that were regularly passed down through the generations. Several things changed that — the tobacco buyout more than a dozen years ago caused some to give up farming altogether, and development pressures led to many family farms being carved up into housing developments. In addition, young people increasingly chose to look elsewhere for a career, not seeing a future in farming any longer.
That trend may be changing. People like the Paulks are giving a second look to farming as a way to make a living, particularly small-scale farming that doesn’t require a large inherited farm property.
And that’s a good thing, says Greg Bowen, Maryland FarmLINK director with the Southern Maryland Agricultural Development Commission. The region needs more farmers.
Several years ago, Bowen noted, people raised the alarm that farmers were getting older, and younger farmers weren’t replacing them. The 2007 Census of Agriculture showed that the average age of a farmer in the United States was 57. “But in Southern Maryland, we believe that average age is even older,” Bowen said. And the census showed that the fastest-growing group of farm operators is those 65 and older.
And even if there are people interested in getting into farming, much that used to support that career path has been dismantled over the years — agriculture programs in the schools and Future Farmers of America clubs had lapsed and the once-large network of nearby farmers who could offer advice and assistance and share equipment had dwindled.
Gradually, a number of programs were established to assist new farmers, new programs that are trying to take the place of the support structure that used to exist.
Bowen’s program, Maryland FarmLINK, for instance, was set up to link up farmers who are retiring with young or new farmers looking for land, information and mentoring, “everything that beginning farmers need,” Bowen said.
Maryland FarmLINK received a funding boost last year, when several partnering agencies in Maryland won a $700,000 grant from the USDA, allowing Maryland FarmLINK to expand from just Southern Maryland farm properties to farm properties throughout the state. The grant also beefed up the mentoring program that the Southern Maryland Agricultural Development Commission offers farmers.
The Beginner Farmer Training Program, offered by Future Harvest-CASA (Chesapeake Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture), is another program in the state designed to assist people trying to start a career in farming that benefitted from the grant. Now in its fifth year, the year-long program offers new farmers a training conference, classes and workshops and then seven months of working with a trainer farmer at the trainer’s farm.
David Paulk went through Future Harvest-CASA’s Beginner Farmer Training Program in 2011. At that time, the training was in Baltimore County and the trainer farmer he worked with, Jack Gurley, farmed in Sparks. Paulk traveled 100 miles once a week during that year to participate in the program.
“That kind of real world experience, you can’t do without,” Jennifer said.
David learned, among other things, “how to grow successive plantings,” he said. That knowledge allows the Paulks to harvest produce from April through December, making their business operation more viable.
“You can make a living in small-scale production,” David said. “The rule of thumb is you can make $25,000 or more per acre gross in a small-scale vegetable production.”
The USDA grant allowed the Beginner Farming Training Program to expand, said Cathy Tipper, Future Harvest director of training. In the five years that the program has existed, 25 people like David Paulk have completed the program. This year, it is accepting application for 11 new farmers slots, Tipper said.
And because farmers like David were willing to drive the length of the state to get trained, it will be easier for other Southern Maryland residents to receive this training, as the Paulks have been approved to be trainers themselves in 2014.
The USDA grant also funded the creation of a website which has been developed by the University of Maryland Extension Service. Ben Beale, extension educator in agricultural sciences with the extension office in Leonardtown, is serving as one of the project leaders for the USDA grant collaborative. Beale said the new website, which is at http://extension.umd.edu/newfarmer, is intended to be a “single place to go for basically everything [farmers] need to expand or launch a new farmer operation.”
“There’s lots of opportunities,” Beale said of farming in Southern Maryland.
Tipper agreed that farming has a future in the region. “We’re just seeing a lot more interest in buying local,” she said. “We’re not meeting demand ... It’s only going to get bigger, I think.”
Bowen said the challenges to getting into farming in Maryland are the capital equipment costs, the land costs and getting advice. Cost of farmland in Maryland, for instance, is three times the national average, Bowen said.
As far as capital equipment, David Paulk estimated that starting farmers would need to expect start-up costs should be a minimum of $15,000 for an acre or two.
But Bowen noted that people who want to farm in Maryland have a lot on their side. “We have a nice temperate climate ... We get average [annual] rainfall of 40 inches, and we have great access to an urban population,” he said. He said the Washington, D.C., Baltimore and Northern Virginia market is the fourth largest urban region in the country “and the wealthiest and the highest educated.”
The Paulks are benefitting from those assets. “The demand is huge,” Jennifer said. She said they can see that area consumers want a selection of diverse, fresh, local produce, meat and eggs, and they want it to be convenient to buy.
“We think direct sales to the public is the hot ticket right now,” David said.
For information on getting started in farming and resources that are available, visit the website developed by the University of Maryland Extension, http://extension.umd.edu/newfarmer.
The Southern Maryland Agricultural Development Commission also provides a variety of resources for those in the agriculture business. For more, including information on Maryland FarmLINK, see www.smadc.com/farmRESOR/res_roundup.html or call 301-274-1922.
For more on the beginner farming training program offered by Future Harvest-CASA (Chesapeake Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture), see www.futureharvestcasa.org. Applications are now being accepted for the 2014 training program.
For more about Sassafras Creek Farm, see www.sassafrascreekfarm.com. | 农业 | 10,797 |
news in other languages:
fr esp ita de > we recommend: >
New link section*
INFOVENEZUELA
ESDATA
OAS Reports
Amnesty reports
> important info: >
Red Flags on Venezuela's Electoral Roll
Smartmatic: all things connected
Venezuela Information Office & the USA: the VIO files
The Unfulfilled Promises of Hugo Chavez
Venezuelan Oil Policies: Boosting Others at Own Expense
The Venezuelan Story: Revisiting the Conventional Wisdom
Fraud at Vadesa: Shareholders have no rights in Venezuela
Aleksander Boyd interviews Miguel Angel Capriles Cannizzaro
London 12.06.06 | One of Venezuela’s largest media conglomerates, Cadena Capriles, is at the centre of an ongoing, bitter family dispute between its founder’s first family –composed of wife and 7 children, and the second family, that of the founder’s widow and her only son. What follows is an account of one of the parties, namely that of Miguel Angel Capriles Cannizzaro, only son of the second and last marriage of the holdings’ owner. The purpose of this article is to shed light upon the case, for it carries especial significance, given the fact that 80% of the propaganda published by the Venezuelan government is printed on Ultimas Noticias and El Mundo, two newspapers that form part of the family state, which are currently controlled unlawfully by Miguel Angel Capriles Lopez. Equally relevant are the manifold conflict of interests that resulted after fraud completion that are indicative of the state of the judiciary in Venezuela . Firstly I would like to provide a description of the different families, which is a must to follow the saga. Miguel Angel Capriles Ayala (MACA) married Carmen Cecilia López Lugo, also a Venezuelan national, in 1939 (the First Marriage). At the time of this First Marriage, MACA not the rich man he was when he died. The First Marriage was celebrated without “capitulaciones matrimoniales” meaning that under Venezuelan law, any and all assets acquired during the marriage belongs to a marriage community; half to the husband, half to the wife. The marriage community between MACA and Carmen Cecilia López Lugo will be referred to as the First Marriage Community Under Venezuelan law, if a marriage couple divorces, the marriage community needs to be ascertained and liquidated thereafter. The marriage community stops to grow at the moment the parties file for divorce or for “separación de bienes”. The Capriles-López couple (the First Marriage of MACA) had seven (7) children: six (6) daughters: Carmen Cecilia, Adelaida, Mishka, María Pia, Perla, Cora, and one (1) son, Miguel Angel (henceforth Michu). All of them go with the last names of Capriles-Lopez, as it is customary in Venezuela to use first the last name of the father and second the last name of the mother. Although Michu is the youngest of the seven (7), due to the fact that he was very close to MACA, he was very close with the business affairs of the Capriles Family. After MACA´s death, Michu has played a very important role in the decision making process of the Capriles-Lopez. As a matter of fact, most of the time Michu has orchestrated the actions and used the Capriles-Lopez cash flow of the Cadena Capriles to fund all the litigation and related actions against the Capriles-Cannizzaro in order to retain control over the Cadena Capriles. MACA and Carmen Cecilia López Lugo separated as a married couple in 1967. However, formally, the First Marriage lasted until 1980 for over 41 years. In 1980, after 13 years of factual separation, they finally divorced. At the time of this divorce, MACA had an important fortune. Under Venezuelan law, filling for a divorce generates two separate legal consequences: (i) first. A “separación de cuerpos” (body separation), meaning that the couple, although not yet divorced, are released from complying with the marital obligations imposed by law, and (ii) second, de separation of assets, meaning that (y) the contribution to the marriage community ceases, and (z) that the existing marriage community has to be ascertained and liquidated. After their divorce from the First Marriage, MACA and Carmen Cecilia López Lugo made a liquidation of the First Marriage Community (“liquidación de comunidad de gananciales”), for which she received a considerably number and valuable assets while he kept an important number as well. In 1980, MACA married Magaly Cannizaro (the Second Marriage). This Second Marriage was also celebrated without “capitulaciones matrimoniales” meaning that the spouses to the Second Marriage started to contribute to the Second Marriage Community from the day of the marriage. Miguel Angel Capriles Cannizaro (henceforth MACC) was born before MACA and Magaly Cannizaro got married. As with Michu, MACA had an excellent relationship with MACC. MACA always tried that both sides of the Capriles Family got along; he was successful in doing so while he was alive; just from the moment that he was about to die everything changed among the Capriles Family, MACA was no longer available to equilibrate the Capriles Family. Due to the fact that MACA had a relationship with Magaly Cannizzaro before they got married and owing to the fact that MACC was born even before they got married, both Magaly Cannizzaro and MACC had to face the discrimination and insults from the Capriles Lopez for many years; this is especially true after the death of MACA. Since 1980 MACA increased his fortune significantly. In principle, since he liquidated the First Marriage Community with Carmen Cecilia López Lugo, thereafter, the Second Marriage Community grew with Magaly Cannizzaro on his side as co-owner. Even before 1980 MACA managed his affairs with Magaly Cannizzaro actively on his side. He also had on his side, both Michu (the older boy) and MACC (the youngest); both were well trained by MACA. In early 1996 MACA gets very ill. Since the Capriles-Lopez and the Capriles-Cannizzaro did not get alone -despite MACA efforts to the contrary during his life- three days before his death (when doctors announced his weak medical situation), and considering that he had a loving and harmonious relationship with the Capriles-Cannizzaro, the Capriles-Lopez were terrified to loose control over the assets of the family. Michu knew how to run the business and did not want to share it with us. The fraud by which the Capriles Lopez acquired control of Vadesa and the other corporations (owner of 13% of stock of EDC) and the decisions of the Venezuelan courts which gave this control allowing it to stand until now.
MACA held at his death in 1996, all the stock of Valores y Desarrollos Vadesa S.A. ("Vadesa"), among other companies. Under Venezuelan law, 50% of MACA's assets – which included half of the Vadesa shares -- were owned by Magaly Cannizzaro de Capriles ("Magaly"), the other 50% constituted MACA's estate which was to be divided in equal shares among his eight children and his widow, (i.e., one-ninth of the 50% to each). As noted MACA had seven children from his first marriage to Carmen Cecilia Lopez Lugo (" Lugo"), who was divorced from MACA in 1980, following a property settlement in 1979. MACA married Magaly in 1980, and I am his son from that marriage.
Carmen Cecilia López Lugo waited sixteen years after the divorce and property settlement, until MACA was on his deathbed and when he was expected to die, literally, at any moment, she filed a complaint against him alleging that sixteen years ago she had not received 50% of marital property which was due to her at the time of the divorce, and that therefore, she was entitled to 50% of the property that he held in 1996. The filing of this claim sixteen years later and while my father was dying, was a first step in a scheme to obtain a default judgment on her claim against my mother as follows:
Carmen Cecilia López Lugo knew that when MACA died, which predictably happened within two days after she filed her complaint against him, Michu and her other six children would become defendants in her action together with the widow (my mother) and myself. Carmen Cecilia López Lugo was ostensibly represented by one law firm (Brewer); and six of her seven children were ostensibly represented by another law firm (Viso) that purported to be opponents of their mother Carmen Cecilia López Lugo; and Lugo's seventh child was ostensibly represented by a third law firm (Aguilar), purporting in turn to be opposed to her six siblings. But, in fact, documentary evidence establishes that the Viso firm prepared pleadings to be used by Lugo and the seventh child who were the ostensible opponents of Viso's clients. This included Viso's preparation of a complaint filed by Lugo . Thus, documentary evidence shows that the three law firms pretending to represent opposing interests, in fact colluded to obtain a default judgment for Lugo by the above concealed collusion, including the following procedural fraud. Under Venezuelan procedure a defendant cannot properly file an Answer to a complaint until there appears in the court file an entry that the last defendant had been noticed, which usually is evidenced by an attorney's filing a power executed by the defendant in question authorizing the lawyer named in the power to appear for that defendant. While Viso had the powers from all six Lopez children in mid-June, it filed them only at intervals, and filed the last of the six powers (from daughter Adelaida -- whose power was executed on June 6, 1996 -- only on September 17, 1996 never having mentioned Adelaida's name in any of its prior filings in the case. The September 17 filing signaled that we then had the right to file our Answer. My mother and I thereupon being correctly led to believe by the September 17 filing that we then had the right to file our Answer, filed our Answer well within the 20 days after the September 17, 1996 filing of Adelaida's power, that the court establishes, asserted factual and legal defenses against Lugo's claim, including that it was barred by the 1979 property settlement and by more than one applicable statutes of limitations. But, the Brewer office moved for a judgment by default, and the trial judge granted to Lugo a default judgment, and refused to consider the Answer filed by my mother and myself, on the stated ground that our Answer to Lugo 's sixteen-year-old claim was filed six days late. This default judgment gave Lugo and Lopez control of corporate assets of some $700 million, (including Vadesa's $300 million). However outrageous such judgment would be had the Answer really been six days late, the lateness argument was itself the product of the fraud and collusion between Lugo and Lopez and their attorneys. (See next paragraph) A Viso lawyer (Solorzano), requested on July 11, 1996 , a copy of a document from the court file, which under the law she could only request on behalf of a defendant whose power authorizing her to act for that defendant had already been filed in court. The powers of three Lopez defendants, naming Solorzano as their authorized attorney, had already been on file with the court. Solorzano therefore had the right to ask for a copy of a document from the court file, by stating that she did so acting on behalf of those Lopezes. But, Solorzano used a tricky expression stating she was requesting the copy "on behalf of the 'Lopez defendants.'" This tricky reference was the basis of the colluding Brewer firm to move for a default judgment untenably arguing that the 20 days from which the time to answer started on July 11, and not September 17. Although my mother and I had no way of knowing before the September 17 filing of any appearance of Adelaida's, in any manner whatsoever, the trial judge adopted the fraudulent July 11-date argument, and granted Lugo the default judgment which was in all events totally indefensible. A default judgment could only be granted if all defendants defaulted, and of course since the seven Lopezes were in collusion with their mother, all of them did not file their Answers within 20 days after July 11 in order for Lugo to obtain the default judgment. (The judge who granted this default was subsequently dismissed with the largest number of charges of misconduct (in other matters) filed against any judge in Venezuela .) On appeal, the presiding judge of the court was the father of Solorzano, the lawyer who was charged with perpetrating the July 11 trick in the court below. He refused to recuse himself, and did so only when another unbelievable chicanery insured the outcome of the appeal:
Opposing parties are allowed to elect to have the decision made by one appeals court judge, and two non-judicial panel members sitting with the one judge, one panel member to be appointed by each opposing party. Disregarding the fact that the Lopez children were, in fact, arch opponents of my mother and myself, because they and we were lumped with them under the heading of "co-defendants," they -- as the majority of the "defendants" -- were allowed to opt for the panel procedure, and to appoint both panelists, making it a certainty that this stacked appeals panel would not disturb the default judgment. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Civil Division, a majority refused to review the matter on the stated ground that that court had the power to review a judgment of the trial court, in this type of case, only if the trial judge passed on contested issues; and since here the judge did not consider the Answer (due to the alleged six-day lateness) he never passed on any contested issue. And, so over the vigorous dissent of one judge that this not only was not the law, but if it had been it would violate the Constitution as depriving my mother and myself of due process by giving us no chance to defend, the default judgment was left undisturbed. At the outset Lugo asked a court whose jurisdiction was limited to the equivalent of $8,000 to find facts which would decide ownership of some $350,000,000 and control over some $700,000,000 of assets. The Court did so, and its action though initially reversed was ultimately affirmed on the obviously untenable ground that the $8,000 jurisdictional limitation on the power on that Court related only to the limit on the amount of the judgment which this Court had power to grant; but this was not applicable to a declaratory judgment seeking no monetary award but only finding of facts. That the facts sought to be found by this court with an $8,000 jurisdiction were to be applied to a controversy involving hundred of millions of dollars was held to be of no moment by the then Venezuelan court.
In spite of additional actions which my mother and I brought to set aside the default judgment on the grounds of fraud, not a single court passed on the merits of Lugo's claim, or on the merits of the charge that the alleged six-day lateness in filing the Answer was fraudulent. Siphoning of funds: Cadena Capriles Pillage carried out by the Capriles Lopez family after the judgment declaring the Capriles Cannizzaro’s implied confession Shielded behind the judgment declaring Magaly and MACC’s implied confession, the Capriles Lopez family held shareholders meetings related to Cadena Capriles companies and stared to systematically misappropriate funds in the inherited equity summing up to more than SIX HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS (US$ 650,000,000.00), through multiple thefts. Between 1996 and 2006 at least the following embezzlements have been carried out: 1) Valores y Desarrollos , S.A. (Vadesa) held an account in Lehman Brothers Inc. (number 832 22298 19 502) showing money placements ranging near US$ 11,564,268.82 besides a similar amount in negotiable instruments, i.e., a sum exceeding US$ 23,000,000.oo has vanished.
2) Valores y Desarrollos , S.A. (Vadesa) held certificates in Banco Mercantil Venezolano, N.V exceeding US$ Seventy Million (US$ 70,000,000.oo). There is not even a trace of these funds.
3) Inversiones Capriles , C.A. held money placements in Merrill Lynch, summing up to US$ 21,185,039.00 as of May 1999; by June 1999 a US$ 15,000,030 withdrawal made such drop to US$ 6,182,000.56; and by July the account balance showed US$ 0.81 dollar cents. 4) Valores y Desarrollos S.A. (Vadesa) investments in Banco Provincial Overseas N.V summed up to US$ 37,966,895.oo as of August 1999. Yet such amount cannot be found at this date. 5) The spurious administration the Capriles Lopez have been carrying out with their mother in companies pertaining to Cadena Capriles performed a divestment operation regarding Four Hundred Seventy One Million Nine Hundred Eighteen shares (
471,918,000) of C.A. La Electricidad de Caracas valued in more than Two Hundred Sixty Nine Million Dollars (US$ 269,000,000) or One Hundred billion Bolivares (Bs.100,000,000,000.oo) owned by Valores y Desarrollos Vadesa, S.A. Such shares represent Valores y Desarrollos, S.A. (Vadesa) 81.7% capital stock which was sold to US bank Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. by the Capriles Lopez and their mother who are currently administrating Cadena Capriles companies in an illegitimate way. 6) In addition, the Capriles Lopez have contracted billionaire indebtedness through the group companies, as they are aimed at systematically sustaining their insolvency, with detriment to Magaly and MACC.
Here we must point out that these are just some of the multiple actions carried out by the Capriles Lopez to embezzle these companies; and we must warn that they are currently planning to divest 13% Banco Mercantil shareholding from Valores y Desarrollos, S.A. (Vadesa); an asset they intend to rob with similar purposes. In fact, they have already sold, more than 30,000,000 Banco Mercantil Class “B” shares converting proceedings thereof into ADRS, so only Class B shares in that Bank are left, and they will be probably robed within the shortest term. We should also add that neither Magaly nor MACC have seen one cent of such monies, as the entire inherited equity is in Cadena Capriles companies, and all of them are controlled by the Capriles Lopez and their mother. They have just failed to state dividends and are engaged in bleeding those companies through the most shameful ways, because that will allow them to have such funds -exceeding US$ 650,000,000- directly in their hands. The Fraud in Vadesa with the EDC shares using the US stream of commerce
Due to the a series of transactions, the non controlling shareholders (Capriles-Cannizzaro) of Vadesa (a family holding investment company) have been severally damaged for the unfair disposal of Vadesa’s interest in EDC (consisting on 13,6% thereof) by the Capriles López, wrongfully acting as controlling shareholders of Vadesa. The first sale was made under the administration of the controlling shareholders (Capriles López, through Miguel Angel Capriles López, “Michu”, President of Vadesa) for US$158MM to BBH.
Although it is still under judicial determination in Venezuela whether or not the Capriles López have legal control over Vadesa, even if they had rightful control of Vadesa they appear to have committed fraudulent transactions against the Capriles Cannizzaro.
We need to evaluate whether the facts associated with these transactions provide any right of action and remedies on behalf of the affected non controlling shareholders, the Capriles Cannizzaro.
We have reasons to believe that the Capriles López may have incurred in fraudulent use of the Venezuelan and US capital markets, the US stream of commerce and territory, and may have used information unavailable to other shareholders of EDC. This tends to indicate that the usage of said information that shares of EDC will increase in value was the base for the Capriles López to divest the assets of Vadesa at the minimum value possible by selling them out of the scope of Vadesa, and then effectuate the final sale to AES under a tender offer at a higher value. We need to evaluate, even if that scheme is legal, whether it was to fraud the Capriles Cannizzaro as non controlling shareholders of Vadesa.
Keep in mind that when Vadesa sold the 13,6% in EDC to BBH, BBH did not paid for the price at the moment. We have important letters crossed between Vadesa and BBH indicating that since Vadesa had decreed dividends to its shareholders BBH was to deliver the price for the shares directly to Vadesa’s shareholders and not to Vadesa. Note, however that (i) Vadesa had never celebrated an extraordinary shareholders meeting to decree dividends, as required under Venezuelan law, and (ii) even if it had had done so had never distributed dividends to the non controlling shareholders of Vadesa. In other words, not only did Vadesa sold for a very low price but also Vadesa did not distribute dividends to the Capriles Cannizzaro.
In our opinion, since most of the transactions referred to in this brief occurred in NY, it would be impossible for the Capriles Cannizzaro to obtain relief or simply evidence in a court different than a NY court.
The referred series of transactions and acts include, but are not limited to the following steps:
The sale on November 30th, 1999 by VALORES Y DESARROLLOS VADESA (Vadesa), a Venezuelan corporation, represented by Michu as President with full powers (although said control is still disputed at the Venezuelan Supreme Court level –as a matter of fact, a Superior Court in Caracas has declared that the shareholders meeting in which Michu was appointed as President (with powers to sell Vadesa´s assets) and other members of the Capriles López family and related persons were appointed as members of the Board of Directors is null and void) of its 13,6% equity holding (471.970.118 shares) in EDC to BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN & CO. (BBH) for a price of US$158,000,000. This acquisition was made under rare circumstances (low price, T+0, no payment at the moment, no public bid, among others) in the Caracas Stock Exchange, at the lowest price for the share during the two years prior to the transaction, at a moment when EDC was perceived as a takeover target due to the low price of the shares. The Capriles Cannizzaro were able to notify BBH of the “weird” circumstances surrounding this transaction; still the notified parties celebrated the same. It appears to be strong evidence that the value of this participation was to increase due to a potential Public Tender Offer. Note that by the time of this sale the Capriles López and specially Michu had had entertained several conversations with different potential purchasers of EDC (including of course AES the final buyer). As a matter of fact, during two (2) years prior to AES s acquisition of EDC, EDC Board of Directors (including Michu as a member and his lawyers as lawyers of EDC as well) was preparing itself to protect its shareholders from a hostile takeover. Michu knew that US$158MM for 13,6% of EDC was low. STEP TWO
The conversion on December 29th, 1999 by BBH of said Shares into ADSs (some 9.439.402 shares in two blocks of 4.719.701 ADS each, @50 shares per 1 ADS) through the Banco de Venezuela and the Bank of New York. Note that the lawyers for Banco de Venezuela are the same lawyers of EDC, of Michu, of the Capriles López.
The transfer (in NY outside of Venezuela) of said two blocks of ADSs by BBH to two special purpose vehicles incorporated by the Capriles Lopez -a few days before the transaction- as BVI entities indirectly owned and controlled by the Capriles-Lopez, but completely unrelated to Vadesa: 4.719.701 ADS for Allied Capital Investment Inc. (Allied), and 4.719.701 ADS for Power Eagle International Ltd. (Power). These companies have a relationship with Gustavo Mata Borjas, an attorney hired by Michu just for purposes of the incorporation of these companies and to execute the purchase from BBH and the later sale to AES.
The final tender of said two blocks of ADSs by both Allied and Power, respectively, to AES in June 12 2000, under a Public Tender Offer (which was a global offer covering both the Venezuelan securities (shares) and the US securities (Level I ADS)), for an amount in excess of US$269,000,000 (a US$111,000,000 difference in value compared to the US$158,000,000 supposedly to be received by Vadesa, to be received by Allied and Power (ie.the Capriles-Lopezes), in detriment of the Capriles-Cannizzaro). We assume that this money was delivered to the two special purpose vehicles of the Capriles López, although there is a slight possibility that BBH has held that money as a consequence of the multiple warnings received from the Capriles Cannizzaro. Note that these vehicles were indirectly owned and controlled by the Capriles López and are their alter ego for purposes of receiving the additional US$111,000,000. Note that most likely, of the US$269,000,000 received, some US$158,000,000 were to pay to Vadesa and the rest for the pockets of the Capriles López (off course less the relevant attorney fees and related expenses). There is an important fact that needs to be evaluated: during the takeover process by AES of EDC, in principle Vadesa no longer was de shareholder of the 13,6% of EDC, it was either BBH or the two (2) BVI companies the owner of said shares. Notwithstanding the foregoing however, and as evidence that the real owner of said shares were the Capriles López, Michu ordered that these shares voted against an EDC proposal of a share repurchase plan during the takeover period (George Soros also voted against). In other words, even after the 13,6% stake in EDC was no longer in the apparent control of Vadesa, Michu maintained control thereof.
Distribution of the US$270MM. It is important to determine, whether the Capriles-Cannizzaro as non controlling shareholders of Vadesa at the time of the sale by Vadesa to BBH have any right of action against the Capriles López as controlling shareholders of Vadesa, and/or their legal advisors, and/or Michu as President of Vadesa -and intellectual author of the scheme to defraud the Capriles Cannizzaro, and/or EDC (or their legal advisors), and/or BBH, and/or the Bank of New York (or the Banco de Venezuela), and/or the BVI companies (or their representatives or legal advisors) and/or AES, considering that the final result of the scheme implies that the special purpose vehicles controlled by the Capriles López in detriment of Vadesa and the non controlling shareholders thereof, received an amount of US$269,000,000, US$111,000,000 in addition to the US$158,000,000 that Vadesa should have received from BBH.
In parallel, by using its power and control of Vadesa, on September 10th, 1999, in preparation for this fraud, the Capriles López (i) extended the already expired term of the company, (ii) amended the by laws of Vadesa allowing the President and the board of directors thereof to dispose income as advance dividends to the shareholders, (iii) approved any disposal of assets done on behalf of shareholders, (iv) approved financial statements, (v) decrees a dividend. Notwithstanding the foregoing however, the Capriles Cannizzaro have received nothing in dividends.
As a matter of fact, neither the Capriles López nor Michu (neither any of the persons involved in the scheme) could be characterized as stupid businessman for which we have reasons to believe that the main reason for the scheme was to take away US$111,000,000 from Vadesa; a misappropriation. Note that as to this date, the non controlling shareholders of Vadesa have no information with regards the whereabouts of the US$158MM that BBH should have paid to Vadesa.
Furthermore, as to this date, the Capriles Cannizzaro (i) have never received dividends from Vadesa after the sale to BBH (Vadesa should have received US$158,000,000), (ii) could never benefit from the additional US$111,000,000 received by the two special purpose vehicles of the Capriles López. If NY has no jurisdiction over this scheme, the Capriles-Cannizzaro will never have the opportunity to attack this fraud.
This is especially important if it can be evidenced that all the transactions that resulted in the final sale by the BVI companies to AES were accomplished following direct instructions issued by Michu and the Capriles López, using the US territory and stream of commerce, acting initially indirectly through BBH and then through the two special purpose vehicles (BVI companies), against the interests of Vadesa and other shareholders of EDC that had no access to the information that Michu had. But for this scheme, the shares of EDC would have had remained in the patrimony of Vadesa and sold directly to AES for the US$269,000,000. can the Capriles López go away with this scheme just like that?
This determination needs to take into account, at least the following circumstantial elements:
The Capriles López, specifically Michu, as controlling shareholders of Vadesa were also insiders of EDC (members of the Board of Directors), and actively participated in the entire process of sale by EDC,
Since 1998 EDC was preparing to protect itself from a hostile takeover. Michu and MACC well knew about this; Vadesa had a 13,6% interest in EDC worth hundred of millions of dollars. As a matter of fact the legal advisors for Michu and the Capriles-Cannizzaro are the same legal advisors for the EDC during the defense process.
It made no sense to sell the shares of EDC under the terms that Michu did as President of Vadesa in November 30th, 1999 in light of the circumstances. Obviously, a well prepared businessman must have had a different plan in mind to do this.
Under the circumstances, it seems that BBH acquired the Shares, not for its own interest, but for the exclusive benefit of certain clients (either the alleged controlling shareholders of Vadesa, the Capriles-Lopezes, or the two BVI companies, which are also owned and controlled by the Capriles-Lopezes), and with the intention to defraud the Capriles-Cannizzaros by misappropriating the proceeds of the second sale to AES Corporation, executed in New York, through a Public Tender Offer.
Moreover, this mere fronting and the fact that BBH did not purchase the EDC shares for its own interest, is also inferred from an uncommon account mention in the Statement of Condition, dated September 23th, 2002, published by BBH in its web site, www.bbh.com, named “Federal Funds and Securities Purchased Under Agreement to Resell”. It is of the essence to understand in which capacity was BBH acquiring the Shares.
Contrary to the belief, there are substantial contacts with NY to sustain an action in NY. If the Capriles-Lopez and Michu accomplished all of these transactions in NY then they should be scrutinized under NY law.
Michu was a Director of EDC because Vadesa had 13,6% of EDC. As a matter of fact, the Capriles (through Vadesa) was the largest –if not the largest- individual shareholder of EDC.
Any and all potential bidders for EDC spoke in more than one occasion with Michu with regards to the 13,6% stake in EDC; they also established contact with MACC and/or Magaly because every one knew that they were also “owners” together with the Capriles López. AES did establish contacts with Michu months before the initial offer in April 2000.
As a matter of example, one of the most important individual shareholders of EDC after Vadesa was Mr. Melchor Perusquia, holder of 4% of EDC. We have an affidavit from Mr. Perusquia stating that on April 28th, 2000 , the date in which AES made the first bid for EDC, he called Michu over the phone to ask him some questions about what the Capriles were going to do with their stake in EDC. At that time Michu recommended Mr. Perusquia to tender his 4% and said that the Capriles Family was to tender its 13,6%. Note that this conversation was held after Vadesa sold said participation to BBH. Why was Michu involved in this process? The only explanation is that he had an interest in the two (2) BVI companies that acquired from BBH and tendered to AES. .
Note however, that even though Michu was making this recommendation to Mr.Perusquia, he voted as a director of EDC not to approve the bid of AES in furtherance of a higher bid. Obviously he had information that no one had, and had 13,6% interest not under his name but under the name of Allied and Power. We have a copy of the affidavit.
The Capriles-Cannizaro warned everyone of the scheme. Vadesa however, argued that any third party dealing with Vadesa was doing so in good faith and that Vadesa will respond (indemnity) for any claims of third parties; who would say no to Vadesa? All the persons that received warnings from the Capriles-Cannizzaros did not wanted to cause damages to Vadesa for stopping what Vadesa was arguing as a completely legal transaction.
If Vadesa sold to BBH in an arms length transaction, why did Michu remained as director of EDC up until the final sale to AES in June 12th, 2000 if the shares were sold by Vadesa in November 30th, 1999, why did not BBH appoint a Director? Why did the Capriles-Cannizzaro, who were also Directors in EDC remained as Directors thereof? Why neither Allied nor Power appointed said Director? Why did people contacted Michu to find out what was he planning with to do with the shares?
At all times until June 12th, 2000 any person that wanted to discuss about the 13,6% of EDC needed to talk to Michu, notwithstanding the fact the holder in record of the shares was the Bank of New York and that the holder in record of he ADS representing that percentage were Allied and Power. From what origin did these companies obtained the money to pay BBH for the ADS? As we understand, there is not such a thing as a free lunch; however, Allied and Power had several.
Testimony of Francisco Javier Peón, which can be obtained through a requested deposition. Mr. Peón is a lawyer of Spanish nationality who presently is one of the seven counselors of the Administrative Council of the Spanish National Energy Commission. From 1999 to July of 2000, he was a Director of EDC nominated by Endesa , S.A. After the AES Public Tender Offer was announced, Mr. Peón, in his capacity as Director, held several meetings with Michu to discuss the possible sale of the shares owned by Vadesa to Endesa , S.A. In the first meeting, Michu confirmed that he controlled the 13.6 shares of EDC, previously owned by Vadesa and that they were available for sale. In another meeting held at Michu’s house, with the Delegate Counsel for Endesa International, D. Alfredo Llorente, who came from Spain, Michu offered to sell Vadesa’s 13.6 percent stake in EDC to Endesa. As a final detail of the last meeting, Michu imposed as a condition to his sale offer to Endesa, that the offer could never be mentioned to the Capriles Cannizzaros. At this moment, we are trying to obtain an affidavit with the above testimony. Note that all of these meetings were held after the sell of the Shares but before the AES public offer. We have copy of the projected affidavit.
Testimony of José Tomas Carrillo-Batalla, which can be also obtained through a requested deposition. Mr. Carrillo-Batalla is a lawyer of Venezuelan Nationality. He also has an M.B.A. from Babson College and a Master Degree in law form Harvard University . Presently, he is a director of CNI Asesores Financieros, CNI Securities and CNI Mercado de Capitales (CNI). On or about January 30 th, 2000 , Michu hired CNI to find a suitable buyer for approximately 472 million shares of EDC (the same shares that were no longer under Vadesa nor under the Capriles-Lopez’s patrimony?). Michu explained to Mr. Carrillo-Batalla, that in spite of the sale of Vadesa’s EDC shares to BBH, he continues to hold the control of such shares. Also, Mr. Gustavo Mata Borjas, Michu´s attorney for this transaction, sent a letter to CNI in which he explained that the EDC’s shares were transferred by BBH to Allied Capital Investment Inc. and to Power Eagle International Ltd., both British Virgin Island companies, that belonged to the Capriles Lopezes. Finally, Michu refused to pay CNI fees, despite the work done by CNI, because the shares were sold in a Public Tender Offer to AES. We have copy of the projected affidavit.
At all times during 1999 and 2000, Michu, his legal advisors and family members, had extensive knowledge of important information and knew that the price of the EDC Shares on November 30, 1999, date in which the shares were sold to BBH, was going to raise significantly, as it did in fact, due to the global tender offer to be made by AES or even by any other bidder.
At the time of the sale to BBH the price of EDC was the lowest during the previous two years, for which EDC was a perfect target under a tender offer.
When Vadesa sold to BBH in the Caracas Stock Exchange, some issues came to our attention:
The transaction was a “cruce”, meaning that there was only one broker that had a seller and a buyer for an agreed price. As a matter of fact, Vadesa and BBH agreed five (5) transactions or “cruces”. None for these five (5) transaction was over 100,000,000 shares each; is there a reason for that? Under Venezuelan law, The Director of the Stock Exchange (of the floor) has to check that a “cruce” is in fact a fair transaction and has to announce the transaction to other brokers. This is so important that any other offeror may get through if it offers a better deal (over 20%). However, in the certificates issued by the Stock Exchange and the filings made by buyer and seller there is no evidence that these requisites were complied with. We have reasons to believe that the Capriles-Lopez managed to circumvent this requirement. The broker to the transaction was Broker No.45 LA PRIMERA CASA DE BOLSA, of the Caracas Stock Exchange, at the time directed by Carlos Acosta (head broker), best friend and neighbor of Michu. A “cruce” normally settles a few days after it is cleared. However, in this case, Vadesa and BBH agreed T+0 for all the five transactions. Note that it would have been perfectly legal that Vadesa could have planned and structured this transaction in order to sell ADS instead of shares when the tender moment arrived. In this case, however, this was just to squeeze Vadesa in detriment of the Capriles-Cannizaro. Normally, the buyer needs to advance payment to the Stock Exchange who transfers the funds. In this case, although the agreed T+0, BBH never paid for the price. We are investigating whether this is a normal situation under Venezuelan law. To support the above, we have an authenticated letter from Michu to BBH a few days after the transaction was closed and the shares transferred stating that 50% of the proceeds of the sale should be delivered by BBH directly to Carmen Cecilia Lopez Lugo, the mother of Michu and who the Capriles-Lopez sustain is a shareholder of 50% of Vadesa, which is still a fact that has not been resolved by a Venezuelan court (it is still pending). Since BBH did not pay the price on November 30th, 1999 (although Vadesa and BBH declared in their respective filings that payment was to be accomplished in that day, as a matter of fact a special withholding tax of 1% occurs on that same date as a condition to settle, that is in fact the tax benefit of using the stock exchange, otherwise the withholding is for 5%), we assume that BBH was waiting for the Capriles López instructions as to payment instructions and/or waiting for their funding in order to be able to pay Vadesa. It is necessary that BBH discloses who was the BBH client behind this transactions: was it Michu, was it the Capriles-Lopez, was it Allied and Power, was it Gustavo Mata-Borjas, Michu´s appointed attorney for this transaction, was Michu defrauding the other Capriles-Lopez as well?. Another important fact is that BBH did not paid the purchased price to Vadesa, as expressly mentioned and required by the Sale Execution Orders to the Caracas Stock Exchange. These orders establish that the full purchased price had to be paid to Vadesa the same day. However, evidence shows that the purchased price was never paid to Vadesa. Therefore, the funds allegedly used by BBH to buy the EDC shares did not come from BBH. We have English translation of the copy of the notarized letter dated December 13 th, 1999, sent to BBH by Michu as the President of Vadesa, indicating that the Board of Directors had decided to give Carmen Cecilia López Lugo, as anticipated dividends, half of the credit that Vadesa had against BBH for the unpaid purchased price of the EDC shares. We also have copies of the Sale Execution Orders to the Caracas Stock Exchange for the 471,970,118 shares of EDC and an English translation of the relevant aspects of the forms. For months (before November 30th, 1999 ) EDC had been considering several protections tactics in preparation for an expected hostile takeover. During that time several potential buyers approached Michu to offer a purchase of Vadesa’s interest. It is clear that if Michu could get those shares out of Vadesa’s patrimony before the big sale to AES it would not had to share the benefits of the big sale with the Capriles-Cannizzaro. The problem is that they made too many mistakes in the implementation of their plan.
It seems that Michu could be held responsible under the business judgment rule and a violation of a fiduciary duty. However, we think that by the use of the US markets Michu and the Capriles-López simply defrauded the Capriles-Cannizzaro far away from Venezuela .
The Capriles-Lopez maintained indirect control over 13,6% of EDC until said percentage was tendered to AES in June 12th, 2000 . All this information tends to disclose that the Capriles-Lopezes had information that helped them to set up a mechanism that not only allowed them to leave Vadesa with a lower price for the Shares compared to the price that the BVI companies received, but also it seems unfair for other shareholders of EDC that had no access to the same information handled by Michu. We could affirm that for this information, the Vadesa sale to BBH and the subsequent transactions would never had been structured in this manner.
The legal advisors for the controlling shareholders of Vadesa, and indirectly to Vadesa, were the same legal advisors for EDC during the tender process. They managed important information for EDC and were their advisers in the preparation of defense tactics in order to increase the offer by AES. They are also de attorneys for Banco de Venezuela (and one of them was even a member of the board of directors of said bank), the Venezuelan financial institution in charge of the conversion of Shares of EDC into ADS of EDC; that explains why the conversion from shares to ADS was made on such a fast track.
It is important to note that all of the attorneys that helped the Capriles-Lopez are very well known and respected attorneys in the Venezuelan bar; they write books, are active in court, participate in radio and TV programs, write columns for newspapers, etc. They belong to two of the most prominent and recognized law firms in Venezuela ; they are also famous for being flexible with regards corruption handling.
All these transactions occurred while the Capriles-Cannizaro were attempting to obtain jurisdiction over the Capriles-Lopez in NY to stop them from diverting several other assets (not only Vadesa’s stake in EDC). At the time, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Note, however that all of the elements referred to in this brief commencing with the conversion of shares into ADS (a US security traded in the US OTC market) by BBH (a US company) through the Bank of New York (a New York corporation) in NY city are recent and were never mentioned in the referred litigation. We strongly believe that as of December 1999, date in which the shares were converted into ADS in NY, all the transactions that complete the scheme were held in NY and the entire scheme was based in NY. The Capriles-Lopez felt comfortable that since they had dismissed the previous actions no one could ever review these transactions again (that is why they took no due care in implementing the scheme), we think that they were wrong.
It is necessary to evaluate whether these transactions could be considered in the aggregate and not individually as if they were held in preparation for the sale of the ADSs through a Public Tender Offer in New York to AES against the interests of Vadesa’s shareholders and/or shareholders of EDC.
Finally, it is important to evaluate whether BBH was an active party in these actions and whether these actions were fraudulent actions, because BBH continued and concluded the scheme in spite of the several notifications sent by the Capriles Cannizzaros, to Edward J. Williams, Treasurer and Compliance Senior Manager of BBH. Memorandum summarizing the issue were sent to BBH on December 1st, 1999, December 28th, 1999, December 29th, 1999, January 25th, 2000, April 28th, 2000, May 15th, 2000, June 2nd, 2000 and September 23rd, 2002. Previous US Case. It is important to mention that in August of 1999, the Capriles-Cannizzaro commenced an action against the Capriles-Lopez in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, in order to recover damages for the conspiracy committed by the Capriles-Lopez and its attorneys in Venezuela to illegally appropriate the assets of the family Corporations, which had assets of hundreds of millions of dollars, including but not limited to millions of dollars in cash and investments in accounts with Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers in New York, that rightfully belonged to the Capriles-Cannizzaro. In the action, it was alleged that the fraudulent scheme was possible because of the Venezuelan judicial corruption.
In general terms, the family Corporations belonged to the Capriles Cannizzaros, because Magaly Cannizzaro de Capriles was the wife of Miguel Angel Capriles Ayala, owner of the family Corporations, at the time of his death, and according to the Venezuelan law, she was entitled to half of her husband state and a similar portion as any children. However, Magaly and her son were deprived of their assets by fraudulent tactics committed by the Capriles-Lopez and theirs attorneys in Venezuela .
In the second amended complaint, which we understand was never filed, the Capriles-Cannizzaro intended to incorporate BBH and Mr. Dario Galindo as defendants, but the motion was never considered.
The case was decided against the Capriles-Cannizzaro for lack of jurisdiction. With regard to BBH, the court decided not to consider the second amended complaint because, in general, the Capriles-Cannizzaro did not allege facts showing that BBH committed a tortuous act in New York , which is being evaluated. This brief pretends to correct the previous litigation with new elements that arise in 2000 and that were never mentioned in that litigation. .
