Blog for Rural America

Here at the Center for Rural Affairs, we like wind power.  And it has been a source of constant dismay that Nebraska's power generating sector has consistently opposed wind power development, and when public outcry has led them to (finally) accept the least bit of public policy supporting wind power, they have worked to undermine such policy as well.  For example, the sector has always opposed a real net metering laws- laws that would allow individuals to sell electricity back to the electrical grid (excess electricity from a wind turbine, etc).  Nebraska remains one of eight states that has no net metering law at all; last year a net metering law was supported by the power companies, but was so weak that it would have been mere window-dressing (it was opposed by Nebraska renewable energy advocates).

Given that Nebraska is sixth in the nation in wind energy potential, you may wonder why this is the case.  The short answer is "public power".  Nebraska remains the only state in the nation that is 100% public power- no private utilities here.  The Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) is the largest utility in the state, and there are a few others, such as the Omaha Public Power District.  These districts are government agencies, run by elected boards.  Despite this governing structure, which we philosophically support and would seem to offer real opportunities, NPPD has consistently refused to embrace renewable energy.  Until this week, for example, they absolutely refused to accept any numerical goal for electricity from renewable sources.

Well, the Nebraska Public Power District has announced that it will produce 10% of its electricity from renewable resources... by 2020.  You'll excuse me if I'm a bit underwhelmed.  Simply put, that's a pitiful amount.  As mentioned above, Nebraska ranks sixth in the nation in wind potential, with 868 billion kilowatts/hour of potential.  The new NPPD goal assume 430 megawatts by 2020.  To put it into better perspective, Texas, the state with the second-most wind potential has 5,317 megawatts installed right now.  Iowa and Minnesota, both states with less wind potential than Nebraska, have nearly 1,300 megawatts of installed wind capacity each.  That's not planned installations; that's wind turbines on the ground today, producing electricity.  For Nebraska to install only 430 megawatts over the next 12 years is just pathetic.  Are they seriously proposing that we take TWELVE YEARS to reach A THIRD of Iowa's current wind energy total?

It's just too much to handle all in one blog post.  I'm going to have to take a deep breath and approach the rest of this later.

Our weekly column, written by Elisha Greeley Smith...

The loss of our rural communities is not inevitable, not the result of some unseen, unstoppable force of nature.  We can do better.    Much is lost when a town ceases to exist; history, heritage, stewards of our natural resources, and people who produce safe food for our nation are lost. If the people that care about rural places are no longer there to take care of the natural resources and food producing land - who will? Perhaps it will be giant corporations and outside investors who are more concerned with profits than the health of the land and the safety of the food produced on it.

The vitality of America's rural areas should be a concern for everyone, not just those that reside in rural communities. All Americans - rural and urban alike - benefit from vibrant rural communities and thriving family farms and ranches.  Not all is doom and gloom. Some rural communities refuse to give up when the going gets tough. They work harder, invest in their infrastructure, devote time and resources towards youth and entrepreneurs, and develop the assets and amenities the region provides.  We all benefit when rural communities use forward thinking.

In a rather successful effort to get me all riled up, Brian DeVore of the Land Stewardship Project (LSP) details the blatant perversion of a livestock promotion program in Minnesota:

You can pass into law the greatest policy in the world, but in the end its success depends on good implementation. Exhibit A: When the “Livestock Investment Grants Program” was passed during the last legislative session, it showed that at least on paper Minnesota was serious about helping farmers of all types who need a little help tweaking their operations here and there in order to increase efficiency, profitability and environmental sustainability. LSP and other groups were even successful in making sure that farmers making improvements to grazing operations could obtain funds, and that low cost projects could qualify. But on July 1, when the Minnesota Department of Agriculture announced it was accepting applications, it became clear that this wasn’t your Legislature’s Livestock Investment Grants Program anymore. 

In short, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has developed a points ranking system that blatantly favors applications from large-type CAFOs.  There is a good part of the ranking section that favors beginning farmers, but that's about it. 

Under the MDA's points system, the more animals you plan on adding, the more points you get.  Is adding more animals really any sort of indicator of environmental quality?  I think not.  The more technology you plan on using, the more points you get.  Since when has more technology improved the environment? 

Moreover, the most any one farm operation can receive is $500,000- an absurdly high number that theoretically allows MDA to dispense the entire $1 million budget with two checks, and almost certainly guarantees that this program will not serve nearly as many farmers and ranchers as it should.  As is definitely the case with USDA, we have no doubt MDA would prefer to write a few large checks instead a bunch of little ones (less administrative costs that way, you know).

I highly encourage reading the full blog post- a classic example of a decent program in the legislature getting screwed over during the implementation process.  It highlights how important it is to follow through on the implementation and regulatory, a point our pal Aimee Witteman made the other day over at Ethicurean.  Kudos to LSP for keeping an eye on this stuff, and hopefully some of this crap will be improved upon in the future.