As general information, not related to the New York jurisdiction, it is important to mention that the Capriles Lopezes are not the rightful controlling shareholders of Vadesa. They obtained such control by fraud through a default judgment in Venezuela . At this moment, there is a decision pending at the Venezuelan Supreme Court that could correct the above situation. The controlling interest in Vadesa belongs to us, Magaly Cannizzaro de Capriles and Miguel Angel Capriles Cannizzaro (“Capriles Cannizzaros”). 55,55% of the shares of Vadesa belongs to Magaly Cannizzaro de Capriles due to a sixteen-year old marriage with Miguel Angel Capriles Ayala and MACA death intestate, and 5,55% to Miguel Angel Capriles Cannizzaro .send this article to a friend >>
Keep Vcrisis Online
> crisis overview: >
2006 Report on the situation of Human Rights in Venezuela
The Systematic Annihilation of the Right to Vote in Venezuela
Irrefutable Proof of the Existence of Political Prosecution in Venezuela
Venezuela in Official Numbers top | printer friendly version | contact the webmaster J.B. | disclaimer | 农业 | 47,830 |
MU Researchers Work to Further Biofuel Production without Increasing Food Prices
Team receives $5.4 million grant to study biofuel crops
Christian Basi, [email protected], 573-882-4430 VIDEO: From Field to Fuel
NOTE: For broadcast quality video, download video at http://muextmedia.missouri.edu/munews/ Login: MU (all caps) Password: mu (lowercase) COLUMBIA, Mo. – America is looking for more biofuel through the use of crops such as corn and soybeans, but concerns about higher food prices persist when land for biofuel displaces land for food crops. Now, researchers at the University of Missouri are hoping to increase biofuel production without impacting food production. This fall, MU scientists are beginning a study to determine how non-food biofuel crops, such as switchgrass, grow in marginal land along the floodplains, where most crops cannot thrive.
Now, the team in the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources has received a $5.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to further its research. The project is part of a $125 million international project to further research that will study how to use marginal land to grow high-yield, biofuel crops and convert them to advanced biofuels.
“In the 10 states along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, 100 million acres of marginalized agricultural land is unused or underutilized often due to frequent flooding,” said Shibu Jose, H.E. Garrett Endowed Professor in the School of Natural Resources and director of the MU Center for Agroforestry. “If farmers can plant just 10 percent of marginal floodplain land with crops designated for use in biofuels, we can produce 6 to 8 billion gallons of liquid fuel annually. Planting this land with crops designated for biofuels would have little to no effect on the food supply.”
As part of the five-year grant project, MU researchers are planning several trials. One trial will field test 15 types of biomass sorghum and 15 types of switchgrass. Switchgrass is a perennial plant that needs little care once planted. Sorghum is an annual crop, but requires less water and fertilizer compared to corn. In addition, the strong root systems reduce erosion and water pollution by filtering water as it runs into streams and rivers. The team will identify which varieties grow best under flood and drought conditions, as well as in different soil types.
To make biofuel, farmers grow crops that are harvested and shipped to a nearby facility where the biomass is condensed into small pellets or converted to fuel. The pellets also can be shipped to larger plants where they are converted into fuel if rural plants are not equipped for the biofuel conversion. Jose envisions a network of farmers producing biomass and shipping it to local pellet-producers, who will ship the pellets to refineries.
“We need to build a network of pellet producers because transportation costs need to be low enough that farmers can still profit off of growing crops for biofuel,” Jose said. “With the smaller condensed pellets, we can transport a great amount of energy at a low cost.”
As a land-grant university, research benefitting the state is part of MU’s mission. This research which helps provide American consumers with abundant, affordable agricultural products was part of the goal of the Morrill Act, which established land-grant institutions in 1862. | 农业 | 3,366 |
Continuing Coverage: Bayer-Monsanto Merger A Little Perspective September 12, 2008 By: Eric Sfiligoj | EmailEmailPrintFacebookGoogleTwitterLinkedIn Eric Wintemute has worked inside the world of crop protection for the last 30 years, but outside the realm of the “big six” suppliers. Most of his career has been spent with American Vanguard Corp. (AMVAC), a second-tier crop protection manufacturer based in the U.S.
Wintemute believes that this background provides him with a unique view of the industry that prepares him for his upcoming role as chairman of CropLife America.
“AMVAC is on the smaller side of the crop protection equation. This position has led me to establish extensive business relationships with the majority of CropLife America members,” he says. “I’ve had the good fortune of getting to know the people, to understand the needs and concerns of their companies, and to understand the wide range of issues that confront our industry. There is a lot of negative public perception about crop protection, but the members of CropLife America are proud of their industry, and rightfully so. We need to work together to create public awareness of the importance and value of crop protection.”
This industry view dates back to 1994, as Wintemute was beginning his second stint with AMVAC. The company was making products for some of the larger crop protection companies, such as Shell and Chevron, and soon expanded its manufacturing capabilities to include plants in California and Alabama.
The industry began to consolidate, and many of the larger chemical companies turned away from crop protection. AMVAC saw an opportunity and began acquiring “niche chemicals” — smaller products and technologies that the larger companies could not justify in their consolidation plans. In his position as CEO of AMVAC, Wintemute negotiated acquisitions of such products from many of his fellow CropLife America members, including Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, BASF, Bayer, and DuPont. This process made Wintemute recognize the important potential role of CropLife America in the crop protection industry.
“CropLife America has the ability to present a strong and unified message about the importance of the crop protection industry for protecting the health of and feeding the world,” he says. “This is an important role for CropLife America.”
Reviewing Accomplishments
Wintemute points to three recent successes as evidence of CropLife America’s significance in furthering the perception of the crop protection industry. These include the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In each instance, CropLife America worked closely with legislative representatives and regulatory agencies to include the important perspective of crop protection issues and concerns.
PRIA helped to define fees paid by manufacturers to EPA for the registration of both new and existing active ingredient registrations. “CropLife America worked closely with environmentalists to ensure a result that was satisfactory to everyone,” he says. “As a result, PRIA was implemented in 2004 and Congress is expected to renew PRIA before its 2008 expiration date.”
FQPA called for an “aggressive timetable” that appeared unworkable, says Wintemute. However, CropLife America worked closely with EPA to develop a “road map” for the effective implementation of the act. “This has been a great success,” he says. “During the past 11 years, EPA has been able to meet most of the requirements of the FQPA, working closely with the industry and environmental groups. It has led to a higher level of understanding food safety, which benefits the entire country.”
CropLife America has also been successful in helping to clarify the provisions of ESA. “This was a well-meaning bill, but in practice, the implications were proving unworkable,” he says. “We were pleased with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the National Association of Homebuilders vs. The Defenders of Wildlife. That ruling provides much needed guidance with regard to ESA, but does not override other Congressional directives in other statutes. This has given EPA assistance in ensuring effective and worthwhile compliance with ESA.”
Much of this progress came under CropLife America’s previous chairman, Dow AgroSciences’ Stan Howell. “Stan has done a remarkable job of pulling the troops together during the last two years,” says Wintemute. “Under his guidance, CropLife America did some serious soul-searching, which will help us to move forward. I certainly have some very large shoes to fill.”
As part of this process, CropLife America’s Strategic Oversight Committee (SOC) has a much clearer vision. “Member representatives meet on a monthly basis to review the key functions and priorities of CropLife America, and to ensure that our ongoing efforts further these interests,” says Wintemute. “The SOC reports to the Board of Directors. This is leading to a much more focused approach, including the creation of a priority list and a breakdown of the costs and economics associated with each priority item. When it comes to getting new products registered or having existing products reviewed, CropLife America wants to be sure that the best science is applied to the decision-making process.”
More Advocacy, Cooperation
Looking ahead to his position as chairman, Wintemute says that CropLife America needs to address several important issues. Crop protection product container recycling is a current issue that must be addressed. “Fairness is the issue here; only a portion of the companies that add to the container stream currently contribute to the cost of recycling,” he says.
Wintemute would also like to see more industry advocacy to the public about the important role of crop protection. “We play a significant role in providing plentiful food and good health to the world,” says Wintemute. “We need to change the public perception that crop protection is something to be avoided, and draw attention to the extraordinary benefits that our products provide. By 2020, the world population will increase by another 1.5 billion people. Maximizing crop yields and minimizing health hazards may be the most important issues the world has to face. CropLife America should take a hand in spreading this message.”
The issue of the energy component of crops has also come to the forefront. Analysts estimate that by the end of this decade, more than one-quarter of the U.S. corn crop will be used to produce ethanol. “Crop protection to ensure higher yields of corn will be critical, whether for food or for ethanol production,” says Wintemute.
Wintemute believes that CropLife America is positioned to play an important role in the industry of crop protection. “Once again, CropLife America must show the importance of our products to the future of this country,” he stresses. “We must continue to obtain legislation and work with agencies to protect our environment while meeting the growing needs of the world’s population. There is no industry more important to the future than food and energy. Through CropLife America, we are uniquely positioned to develop new and better methods of ensuring plentiful food and health.”
Eric Sfiligoj StoriesEric SfiligojThe Whys Of AgricultureOctober 17, 2016During 2016, there have been myriad challenges facing the whole agricultural industry. Such wide ranging issues as water protection, sustainable …
Read MoreEric SfiligojThe Financial Shape Of AgricultureOctober 3, 2016Many folks in the agricultural marketplace are probably asking each other the same question – what is the financial shape … | 农业 | 7,662 |
Dairy Farmers Petition Food and Ag Commissioner Karen Ross to implement Dairy Crisis Deal
California dairy farmers filed a petition Monday with California Department of Food and Agriculture Secretary (CDFA) Karen Ross, asking for a hearing to implement the milk pricing deal negotiated and agreed to last week by dairy farmers, cheese makers and the California Legislature.
The deal will bring deserved relief to the state’s still struggling dairy families by narrowing the price between what California dairy farmers receive for milk going into cheese production and the price paid by processors for the same milk in surrounding states. The cost will not be passed on to the consumers.
The dairy producers and processors agreed on a short-term fix of $110 million in new money that cheese processors will pay into a milk pool to be shared by dairy farmers. The $110 million will come from increasing the price of 4b milk up to 46 cents, the milk used to make cheese, and by expanding the whey scale from its existing cap of 75 cents per hundredweight of milk to $1.
Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) was instrumental in negotiating the deal, recognizing that dairy is not only vital to human nutrition, but vital to the state’s economic engine, as well. Dairy is the number one agriculture commodity in California and is responsible for more than half-a-million jobs in our state.
As part of the agreement, Pan authored AB 1038, which would charge a California Dairy Future Task Force – whose members are dairy producers, processors and co-ops – with providing economic research materials and proposed structural changes to the California dairy industry’s milk pooling and milk pricing programs. The ultimate goal is the long term sustainability of our family dairy farms.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) was joined by her Republican colleagues on the committee -- Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) and Anthony Cannella (R-Ceres) -- to unanimously pass AB 1038 out of the committee.
“Negotiating this deal for the dairy industry was a heavy lift for the California Legislature,” said Western United Dairymen Board President Tom Barcellos. “We are very happy that the members were forceful in getting stakeholders to an agreement.”
The petition was filed by Western United Dairymen, California Dairies, Inc., Milk Producers Council and California Dairy Campaign.
“We want to thank Dr. Pan for negotiating this agreement,” said Milk Producers Council General Manager Rob Vandenheuvel. “Today’s development represents an important step in the ongoing efforts to provide a fair and profitable price for the milk produced by our California dairy families.”
California’s dairy industry has suffered more than $2 billion in losses in the past five years, forcing nearly 400 dairy farms in California out of business. The remaining 1,500 dairies are fighting for survival.Return to Industry Buzz. | 农业 | 2,923 |
Hawaii Researchers Receive Prestigious 2002 von Humboldt Award for AgricultureUniversity of HawaiʻiContact:Jim Manke, (808) 956-6099External Affairs & University RelationsKristen Cabral, (808) 956-5039Public Information OfficerPosted: Jul 29, 2002For developing the ringspot virus-resistant papaya that saved the Hawaiian papaya industry, four plant science researchers, three with ties to the University of Hawaiʻi, will receive the prestigious 2002 Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Award for Agriculture. The research team includes Dennis Gonsalves, UH graduate and center director of the USDA Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hilo; Richard Manshardt, horticulturist in UH‘s College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR); UH graduate Maureen Masuda Fitch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Jerry Slightom of Pharmacia-Upjohn Co. Representatives of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation will present the award during a ceremony to be held Nov. 4 at Cornell University‘s New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, N.Y. Gonsalves recently returned to Hawaiʻi after an absence of more than 25 years, most spent at Cornell. He earned his bachelor‘s and master‘s degrees from CTAHR and his doctorate degree from the University of California at Davis. "It is somewhat unique that a group of scientists from different institutions and different expertise worked together early on to use a very new technology to develop and implement a timely solution for a severe agricultural problem in Hawaiʻi," said Gonsalves. The papaya project was the culmination of more than two decades of research. It resulted in two disease-resistant varieties, Rainbow and SunUp, which were subsequently released to growers in 1998. This gave the $45 million Hawaiian papaya industry a second chance."We could not be more pleased that the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation has recognized the excellent work of Dennis Gonsalves and his colleagues. Not only have they helped the Hawaiʻi papaya industry, they have also demonstrated the tremendous potential for good in the use of agricultural biotechnology," said CTAHR Dean Andrew Hashimoto. "Plant scientists worldwide know their work and regard it as a significant contribution to the economic viability of agriculture. I see this success as a model for how we work cooperatively to address challenging scientific questions that are relevant to Hawaiʻi." The Alexander von Humboldt Award is widely regarded as one of the most prestigious awards made in agriculture. Named in honor of the 19th-century German naturalist and geographer, the award is presented annually to the person or team judged to have made the most significant contribution to American agriculture during the previous five years. The team will receive a $15,000 award, a medallion and certificate. In addition, the foundation has awarded a $5,000 Alfred Toepfer scholarship, which will be given to a Cornell student for agricultural studies in Germany. This is the first time scientists from UH have won the von Humboldt Award. | 农业 | 3,071 |
Oregon hazelnut acreage continues to grow
Oregon hazelnut acreage continues to grow, with no limit in sight – yet.
Young hazelnut trees planted near Sherwood, Ore., are an example of the industry’s continued growth.
Buy this photo Anecdotal evidence indicates Oregon hazelnut growers are adding about 3,000 acres a year.Hazelnut trees take three to four years to begin producing nuts in earnest, but Polly Owen, executive director of the Oregon Hazelnut Commission, said a ready market will be waiting.“Keep in mind that we are 3 percent of the world (production),” Owen said. “I think we’re fine.”The amount of land available for expansion might be more of a limiting factor, she said.Oregon produces 99 percent of the U.S. hazelnut crop, with about 650 growers operating on roughly 30,000 acres. Half the crop is exported, with China the biggest buyer. Once threatened by eastern filbert blight that arrived in the 1970s, the industry’s been on the rise since Oregon State University’s breeding program began producing a series of varieties that resist the deadly fungus.Statistics from the harvest this past fall aren’t yet available, but 2012 saw growers pull in 34,700 tons of nuts. The crop was valued at $63.4 million, ranking 16th among Oregon’s commodities.Oregon and the U.S. are small players in the world’s hazelnut industry, however. Turkey produces 70 percent of the world supply, and Italy is second with 18 percent. Owen and others believe those statistics demonstrate there is much room for expansion by Oregon growers. Shawn Mehlenbacher, the OSU professor and plant breeder credited by many with saving the industry, said in a 2012 interview that Oregon could double production just to replace imports.With young hazelnut trees a common sight in the Willamette Valley, it appears Oregon growers also believe an opportunity exists. But is there a market saturation point on the horizon? No one, after all, wants to be the last one to hop on the bandwagon.“What is the top? Boy, this is the $6 million question – we don’t know,” said Jim Cramer, director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s commodity inspection program. The program helps Oregon farmers market their products around the world.Cramer said he wonders the same thing about blueberries, another state crop that has grown rapidly in acreage. Continued growth requires displacing other producers, he said.“Like most crops Oregon produces, we are not the biggest player,” he said. “Where we find success is in the quality of the products we produce, and they garner a premium (price).”Quality, not crop size, has always been the hallmark of Oregon products such as wine, fruit and nuts, Cramer said.“Our growers figure out how to do it better than anyone else,” he said. | 农业 | 2,753 |
Agrilife Research scientist shares international experience in beefing up meat quality
Jan 03, 2013 | 1529 views | 0 | 6 | | Agrilife Research scientist shares international experience in beefing up meat quality January 3, 2013 By: Paul Schattenberg, 210-467-6575, [email protected]; Blair Fannin: 979-845-2259, [email protected] Contact: Dr. Stephen Smith, 979-845-3939, [email protected] COLLEGE STATION — Dr. Stephen Smith, a Texas A&M AgriLife Research professor in the department of animal science at Texas A&M University in College Station, spoke about his international efforts to help bolster the beef industry at a recent seminar on the Texas A&M campus. Smith, at the invitation of the Norman Borlaug Institute of International Agriculture, shared information with institute staff and others interested in international agriculture about his years of research and practical experience studying beef cattle from Australia, Japan, Korea and China. His decades of research and investigation have taken him to Japan 14 times, Korea seven times, Australia five times and China three times. Smith meets with Dr. Chang Weon Choi, at the time with the Korean National Institute of Animal Science, in Jeju, South Korea. In the background is the only herd of black Hanwoo cattle in the world. (Texas A&M AgriLife research photo) “The majority of what I’ve done in my research during the past decade has involved the improvement of beef carcass quality and taste related to fat content, as well as the development of beef with a healthier type of fat,” Smith said. He said his study of Angus cattle in Australia that first showed him how the quality of beef fat could be affected by what cattle were fed, as well as their genetics. Smith said Shogo Takeda, owner of Takeda Farms in Hokkaido, Japan, once told him marbling and fatty acid composition are “about 60 percent genetics and 40 percent production.” “In Australia, they do not feed their cattle as much corn as we do here in the U.S. because they don’t have suitable growing conditions for it,” Smith explained. “Instead, their main feed grains are typically wheat and barley. As a result, the fat produced is harder and has a higher amount of saturated and trans fat.” While pasture-raised Angus cattle in the U.S. and other countries produce a leaner beef, he said, the fat composition of that beef is higher in saturated fat and trans fats. Smith said cattle raised in Japan and Korea, where the animals are fed more corn, produce a more marbled beef with a “healthier” type of fat. “The marbling and overlying fat content in grain-fed beef has much less saturated and trans-fat than do the fat deposits in grass-fed beef,” he said. “Japanese black and Japanese brown cattle are considered wagyu and both have high marbling and oleic acid content,” Smith said.“Beef from Japanese cattle is much lower in saturated fat than that from our domestic beef.” The beef from Akaushi or wagyu cattle, which originated in China, have nearly 50 percent more oleic acid content as American grass-fed beef, he said, adding that oleic acid content makes not only for better tasting beef, but also healthier, beef. “Oils like olive or canola are the best sources of monounsaturated fatty acids and contain 60 to 70 percent oleic acid,” he said “Research shows oleic acid increases the HDL or ‘good’ cholesterol and decreases LDL or ‘bad’ cholesterol in humans.” In China, high-quality beef is being produced from Chinese yellow cattle, and in Korea, the native Hanwoo breed is the primary beef type, but Holstein steers contribute significantly to beef supplies in China, Korea and Japan, Smith explained. “Additionally, Japanese cattle are fed in stages, but American cattle are fed just one diet,” he said. “Young steers are mostly forage-fed, while older steers are mostly given concentrate,” Smith said. Asian cattle, particularly Japanese cattle, have marbling with a higher oleic acid content, he said. Along similar lines, in 2008 Smith chaired a thesis study by a Texas A&M animal science graduate student which showed beef brisket fat was rich in healthy monounsaturated fatty acids. “The fat in beef brisket from corn-fed steers contains nearly 50 percent oleic acid, and the percentage of oleic acid increases the longer cattle are fed a corn-based diet,” he said. Smith said while some U.S. meat processors generally shy away from the word “fat” as an anathema to health-conscious consumers, producers of wagyu beef raised in Japan or Australia aren’t afraid of the association with fat. “Wagyu beef is known for its high marbling and monounsaturated fat,” he said. “They’re not afraid of marketing fat content, and I hope the rest of the industry sees that.” High-quality beef cattle production in Asia has been migrating from Japan to Korea to China, Smith said. The Chinese are actively promoting the production of beef in China and their goal is to produce sufficient high-quality beef for their entire population. A road sign in Australia at the border of the New South Wales and Queensland shows the way to Texas, providing an apt metaphor for Smith’s international beef-improvement research. (Texas A&M AgriLife Research photo by Dr. Stephen Smith) “Beef consumption in China has risen 240 percent in the last 10 years and total Chinese meat consumption is double that of the U.S.,” he said. “As the demand for high-quality beef in Asia increases, if the U.S. beef cattle industry wants to be competitive in Asia, it will need to provide beef with characteristics preferred by consumers in that portion of the global marketplace.” Competition for the Japanese beef market in the early 1990s promoted the production of high-quality beef in Australia, Korea and the U.S., Smith said. Today, the production of high-quality beef in China is a reflection of that country’s new affluence and its desire for food security. “And for increasingly health-conscious American consumers as well, U.S. cattle producers need to focus not only on the amount of marbling, but on the fatty acid composition of the beef they’re producing,” he said. “This would apply not only to more expensive premium cuts, but also to ground beef, all-beef hot dogs and other beef products being produced and marketed.” Smith’s lecture was part of an ongoing seminar series held by the Borlaug Institute. The series runs through each semester and is meant to raise awareness of global agricultural initiatives in accordance with the institute’s mission of increasing the world’s food supply while developing agricultural economies. More information can be found at http://borlaug.tamu.edu -30- Article by paschattenberg 210-467-6575 [email protected] View all articles by paschattenberg → Copyright 2015 The Gilmer Mirror. All rights reserved.
Texas Farmers Skeptical About Trade Future With Cuba
Texas crop, weather for April 28, 2015
TSCRA Submits Comments Opposing 2015 DGAC Report | 农业 | 6,931 |
Print Email Font ResizeWhich foods are the worst for the environment?By Tamar Haspel, Special to The Washington PostPosted:
Fresh market fruits and vegetables (Stock)
The argument that a vegetarian diet is more planet-friendly than a carnivorous one is straightforward: If we feed plants to animals, and then eat the animals, we use more resources and produce more greenhouse gases than if we simply eat the plants. As with most arguments about our food supply, though, it's not that simple. Although beef is always climatically costly, pork or chicken can be a better choice than broccoli, calorie for calorie.Much of the focus on the climate impact of meat has been on cattle, and with good reason. Any way you slice it, beef has the highest environmental cost of just about any food going, and the cow's digestive system is to blame. Ruminants — cows, sheep, goats and also yaks and giraffes — have a four-chambered stomach that digests plants by fermentation. A byproduct of that fermentation is methane, a greenhouse gas with some 20 times the heat-trapping ability of carbon. One cow's annual output of methane — about 100 kilograms — is equivalent to the emissions generated by a car burning 235 gallons of gasoline.Advertisement
Methane isn't the only strike against ruminants. There's also fertility. Cows can have one calf per year, which means the carbon cost of every cow destined for beef includes the cost of maintaining an adult for a year. Pigs, by contrast, can have two litters a year, with 10 or more pigs per litter.Then there's feed conversion. It takes six pounds of feed to make one pound of beef, but only 3.5 pounds for pork and two pounds for chicken. Considering the methane, the babies and the feed, it's clear that the ruminants do more damage than their one-stomached barnyard compatriots (monogastrics, they're called).Comparing cows with pigs, and meat with plants, is often done using data from the Environmental Working Group, which produced a report in 2011 that detailed the environmental cost of meat. The report includes a chart that ranks various foods according to the amount of emissions generated in the course of production. Ruminants are the worst offenders, with lamb generating 39 kilograms of carbon dioxide (or its equivalent) for each kilogram of meat, and beef generating 27. Then come pork (12), turkey (11) and chicken (7). Plants are all lower, ranging from potatoes (3) to lentils (1).But there's another way to look at the same information. If you stop eating beef, you can't replace a kilogram of it, which has 2,280 calories, with a kilogram of broccoli, at 340 calories. You have to replace it with 6.7 kilograms of broccoli. Calories are the great equalizer, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation.When you reorder the chart to look at climate impact by calorie, the landscape looks different. The ruminants still top the chart, but the monogastrics look a whole lot better. Low-calorie crops like broccoli don't do so well. Although beef still looks bad and beans still look good, pork and poultry are on a par with green vegetables. (Which means that a beef-and-leaf paleo diet is the worst choice going, environmentally speaking.)The claim that vegetarianism is kinder to the planet also fails to consider a couple of kinds of meat that aren't on the Environmental Working Group's chart. Deer and Canada geese do active damage in the areas where they're overpopulated, and wild pigs leave destruction in their path wherever they go. Eat one of those, and do the planet a favor.Most people, though, are most likely to get their food from the farm, and it's important to note that, although the chart attaches one number to each kind of food, farming styles vary widely and not all pork chops — or tomatoes, or eggs — are created equal. Unfortunately, it's all but impossible for us consumers to figure out the climate impact of the particular specimens on our dinner table, whether they're animal or vegetable.According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, organic agriculture's CO2 emissions per acre are significantly less than those of conventional agriculture. But yields per acre are also generally lower, and that mitigates the savings. Counterintuitively, the strawberry you buy from the farmer down the road might have a bigger environmental footprint than the strawberry you buy from far away, where a large farm in an ideal climate may grow it more efficiently. But it might not. You can't know. It's maddening.When it comes to meat, trying to eat responsibly presents a genuine conundrum: What's best for the planet is often what's worst for the animal. The efficiencies of modern conventional livestock farming do indeed decrease greenhouse gases, but they also require the confinement and high density that draw the ire of animal welfare advocates.Growing an animal as quickly as possible decreases climate impact because it's that many fewer days (or weeks or months) the animal is here to pollute. Increasing feed efficiency likewise decreases the acreage devoted to growing the animal's food. Rich Pirog, senior associate director of the Center for Regional Food Systems at Michigan State University, has studied the environmental impact of various ways of raising livestock; he has co-authored studies of Iowa cattle and pigs. For beef, he found that feedlots, where cattle are kept at high densities and fed grain, beat pastures, where animals are allowed to graze, in the tally of environmental impact. (A study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science reached a similar conclusion.)For pigs, there was some overlap in conventional farming and “niche” systems, in which pigs have deep bedding and outdoor access. Pirog says that “the most efficient niche producers were pretty comparable to the average conventional producers.” There's less research on poultry, but what has been done indicates that chickens raised in confinement also use fewer resources.Confinement equals efficiency, but confinement also equals, well, confinement. Although no farmers I've ever spoken with believe their animals are unhappy, many welfare-minded meat consumers (including me) prefer to support a system in which animals have elbow room and outdoor access; where cages aren't used, tails aren't docked and antibiotics aren't routinely administered.There are other arguments, on both sides — so many that it's easy to pick the ones that make the case for whichever kind of agriculture you're inclined to support. Grass-fed cows don't compete for plants humans can eat, and animals grazing on non-irrigated pasture don't compete for water that could be used to grow food (true!), but grass digestion creates more methane than grain digestion (also true!). Grazing cattle on grasslands can sequester carbon in the soil, but improperly managed grazing can make things worse rather than better. Pollution from manure reservoirs on conventional farms can threaten water and crops, but manure in reservoirs, from animals in confinement, can be converted to energy by methane digesters. Then there's the price of meat, inevitably higher in less efficient systems.The meat-vs.-other-meat debate is irrelevant to the committed vegetarian, but there are issues other than greenhouse gases in the meat-vs.-plant debate, too. The case for meat includes the ability of an animal to contribute constructively on an integrated farm (chickens help with pest control), the potential for turning food waste (spent grain, whey, expired dairy) into high-quality protein, and the ability to use grasslands, inappropriate for row crops, to produce human food (with grazing cows or goats).The case for plants has to include their nutritional value. Carbon aside, broccoli beats pork, hands down. And it has to consider killing, which many plant eaters find unacceptable. While the moral implications are beyond the brief of a column devoted to matters of fact, we all have to acknowledge that agriculture is an animal-killing enterprise. Does the rat, poisoned because it's a threat to the grain stores, count for less than the pig, raised and slaughtered with care?But let's go back to where we began, with greenhouse gases. Even if climate impact is your top priority, it's important to look at the food data in the context of other lifestyle factors. Eating beans is definitely better than eating beef. Driving a Prius is better than driving a Hummer. But one decision trumps every other — potentially by orders of magnitude — and that's how many children you have. No amount of bean-eating or Prius-driving will compensate for reproducing, and it's the childless, not the vegetarians, who are more likely to save the planet. Which doesn't mean that we should ignore the benefits of beans and Prii — or that we shouldn't have kids — it just means that we should acknowledge that human survival takes a climatic toll. Our obligation isn't to minimize our carbon footprint at the expense of all other considerations; it's to try to be prudent, taking those considerations into account.There are many ways to do that, but no one label — vegetarian, local, organic — has the corner on responsibility. For me, animal welfare is important, and my take on meat is that we should eat less of it, pay more for it, use all of it, and know where it's from. But that's not the last word. There isn't a last word, which means there's not a lot of room for sanctimony. While I think we all need to pay attention, vegetarians shouldn't tell omnivores to eat quinoa instead of pork any more than omnivores should tell vegetarians to eat venison instead of quinoa.- – -Haspel farms oysters on Cape Cod and writes about food and science.Print Email Font ResizeReturn to Top RELATED | 农业 | 9,788 |
Brrr'd through the grapevine: A winemaker looks at cold weather damage caused to the grape crop at Chateau Larose Trintaudon, a vineyard in the grand cru class in Margaux, France, in December 2005. | AFP-JIJI Business
Climate change is transforming winemaking styles and grape-growing regions, experts say Warming is redrawing the wine map
AFP-JIJI Mar 30, 2013 Article history
BORDEAUX, FRANCE – It is 2050 and shoppers are stopping off at Ikea to buy fine wine made in Sweden.
A Nordic fantasy? Not according to climate experts who say the Earth’s warming phase is already driving a wave of change through the world of wine.
As new frontiers for grape-growing open up, the viability of some traditional production areas is being threatened by scorching temperatures and prolonged droughts.
And in between the two extremes, some long-established styles are being transformed. Some whites once renowned for being light and crisp are getting fatter and more floral, while medium-bodied reds are morphing into heavyweight bruisers.
“Some people are alarmists. I prefer to be an optimist,” said Fernando Zamora, oenology researcher and professor at Rovira i Virgili University in Tarragona, Spain. “I have no doubt that we will still have vineyards in traditional regions, but we have to think of new strategies. And we will also have new zones for vineyards. That’s for sure.
“Already in Germany, they are making fine red wine where it used to be very difficult. And in Denmark, now they’ve started making wine.”
Climatologists working with the wine industry around the planet predict temperatures will rise by 1 to 2 degrees Celsius by 2050, a trend that is expected to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence of extreme weather events.
“Can any region continue to grow the exact same varieties and make the exact same style of wines? If what we know today is correct, that is highly unlikely,” said Gregory Jones, oenology professor at Southern Oregon University.
New vineyard projects in Northern Europe will be risky given the increased unpredictability of the weather and the potential for a cold snap to destroy an entire crop.
So it may be that the biggest change will come in the range of wines produced in areas that, until recently, have struggled to ripen some varieties.
Tasmania, parts of New Zealand, southern Chile, Ontario and other parts of Canada, England and the Mosel and Rhine areas in Germany are among the regions that could benefit.
“You can look anywhere in the world where there are relatively cool climate regions that today are much more suitable than they were 30, 40, 50 years ago, because the climates were too cold then. People couldn’t ripen fruit,” added Jones.
Like Zamora, Jones forms part of an international committee for the agriculture and forestry climate change program (ACCAF) run by the French research institute INRA.
They are tasked with formulating strategies for helping everything from grape plants to legislators cope with climate change.
The grape vine is more sensitive to climate than plants such as rice, corn and soybeans, which could provide valuable insight for essential future food supplies.
Vitis vinifera, the plant that gives us fine wine grape varieties, is a prolific wanderer that has a fine-tuned sense of the right place to take root and grow perfect grapes.
Water stress, temperature change, inopportune downpours and frost are just a few of the variables that can have profound effects on the balance of sugar and acidity, the ripeness of tannins and the palette of aromas.
“In Alsace (northeastern France), climate change is already a problem, because it’s changing the aromatic profile, the balance of sugar and acidity. If the consumers accept the changes, it’s not a problem. If they don’t, it is,” said Jean-Marc Touzard, a co-coordinator at ACCAF.
Producers of Beaujolais meanwhile see warmer weather improving the quality of their product in a region where winemakers have sometimes had to add sugar to bolster alcohol levels in their quaffable reds.
“Beaujolais has seen that they can make better wine in a warmer climate, so there is a benefit. But is there a limit to that benefit? Does it go on forever?” said Jones.
The Languedoc region around the Mediterranean already faces these problems. Hotter, dryer weather is making the area’s already-robust wines more full-bodied and more alcoholic, at the expense, some say, of finesse.
But all is far from lost.
“In the Languedoc, the growers have already begun adapting — planting at a higher altitude and on different soils,” said Touzard.
Another solution is to change the grape varieties legally allowed under Europe’s strict appellation laws, sourcing the indigenous varieties from hot weather climes like Sicily, Greece, Spain and Portugal.
Researchers also say that once these grapes have been genetically decoded, they could be used for plant breeding.
Portugal alone has between 100 to 150 indigenous varieties that we know virtually nothing about, according to Jones.
“Some of the more southern, really warm places that have genetic material could be a real hotbed for dealing with heat tolerance in the future,” said Jones.
agriculture, climate, food Business
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004113519865 Abavas Vīna Darītava
3 years ago I planted 2ha of grapes in Latvia. Last years first micro-harvest has produced promising results. Looking forward to full harvest this year. Although we have to bury grape canes for the winter. It can go down to -30C some winters. Summers are long enough for early ripening grape varieties + we have nice prospects to produce ice-wine up here! :) | 农业 | 5,636 |
A Farm Grows in East New York
Mar 17, 2009 | 7010 views | 0 | 105 | | Play |
East New York Farms manager David Vigil on the farm.
Grass blade by grass blade, carrot by carrot, squash by squash, East New York farmers are working to improve their beleaguered, oft-neglected neighborhood.Though the city's Union Square farmers market has received the most attention from environmentalists and foodies alike in recent years, other, lower-profile farmers markets have been sprouting elsewhere across the city with the speed of (pick your plant), and in the unlikeliest of places, too. A closer look at the farmers market in East New York reveals the neighborhood - and other high-density, lower-income urban areas like it - does, in fact, represent the next logical front in the burgeoning green food movement.East New York Farms, a project of United Community Centers, a neighborhood social service hub on New Lots Avenue, was founded in 1998. Following the troubled 1970's and '80's, community activists in some of the city's most distressed areas - form the South Bronx and Manhattan's Lower East Side to Central Brooklyn - began transforming abandoned property lots into gardens where residents could grow their own produce.The idea was especially popular in East New York. By the late 90's, said David Vigil, farm manager of East New York Farms, the area had more registered community gardens, at around 60, than any other city neighborhood. Local residents from Africa, the West Indies, the Spanish-speaking Caribbean, and South Asia were producing ever-larger quantities of fresh produce but had no place to sell them, recalled Vigil."There was a huge number of gardens and an existing network of people already creating change in the neighborhood in terms of developing abandoned lots into gardens," Vigil said. Vigil said it became clear a farmers market would allow farmers to sell their excess produce for profit, provide residents with access to fresh and affordable fruits and vegetables, and give area youth an opportunity to become involved in their community.So in 1998, various organizations including the Cornell Cooperative Extension and the Pratt Institute partnered with United Community Centers (UCC) to found East New York Farms. The organization, which today receives a combination of public and private funding, established a farm, a six-month-a-year farmers market, and an agriculture-oriented youth internship program."The market has been growing significantly every year,” said Vigil. “In 2008, there was a 20 percent increase in sales. Clearly there's a high demand for fresh produce. "There's a misperception that farmers markets won't do well in low-income neighborhoods," Vigil continued. "We've been able to prove that there is a demand and you can have a very viable, vibrant market, and one that can be community-led, too."Vigil, dressed in well-worn overalls and boots, donned a winter hat on a cold day last month to show off the group's main farm, located on a half-acre lot behind the UCC building.The farm, enclosed by a chain link fence, its northern end shadowed by the nearby elevated subway tracks, is indeed an incongruous sight in the gritty neighborhood but colorful, hand-painted signs and neat plant beds hinted at a public open space that teems with activity during the warmer months.Every Saturday from late June through November, East New York Farms runs a farmers market on the sidewalk outside the farm, which is bounded by Schenck and Livonia Avenues. The market sells produce grown there, at its second farm only a few blocks away, as well as produce grown on eight additional, unaffiliated community gardens in the neighborhood. Over 35 farmers participate, said Vigil, paying $12 to 18 a month to the central farm organization for the right to sell their crops. Some growers earn up to $5,000 a year, Vigil said. The market and the organization's two farms are manned by local youth who are paid for their work, and who are taught organic farming methods by Vigil and his staff. The market distinguishes itself from others in the city because of its crop diversity, a mark of the neighborhood's multicultural population. Shoppers there can buy callaloo, a bitter melon grown by immigrants from the West Indies, or a different bitter melon variety altogether grown by immigrants from Bangladesh. Vigil said growers with roots in the American South sell collard greens, Okra, and sweet potatoes, to name a few. The market also offers staple vegetables such as onions, tomatoes, and lettuce grown by upstate farmers who have begun including East New York on their city market circuits. An average pound of produce at the market goes for $1.50.In 2008, the farmers market sold over 80,000 pounds of produce, according to Vigil. He said the market could grow much larger, as more growers in East New York join up. If even half of the neighborhood's more than 50 community gardens still uninvolved with East New York Farms decide to sell produce at the central market, it could mushroom into the biggest farmers market in the city."We're still trying to educate people and encourage people to come to the market and see what it really looks like," said Vigil. "The community's role in making this farmers market is really significant. More people need to come and see that."
Chris Riffle brings artsy mellowcore to NY
Yankees Path To October May Require A Sprinkle Of Youth
John Jastremski | 农业 | 5,436 |
The Ag Magazine - SUMMER 2012 search
C O N T E N T S
Far Horizons...............................
Kentucky Spirit(s)...............................
The Grain Chain
............................... Alumni News
Reports To The People
Academic Programs Annual Report 2011
Advancement Annual Report 2011
Magazine PDF
Cirque du Slug
The ground dwelling leopard slug Limax maximus, which James Harwood, associate professor in Entomology, says can be found in suburbia, greenhouses, and farmland, turns into a high wire artist when its thoughts turn to procreation. Unlike other slugs, it mates suspended in the air on a thick mucus strand. Photo credit: James Harwood
Don’t be a Drip
Follow the advice of Ashley Osborne, UK Environmental and Natural Resources Initiative, and pledge to save 40 gallons of water a day. It’s simple. Brushing your teeth? Turn off the water and save as much as eight gallons a day. Sweep your driveway rather than hose it down and save 22. If everyone who receives The Ag Magazine took the pledge, we’d save nearly 800,000 gallons of water in a single day—that’s enough to produce more than an acre of corn! And that ain’t chicken feed.
The tangy, tasty blueberry, the essence of summer, is a natural for Kentucky and not just because of its color. The fruit is native to North America and gaining in popularity among Kentucky growers. Mostly passed over by pests or diseases, an acre of mature bushes can yield 5,000 to 11,000 pounds of berries if planted on a good site. They do require an acidic soil, however, and that’s not all that common in the state. But John Strang, extension professor in Horticulture, says soil amendments can create a welcoming environment for our true blueberry.
A Growth Industry
The national greenhouse and nursery industry showed its biggest growth 20 to 30 years ago, but it wasn’t until 2000 that Kentucky’s industry started to expand,doubling its numbers in the first eight years of the new century. According to Dewayne Ingram, UK professor for nursery crops, the growth in the state coincides with Kentucky Agricultural Development Fund investments in research, extension, marketing assistance, and advertising cost-share programs through the Kentucky Horticulture Council. The economic downturn temporarily impacted some of the product line, but the industry remains strong.
It’s No Picnic
Outdoor dining can be rife with bacteria—Salmonella, E-coli, Clostridium, Streptococcus; the list goes on and on. And so might the stomach problems they cause. Dietetics and Human Nutrition interim chair Sandra Bastin preaches the mantra, “Keep cold foods cold (below 40°) and hot foods hot (above 140°). And wash your hands!” | 农业 | 2,676 |
7 huge reasons why the factory farming industry is seriously flawed (part one)
Elizah
Some strive to live a healthful lifestyle, and though they may exercise with consistent dedication and consume copious amounts of fruits, vegetables and dietary supplements, they may still not be entirely immune to ailments as the years progress. There are also the lucky few who can seemingly eat and drink whatever they want, and will somehow still manage to get a clean bill of health whenever they visit their doctor. While the general state of wellness for the majority of us may seem heavily weighted on randomness and the sheer luck of the draw, throughout the last decade alone, thousands upon thousands of studies have zeroed in on how paying attention to both diet and exercise positively impact longevity.For myriad reasons, one of the foods that has received its fair share of negative health press has been meat, but it’s far more complicated than merely just labeling it as a ‘bad food’ that should be avoided entirely. There are actually several positive nutritional attributes that make lean cuts of animal-based protein valuable to the human body. However, things have gotten pretty sticky with regard to the modern methods used to produce animal-based protein, and that has directly impacted the quality, nutritional content and safety of the final product. Today’s big fat juicy steak may taste good to mainstream eaters, but it comes at a much larger price than most people realize.The meat industry has evolved into a multi-billion dollar business designed to accommodate high consumer demand as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. In an effort to continually supply budget-friendly selections to shoppers, a combination of science, technology and mechanization are employed to bring animals from the field to the plate in record time. In the real world, however, ‘the field’ is a euphemism for overcrowded containment systems (otherwise known as factory farms) where animals exist in highly unnatural, often inhumane conditions that become a breeding ground for illness.This system has proven to be ideal in terms of yielding high profits, but it significantly compromises our environment,the quality of life that animals bred for food ultimately experience, and the end product which in many cases is sub-par and prone to contamination.Unlike the nutritional profile of wild game -- which contains beneficial, unsaturated omega-3 fatty acids and far less fat overall -- factory farmed meat contains very high levels of the very same type of saturated fat that “is implicated in many of the chronic degenerative diseases” that plague our society, such as type II diabetes, heart disease, and prostate/breast/colon cancer. There is a particularly strong correlation between the consumption of animal fats derived from meat, eggs, milk and cheese and increased mortality rates from heart disease.Another concern revolves around highly processed offerings such as sausage, delicatessen meats, hot dogs and bacon. Typically treated with potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate -- two curing ingredients that help retard the growth of certain microbes in products while helping them to retain a desirable, fleshy tone -- both agents happen to be toxic in high amounts. While a lethal dose of 22 milligrams would require that a 150 pound adult consume “18.57 pounds of cured meat product containing 200 ppm sodium nitrite” in one sitting, they would more than likely die from acute salt toxicity first. Nevertheless, a Harvard University research team analyzed the findings of 20 global health studies involving a total of one million participants and determined that the nitrate preservatives found in a modest 50 gram portion of processed meat are a significant risk factor for coronary heart disease and diabetes.The good news, relatively speaking, is that cutting one’s consumption of both red and processed meat is associated with a reduced incidence of multiple types of cancer -- such as lung, esophagus, bowel, and liver. In the interest of offering unbiased information for This Dish Is Veg readers, it's only fair to note that the medical community still seems to acknowledge that meat can be incorporated into a healthy lifestyle, particularly when the leanest cuts of unprocessed, grass-fed buffalo, venison and beef tenderloin are consumed (such as top sirloin, top-round, eye-round, and bottom round) in portion sizes that are no larger than 6 ounces, roughly three times each week. They also concur that grass-fed meat is an ideal option since it possesses a heart-healthy blend of conjugated linoleic acids and omega 3 fats, as well as cancer-fighting antioxidants compared to its grain-raised counterparts.Nevertheless, the decision of whether one should or should not consume animal-based products is a highly personal one, and should be motivated by a number of factors, including education, ethics and environmental concerns. There are seemingly countless aspects to both arguments that require a great deal of time and commitment to explore thoroughly, but it's almost impossible to do either justice within the confines of this space. Nevertheless, you'll definitely want to make a date to revisit this site tomorrow because seven different glaring factory farming flaws will be examined in great detail -- and whether you've been a long term vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian or your know anyone who appears to be enamored with meat, you'll definitely want to share this eye-opening information. Thank you for your time!********************************Jump forward to part two of this article here.Elizah Leigh | @elizahleighElizah Leigh's master's degree in education combined with her passion for the written word and deep-seated interest in environmental issues has proven to be the ideal trifecta for her present status as a green journalist. Currently commissioned to write a reference book on vegetarianism, Elizah hopes to inspire people through her words. Follow Elizah on Facebook.Photo credit:cc:flickr.com/photos/akbar2
Dunkin' Donuts pumpkin-flavored coffee is NOT vegan
Beware: Dunkin Donuts' pumpkin-flavored coffee is NOT vegan. The seasonal pumpkin flavor contains skim milk. Directly from the websi... | 农业 | 6,247 |
by endive Sun Jun 22 2003 at 7:27:44
Hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis)
Hyssop is a very pretty aromatic herb that was once widely used in Europe as a kitchen spice, medicinal plant, and strewing herb. A member of the mint family (Lamiaceae), it is a compact, bushy perennial that prefers sandy, well-drained soil and a bright location. Hyssop needs only a minimal amount of water, is winter-hardy and resistant to most pests and diseases, and doesn't require much more care than the occasional trimming. It is easily propagated by seed, stem cutting, or division of older plants, and a fully-grown plant can reach a height of up to two feet (60 cm) tall. Similar in appearance to lavender, hyssop has long square stems with narrow, dark-green leaves and will also grow beautiful blue-purple flowers during the late summer, which attract both bees and butterflies. There are white and pink varieties as well, but these are somewhat less common. Although popular in ancient times, hyssop is not frequently used as cooking herb now, because it is very bitter and loses most of its aroma when dried. Still, if used very sparingly and from fresh cuttings, it can work well in meat dishes and stews or in salads as a garnish. Traditionally, though, this plant has been valued less for its usefulness in the kitchen and more for its medicinal properties. Although the Hyssop mentioned in the Bible is likely not H. officinalis, it has been cultivated for at least six hundred years and is still common as an ingredient in household remedies for all sorts of ailments. Compresses made of crushed leaves and flowers have been used to help heal minor cuts, scrapes, and insect bites, and hyssop tea is used to clear up congestion associated with respiratory problems. Additionally, it has been used as a tonic for stomach problems, as a treatment for rheumatism, as a remedy for nervousness and hysteria, and as a diuretic (among other uses).
The healing properties of hyssop are not just old wives' tales. Chemical analysis of essential oil distilled from the leaves and flowers of H. officinalis have revealed that it contains several compounds that have beneficial properties. Marrubiin, a terpene, is a strong expectorant, which explains the herb's usefulness as a cold and flu remedy. Several other terpene structures contained in the volatile oil (such as pinene and camphene, as well as linalool, a monoterpene alcohol) have antibacterial properties, which could account for the passage in Psalms 51:7 referring to hyssop as a cleansing agent.
Another possible benefit of hyssop is the antiviral action of a particular polysaccharide, MAR-10, found in a variety of hyssop cultivated in China. Hyssop compresses have long been used as a treatment for cold sores, but it is now known that MAR-10 suppresses the activity of both the herpes simplex and HIV viruses. However, no studies have been conducted on humans and it is unknown whether it will be of any use as a treatment for HIV or AIDS. While hyssop is not considered dangerous when consumed in small amounts fresh or dried, the essential oil should never be ingested in quantities of more than a couple of drops, and preferably not at all. The reason for this is that the volatile oils contain the ketones pinocamphone and isopinocamphone, which can cause seizures and miscarriages when taken in excess. Although the convulsant properties of hyssop have traditionally been used to induce menstruation and abortion, it is recommended that pregnant women and people with epilepsy or hypertension avoid the herb. Additionally, pinocamphone accumulates in the bloodstream, so long-term use of any kind should also be avoided.
Despite these precautions, hyssop has been an herb that people have relied on for many different uses throughout history. These days, the essential oil is pressed commercially and sold for medicinal purposes and to the perfume industry. Hyssop oil is also used to flavor the French liqueur Chartreuse. Although it may not be a cure-all, this plant is definitely deserves a place in modern-day gardens, if only for the sweet-smelling flowers.
This writeup was compiled using articles from the Agricola online database and other random sources, including my economic botany textbook. Comments, etc: /msg me.
Hys"sop (?), n. [OE. hysope, ysope, OF. ysope, F. hysope, hyssope, L. hysopum, hyssopum, hyssopus, Gr. , , an aromatic plant, fr. Heb. &emac;sov.] A plant (Hyssopus officinalis). The leaves have an aromatic smell, and a warm, pungent taste.
⇒ The hyssop of Scripture is supposed to be a species of caper (Capparis spinosa), but probably the name was used for several different plants.
Scuppernong
symbolic plants
Gratiolin
Herbs in history
ritually unclean
Folk medicine
Herbs for purification
Herbs for protection
To the Garden the World
Strewing
Metheglin
Febrile | 农业 | 4,842 |
Follow @themeatsite News & Analysis Features Markets & Reports Knowledge Centre Business Directory Events Our Shop NewsEU-Canada Free Trade Talks Stalling15 April 2013 EU/CANADA - The EU and Canada Free Trade Agreement talks could be stalling over differences over country of origin rules for beef and pork.
According to analysts at Meat and Livestock Australia, the Canadian authorities have indicated that the two sides are divided as the talks are reaching their final stages.
The EU appears to be unwilling to offer preferential access to meat that has been processed in Canada, but has been taken from animals that spent part of their lives in the US.
Canada has said that the processing of an animal in a Canadian facility should designate the product as Canadian, even if the animal had been transported across the border from a US feedlot or farm.
It is common practice for US livestock to cross the Canadian border to be slaughtered in Canada, as producers and companies react to changes in feed costs and livestock prices.
However, MLA said that the EU appears reluctant to concede this point, as it would allow US livestock an alternate route into the EU market.
It appears that if the US and the EU reach an FTA, for which negotiations are set to get underway shortly, this will become less of an issue.
A US-EU FTA is roughly four years behind the EU-Canada negotiations, so a deal between the EU and the US could take some time.
Livestock issues will most likely be a sticking point in US-EU FTA negotiations as well.
The EU has been keen to re-ignite FTA negotiations with countries, as the block looks at ways to boost economic growth, the MLA said.
The EU currently has five FTA's in force, with another four concluded and coming into force, seven in negotiation, and four about to enter negotiations.
The European Commission said in a memo released in late March that FTA's will be a priority to open up more market opportunities for European business.
As the EU and Canada enter the final stages of their Free Trade Agreement (FTA), it has emerged that the two parties have failed to resolve differences over origin rules for livestock.
TheMeatSite News Desk Pig/Hog Processing, Beef Processing, Markets and Economics, Government and Regulatory Share This | 农业 | 2,274 |
Follow @thecattlesite News & Analysis Features Markets & Reports Sustainability Knowledge Centre Directory Events Our Shop News Cattle Treated with Antibiotics Emit More Methane, Study Shows27 May 2016 GLOBAL - An international team of scientists have published a study that highlights how antibiotics given to cattle can have far-reaching effects on an ecosystem, according to the EU's CORDIS (Community Research and Development Information Service).Publishing in ‘Proceedings of the Royal Society B’, a journal of The Royal Society, the international team comprising scientists from the US, the UK, Finland and Sweden, have argued that there may be ‘unintended, cascading ecological effects’ from the use of antibiotics in agriculture.
The research gives another incentive for animal producers to reduce antibiotic use, which is already taking place in many countries in order to try and prevent these important human and animal medicines becoming useless due to antibiotic resistance.
The research team treated cattle with and without a broad spectrum antibiotic, tetracycline. They analysed microbial communities in cow dung and in field-collected dung beetles.
They examined the effects of antibiotics on the size of the beetles and their numbers, and tested the greenhouse gases that were emitted from the cow dung.
The team discovered that the dung produced by treated cows produced nearly twice as much methane as that of non-treated cattle. Levels of nitrous oxide also rose, whilst carbon dioxide emissions are described as similar between the two treatments.
"We were surprised to find such a big increase in methane emission in dung," commented Tobin Hammer of the University of Colorado in Boulder.
"We believe that the tetracycline treatment favours the growth of methanogenic archaea in the cows’ intestinal tract by reducing the bacteria in the gut."
Importantly, they also discovered that the antibiotics also caused a change in composition of the gut microbes of beetles that fed on the cattle dung.
Although these changes didn’t kill the beetles, affect their growth or prevent them from reproducing, Anne Lizé, a researcher at France’s University of Rennes 1, commented that they could alter their behaviour and sense of smell.
"The disruption of microbiota could lead to indirect behavioural effects that happen not only in the focus organism – the one that has been administered an antibiotic – but also in related communities living in or around it," she stated. However, it is important to note that these changes were not directly monitored in the study.
Following the publication of their small initial study, the research team are now calling for much larger studies to be conducted to compare the effects of dung (and cow belching) in terms of their greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to study ‘the global extent and purpose of antibiotic use in livestock production.’
You can view the full report by clicking here.
TheCattleSite News Desk Environment and Waste, Sustainability, General Share This | 农业 | 3,027 |
GMO apple stirs up storm in industry
Published: December 12, 2013 9:26AM
Last changed: December 13, 2013 2:48PM Dan Wheat/Capital Press
From the left are a regular Granny Smith and an Arctic Granny, which were both sliced at 5 p.m. Dec. 1. To the right is an Arctic Golden, which was sliced at 7:30 a.m., Dec. 2.The photo was taken at 12:45 p.m., Dec. 2.
Buy this photo Dan Wheat/Capital Press
A regular Granny Smith apple, left, and an Arctic Granny, right, were both bruised by striking them on a counter a few hours earlier. Flesh under the regular apple's skin will brown and decay more quickly.
Buy this photo A Canadian grower hopes to gain USDA and Canadian approval to grow and sell genetically modified apples early next year. The U.S. apple industry fears it will damage sales.
The apple has long been a symbol of nutrition and health. The multi-billion-dollar apple industry has worked hard to polish that image, so most of its members have balked at the prospect of a genetically modified apple entering the marketplace.Neal Carter, president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc., expects early next year to receive government approval for production and sales of his Arctic-brand Golden Delicious and Granny Smith apples in the U.S. and Canada. The apples have been engineered to “silence” a gene that causes browning when they are sliced. Carter, who is based in Summerland, B.C., believes it could reduce costs and increase sales in the sliced-apple snack business. In turn, he says it could also boost overall apple consumption, which has been flat for decades.But the U.S. apple industry opposes his request for USDA approval, not out of opposition to genetic engineering but out of fear it could cause apple sales to decline.“In my mind the industry is not opposed to the science. It’s the financial risk of introducing the GMO apple into the largest producer of apples in the U.S. (Washington state) that is our concern,” said Todd Fryhover, president of the Washington Apple Commission in Wenatchee.The farmgate value of the 2012 U.S. apple crop was $4 billion to $4.3 billion, excluding packing, shipping and processing, with about three-fourths of that coming from Washington, according to the U.S. Apple Association.The big unknown, industry leaders say, is how many people would quit buying apples because they’re concerned about genetic engineering. Though no health risks have been associated with it, genetic engineering has become a hot button issue among some consumers who fear there may be undiscovered risks. Public awareness increased this year when GMO wheat was found in Oregon, leading to Japan’s decision to briefly stop some of its U.S. wheat purchases. The debate was also ramped up by GMO food labeling initiatives that failed in California and Washington and may be headed for the ballot in Oregon.
More wary
Has all of this made the apple industry more leery than ever about GMO apples? Washington tree fruit company executives don’t appear eager to talk about it. Asked that question via voice mail and email, the presidents of three major companies and one smaller one did not respond.West Mathison, president of the largest company, Stemilt Growers Inc., Wenatchee, said only that his company is not involved in GMO apples and has no plans to start.Tom Riggan, general manager of Chelan Fresh Marketing, said he doesn’t know if the industry is more leery. Carter sells some conventional fruit through Chelan Fresh Marketing, Riggan said, but Chelan Fresh would need to know consumers would accept GMO apples before selling any.“This is just another variety with probably more of a negative stigma than any other,” he said.The industry is exceedingly cautious, said Randy Smith, a Cashmere, Wash., grower and past chairman of several industry organizations.“We have to provide quality fruit and assurance to the consumer that our product is safe and healthy. Not to say GMO isn’t. But if the public is concerned, we have to be concerned,” Smith said. “The market has to be willing to accept them before we move forward.”A member of the audience at the Washington State Horticultural Association annual meeting, Dec. 2, asked a panel on apple varieties to comment on the Arctic apple. One panelist, Washington Sate University apple breeder Kate Evans, noted genetic modification is not breeding. While much could be gained from genetic modification, it’s a big step to take and consumers are wary, she said.“I think we will all take interest in watching consumer acceptance. That’s all I can say,” said Jeff Cleveringa, association board president. Three other panelists did not comment.
Education is key
Carter believes biotechnology is needed to help agriculture meet an ever-expanding global food demand. He also believes non-browning and other GMO apples could increase apple consumption and returns to growers.Education, he said, is the key to reaching people concerned about GMOs.“It’s surprising how little they need to know before they say it’s not so bad,” he said.Growers are interested in the benefits of reducing their environmental footprint and production costs, but are cautious, he said.“They are concerned about consumer attitude. We like to say there’s a big line-up to go second,” Carter said, adding industry opposition is softening because of his transparency.“It’s only an apple where we turned off one enzyme,” he said. “It’s a great product. When people see it they will realize that.”He envisions demand starting with East Coast fruit stands looking for novelty items and small, fresh-slice companies recognizing the competitive advantage of saving the cost of traditional treatments of Vitamin C and calcium to prevent browning.Tony Freytag, senior vice president of Crunch Pak in Cashmere, the largest producer of sliced apples, said that company has no intention of using Arctic apples.
A grower for GMO
The owner of a Yakima fruit company who Carter said favors the GMO apple declined to comment.But John Rice, co-owner of Rice Fruit Co., Gardners, Pa., the largest apple packer on the East Coast, said he doesn’t believe GMO apples would threaten the market. He wants to plant them when approved.“I was very impressed with Neal Carter the first time I heard him speak. I’m a big fan of the work he is doing and am very hopeful his company will be successful,” Rice said.About 10 years ago, a European plum pox virus infected Rice’s peach orchards. He cut them all down to save the rest of the industry. The Agricultural Research Service of USDA is working on genetically engineered rootstock and trees to make them resistant to the plum pox. But it didn’t happen in time to help Rice.“So to me the work Neal Carter is doing out in British Columbia is very encouraging in that it’s private industry moving ahead in an area that could be helpful in tree fruit,” Rice said.Beside combating pests and disease, genetic engineering could be used, he said, simply to improve fruit quality.“If you can silence a gene to prevent browning, there’s great opportunity to make apples sweeter, juicier, firmer,” Rice said. “There are so many things that could be done to increase satisfaction.“I’m in the business of selling apples. We grow apples. We used to grow peaches. I’ve been doing it for 40 years. I’ve always felt if we could deliver a product of consistent quality, we could increase demand and the price customers are willing to pay.“I think Neal Carter’s work offers a great new frontier for improving our products.”With genetically modified corn and soybeans already in the American diet, one would think there would be wider acceptance of GMO in all crops, he said.“But right now there’s a pretty vociferous group that doesn’t want anything affecting the food supply. I know people who hate Monsanto with a passion they would normally reserve for world villains,” Rice said. “But as Neal says, don’t you think we should be able to give customers the choice?” | 农业 | 7,929 |
New officer grew up around FFA
Published: November 5, 2013 11:43AM
Courtesy of FFA
From left, Brian Walsh, Jackson Harris, Mitch Baker, Wes Davis, Jason Wetzler and Steven Brockshus, newly elected national FFA officers, share the closing gavel at the 2013 National FFA Convention in Louisville, Ky.
Jason Wetzler, an Oregon resident, was recently elected to serve as the Western Region vice president of the National FFA Organization.
With two parents who work as agriculture teachers, Jason Wetzler’s experience with the FFA began at a young age.“I’ve been around the blue jacket basically since I was born,” he said.Wetzler, who grew up in Clackamas, Ore., was elected as the Western Region vice president of the national FFA organization during its convention in Louisville, Ky. His parents, Wynn and Kathy Mayfield, work for the North Clackamas School District.“I feel very honored and blessed. It’s been a lifelong dream,” he said. “Not many people get this experience.”The 21-year-old student at Oklahoma State University had to compete against more than 40 other candidates for one of six national FFA officer positions.The weeklong process involved giving speeches and participating in interviews with the organization’s nominating committee.Each officer will spend a year traveling about 100,000 miles around the country and overseas — judging contests, giving speeches and otherwise representing the FFA. “We’re basically the face of the national FFA organization,” said Wetlzer. “Whatever is requested of us, we get to do.”After an initial training period, Wetzler expects to spend a lot of time in airplanes and rental cars, as the volunteer position usually entails spending more than 300 days on the road.Previously, Wetzler served as the state treasurer of the Oregon FFA Association in 2011 and 2012.Last year, he participated in a leadership program for state FFA officers that took him on a 10-day tour of farms and processing facilities in China.Wetzler said the experience made him appreciate the strong food safety systems in the U.S.“What we expect is much different than what they expect,” he said.As a major in agricultural leadership, Wetzler plans on traveling internationally as part of his future career.His current plans involve working for a non-profit — or starting his own — that would assist subsistence farmers in the tiny African nation of Benin.A fellow student at Oklahoma State University inspired Wetzler’s interest in the country’s struggles.The country has an “underdeveloped” economy with more than a third of its population living in poverty, according to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.With the food demands of the global population expected to increase dramatically in coming decades, Africa has a big production potential that’s currently underutilized, Wetzler said.He envisions helping people in Benin upgrade their systems for irrigation and other agricultural practices.
Cow/calf profits soar | 农业 | 2,948 |
Good Food, Good Agriculture, Real Change!
On September 19, Slow Food and ARC2020 – a platform of over 150 EU civil society networks and organisations - will present the European Parliament with requests for a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that supports family farms, reinvests public money into public goods and rejects food speculation. The current CAP, The EU’s system of agricultural subsidies and programmes, represents the largest single spending of the EU: about 43% of the total expense, or 55 billion euros per year. These investments, however, have not always had a positive impact: 80% of EU contributions are directed towards just 20% of farmers, and 70% of plant and animal biodiversity has been irreversibly lost. An estimated 250 million people—50% of the whole European population—are overweight, while 42 million are facing malnutrition due to poverty. Furthermore, 90 million tons of food, or 180 kg per person, are thrown away each year.
The direction of the European food and agricultural policy until 2020 is currently being discussed in Brussels. For the first time in its 50-year history, the future of the CAP will be co-decided by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The new involvement of the Parliament gives civil society a real chance to make its voice heard. At the conference on Wednesday, President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, will be joined by Dacian Cioloş, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development; Carlo Petrini, President of Slow Food International; and representatives of other key European civil society organizations who are involved in the CAP reform debate. “It is necessary to return dignity to farming” said Petrini. “At the moment only 11 million people are working in agriculture, less than 5% of the European population. It is an issue that is crucial to the food security of 27 countries and a question that cannot be left in the hands of a few multinational corporations. The CAP needs to change if we want agriculture to be a viable option for young people, an economic driver for rural communities and an element of safeguard for landscapes and the environment.” Participants of the Good Food March - farmers, citizens, young people and 100 organizations from 19 countries who journeyed from Munich to Brussels - will also be taking part in the conference, and will have an opportunity to pose their questions to their MEPs. “The Good Food March has seen people from all ages and backgrounds come together from the north, south, east and west of Europe to define the tradition, heritage and future of food and farming in Europe,” said Stephanie Roth, Campaign Coordinator at ARC2020. “It has shown the spirit of people from villages and cities across Europe, embraced the diversity of our food culture and demonstrated the vitality of our countryside. At the same time it has sent a strong and unified message to decision makers as they debate and decide over the future of the CAP. We must bring democracy back to the CAP.”
Click here to find out more about the motions that will be put forward in Brussels. Find out more about Slow Food's campaign for a good, clean and fair Europe. www.slowfood.com/sloweurope | 农业 | 3,226 |
Statement, on Soil and Water Conservation Programs
Letter to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, Together With a Policy
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
I am pleased to transmit a Statement of Policy, an appraisal of this Nation's soil and water
resources, and the Secretary of Agriculture's program for departmental conservation activities as
required by the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977.
The Secretary of Agriculture's program provides important guidance for the near and longer term
management of the Nation's soil and water resources. The wise use of these resources will assure
continued availability of food and fiber to meet domestic and world needs. My Statement of
Policy provides further guidelines for implementation of the recommended program.
The Secretary's program is based upon findings developed from extensive surveys and evaluations
of the current state of this Nation's soil and water resources. It is designed to correct identified
problems through targeting Federal assistance to priority problem areas. It also calls for a greater
role for State and local governments for the conduct of programs to assist private landowners in
solving resource problems to protect the long-term productivity of this Nation's soil and water
resources. The documents which are being transmitted to the Congress today will be helpful in
your consideration of soil and water conservation policies, programs, and budgets.
I look forward to working with the Congress as you review these documents and my Statement of
Policy in the coming months.
Today I am transmitting to the Congress this Statement of Policy for planning, implementing, and
allocating resources for the soil and water conservation programs of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture between now and 1987. This is required by Section 7(a) of the Soil and Water
Resources Conservation Act of 1977, Public Law 95 - 192. Accompanying this statement are
other documents required by this Act: Parts I and II of an Appraisal of the condition and trends of
soil, water, and related resources in the United States and a Program and Environmental Impact
Statement containing the program that has resulted from this appraisal.
These studies show the condition of the soil and water on two-thirds of America's land -- the rural
non-federal land of the United States. This land totals 1.5 billion acres, and most of it is privately
owned. It includes the farms, ranches, and private forests where almost all of our food and natural
fibers and much of our pulp and timber are produced.
The natural resources on our rural lands are vital to the present and future welfare of the
American people. The soil and water on these lands are basic to the production of food and fiber
for domestic and world needs. Maintaining the productivity of these resources is essential to
American agriculture and to the health of the Nation's economy.
American agriculture has achieved the greatest record of production in the world. A free market
economy, mechanization, research, adequate capital inputs, fertile soil and water management
have contributed to that record. These factors and others have generated an agricultural system
that not only provides a varied and inexpensive supply of food for U.S. consumers but also feeds
a significant part of the world's population.
Despite this unsurpassed record, however, the Appraisal reveals that inadequate resource
management in some areas is damaging our soil and lowering the quality and quantity of our
water resources. Soil erosion, for example, was reduced by soil conservation practices in the
decades following the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. Now, soil erosion appears to be increasing again
as we have made more rural land into cropland, particularly for corn, soybeans, and other row
crops to meet the growing export demand. While about one-third of America's cropland is
currently experiencing soil erosion from wind and water at rates which threaten the long-term
productivity of the land, about 54 percent of all sheet and rill erosion and 89 percent of the
excessive erosion of this type occurs on about 10 percent of the Nation's cropland (41 million
acres). The condition of our grazing land has been improving steadily since the 1930's, but more
than half is still in fair to poor condition. Responding to their own incentives, private landowners
in many cases have introduced practices and improvements to control erosion.
Agriculture is by far the Nation's biggest user of water, and water is being use -- and wasted -- in
greater amounts that ever. In some parts of the West and Great Plains, groundwater is being used
to irrigate crops faster than it is being replenished. Damages from upstream flooding are expected
to increase in the years immediatedly ahead, largely because people continue to build on land
subject to flooding. Federal Conservation Programs
Programs to deal with soil and water resource problems were begun by the Federal Government
about 50 years ago. Research programs to focus on soil erosion began in the late 1920's, and soil
conservation programs were begun in the Dust Bowl years of the 1930's. Since then many
Federal, State, and local government agencies have carried out programs to protect, conserve,
and improve soil and water resources, usually in cooperation with individual landowners. Some 27 conservation programs, involving conservation research and education, technical
assistance, cost-sharing and loans are administered by 8 agencies of the Department of
Agriculture. Some of these programs, while popular with farmers and ranchers, do not clearly
address the Nation's most critical soil and water resource problems. Further, after nearly half a
century of Federal conservation assistance programs a substantial number of farmers have not
applied needed conservation measures. Too much soil continues to erode at rates that threaten
productivity and impair water quality. Too much water is not efficiently managed, resulting in a
threat of water shortages. Too much land is subject to excessive flood damages.
Appraisal of Alternative ``Futures''
The Appraisal examines the impact on available cropland through 2030 of several alternative
projections of domestic and foreign demand for agricultural production, and alternative rates of
growth in agricultural productivity. Under a number of projections of increased demand and
growth in productivity, the existing farmland base can provide the necessary production by the
year 2030 without significant real price increases or adverse impacts to the land. Under some of
the more ``extreme'' projections with high projected demand and low growth in productivity out
to 2030, additional cropland would be required. Futhermore, there could be sigificant increases in
the cost of agricultural production as well as increases in cropland erosion. The proposed program is not predicated on either the most optimistic or pessimistic assumption
about the future. Instead it is designed to accommodate a wide range of uncertainty in future
agricultural production possibilities. The Appraisal recognizes that soil and water conservation management is needed to counteract
adverse impacts on this Nation's soil and water resource base, especially if a ``high'' demand for
agricultural products is projected over the next 50 years.
The Appraisal makes it clear that some changes in Federal soil and water conservation programs
will be necessary to provide protection for the Nation's soil and water resources on non-federal
land. Simply increasing Federal contributions to soil and water conservation is not the answer to
our resource problems. Stewardship of the land is primarily the responsibility of the individual
landowner. The marketplace generally determines what resources the individual will devote to the
management of his land and water. The role of the Federal Government in promoting soil and
water conservation is therefore subject to limitations imposed by economic conditions and the
individual landowner's willingness to cooperate. The most important contribution that this
Administration can make to the conservation effort is to redirect current conservation programs
and develop fresh approaches to solving the resource problems that continue to threaten the
long-term productivity of our soil, water, and related resources. The program effects this
redirection and provides for these fresh approaches. It will be the new benchmark for budget
proposals and planning of all conservation programs in the Department of Agriculture.
The Recommended Program
The recommended program includes the following key features:
1. National conservation priorities. The program for the first time sets clear national priorities to
guide Federal conservation efforts. The top priorities are reducing soil erosion, conserving water
and reducing upstream flood damages.
2. Development and promotion of cost-effective conservation measures. The program encourages
development and adoption of conservation measures, such as conservation tillage and range
management, that are most cost-effective in reducing erosion and solving other resource
3. Targeting. The program calls for targeting an increased share of Department of Agriculture
resources -- people and dollars -- to critical problem areas where the need for conservation is
greatest. It also targets Department of Agriculture research and education efforts toward the
solution of those soil and water problems that impair agricultural productivity and cause
permanent damage to basic resources. Targeting will take no more than 25 percent of total
conservation funds and will be phased-in over a five-year period, adding 5 percent a year.
4. Matching grants. The program provides matching grants to encourage local and state
governments to participate more fully in planning and implementing conservation programs.
5. Conservation pilot projects. The program calls for undertaking pilot projects to test new
conservation methods and incentives to help farmers and ranchers practice conservation
effectively and at reasonable cost.
6. Intergovernmental cooperation. The program will aim for improved coordination among the
various Federal, state, and local agencies with conservation responsibilities. It will foster closer
cooperation and coordination within the Department of Agriculture itself and among the eight
agencies of USDA with responsibilities for conservation programs.
These features and others are described and evaluated in detail in the RCA Program Report and
Environmental Impact Statement. Since they make so many significant changes in previous
Department of Agriculture conservation programs, the Department measured public reaction to
them in 1980 and 1981. Nearly 83,000 people commented on the latest draft, including Members
of Congress and the Governors of 37 States, Puerto Rico, and Guam. More than half the
respondents were farmers or ranchers. Comments received have been studied carefully and
considered in preparing the final program document.
Budgeting Policy
It is my intention that the Department of Agriculture manage its soil and water conservation
programs as efficiently as possible. This includes eliminating overlap among programs and
reducing instances in which one program conflicts with the aims of another.
I anticipate that my future budget proposals will fall within the bounds of the recommended
program. Funding for conservation programs, however, will necessarily be considered in each
year's economic and fiscal context. The demands placed on our financial resources by other
national goals and interests must also be weighed. Consideration of those competing demands
each year could make it necessary for this Administration to propose a conservation program
budget less than the proposed lower bound. I anticipate that State and local governments, as they
assume more significant roles in conservation program design and management, will contribute a
larger share of needed funds for conservation.
I believe the process introduced by the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 is
useful. The Appraisal and Program have been major steps in developing a sound planning process
for the Department of Agriculture's soil and water conservation program. They provide a
long-needed picture of the status of soil and water resources and the projected demands on those
resources, and a realistic strategy for the Federal Government to follow in helping to manage,
conserve, and improve those resources to meet national needs and goals. It is my belief that this
strategy will result in a significant improvement in the effectiveness of USDA conservation
I commend the Secretary of Agriculture for his Department's efforts in preparing the Appraisal
and Program and for his responsiveness to the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of
Note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker of the
House of Representatives, and George Bush, President of the Senate. | 农业 | 13,050 |
Too Much at Steak
According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the world consumption of meat and dairy products is going to increase exponentially in the upcoming years. In the face of this demand, the current industrial model of food production is set to raise more and more animals, increase productivity and decrease the final price to consumers.
Who’s paying the true cost of this industrialised system? Produced by ActionAid, Compassion in World Farming and Slow Food, the Too Much At Steak guide takes a closer look at meat, and what consumers can do to avoid this situation. EU citizens consume an average of 232 grams of meat each day, a total of 85 kilos per capita per year. For a healthy diet, the recommended amount is around 630 grams a week, meaning that each European is eating for 2.5 people. Such an excessive consumption has heavy costs not just for our health and for the environment, but also in terms of animal welfare and farmers’ livelihood.
Animal farming throughout the world has become increasingly intensive to meet this demand, with significant consequences. With regards to the environment, it has caused serious soil and water pollution, land and water depletion and, ultimately, global warming. FAO estimates that livestock production is responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Animal welfare in its holistic sense - physical health and wellbeing, mental wellbeing and ability to express natural behaviours – is not a primary consideration of standard industrial farms, which have become factories for meat and milk production. ‘Factory farming’ prioritises maximum production above all else and animals are treated as commodities, often raised in intense confinement and subject to routine mutilations like tail docking and beak trimming.
The pleasure that food can bring is being undermined by the harm, hunger, damage to human health and animal welfare concerns caused by the intensive production model. But, through our choices, consumers have the power to redirect the market and production. Too Much at Steak provides a few good practices that can be applied to everyday life, when shopping, at home or in restaurants. These small changes can contribute to improvements in farming and farmer’s livelihoods.
By committing to eat less meat, eat good quality meat from animals with a high quality of life and to pay a fair price, reflective of the true cost of production and one that values the animal’s life, we can continue to eat meat. There’s simply “too much at stake” to continue down the path we’re on.
Download the English guide: Too Much at Steak | 农业 | 2,657 |
Research and Extension Division (NRR)
Research and Extension Unit (NRRR)
Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR)
The Research and Extension Division, through its Research and Extension Unit, provides advisory and technical services to FAO Members to support an integrated approach to agricultural research, extension, education of rural people and communication for development, in order to respond to the technology, knowledge, human and institutional capacity building and public awareness needs of national development policies and strategies. Work in this area concentrates primarily on supporting and enhancing the capacities of public and private-sector agricultural Research and Extension systems, as well as Education for Rural People and Communication for Development institutions, with special emphasis on Rural radio.
The Division�s activities are focused on establishing strong linkages among researchers, extension managers and advisors, educators, communicators and producers and users of agricultural, rural, environmental and natural resource knowledge and technology as well as building partnerships at the national and international level. The Division also contributes to activities related to capacity building for the safe application of Biotechnology.
The Division acts as a liaison point with the international agriculture research system, including regional Fora and networks, the Consultative Group International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its International Agricultural Research Centers.
The Research and Extension Division hosts the Secretariat of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR). GFAR is a stakeholder-led initiative that serves as a neutral forum for the discussion of strategic issues in agricultural research for development. It facilitates and promotes cost-effective partnerships and strategic alliances among agricultural research for development stakeholders in their efforts to alleviate poverty, increase food security and promote the sustainable use of natural resources.
FAO HEADQUARTERS
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome, Italy
Tel: (+39) 06 57051
Cable address: FOODAGRI ROME
Telex: 625852/610181 FAO I
Fax: (+39) 06 570 53152
Research and Extension Division
Isabel Alvarez-Fernandez
Tel: (+39) 06 570 52787
E-mail: [email protected]
comments? please write to the webmaster
� FAO, 2007 | 农业 | 2,366 |
Advertisement Home > EU big loser in WTO talks?
EU big loser in WTO talks?
Daryll Ray | Delta Farm Press EMAIL
Comments 0 The World Bank's "pro-poor" scenario assumes that all developed nations reduce their agricultural tariffs to a maximum of 10 percent and tariffs on other goods to 5 percent while all developing nations reduce agricultural tariffs to a maximum of 15 percent and other goods to 10 percent. In addition, payments to producers would be decoupled from production. "The “decoupling” part of the scenario is achieved by removing all domestic support in agriculture input and output subsidies and payments to land and capital. These would be replaced by direct payments to farm households (2003 Global, p. 50)." The prospect of a $500-billion income gain, and the lifting of 144 million people out of poverty got me to wondering how this feat would be accomplished and what its impact would be on agricultural production in various countries of the world. Because one of the main issues at Cancun was the Agreement on Agriculture and the call for support reduction, I assumed that changes in agriculture would be a significant component of the pro-poor scenario. Indeed, $358 billion of the gain comes from agriculture, of which $240 billion would accrue to low- and middle-income countries. For a change of this magnitude to occur, significant adjustments would need to take place in the developed countries. The effect of this policy change would be felt differently in various countries and regions around the world. It appears that one of the areas that would experience the greatest change under this trade liberalization scenario is the European Union. Right now, the EU is just barely a net exporter of major field crops. Aggregating across corn, barley, wheat, soybean, rapeseed, sunflower seed, and rice, over the last five years the EU annually consumed an average of 140 million metric tons of these commodities. While she imports and exports various amounts of individual crops, in total, EU exports averaged about 4 million tons of major crops more than it imported. The results of the study's "pro-poor" scenario show a decline in total European crop and livestock output of 30 percent below baseline projections for 2015 (2003, p. 54). Breakouts of individual commodities were not published in the World Bank report but a study published by Iowa State University on a similar application of the World Bank's model does provide commodity detail. Based on the more detailed information in the Iowa State study, we have estimated the crop-output implications from the World Bank's reported total drop in EU agricultural output of 30 percent for the pro-poor scenario. The results are staggering. In the case of wheat, this estimation approach suggests that the "pro-poor" trade liberalization agenda would result in the loss of 26.4 (60 percent) million of Europe's 44 million wheat acres by 2015. This would transform Europe from a net wheat exporter to a significant importer. In other grain production, Europe would lose 18.9 (70 percent) of its 27 million acres devoted to the production of other grains. With oilseeds the corresponding drop would be 6.2 million acres (59 percent) out of 10.5 million acres. In both of these cases Europe would be a significant net importer. The imports would come from lower cost producers elsewhere in the world. According to our calculations, the World Bank study implies that the relatively self-sufficient EU would become dependent on imports for two-thirds of its grain and oilseeds. Europe would return to the same kind of ship-to-mouth existence that it experienced following WWII. It was this ship-to-mouth to existence that led to the establishment of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 1962. Can this be? Do we really think that the EU will reduce its total acreage of wheat, oilseeds, and other grains by 63 percent or 51.5 million acres in the next decade under this or any other trade liberalization scenario? As one who has worked with economic simulation models for over 35 years, I can understand how the World Bank's model, that views the world "as one large field" to use ADM's words, would produce these results. As a policy analyst, however, I find it extremely hard to believe that the French and other Europeans would be content to sit idly by while EU's major field crop production drops by nearly two-thirds. Again, I ask, can this be? Are we missing something here? Can the real-world adjustments that would be required to achieve a $358 billion agriculturally based increase in global income from trade liberalization be reasonably expected to occur? Perhaps, but what a gigantic departure from previous adjustment-experience it would be. Daryll E. Ray holds the Blasingame Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and is the Director of UT's Agricultural Policy Analysis Center. (865) 974-7407; Fax: (865) 974-7298; e-mail: [email protected]; http://www.agpolicy.org. Print
Please Log In or Register to post comments. Advertisement Related ArticlesU.S. farm programs on defense in WTO talks Latest WTO talks end with no progress reported EU, Oxfam, WTO panel imperil fair trade talks U.S. offers new cap on supports at WTO talks No progress reported as: Talks in WTO stall Advertisement Connect With Us TwitterFacebookRSSPodcast Hot Topics | 农业 | 5,394 |
Land & Sea
Hawaii Tales Blog
Heidi Chang’s Stories In Publishing & Digital Media
Heidi Chang On-Camera Talent
Molokai: Can Emerging Coffee Industry Boost The Island’s Economy?
Posted on March 18th, 2013
Archived in News, Hawaii Tales Blog
Coffee, Coffees of Hawaii, Hawaii Coffee Association, Honolulu Civil Beat, Kualapuu, Molokai Previous Post
Who’s the latest Monk Seal Pup?
Click here to view this story on Honolulu Civil Beat
By Heidi Chang | 03/18/2013
Molokai has the highest unemployment rate in the state, but now there’s an economic bright spot on the island — a once-thriving coffee industry is making a comeback.
It hasn’t been easy for the 30-year-old coffee business to stay afloat. But Molokai’s Coffees of Hawaii is now one of the largest coffee growers in the Hawaiian islands and has been winning awards for its product.
“They grow a great cup of coffee, ” says Greg Stille, president of the Hawaii Coffee Association. “They’ve won national awards.”
Molokai has been economically depressed since pineapple cultivation was phased out on the Friendly Isle in the 1970s and ’80s.
Historically, the island has had the highest unemployment rate in the state, and in January it was nearly double the statewide average.
But the Coffees of Hawaii plantation has created a space for other entrepreneurs — including a gift store and an espresso bar. Between them, the three operations are now employing several dozen island residents.
Courtesy of Coffees of Hawaii
For more than 60 years, Del Monte grew pineapple in Kualapuu. But the era ended when it became the last pineapple company to shutdown operations on the island in the late 1980s. Hundreds of pineapple workers lost their livelihood.
As many wondered what could replace pineapple, John Hays started the first coffee plantation on Molokai on some of the abandoned pineapple fields. In 1984, Hays founded Coffees of Hawaii Inc., along with his wife, and a partner from Brazil.
“At first, a few members of the community were skeptical we could grow coffee on Molokai, but in the end they loved us, because we proved we could do it,” Hays recalls now.
The company hired mainly former pineapple workers to plant 600 acres of coffee around the Kualapuu reservoir.
Harvesting coffee | Courtesy of Coffees of Hawaii
Hays says Coffees of Hawaii became the first plantation in the U.S. to harvest coffee with machines, which helped lower the cost of labor. By 1992, he says, the company produced its first large commercial coffee crop, introducing Molokai coffee to the rest of the world. Coffee from the Molokai plantation became the first U.S.- grown coffee ever to be served at a meeting of the International Coffee Organization in London.
But it wasn’t all smooth sailing. Hays says the company went through some ups and downs, and changes in management, and eventually declared bankruptcy.
Today, even though Hays is no longer involved with the Molokai coffee plantation, he’s still convinced coffee could help revive the island’s economy.
“It’s a green crop, it’s healthy. Everything is there, the people and technology, and the land. All they need is an investor who cares about the future of the island.”
Planting coffee on Molokai | Courtesy Coffees of Hawaii
New Generation Of Owners
Since 2004, Mike Atherton, and Pete and Albert Boyce (father and son) have been operating Coffees of Hawaii LLC. They also bought Maui Tropical Plantation in 2006. Atherton also owns a coffee plantation in Nicaragua.
Initially, the new owners purchased the plantation’s base yard and 500 acres of land on the coffee plantation from Molokai Ranch. But as the economy grew worse, they sold off the land. Today, Coffees of Hawaii only owns the base yard, and it leases 115 acres from Monsanto.
While the Molokai plantation has been successful in supplying mainland chains like Trader Joe’s, it couldn’t keep up with the demand when the island began experiencing a drought. Since 2009, farmers on Molokai have had to restrict their water usage by 30 percent, according to Maria Holmes, the operations manager for Coffees of Hawaii.
Two years ago, Coffees of Hawaii had to downsize its crop and layoff some of its workers. “We were incurring substantial losses. We had to change our business plan or go out of business,” says Holmes, noting how expensive it is to do business on a struggling island.
Holmes says the plantation also realized it couldn’t sustain itself by Molokai coffee alone, so it decided to capitalize on its name. Now, Coffees of Hawaii also buys unroasted beans from around the state, and sells the coffee under its label.
Today, the coffee plantation employs nearly 20 people during the harvest season and about 15 during the off- season.
Growing coffee in Kualapuu, Molokai | © Coffees of Hawaii
The Molokai plantation is the fourth largest mechanized coffee grower in Hawaii. And it recently hosted a two- day coffee festival to celebrate more than 20 years of coffee production on the Friendly Island. This was also part of a statewide celebration commemorating 200 years of cultivating coffee in Hawaii.
“It’s actually nice to see a product grown and processed here, and I’m a part of it,” says 34-year-old Pua Naeole, who manages the Coffees of Hawaii cafe at the Molokai Airport.
As part of the company’s recent changes, Coffees of Hawaii no longer operates the gift shop and espresso bar on its plantation, but leases out space for them instead.
That’s created opportunities for other Molokai entrepreneurs like the Socher family, who’ve operated a gift shop called the Big Wind Kite Factory in Maunaloa since 1980.
Courtesy Blue Monkey
Daphne Socher says that, over the years, they’ve had to learn how to make their own kites because customers wanted a “made on Molokai” or “made in Hawaii” product. She says by opening a second gift shop, called Blue Monkey, over at the coffee plantation, they’re able to expand their business, and their son is able to live and work on Molokai, and raise another generation.
For Marlene Sproat, operating the Espresso Cafe creates about 15 jobs for her and her family, and others on the island.
The cafe also plays a role in sharing Molokai’s unique island culture with the community. During the week, it hosts a free jam session on Tuesdays and free entertainment on Sundays, on the lanai of Coffees of Hawaii.
Sproat manages the café with her business partner, Faith Horner. Their husbands work together, too, running the Kalaupapa Mule Tour.
Roy Horner (pictured second from the left) plays ukulele at a jam session open to everyone | Photo © Zack Socher
Roy Horner used to pick pine for Del Monte, and also worked for Dole. He recalls the days when pineapple covered much of the island. “The communities seemed to be bustling, more people were working, and economically much better off.”
When the coffee industry was trying to start up on Molokai, Horner attended some of the initial meetings. “It was a natural, using the facilities that were not being used,” says Horner, 62, a longtime Hawaiian homesteader. “And you’re working the land. We have good, rich soil.”
Sustaining an industry like coffee isn’t easy on Molokai. Jobs are hard to come by, and the population is small.
In January, Molokai’s unemployment rate was 9.6 percent, higher than the national average of 8.5 percent, and significantly above the statewide rate of 5.4 percent.
Today, the island’s main employers are government and agricultural companies, like Monsanto.
Molokai is well-known for its resistance to development of businesses that residents think could threaten their rural way of life. In recent years, many on the island have opposed Molokai Ranch’s plan to develop 200 luxury homes at Laau Point. A major energy project, Big Wind, that involved Molokai Ranch and its partners developing a wind farm to provide electricity to Oahu, was nearly universally opposed by residents.