Just to pimp another section of our website, you should check out the "What We're Reading" section at the bottom of the main page and on the right-hand side of the blog.  We're a little busy now and then, and we don't always get to blog as much as we would like.  However, this nifty little tool allows us to note the articles we think are important and worth reading.  If you're into the RSS feed thing like we are, you can scroll to the bottom of the box and subscribe to a feed.

From the Kansas City Star:

Along the Mississippi River, they’re watching the levees. In northern Missouri, they’re watching the walls of lagoons holding back millions of gallons of animal waste.

Rains this week were filling waste lagoons on industrial farms, and some were leaking and overflowing.

State officials, worried that lagoon walls might collapse, have told farmers that they can lower lagoon levels by spraying the waste on fields, even though the ground was soaked from rainfall.

“All the lagoons are overflowing or right at the edge,” said Karl Fett, regional director of the Department of Natural Resources office in Lee’s Summit. “It is a dire situation.”

Missouri has never faced the failure of so many lagoons and potential contamination of waterways, state officials and environmentalists said. The lagoons were built to collect waste from animals on industrial farms, which have proliferated in Missouri in recent years.

We have no doubt that the pollution resulting from the recent floods has reached epic proportions, similar to what happened after Katrina.  Unfortunately, politicians tend to view this sort of thing as unpreventable.  On the contrary, maybe if we didn't have government policy to favor consolidation and CAFOs and did have some decent local control policies, this sort of thing could easily be avoided.  We're just saying.

Hat tip to the Rural Blog.

In case you didn't catch it in our monthly newsletter- Dan

As advances in medical technology improve for women, we assume life expectancies will be longer than past generations. But according to a Harvard School of Public Health study - The Reversal of Fortunes: Trends in County Mortality and Cross-County Mortality Disparities in the United States, in nearly 1,000 mostly rural counties, life expectancies for women are now lower than or essentially the same as in the early 1980s. That means that life expectancies for women in nearly one-third of American counties did not increase for the first time since 1918.  

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report Growing Disparities in Life Expectancy, finds those with lower incomes and less education experiencing declining or stagnant life expectancies.  

Most of the rural counties experiencing decreases in life expectancy from 1983 to 1999 are concentrated in the South, the Southern Plains, and Appalachia. But counties not improving in life expectancy during the same time period are scattered throughout the nation, including large portions of the Midwest and Great Plains. By comparison, less than two dozen rural counties did not improve female life expectancies from 1961 to 1983. 

Both studies point to a lack of access to health care services, the increase in the uninsured and increasing income gaps as root causes that may make this a long-term issue for many portions of the American population. 

These are major public policy challenges facing rural people and rural places, and must be addressed by policy makers at all levels.  

Jon Bailey is the Rural Research and Analysis Program Director at the Center for Rural Affairs

Last week the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published research it did examining Army, Army reserve and National Guard recruitment rates for every county in the nation from 2004 to 2007. It found that rural counties have by far much higher recruitment rates than do non-rural counties. Using a recruitment rate index (number of recruitments per 10,000 people) the study found that 11 of the highest 115 county rates (a rate of 10 or above) are rural counties from the Center's home state of Nebraska, including the two highest county recruitment rates in the nation – that is, proportionately, Grant and Arthur Counties have more of their population join the Army, Army reserves or National Guard than any other counties in the nation.

Nebraska counties among the highest 115 rates in the nation are:

1. Grant
2. Arthur
6. Rock
23. Frontier
40. Wheeler
61. Dawes
70. Holt
88. Madison
99. Phelps
100. Logan
112. Banner

Only Montana with 13 counties had more counties represented in the top 115; South Dakota had 10 counties. Search for your state or county at the Post-Dispatch's online database.

Hat tip: the Center's Jon Bailey

Hopefully everyone had a safe and happy 4th of July weekend. I for one am quite pleased at the array of fireworks available in Nebraska, which far outstrip the wimpy products sold in my home state (Indiana). I was also informed that possession of such powerful fireworks in New York City would probably get you put on a homeland security watch list. Hooray for the populist libertarians of Nebraska, who understand that possessing 10 pounds of gunpowder fueled explosives is a patriotic right, if not duty.

Anyway, there is very little rural America likes better than a parade. (Only grouchy old-before-their-time people like Brian Depew dislike a good parade.) If you enjoy antique tractors and vehicles with sirens- and who doesn’t- the rural America parade is for you. So, without further comment, here’s a fancy slideshow of the Lyons, Nebraska 4th of July Bluegrass festival parade.

For more photos from the Center, visit http://flickr.com/photos/cfra/.

Yesterday I mentioned the inadequacy of USDA’s animal ID system, the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  A provision in the House Agriculture Appropriations bill currently before Congress requires the School Lunch Program administered by USDA to only purchase meat from livestock producers registered with NAIS.