Still, the Kualapuu community has embraced coffee.
“The infrastructure was already there,” says Manuwai Peters, an educator, who’s taught children and adults Hawaiian language and music, and Hawaiian studies on Molokai since 1993. “It didn’t require developing new land and possibly disturbing sacred or cultural sites.”
“I’m in favor of it because it keeps Molokai green, and keeps the land in diversified agricultural use,” Peters says. “It provides real jobs and doesn’t sacrifice our rural lifestyle.”
Courtesy Coffees of Hawaii
Molokai seems poised to capitalize on the popularity of coffee, second only to petroleum in terms of commodities traded worldwide. The U.S. is also the biggest consumer of coffee in the world. And Hawaii is the only state that grows coffee commercially.
“In the mid 1800’s, coffee and sugar were vying to be the top crop grown in the islands,” says H.C. “Skip” Bittenbender, a professor in the Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Science at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
So if there’s such a global demand for coffee today, why aren’t more companies growing coffee in Hawaii?
“Hawaii coffee has never been a major player in the American coffee industry, because it was limited to just one set of islands in the Pacific, far away from the rest of the country,” explains Bittenbender. “So American companies purchased coffee from other countries that had larger production and lower costs.”
“We’re actually more important now, than in the past,” he says, “because the specialty coffee market is asking for more single origins and good quality.”
Heidi Chang is a multimedia journalist who grew up exploring the coastline and lush valleys of Oahu and Molokai, where her family has lived for generations.
DISCUSSION: What do you think of Molokai’s emerging coffee business?
During the week, Espresso Cafe hosts a jam session on Tuesdays, 10:30am – 12pm, and entertainment on Sundays, from 3pm – 5 pm, on the lanai of Coffees of Hawaii. It’s open to everyone; locals, kupuna and visitors.
Be Sociable, Share! Tweet Leave a Reply
Copyright © 2017 Heidi Chang. Icons by Wefunction. Designed by | 农业 | 10,005 |
Center for Collaborative Conservation
ProgramsAtlas of Collaborative Conservation in Colorado
Colorado Conservation ExchangeWatershed Inventory
Seminar and Discussion SeriesWorld Cafe 2014
FellowsProgram Overview
CohortsCurrent Cohort
Past Cohorts
Colorado Cattlemen's Association As the nation's oldest state cattlemen's association, founded in 1867, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association's (CCA) mission is to work collectively, as stewards of natural resources, to advance the viability of beef production; while enhancing the role of beef in a healthy lifestyle. Visit Site Colorado Forest Restoration Institute The Colorado Forest Restoration Institute (CFRI), housed in the Department of Forest & Rangeland Stewardship in the Warner College of Natural Resources at Colorado State University, was chartered in 2005. CFRI’s core mission is to serve as a responsive, reliable bridging organization among researchers, land managers, and communities dedicated to advancing knowledge and practice of forest restoration and wildfire hazard reduction in the central Rocky Mountain region. Visit Site Colorado Natural Heritage Program The Colorado Natural Heritage Program was created in 1979 to identify and describe areas of statewide and global conservation significance and to educate decision makers regarding the impacts of various land use options. CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Visit Site Colorado State Forest Service The Colorado State Forest Service serves as a resource for landowners, homeowners and communities to ensure that they have the knowledge they need to prepare for future wildfires. The mission of the Colorado State Forest Service is to achieve stewardship of Colorado's diverse forest environments for the benefit of present and future generations. Visit Site Colorado State University Extension Colorado State University Extension can provide relief by offering reliable, research-based information to help citizens make informed decisions. CSUE’s job is to determine what issues, concerns and needs are unique to each community, and offer sound and effective solutions. The Mission of Extension is to provide information and education, and encourage the application of research-based knowledge in response to local, state, and national issues affecting individuals, youth, families, agricultural enterprises, and communities of Colorado. Visit Site Colorado Watershed Assembly Formed in 1999, the Colorado Watershed Assembly is a statewide coalition of over 80 local organizations working to protect the health of their area’s unique watersheds. These citizens groups work to protect rivers and streams and the wildlife that relies on healthy habitat. The Colorado Watershed Assembly's mission is to provide support for collaborative efforts among diverse stakeholders to protect and improve the conservation values of land, water, and other natural resources of Colorado's watersheds. Visit Site Conservation Leadership Through Learning (CLTL), CSU Through the Conservation Leadership Through Learning (CLTL) program, we are pioneering a new model for graduate education that will prepare the next generation of conservation leaders. CLTL merges transdisciplinary University education with real-world action to create on-the-ground benefits for conservation and communities. Visit Site Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Defense Fund’s mission is to preserve the natural systems on which all life depends. Over the years, EDF has brought a series of innovations to the work of protecting the environment. Visit Site Environmental Governance Working Group The Environmental Governance Working Group (EGWG) at Colorado State University was created in 2008 as a joint project of the Department of Political Science and the School of Global Environmental Sustainability at Colorado State University. They are a multidisciplinary community of scholars seeking to advance research on environmental governance and sustainability. Visit Site International Livestock Research Institute The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) works at the crossroads of livestock and poverty, bringing high-quality science and capacity-building to bear on poverty reduction and sustainable development. ILRI’s mission is to improve food and nutritional security and to reduce poverty in developing countries through research for efficient, safe and sustainable use of livestock—ensuring better lives through livestock. Visit Site National Forest Foundation The National Forest Foundation brings people together to restore and enhance our National Forests and Grasslands. As the nonprofit partner of the U.S. Forest Service, they engage America in community-based and national programs that promote the health and public enjoyment of the National Forest System. Visit Site Partners for Western Conservation The mission of Partners for Western Conservation (PWC) is to implement market-based conservation and ecosystems services to benefit wildlife, the environment, landowners, and the regulated community. The use of sound science, assistance, resources, and educational efforts will create a community of partners committed to the conservation and stewardship of land, water, air, and wildlife. Visit Site Reto-O-Reto This is a project through International Livestock Research Institute for Better Policy and Management Options for Pastoral Lands: Assessing trade-offs between poverty alleviation and wildlife conservation. The project focuses on sustainable development of pastoral landscapes, improving the livelihoods of agro-pastoralists and also protecting the diversity of wildlife species and savanna landscapes . Visit Site Sustainable Northwest Sustainable Northwest finds solutions by listening, learning, building trust, and investing in the long- term success of the communities and region we serve. Their work results in restored ecosystems, living wage jobs, and better relationships among diverse groups of people. Visit Site The Center for Protected Area Management & Training The Center for Protected Area Management and Training was formed to assist protected area professionals in strengthening the management of the world's protected areas and adjacent lands. CPAMT actively pursues opportunities to disseminate the information acquired through research, on-site training courses, and technical collaboration with the greater University community. Visit Site The Conservation Cooperative The Conservation Cooperative is committed to bringing conservation job skills to the next generation of leaders in resource conservation, renewable energy and land stewardship. Our work offers the additional capacity for land and resource conservation non-profit organizations and land management government agencies through service learning and peer networking. Visit Site The Nature Conservancy Founded in 1951, the Conservancy is the world's leading conservation organization. The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends to work towards their vision of leaving a sustainable world for future generations. Visit Site Trees, Water & People Trees, Water & People (TWP) is a nonprofit organization that was founded in 1998. Their mission is to improve people's lives by helping communities protect, conserve, and manage the natural resources upon which their long-term well-being depends. Visit Site University of Nairobi - Center for Sustainable Dryland Ecosystems and Societies (CSDES) The Center for Sustainable Drylands Ecosystems and Societies is one of 11 partnerships between Africa and U.S. institutions of higher Education. Some of the Center activities include mainstreaming dryland issues in academic curricula review, short courses for skill building in dryland development and recruitment of Center interns among others. Visit Site Warner College of Natural Resources Warner College of Natural resources (WCNR) is the largest named and most comprehensive natural resources program in the nation, and their goal is to continue their transformation from one of the best programs to the top program in the country. WCNR has a world-class faculty that not only does groundbreaking research but molds young minds in the classroom. Visit Site About
©2016 Center for Collaborative Conservation | Disclaimer | Equal Opportunity | Privacy
Site By Variant Studios | 农业 | 8,499 |
Comfort Me With Apples: Valley historian recounts tales of Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association
Wendy Elliott
Historian Julian Gwyn, who has written a book on the history of the NSFGA, spoke at the Fruit Growers’ banquet about the early years of Nova Scotia’s apple growers.
Comfort Me with Apples: Nova Scotia Fruit Growers’ Association, 1863-2013 looks at an association from its founding and includes many stories worth telling.
“I knew none of them until two years ago, when I began to read their published annual reports to write their history,” Gwyn said.
In the 1860s, he said, farmers principally raised not fruit, but grade cattle for the butcher, oats and hay for their livestock and potatoes exported to the U.S. market.
“Their small orchards taken together then grew more than 200 varieties. Most varieties had been imported earlier from the American colonies and England, though some had developed in nurseries scattered from Starr’s Point to Windsor.”
Prior to the 1860s, Nova Scotia imported roughly as many barrels of apples as they exported, Gwyn pointed out.
“It was a small business. The markets in the Maritimes were quickly glutted. The scattered attempts to ship apples to England from Annapolis County were financial failures.”
Prospects improved when barrels of apples could be loaded onto rail cars to reach Halifax the same day. This encouraged new apple plantings in the 1860s and 1870s and growers aimed to send cooking varieties to the English market.
By 1910 in Nova Scotia, there were 40,000 acres of orchard, with some 2.5 million-apple trees, Gwyn noted. Seventy per cent of them were in Kings County.
The fruit growers’ annual banquets were ceremonial occasions. On at least three occasions the lieutenant governor attended as a patron. Premiers were occasionally on hand, though none before 1914 and none since John Hamm in 1999.
Theirs was a very male world. For many years, the association’s invited guests were invariably other men, including we noted scientists, businessmen or growers from other apple districts in North America. The range of topics they discussed at their annual meetings was vast.
Uniform marketing came to the fore with the emergence of co-operatives before the First World War. Gwyn said Robert Leslie is one of his heroes for running a central marketing system. After 1951, it ended leaving “growers ever after deeply divided, with the independents fearing a whiff of socialism that remains to this very day.”
Gwyn called apple production now a shadow of its former self: the total crop today is worth about $18 million; in 2013 dollars, one year’s crop from the 1930s was worth about $80 million.
Women as fruit growers
At an 1884 fruit growers’ quarterly meeting in Bridgetown, Andrew H. Johnson gave notice of motion for the next convention “to admit ladies to full membership” at the rate of 50 cents a year, half the rate for men. The motion was passed unanimously.
The first presentation by a woman at the convention occurred in 1894, when Olivia Johnson of Wolfville read her paper Women as Horticulturalists.
“May I live to see the day when the girls of Canada will fling the crazy patchwork over a pole in a corn field for the edification of the crows, while they study the germination of seed,” she stated.
In 1895 before an audience estimated at 800, Johnson said, “We are told that women cannot understand many things that men can, but fruit growing is not beyond our intellect”.
One of the few recorded women orchardists was Nellie Rooney who, after the death of her father in 1934, operated the family farm. She shipped her apples through the Port Williams Fruit Company.
A strong supporter of central marketing, she said, when interviewed in 1946: “Those barnacles on the apple industry, the independent shipper, cost the growers of this Valley plenty in the old days, but since the marketing board came into being, many orchardists have managed to pay off their mortgages… Under the present system we growers have a chance to control our destinies.”
It was 1928 before the first woman was elected president.
“Sadly for farmers in general and women in particular, Susan Chase, a 1921 graduate of the Ontario Agricultural College, did the unforgiveable: she married an Ontario man, a classmate, and left with her term of office only half completed.”
It was 2001 before another woman, Gail Parker, was elected president. She was followed by Mary Lou Power in 2010. Until the 1970s, few women spoke at NSFGA conventions, Gwyn said. The first female scientist to address a convention was Myrna Blenkhorn, a provincial horticulturalist: in 1979, she gave the annual Maggot Control Board report.
Self-publisher A professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa, where he taught for more than 40 years, Gwyn self-published Comfort Me with Apples, but he did benefit from a fund the NSFGA started.
“There aren’t any grants,” he said for agricultural history. “That $5,000 made all the difference.”
Five hundred copies were printed and Gwyn noted that he really enjoyed the research and writing.
Gwyn’s research and publications have focused on Nova Scotia as a British colony, naval history, along with social and economic history.
Since moving to Berwick in 2004, he has focused principally on agriculture, although in 2010 he published four booklets about the New England Planters from 1760 to 1815.
Gwyn has also been working on a book about farming in Kings County up to the 1960s, much of which, he said, is already researched and drafted.
Ontario Agricultural College, Port Williams Fruit Company, Maggot Control Board University of Ottawa Geographic location:
Nova Scotia, England, Kings U.S. Windsor Annapolis County Halifax North America Bridgetown Canada Ontario Berwick’s Julian Gwyn has written a history of the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers’ Association. © Wendy Elliott - kingscountynews.ca | 农业 | 5,870 |
Battle Lines Drawn on Missouri River Funding
Heather Hollingsworth, Associated Press March 13, 2012 8:51 AM
Filed Under: agriculture, Endangered Species Act, farming, flood protection, Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association, Missouri River, Missouri River Basin, pallid sturgeon, piping plover, President Barack Obama, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Missouri River. Photo: Getty Images/Jamie Squire
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A proposed boost in spending for environmental projects along the Missouri River is angering farmers who claim last year’s flooding is evidence that the spending focus needs to shift to flood protection. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers disputes the idea that flood protection is taking a backseat to the environment.
The spending issue arose when President Barack Obama released a proposed budget last month that allots $90 million — up from $73 million in the last budget — for environmental projects, such as restoring some of the tens of thousands of acres of shallow-water habitat that disappeared when the river was dammed and straightened and its channel narrowed.
The courts have mandated environmental projects because, while changes to the river aided navigation and improved flood protection, the number of pallid sturgeon, piping plover and interior least tern have shrunk so much they are now listed under the Endangered Species Act.
“Frustration doesn’t even begin to describe the feelings of those who have been flooded and have seen the budget for fish and wildlife drive the Missouri River decision-making process for far too long,” said Tom Waters, chairman of the Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association, in a letter to Col. Anthony Hofmann, commander of the corps’ Kansas City district.
Missouri Corn Growers Association President Billy Thiel described the ecosystem spending increase as an “injustice” and said it “once again shows a disconnect still exists between those who manage the river and those who rely on it.”
But Erik Blechinger, a corps official who has helped with post-flood recovery efforts along the river, said Wednesday in a widely-distributed email that over the past six years, the corps has spent $2 billion within the Missouri River basin and that just 20 percent of the total went toward environmental projects. He said environmental spending is required and that it doesn’t reduce spending for other purposes.
He also stressed that hundreds of millions of dollars have been appropriated to fix Missouri River levees, dams and navigation structures busted last year after the corps began releasing massive amounts of water from upstream reservoirs. The resulting torrent easily overmatched earthen levees along the river.
“In a time when we need to come together (Tribes, Feds, States and locals) and put aside our differences to repair the Missouri River multipurpose reservoir and levee system so we are in the best possible posture to face what Mother Nature may bring us in the future, some are waging campaigns to tear at this very fabric of cooperation, collaboration, and open, honest and frank discourse,” he said in the email.
But the corps’ message that environmental projects aren’t the problem is a hard sell in heavily damaged states. In Missouri alone, the Missouri River flooded 207,200 acres of cropland last year, and the Mississippi River flooded an additional 130,000 acres of mostly cropland when the Birds Point Floodway was intentionally breached to relieve pressure as floods threatened nearby Cairo, Ill.
The frustration over environmental spending led to a successful push last year by U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri for an amendment that suspended $4 million in funding for a Missouri River-focused ecosystem-restoration study.
Waters, of the levee association, favored suspending study funding. He acknowledges fish and birds need protection, but he says Obama’s proposed budget includes too much for the environment.
“It’s very contentious when folks are really trying to get their levees repaired and road blocks are thrown up, but yet when they talk about the fish and birds, money just flows in,” he said.
Donald Tubbs, a farmer whose land in northwest Missouri’s Holt County flooded last summer for the third time in five years, has sold 320 of his 1,400 acres to the corps to be used for ecosystem restoration. All but about 20 acres of the land he sold were covered with sand after the flooding.
“We could see the handwriting on the wall,” he said of his decision to sell. “They were going to keep with the way they were running that river with the environmentalists ahold of it. I knew it was going to be just one flood after another.”
stlmom4 says: March 13, 2012 at 8:40 pm Widening the river should help flood control and the environment. Confining the river to a more narrow path and higher levees with nowhere for the river to expand has caused much devastation. Even when there HAS been devastation and buyouts, the levees are rebuilt even higher and then the land gets used with commercial buildings and developments. Fenton MO had it right to return those areas along the Meramec to parkland that gets overtaken by the river when it needs to. Minimal financial and building damage both there and up and downstream for others. It takes the pressure off. More areas should be handled like it. | 农业 | 5,331 |
0 1 2 3 4 HOMEABOUT USHistoryEmblemMissions and Operating PrinciplesOur ApproachCommittee MembersOUR WORKAgricultural DevelopmentEnvironmental Quality ImprovementWater and Natural Resources ManagementSocial Development & Cultural ConservationEnergy DevelopmentNatural Disaster Relief & RecoveryInternational CollaborationInternational TrainingCONCEPTS & THEORIESOverviewSoil ImprovementWastewater Improvement & Flood ManagementForest Rehabilitation & Development TheoryLocal Participation and Self-DeterminationSufficiency Economy & New TheoryKEY PROJECTSAmpawa-Chaipattananurak Conservation ProjectBhumirak Dhamachart CenterChakrabandh PensiriKasornkasiwit SchoolPat PatDONATIONJOURNALCONTACT
Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy
“Economic development must be done step by step. It should begin with the strengthening of our economic foundation, by assuring that the majority if our population has enough to live on…Once reasonable progress has been achieved, we should then embark on the next steps, by pursuing more advanced levels of economic development.”
“Being a tiger is not important. The important thing is for us to have a sufficient economy. A sufficient economy means to have enough to support ourselves…we have to take a careful step backward…each village or district must have relative self-sufficient.”
His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej
Modern development has caused changes in all aspects of Thai society. The positive impacts of the development are economic growth, progress of material and public utilities, modern communication systems, and improvement and expansion of education. However, few of these results have reached rural areas or the underprivileged in the society.
On the other hand, rapid economic growth and the rise of consumerism has led to a state of economic dependence and deterioration of natural resources as well as the dissolution of existing kinship and traditional groups to manage them. The traditional knowledge and wisdom that have been employed to solve problems and accumulated in the past are forgotten and have started to disappear.
Significantly, what has dissipated is the people’s ability to rely on themselves and conduct their lives and pursue their destiny with dignity. For Thailand, the 1997 economic crisis served as a costly lesson of unbalanced and unstable growth, partly due to the improper economic and social development process, in which the economy relied heavily on foreign capital inflows and external markets.
The Royal Initiative of the ‘Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy’
Although His Majesty has been promoting self-reliant or sustainable farming since the 1950s, it is generally accepted that the idea of Sufficiency Economy had been brought up in the 1970s during in His Majesty’s speeches.
Sufficiency Economy is a philosophy based on the fundamental principle of Thai culture. It is a method of development based on moderation, prudence, and social immunity, one that uses knowledge and virtue as guidelines in living. Significantly, there must be intelligence and perseverance which will lead to real happiness in leading one’s life.
“…I ask all of you to aim for moderation and peace, and work to achieve this goal. We do not have to be extremely prosperous…If we can maintain this moderation, then we can be excellent…” His Majesty the King’s Statement given on 4 December 1974
In this royal statement, His Majesty concerned that modern development which emphasized only the economic expansion might eventually lead the country to crisis. Therefore, he stressed the importance of building a ‘good and stable foundation’ before further progress could be developed. This means that instead of putting the emphasis on the expansion of the industrial sector prior to development, the stability of the basic economy should be established first, that is, assuring that the majority of rural people have enough to subsist first. This is a method of development that stresses the distribution of income to build the overall economic foundation and stability of the country before going on to a higher level of development.
On a personal level, the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy can be adopted by all people simply by adhering to the middle path. The awareness of virtue and honesty is also essential for people as well as public officials.
The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy and its Three Pillars
- Moderation: Sufficiency at a level of not doing something too little or too much at the expense of oneself or others, for example, producing and consuming at a moderate level.
- Reasonableness: The decision concerning the level of sufficiency must be made rationally with consideration of the factors involved and careful anticipation of the outcomes that may be expected from such action.
- Risk Management: The preparation to cope with the likely impact and changes in various aspects by considering the probability of future situations.
Decisions and activities must be carried out at a sufficient level depending on two conditions:
Knowledge, comprising all-round knowledge in the relevant fields and prudence in bringing this knowledge into consideration to understand the relationship among the field so as to use them to aid in the planning and ensure carefulness in the operation.
Virtue to be promoted, comprising the awareness of honesty, patience, perseverance, and intelligence in leading one’s life.
The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy and National Development
His Majesty’s Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy emphasizes that the producers or consumers try to produce or consume within the limit or limitation of existing income or resources first. This is the principle in decreasing the dependence and increasing the ability to control the production themselves, thus deceasing the risk from not being able to efficiently control the market system.
Sufficiency Economy does not mean that one must constantly be frugal. A person can indulge himself in luxury once in a while, provided that it is within his capacity to do so. But the majority of the country’s population often overspends beyond their means. Sufficiency Economy can lead to the goal of establishing economic stability. Fundamentally, Thailand is an agricultural country; therefore, the country’s economy should be keyed towards agro-economy and food stability in order to establish a stable economic system to a certain degree. This is an economic system that can help lessen the risk or economic instability in the long run.
“I may add that full sufficiency is impossible. If a family or even a village wants to employ a full sufficiency economy, it would be like returning to the Stone Age…This sufficiency means to have enough to live on. Sufficiency means to lead a reasonably comfortable life, without excess, or overindulgence in luxury, but enough. Some things may seem to be extravagant, but if it brings happiness, it is permissible as long as it is within the means of the individual…”
His Majesty’s birthday speech on 4 December, 1998
Sufficiency Economy can be applied to all levels, branches, and sectors of the economy. It is not necessarily limited to the agricultural or rural sectors, or even the financial, the real estate, and the international trade and investment sectors by using similar principles of emphasizing moderation in performance, reasonableness, and creating immunity for oneself and society.
The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy as Life Guidance
His Majesty the King has comprehensive understanding of Thai society. Thus, in granting initiatives or delivering advice he would also take into consideration the people’s way of life and social norms to avoid internal conflicts that may obstruct the implementation.
How to lead a life in accordance with the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy
Adhere to economizing by cutting down expenses in all aspects and forego extravagances in leading one’s life.
Adhere to pursuing one’s occupation with decorum and honesty.
Stop contending for beneficial gains and using harsh methods in commercial competition.
Never cease to find a way to escape hardship by attempting to gain knowledge in order to increase one’s income to the point of sufficiency.
Leading one’s life by following the good path, avoiding the bad, and adhering to religious principles.
The New Theory
The New Theory is the most distinct and concrete example of the application of the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy to the agricultural sector. His Majesty King Bhumibol initiated this theory to help Thai farmers who suffer from the impacts of economic crisis, natural disasters and other unproductive natural conditions.
The New Theory suggests that farmers apply the essential principles of the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy, namely moderation, due consideration and self-immunity to their practice of farming as this would shield them from the risks and impacts of globalization and other uncontrollable factors in their farming.
The Risks and Impacts of Farming
Price fluctuation of agricultural produce and commodities as a result of modern economic development Unproductive conditions such as dry spells and droughts Natural disasters such as flooding and epidemics The patterns of production such as plant diseases and pest problems, lack of manpower, debts, and loss of land
His Majesty believed that if the farmers acted with due consideration based on knowledge of past price fluctuations of agricultural commodities they would see how risky it is to concentrate all one’s resources in such commodities expecting large profits. And if they adopted the principle of self-immunity, they would prepare for price changes in the market by producing enough to eat as a priority and only then think of selling any surplus.
New Theory: Integrated and Sustainable Agricultural System
In a more tangible sense, His Majesty developed the New Theory as a system of integrated and sustainable agriculture, embracing his thoughts and efforts in water resource development and conservation, soil rehabilitation and conservation, sustainable agriculture and self-reliant community development. The aim is to optimize farmland.
Key Formula
In tune with the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy, His Majesty introduced the unprecedented approach to manage farmland. Efficient water management was also developed to ensure year-around farming. To adopt the New Theory agriculture, farmers are advised to follow these three steps:
Phase I Farmland Division for Optimum Benefits
The land is divided into four parts with a ratio of 30:30:30:10.
The first 30% is designated for a pond to store rainwater during the rainy season while during the dry season it serves to supply water to grow crops and raise aquatic animals and plants.
The second 30% is set aside for rice cultivation during the rainy season for the family’s daily consumption throughout the year to cut down on expenses and allow the farmers to be self-reliant.
The third 30% is used for growing fruit and perennial trees, vegetables, field crops and herbs for daily consumption. If there is any surplus, it will be sold.
The last 10% is set aside for accommodation, animal husbandry, roads and other structures.
Phase II Communal Agriculture
After the first step has been realized, the farmers are encouraged to form groups or cooperatives to carry out farming and agricultural activities in the following areas:
Production (plant species, soil preparation, irrigation, etc.)
Farmers must cooperate in the production of crops, starting from preparing the soil, obtaining plant species, fertilizers, water supply, etc. for cultivation.
Marketing (rice drying space, silos, rice mills, the sale of crops)
When the rice crops are harvested, there must be preparations in many areas to gain the highest profits from them: preparing a common drying space, silos, rice mills, as well as cooperating in selling the produce to obtain good prices and cut down on expenses.
Living conditions (fish paste, fish sauce, food, clothing, etc.)
At the same time farmers must maintain a certain degree of proper living with sufficient basic requisites such as food, fish paste, fish sauce, and clothing.
Welfare (public health, loans)
In each community there should be necessary welfare and services, such as a health center in time of sickness or a fund providing loans to be used to carry out activities in the community.
Education (schools, scholarships)
The community should play an active role in promoting education, for example, setting up an education fund for children in the community.
Society and religion
The community should be the center for social and mental development, with religion as the binding factor.
All the aforementioned activities must receive cooperation from all parties concerned whether government or private sector, as well as members of the community.
Phase III Loan and Credit Outreach
After the second phase, the farmers should move into the third phase by making contacts with banks or private companies to obtain funds to assist with investment or developing their quality of life. In this way, both farmers and banks or private companies will gain mutual benefits as follows.
- Farmers can sell their rice at a high price (since they are not forced to sell cheaply)
- Banks or private companies can buy rice for consumption at a low cost (by buying paddy directly from the farmers and milling it them themselves)
- Farmers can buy consumer products at a low cost since they buy them together in large quantities (from cooperatives stores at a wholesale price)
- Banks or private companies are able to disperse their personnel to carry out various activities for better results
Principles and Methods
The New Theory is a production system based on Sufficiency Economy by which farmers can subsist at an economical level first, provided that the community must unite and cooperate in helping one another along the line of long khaek or mutual-help tradition to cut down on labor expenses. Since rice is the staple food consumed by every household, it is estimated that each family must grow rice on approximately 5 rai (8,000 square meters) of land to have enough rice for year-round consumption without having to buy it at an expensive price, thus enabling them to be self-reliant. There must be a sufficient reserve of water to be used for cultivation in the dry season or during the dry spell. Therefore, it is necessary to set aside a part of the land to dig a pond on the principle that there must be enough water for cultivation the whole year round. According to His Majesty the King’s calculation, to cultivate 1 rai (1,600 square meters) of land requires about 1,000 cubic meters of water. So, for growing 5 rai of rice and 5 rai of field crops or fruit trees (10 rai in all) there must be about 10,000 cubic meters of water per year.
Thus, on a premise that the land to be cultivated is 15 rai, it can be roughly divided into:
5 rai for rice field
5 rai for field crops 3 rai for a pond, 4 meters deep with a capacity to store about 19,000 cubic meters of water, the amount sufficient for use in the dry season 2 rai for accommodation and other purposes, bringing the total up to 15 rai.
However, the size of the pond depends on the topography and the environment as follows:
- If the land is to be used for cultivation that relies on rainwater, then the pond should be deep to prevent water from evaporating too much, so there will be enough water for the whole year.
- If the land is in an irrigated area, then the pond can be deep or shallow, and narrow or wide as may be suitable, since there is a continual supply of water.
The reason for the pond is for the farmers to have water for use all year round on a regular basis (His Majesty calls this a ‘regulator,’ meaning a good control with a continual water circulation system for cultivation), especially in the dry season and during dry spells. However, it does not mean that farmers can grow off- season paddy since if the amount of water in the pond is insufficient, then water has to be conveyed from a nearby dam, if there is one, which may cause the water in the dam to be depleted. Farmers should grow rice in the rainy season. In the dry season or during dry spells they should use the stored water to the highest benefit agriculturally by growing crops suitable to the seasons in order to have other produce for consumption and also for sale all year round.
His Majesty’s division of land to achieve the highest benefit has been calculated and considered from the rate of land tenure of 15 rai per household. However, farmers with less or more land can also apply the ratio of 30:30:30:10 to their land as follows. The first 30% is used to dig a pond (where fish can be raised and aquatic plants such as morning glory can be grown). Above the pond chicken coops can be built and along the banks of the pond perennial trees that do not need much water to subsist can also be grown.
The second 30% is used for rice farming.
The third 30% is used to grow field crops and orchard trees (fruit trees, perennial trees, trees whose wood can be used for general purposes, for firewood, or for construction, field crops, vegetables, and herbs).
The final 10% is for accommodation and other purposes (paths, levees, haystacks, space for drying compost, sheds, for mushroom culture, animal pens, flower and ornamental plants, and a kitchen garden).
Nevertheless, the above ratio is only a rough formula or principle that can be changed or improved depending on the conditions of the terrain, the amount of rainfall, and the environment. For example, in the South where it rains constantly or in areas where water sources are available to refill the pond, the size of the pond can be reduced to make room for other uses.
There are several factors involved in carrying out the New Theory depending on the topography and the environment of each locality. Therefore, farmers should be advised by officials. The most significant thing is the cost of investment is rather high, especially for digging the pond. Farmers must receive help from the government, foundations, and the private sector. While the pond is being dug, the topsoil which is fertile should be piled aside to be used for growing plants later on by spreading it over the lower level soil which is less fertile, or it can be otherwise utilized to build the edge of the pond or beds to grow fruit trees.
Recommended Crops and Animals for New Theory Farming
Fruit trees and perennial plants:
Mango, coconut, tamarind, jackfruit, sapodilla, orange, banana, custard apple, papaya, santol, horseradish, neem tree
Short-lived vegetables and flowers:
Sweet potato, taro plant, yard long bean, eggplant, jasmine, Aztec, globe amaranth, rose
Mushroom:
Nang fah mushroom (Pleurotus sajor-caju), straw mushroom, abalone mushroom (Pleurotus cystidiosus)
Herbs and spices:
Areca palm, betel pepper, pepper, elephant yam, Centella asiatica, ebony tree, ringworm bush, vetiver grass, as well as certain types of crops such as holy basil, common basil, mint, lemongrass
Wood and firewood:
Bamboo, coconut, palm, coral tree, lead tree, eucalyptus, neem tree, cassod tree
Field crops:
Maise, soybean, groundnut, cowpea, pigeon pea, sugarcane, cassava, castor, kapok
Soil nourishing and ground cover crops:
Pigeon pea, sword bean, cassod tree, lead tree, green pea
Pigs, chickens and aquatic animals such as common carp, nile tilapia, common silver barb, catfish, frogs
Note: Various plants are more useful than others. When growing plants perennial plants should be given precedence since they need less maintenance in the long run and they give yields regularly all year round. Various species of perennial trees should be selected to give shade and moisture to dwelling places and the environment. The plants should be selected according to the conditions of the terrain, for example, eucalyptus should not be planted along the edge of the pond. Fruit trees should be grown instead.
Benefits of the New Theory Agriculture
The people can live moderately at an economical level, without having to starve, and can be self-reliant according to the ‘Sufficiency Economy’ philosophy.
In the dry season when water is scarce, the water stored in the pond can be used to grow vegetables that can thrive on a small amount of water without having to rely on the irrigation system.
In years when it rains in season with rainwater available all year round, the New Theory can earn income for the farmers who do not have to worry about expenses.
In case of floods, farmers can recuperate and help themselves to a certain degree without needing much assistance from the government, a save on the budget in a way. The Ideal New Theory
The New Theory operated by relying on natural water sources or rainwater can be rather “precarious” since in years that rain is scarce the amount of water may be insufficient. Therefore, in order to realize the full potential of the New Theory it is necessary to have an efficient water detention pond with full capacity by having a large water source that is always able to refill the pond. For example, in the case of the experiment at the Royal-initiated Wat Mongkhol Chaipattana Development Project, Saraburi province His Majesty has suggested the following methods:
The ideal New Theory system
Large reservoir filling small reservoir, small reservoir filling pond As seen the illustration, the small circles are ponds that farmers have dug according to the New Theory. When water is scarce in the dry season, they can draw water from these ponds for use. If there is not enough water in the ponds, they can get water from Huai Hin Khao Reservoir (small reservoir), from where water delivery pipelines have been laid down to the ponds dug in each plot of land. In this way, water is available for use the whole year round.
In case the amount of water used by farmers is considerable and the volume of water in Huai Hin Khao Reservoir (small reservoir) is insufficient, water may be conveyed from Pa Sak Jolasid Dam (big reservoir) to Huai Hin Khao Reservoir (small reservoir), which will help refill the volume of water in the farmers’ ponds without their having to face the risk of water scarcity.
The system of water resources management initiated by His Majesty the King is able to render the most efficient use of water conveyed through the pipelines system to the plots of land by three to five times the average. This is because in the rainy season, besides the water in the reservoirs, there is also water stored in the farmers ponds, thereby increasing the amount of water hugely. The water in the reservoirs connected to the ponds will only serve as reserve water sources for repletion.
‘New Theory’ Demonstration Projects of the Chaipattana Foundation
For more information and how to visit the ‘New Theory’ demonstration farms please contact:
1. The Department of Projects Management
Office of the Chaipattana Foundation
Dusit Palace, Sri Ayutthaya Road
Dusit, Bangkok 10300
2. The Royally-initiated Wat Mongkhol Chaipattana Development Project
Saraburi Province
Tel/Fax 036 499 181
3. The Royally-initiated Integrated Farming Demonstration Farm (the New Theory)
Pak Thor Sub-district, Ratchaburi Province
4. Suan Somdech Phra Sri Nagarindra Project (The Late Princess Mother Garden Project)
Cha-am Sub-district, Phetchaburi Province
Tel/Fax 02 359 4067
5. The New Theory Demonstration Project
Khao Wong Sub-district
Kalasin Province
Pak Thong Chai Sub-district
Nakhon Ratchasima Province
Copyright © 2016 The Chaipattana Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License. Implement By Marvelic Engine | 农业 | 23,661 |
Did you order some fresh garlic? Individual farmer brings food to clients in Weehawken, UC by
Joanne Hoersch Reporter Correspondent Hudson Reporter
Jun 01, 2014 | 2312 views | 3 | 38 | | Hesperides Organica view slideshow (3 images)
Red leaf lettuce, daikon radishes, golden beets and garlic scapes. These are just a few of the words that are part of Lisa Van Den Berg’s daily vocabulary. What exactly is a garlic scape, you may ask? How about patty pan squash? Or purslane? All of them are vegetables that residents of Weehawken, Union City, and other Hudson County residents will soon start picking up each Wednesday between 6 and 8 p.m. at St. John’s Church in Union City. Van Den Berg and her husband, Albert, grow them on their farm in Upstate New York, along with bushels full of more familiar vegetables like romaine lettuce and spring onions. They are part of a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) organization that partners farmers with consumers who want to support local growers by purchasing their produce, and who appreciate the difference between a locally-grown vegetable and a corporate-grown product shipped in from Florida or California or Argentina. CSAs like Van Den Berg’s are membership-driven organizations that supply a bag of vegetables once a week to each customer, from the second week in June to the end of November when the growing season is over. The vegetables vary from week to week, depending on which ones have come to full harvest. The magic of ‘black dirt’“There is nothing better than eating a tomato picked right off the vine warmed by the sun,” Van Den Berg said. “It’s the way they were meant to be eaten.” That means members get more than a bag of vegetables delivered each week – they get the sun, the rain, and the soil that went into creating this food. And, it’s not just soil, Van Den Berg is careful to point out; it’s “black dirt.”Originally discovered by an early wave of German, Polish and Dutch farmers, this is dirt in which you can grow anything. It’s so soft that you can’t plant a tree in it because the soil can’t support the tree’s roots. A tractor running over the soil makes the ground shake “like Jello.”“It’s a gift,” Van Den Berg says, “but in a way a curse too. Because anything grows, and that includes weeds.”When she and her husband first started farming, she was on her hands and knees pulling weeds as well as planting seeds. Their business started out with 12 clients.Now, less than 10 years later, they have about 290 clients and she has help with the planting and the weeding.It’s still hard work, but it’s the kind of work that’s in her blood. But she didn’t always know that.Though she came from a farming family – she says with a smile that she’s probably a “200th generation farmer” – her first passion after graduating from Southern Illinois University, was journalism. She even landed a job as editor-in-chief of her local newspaper. But it was always the human interest stories that drew her in, the human spirit, the human questions, so she took off for Switzerland to study Transcendental Meditation. And then she read a book that changed her life.In “The Long Emergency,” James Howard Kunstler proposes an argument called “Peak Oil.” He postulates that in the not too distant future, oil production will be so difficult and expensive that we will all learn to live on a smaller scale, to become more communal and – what spoke most eloquently to Lisa Van Den Kirk – to harvest our food locally. It is a heartfelt message that speaks to her to this day. Journalism and meditation all led her back to her roots, but in a way that coalesced as a life’s journey. She married, had children, and began farming. She and her husband wound up in a community in upstate New York where a transcendental meditation center was also located. It is an even happier stroke of luck that they were looking to sell off some of their land.A new view of the food we eatIn Greek mythology, the Hesperides were three often-unnamed nymphs who tended a garden of golden apples which were said to impart immortality on people who ate them. Eating your vegetables, good ones, grown locally with love, may not make you immortal, but it will certainly make you healthy. Thus, she named her cooperative Hesperides Organica.And what about garlic scapes? They are the stalks of the hardneck garlic and are delicious. You can grill them, add them to a salad, or make them into a pesto. They’re one of the surprises in the weekly vegetable bag; a way to expand your experience of the food you can eat and enjoy.It’s more than picking up the weekly vegetables – it’s a first step into a new way of thinking about what we eat and where our food is grown.
'Quality time'
WEEHAWKEN BRIEFS
Johnguy201 |
Very well written article, I'm excited for this opportunity. We need more articles with this type of depth. Great story!! Reply
thisguygene |
Great article! Nice to know this is available! Reply
[email protected] |
Thank you for this wonderful piece, which does what great journalism does: It informs in an engaging way, while providing broad context on why it matters. Reply | 农业 | 5,124 |
What is Quaking-Grass?
Terrie Brockmann
Quaking grasses, or cowquakes, belong to a group of grasses in the plant genus Briza. Quaking-grass usually refers to all plants in this genus, but some people use this name for specific species within the genus. Some examples are big quaking grass, common quaking grass, and little quaking grass. Quaking-grass gets its name from the fact that its spikelets tremble in light breezes, inspiring the alternate name trembling grass for common quaking-grass.
Most of these grasses are native grasses in temperate regions of southwestern and western Asia, Europe, and parts of the Mediterranean. Some quaking-grass plants are hardy to USDA hardiness zone 4. A buyer needs to research which species might survive in his or her garden region.
Small or little quaking-grass is Briza minor. Often it grows to 18 inches (about 45 cm) tall and spreads to a width of about 10 inches (about 2.5 cm), which is a typical size for many Briza grasses. It is an erect plant that is loosely tufted, meaning that a cluster of short-stalked stems grow from a single of common point. Most of these grasses are tufted, either loosely or densely. Ad
Big quaking-grass, sometimes called puffed wheat, may reach heights of 18 to 24 inches (about 45 to 60 cm) and has green, heart-shaped spikelets that are up to 0.5 inches (about 1.5 cm) long. Spikelets are a small composition of flowers that are on a single stem. Some grass flowers are stemless and lie tight against the stem, resembling a rattlesnake's tail. Other species have flowers that grow on panicles or racemes, which are flowers that are branched from the main stem. Generally, the Briza flowers are inconspicuous or not showy.
Some of the leaves and spikelets may be green, purplish, or blue-green before maturing to the straw color. The puffed wheat, or big quaking grass, usually produces reddish tinged leaves, and its cereal-shaped flowers dangle from approximately 4-inch (about 10-cm) hair-fine stalks. Sometimes this species' approximately 0.5-inch (about 1.5-cm) spikelets are a golden straw color with a cap of red where the stem attaches.
Gardeners find that the grasses usually add an unusual element to flower gardens. The long, linear leaves typically turn to neutral beige or straw color in the fall, which often contrasts with the colorful flowers and foliage in the garden. The slender, hair-like stems that bear the flowers and seeds wave and dance in the slightest wind, giving a graceful movement to the garden area. Many growers raise the grasses for adding interest to cut flower arrangements. Frequently, florists dye the grasses for extra color.
Most gardeners propagate the annual quaking-grass by seed and the perennial species by division. Often landscapers or gardeners sow the quaking-grass for borders, specimen plants, or container plants. The smaller species and cultivars sometimes adorn rock gardens. Ad
What Is Puffed Wheat Cereal?
What is Muehlenbeckia?
What is Briza?
What is Drought-Resistant Grass?
What is Holcus?
What is the Best Method for Cutting Grass?
What is Dwarf Grass? | 农业 | 3,095 |
About |Contact
Connect: Subscribe Help us make sure the budget makes sense Donate Now
Ways to Give »
IssuesAgricultureBudget & TaxEarmarks & AppropriationsEnergyNational SecurityNatural Resources Transportation & InfrastructureCommon SenseAvoid Unnecessary LiabilitiesCut SubsidiesEliminate Corporate WelfareEnsure Fair ReturnsExpose Special InterestsIncrease TransparencyPrioritize InvestmentsRein in DeficitsStop WasteLibraryPolicy BriefsFact SheetsReports & Data101Our TakeLetters & TestimonyWeekly WastebasketData CenterAgricultureBudget & TaxEarmarks & AppropriationsEnergyNational SecurityTransportation & InfrastructureMedia CenterWhat's HappeningIn the NewsPress KitDo SomethingWays to GiveConnect With UsAction Center
Search Home » Library»
Golden Fleece Award
Share | TCS RSS Feed January 31, 2008 > Updated: July 22, 2015
Programs: Agriculture, Budget & Tax, Earmarks & Appropriations, Energy, National Security, Natural Resources, Transportation & Infrastructure
July 22, 2015 Steve Ellis, (202) 546-8500
Taxpayers for Common Sense Announces New Golden Fleece Recipient
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack –Blinders for Blender Pumps-- Read the full analysis: http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/golden-fleece-blinders-for-blender-pumps
Today, Taxpayers for Common Sense awarded Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack the Golden Fleece Award for his relentless attempts to subsidize the ethanol industry, most recently providing $100 million in taxpayer subsidies to pay for new gas station pumps that can dispense high-blend ethanol fuels.
In late May, Secretary Vilsack announced plans to create a new program, the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership, to use $100 million in Commodity Credit Corporation funds to support ethanol blender pumps. States had until mid-July to apply for the grants. These moves put Vilsack squarely at odds with Congress which explicitly forbid the Department of Agriculture from tapping another agriculture program to pay for ethanol blender pumps.
“Secretary Vilsack has chosen to do the bidding of the ethanol industry rather than protect American taxpayers --wasting money on what is clearly a business expense,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “For this, he has earned himself a Golden Fleece.”
The Farm Bill, enacted into law in early 2014, explicitly prohibited the Agriculture Secretary from providing support for blender pumps in the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). Though the program is intended to be used to fund renewable energy systems, USDA had been using it to funnel money to ethanol blender pumps. “Congress made clear that it wanted to end the blender pump subsidies and it’s time Secretary Vilsack remove his parochial Iowa hat, stand up for federal taxpayers, and stop the endless ethanol gravy train,” said Alexander.
The USDA’s recent funding for blender pumps is only the latest for the ethanol industry which has been heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers for decades. The corn ethanol industry has received federal government support for more than 30 years through such provisions as the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit, Volumetric Biodiesel Excise Tax Credit/Renewable Biodiesel Tax Credit, and the eligibility rules for Master Limited Partnerships.
“We need Congress to, once again, take action to rein in Secretary Vilsack’s backdoor attempts to prop up the corn ethanol industry. It doesn’t seem like he’s getting the message,” concluded Alexander.
Read the full analysis: http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/golden-fleece-blinders-for-blender-pumps
About the Golden Fleece Award
Past Golden Fleece Recipients
More about the Golden Fleece
History of Senator Proxmire and the Golden Fleece
From surfing subsidies to the Great Wall of Bedford, Indiana, Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Award protected taxpayers … and made them laugh! One of the most popular and enduring icons of American politics, Senator Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Award embodied both outrage and humor as it put the public spotlight on waste and abuse of taxpayer money.
To commemorate the 25th anniversary of the famous waste-busting award, Senator Proxmire asked Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) to revive the Golden Fleece Award. The first revived Golden Fleece was awarded to the FAA for fleecing taxpayers out of a half a billion dollars in lost taxpayer revenue at the Tampa International Airport. The most famous award recipient? The Bridge to Nowhere.
Now, Taxpayers for Common Sense awards “The Golden Fleece” when a project so symbolizes waste of taxpayer dollars – instead of investments worthy of those limited resources – that we feel compelled to give it extra public attention.
In honor of Senator Proxmire, Taxpayers for Common Sense also collected the complete history of the Golden Fleece for the education and enjoyment of taxpayers of all generations. Working from the Senator's files, TCS has summarized the 14-year history of fleeces from 1975 to 1988. From this list, TCS has also selected its favorite awards and presents them here in a Golden Fleece Top Ten List.
"The Wisconsin Democrat has long been the taxpayer’s champion in Congress.”
--The Wall Street Journal
Golden Fleece: Coal to Kaiserslautern (June 2015)
Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) awarded the Golden Fleece to the House and Senate Appropriations committees for blindly perpetuating a wasteful requirement to burn American anthracite at the U.S. military facility in Kaiserslautern, Germany for more than 20 years. The provision tucked away in the annual spending bill for the Department of Defense is the last remnant of a mandate to use coal at all U.S. bases in Europe dating back 54 years, an egregious statutory subsidy for northeast Pennsylvania coal that has cost taxpayers billions. Today, it costs the U.S. military around $20 million a year to heat the Kaiserslautern facility with coal that’s shipped 4,000 miles across the Atlantic.
“This boondoggle has been going on for a half century," said Ms. Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "The lawmakers that got Uncle Sam in the business of sending Pennsylvania coal to fuel U.S. military bases in Germany are gone. House and Senate Appropriators deserve the Golden Fleece for perpetuating this waste on auto-pilot.”
For more about coal to Kaiserslautern, click here.
Golden Fleece: Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (June 2013)
Taxpayers for Common Sense awarded the Golden Fleece to the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) in Alaska for a decade of waste resulting from its pursuit of a bridge in Anchorage. The Knik Arm Bridge would cost at least $1.6 billion to construct, and is the less infamous but no less wasteful sibling of the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Ketchikan. Both received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the form of earmarks in the 2005 transportation bill.
"KABATA has spent millions of federal taxpayer dollars on the Knik Arm Bridge, with virtually nothing to show for it," said Ms. Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "The recent legislative audit calls into serious question the financial underpinnings of the project, and causes us to question whether KABATA is working in the best interest of taxpayers and Alaskans."
For more about KABATA wasteful spending, click here.
Golden Fleece: Small Modular Reactors (February 2013)
Taxpayers for Common Sense awarded the Golden Fleece to the Department of Energy for wasting taxpayer funds on small modular reactors.
Ryan Alexander, president, Taxpayers for Common Sense, said: “The nation is two days away from the across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration. But at the same time we are hearing the Department of Energy and the nuclear industry evangelizing about the benefits of small modular reactors. In reality, we cannot afford to pile more market-distorting subsidies to profitable companies on top the billions of dollars we already gave away.”
Autumn Hanna, senior program director, Taxpayers for Common Sense, said: “The nuclear industry has a tradition of rushing forth to proclaim that a new technology, just around the corner, will take care of whatever problem exists. Unfortunately, these technologies have an equally long tradition of expensive failure. If the industry believes in small modular reactors and a reactor in every backyard – great – but don’t expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.”
For more about DOE's wasteful spending on small modular reactors, click here.
Golden Fleece: Agriculture Risk Management Agency (December 2012)
Taxpayers for Common Sense awarded the Golden Fleece to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) for wasting taxpayer funds on risk management education for crops ranging from Christmas trees to turf grass.
“While the program is purported to help underserved producers and crops, grants also teach agricultural producers how to squeeze more money out of taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance,” said Ms. Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “Taxpayer dollars have been wasted on conferences and entertainment sessions to inform producers about ways to manage business risks, many of which are already covered by the private sector. With the nation teetering on the edge of the fiscal cliff, taxpayers shouldn’t be teaching agribusinesses how to reach deeper into Uncle Sam’s pockets.”
For more about RMA's wasteful spending, click here.
Golden Fleece: The Riverboat Ripoff (April 2012)
Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) is proposing a Riverboat Ripoff. His bill (H.R. 4342) Waterways Are Vital for the Economy, Energy, Efficiency, and Environment Act of 2012 (WAVE4 Act) would bailout commercial barge operators from most of their share of the costs of constructing the locks and dams that make navigation possible on much of the nation’s waterways. Even though taxpayers already cover nearly 90% of the cost for building and maintaining the inland navigation system that makes their businesses viable, this bill proves that for some special interests, that’s not enough. In exchange for a miniscule increase of six cents in the diesel fuel tax, H.R. 4342 proposes to effectively eliminate a cost-sharing responsibility that’s financed inland waterways for more than 30 years while sticking taxpayers, already saddled with $15 trillion in debt, with the bill. The proposed legislation could end up fleecing taxpayers out of an extra $200 million every year. Congressman Whitfield and the bill’s six cosponsors, Rep. Costello (D-IL), Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), Rep. John Duncan (R-TN), Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL), and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL), rightfully earn a Golden Fleece.
For more about the The Riverboat Ripoff, click here.
Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska Receives Golden Fleece Award in 2003
(From the Revised Report in 2005): Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is trying to sell America's taxpayers a $315 million "bridge to nowhere" in rural Alaska. As Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he is in a very good position to get his way. But Rep. Young should be stopped from using his political clout to force federal taxpayers to pay for a bridge that is ridiculous in its scope, unjustified on its merits, and far too expensive for taxpayers to swallow at a time of record federal deficits.*** More...
***Read the original write-up from June, 2003: Golden Fleece: $190 Million Bridge to Nowhere
Agency Receives Golden Fleece for Shady Forest Deal in West Virginia
Washington, DC (June 27, 2001) - Citing the illegal use of taxpayer dollars at the Northeastern Research Station's Fernow Experimental Forest, Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) today awarded the United States Forest Service the dubious honor of the Golden Fleece Award.
"Either it's amateur hour at the Forest Service, or these employees knowingly chose to defraud taxpayers," commented Jonathan Oppenheimer, Director of the TCS Forest Campaign. "Either way, it cost taxpayers millions of dollars." More...
The Fleece is Back!
Washington, DC (July 5, 2000) -- To commemorate the 25th anniversary of the famous waste-busting award, former Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire asked Taxpayers for Common Sense to revive the Golden Fleece Award. The first of the revived Golden Fleeces has been awarded to the FAA for fleecing taxpayers out of a half a billion dollars in lost taxpayer revenue at the Tampa International Airport. This is the second time that the agency has received the award for the same problem. In 1985, Proxmire also awarded the FAA a Fleece for a similar problem below-market leases at Florida airports.
See also: Airport Ripoff Costs Taxpayers Millions
About the Golden Fleece
Continuing the legacy of the late Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire’s beloved American political icon, the revived Fleece retains his integrity and visibility. It also involves activists, citizen organizations, and public officials to give them a stake in this powerful tool to serve American taxpayers.
Criteria for Awards
Senator Proxmire served as Honorary Chair of the Advisory Board of Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) since the organization’s founding in 1995 until his passing in 2005. TCS is committed to enhancing his legacy while preserving his principles of strict political independence and dedication to service of taxpayers.
Taxpayers for Common Sense believes the Fleece is needed now more than ever. The Fleece has three purposes:
Spotlights specific examples of outrageous waste – The Fleece directs public and media attention to promote to specific issues where reform is needed. It also prevents waste by motivating government officials to protect taxpayer money and thereby avoid the spotlight a Fleece could bring.
Serves all taxpayers by inspiring advocacy by citizens groups and leadership by public officials – By inviting a variety of activists, citizens groups and public officials to co-release specific Fleeces, Taxpayers for Common Sense seeks to inspire more leadership by public officials and activism by citizen groups.
Preserves and enhances the reputation of Senator Proxmire and the original Fleece – The new Fleece honors the Senator and the original Fleece by maintaining his high standards of excellence and integrity; inspiring media and public appreciation of his work through an online presence; and, educating a new generation of taxpayers about Senator Proxmire’s legacy.
The new Fleece will be awarded to projects and programs that:
Are wasteful, ironic, or ridiculous uses of the taxpayers’ money.
Would be recognized as wasteful by many people of varying political perspectives.
Have not received extensive national media attention.
Feature a variety of federal agencies and programs that would appeal to taxpayers from a variety of political perspectives.
Are well-documented and can be solidly defended against tough critics.
Preference may be given to projects or issues that are at a key juncture or where a Fleece can make a real difference in the result for taxpayers in the short term. Taxpayers for Common Sense makes all final judgments.
Press outreach to release new Fleeces – Each Fleece will be publicized through a press release and other media outreach which could feature co-releasers who are leaders or have expertise on the particular issue.
Golden Fleece on the TCS website – Taxpayers for Common Sense disseminates information on new Fleeces through this website. Taxpayers for Common Sense also makes available the excellent repository of historical information on the original Fleece, including the only complete list of all Fleece awards.
History of the Golden Fleece Senator Proxmire served as Honorary Chairman of the Taxpayers for Common Sense Advisory Board and inspired many. This history of the Senator and his famous Golden Fleece Award is compiled in his honor.
Criteria for the Award
About Senator William Proxmire
More About Senator William Proxmire
Former Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire issued a Golden Fleece Award every month between March 1975 and December 1988. In his own words, the award singled out a “wasteful, ridiculous or ironic use of the taxpayers’ money.” Through the Golden Fleece Award, Senator Proxmire fought for American taxpayers by focusing public attention on budgetary waste in every branch of government. A number of the programs or projects he targeted were curtailed, modified or canceled, helping to save American taxpayers millions of dollars. More importantly, the Golden Fleece Award encouraged all who handled or sought government money to take extra care.
The dubious distinction of a Golden Fleece Award was not given to just any example of government waste in the federal budget. Instead, it was awarded to federal programs that most Americans would agree were outrageous and wasteful. For example, although Senator Proxmire believed that the MX Missile was a waste of money, he never gave a Fleece to that program.
More importantly, projects receiving the Golden Fleece Awards did not necessarily have high costs, but rather violated a principle of responsible government spending. Some examples include a $27,000 study to determine why inmates want to escape from prison and a $6,000, 17- page document on how to buy Worcestershire Sauce. “My own favorite was the study to find out whether sunfish that drink tequila are more aggressive than sunfish who drink gin,” Senator Proxmire told The Atlanta Journal and Constitution in 1985.
Lastly, to receive a Golden Fleece Award, an example of government waste must never have received national press coverage.
Inspiration Senator Proxmire was inspired to create the Golden Fleece Award in early 1975 as a way to galvanize public opinion against wasteful spending. In March 1975, the Senator gave his first Golden Fleece Award to the National Science Foundation for conducting an $84,000 study about why people fall in love. After that, the Golden Fleece Award became a regular news feature and favorite with the public.
“The purpose of the award was to dramatize wasteful and extravagant spending to try to discourage it. Highlighting specific, single wasteful expenditures is more effective than simply complaining in a general way about government waste,” Senator Proxmire told The Wall Street Journal in 1988.
First brought to Congress in a special election in 1957, Senator William Proxmire, a Democrat, served 32 years for over five terms in the U.S. Senate until he retired in 1989. During that time, he chaired the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, and Joint Economic Committee, and was a subcommittee Chairman on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The Senator was well known for his high standards of integrity, dedication, and frugality. After a ritual morning exercise of 100 push-ups and a four-mile run, the Senator brought his extraordinary energy to his work in Congress. Present for more than 10,000 roll call votes during the course of 22 and a half years, he still holds the record for the most consecutive votes in the history of the U.S. Senate. In his last two Senate campaigns of 1976 and 1982, Senator Proxmire refused to take any campaign contributions, whatever their form, and spent less than $200 out of his own pocket on each of the campaigns.
In a November 1995 speech, Senator Christopher Dodd commemorated Senator Proxmire’s career and 80th birthday:
“Senator Proxmire is perhaps best remembered for his fanatical devotion to saving taxpayer dollars. He refused to travel abroad at government expense, and he returned $1 million to the Treasury over 6 years by cutting back on staff expenses. This commitment to personal thrift gave him the credibility to stand up to the waste of taxpayer money elsewhere in the government…. Golden Fleece not only makes its point about the potential dangers of ill-managed and ill-conceived government programs, but reminds us of the humor and character of this noble public servant.”
Words of Praise for Senator Proxmire and the Golden Fleece
1999 Inductee to the Taxpayer Hall of Fame
Report written by John Hulgren and Lisa Novins. Special thanks to Senator William Proxmire and his former staff -- Arlene Branca, Ken Dameron, Ruth Fleischer, Mort Schwartz, and Ron Tammen -- for historical information and advice.
Increase Transparency, Stop Waste
Weekly Wastebasket
Our weekly reality-check for federal spending. View All
Aviation Extension Shenanigans
Turmoil in Congress has thrown everything up in the air. The House left early for its 4th of July recess, and... Not A Subscriber? Get the latest on the Federal Budget delivered to your inbox.
Weekly Wastebasket RSS
TCS Rated 4-Star Charity!
Tweets by @taxpayers
TCS at Pittsburgh Public Hearing: Time to Fix Federal Coal, Get Fair Return June 28, 2016
Aviation Extension Shenanigans June 24, 2016
TCS Joins Groups in Letter Opposing Wasteful Catfish Inspection Program June 23, 2016
TCS Calls for Federal Coal Reform at BLM Hearing in Colorado June 23, 2016
Statement: Council of Economic Advisors’ coal report June 22, 2016
Taxpayers for Common Sense is an independent voice for taxpayers working to increase transparency and expose and eliminate wasteful and corrupt subsidies, earmarks, and corporate welfare.
Learn More Support Us
Share | Issues
AgricultureBudget & TaxEarmarks & AppropriationsEnergyNational SecurityNatural Resources
Avoid Unnecessary LiabilitiesCut SubsidiesEliminate Corporate WelfareEnsure Fair ReturnsExpose Special InterestsIncrease Transparency
Earmarks & Appropriations
Contact | Donate
© Taxpayers for Common Sense | 651 Pennsylvania Ave, SE | Washington, DC 20003 | 202-546-8500 | | 农业 | 21,633 |
BASF continues to explore new ways to control crop pests and diseases
BASF develops and markets products that reach into just about every aspect of consumer life, providing products to 25 different industries worldwide.
basf.jpg
It’s easy to feel dwarfed by the sheer size of BASF. Driving past BASF’s enormous chemical facility in Ludwigshafen, Germany, one can truly appreciate the immense size of the company. Here, BASF employs more than 33,000 of its overall workforce of more than 110,000.
BASF is the largest diversified chemical company in the world. The company develops and markets products that reach into just about every aspect of consumer life. On the company’s website, it lists 25 industries in which it provides products.
The company’s footprint in agriculture is significant. BASF is a well-known brand in the agricultural herbicide, insecticide and fungicide markets. The company’s agricultural division, headquartered in Limburgerhof, Germany, has approximately 1,600 employees.
BASF was founded in 1865 and is most noted in the early years for the development of synthetic dyes, sodium carbonate and sulfuric acid. The company’s agricultural headquarters has historical significance, for it was there, in 1913, that BASF scientists first developed an industrial process to fix atmospheric nitrogen and produce synthetic ammonia. That paved the way for BASF’s foray into mineral fertilizers and, consequently, into agriculture.
Today’s agricultural chemical products are a long way from the initial beginnings. At Limburgerhof, the company works to expand its agricultural chemical portfolio. Its research staff works to not only develop new active ingredients, but to ensure current active ingredients are used to their fullest potential.
Product integration
Agriculture has always been a key component for BASF, and the company has implemented strategies to strengthen its presence in the marketplace.
“Two years ago we embarked on our 2020 strategy,” explains Mark Shillingford, global strategic marketing crop protection head of corn and soybeans for BASF. “We decided to look at how farmers view their crops instead of purely being a company that supplies typical herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and seed treatments.”
The company remains committed to those four core business units of herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and seed treatments, but it has added a fifth unit: functional crop care.
“The functional crop care area will focus beyond our current products and into how we can integrate all our core products and develop broad-based solutions for our customers,” Shillingford says. “In the past, we focused a lot on individual products. But our customers want more.
“For U.S. corn producers, one of the most common ways to increase yield has been to increase plant population,” he continues. “With these increased populations, plants become stressed. Also, with more corn-on-corn we are seeing new disease pressures. This will require a systems approach to manage disease, insect and weed pressure. We want to bring a complete package of solutions to producers.”
It’s a tall task for a global company. That’s because the knowledge base differs significantly from country to country. BASF’s corn portfolio reaches 13 countries and its soybean portfolio is in six countries. “Within these regions there are very different cultural practices and levels of technical understanding,” Shillingford explains. “We work to take successful technologies and services developed in one country and transfer that knowledge, portfolio and approach to other countries.”
It requires a different level of teaching, and in some cases a different approach to the market. “But the interesting thing is that at the end of the day, producers from all parts of the world want basically the same result: Produce more yield and better quality with optimized inputs. How we meet those needs differ, but the end result is the same,” Shillingford says.
It’s a different mind-set for a company that has traditionally been a supplier of crop protection products. But Shillingford says this new approach will not only benefit BASF customers, but also BASF itself.
The agricultural research headquarters for BASF remains a hotbed of activity as the company continues to screen hundreds of thousands of compounds in search of that next active ingredient. And one of the company’s key strategic advantages is its broad range of expertise with a variety of chemical compounds.
The company actively looks at all aspects of its production processes in its efforts to discover new compounds and breathe new life into existing compounds. It’s a process called Verbund, which in the German language means integrating, or linking, of various processes to achieve maximum results. It’s more than a simple word, however. Within BASF’s extensive chemical portfolio are a myriad of formulations and processes that are being shared across platforms.
For example, the company developed its new product line of Xemium fungicides using the latest in carboxamide technology. “Our experience with boscalid [the active ingredient in Endura fungicide] led us to this new, broader spectrum product,” explains Ulf Groeger, the global project leader for Xemium, BASF. “Xemium controls a broad spectrum of diseases as well as a wide range of life stages of the fungus.”
It was BASF’s long history of work with carboxamides that led to this breakthrough technology. “Fungal diseases are estimated to rob 20% of the world’s crop yield,” says Frederik Menges, global marketing manager, fungicides, BASF. “This product will be offered in a broad spectrum of crops, including cereals, corn and soybeans.” For U.S. producers, premix formulations containing Xemium will be Priaxor fungicide for crops, including corn and soybeans.
The road to Xemium started with research into current chemistries. “We looked at boscalid and checked for different characteristics and what we wanted. And one prerequisite was good mobility,” Menges says. “We screened thousands of different molecules and came up with one candidate.”
While boscalid remains a very effective product, researchers at BASF looked to make it even better. “Because Xemium is a mobile compound, it can distribute evenly within the leaves. And because of its movement, it can stay ahead of the fungus. It also reaches already infested areas, which is the reason why we are seeing some of the curative responses to the product,” Groeger says.
The company continues its efforts to discover and develop new active ingredients and new compounds for agricultural producers. It is work that will continue and grow in importance — for BASF and its customers.
BASF’s Priaxor fungicide for soybeans approved
BASF submits application for new dicamba herbicide Engenia
BASF introduces new herbicide to battle glyphosate-resistant waterhemp and other weeds
BASF presents research on new herbicide at Southern Weed Science Society meeting
Fri, 2012-05-11
Source URL: http://farmindustrynews.com/crop-protection/basf-continues-explore-new-ways-control-crop-pests-and-diseases | 农业 | 7,093 |
Pesticides give consumers pest-free produce they want Nov 22, 2016 Arizona cotton leader Rick Lavis succumbs to cancer Dec 02, 2016 New innovations to reduce dust in almond orchards Nov 17, 2016 Steve and Jill Klein Matthiasson: Their unique viticulture/wine dream fulfilled in Napa Nov 28, 2016 Management Separating wheat from chaff at the genetic level
USDA estimates that global farmers grew 681 million tons of wheat in 2011. Only corn and rice had bigger harvests.
Biotechnology breakthrough taps key parts of the wheat genome.
Essential biotech advance will allow producers to grow more and better wheat. Terry Wanzek, Truth About Trade & Technology | Jan 08, 2013
It may be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Heck, it may be even better than sliced bread.
Several weeks ago, researchers announced that they had tapped into key parts of the wheat genome. With this success, we could be on the path to doubling wheat production and increasing food security for people around the world.
That’s an awful lot of sliced bread.
It also marks one of several important milestones in the history of wheat, a plant that currently accounts for around 20 percent of all calories consumed by humans.
About 8,000 years ago, farmers domesticated this staple crop. This agricultural innovation may have led to human society’s transition from hunting and gathering to settled production and the rise of civilization.
Almost 2,000 years ago, the Gospel of Matthew gave us one of our best-known idioms, about separating the wheat from the chaff.
And today, scientists are exposing the secrets of wheat’s genetic makeup.
The formal announcement came in Nature, the academic journal. Scientists from the United Kingdom led the effort, joined by collaborators in Germany and the United States. One member of the team hails from my home state: Dr. Shahryar F. Kianian, a geneticist at North Dakota State University.
Wheat may look like a simple plant, but its biology is astonishingly complex. Wheat is comprised of three different grasses; it has an enormous genome of about 95,000 genes, which is roughly five times larger than the human genome.
So decoding wheat’s genome is a long and laborious task. In Science, the researchers described their approach, called “shotgun sequencing.” They break the genome into pieces and look for patterns, allowing them to learn more at a faster pace.
It’s like separating wheat and chaff at the genetic level.
Their paper was written for an audience of peers, scientists with advanced degrees. Yet their conclusion points to a practical application: “Analysis of complex polygenic traits such as yield and nutrient use efficiency will also be accelerated, contributing to sustainable increases in wheat crop production.”
In ordinary English, that means we’ll soon grow both more and better wheat.
More and better wheat
This advance hardly could have come at a more fitting time. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that global farmers grew 681 million tons of wheat in 2011. Only corn and rice had bigger harvests.
Amid this modern bounty, droughts have caused the price of wheat to bounce up and down, creating economic and political instability. Many experts trace the recent tumult in the Middle East—including the ongoing civil war in Syria—to a sudden spike in the cost of wheat and other foods.
Wheat is a hardy plant that can grow in semi-arid environments. This helpful trait accounts for much of its usefulness and popularity. Ironically, the plant’s toughness also puts it on the front lines of climate change. When droughts strike, wheat often feels the pressure first.
By taking advantage of wheat’s genome, we can apply the same tools of biotechnology that have launched a global revolution in agriculture. In the United States and many other parts of the world, the vast majority of corn and soybeans is genetically enhanced to fight weeds and pests.
With wheat, biotechnology can help us take a plant that already makes efficient use of moisture and build increased drought resistance right into its fundamental makeup. This will make wheat even more durable during dry spells.
This is an essential development, if we hope to keep up with global population growth and also make sure that people enjoy access to affordable food. Geneticist Michael Bevan of the John Innes Center in the United Kingdom put the matter bluntly in the Wall Street Journal: “We need to double wheat yields.”
Decoding wheat’s genome is an indispensible step on the way to meeting this vital goal.
At some point, perhaps one of these brainy scientists will do us all a favor and insert a special trait into the next generation of wheat plants: One that bakes the bread and slices the loaves at the same time.
Terry Wanzek is a wheat, corn and soybean farmer in North Dakota. He serves as a N.D. state senator and volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). | 农业 | 4,930 |
Advertisement Home > New Agromedicine program: MSU emphasizes ag health, safety
New Agromedicine program: MSU emphasizes ag health, safety
Bonnie Coblentz | Delta Farm Press EMAIL
Comments 0 The health and safety of Mississippi, especially the agricultural sector in the Delta, is the primary focus of the newly formed Agromedicine Program, a collaboration between the Mississippi State University Extension Service and the University of Mississippi Medical Center. It is designed to prevent agricultural-related illness and injury in rural areas. The program is funded through the Delta Health Alliance, and the primary focus area is the Mississippi Delta. Beverly Howell, head of Extension family and consumer education at MSU, explained the goals of the program. “Through the Agromedicine Program, Mississippi Extension will provide educational information and programs to rural residents and farm workers that will increase their understanding of rural health and safety issues,” Howell said. “In addition, the program will track the occurrence, outcomes and trends of agricultural illness and injury in Mississippi.” The program will bring the medical community together with a variety of people, including rural and agricultural workers, their families, youth and agricultural industry employees. Howell said the idea for the program was formed more than 20 years ago. Several leaders have embraced the concept of focusing the efforts of many interested groups on one issue. Chip Morgan, executive vice president of Delta Council in Stoneville, Miss., said the idea for an agromedicine program was the brainchild of the late Robert McCarty, who worked with the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce's Bureau of Plant Industry. “Robert McCarty showed us what an agromedicine program was and could be in the late 1980s,” Morgan said. “Robert had the foresight to see that when you're in an environment that includes agriculture as the major manufacturing employer, you need agriculture and health care professionals working together to address the unique environmental and health care-related issues commonly associated with a rural area.” The program is headquartered in Stoneville with the Delta Health Alliance, which provides the funding. It has a staff of two, with a third planned by fall. Melanie Pollan joined the staff from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service. She is a Ph.D. candidate in the UMMC's Department of Health Sciences. “The Mississippi Delta has one of the most underserved populations in the United States in terms of education and access to healthcare,” Pollan said. “Our job is to increase awareness of some of these problems and help to improve access to services. Sometimes access has to do with limited knowledge about services or health problems. Other times health services are not available or attainable due to a variety of problems such as cost or transportation.” Maci Pittman earned a master's degree in health promotion/health education before working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta as a public health prevention specialist. She now is on the Extension agromedicine team. “As we get started, we're finding existing health promotion programs and backing them through resources and staff,” Pittman said. Two present goals are to establish working relationships with the diabetes management clinics in the Delta and to offer farm safety day camps as a pilot program to all the public and private school fourth-graders in Sunflower County, Miss. “We're in the process of forming an advisory council that will include influential farmers, political leaders, and representatives of Farm Bureau, hospitals, insurance companies and anyone with ties to agriculture,” Pittman said. “This advisory group will help us identify areas to focus our efforts, and will give us guidance as we offer programming and begin outreach efforts.” Contact the staff of the Agromedicine Program at 662-686-3520 for more information. Bonnie Coblentz writes for Mississippi State University Ag Communications. Print
Please Log In or Register to post comments. Advertisement Related ArticlesNew season emphasizes farm safety Mississippi program emphasizes guidelines for protecting bees MSU waterfowl program receives national award Office of Animal Health and Food Safety has new tool to track cattle MSU offers new degree program in ag marketing Advertisement Connect With Us TwitterFacebookRSSPodcast Hot Topics | 农业 | 4,499 |
Advertisement Home > Distribution a problem
Distribution a problem
David Bennett | Southeast Farm Press EMAIL
Comments 0 Farmers can rest a bit easier. The big question is no longer whether the supply of nitrogen will be adequate, but whether it'll be in the proper place when needed. The fertilizer crunch has eased since the beginning of the year when natural gas prices shot up to around $10 and fertilizer plants were forced to cut back production. Natural gas prices have gone back down to the $4 to $5 range. While still not at the pre-crisis gas price of around $2, many fertilizer plants are now back on-stream. In reaction to the plant closings, there was also quite a bit of nitrogen imported into the country. So now, working in the farmers' favor is not only the plants again firing up but sizable imports. “Down South, it's been wet and there hasn't been the normal peak activity that the industry expects this time of year. It will hit, though, and the system will feel the pressure.” In December, imports were 25 percent over a year earlier. In January, they were at 28 percent higher — a substantial spike. “U.S. plants were at just over 65 percent of capacity as of the end of February. We'll see that number go up when the March numbers are released,” says The Fertilizer Institute's Kathy Mathers. “We think there's enough nitrogen in the country to take care of farmers' needs. That's especially true with the imports.” The reason the plants are a bit slow in coming back into higher capacity, is starting the plants back up is a time-consuming process, says Mathers. Once a plant is shut down, it can't come up from 40 percent to 100 percent capacity overnight. “What farmers should probably be looking at is the transportation system. If their fertilizer is coming up the Mississippi River on barges, they might want to check on how well the river traffic is moving,” says Mathers. The logistics of moving product around is a real concern. The product is available. Getting it where it's needed is the question. “The biggest thing we're doing currently is trying to insure there's an adequate supply of natural gas for the future. This situation is attributable to the natural gas prices. When the price gets too high, the manufacturers can't sell their product for a profit. Actually, when gas prices were so high, they couldn't even sell it and break even.” From a policy standpoint, there are plenty of natural gas reserves, says Mathers. Farmers need to make sure those supplies are developed. “The demand for natural gas is now a year-round thing. It's been selected by policy makers as a ‘clean’ source of energy. As such, we're hoping the government allows the existing resources to be tapped.” The weather has delayed the run on fertilizer a bit, says long-time agronomist, consultant and former employee in the fertilizer industry, Don Johnson. Johnson says from speaking with people in the fertilizer industry it seems they're still uncertain about exactly what the demand is going to be. There's been very little field activity above the Mason-Dixon line due to the weather. “Down South, it's been wet and there hasn't been the normal peak activity that the industry expects this time of year. It will hit, though, and the system will feel the pressure. “Everyone seems to be holding their breath and praying everything won't break loose at once. If there's a few days of good weather across the nation and farmers are in the field from top to bottom, the strain on the fertilizer industry will be immense.” Johnson says short-term shortages of material — particularly nitrogen — could still occur. If it gets too late to plant corn in some areas, farmers will be looking to soybeans. That is another unknown that could pose hardships on the industry. Johnson agrees with Mathers about tapping natural gas reserves. “There's gas out there, but it'll take a while to bring additional capacity into the system. The current price will have to be around a bit to provide the incentive to go get the untapped sources.” Fertilizer prices will stay higher in the near-term, says Johnson. More importantly, the overall economy has dropped and slowed. “All companies are looking carefully at all areas of their operations. Fertilizer companies are no different. They want to find the inefficiencies and fix those aspects of business. Supply available “There's enough fertilizer. The only real question seems to be about nitrogen in certain forms. In the Midwest, where they use a lot of anhydrous ammonia, there's concern about whether there's enough ammonia.” What about more no-till up north? “We're hearing more of that up here. Everyone is saying farmers need to take a closer look at tillage operations and unnecessary passes across the field. I think more farmers will be paying attention to Extension recommendations on tillage now. Those in the north are also going to look at the cost of irrigating — particularly those using natural gas. And, you know, these reassessments aren't negative things.” e-mail: [email protected] Print
Please Log In or Register to post comments. Advertisement Related ArticlesPatriot sprayer provides superior weight distribution, available power Ag-Chem completes distribution transition Alabama program to help distribute poultry litter Soybean rust distribution map raises caution flag Cotton industry distributes ‘contamination alert’ Advertisement Connect With Us TwitterFacebookRSSPodcast Hot Topics | 农业 | 5,476 |
Leafy Greens Council appoints new executive director following death of Ray Clark by Maggie Giuffrida | July 18, 2013 The Leafy Greens Council appointed Beth Brown to the role of executive director July 1 following the death of former executive director Ray Clark on June 6.
"It is with great sadness that I must announce the loss of Ray Clark, executive director of the Leafy Greens Council," Jeff Greene, president of the council, wrote in a letter to members. "As one of the founding members of the council, Ray had true enthusiasm for the leafy green commodities, the industry and for educating our nation on the benefit of leafy greens. Beth BrownThis was a lifelong passion for him. Ray's dedication and efforts were a crucial part of the continued success [of the Leafy Greens Council], and we all will truly miss him."
Clark, along with Robert Strube Sr. of Strube Celery & Vegetable Co. in Chicago, established the council in 1974. The council was based in St. Paul, MN, during Clark's tenure, but it is now headquartered in Waterport, NY, where Brown lives with her husband.
Originally focused on promoting marketing strategies for fresh spinach, the council has since expanded over the years to encompass all leafy greens products.
"Ray was dedicated to promoting these products, along with educating consumers on the major nutritional benefits they provide," Brown told the Produce News July 17. "Being Ray's successor, I am focused on continuing his legacy and his hopes for the Leafy Greens Council. As executive director, I look forward to being an advocate for the leafy greens commodities and the membership's interests, promote and expand membership in the council, and continue the council's marketing and educational opportunities in the produce industry."
Having grown up on a wholesale fresh market vegetable farm in the Eden Valley area of New York, the produce industry has always played a significant role in Brown's life. She attended SUNY-Oswego, where she obtained a bachelor's degree in business administration. Since then, she has been working in the human resources field for the last six years.
Brown currently resides in Waterport, NY, on her husband's family fruit farm where they grow apples and a variety of berries, as well as operate a farm market.
"The agricultural industry as a whole has always been and continues to be important to me," she said. "Therefore, being executive director of the Leafy Greens Council provides me the opportunity to promote a very important sector of the produce industry."
Clark, who was 89 years old, is survived by his wife, Elly Clark, three children, and several grandchildren. A memorial service was scheduled for July 24 in St. Paul, MN. Videos | 农业 | 2,720 |
Prairies Under Siege: New Threats to Ducks & Waterfowling
North America's Prairie Pothole Region is facing the greatest potential loss of habitat in decades
by Bruce Batt, former DU chief biologist
Wetland protection is at a critical juncture in North America. The United States and Canada have already lost 70 percent of their prairie wetlands. Despite the habitat conservation gains made with duck hunter investments over the past 60 years or more, new, unexpected forces and changes threaten much of the remaining waterfowl habitat. What's at risk? The most productive wetlands and grassland nesting areas still found in both countries, especially in their prairie regions.
In the United States, damaging changes have occurred as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in January 2001 in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, commonly referred to as the SWANCC decision (details at http://www.ducks.org/conservation/404_report.asp). To summarize, the SWANCC decision disallowed the use of the so-called "migratory bird rule" to extend protection to many isolated wetlands that are important to waterfowl and other birds. Thus, federal protection was severely threatened for prairie potholes that have been under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) since 1972. Ducks Unlimited authored a technical analysis of the potential impact of the loss of CWA protection for isolated wetlands and concluded that most of the remaining wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) were at great risk.
With more than two-thirds of the prairie's wetlands already lost, the remaining basins are critical to future waterfowl production. The PPR produces 75 percent of the annual fall flight of some species of waterfowl. And the potential damage extended beyond the PPR, as there are isolated wetland systems in other regions of the country that are critical to waterfowl at other times of the year.
Sportsmen have anxiously awaited a decision from the Bush administration on how the Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency would implement the Supreme Court's decision. DU provided comprehensive comments and suggestions that entirely new rules were not needed and that that process could actually weaken current protection for wetlands in the United States (see http://www.ducks.org/news/DUcomments.PDF). In early November, draft materials were leaked indicating that possible rules were going to remove protection from most isolated wetlands as well as other waters throughout the United States. With this dark cloud on the horizon, DU was delighted when President Bush, on December 16, instructed the agencies to abandon new rule making. DU was also pleased that he reaffirmed his commitment to achieve a "no net loss of wetlands" under his administration.
"We applaud the administration's wetland-protection decision," said DU Executive Vice President Don Young. But we must remain vigilant. Since the SWANCC decision in 2001, regulatory authority guidance has allowed many wetland acres to be lost. Furthermore, there are still some outstanding issues, including pending cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, regarding isolated wetlands and the Clean Water Act. Therefore, DU will continue to devote time and attention to the topic in an effort to conserve and protect this country's critical wetland resources.
Farm Bill threats
The waterfowl conservation community was happy with the passage of the 2002 Farm Bill, as it contained several important provisions that promise great benefits for waterfowl and other wildlife. But, the devil is in the details.
The 2002 Farm Bill also contained commodity subsidies for grain producers. Those subsidies have prompted some speculators to purchase native prairie ranchlands (which contain grasslands vital to nesting waterfowl) and convert them to crops. New strains of wheat and soybeans can now be seeded directly into prairie soils at relatively low cost. This allows some new landowners to, in effect, "farm the Farm Bill," because these crops qualify for subsidies paid to growers based on acres planted and guaranteed base prices. Once converted to cropland, however, the former grasslands can never again be returned to their native state with the full complement of plants and wildlife species. Their loss is permanent.
Waterfowl biologists credit much of the last decade's duck population recovery to production on the U.S. portion of the prairies. Most people feel the driving force was the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which, since its inception, has returned more than 10 million acres of cropland to better nesting habitat. Where CRP covers the landscape, waterfowl nest success is much better than in areas where habitat is fragmented.
However, a second surprise in the 2002 Farm Bill is in the regulations that determine which landowners can receive CRP payments. CRP is the most important U.S. program affecting duck production on the prairies. Nonetheless, in the recent sign-up of new CRP contracts, almost none of the acres were awarded to the prairie pothole states. The bulk of the new contracts are going to provide habitat buffers along streams and the edges of fields outside the PPR. Habitat buffers are good environmental practices, but they don't benefit nesting prairie waterfowl. In 2003, the total new enrollment in the PPR dramatically decreased from annual levels over the past 15 years. (In fact, in 2003 only 57,000 acres were enrolled in CRP in North and South Dakota, compared to a peak enrollment of 2.8 million acres a few years ago.) Correcting this change by regulators will require diligence and another campaign by duck hunters and others who have an abiding interest in the prairies and all the wildlife that its wetlands and grasslands provide.
Quietly in the background, yet another battle over CRP in the prairies is being sorted out. This time, the issue is the frequency of allowable management by grazing, burning, or haying of the cover on CRP fields. One emerging formula allows management every three years, which is good for quail in some regions but results in lost waterfowl habitat every three years. Prairie grasses do not need to be managed that frequently, so DU and its partners are heavily engaged with the Farm Services Agency to help develop rules that allow a more beneficial management schedule on prairie CRP fields.
Ducks Unlimited, other conservation groups, and public agencies have focused their waterfowl conservation efforts in the PPR for more than 60 years. Many substantial accomplishments have resulted from those efforts. The most significant evidence of those accomplishment is the dramatic recovery of the birds during the mid- and late 1990s, when duck numbers increased by a remarkable 69 percent from their low in 1993.
That recovery was possible because, as changed as the prairies appear to the human eye, enough underlying productivity of the land remains to allow the birds to multiply when good water conditions return following dry periods. Ducks Unlimited's fundamental philosophy regarding these landscapes is to aggressively restore, manage, and protect the habitat, through wet and dry years, so that when water conditions allow, the birds will be highly productive once again.
The productive prairie
Duck hunters have been core supporters of DU and of federal programs benefiting the prairies. The federal duck stamp program, which was created in 1934, has resulted in more than 5.4 million acres of critical wetland habitat being conserved. The majority (approximately 55 percent) of these acres have been in Waterfowl Production Areas, 95 percent of which are in the prairie pothole states. The remainder of the habitat that has been conserved by the duck stamp program has been wetland and related upland habitat in national wildlife refuges in other parts of the country. This inventory and legacy of conservation continues to grow each year and clearly demonstrates what can be accomplished when well thought-out programs to protect habitat are maintained. On top of these accomplishments, Ducks Unlimited expanded its breeding grounds work from Canada into the U.S. prairie pothole states in 1984, and has since conserved more than 600,000 acres of wetland and upland habitat in these prairie states.
Canada and the United States share the largest undefended border between any two countries in the world. They also share the entire prairie pothole habitat on the continent. However, many of the similarities stop there as the history of resource use, government policy, farm practices, and rural economic development has matured under very different political and economic circumstances in each country.
Ducks Unlimited in Canada worked exclusively on the Canadian prairies for the first 30 years of its existence. To this day, DU's Canadian operations allocate nearly 70 percent of conservation expenditures to the Canadian Prairie Provinces. As a result, 5,500 DU projects on the prairies have conserved 3.5 million acres of waterfowl habitat in Canada. In some waterfowl-important regions of Canada's prairies, DU has protected most, or portions of, all the major wetlands. This is an enormous legacy to the millions of DU supporters and the 16,000 Canadian landowners who own the land that they have enrolled with DU. This is a large portion of the habitat infrastructure that has been secured for waterfowl in the prairies of Canada, inasmuch as there is no Canadian counterpart to the government-managed wildlife areas in the United States.
About 15 years ago, DU Canada hit a crossroads with the realization that the magnificent wetland legacy it had accumulated was not enough. Historically, wetland loss had posed the greatest threat to waterfowl populations in Canada. However, it had become clear that the new threat was loss of upland nesting cover and reductions in waterfowl nest success rates. DU refined its focus to include entire landscapes of habitat, not just the wetlands. Landscapes with the highest densities of wetlands and the highest production potential have been the focus of this work.
Despite the new focus and the near complete redirection of effort, much remains to be accomplished in prairie Canada for the long-term future of prairie ducks. And, a basic fact of life in prairie Canada is that it is mostly excellent farmland—and it will continue to be farmed. As such, waterfowl conservation must be directed towards farming practices that are beneficial to waterfowl and encourage agricultural policies that make it beneficial to landowners to remove some parts of the land from cultivation or to simply farm it differently. A CRP-type program that encourages farming practices that are more beneficial to waterfowl is needed in Canada.
The good news is, large tracts of the Canadian landscape are still in native grasslands, and these are typically good areas for waterfowl production. Fortunately, because of a collection of economic and political forces in the last few years, a significant number of Canadian farmers have switched to cattle production and have converted land back into pasture and forage. This is a positive turn of events, as it is driven by market factors that are widespread and are more sustainable. However, an unexpected problem has emerged. Last spring, a single cow in Alberta was diagnosed with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as Mad Cow Disease. The outbreak was quickly dealt with and confined to the single animal. Nevertheless, Canada's beef was immediately banned from many world markets, most importantly the United States and Japan, and it is still banned as this is written. This change threatens the progress being made towards increasing the more duck-friendly acreages of pastureland in western Canada as, with severely reduced movement of cattle across international borders, farmers have much less incentive to switch from raising crops to raising cattle.
Progress in Canada
Despite the BSE crisis, significant and positive progress is being made with agricultural policy in Canada. The Canadian federal government's new Agriculture Policy Framework (APF) is set up to allow producers to safeguard the environment by improving grassland management practices, thus protecting water quality and wildlife habitat while supporting their own farm interests. A key component of the APF is Greencover Canada. This is the first year of a five-year $110 million program to convert environmentally sensitive land to perennial grass cover. Other components of Greencover Canada focus on shelterbelts and technical assistance. The Canadian government consulted organizations such as Ducks Unlimited during its development.
This is a momentous first step towards assuring that as much of the Canadian prairie as possible will be sustained in permanent cover that is the most beneficial for nesting waterfowl and other wildlife.
"This program has the potential to improve wildlife habitat on more than two and a half million acres of land in the next five years. If it is well received by producers, we are hopeful that an even bigger program will be developed to follow this one," says Dr. Brian Gray, DU's director of conservation programs in Canada.
One of the most significant shifts in prairie agriculture in the United States and Canada occurred in the 1980s when farmers greatly reduced the amount of land tillage to conserve soil and water resources and to reduce the costs of cultivation. This resulted in millions of acres of unplowed stubble persisting on the land each spring. This stubble is a preferred nesting cover for pintails and is used by some other ducks. Unfortunately, new crops and cultivation systems have also moved most prairie farmers to continuous cropping, so most of this stubble cover is seeded most springs before the early nests have a chance to hatch. As a result, cultivation machinery destroys tens of thousands of nests every year. This is especially detrimental to pintails, as they are the earliest nesters. This factor alone is thought to be the driving force behind the record low numbers of pintails over the past few years.
DU has conducted research that confirms this stubble cover can be very productive for nesting waterfowl if it is seeded in the previous fall under a zero-tillage scheme. DU-supported research at the University of Saskatchewan has helped develop better strains of winter wheat for fall seeding, but there are major challenges in getting wider use of fall-seeded cereals on the prairies. In Canada, DU has adopted a goal of having winter wheat replace a majority of the 16 million acres of spring wheat that is currently planted each year. DU has developed expertise in agriculture, specifically in winter wheat production, and in developing strategies to accomplish landscape-level change. There are many hurdles, but few agricultural practices hold more promise for the future improvement of prairie agriculture for both wildlife and producers.
Waterfowl conservation on the prairies must take place in a complex matrix of farmland, ranches, and protected areas. DU is centrally involved in resolving these issues and in directing its conservation programs to the wildlife management and agricultural practices that have long-term promise for breeding waterfowl. DU is fully engaged with provincial, state, and federal governments in developing water- and land-use policies that will sustain the agricultural community while, at the same time, providing for the long-term needs of waterfowl and other wildlife. By helping to resolve these issues through the development of forward-thinking programs such as the APF in Canada and Farm Bill regulations in the United States, DU is part of a landscape-altering movement that will provide lasting environmental, economic, and societal benefits to waterfowl, wildlife, wetlands, and people for generations to come.
The challenges and the landscapes are still enormous. If the long-term future of prairie ducks is to be secured, much remains to be accomplished on the prairies. DU has a top priority goal of protecting an additional 4.5 million acres of critical duck nesting habitat in the prairies. This work is well under way as members, foundations, agencies, and others are supporting DU's plan.
Despite the accomplishments of the past, the prairies remain under siege from many directions. We must quicken the pace and expand our habitat conservation efforts to assure the long-term health of prairie pothole landscapes if we are to continue to repeat the great story of waterfowl recovery following the inevitable dry periods of the future.
This article is part two in a four-part series, "Prairies Under Siege." Read part three here or go back to part one. | 农业 | 16,774 |
Is the sky falling, or the sun rising?
Some producers who sold their calves this summer or early fall were delivering calves right alongside sale barn calves in November for as much as a $200 difference! It was an interesting time: Sellers weren't willing to sell significant numbers at such reduced prices, and buyers weren't bidding overly aggressively, either. Thus, retained ownership is on the rise and producers are warehousing calves waiting for the market to rebound. Heifers, which are selling at a steeper discount than in the past, are being kept back to either be put on feed or bred to sell as bred heifers. The debate in the market is simple. Are we heading lower? Or has this been an overreaction that will correct itself with just a little time? It all boils down to the macro-economic picture. Will the credit markets find stability and consumer confidence strengthen? Or will we see a whole new wave of financial disruptions that send the country and world into a prolonged funk? Count me among the optimists Put me in the optimist's column. Yes, commodities may not have seen their lows in the very short term, but people still like to eat. Sure, we may see more hamburger being sold, and less demand for $50 steaks at a restaurant, but we have a growing population. Despite any short-term liquidity crisis, there are too many people around the world embracing capitalism to make the case that growth won't return. This economy, which withstood the explosion in energy and commodity prices, the cost of the Iraq war and all the election-year rhetoric designed to create a feeling of malaise among voters, was still growing right up until the financial crisis. Certainly it was the tipping point in the global economy, but who can't be bullish on the world long term? At the risk of sounding out of touch, the fundamentals of our business are very good. We're competing for the center of the plate more effectively than ever. Global conditions will improve, and we're regaining access to lost markets. Americans — despite all the gloom and doom about our failures — are still the most productive and entrepreneurial people in the world. The talk that we can't compete with South America, Australia or New Zealand on a cost-of-production basis is a false argument. Sure, our input costs (land, labor and feed) are higher, but we are without peer in size, efficiency and infrastructure. We're one of a kind Direct comparisons between the U.S. and other beef-exporting countries (excluding Canada) aren't valid. If the world preferred grass-fed beef, or if we had to compete on a grass-based system, then we would be in trouble, but we don't! We're not only competitive, but we're the world's standard when it comes to producing high-quality, corn-fed beef. I'm actually excited about the environmental movement and our ability to compete in a “green” economy. Anyone who spends time on a ranch understands the one fundamental truth about our business and the environment. We are the heroes of the environmental movement; we are the stewards of the ecosystems that not only provide safe, wholesome food, but maintain wildlife habitat and open space. Nobody does what we do any better. Cattle-Fax is projecting fed prices to average in the upper $90s next year despite demand concerns. Corn and energy prices have fallen, and prospects for profitability on the feeder and stocker sides are greatly improved. Take a moment and look at global trends, and ask yourself: “Which industry would I rather be involved in right now?” I suspect it's a pretty short list. Troy Marshall is Editor of Seedstock Digest and a Contributing Editor to BEEF Cow-Calf Weekly. To receive BEEF Cow-Calf Weekly, a free electronic newsletter delivered each Friday afternoon and providing analysis, commentary and a roundup of the week's news, sign up at beefmagazine.com. BEEF TV Coming soon on BEEF TV: 2008 BEEF Quality Summit coverage 2008 Environmental Stewardship Award Program profilesbeefmagazine.com/beeftv
Source URL: http://beefmagazine.com/business/troy-marshall/1201-people-embracing-nongrowth | 农业 | 4,095 |
Home > About NJDA > State Board of Agriculture > Secretary's Report to the State Board
Secretary's Report to the State Board
August 25, 2004 Asian Longhorned Beetle Program – A significant Asian longhorned beetle infestation was found in Carteret and Woodbridge, Middlesex County, and Rahway, Union County, after a Carteret resident on August 2 found a fertilized female beetle on a tree in his back yard. Tree climbers and other specialists from the Department and USDA began surveying a one-mile radius around that find on August 17. That morning, the search team was made available to the media for questions about the search process, and a resulting News 12 New Jersey story on the noon newscast led to another resident calling in to say she had seen the beetle in a wooded area near a commercial zone on the Carteret-Rahway border. A search of that area turned up hundreds of infested trees. Further searches led to the discovery of an infested tree in the Avenel section of Woodbridge. A 1½-mile quarantine area including Carteret, Woodbridge, Rahway and Linden was established, from which firewood, tree trimmings and some nursery products cannot be removed. In addition, the ALB effort in Jersey City, where the beetle was first found attacking trees in 2002, has been enhanced by the addition of personnel to examine the remaining host trees not yet inspected. The number of non-inspected host material in the Jersey City quarantine area has been reduced to 35 sites. A public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 31, at which Department and USDA specialists will join Borough officials in enlisting the aid of residents to keep an eye out for the beetle on their own trees.
Deer Fencing Program -- The Department announced that $300,000 in state funds have been made available to reinstate a cost-share program to help provide farmers with deer fencing. The program, which had been unfounded the past several years, will begin accepting applications after September 1, with the filing deadline of November 30. Farmers can receive fencing material and up to 30 percent of the line posts needed. The program will be administered in conjunction with the Division of Fish & Wildlife of the Department of Environmental Protection. A Rutgers Cooperative Extension survey in 1998 indicated that almost 70 percent of wildlife crop loss was attributable to deer, creating an estimated $5 million to $10 million annual loss statewide.
Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) – The state’s first two confirmed cases of Eastern Equine Encephalitis for 2004 resulted in the euthanasia of a one-year-old thoroughbred mare in Maurice River, Cumberland County and a 20-year-old gelding in Sicklerville, Camden County. The Cumberland County horse’s owner reported that the horse became ill on August 3. The horse’s condition steadily declined and the animal was humanely euthanized on August 4th. Samples sent to the NJ Animal Health Laboratory confirmed EEE. The second confirmed case of EEE in a horse was announced August 12. The horse became ill on August 6 and was euthanized on August 8. Horse owners were urged to vaccinate their animals against EEE, as well as West Nile Virus, since each vaccine does not protect horses from both diseases.
West Nile Virus – The first case of West Nile virus in a horse was diagnosed on August 17, 2004. The horse was a seven-year-old pregnant mare located in Gloucester County. The horse became ill on August 10, 2004, and was not vaccinated for West Nile virus. Last year the first case occurred on July 29, 2004, also in Gloucester County. In 2003, there was 150 cases reported in New Jersey and 51 were euthanized or died. As of August 13, 39 positive avians from 11 counties have been confirmed. At this time in 2003, there were 172 positive birds from 18 counties. Sixty-three WNV positive mosquito pools have been identified from 13 counties. At this time last year, there were 105 positive pools from 19 counties.
Reed Sod Farm Preservation – The State Agriculture Development Committee announced the preservation of 418 acres of the Reed Sod Farm in Upper Freehold Township, Monmouth County. The purchase of development rights will help protect the rural character of the region. Reed Sod Farms is owned by Carole and Stuart Reed Jr. and their three children, and sells approximately 250 acres of sod annually. The purchase continues Upper Freehold Township’s role as the statewide leader in farmland preservation. To date, 6,350 acres have been preserved in the township. The preservation is a partnership effort with the Delaware & Raritan Greenway, central New Jersey’s regional land trust, as well as Monmouth County and the township.
Team Nutrition Grant – The Division of Food & Nutrition secured a 200,000 Nutrition Training Grant through the United States Department of Agriculture that will fund four programs over two years designed to make fresh fruits and vegetables a more regular part of students’ diets. New Jersey was among 21 states to get the grants. The funding will supplement the Department’s on-going efforts as part of the administration’s “Healthy Choices, Healthy Kids” initiative, which includes nutrition information and exercise and seeks to make school lunch and breakfast menus more nutritious. Programs to be funded include:
- School food service managers will be trained to incorporate more fruits and vegetables into their meals and a la carte offerings. Tactics for marketing and promoting these products will be addressed to achieve the goal of students eating more of these healthy foods.
- Pilot schools will be funded to promote and expose children to more fruits and vegetables, providing exposure in school meal programs to different types of produce. This expanded knowledge and hands-on experience is expected to lead to children consuming greater quantities of fruits and vegetables.
- Mini-grants to 10 elementary schools (chosen through competitive applications) to provide after-school nutrition education programs for both students and their parents.
- Meetings with school business administrators to work on raising schools’ nutrition policy standards.
Jersey Fresh Seafood Web Site – The Jersey Fresh Seafood Web Site debuted August 16, providing consumers with a wide array of information on seafood products from the Garden State. Recipes, handling and storage information, listings of seafood-related events and more are available to on-line consumers who want to know more about the bounty of New Jersey’s waters. The site is an offshoot of the Jersey Fresh web site and the latest expansion of that branding program. It can be accessed at http://www.jerseyseafood.nj.gov/.
Alampi Laboratory Receives Chinese Weevil – The Alampi Beneficial Insect Laboratory has received the Chinese weevil (Rhinoncomimus latipes) as a potential biological control agent for the invasive vine known as mile-a-minute weed (Polygonum perfoliatum). Mile-a-minute is a rapidly growing vine that quickly covers all plants it encounters and forms an impenetrable cloak of thorny vegetation restricting movements of wildlife and regeneration of native plants. New Jersey’s colony of the weevil is only the second in the United States. In a cooperative agreement with the USDA Forest Service, the Alampi Laboratory will work to establish a colony of sufficient size and quality to ensure against loss of the species if the primary colony at the University of Delaware fails, and will also work to develop a mass production technique for the weevil. A shipment of 200 weevils was received by the laboratory from the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Delaware for a direct field release onto mile-a-minute. The weevils were released at the Flood Gate location in East Greenwich Township, Gloucester County. The site has been inspected weekly since the release with adult weevils and feeding damage observed. Weekly seed collections are also being made to support the effort to rear beetles for future releases. department: njda | consumers | farmers | 农业 | 8,025 |
Fifteenth Session
Rome, 25-29 January 1999, Red Room
ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
Item 8 of the Provisional Agenda
II. DEFINITION OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
III. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
IV. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
V. ONGOING FAO ACTIVITIES
VI. FUTURE FAO FUNCTIONS IN ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
1. Although as yet only a small industry, organic agriculture is becoming of growing importance in the agriculture sector of a number of countries, irrespective of their stage of development. For example, in several developed countries organic agriculture has come to represent a significant portion of the food system (10 percent in Austria, 7.8 percent in Switzerland)1 and many others are experiencing growth rates that exceed 20 percent annually (e.g. USA, France, Japan, Singapore)2. Some of the developing countries have small domestic organic markets (e.g. Egypt) and a few have begun to seize the lucrative export opportunities presented by organic agriculture (e.g. exports of Mexican coffee, Ugandan cotton).
2. Though only a small percentage of farmers are expected to become organic producers, consumer demand for organically produced food and fibre products provides new market opportunities for farmers and businesses around the world. It also presents new challenges for FAO. For many years, and with great success, the private sector alone has developed the concepts and markets for organic products. However, the surge in consumer interest has created new interest from the public sector, and developing countries are particularly in need of good information. Member countries are requesting FAO assistance as they seek to determine the potential of such markets in specific areas. Governments need to know the potential of organic agriculture to contribute to sustainability in order to direct research and extension efforts. Countries also seek FAO's assistance in deciphering the multitude of rules various traders expect to be followed; increasing international trade in organic products has placed FAO in the forefront of efforts to achieve greater harmony in organic standards.
3. The World Food Summit Plan of Action recognized the importance of "appropriate input technologies, farming techniques and other sustainable methods, such as organic farming, to assist farming operations to be profitable, with the goal of reducing environmental degradation, while creating financial resources within the farming operation." This paper discusses the opportunities and constraints of organic agriculture and the public policies influencing the adoption of organic agricultural practices. The paper proposes a coherent and cross-sectoral FAO programme in organic agriculture with four distinct functions, all aimed at enabling member countries to make informed choices about organic management. COAG is asked to endorse FAO's intention to develop such a coherent programme. II. DEFINITION OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
4. An organic label indicates to the consumer that a product was produced using certain production methods. In other words, organic is a process claim rather than a product claim. An apple produced by practices approved for organic production may very well be identical to an apple produced under other agricultural management regimes. 5. Several countries and a multitude of private certification organizations have defined organic agriculture. In the past, differences in these definitions were significant but the demand for consistency by multinational traders, has led to great uniformity. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), a non-governmental organization internationally networking and promoting organic agriculture, has established guidelines that have been widely adopted for organic production and processing. 6. Most recently, the Codex Committee on Food Labelling has debated "Draft Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods"; adoption of a single definition for organic agriculture by the Codex Alimentarius Commission is expected at its next meeting in June, 1999. According to the proposed Codex definition, "organic agriculture is a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasises the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. This is accomplished by using, where possible, agronomic, biological, and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic materials, to fulfil any specific function within the system."
7. Organic agriculture is one of several approaches to sustainable agriculture and many of the techniques used (e.g. inter-cropping, rotation of crops, double-digging, mulching, integration of crops and livestock) are practised under various agricultural systems. What makes organic agriculture unique, as regulated under various laws and certification programmes, is that: (1) almost all synthetic inputs are prohibited,3 and (2) `soil building' crop rotations are mandated.4
The basic rules of organic production are that natural inputs5 are approved and synthetic inputs are prohibited. But there are exceptions in both cases. Certain natural inputs determined by the various certification programmes to be harmful to human health or the environment are prohibited (e.g. arsenic). As well, certain synthetic inputs determined to be essential and consistent with organic farming philosophy, are allowed (e.g. insect pheromones). Lists of specific approved synthetic inputs and prohibited natural inputs are maintained by all certification programmes and such a list is under negotiation in Codex. Many certification programmes require additional environmental protection measures in addition to these two requirements. While many farmers in the developing world do not use synthetic inputs, this alone is not sufficient to classify their operations as organic.
A. MARKETS
8. The demand for organic products has created new export opportunities for the developing world. While some consumers express a preference for locally-grown organic foods, the demand for a variety of foods year-round makes it impossible for any country to source organic food entirely within its own borders. As a result, many developing countries have begun to export organic products successfully (e.g. tropical fruit to the European baby food industry, Zimbabwean herbs to South Africa, six African nations export cotton to the European Community). Typically, organic exports are sold at impressive premiums, often at prices 20 percent higher than identical products produced on non-organic farms. The ultimate profitability of organic farm varies, however, and few studies have assessed the long-term potential for such market premiums. Nevertheless, under the right circumstances the market returns from organic agriculture can potentially contribute to local food security by increasing family incomes.
9. Entering this lucrative market is not easy, however. Farmers are denied access to developed country organic markets for two to three years after beginning organic management since such countries will not certify land and livestock as organic before that time, arguing that it is necessary for the purging of chemical residues. Under the Draft Codex guidelines, however, products produced on land under organic management for at least one year but less than the two-three year standard can be sold as "transitional organic", although few markets have yet developed for such products.
10. In most cases farmers and post-harvest businesses seeking to sell their products in developed countries must hire an organic certification organization to annually inspect and confirm that these farms and businesses adhere to the organic standards established by various trading partners. The cost for this service can be expensive, although it varies in relation to farm size, volume of production, and the efficiency of the certification organization (e.g. IFOAM certification costs a maximum of 5 percent of sales value, but where local certification organizations exist it reduces to 2 percent of sales value). Few developing countries have certification organizations within their borders, and even when sufficient resources are available to pay for certification farmers often lack the information to find credible inspectors. 11. While most developing country traders have focused on export markets in the developed world, domestic market opportunities for organic food or eco-food may also be exploited. In China, for example, there is a growing market for "green food" which, according to government grading standards, is produced without certain pesticides and fertilizers and with biological methods. Chinese farmers also produce organic food for export (e.g. tea to the Netherlands, soybeans to Japan). 12. Whether the intent is to sell organic products domestically or abroad, reliable market information is difficult to obtain. There is virtually no systematic production or market survey data being collected with which to assess the rate and pattern of organic market growth. In particular, no projections for the market in the developing world have been made, nor have markets systematically been identified for developing country exports. Estimates of the public's willingness to pay premiums, the impact of regional attitudes and tastes, and the incidence of market fraud have not been undertaken.
B. FARM PRODUCTIVITY
13. Farmers will probably experience some loss in yields when converting their operations to organic production. There is a period of time between the discarding of synthetic inputs and sufficient biological activity being restored to the land (e.g. growth in beneficial insect populations, nitrogen fixation from legumes) during which pest suppression and fertility problems are typical. The degree of yield loss varies, however, and depends on factors such as the inherent biological attributes of the farm, farmer expertise, and the extent to which synthetic inputs were used under the previous management system. Where soil fertility is low and biological processes have been seriously disrupted, it may take years to restore the ecosystem to the point where organic production is possible. In such cases other sustainable approaches, which allow judicious use of synthetic chemicals, may be more suitable start-up solutions. One strategy to survive the difficult transition period involves converting farms to organic production in partial instalments so that the entire operation is not at risk.
14. Most studies find that organic agriculture requires significantly greater labour input than conventional farms. This is especially true in areas of low ecological potential. However, when labour is not a constraint organic agriculture can benefit underemployed labour in rural communities. Furthermore, the diversification of crops typically found on organic farms, with their various planting and harvesting schedules, may distribute labour demand more evenly which could help stabilize employment. Land tenure is also critical to the adoption of organic agriculture. It is highly unlikely that tenant farmers would invest the necessary labour and sustain the difficult conversion period without some guarantee of access to the land in later years when the benefits of organic production are attainable.
15. Soil-building rotations need to be designed both from the economic and the technical points of view - uses must be identified for all the crop and livestock products produced. As in all agricultural systems, diversity in production increases income-generating opportunities and can, as in the case of fruits, supply essential health protecting minerals and vitamins to the family diet. It also spreads the risks of failure over a wide range of crops. It is possible that, even on those farms where organic crop yields are lower than those produced under systems which use high levels of inputs, the overall economic yields of the farm will be competitive since organic systems benefit from market premiums and sometimes lowered input costs.
16. The insights generated by organic farmers in their search for site-specific production strategies can be of great benefit to non-organic farmers interested in expanding their management options. However, organic farmers still face huge uncertainties. A lack of information is an obstacle to organic conversion (e.g. surveys find that 63 percent of sub-Saharan African farmers and 73 percent of North American (US and Canada) organic farmers cite a lack of knowledge as the greatest barrier to adoption). Extension personnel rarely receive adequate training in organic methods and studies have shown that they sometimes discourage farmers from converting. Furthermore, institutional support in developing countries is scarce. Professional institutions with a capacity to assist farmers throughout the production, post-production and marketing processes are non-existent in many developing countries. While there are helpful research results that immediately could be extended to farmers, much more are needed. In 1990, FAO sponsored a conference at which organic research needs were identified (e.g. economics of stockless farms, animal husbandry, nitrogen cycling); however these challenges have largely gone unmet.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SUSTAINABILITY
17. The explicit goal of organic agriculture is to contribute to the enhancement of sustainability. Nevertheless, negative impacts may occur and organic agriculture is not an exclusive method for sustainable farming. The soil and water protection and conservation techniques of sustainable agriculture used to combat erosion, compaction, salinization and other forms of degradation are evident in organic farming. The use of crop rotations, organic manure and mulches improves soil structure and encourages the development of a vigorous population of soil micro-organisms. Mixed and relay cropping provide a more continuous soil cover and thus a shorter period when the soil is fully exposed to the erosive power of the rain, wind and sun. Terracing to conserve moisture, and soil are used in appropriate situations and particular attention is paid in irrigated areas to on-farm water management. Properly managed organic farming reduces or eliminates water pollution and helps conserve water and soil on the farm (although improper use of manure can seriously pollute water). A few developed countries compel or subsidise farmers to use organic techniques as a solution to water pollution problems (e.g. Germany, France).
18. Organic farmers rely on natural pest controls (e.g. biological control, plants with pest control properties) rather than synthetic pesticides which, when misused, are known to kill beneficial organisms (e.g. natural parasites of pests, bees, earthworms), cause pest resistance, and often pollute water and land. Reduction in the use of toxic synthetic pesticides, which the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates to poison three million people each year, should lead to improved health of farm families. 19. Organic farmers aim to make the maximum use of the recyclable fertility in on-farm crop residues (straws, stovers and other non-edible parts) either directly as compost and mulch or through livestock as farmyard manure. Eliminating the use of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizer greatly lowers the risks of nitrogen contamination of water. Crop rotation is a widely used method of fertility maintenance and pest and disease control, which is used in large- and small-scale farming in both developed and developing countries, especially under intensification. Fodder legumes are well-known fertility-building crops and are grown on vast areas in sub-tropical Asia and in semi-arid regions for the dual purpose of feeding livestock and adding nitrogen to the farm fertility cycle. Grain legumes may also produce a reasonable crop without nitrogenous fertilizer. Leguminous crops in rotations add various amounts of nitrogen to the overall farm system through biological fixation; other nitrogen-fixing plants such as Azolla may also be used. 20. Biological nitrogen fixation is a powerful technique but it often requires some addition of minerals to the soil, especially phosphorus. Most certification programmes restrict the use of mineral fertilizers which may be necessary to supplement the organic manure produced on the farm. Natural and organic fertilizers from outside the farm are used (e.g. rock phosphate, potash, guano, seaweed, slaughterhouse by-products, ground limestone, seaweed, wood-ash). While most certification programmes prohibit the use of sewage sludge and night-soil they are still used in some places. However, sludge may contain many contaminants including heavy metals which can have a deleterious and cumulative effect on the soil, while night-soil contains human pathogens and must be carefully composted before use.
21. Crop rotations encourage a diversity of food crops, fodder and under-utilized plants; this, in addition to improving overall farm production and fertility may assist the on-farm conservation of plant genetic resources. Integrating livestock into the system adds income through organic meat, eggs and dairy products, as well as draught animal power. Tree crops and on-farm forestry integrated into the system provide shade and windbreaks while providing food, income, fuel and wood. Integrated agri-aquaculture may also be found within diverse organic agricultural systems. Economic objectives are not the only motivation of organic farmers; their intent is often to optimize land, animal, and plant interactions, preserve natural nutrient and energy flows, and enhance biodiversity, all of which contribute to the overall objective of sustainable agriculture to preserve natural resources and ecosystems for future generations.
A. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
22. The environmental and economic benefits of organic agriculture have captured the attention of several countries; however, only a small number have enacted policies to assist the organic sector. Most assistance has developed in the private sector, especially by NGOs. This private sector infrastructure is not only recognized by countries, but also encouraged.
23. Farmers and consumers in almost all countries rely on a system of private self-organized producer organizations and independent certifiers which have, over the years, provided an economically-efficient mechanism of certification. The degree to which private organizations are significant is indicated by the fact that IFOAM has some 650 individual and institutional members in over 100 countries, 75 percent of which are in developing countries. However, the network of private certifiers needs to expand; as mentioned earlier, many developing countries still lack certification organizations.
24. Organic programmes, as well as the Draft Codex guidelines, maintain evolving "input lists" of acceptable inputs for organic production, processing aids, and ingredients. Countries, in consultation with civil society organizations, can propose their own input lists to Codex and negotiations will probably take place over what ultimately is acceptable in the international marketplace. Many developing countries have not drawn up material lists and generally lack the resources and training to effectively participate in international standard-setting processes. 25. Engaging in international trade requires quantities of goods well beyond the production capacity of individual small organic farmers. NGOs have supported farmers in their efforts to establish appropriate organizations for collecting, processing and marketing organic products. Countries could support NGOs in building organizations which play a key role in disseminating best practices and ensuring that farmers use adequate production and post-production techniques.
B. TECHNICAL SUPPORT
26. Northern developed countries have invested by far the most in organic agriculture research but even so, the contribution is minimal compared to overall research agriculture (e.g. less than 0.01 percent of the US Department of Agriculture research budget is directed to organic agriculture). The lack of extensive formal organic research combined with the highly site-specific nature of organic agriculture, suggests that it would be most advantageous for farmers themselves to participate in locally-based, applied field research. Experience with FAO-initiated Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Farmer Field Schools and community forestry projects has shown that farmers, whether owners or tenants, large or small, can practice good scientific methods if they are given orientation and technical support. Countries could also undertake market research. The USA, for example, analysed the market for organic goods in more than 20 countries, with a focus on opportunities for US exports.
27. Draft Codex guidelines, as well as most national and private organic standards, disallow genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), including transgenic crops, in organic production. By providing consumers with a non-GEO produced alternative organic agriculture has secured an important market, at the same time relieving much of the pressure to impose out-right bans on GEO-produced food. While current biotechnology applications have been rejected for organic production, it is possible that future scientific developments and further discussions may produce technologies acceptable to consumers (e.g. the value of tissue culture in producing disease-free planting materials).
C. DIRECT ASSISTANCE
28. Interest in environmental protection and the preservation of small family farms has led developed European countries to subsidize organic production to varying degrees. The subsidies can provide significant encouragement (e.g. UK provides up to £450 per ha during the conversion period for designated land areas; European Community subsidies have helped 15 percent of Irish organic farmers develop dairy operations). Interested communities would have to be advised about organizational aspects and on procuring and commercializing the necessary inputs as well as on marketing any surplus produce (e.g. seed and planting material of adapted varieties, suitable livestock genitors).
29. Consumer confidence in the integrity of organic claims is essential if goods are to be sold at a premium. Because organic products cannot be distinguished from conventional products, consumers depend entirely on certifiers to truthfully distinguish organic from non-organic goods. Countries could better enforce organic standards by punishing those who engage in fraudulent activities as well as undertaking systematic tracking and measuring of fraud and its impact on the market. V. ONGOING FAO ACTIVITIES
30. FAO has undertaken several activities specific to organic agriculture, most of which are in the early stages of development. An FAO Library bibliographic search identified 49 FAO reports on organic agriculture. The FAO Regional Office for Europe has been supporting meetings of researchers working on organic agriculture, sponsored a conference in 1990 on Biological Farming in Europe, and, most recently, an expert Round Table in 1997 which established a working group on Research Methodologies in Organic Farming under the European System of Co-operative Research Networks in Agriculture (ESCORNA). The Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific has co-ordinated an Asian Bio and Organic Fertilizer Network that for more than a decade has issued annual bulletins on organic recycling in the region. Software has been developed by FAO's Land and Water Development Division to facilitate collecting data on the use of organic nutrients. The Codex Committee on Food Labelling is currently considering Draft Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Marketing and Labelling of Organically Produced Foods. Perspectives and guidelines for post-harvest handling of organic fruits, vegetables, aromatics, and spices in developing countries are under development by the Agroindustries and Post Harvest Management Service. 31. In 1997 an internal E-mail network on organic agriculture was established to facilitate the exchange and evaluation of information and develop common understandings among FAO staff. A focal point on organic agriculture was nominated within the Environment and Natural Resources Service. After obtaining formal liaison status within FAO in 1997, IFOAM met with FAO experts from all technical departments in March, 1998 to identify areas of potential collaboration. VI. FUTURE FAO FUNCTIONS IN ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
32. Additional FAO efforts will be necessary to respond to the frequent requests from member countries for organic agriculture information and assistance. FAO could effectively collaborate, and build partnerships with existing institutions (e.g. national organic programmes/associations, IFOAM and other NGOs, and national and international agricultural research centres) in several areas, presuming that adequate resources are secured. Proposed major functions include: A. PROVISION OF A FORUM
33. As part of its Regular Programme, FAO could provide a forum for member countries to agree on standards for organic production, labelling, and other market related concerns. Some of this would continue to take place within the Codex Committee on Food Labelling but FAO could, in addition, convene expert groups to respond to emerging issues such as soil building crop rotations, pathogen problems associated with manure use, and the development of post-harvest handling codes. The recommendations of these expert groups could be provided to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling or any Codex-like mechanism that provides a forum for international debate. FAO Codex Regional Committees could further consider regionally-based organic standards and input lists that take into account local production needs as well as international market demands. B. POLICY ANALYSIS AND ADVICE
34. Basic intelligence is needed to fully understand the magnitude and potential of the organic sector. FAO could request organic production and trade data from countries through its regular annual questionnaire. FAO could also develop appropriate standards and classification for data collection efforts by countries and private organizations. FAO could also serve as a clearinghouse for market research by gathering and reporting on information generated by various entities. A roster of resource centres and experts involved in research and marketing could be maintained and networking in developing countries could be promoted. Data collection, although part of FAO's Regular Programme functions, would require dedicated funding. For well-defined, in-country studies, an appropriate mix of regular and extra budgetary funds must be secured. For example, Technical Cooperative Programme resources could be used. Once data has been collected and analyzed, FAO could provide advise on how to develop local production priorities in accordance with organic market demands. C. FACILITATION OF RESEARCH AND EXTENSION INFORMATION EXCHANGE 35. Organic farming tends to reveal interesting research questions having implications for enhancement of sustainable production systems for and beyond Organic Agriculture. FAO could facilitate communication of these questions to researchers so that they may be considered in international research centres, such as the Consultative Groups for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the National Agriculture Research Systems (NARS). Research collaboration could be increased through networks and regular research fora that respond to the cross-sectoral and multi-disciplinary expertise needs of organic agriculture. FAO could also help develop relevant curricula for higher education and appropriate extension and communication programmes. While some of these network opportunities touch upon FAO's Regular Programme functions including the CGIAR TAC Secretariat and NARS Secretariat, others will require extra-budgetary resources. D. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
36. Working with national programmes in pilot activities, FAO could assist in better integrating organic, IPNS, and IPM information to ensure that all such techniques are available to farmers. Among the greatest opportunities for effective FAO involvement is the application of the "Farmer Field School" model in places where market opportunities suggest that organic agriculture would be profitable. FAO-sponsored Farmer Field Schools in organic agriculture could evaluate, on a local basis, the contributions of organic production to food security through adaptive field trials. The highly local nature of organic production means that community-based expertise and organizational capacity is needed. FAO could also promote the development of locally-based certification organizations in developing countries, which could eliminate the costly practice of hiring outside experts to certify organic operations. All of these pilot activities would require the identification and mobilisation of extra-budgetary resources, and could be strengthened by collaboration with member countries' research, development, and extension institutions. VII. CONCLUSION
37. FAO has the responsibility to give organic agriculture a legitimate place within sustainable agriculture programmes and assist member countries in their efforts to respond to farmer and consumer demand in this sector. Organic agriculture may contribute to the overall goals of sustainability. First, organic farmers and processors, in their attempts to adhere to rigorous certification standards, may discover new and innovative production technologies that apply to other agricultural systems as well. Second, organic agriculture may provide market opportunities for farmers and processors who choose to alter their practices to meet certain consumer demands. Finally, organic agriculture promotes the national and international public debate on sustainability by creating awareness of environmental and social concerns that merit attention. 38. In light of the above, an Organization-wide, cross-sectoral programme in organic agriculture is needed. Such a programme would focus on: provision of information and cost-effective discussion fora on organic production and trade; institutional support and policy advice to members; facilitation of research, extension and networking; technical assistance for developing skills, organic standards and certification capacities; and pilot projects that explore and promote feasible organic agricultural techniques.
39. The programme would have an institutional core where some activities would be anchored within the Regular Programme and, where possible, strengthened with extra-budgetary resources. FAO, in partnership with public and private institutions, should undertake related programme activities. The Sustainable Development Department, through the Environment and Natural Resources Service of the Research, Extension and Training Division would continue providing co-ordination by promoting and catalysing technical divisions' work on organic agriculture. The Committee on Agriculture may wish to endorse this proposal and to provide guidance on how FAO might best shape a coherent programme on organic agriculture reflecting the needs and opportunities of member countries.
1 Data sources: Austria: Market Brief, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service, November 1996; Switzerland: USDA Outlook Conference Proceedings, February 23, 1998.
2Data sources: USA: Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 241, December 16, 1997; France: USDA/FAS Market Brief, December 1997; Japan: USDA/FAS Market Brief, September 1994; Singapore: USDA/FAS Market Brief, August, 1997. 3No single definition of "synthetic" exists, although the various material lists of allowed and prohibited inputs for organic production, developed in different countries and by different certification programmes, are fairly consistent, reflecting an implicit agreement on a definition. The few legal definitions of synthetic reflect the common understanding of the term in organic trade. For example, British Columbia, Canada defines "synthetically compounded" as "a process which chemically changes a material extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal or mineral sources, excepting microbiological, mechanical and heat processes." The USA defines synthetic as "a substance that is formulated or manufactured by a chemical process or by a process that chemically changes a substance extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources, except that such term shall not apply to substances created by naturally occurring biological processes."
4 Crop rotation is the practice of alternating crops grown on a specific field in a planned pattern or sequence in successive crop years. Organic certification programmes require `soil building' crop rotations, meaning that they must be specifically designed to steadily improve soil tilth and fertility while reducing nitrate leaching, weed, pest and disease problems. IFOAM, for example, recommends specific rotations that include legumes and requires the rotation of non-perennial crops "in a manner that minimises pressure from insects, weeds, diseases and other pests, while maintaining or increasing soil, organic matter, fertility, microbial activity and general soil health." Under limited cropping conditions (e.g., mushrooms, perennials) crop rotations may not be applicable; in such cases other methods that contribute to soil fertility may be required by certification programmes.
5 Natural is commonly understood as anything that is non-synthetic. | 农业 | 33,885 |
Larry Hodgson
by [email protected]
by Larry Hodgson
email: [email protected]
Larry Hodgson has given hundreds of lectures on gardening throughout Canada and the United States. All the lectures are given with Larry's typical touch of humor and are fully illustrated with beautiful color slides. They are either in English or French, according to your needs. Larry is also Regional Director of the Garden Writers Association and has written many books. December 14, 2004
Larry Hodgson is a full-time free-lance garden writer and photographer and has been notably editor-in-chief of HousePlant Magazine, Fleurs, Plantes et Jardins, À Fleur de Pot and Houseplant Forum magazines, garden correspondent for Le Soleil de Québec and radio garden commentator for CBC Radio’s Quebec City station. He is a regular contributor to garden magazines in both the United States and Canada, including Canadian Gardening, Harrowsmith, Horticulture, Fine Gardening, Rebecca’s Garden, Organic Gardening, and Gardens West and his book credits include The Garden Lover’s Guide to Canada, Perennials for Every Purpose, Annuals for Every Purpose, and Houseplants for Dummies, as well as some 30 other titles in English and French. His latest English-language book, is Making the Most of Shade. Larry can be frequently seen in Quebec on French-language television. He's a former National Director of the Garden Writers Association and teaches horticulture to mature students at Laval University. He often leads garden tours to various spots around the world and has visited the gardens of over 30 countries so far. He resides just outside of Quebec City. Larry frequently speaks to horticultural groups throughout Canada and the U.S and has quite a repertory of lectures on garden subjects, including the following: 12 Easy Perennials for Cottage Gardeners Beautiful Bulbs and How to Grow Them Biennials: the Forgotten Beauties Gardening on the Cheap Gardens and Nature in Costa Rica Gardens and Nature in South Africa Gardens Around the World Gardens of Australia and New Zealand Gardens of Canada Gardens of Europe Gorgeous Grasses Happy Houseplants Low-Maintenance Gardening Making the Most of Shade Mind-boggling Annuals Perennials with Pizzazz Tips and Tricks for Laidback Gardeners He can also prepare lectures on demand on other horticultural subjects based on his slide library of over 75,000 plant and garden shots. ABOUT US MEMBER LOGIN PRIVACY POLICY | 农业 | 2,441 |
The agricultural sciences
Written by: George F. Ekstrom
The agricultural sciences, agricultural sciencesScott Bauer, Agriculture Research Service/U. S. Department of Agriculture (Image Number K8297-1)sciences dealing with food and fibre production and processing. They include the technologies of soil cultivation, crop cultivation and harvesting, animal production, and the processing of plant and animal products for human consumption and use.Food is the most basic human need. The domestication and cultivation of plants and animals beginning almost 10,000 years ago were aimed at ensuring that this need was met, and then as now these activities also fit with the relentless human drive to understand and control the Earth’s biosphere. Over the last century and a half, many of the world’s political leaders have recognized what India’s Jawaharlal Nehru did, that “Most things except agriculture can wait.” Scientific methods have been applied widely, and the results have revolutionized agricultural production. Under the conditions of prescientific agriculture, in a good harvest year, six people can produce barely enough food for themselves and four others. Advanced technologies have made it possible for one farmer in the United States, for example, to produce food for more than 100 people. The farmer has been enabled to increase yields per acre and per animal; reduce losses from diseases, pests, and spoilage; and augment net production by improved processing methods.Until the 1930s, the benefits of agricultural research derived mostly from labour-saving inventions. Once the yield potentials of the major economic crops were increased through agricultural research, however, crop production per acre increased dramatically. Between 1940 and 1980 in the United States, for example, per-acre yields of corn tripled, those of wheat and soybeans doubled, and farm output per hour of farm work increased almost 10-fold as capital was substituted for labour. New techniques of preserving food products made it possible to transport them over greater distances, in turn facilitating adjustments among locations of production and consumption, with further benefits to production efficiency (see food preservation).From a global perspective, the international flow of agricultural technology allows for the increase of agricultural productivity in developed and developing countries alike. From 1965 to 1985, for example, world trade in grains tripled, as did net exports from the United States. In fact, by the 1980s more than two-fifths of U.S. crop production was exported, making U.S. agriculture heavily dependent upon international markets.HistoryEarly knowledge of agriculture was a collection of experiences verbally transmitted from farmer to farmer. Some of this ancient lore had been preserved in religious commandments, but the traditional sciences rarely dealt with a subject seemingly considered so commonplace. Although much was written about agriculture during the Middle Ages, the agricultural sciences did not then gain a place in the academic structure. Eventually, a movement began in central Europe to educate farmers in special academies, the earliest of which was established at Keszthely, Hungary, in 1796. Students were still taught only the experiences of farmers, however.Liebig’s contributionThe scientific approach was inaugurated in 1840 by Justus von Liebig of Darmstadt, Germany. His classic work, Die organische Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agrikulturchemie und Physiologie (1840; Organic Chemistry in Its Applications to Agriculture and Physiology), launched the systematic development of the agricultural sciences. In Europe, a system of agricultural education soon developed that comprised secondary and postsecondary instruction. The old empirical-training centres were replaced by agricultural schools throughout Europe and North America. Under Liebig’s continuing influence, academic agriculture came to concentrate on the natural sciences.U.S. agricultural education and researchAgricultural colleges came into being in the United States during the second half of the 19th century. In 1862 Pres. Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act, under which Congress granted to each state 30,000 acres (12,141 hectares) of land for each representative and senator “for the endowment, support and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be—without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics—to teach branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanic arts.” Thus the stage was set for the remarkably successful land-grant system of agricultural education and research in the United States. That same year Iowa became the first state to accept the provisions of the act, and all the other states have followed. Now, land-grant colleges of agriculture offer programs of study leading to both baccalaureate and postgraduate degrees in the various agricultural sciences. These institutions have served as models for colleges established in many nations.In 1887 Congress passed the Hatch Act, which provided for necessary basic and applied agricultural research to be conducted by the state colleges of agriculture in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Agricultural experiment stations were established in 16 states between 1875 and 1885, and they now exist in all 50 states. These stations, together with USDA research centres around the country, comprise a network of coordinated research installations in the agricultural sciences. Slightly more than half of the agricultural research in the United States, however, is conducted by the private sector.Congress passed the Smith–Lever Act in 1914, providing for, among other things, the teaching of improved agricultural practices to farmers. Thus the agricultural extension service—now recognized as an outstanding example of adult vocational education—was established.The demand for instruction in agriculture at the secondary level gained momentum around the beginning of the 20th century. Some private agricultural schools had already been founded in the East, and by 1916 agriculture was being taught in more than 3,000 high schools. Federally aided programs of vocational agriculture education began with the passage of the Smith–Hughes Vocational Education Act in 1917. By the second half of the 20th century, an average of 750,000 high-school, young farmer, and adult farmer students were enrolled annually in classes offered by about 10,000 vocational agriculture departments in the United States. Since passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, further expansion of agricultural education has occurred in vocational schools and in courses offered at junior and senior colleges.Gerhardt PreuschenGeorge F. EkstromJohn R. CampbellStanley Evan CurtisMajor divisionsThe agricultural sciences can be divided into six groups. In all fields, the general pattern of progress toward the solution of specific problems or the realization of opportunities is: (1) research to more accurately define the functional requirements to be served; (2) design and development of products, processes, and other means of better serving these requirements; and (3) extension of this information to introduce improved technologies to the agricultural industries. This has proved to be a tremendously successful approach and is being used the world over.Soil and water sciencesSoil and water sciences deal with the geological generation of soil, soil and water physics and chemistry, and all other factors relevant to soil fertility. Soil science began with the formulation of the theory of humus in 1809. A generation later, Liebig introduced experimental science, including a theory of the supply of soil with mineral nutrients. In the 20th century, a general theory of soil fertility has developed, embracing soil cultivation, the enrichment of soil with humus and nutrients, and the preparation of soil in accordance with crop demands. Water regulation, principally drainage and irrigation, is also included.Soil and water research have made possible the use of all classes of land in more effective ways, while the control of soil erosion and deterioration has made other advances even more striking. Because the amount of water available for plant growth is one of the major limiting factors in crop production, improved tillage and terracing practices have been devised to conserve soil moisture, and soil-management and land-use practices have been developed to increase the infiltration of snow, rain, and irrigation water, thereby reducing losses caused by runoff.Public and private research into chemical fertilizers and soil management have made it possible for farmers to aid nature in making specific soils more productive. Much has been learned about using crop rotation, legumes, and green manure for replenishing soil humus and nitrogen; determining and supplying the major and minor nutrient needs of crops; and managing soil under irrigation, including salt control. Techniques based on these findings have been put to use on farms to improve soil fertility and increase crop yields. Between 1940 and 1965, for example, farmers in the United States more than tripled their use of chemical fertilizers, resulting in increases of 50 to 150 percent in crop yields.Scientists have used many sophisticated techniques to unlock a vast storehouse of knowledge about plants. In one case, chemicals tagged with radioactive isotopes were employed to follow the processes by which plants take up soil nutrients to synthesize their fruits, grains, vegetables, nuts, flowers, and fibres.Plant sciencesThe plant sciences include applied plant physiology, nutrition, ecology, breeding and genetics, pathology, and weed science, as well as crop management. They deal primarily with two major types of crops: (1) those that represent direct human food, such as cereals, vegetables, fruits, and nuts; and (2) those that serve as feed and forage for food, companion, laboratory, and recreational animals. Special branches of these sciences have developed to deal with each of the numerous classes of plant crops—e.g., vegetables, small fruits, citrus fruits and other tree fruits, and flowers and other ornamental plants. Other specialties concern the production of raw materials for industry—cotton, hemp, sisal, and silk—although some of these are losing economic importance in the face of competition from synthetic fibres. Branches of the plant sciences that deal with such tropical crops as coffee, tea, cocoa, bananas, coconuts, sugarcane, and pineapples, to the contrary, promise to retain their importance.Although scientifically based plant production came of age at the end of the 19th century, it started much earlier. Instructions on sowing dates are reported in Egypt by 2000 bc. Throughout the centuries, numerous treatises have included recommendations on how to achieve higher and more efficient yields.The stimulus for the development of the plant sciences did not come from botany but from agricultural chemistry, the application of which led to the development of plant physiology. Field experiments were started in Rothamsted, England, in 1834, and elsewhere in Europe soon after. Improved methods of experiment design and statistical analysis made possible the comparative study of plants and their cultivation systems.Cultivation of plants by varieties had already led in the late 18th century to the systematic selection of cereal varieties according to predicted yield. The rediscovery at the start of the 20th century of Gregor Mendel’s laws of heredity and later of ways to cause mutations led to modern plant breeding, with momentous results that included the tailoring of crop varieties for regions of climatic extremes. Agronomist Norman E. Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace for 1970 for the development of short-stemmed wheat, a key element in the so-called Green Revolution in developing countries.Major advances in the study of plant diseases were recorded in the 19th century, and the science of plant nutrition matured in the second quarter of the 1900s. Serious calamities resulting from the introduction of plant diseases into regions where the indigenous plants had no immunity against them, and the invasion of grapes by insects and of potatoes by fungi, stimulated research efforts. During the 20th century, all diseases have become objects of systematic plant pathology research. Plant pathologists search for chemicals effective against microbial diseases, weeds, and various pests and seek to adjust the biotic balance to reduce losses. That chemical residues have created some problems has led to further scientific activity. Biological control measures may ultimately be less harmful to the environment and more specific and effective in pest and weed management.Other research has been undertaken because consumers want better fruits and vegetables. New varieties have been developed, methods found to ensure that fresh and processed foods arrive at retail stores in prime condition, and grocers taught to care for these foods so that consumers receive them in the most attractive and nutritious state.Gerhardt PreuschenByron Thomas ShawJohn R. CampbellStanley Evan CurtisAnimal sciencesplay_circle_outlinelivestock farming: pigs; gait analysis© American Chemical Society (A Britannica Publishing Partner)In modern civilizations, people rely on meat, milk, and eggs as major sources of numerous nutrients. To satisfy this demand, sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, swine, chickens, ducks, geese, and turkeys are produced on farms all over the world. To understand how agricultural animals convert feedstuffs into the food and other commodities consumers demand, animal scientists have undertaken broad investigations using highly sophisticated techniques. The animal sciences comprise applied animal physiology, nutrition, breeding and genetics, ecology and ethology, and livestock and poultry management. In addition, diseases of food animals are the focus of many veterinary scientists.Animal nutrition research was well-established in several centres around the world by the turn of the 20th century, and it began to flourish during the second quarter of the 1900s. Many discoveries have been made about animal metabolism and consequent nutrient requirements; the usefulness of hundreds of feedstuffs as sources of essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals, as well as lipids and carbohydrates; the proper balance of available nutrients in the diet; nutrient supplements and feed-processing technologies; and metabolite-partitioning and growth-promoting compounds. These fundamental findings have been applied widely since 1950, bringing about improved animal feeding. Studies of life processes in farm animals have helped in developing the optimal nutriment for each animal, and human nutrition has benefitted enormously from the knowledge that has come from these investigations.The notion that “like begets like” was already current in biblical times. Long before the science of animal genetics developed, all species of agricultural animals were subjected to selective breeding to some extent. Modifying livestock and poultry to meet consumer demands requires the application of scientific principles to the selection of superior breeding animals and planned matings. For example, consumers have come to prefer more lean tissue and less fat in meat, and so the meat-type hog was developed in two decades of intensive selection and crossbreeding starting in the 1950s. Swine now yield more lean pork, grow faster, and require less feed to reach market weight than before. By the 1980s, a laying hen of any popular genetic strain, if managed properly, could be expected to produce more than 250 eggs annually, while special meat-producing strains of chickens gain body weight at a rate of 1 : 2 in ratio with feed intake.John R. CampbellStanley Evan CurtisSome of the most significant research in animal breeding has been done with dairy cattle and has established the proved sire system, in which bulls are ranked according to the performance of their offspring. The use of sires proved in this way together with artificial insemination has enabled dairymen to improve their herds by greatly expanding the influence of genetically superior bulls. Along with increased emphasis on performance testing, efforts have been made to predict at a young age whether an individual animal will be an efficient meat, milk, or egg producer. Such success has made for earlier culling and for herds and flocks of higher genetic merit.Gerhardt PreuschenByron Thomas ShawJohn R. CampbellStanley Evan CurtisAnimals represent renewable agricultural resources because they reproduce, and animal scientists have studied animal reproduction assiduously since the 1930s. These investigations began in the United Kingdom but were soon joined by scientists in the United States, where the work blossomed. Basic discoveries have been put to use quickly in the animal industries. Elucidation of reproductive structures and mechanisms made it possible to refine reproductive management in the 1940s, and artificial insemination made possible the widespread use of proved sires in the 1950s. Additional basic knowledge and later technological developments made practical the control of the estrous cycle and of parturition by exogenous hormones and the serial harvesting and transplantation of embryos from donor females of high merit. The result of these changes has been an increase in the reproductive rate and efficiency of all species of farm animals.Animal ecology and ethology are young branches of the animal sciences. Around the middle of the 20th century, environmental physiologists in the United States and the United Kingdom began to study agricultural animals’ relations with their environment, including temperature, air, light, and diet. Interactions among environmental temperature, diet, and the animals’ genetic makeup have been characterized, and great strides have been made in improving thermal-environmental management on farms. Lighting management is now essential to profitable poultry production, and the light environment is being controlled in livestock houses as well. Since the 1970s emphasis has shifted to include the behavioral adaptability of animals to their surroundings and the effects of environmental stress on the immune status of livestock and poultry. Farmers have widely adopted intensive systems of animal production, and these systems continue to present opportunities and problems to animal scientists concerned with discovering and accommodating the environmental and ethological needs of food animals.Animal health is essential to the efficient production of wholesome animal products. An example of the economic effect of animal-disease research conducted by veterinary scientists is the control of Marek’s disease, a highly contagious disease affecting the nerves and visceral organs of chickens, which resulted in a loss of more than $200,000,000 annually to the U.S. poultry industry alone. The disease was studied for more than 30 years before it was learned that it is caused by a herpes virus. Within three years of this discovery, a vaccine was developed that reduced the frequency of Marek’s disease and the resultant meat condemnations in vaccinated chickens by 90 percent and increased egg production by 4 percent. Veterinary scientists also investigate the chronic infectious diseases associated with high morbidity rates and various metabolic disorders.Food sciences and other post-harvest technologiesA group of sciences and technologies underlie the processing, storage, distribution, and marketing of agricultural commodities and by-products. Modern post-harvest technology helps provide inexpensive and various food supplies for consumers, meets the demands of a variety of industrial users, and even creates replacements for fossil fuels.Research having particular significance to post-harvest technology includes genetic engineering techniques that increase the efficiency of various chemical and biological processes and fermentations for converting biomass to feedstock and for use in producing chemicals (including alcohols) that can replace petroleum-based products. Among the expected outcomes are the manufacture of new products from reconstituted ones and the recovery of by-products that would otherwise be considered waste.Agricultural engineeringAgricultural engineering includes appropriate areas of mechanical, electrical, environmental, and civil engineering, construction technology, hydraulics, and soil mechanics.The use of mechanized power and machinery on the farm has increased greatly throughout the world, fourfold in the United States since 1930. Research in energy use, fluid power, machinery development, laser and microprocessor control for maintaining grain quality, and farm structures is expected to result in further gains in the efficiency with which food and fibre are produced and processed.Agricultural production presents many engineering problems and opportunities. Agricultural operations—soil conservation and preparation; crop cultivation and harvesting; animal production; and commodities transportation, processing, packaging, and storage—are precision operations involving large tonnages, heavy power, and critical factors of time and place. Facilities designed to aid farm operations help farm workers to minimize the time and energy requirements of routine jobs.John R. CampbellStanley Evan CurtisFour primary branches have developed within agricultural engineering, based on the problems encountered. Farm power and machinery engineering is concerned with advances in farm mechanization—tractors, field machinery, and other mechanical equipment. Farm structures engineering studies the problems of providing shelter for animals and human beings, crop storage, and other special-purpose facilities. Soil and water control engineering deals with soil drainage, irrigation, conservation, hydrology, and flood control. Electric power and processing engineering is concerned with the distribution of electric power on the farm and its application to a variety of uses, such as lighting to control plant growth and certain animal production operations.Ralph Anthony PalmerJohn R. CampbellStanley Evan CurtisAgricultural economicsThe field of agricultural economics includes agricultural finance, policy, marketing, farm and agribusiness management, rural sociology, and agricultural law. The idea that the individual farm enterprise forms a unit—affected by location, production techniques, and market factors—originated during the 19th century. It was later supplemented by the theory of optimum utilization of production factors by the selection of production lines. Further refinement came about through applications of modern accounting methods. Research into farm and agribusiness management led to mathematical planning systems and statistical computation of farm-enterprise data, and interest has been drawn to decision-making behaviour studies of farm managers.Agricultural policy is concerned with the relations between agriculture, economics, and society. Land ownership and the structure of farm enterprises were traditionally regarded as primarily social problems. The growth of agricultural production in the 20th century, accompanied by a decline in size of the rural population, however, has given impetus to research in agricultural policy. In the capitalist countries, this policy has concentrated on the influence of prices and market mechanisms; in the centrally planned countries, emphasis has been placed on artificially created market structures.Research in agricultural marketing was originally limited to the problem of supply and demand, but the crises of the Great Depression in the 1930s brought new analytical studies. In Europe, the growth of the cooperative movement—begun in Germany in the 19th century as a response to capital shortage and farm indebtedness—brought satisfactory solutions to problems of distribution of products from farmer to processor. Consequently, little interest in market research developed in Europe until the mid-20th century. Today, agricultural marketing studies focus on statistical computations of past market trends to supply data for forecasting.Agricultural law concentrates on legal issues of both theoretical and practical significance to agriculture such as land tenure, land tenancy, farm labour, farm management, and taxation. From its beginnings at the University of Illinois in the 1940s, modern agricultural law has evolved to become a distinct field of law practice and scholarship.Rural sociology, a young discipline, involves a variety of research methods, including behaviour study developed from studies in decision making in farm management.Gerhardt PreuschenByron Thomas ShawJohn R. CampbellStanley Evan CurtisOther agricultural sciencesAgricultural work science arose in response to the rural social problems experienced in Germany during the Great Depression. The improvement of work procedures, appropriate use of labour, analysis of human capacity for work, and adjustment of mechanized production methods and labour requirements represent the main objects of this branch of ergonomics research. Studies of the influence of mechanization on the worker and of worker training came later.Gerhardt PreuschenJohn R. CampbellStanley Evan CurtisAgricultural meteorology deals with the effects of weather events, and especially the effects of their variations in time and space, on plant and animal agriculture. Atmospheric factors such as cloud type and solar radiation, temperature, vapour pressure, and precipitation are of vital interest to agriculturalists. Agricultural meteorologists use weather and climatic data in enterprise risk analysis as well as in short- and long-range forecasting of crop yields and animal performance.Emerging agricultural sciencesThe agricultural sciences are poised to enter a new era, armed with ever more sophisticated research technologies, such as monoclonal antibodies and gene splicing, in their continuing drive to better harness nature for the ultimate benefit of human beings everywhere. Although broad and deep scientific investigations have been made in the biological, physical, and social realms related to agriculture, the need persists for additional research to close remaining gaps in knowledge, especially in molecular biology and the environmental, social, and economic effects of its fruits.From results of experiments already conducted, it is clear that molecular biology will influence plant genetics and crop production. Plant genetic engineers are working to improve specific economically important plant varieties by increasing their photosynthetic efficiency, improving their nutritional quality, and transferring to them such favourable properties as the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen, as do legumes, and to better resist diseases and tolerate herbicides and natural environmental stress.Animal scientists also are using new research methods in biotechnology, including the micromanipulation of embryos to produce multiple clones. Monoclonal antibodies are used in studies of specific factors in immune mechanisms, and recombinant DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) technology is used in the genetic engineering of microbes so that they can synthesize specific antigenic proteins useful in vaccine production. The ultimate goal of this research is to improve dramatically the health and productivity of agricultural animals.John R. CampbellStanley Evan Curtis
arboriculture
pedology
Nature: Tip of the Iceberg Quiz
Earth: Fact or Fiction?
Exploring France: Fact or Fiction?
7 of the World’s Deadliest Plants
"the agricultural sciences". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 26 Jul. 2016<https://www.britannica.com/science/agricultural-sciences>.
the agricultural sciences. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/agricultural-sciences
the agricultural sciences. 2016. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 26 July, 2016, from https://www.britannica.com/science/agricultural-sciences
Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "the agricultural sciences", accessed July 26, 2016, https://www.britannica.com/science/agricultural-sciences. | 农业 | 28,503 |
PANNA: EPA cost-cutting poses health risks; Pesticides and brain tumors; Florida fumigants meeting; Safe lawns; more...
Jun 13, 2007 -- Andrew Olsen
A Weekly News Update on Pesticides, Health and Alternatives
See PANUPS updates service, for complete information.
EPA cost-cutting poses health risks; Pesticides and brain tumors; Florida fumigants meeting; Safe lawns; more...
Intentional pesticide dosing criticized: The Journal of the American Medical Association has published a paper assessing the ethics of the 2006 Bush administration rule allowing intentional dosing -- even of pregnant women and children -- with pesticides, calling the EPA policy "a fundamental shift in moral thinking." The authors reviewed EPA's decision to stop using the intra-species safety "factor of 10" applied in animal testing to adjust for difference in sensitivity for humans to toxic chemical exposure. Is the cost-efficiency, they ask, "worth the uncertain long-term risks that financially rewarded, usually economically disadvantaged, human subjects will face from intentional exposures to neurotoxins? Is dividing by 10 from mouse to men (and women) too big a burden? The answer is categorically no!" Read more about human testing.
Public health threatened by EPA cutbacks: In an article in the International Journal of Occupational Health, Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) scientists Jennifer Sass and Mae Wu voice their concerns about EPA's cutbacks of government science staff and library closures. "We strongly recommend that EPA reverse its trend of reducing its own in-house scientific and technical experts. These civil servants represent the nation's brain trust. We further recommend that Congress increase the research budget for EPA specifically favoring programs that provide publicly available policy-relevant data for priority issues such as children's health, environmental justice, and susceptible populations. Congress should ensure that EPA's funds are used in a manner that preserves scientific integrity, ensures adequate transparency, and encourages public accountability."
Pesticides linked to brain tumors: French researchers revealed that highly exposed vineyard workers and people who used pesticides on houseplants on a regular basis are three times more likely to suffer from certain brain tumors than less-exposed individuals. The authors hypothesize that fungicides carry the greatest risk, but caution that "because of trade interests, information on the use of specific pesticides in a given area is not available in France." Published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, "Brain tumours and exposure to pesticides: a case-control study in southwestern France" assessed exposure of more than 200 patients and 400 matched controls, and concluded the risk was significant enough to warrant further study.
Florida residents ask EPA to take action against fumigants: Members of the Farmworker Association of Florida representing over 6,000 workers, joined the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, Farmworker Self-help, Yat Kitischee Native Center, Florida Rural Legal Services, the Catholic Diocese of Venice Environmental Justice Committee, Sierra Club, an organic nursery grower from St. Augustine, a fish farmer, rural residents, and environmental activists at an EPA stakeholder meeting in Fort Myers, Florida, on June 6th. Community members told of illness and hardship from pesticide exposure. PAN campaigner Dr. Chela Vasquez reports, "People told stories of farmworkers routinely being exposed to methyl bromide during application in the pre-planting season and asked EPA to protect workers from dangerous chemicals." EPA has been holding community meetings to gather stakeholder input on mitigation of fumigant pesticides hazards. Read more about fumigant pesticides.
Californians demand reduction in pesticide VOCs: In a suit brought by public interest groups, a U.S. District Court judge in Sacramento ruled that the state violated the Clean Air Act by failure to regulate Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Fumigant pesticides are a significant contributor to VOCs. Ventura County has one of the highest rates of fumigant pesticide application rates in the state and to date has refused to curb use. Opinion editorials in the Ventura County Star clashed on the issue: California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation Director Mary Ann Warmerdam asked "whether we can meet our environmental obligations and sustain a farm economy that produces more than half the fresh fruits and vegetables for our nation." Local attorney and activist Mary Haffner, however, declared: "Communities and environmental groups, strengthened in number and educated about the trade-offs between high yields and high air and water pollution, will continue to ensure that these mandates are enforced."
Safe Lawns Campaign receives award for video: SafeLawns.org received a silver award from the Garden Writers Association for its video, "Making the Organic Transition in Lawn Care." The awards are for "providing public recognition for excellence in gardening related communications." The video explains to viewers how to transition from using synthetic chemicals to organic methods in order to produce a more natural, healthier lawn.
Organic and Fair Trade buying on the rise: A new study in the United Kingdom shows that over 37% of those surveyed are willing to pay more for organic and Fair Trade products, up significantly from 24% in 2002. The Daily Mail reports, "Changes are being driven by concern about global warming and exploitation of the developing world." U.K. organic food sales are forecast to exceed £1.7 billion (almost US $3.4 billion) this year compared to £849 million in 2004.
PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.
You can join our efforts! We gladly accept donations for our work and all contributions are tax deductible in the United States. Visit http://www.panna.org/donate. | 农业 | 6,211 |
New Faces at Tulare's International Agri-Center
The International Agri-Center announced that it has named three new staff members whose responsibilities will include show operations, sponsorship and special events.
Katy Young has assumed her new role as show operations manager after four years as event sales manager at the International Agri-Center. Young's new post will put her at the head of planning the world's largest annual agricultural exposition, World Ag Expo and the California Antique Farm Equipment Show. A graduate of California State University, Fresno, and native of the area, Young is familiar with the needs of the agriculture community and energized to lead the organization as it nears its 46th annual World Ag Expo.
Shaun Davis, a graduate of Azusa Pacific University with a Bachelor of Arts in communications and media studies, joins the International Agri-Center as sponsorship & exhibitor marketing coordinator. While in college, Davis worked as a communications intern for the International Agri-Center. Her responsibilities will include sponsor relations and fulfillment for World Ag Expo, the California Antique Farm Equipment Show and other annual events presented by the International Agri-Center.
Marianne Hudgens, a student of California State University, Fresno, and a Central Valley native, has assumed her role as Ag Warriors & special events coordinator. The position is new to the organization and includes the coordination of Ag Warriors, a program which will place veterans in careers in the agriculture industry. Hudgens assisted with the launch of Ag Warriors at World Ag Expo 2012 while serving as an intern for the International Agri-Center.
"We are very fortunate to have these talented individuals on our team to support events and programs at the International Agri-Center," said Jerry Sinift, CEO of the International Agri-Center. "The skills and energy they bring to our organization will help us continue our mission of supporting our community and the agriculture industry."
The International Agri-Center is home to World Ag Expo, February 12-14, 2013 in Tulare, California. An estimated annual average of 100,000 individuals from 70 countries attend World Ag Expo each year. The Expo is the largest annual agricultural show of its kind with 1,400 exhibitors displaying cutting-edge agricultural technology and equipment on 2.6 million square feet of show grounds. | 农业 | 2,415 |
USDA offering loans to farmers who grow for locals
By ADRIAN SAINZ
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has created a new loan program to help small farmers, including growers who want to take advantage of the soaring interest in locally produced food.
Agriculture Department Secretary Tom Vilsack told The Associated Press on Monday that new "microloans" of up to $35,000 are designed to help bolster family-run farms as well as minority growers and military veterans seeking to start a farm who might otherwise have trouble qualifying for small loans from banks or other USDA loan programs.
The loans can help farmers grow niche or organic crops to sell directly to ethnic and farmers markets, or contribute to community-supported agriculture programs. Vilsack noted direct-to-consumer sales was a fast-growing sector, with a 60 percent increase in farmers markets in the past three years.
The loan also can cover the costs of renting land, seed, equipment and other expenses. The goal is to create more opportunities for entrepreneurship and employment in the farming industry, Vilsack said.
"This smaller microloan program really is designed to help a producer that wants to get into the direct-to-consumer sales business or wants to help provide produce to, for example, a farmers market," Vilsack said. "It will help bolster the local and regional food system movement that is taking place."
Vilsack said the new loan program also helps organic producers and small farmers who had been benefiting from grants and programs under the 2008 farm bill, which has not been extended by Congress.
The microloan program also provides a more simplified application process in comparison with traditional farm loans.
Kay Jensen, an organic farmer who raises broccoli, strawberries and tomatoes in Sun Prairie, Wis., saw two immediate benefits to the microloan program -- paperwork would go down from about 30 pages to seven, and it would be easier to borrow a manageable sum. She said some lending programs try to cut costs by only giving out sums of $100,000 or more, and she might consider a microloan for $3,000 to $10,000 to expand her irrigation systems.
"A lot times what we need is just small amounts of money, but a lot of times the only funding available is large amounts of money," she said. "This whole concept of a microloan, where you're looking at smaller, reasonable amounts of money, this really fits an incredible niche."
Vilsack spoke to The Associated Press ahead of the official announcement of the program, which happened Tuesday. He was in Tennessee to speak to the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting in Nashville.
Vilsack said the loans represent an effort to expand credit to minority, socially disadvantaged and young and beginning farmers and ranchers. The interest rate changes monthly, and is currently 1.25 percent, according to the USDA. Also, the loan does not have to be repaid for seven years.
"It's about making sure that we have diversity within agriculture, that we have a good blend of large production facilities, medium-sized operations and smaller operations," Vilsack said.
Since 2009, the federal government has issued more than 128,000 loans totaling nearly $18 billion through the Farm Service Agency Operating Loan Program. It has increased the number of loans to beginning farmers and ranchers from 11,000 loans in 2008 to 15,000 loans in 2011.
Those interested in applying for a microloan may contact their local Farm Service Agency office. | 农业 | 3,517 |
Corn Ethanol Finds a Friend in Fungus
42 comment(s) - last by Tumn1s.. on May 30 at 1:19 AM
Anthony L. Pometto III, Hans van Leeuwen and Mary Rasmussen (left to right) are the prize winning research team from the Iowa State University that came up with the new fungi method. Also contributing but not pictured is Samir Khanal, a former Iowa State research assistant professor, currently at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. (Source: Iowa State University, Bob Elbert)
New myco-technology promises to lower production costs by as much as third.
Ethanol production has been blasted by everyone from academia to the UN for its undesirable effect of raising food crop prices. However, while researchers try to develop new production methods that don't use sugar crops; the current infrastructure chugs along producing more and more corn based ethanol daily. Barring a dramatic change of course, it seems unlikely that the growth of corn ethanol will stop in the short term.
Thus, while it may not be the best solution, technology such as a new fungal improvement to processing developed by Iowa State still do some good. The new research was also assisted by researchers at the University of Hawai'i. It involves growing fungi in leftovers of ethanol production. The process saves energy, helps recycle more water, and produces higher quality livestock feed, which is a byproduct of the processing.
Hans van Leeuwen, an Iowa State professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering and the leader of the research project states, "The process could change ethanol production in dry-grind plants so much that energy costs can be reduced by as much as one-third."
The rest of the Leeuwen's team is comprised of Anthony L. Pometto III, a professor of food science and human nutrition; Mary Rasmussen, a graduate student in environmental engineering and bio-renewable resources and technology; and Samir Khanal, a former Iowa State research assistant professor who currently is an assistant professor of molecular biosciences and bioengineering at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The team won the 2008 Grand Prize for University Research from the American Academy of Environmental Engineers for the research.
The prize was awarded based on merit of research in environmental fields. The AAEE describes the selection process thusly: "Those chosen for prizes by an independent panel of distinguished experts address the broad range of modern challenges inherent in providing life-nurturing services for humans and protection of the environment. ... Their innovations and performance illustrate the essential role of environmental engineers in providing a healthy planet."
The Iowa research seeks to fine tune dry-grind ethanol production. In this type of production, raw corn is ground and then water and enzymes are added. The enzymes act to break down the corn's starch, into sugars, which are processed by added yeast. The yeast produces the end product -- ethanol -- through fermentation. Distillation follows to harvest the ethanol.
For every gallon of fuel recovered, there are approximately six gallons of waste known as stillage. The brothy waste is rich in organic solids and other organic compounds. These compounds are harvested by centrifugation and dried; yielding livestock feed known as distillers dried grains.
The leftover stillage contains some smaller solids. This type of stillage is known as thin stillage. Typically only a small percentage of this stillage, which contains valuable water and enzymes, can be reused in the production process. The rest is evaporated and the leftovers are mixed with distillers dried grains to form distillers dried grains with solubles. The downside is that water and expensive enzymes are lost in the process.
The researchers mixed in a special fungus, Rhizopus microsporus, into the thin stillage. The fungus thrived off the organic material and was found to remove 80 percent of the organic material from the water, allowing much more of the thin stillage (and thus the water and enzymes) to be recycled.
The leftover fungus hold superior nutrition value and can be harvested for livestock feed. It’s loaded with protein, amino acids, and other nutrients. It can be sold as a supplement individually or sold blended with distillers dried grains for a higher rate. Such feed is suitable for animals like hogs and chickens, which typical distillers dried grains are not as good for.
With the current infrastructure Leeuwen states that the elimination of evaporation of thin stillage would result in a cost savings of $800M yearly. Furthermore, the process would save $60M per year in enzymes and would reduce the industry's water load by 10B gallons per year. And there would be more profit, with the nutrient rich fungi feed bringing in almost $400M more yearly. The overall energy balance of production (and thus efficiency) would also be improved by lowering the inputs needed.
You don't find many investments like this -- the process could be implemented for only $11M in a plant that produces 100M gallons yearly, and it would pay for itself within six months.
The project is funded by grants of $78,806 from the Grow Iowa Values Fund, a state economic development program, and $80,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Iowa Biotechnology Byproducts Consortium.
The researchers have filed for a patent on the new method and are currently looking for investors to help bring it to market. The bottom line Professor Pometto says is getting the technology out there as fast as possible and improving the struggling industry. He states, "We will be saving ethanol producers money and energy. That's the bottom line."
RE: fuel made of corn : nonsense
> "But for now, farmers are, for the first time in a very long time, able to grow and sell a product without much subsidies from the government."Err, the entire ethanol market exists only due to government subsidies and mandates...and the amount of such government aid just keeps rising.> "This planet is able to support a population of x billion people. We can continue to tweak our food production to temporarily raise this number to x+y billion.."If you're suggesting the planet is already above the carrying capacity of human population, you're incorrect. By the simply extension of First-world farming technology and efficiency to the Third world, the planet can feed some 20-30 billion people. Assume technological progress, and it can be much higher than that. Parent
Getting The Food Crop Monkey Off The Back of Biofuels
Biofuels Even Less Green Than Previously Thought
Biofuels: Salvation or Crimes Against Humanity? | 农业 | 6,655 |
7-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
CANDABA, PAMPANGA
I. CANDABA PROFILE
Candaba has 33 barangays with a total population that now exceeds 100,000. It has a total land area of 32,000 and 18,711 hectares of which are very fertile agricultural land with 5,433 farmers.
Aside from rice, the other significant agricultural products are green corn involving some 332 hectares and 194 farmers and melon covering some 226 hectares with 105 farmers. About 60 hectares are used for commercial growing of various lowland vegetables. Candaba remains the top rice producer in Pampanga.
Candaba has 462 fishpond operators utilizing some 3,425 hectares of wetland. The rivers and their tributaries are inhabited by various species of fish that provide sources of income for marginal fishermen and trappers.
Tilapia is the main produce of the fishponds contributing significantly to making Pampanga the top tilapia producer of the country.
Laying duck population is already around 800,000 making Candaba the top producer of duck eggs in Pampanga.
A fledgling ornamental fish industry exists in Candaba offering good prospects for the highly lucrative Koi breeding industry.
The Candaba Swamp, an Important Bird Area with assigned code IBA PH007, is home to more than 90 species of wildbirds half of which are migratory that arrive in big flocks yearly. It is fast becoming a favorite bird-watching site for local and foreign tourists.
II. VISION OF DEVELOPMENT
With a prevailing peace and order situation and the full cooperation of the people, especially the farmers and the local entrepreneurs, the full development of Candaba’s potential as top food producer can be realized.
As general rule, Candaba’s distinct features require it to pursue development that always seeks a balance between the needs of the people and those of the environment in order to address both domestic and national concerns.
III INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
Infrastructure projects shall be planned and implemented for three main objectives: (1) bringing government closer to the people; (2) support for agriculture and food production and (3)linking the barangays for unity and progress.
BRINGING GOVERNMENT CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE
Municipal Extension Offices and more service facilities shall be built and established in the Tagalog and Kapampangan regions in order that government will be better felt in those remote areas. The Municipal Building and other public structures in the Poblacion shall be expanded, renovated and refurnished for the convenience of both government employees and the public.
SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD PRODUCTION
Farm-to-market roads, irrigation canals, protective dikes and post-harvest facilities will have to be rehabilitated, improved or constructed to boost agriculture and food production.
LINKING THE BARANGAYS FOR UNITY AND PROGRESS
The main roads linking the Poblacion to the Kapampangan region (San Miguel – Candaba Road) and the Poblacion to the Tagalog region (Baliwag – Candaba Road) shall be given attention at every opportunity because the success of uniting the 3 distinctive regions of Candaba into one productive entity depends on them.
At the same time farm-to-market roads that connect different barangays shall also be given priority for this purpose.
IV. PEOPLE SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT
While the emphasis is on making Candaba a top producer of food, support services and assistance for the people shall not be ignored for they are the most important component of development.
LIVELIHOOD AND EMPLOYMENT
Alternative and additional livelihood shall be promoted in order to utilize the idle hours of the agricultural community, especially during the rainy days. Main targets of livelihood projects shall be the mothers and unemployed women who shall be taught how to produce sellable products that they can make at home.
The facilities needed to deliver health and medical services to the people shall be improved especially the health centers in the Poblacion, Bahay Pare and Salapungan. They shall be equipped and supplied sufficiently to effectively extend assistance to the needy. Provisions of lying-in clinics for those giving birth shall be provided. Basic medicines shall be made available and displayed prominently for everyone to see.
SPECIAL SECTORS SERVICES (YOUTH & SENIOR CITIZENS)
Support services and facilities for the senior citizens shall be provided in order that they may be made more active for health reasons and for community services that they can still perform.
Children at the nursery level shall be given special attention by improving, constructing and equipping nursery schools. Playgrounds and libraries for them shall be constructed.
The out-of-school youth shall benefit from special programs for sports activities and livelihood training.
V. SPECIAL CONCERNS AND PROJECTS
The special concerns are about the need for new and innovative programs and projects that shall address the demands brought about by the unique characteristics of Candaba as a potential agricultural growth center and alternative water source for Central Luzon and Metro Manila. Add to that, Candaba is emerging as a leading swamp and wildlife conservation area.
WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
The Candaba Swamp, being a catch basin of flood water coming from Nueva Ecija and Bulacan, is now being considered the next best source of raw water for agriculture in Pampanga and Bulacan and for residential and commercial use in Metro Manila in view of the impending fresh water crisis in these areas in not so distant future.
Comprehensive studies and planning shall be undertaken so that the great volume of water that passes perennially through Candaba on the way to Manila Bay can be tapped and made to contribute to the overall development of Candaba without prejudice to the effort to conserve the swamp and its wildlife for future generations.
MARKETING CANDABA PRODUCTS
Markets for Candaba products shall be developed both inside and outside the country. At the same time new technology shall be introduced to upgrade the quality of Candaba products in terms of methods of production and packaging. Facilities for this purpose shall be established in and out of Candaba in cooperation with government agencies and the private sector. One cooperative per major product shall be promoted in order to develop effective marketing that will benefit the farmers and producers and not the middlemen and traders alone.
Candaba faces a tough job of managing its solid waste considering its being a flood catch basin without any area that can easily be approved for holding and processing collected garbage. Because the lifeblood of Candaba’s economy is totally dependent on water that flows freely along its waterways and keeping this water free of pollution is a paramount task, waste management shall be a major concern. While Candaba proposes town clustering in the province to jointly address waste problem, it shall embark on its own program of minimizing non-biogradable and toxic waste in the environment. This includes the institution of appropriate solid waste management at the barangay level.
CONSERVATION AND ECO-TOURISM
The Candaba Swamp is home to more than ninety species of wild birds half of which are migratory. It has been declared an Important Bird Area (IBA PH007) that needs protection and conservation according to law. The local dumara or Philippine Duck alone that now breeds in Candaba is strongly protected by law that imposes stiff penalties against those who will harm them. It is among the wildbirds that shall be made an attraction for local and foreign tourists in addition to interesting spots and local festivities.
COMPUTERIZATION OF SERVICES
For faster and more efficient services to the people computerization shall be instituted by phases. The first to be computerized is the Real Property Tax administration in Candaba that shall be followed by that of the Business Tax. The long term goal is to computerize tax mapping and the database of all major concerns for more effective planning, implementation and monitoring of program activities.
Senator Edgardo Angara's Remarks | 农业 | 8,107 |
Farms Aren’t Going Away, but a Lot of Little Ones Are
by Corrie MacLaggan and Neena Satija
Photo by Stephen Spillman
Mike Skinner on Dec. 26, 2013 outside the farmhouse on the land five miles east of Spearman that he sold last spring. Three generations of his family had farmed the land.
SPEARMAN — Inside Mike Skinner’s house in this town in the northern part of the Texas Panhandle is a cage with finches and parakeets — the only livestock he has left, he says, smiling, now that he has sold the family farm.
“My grandfather told me that the only way to stop farming is to die,” Skinner, 67, said.
Last spring he sold the land where he, his brother, his parents and his grandparents had grown wheat and grain sorghum. The farm holds decades of memories: the creepy feeling as a preschool child of reaching his hand under hens to grab eggs, the sound of his grandmother playing Woody Guthrie songs on the piano. But his family members have died, he has no children, and farming now seems unpredictable and lonely.
Skinner is like a growing number of Texans who are leaving the land because of opportunities in urban areas, a spike in land prices and concerns about risky weather patterns fueled by a blockbuster drought that continues to plague much of the state. The agricultural workforce is also aging.
“A lot of these guys, their kids have chosen not to come back and farm, and so they don’t really have anybody to leave the land to,” said DeDe Jones, an economist at Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Amarillo. Small and midsize farms and ranches in Texas — those under 2,000 acres — have been declining at a rate of 250,000 acres a year, according to the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources. From 1997 to 2007, the institute estimates, Texas lost about 1.5 million acres of agricultural land and is expected to lose a million more by 2020.
And while Texas as a whole is growing rapidly, the 96 counties that lost population from 2010 to 2012 are mostly in heavily agricultural West Texas and the Panhandle, the Office of the State Demographer said.
In other areas, urban growth is taking over.
“The scariest thing is what’s happening to the blacklands; that’s the land that’s being built out,” Billy Howe, the state legislative director for the Texas Farm Bureau, said, referring to cropland that lines Interstate 35, around which the swelling metropolitan areas of Austin, Dallas and San Antonio are clustered.
A century ago, Williamson County, north of Austin, was a top cotton producer. “It’s nothing but houses now, for the most part,” Howe said.
Darren Hudson, a professor of agricultural economics at Texas Tech University, said a decline in population did not always mean less farming. Technological advances have allowed many farms and ranches in the Panhandle to expand, he said, while maintaining production levels with fewer workers.
When land is sold there, “it doesn’t go away,” Hudson said. “Their neighbor gobbles it up, and it gets bigger.”
Prices for agricultural land in Texas have risen significantly, another incentive to those who are considering selling.
But the risks of running an agricultural business have also increased. A tractor or combine can now cost $300,000, meaning an operation must be larger than in years past to justify such a cost, Jones, the A&M economist, said.
“The stakes are just a lot higher,” she said. “We’re going to see more corporate farms and larger farms than we have in the past.”
Jerry Schniederjan, an Amarillo real estate agent who sells agricultural land, said most family farms and ranches were bought by larger family farms and corporate farms. It has become difficult to make a living on a small farm, he said.
Years ago, when land prices were lower and farms were smaller, Schniederjan and his wife, Shellie, bought a farm. They spent more than two decades growing wheat, grain sorghum and corn in the Panhandle.
They enjoyed raising their boys on the farm, but since neither son has an interest in farming — Ryan is a pathologists’ assistant in Houston, and Kyle is an engineer in Amarillo — the couple decided to sell more than a decade ago.
Like Skinner, Schniederjan, 59, said he had no regrets.
“Shellie and I felt like we already had our neck stuck out on a chopping block,” he said. “Farming was good to us, but it was a very, very risky business.”
Enlargephoto by: Stephen Spillman
Mike Skinner holds a decades-old aerial photograph of the land near Spearman that three generations of his family had farmed.
Among the risks was the weather. Rural Texans have always had to endure unpredictable weather, but the year that Schniederjan decided to sell saw little rainfall, and the debilitating drought that still persists in much of the state has pushed many others to leave agriculture. In 2011, the driest year on record in the state, Texas’ cattle inventory fell to its lowest level since the 1960s and has still not recovered.
The drought has been especially hard on ranches, because animals need healthy grass to survive. Dell Dickinson, who raises sheep on 7,000 acres of pasture in West Texas near the Mexican border, said he had cut his sheep herd in half in recent years. But he has managed to keep the business sustainable, said Dickinson, whose grandfather bought the land in 1942.
His grown children — a daughter in Houston and a son in Nebraska — do not want to continue the business, he said, so it is likely they will sell the land once they inherit it.
“Without the emotional attachment, there’s basically only one thing left,” Dickinson, 70, said. “And that’s, ‘Let’s sell it and see how much money we can get for it.’”
In Spearman, Skinner, wearing a blue and gold flannel shirt and jeans, pulls out a framed aerial photograph of the farm from the 1950s.
Through the drizzle is the dilapidated farmhouse, which is in much better shape in the photograph. Gone is the orchard behind the house where the family grew cherries, apples and plums. Skinner’s goats used to keep the weeds at bay, but now they grow waist-high.
Skinner loved experimenting with different varieties of crops, but his problem, he said, was that he never thought of farming as a business, and the market and the weather could not be controlled.
“The bottom line is, it just ain’t no fun anymore,” said Skinner, who said he wanted to live closer to art museums. “You can come out here and listen to meadowlarks, but it might do to trade solitude for a bit of culture.”
Farmers and Ranchers Look Back on a Difficult Year
Texans Look Beneath the Surface for Water
Women Taking Over Farms Learn the Lay of the Land
Fewer Women Farmers in U.S., but More in Texas
New Farm Bill Spells Big Changes for Texas Ag | 农业 | 6,698 |
Stony Hill Staff
Dale Davis, III - Proprietor Dale and his wife, Carol, are the backbone of all that you encounter on your visits here. Dale’s orchids have received numerous awards from the North Jersey Orchid Society, Deep Cut Orchid Show, and the Greater New York Orchid Show. He has been recognized as an Outstanding Conservation Farmer for Accomplishment in the Conservation of Soil, Water and Related Resources and was honored as an Outstanding Young Man of the Year. [Show/Hide More]
Since he was a child growing up in Watseka, Illinois, Dale has been interested in cut flowers. His early exposure to agriculture came from his father, who operated a grain elevator. After his family moved to Princeton, N.J., he attended Delaware Valley College and received his bachelor’s degree for Ornamental Horticulture in 1980. He worked throughout college at Starkes, an orchid wholesaler in Pennsylvania. After Starkes closed its doors due to its founder’s passing and an enduring family feud, Dale bought and dismantled three of their greenhouses and transported them via truck to Chester, NJ.
Carol Davis - Proprietor
As a proprietor of Stony Hill, Carol helps to oversee the greenhouses and field production. She also manages the Stony Hill Farm Market, agricultural education, and the Corn Maze at the Farm Marketm and is an involved mother to her three children. Her story tells how Stony Hill all began ... [Show/Hide More]
Carol and her family moved from Newark to Chester, New Jersey when she was nine. She and her sisters would often spend summers at their uncle’s farm in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. Her love for the farm began during these visits when she would speed down to her uncle's barn at 4 a.m. every morning to watch the cows get milked and would then fall asleep among the calves. Later after her parents bought their own 40-acre farm, where Stony Hill Gardens is currently located, Carol was asked by the garmers renting the land to milk the cows for three weeks. Three weeks turned into three years because the farmer was so impressed with how well the cows responded to her. Milk production went up dramatically!
When it was time for Carol to attend college, she continued her milking job. In addition to her role as a student, Carol waitressed at a local restaurant and worked for an orchid wholesaler. She originally enrolled in Delaware Valley College as an Animal Husbandry major with an eye towards becoming a veterinarian.
Then she met Dale in her sophomore year at school through mutual friends. They were engaged during Christmas of their senior year and married in May 1980. She and Dale decided to open their own greenhouse business and took the steps needed to do so after their graduation. She took two semesters of floral design at Mercer County Community College and started her florist work by doing wedding arrangements in the basement of their home.
Dale and Carol built their home on the land her parents had bought. Their home was completed in August 1984, after 18 months of construction. Their three children were born in 1984 (Dale), 1987 (Brandt) and 1990 (Kaitlyn).
Carole Stober - Master Gardener / "Plant Person"
Carole is a certified Rutgers Master Gardener in Hunterdon County. She provides her expertise at Stony Hill Gardens by answering your plant and insect questions either on the phone or in person. She has been tackling plant and insect problems and questions daily for customers and friends since 1993. If you have a question, ask Carole! [Show/Hide More]
Carole is a graduate of Montclair State College and a former Home Economics teacher. She is married and has two grown sons. She began a weekend retail horticulture job when her boys were small that has stretched into a 33-year full-time vocation. Carole regularly attends horticultural and environmental seminars to broaden her knowledge so she can answer those challenging questions that you present. If she is unable to answer the question, she will research it until she can find the best information available. Besides working full-time and taking care of her family, Carole is an active member of the Watnong Chapter of the North American Rock Garden Society, a member of the New Jersey Mycological Association (mushroom association) and a volunteer water steward for the Raritan Headwaters Association.
If you think she couldn’t fit another thing into her already busy schedule, you’re wrong. Carole also enjoys presenting programs on horticultural topics to area garden clubs and other local civic organizations. So if you have any plant and/or insect problems that you need help with, why not contact Carole?
Joan Studley - Floral Shop Manager
As Stony Hill Gardens Floral Shop Manager and the newest member of our staff, Joan brings with her many years of experience. Her unique and creative design abilities give our customers the best to choose from. She will create designs for you in your, or our, container(s) that will become a work of art in your home.[Show/Hide More]
If unsure what you need to compliment your home, Joan can visit you for a consultation and will then create the perfect floral piece to compliment your interior. With Joan’s high standards in the floral industry, we’re sure that you’ll be pleased with her work. Joan grew up and has lived in the Chester area all of her life. She always had an interest in plants, especially with her father being employed by the Soil Conservation Department. She recalls going to many county fairs and helping maintain the family’s garden. Joan attended the University of Georgia and Fairleigh Dickenson University where she majored in English and Psychology. However, after college she was unsure of which path to take and decided to take a part-time position at the Village Flower Shop in Mendham, New Jersey. Within a year, Joan felt a new calling and decided to go to Guam to work with a mission group. After some time, Joan returned to New Jersey to once again work at the Village Flower Shop. After working there full time for two years she bought The Flower Cart. Although Joan had no formal training in floral design, she tapped into her creativity and on-the-job training. Joan owned and operated The Flower Cart for 16 years as a very talented floral designer. In September 2000, The Flower Cart merged with Stony Hill Gardens and Joan became the manager of the Stony Hill Gardens Floral Shop. This is great news for all of our customers! With Joan’s talents we now offer silk and dried arrangements in addition to all of our other products and services.
Dale Davis IV
Dale IV, son of Dale and Carol Davis, is now a full-time employee on the Stony Hill farm. Dale graduated from Delaware Valley College in 2006 with a degree in Horticulture. He's in charge of all of the vegetable and fruit production for Stony Hill Gardens and Farm Market. Dale married Dana in 2008 and they welcomed a son in 2014. Dale is a member of the Morris County Board of Agriculture, New Jersey Horticulture Society, and the New Jersey Vegetable Growers Association.
Brandt Davis
Brandt is the second oldest son of the Dale and Carol Davis. Brandt graduated from Delaware Valley College in 2010 with a degree in Agribusiness. He now works full time on the farm as the tailgate market manager and assistant production manager. You can find Brandt at many of our markets in Jersey City and Hoboken. Brandt is a member and current president of the Morris County Board of Agriculture.
Kaitlyn, the youngest child of Dale and Carol Davis, graduated Centenary College in Hackettstown in May 2013 with a degree in Marketing and Management. She is currently in charge of the spring planting at the greenhouse location and also manages tailgate truck loading.
Dana Ronyack-Davis
Dana works out of the Farm Market location and schedules the group tours to the maze. She graduated from Delaware Valley College in 2006 with a degree in Agronomy and Environmental Science. While in college she was a member of the Women's soccer team, Sigma Alpha Sorority and Delta Tau Alpha Honor Society. Dana married Dale IV in 2008 and welcomed a son in 2014. Kristi Ronyack
Kristi manages Stony Hill's CSA program and tailgate markets. She is the younger sister of Dana. She grew up in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and attended King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, where she graduated with a degree in History. Kristi has been employed at Stony Hill since 2007. STONY HILL PICK-YOUR-OWN FARM . Chester, NJ Get Directions :: Contact Us :: Privacy Policy | 农业 | 8,502 |
California Strawberry Farmers Grow the American Dream While They Nourish the Nation
California Strawberry Commission marks July 4th holiday with new report celebrating diversity of state’s strawberry farmers.
Independence Day is a great time to celebrate strawberries as an all-American fruit, including the opportunity to better our lives.
Watsonville, CA (PRWEB)
California strawberries are not only one of America’s healthiest and most popular fruits, but they have provided a path to the American Dream for generations of immigrants, according to a new report issued today by the California Strawberry Commission. The report - "Growing the American Dream: California Strawberry Farming’s Rich History of Immigrants & Opportunity" - documents the rich history illustrating the role strawberry farming plays in providing opportunity for countless immigrants. “Perhaps more than any other crop, strawberries are defined by decades of immigrants from Europe, Asia and Mexico. Not only do they work in the fields as harvesters, but they benefit from the unique attributes of strawberry farming that create numerous opportunities for upward mobility, including farm ownership,” according to the report.
Victor Ramirez, a second-generation strawberry farmer and the commission’s chairman, said the July Fourth release is for a very good reason.
“Independence Day is a great time to celebrate strawberries as an all-American fruit, including the opportunity to better our lives,” he said. “California strawberry farmers embody the pursuit of the American Dream by growing a crop that lends itself to achieving that goal. Their success plays out in their ability to grow 90 percent of the nation’s strawberries, supplying the nation with one of the most nutritious fruits in the market.”
A key theme in this new report focuses on how the crop has provided opportunity for immigrants dating back at least to the early 1900s, when immigrants from Europe and especially Japan began establishing themselves as skilled strawberry farmers. Today, an estimated 65 percent of all the state’s strawberry farmers are of Mexican-American descent, according to the report. About 25 percent of these Latino strawberry farmers started out as field workers and worked their way up to become farm owners.
According to the report, this path to ownership is possible because of a number of unique characteristics inherent to strawberry farming which support an environment for small farmers to operate successful businesses. These factors include lower barriers to entry, the ability to harvest a high-yield crop nearly year round on a small amount of land, and heavy consumer demand.
“On this Fourth of July, we are proud to document the enormous role that this delicious and nutritious fruit has played for immigrants in pursuit of the American Dream,” said Ramirez.
Click here to download a copy of the report. About the California Strawberry Commission
The California Strawberry Commission is a state government agency that represents more than 400 growers and 100 shippers and processors of California strawberries. With a focus on food safety education, commission strategies also include production and nutrition research, public policy and consumer awareness.
Stevan Allen
Carolyn O'Donnell
Growing the American Dream Report | 农业 | 3,309 |
Little cherry disease on the rise
A disease that causes small, bitter cherries is increasing in Washington and growers need to take it seriously before it "takes out the industry," a scientist warns.
Dan WheatCapital Press
Published on January 22, 2014 10:30AM
Courtesy/Tim Smith, WSU
Little cherry disease cherries, left, are half the size of normal cherries, right. This sample is from the Wenatchee, Wash., area, summer 2011.
Buy this photo WENATCHEE, Wash. — Little cherry disease is threatening the Washington cherry industry and growers need to take it seriously, a Washington State University research scientist says.The virus, which results in small, bitter-tasting cherries that are unmarketable, took a big jump in 2013, Tim Smith, WSU Extension tree fruit specialist, told growers at North Central Washington Stone Fruit Day, Jan. 21.The meeting was sponsored by WSU Extension and the Washington State Fruit Commission and was held at the Wenatchee Convention Center.“I’m not sure everyone recognizes how serious it is,” Smith said of the disease. “We need to jump on it now and get ahead of it before it takes out the industry.”There is no cure and the only treatment is tree removal, he said. Fieldmen at Stemilt Growers Inc. were “getting very good at spotting it” last fall and 200 acres of cherry trees were yanked out on Stemilt Hill and Wenatchee Heights, Smith said.“I would guess another 200 to 400 acres need to come out in the Wenatchee area,” he said. “Malaga has taken out a patch or two. Had they not, they would be in serious trouble by now.”The virus is difficult to detect because it’s only visible at harvest when growers are “busy doing 100 other things,” Smith said. The tree looks fine, but cherries on an edge or part of a tree aren’t ripe, he said. They finally turn red, but never taste good and are always small and sometimes heart-shaped, he said.Growers are busy so they don’t notice or if they do they think it’s just an oddity that will be gone the next year, Smith said. But they need to stop and mark those trees and check them out when they have more time, he said.It’s difficult to detect in Bing and Sweetheart, Washington’s most common varieties, and the disease spreads rapidly, seeming to “cross an orchard in lickety-split time,” he said. Fumigating the ground after tree removal doesn’t help so its best to let ground lie fallow for a year and watch trees that are left, he said.The disease is spread by mealy bugs and by roots of trees grafting into each other, Smith said.The Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission and Oregon Sweet Cherry Commission agreed in December to spend $63,479 in the first of three years of study to find out why it is increasing and develop management strategies.In 1933, the virus all but wiped out the British Columbia cherry industry and 60,000 trees, 90 percent of the total, were removed, Smith has previously said. British Columbia experienced another serious episode in the 1970s.It’s been detected in Washington since the 1930s but has never been a serious problem, he told the growers. Wet, cool springs, he believes, contributed to an uptick in 2010 and 2011.In 2010, Smith confirmed the disease in 10 out of 10 orchards he suspected. In 2011, it was eight out of eight and in 2012, it was three out of six. “In 2013, we had many suspected orchards. Too many for me to count,” he said. “Almost all were tested and confirmed.”It’s known to be throughout Central Washington and in Hood River, Ore., he said.Contacted later, Kyle Mathison, vice president of Stemilt Growers Inc. and president of Kyle Mathison Orchards, said he removed more than 100 acres on Stemilt Hill and Wenatchee Heights in 2013 and that several other growers made up the rest of the 200-acre removal. He owns hundreds more acres in the vicinity and said he’s worried.“You have to bite the bullet and take them out and start over,” he said. “Hopefully we won’t have reinfection. That’s our biggest concern. The economic loss is way bigger than a rainstorm or hailstorm because you have to wait five to six years to get back into production. It’s just devastating.”Ken Eastwell, a WSU plant pathologist in Prosser, said the disease is a significant concern but manageable with effective control of mealy bugs and tree removal. It appears to be most prominent in Wenatchee perhaps because mealy bugs prefer apples and pears and there are a lot of cherries in close proximity to apples and pears, he said.Mealy bugs are increasing for several reasons including softer, more targeted pesticides, he said. Older, harsher chemistries used for cherry fruit fly were perfectly timed to hit apple mealy bugs, he said. | 农业 | 4,670 |
Perry Pear Joins Ark of Taste
Australia - 26 Apr 13
Five varieties of Australian perry pear found to be at risk of loss to horticulture have been added to the Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity’s international Ark of Taste.
The perry — inedible, small, astringent fruit — has been used for centuries in the English western counties of Herefordshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire to make a fermented alcoholic beverage similar to cider. Varieties were brought to Australia during the Victorian gold rushes in the 1850s and 1860s.
The announcement of the fruits’ inclusion in the Ark was made by Slow Food International secretary-general Paolo Di Croce in conjunction with Australian Ark Commission chair Cherry Ripe at an Ark of Taste dinner today at the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) near Hobart, Tasmania, on the occasion of the national meeting of Slow Food in Australia. The perry varieties listed include the Yellow Huffcap, Moorcroft, Gin, Red Longdon and Green Horse.
The Australian Ark of Taste was established in July 2003. It aims to protect and preserve quality, small-scale production of culturally significant foods that are threatened with extinction, including critically endangered breeds of animals and heirloom varieties of fruits and vegetables. The Ark works to recognise and preserve listed foods’ heritage and taste and to promote and encourage agricultural and horticultural biodiversity.
In its first seven years, four products were listed in the Australian Ark, some of which were included the MONA dinner menu, including Tasmanian Leatherwood honey, bull-boar sausages unique to Victoria, Kangaroo Island Ligurian bee honey from South Australia, and the Bunya, an indigenous nut native to Queensland.
Since 2010, two further products have been added to the Australian Ark, both rare breeds of domestic animals of European origin: in June 2011 the Wessex Saddleback pig, extinct in its native England, and in April 2012 the Dairy Shorthorn, which is ‘critically endangered’.
The pear listing today brings the number of listings on the Australian Ark to 11. Australian Ark Commission chair Cherry Ripe hopes that many more will come to fulfil the goal of 10,000 international Ark listings by 2017.
For more information, please visit the Slow Food Australia website
For more information on the Ark of Taste, visit the website and follow the project on Facebook. | | 农业 | 2,397 |
AgriLife Offices
AgriLife.org
Leader in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Life Sciences
About AgriLife
About Texas A&M AgriLife
The Land-Grant Mission
The Land-Grant Legacy in the Lone Star State
History of Texas A&M AgriLife
Texas A&M AgriLife Institutes
Office of the Vice Chancellor Staff
AgriLife Communications
AgriLife Information Technology
Texas A&M Foundation: AgriLife Office
Texas A&M AgriLife Leaders
Dr. Mark A. Hussey – Vice Chancellor and Dean
Dr. Douglas Steele – Director, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service
Dr. Craig Nessler – Director, Texas A&M AgriLife Research
Dr. Bruce Akey – Director, TVMDL
Tom Boggus – Director, Texas A&M Forest Service
AgriLife Entities
About AgriLife Entities
Texas A&M AgriLife Research
Texas A&M University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory (TVMDL)
Texas A&M Forest Service
Vice Chancellor’s Newsletter
Contact AgriLife
Agriculture & Life Sciences Complex
AgriLife Center
Texas A&M AgriLife Directory
Vice Chancellor’s Awards in Excellence 2013
Congratulations to all the recipients of the 2013 Vice Chancellor’s Awards in Excellence!
M. Edward Rister Angela M. Durko Dr. Bruce A. McCarl Krystal A. Morales-Rivera « prev 1 2 3 4 5 next » (17 Photos)
The award for teaching excellence is presented to
M. Edward Rister, Professor and Associate Head
Department of Agricultural Economics
For 33 years, Dr. Rister has made a lasting positive impression on his students’ lives. He not only teaches them to excel, but also prepares them for success and resiliency in life. Among those he has taught are business owners who are known for the quality of their work and educators who model their teaching after Dr. Rister’s. One unique aspect of his teaching involves having students present detailed business plans at a two-day rural entrepreneurship conference each year. Each student receives substantial support from real-world mentors and frequent one-on-one guidance from Dr. Rister. They also receive advice from a cadre of former students, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and other experts attending each conference. The conferences are so popular that his former students and others donate roughly twenty thousand dollars annually in scholarship support. Dr. Rister also works with students on research publications. He guides a substantial research program funded by off-campus agencies and businesses. Students’ research activities routinely involve off-campus interactions with various AgriLife stakeholders, which enriches their learning. Three former students said their only regret is that they couldn’t have Dr. Rister as their professor every semester.
The Graduate Student Teaching Award is presented to
Angela Durko, Ph.D. Graduate Student
Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences
For several semesters in a row, Mrs. Durko has taught a large undergraduate class with more than 100 students. “Introduction to Tourism” is a pivotal class for the department, and only the most effective and engaging faculty members are assigned to teach it. Mrs. Durko’s teaching has been at the level of the department’s most talented tenure-track professors. She builds personal connections with the students by learning their names and stories, answering questions by email and cell phone at all hours, and infusing subject matter with stories from her travels. Among her innovations in teaching is a “virtual study abroad” program that uses Skype and joint assignments to connect her students with those in Afghanistan and Dubai. She also created a speaker series that brings professionals from Texas’s top attractions to campus to speak to classes, meet with small groups of faculty and students, and take part in social functions over a two-day period. The program has spawned professional opportunities for the students. By all accounts, Mrs. Durko is an excellent educator. Her doctoral advisor refers to her as “one of the most dynamic and effective teachers I have ever witnessed.”
The Research Award in Excellence is presented to
Bruce A. McCarl, Regents Professor and Distinguished Professor
A pioneering scholar in climate change, bioenergy, and sector modeling, Dr. McCarl is one of the world’s most well-known agricultural economists. In the late 1980s he began addressing carbon sequestration, biofuels, and emissions reduction from livestock and farming operations. He has now turned his attention to the inevitability of substantial climate change and the need for adaptation, publishing a series of papers on this issue, the most recent in 2013. Among his many awards is the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, received as a member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. McCarl’s agricultural economics modeling methods were adopted in the early 1980s by the USDA to analyze environmental issues. He has researched biofuels since the late 1970s and participated in EPA processes on Renewable Fuel Standards. Dr. McCarl shares his research expertise in the classroom and through his extensive graduate advising program. He speaks at many national meetings and has served in editorial roles for a number of scientific journals. A supporter said Dr. McCarl “has set the standard for economic research on agriculture, climate change, and climate policy . . . he is the world’s number one.”
The Graduate Student Research Award in Excellence is presented to Krystal A. Morales-Rivera, Ph.D. Graduate Student
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics
Already published in top journals, Ms. Morales-Rivera is a student in Dr. Tatyana Igumenova’s lab, where she uses nuclear magnetic resonance data interpretation to study a protein with functions that may range from neurotransmitter regulation to promoting the growth of cancer cells. Her research skills were recognized as an undergraduate student, when she was granted several awards, including an AMGEN Scholars Internship to carry out research at the University of California, Berkeley. While at Texas A&M, she has received several travel grants to present her research findings at scientific meetings. She won first place in the annual graduate student research competition and also won the prestigious John Mack Prescott Award, given to the department’s best senior graduate. She helped to publicize the university’s new high-field NMR instrument when it was delivered. With a true spirit of service, she volunteered for six years with a program to assist young children and the elderly in her native home of Puerto Rico. Described by her supporters as “tireless in her quest for new, cutting-edge technologies” and “gifted and intellectually independent,” Ms. Morales-Rivera clearly has a bright future as a top researcher in biochemistry and biophysics. Accepting the award for Ms. Morales-Rivera is Dr. Gregory Reinhart, professor and head of the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics.
The County Extension Agent Award in Excellence is presented to J. D. Ragland, County Extension Agent–Agriculture and Natural Resources
Dr. Ragland joined AgriLife Extension more than 26 years ago. Throughout his long career in Randall, Castro, and Floyd Counties, he has demonstrated outstanding leadership in education on wheat, cotton, beef cattle, and horticulture. Among his accomplishments was helping the 4-H program in Randall County become one of the best in the state. He began a unique educational program for high-risk youth—the 4-H Dream Team—and included many people and organizations to make it successful. He literally gave one Dream Team member the shirt off his back so that the team member could look nice when presenting their project. In another arena, Dr. Ragland was an invaluable source of support for wheat farmers during freezing weather last April, when crops were damaged by cold weather. Dr. Ragland helped wheat farmers avoid added costs by holding an emergency meeting, inspecting plants for damage, and providing authoritative information to the news media. While working full-time, Dr. Ragland completed the doc@distance program and earned his doctorate in 2013. People praise his initiative, endurance, and thoroughness. One colleague said, “Dr. Ragland’s contributions exemplify a well-rounded AgriLife Extension program.”
The Extension Specialist Award in Excellence is presented to
Floron “Buddy” Faries, Jr., Professor and Extension Program Leader for Large Animal Clinical Sciences
College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences
In his 29 years with AgriLife Extension, Dr. Buddy Faries has represented the organization to more than 5,000 youth and countless livestock producers, Extension agents, and veterinarians. He was the driving force behind the creation of the 4-H Vet Science Program, which today has been adopted in 160 counties. Dr. Faries also has done award-winning work on the Texas Master Naturalist program. He has maintained an exhaustive teaching schedule, helping to train professionals, graduate and undergraduate students, faculty, and the general public. This teaching schedule has included 88 training programs for Extension faculty and 63 professional courses. He has led more than a thousand educational programs for Extension clientele since 1992. He has also led and worked on 38 research programs — resulting in 1.4 million dollars in research funds. And he has written nearly 200 scholarly articles, books, and other publications for scientific journals, professional magazines, the news media, the Department of Homeland Security, and 4-H. One of his supporters wrote: “Dr. Faries lives the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service mission, improving the lives of people, businesses, and communities across Texas and beyond.”
The Public Service in Forestry Award in Excellence is presented to
Lee McNeely, Wildland Urban Interface Specialist III
Through his focused dedication as part of the Forest Service’s Mitigation and Prevention Department, Mr. McNeely has made a tremendous impact on Texas cities and counties. He was able to convince the Texas Division of Emergency Management to move wildfire from tenth to fourth place in state hazard rankings — behind hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. This is a true game-changer in that the threat of wildfire in Texas is now accurately reflected for the first time, and it also makes it possible for counties and cities directly affected by wildfire to receive FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program grants, and it has triggered updates of disaster plans statewide. Mr. McNeely provided critical information in updating the state’s wildfire-mitigation template, and he has worked tirelessly with councils of government, cities, and counties in updating their plans. He received a grant to produce a wildfire-mitigation “how-to” guide to help cities and counties complete hazardous-fuel reduction projects. Mr. McNeely’s work has earned him and the Texas A&M Forest Service a reputation as the most trusted person and agency for wildfire-mitigation planning. One of his supporters said his “leadership, vision, and commitment to serve have truly impacted the entire state of Texas.”
The Diagnostic Services Award in Excellence is presented to
Dr. Robert W. Sprowls, Resident Director
Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, Amarillo
Starting his career as a pathologist, Dr. Sprowls has been in leadership positions at the Amarillo lab since 1975. He is nationally renowned as an astute diagnostician, helping to earn the lab’s reputation as the premier U.S. facility for feedlot disease diagnostics. His innovative approaches include promoting batch/pooled testing of clinical specimens for reproductive diseases such as Trichomoniasis. Using this method, beef producers have controlled the disease and saved 75 to 80 percent in costs over individual testing. Working with a range of clients that include some of the world’s largest feedlots, Dr. Sprowls shows great diplomacy in relating to animal owners and to veterinarians treating both large and small animals. He makes time to interact personally with clients each day, also responding to calls on nights, weekends, and holidays. He was instrumental in the development and success of the Academy of Veterinary Consultants, now a 900-member national group of beef cattle veterinarians. Dr. Sprowls is known as “the heart of the Amarillo laboratory.” His expertise, approachability, quiet dignity, and integrity have earned him the respect of the livestock industry, his staff, and his peers and colleagues throughout Texas A&M AgriLife.
The Business and Operational Staff Award in Excellence is presented to
Carla M. Smith, Administrative Services Officer
Department of Entomology
Ms. Smith joined the department in 2007. She works on all aspects of departmental operations and is amazingly talented at providing solutions to complex or unusual administrative problems. Serving on hiring committees for faculty and staff is one of her many duties. This involves recruiting, interviewing, checking references, and ensuring that all HR policies are followed. Her thoroughness is impeccable. Another of Ms. Smith’s talents lies in helping international hires avoid frustration and anxiety when dealing with elaborate immigration procedures. Just one meeting with Ms. Smith can make a world of difference in the way immigration processes are handled. In addition, Ms. Smith coordinates the overall operation of the Business and Accounting Section of the department and makes recommendations on funding issues. She keeps up-to-date on the latest technologies and recommends software and hardware that will increase efficiency and save money. And she is readily accessible to faculty, staff, and students to resolve disputes. Her colleagues say she is kind, diplomatic, and cheerful. One colleague said, “She is the one ‘go-to’ senior staff member who keeps the departmental enterprise moving forward.”
The Office and Administrative Staff Award in Excellence is presented to
Carolyn Orts, Technician II
TVMDL Sam and Sally Glass Poultry Diagnostic Laboratory, Gonzales
Hired by Dr. Sam Glass in 1976, Ms. Orts has served the lab for nearly four decades, under three directors. Now the senior technician, she oversees all aspects of laboratory testing and personnel, interacts with clients, manages laboratory records and case reporting, and trains new technical personnel. She also performs tests in the serology and bacteriology labs, where her years of experience have proven invaluable in interpreting test results. Ms. Orts oversees equipment calibration and preventive maintenance, technician proficiency scheduling, and supplier and subcontractor contacts. In fact, nearly everything related to the laboratory goes to Carolyn’s desk before it goes out to internal or external clients. She knows poultry diseases and management practices inside out, and company representatives ask to talk to Carolyn because she has the information they need right at her fingertips. Her ability to coordinate daily operations and work closely with clients prompted a supporter to compare the lab to “a wheel of numerous spokes, with Carolyn at the hub.” An invaluable staff member, Ms. Orts is one of TVMDL’s most trusted and experienced professionals.
The Technical and Programmatic Staff Award in Excellence is presented to
Jason Baker, Senior Research Associate
Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Amarillo
Mr. Baker has been the anchor of the small grains improvement program in the High Plains and the Rolling Plains for over 10 years, working at the Dallas, Vernon, and Amarillo Centers. His role spans research and extension tasks that would typically take a team to accomplish. He manages all aspects of the AgriLife wheat-breeding activities, under the direction of the program leader, Dr. Jackie Rudd. Those activities include planning, planting, maintaining, and harvesting grain plots; analyzing data; managing the upkeep and repair of equipment; and supervising employees. He has designed and executed a wheat- and triticale-crossing program, among others. He is a coauthor on the release proposals of seven hard red winter wheat varieties, four oat varieties, and two triticale varieties. And his successes have had far-ranging positive impacts, benefiting producers throughout Texas. In 2010 Mr. Baker was chosen as Employee of the Year at the AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Vernon. All in all, he has been a huge asset for the statewide wheat program. One of his colleagues wrote, “His unassuming attitude, very nice demeanor, and hard-working ethics have enriched our synergy and significantly contributed to our success.”
The AgriLife Services Staff Award in Excellence is presented to
Steve Byrns, Editor and Extension Communications Specialist, West Region
A 31-year veteran of AgriLife Communications, Mr. Byrns produces at least 120 news releases every year for AgriLife Today, reaching readers around the world and playing a key role in supporting the work of AgriLife Extension and Research. He also fields calls from reporters seeking AgriLife experts to quote. Based at the San Angelo Center, he serves a broad swath of West Texas, from Lubbock to Abilene to Fort Stockton. He also covers the Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences and Entomology. A creative thinker and problem solver, Mr. Byrns helped design the award-winning Brush Busters project, wrote a popular brochure titled “Angora Goats: A ‘Shear’ Delight,” and helps promote economic development in the High Plains through the publication “The Impact of Agribusiness in the Big Country.” He teaches media relations for Extension staff members and led the establishment of the Joint Information Center to get the word out about drought impacts in the High Plains. A supporter says he “has a keen sense of what makes news” and “elevates the status of Texas A&M AgriLife as a trusted source for information.”
The Diversity Award in Excellence is presented to the team
Migrant and Low-Income Family Education in the Panhandle
Team members are:
Sue Owens, County Extension Agent–Family and Consumer Sciences, Moore County
Amy Wagner, County Extension Agent–Family and Consumer Sciences, Potter County
Lizabeth Gresham, County Extension Agent–Family and Consumer Sciences, Prairie View A&M University Cooperative Extension Program, Potter County
In 2008, Moore County received 2,000 political refugees from Burma and Somalia. They lacked a basic understanding of local culture, and community members began to complain they were rummaging through neighborhoods. The region already had a large immigrant population and an even larger population living in poverty and food insecurity. Ms. Owens set up classes to teach immigrants about driving, safe operation of water heaters, proper hygiene, work ethics, and much more. When Ms. Wagner arrived in Moore County, she helped to address both the migrant and lower socio-economic families’ educational needs, teaching classes on professional development, grocery shopping, and food safety. She and Ms. Owens trained their peers on working with lower socio-economic families. When Ms. Gresham joined the team, she collaborated with Habitat for Humanity on an educational series on financial stability. She also developed lessons to address language and culture barriers facing a clientele that speaks more than twenty-six different languages. A Moore County compliance officer summed up the team’s success, saying: “The rummaging has stopped. Schools are not complaining about student dress and hygiene, [and there is] less absenteeism from work. Drivers have slowed down, and children are in car seats.” Accepting the award on Sue Owens behalf is Brandon Dukes.
The International Involvement Award in Excellence is presented to the
Veterinary Epidemiology, Diagnostic Detection, and Outreach Team
Heather Simmons, Program Manager for Education and Outreach, FAZD Center
Michael McWhorter, Associate Director and International Training Coordinator, Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture
Amy Swinford, Branch Chief, TVMDL
Sandy Rodgers, Assistant Section Head, Serology, TVMDL
Floron “Buddy” Faries, Jr., Professor and Extension Veterinarian, AgriLife Extension and FAZD Center Tom Hairgrove, Program Coordinator, Livestock and Food Animal Systems, AgriLife Extension and TVMDL
Through international fellowship grants, this team has trained 55 veterinary scientists from 10 countries in biotechnology, epidemiology, and advanced disease diagnostics. The TVMDL and FAZD members design and present practical hands-on training geared to the technology available in the Fellows’ native countries so they can readily apply their new skills when they return home. Disease eradication and control are always of paramount concern to the international scientists. Extension team members work closely with industry, animal science specialists, and veterinarians to help improve animal food production systems and herd health, including testing for brucellosis and other contagious diseases. Once a Fellow has completed training in the U.S., team members travel to the home country to see how the new skills and methods are being implemented. This helps determine future collaborations in research, training, and extension. One of the team’s trainees from East Africa wrote: “Each of the players in the team tackled a specific aspect of the training brilliantly.” Together, this team is improving animal agriculture around the globe to help meet two of our grand challenges: feeding our world and protecting our health.
The Administration Award in Excellence is presented to
Jaroy Moore, Professor and Resident Director
Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Lubbock
Dr. Moore has been in Research and Extension Center leadership positions for 36 years, spending the past 15 years at Lubbock. Among his many awards is the Outstanding Agriculturist Award from Governor Rick Perry, received in 2006. Dr. Moore oversees twenty-seven AgriLife Research scientists and sixty-three support personnel, with an annual budget of 8.1 million dollars. Under his leadership, extramural funding by the Lubbock Center faculty has doubled; he has secured or managed 97 million dollars for the Center. Directing research in the most intensive agricultural production region in Texas, Dr. Moore has established an outstanding reputation for himself and for Texas A&M AgriLife with agricultural producers, commodity groups, and the agriculture industry. Among his contributions to research and education in the region has been to increase collaboration among Texas A&M AgriLife, Texas Tech University, and the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. Thanks to his efforts, the number of faculty members at Lubbock with a joint appointment between AgriLife Research and Texas Tech has increased from five to fifteen. His colleagues say that he has a gift for creating an inspiring work environment, resolving conflicts, and fostering a spirit of camaraderie and cooperation.
The Partnership Award in Excellence is presented to the team
Reaching Food Insecure Families in the High Plains
Leicia Redwine, County Extension Agent–Family and Consumer Sciences, Armstrong County
Molly Foreman, County Extension Agent–Family and Consumer Sciences, Briscoe County Jeanene Montgomery, County Extension Agent–Family and Consumer Sciences, Carson County Renda Nelson, Regional Program Manager, BLT, AgriLife Extension, Amarillo
Edna Tucker, Agency Relations Director, High Plains Food Bank, Amarillo
This dynamic partnership between AgriLife Extension and the High Plains Food Bank helps to feed 84,000 people annually in the 29 counties of the uppermost Texas Panhandle by distributing 7 million pounds of food. About one in six Texas households live in poverty, unable to afford fresh fruits and vegetables and other nutritious foods. This puts them at risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes. In addition to food donations, the Food Bank has a one-acre garden that produces 20,000 pounds of fresh produce for clientele during the spring and summer months. This team supported the opening of a new food pantry and an outreach center. They teach safe food-handling practices at distribution sites, and reach thousands through classes in nutrition education, cooking, and food-preservation. By continually seeking professional development, providing in-service training, and offering community service opportunities for local 4-H clubs, the team members are recognized as leaders in their field. They work to determine the causes of food-insecurity and help to relieve the stress of hunger by providing a safe and reliable source of food for those who are the most vulnerable, including children and the elderly.
The Team Award in Excellence is presented to the
Saltcedar Biological Control Team
Gerald J. Michels, Jr., Professor of Entomology, AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Amarillo
Allen E. Knutson, Professor and Extension Entomologist, AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Dallas
Mark Muegge, Associate Professor of Entomology, AgriLife Extension Center at Fort Stockton
Erin N. Jones, Research Assistant, AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Amarillo
This team has worked since 2006 to develop and teach a sustainable strategy for biological control of the invasive shrub saltcedar, which has spread to millions of acres throughout Texas and the southwestern United States. Saltcedar not only depletes valuable ground and surface water but also increases soil salinity, encroaches on farm and ranchland, and degrades wildlife habitat. Thanks to this team’s introduction of a Eurasian beetle that feeds only on saltcedar, these shrubs are being defoliated through a natural equilibrium, without the need for chemical herbicides. The team established populations of the saltcedar leaf beetle in all of the major watersheds of West Texas and provides technical assistance to landowners and managers who are using the biological control method. Through conferences, field days, meetings, and publications, the team has enlisted the help of hundreds of supporters who have contributed to the program’s success. One grateful landowner said, “I never could have imagined my world without a continual battle with saltcedar. I believe we now have successful control.”
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Name * Email * Website Comment You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> Texas A&M AgriLife News AgriLife Extension experts: Texans should expect mosquito population explosion May 29Lone Star Healthy Streams workshop set June 23 in Nacogdoches May 28Art in the Garden program June 11 in San Antonio to plant seeds of creativity May 28Texas crop, weather for May 27, 2015 May 27Noted animal welfare expert Ted Friend to retire after 38 years at Texas A&M May 27 Texas A&M Forest Service
Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostics Laboratory Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service
Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Compact with Texans
Texas Veteran's Portal
Equal Opportunity for Educational Programs Statement | 农业 | 27,249 |
Almond Insights Blog
Almond Facts
Grower News
Engine of Growth
This Almond Exporter Could Be You
Blue Diamond Growers Clean Food Policy
A Strong Voice For Almonds
Almond Trade in Asia
Government Affairs Contact Form
Cultural Techniques
Contracts & Payments
Member Involvement
Growers Home >
Government Affairs >
This Almond Exporter Could Be You This Almond Exporter Could Be You
Federal matching funds help almond farmers develop export sales
Charlie and Sarah Adams had a good crop this year. They shipped nearly 80 thousand pounds of almonds to Blue Diamond from their 40-acre orchard in California's Central Valley.
After processing, 56 thousand pounds (70 percent) of their deliveries are destined for foreign markets. Only 24 thousand pounds (less than one third) of their production will be sold in the U.S. That is how dependent Charlie and Sarah - and every almond grower in California - are upon foreign markets for their livelihood.
With billion-pound California almond crops on the horizon, exports may increase to 80 percent of total sales.
Export Driven
Without export sales, California almond growers would have to find markets for 80 percent of the crop, 20 thousand fewer Californians would have jobs, and the state and U.S. governments would collect hundreds of millions of dollars less in taxes.
The tide of hard currency from overseas sales of California almonds lifts the economies of local communities, the state and nation. This annual infusion of new wealth creates jobs in agriculture, farm machinery, food processing, packaging, transportation, as well as sales, marketing, advertising, public relations, legal and accounting services, to name a few of the multitude of jobs and businesses that depend on almond exports for some or all of their income. In most years, almonds are California's leading export crop and the nation's sixth largest export commodity. Charlie and Sarah are proud to be a part of this dynamic economic juggernaut.
Needs Leverage
But Charlie and Sarah are growers, not a marketers. Given their responsibilities on the ranch, they certainly don't have the time (nor the knowledge, experience and wherewithal) to travel the world opening markets and wooing sales for their small portion of California's annual almond crop. Nor do the other seven-thousand-plus almond growers in California. Few, if any, represent a large enough piece of the pie to justify the effort.
Almond growing - and this is true of most agricultural commodities - continues to be an industry made up of many small producers dependent on processors and marketers to buy and sell their crops. Handlers with a brand name, such as Blue Diamond, are better able to compete against well-known labels in foreign markets.
Deep Pockets and Expertise
Mobilizing a foreign market development program requires deep pockets, far more cash than an individual farmer could raise. It involves hiring trained and experienced personnel, establishing overseas offices, funding extensive travel, and acquiring the expertise to cope with endless obstacles and complexities that come with marketing agricultural products in foreign lands.
Agricultural commodities are subject to numerous health and safety regulations, as well as other rules of commerce that vary greatly from country to country. The ultimate barrier, however, can be the consumer. Exporters must convince foreign consumers that U.S. products are worth trying, often in direct competition with companies aided by a foreign government agency that sells similar foods directly to local consumers. This requires substantial investments in advertising and promotion.
Pooled Resources
Aware of those challenges and the importance of foreign sales to his livelihood, Charlie and Sarah focus their talents on producing the best possible crop that they can, while entrusting market development to their co-op. By pooling their crop and financial support with over four thousand other growers who are members of Blue Diamond, they obtain the clout to acquire industry-leading processing and marketing services, and the leverage required to be effective international marketers. Only in this way can Charlie and Sarah, and their fellow growers, become players on the international scene - through cooperation and MAP.
MAP? MAP stands for the USDA's Market Access Program, which provides funds on a matching basis to food exporters, such as Blue Diamond, to help offset the cost of overseas market development. The program helps grower organizations and trade associations compete with heavily subsidized foreign firms on their own turf. Without MAP's participation to help level the playing field, export market development in many areas of the world would not be economically feasible for small growers like Charlie and Sarah, who own the Blue Diamond cooperative.
Opens Markets
MAP and its predecessor programs have been strengthening the American economy for some 40 years. MAP pays its own way by encouraging increased economic activity that results in more revenue in taxes than the program costs. It creates millions of jobs, and helps generate vast new wealth in America.
Blue Diamond was among the first agricultural organizations to use USDA's export promotion programs to open and expand foreign markets. This support was instrumental in opening the Japanese market to California almonds and was a crucial factor in Blue Diamond's success there. Japan now ranks as the second largest export market for California almonds. MAP is now helping Charlie and Sarah build a market in India, which could soon rival Japan's.
MAP focuses on the promotion of processed commodities and higher-valued products such as fruits, nuts and vegetables, meats, and grocery items. The program's funds eventually help major brands owned by small farmers, such as Blue Diamond, Sunkist and Ocean Spray, develop and expand foreign markets.
Helps Small Farmers
Charlie and Sarah are a Blue Diamond "composite." For the purposes of this article, they represent the men and women of varied ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds who grow almonds for the co-op. This cross-section of American citizens farms an average of some 50 acres of almonds.
Charlie and Sarah also represent the American entrepreneurs that MAP was designed to help: small farmer-taxpayers who are the foundation of local and state economies all across this country. These small businessmen and women produce agricultural products that bring home hard currency from around the world, year after year. They represent only one percent of American workers, yet they produce the most abundant and cheapest food supply in the world.
USDA data show that every dollar invested in foreign trade translates into $16 in additional exports. Studies also show that every additional billion dollars in agricultural exports creates 17,000 new jobs in the U.S., which makes MAP a jobs program that is difficult to ignore.
Yet MAP has its detractors. It is seen by some people as corporate "welfare," and regularly meets a stiff challenge from local media, certain politicians, and consumer groups. Most of the program's critics have a different agenda. They want the money being spent on MAP for their own pet projects and see the program as competition for a shrinking public budget.
In an ideal world, where everyone played by the same rules, government help in promoting American brands owned by small farmers probably would not be needed, but this is not an ideal world. Every country engaged in international trade has policies and programs to help it compete more effectively, and to expand its share of the world market. Most heavily outspend the U.S. in this respect. Without a strong commitment from our government to agricultural export programs, America's farmers and workers would be at a substantial disadvantage in world trade.
Take the European Union (EU), for example. The EU outspends the U.S. in terms of export enhancements by a 10-to-1 margin. Worldwide, nations competing with the U.S. continue to assist their growers, levy heavy duties on imports, and raise non-tariff barriers to free trade, making it more difficult for California almond growers to compete in foreign markets. The MAP partnership provides leverage to maintain and expand markets worldwide in the face of such competition. © 2014 Blue Diamond Growers. All rights reserved. Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Accessibility | Company Info | Careers
Go to: Bluediamond.com | 农业 | 8,452 |
Rice harvest looking good across region
By CHING LEE/Courtesy of Ag Alert
As rice harvest begins to ramp up this month, California farmers say they expect to have a good crop, although yields may not be as remarkable as they would like, given the late start to planting this spring.A small percentage of fields are already harvested, but the good majority of farms will be starting this week and likely run into November, according to University of California Cooperative Extension farm advisors Chris Greer and Luis Espino."It looks like it's going to be an OK harvest," said Butte County rice farmer Michael Arens. "The weather seems to be good. I think the crop is going to be average. I don't think it's going to be anything spectacular."He planted his first field in mid-May and said he expects to begin harvest next week. But stand establishment was tough this spring, he said, because late-season rains delayed planting, which typically causes a drop in yields."I think our production is going to be what it's going to be," said Arens, who grows rice in Richvale. "Everything is done. We can't change that. Hopefully, harvest will be easy, with good weather."Greer, a farm advisor who covers Yuba, Sutter, Placer and Sacramento counties, agreed that yields should be "somewhat average" this year, although some fields may see more losses if the plants were flowering during a stretch of hot weather in August, when temperatures topped 100 degrees.The heat spell also helped to control the fungal plant disease rice blast, which has been prevalent this year -- although not as bad as the last two years, he noted. With weather cooling down, more blast is now showing up, but it's too early to tell how much of an impact it will have on overall yields, Greer said."In a year like this, unless we start getting heavy rains, (harvest) is probably going to turn out fairly good," he said.This year marks the state's 100th rice harvest, according to the California Rice Commission. Rice production is forecast at 47.3 million hundredweight, up 2 percent from 2011, according to the latest estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The yield forecast is 8,400 pounds per acre. The state is expected to harvest some 563,000 acres of rice this fall, down from 580,000 in 2011.Greer said the amount of reduced acreage is not unusual, as the state has fluctuated between 500,000 and 575,000 acres in the last 10 years. Some of the lost acreage could be attributed to ground that was fallowed in favor of water transfers, such as in Butte County, or a switch to other crops, he said.George Tibbetts, a Colusa County rice farmer, said he typically likes to keep all his ground in production and stick to his regular crop rotation, which includes sunflowers, safflower and tomatoes.He said he will modify his rotation schedule a bit and keep a field in rice a year or two longer to take advantage of higher prices, but generally about two-thirds of his farm is devoted to rice. Not all growers are able to do the kind of rotation he does, however, because their ground may not be suitable for other crops, Tibbetts noted.If the price outlook for rice is particularly strong during planting time, he said, some growers may bring marginal ground into production. But the outlook this spring wasn't necessarily too bright or too gloomy, he noted."The price has been rather volatile," Tibbetts said. "Right now, the price outlook for the crop you harvested last year is a lot lower than it was a few years ago, but not as bad as it was five or six years ago, so it's kind of in between."Tibbetts said his crop is mature enough now to harvest, but he's waiting for the moisture level to come down so he can avoid high drying costs, and that may take until late this week. That puts him about a week behind, even though he planted his crop in early May, which is his normal planting window. He also said he did not experience any significant weather issues this summer that would adversely affect his crop."It could still be a good crop. It could be average," he said. "I won't know until we get out there and cut a few loads."Matt Tennis, who farms rice in Chico and is about two weeks away from harvest, said although temperatures during pollination were a little hotter than he would like, weather conditions on the whole this summer were "pretty benign."He said he did have a harder time with weeds this year, noting that growers are now battling increasingly tough weeds that have few materials available to control them. He said while he was "mostly" able to manage the weeds this year, it got expensive.Farm advisor Espino, who covers Glenn, Colusa and Yolo counties, said UC researchers confirmed last year that smallflower umbrella sedge, a common weed in rice fields, has become resistant to one of the main herbicides that growers use to attack it. While the resistant strain is not yet widespread, Espino said the problem weed is a concern, as "we'll probably see more of it as time goes by."Tennis said farmers not only need all the tools that are available now to control weeds, but new ones as part of their arsenal."We need to encourage innovation," he said. "That means chemicals that can safely control weeds. It also means more science that can produce hardier varieties of rice that can stand up to these various challenges -- weather and threat from weeds." | 农业 | 5,374 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.