This provision is being championed as a “food safety” measure, a disingenuous claim at best.  NAIS has little to do with food safety- something even USDA admits.  From USDA’s website:

“Implementation of NAIS will support state and federal animal disease monitoring and surveillance through the rapid tracing of infected and exposed animals during animal disease outbreaks. Additional benefits of NAIS include enhanced consumer confidence in the health of U.S. livestock and associated products and improved productivity management for producers.” (http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/newsroom/news_2005-11-09.shtml)

As you might notice, public health is not mentioned.  That’s because NAIS stops at the packing plant door- there is no requirement to trace the meat during production.  Given that most contamination resulting in food recalls (and people getting sick) is a result of improper production practices you can start to see how this isn’t about public health.  If a person is sickened eating tainted meat, NAIS cannot help in identifying which animal actually caused the disease (if, in fact, there is a particular animal at fault) because during production meat from hundreds of animals is mixed together- and NAIS does nothing to address this problem.

I suppose one could argue that NAIS may benefit public health if you detect the disease before the animal is slaughtered.  But that’s not all that big of a priority for USDA either- they’ve repeatedly tried to prevent meatpackers from testing every cow they purchase for mad cow disease. 

Claiming involvement in NAIS will somehow result in safer food for the school lunch program is simply wrong.  Moreover, forcing those selling to schools to participate in this fatally flawed program could well result in less locally sourced, sustainably produced meat for schools.

Farm-to-school programs may be in their infancy on a national scale, but they represent an enormous opportunity for small farms and ranches. 

First, schools are locally controlled- providing an excellent opportunity for local citizens to insist upon locally-sourced foods.  And the increased volumes involved in such institutional purchases can provide the incentive for a producer to get into sustainable, humane production practices- especially when compared to the often fluctuating demand from farmers markets, etc.  Institutional purchasing has the potential to provide the sort of reliable demand that could really revitalize local processing capacity- both for meat and other food products- something that Tom Philpott has correctly identified as one of the single largest obstacles to a true local food system.  Placing yet another obstacle in front of farm-to-school programs will inevitably result in less local food in our schools.

In the bigger picture, requiring schools to buy meat from NAIS producers will absolutely favor the largest, most vertically-integrated meatpackers and CAFO operators.  Why?  Because they’re the ones that can guarantee large quantities of meat sourced from NAIS producers.  When hundreds or thousands of animals go into a ground beef production run, only the largest meatpackers can absolutely guarantee that every single one of those animals was tagged in NAIS- and those animals will be bought from giant CAFOs, whose costs to participate in NAIS are far lower than the small producer (the “lot tagging” I mentioned yesterday).  Small producers facing higher costs (and particularly much more burdensome paperwork requirements associated with NAIS) will face a big hurdle to participate, and if they don't register with NAIS the meatpacker selling to the School Lunch Program will not buy their animals at all.

So what we have is a bureaucratic requirement that does little to protect public health and is yet another federal policy that will encourage the consolidation and concentration of agriculture- pushing us even further from a truly sustainable, local food system.  And it will put a serious damper on the farm-to-school programs that could be a boon to small farms and ranches.  And let’s not even think what will happen to these markets if they extend this horribly constructed initiative to fruits and veggies.

All this is not to say the goals of NAIS are a complete waste.  There are compelling reasons to track livestock in this country.  But the current NAIS structure is unworkable and potentially devastating to small farms.  And this proposed requirement is a yet another back door effort to mandate a flawed animal ID system that will propel us even further into the factory farm future.

There's not much more that truly ticks me off than ignorant bureaucratic requirements that impose burdens on the little guy yet do nothing to accomplish their stated goal.  And the prime example of that right now is a tiny little provision in the House Agriculture Appropriations bill that requires the USDA School Lunch Program to only buy meat that comes from livestock producers registered in USDA's animal ID program.

This, of course, requires a little explanation.  The idea behind USDA's National Animal Identification System is that we  need to have the ability to track every single animal raised for human consumption in the United States.  That, as you might imagine, is a gargantuan undertaking- one website I visited put the number of animals at 2 billion, conservatively.  The point here is to be able to identify and isolate animals that may have been exposed to diseases in the event of an outbreak.  The obvious example is mad cow disease, but potentially just as devastating would be something like hoof and mouth disease.  And to tell the truth, there is some merit to this idea.  A widespread disease outbreak could devastate livestock producers- many, many livestock producers in England were driven out of business, have not returned, and were never adequately compensated for their loss.

This big NAIS push started after the mad cow incidents a few years back.  Interestingly, Congress never actually passed a law to create NAIS- USDA simply went ahead and did it on their own.  And when you get down into the details, you can see USDA went about it in practically the worst way possible.

Last December, The Nation published an article describing the current state of NAIS:

NAIS, ostensibly intended to contain disease outbreaks among livestock, has sparked the most severe political backlash rural America has seen in decades. The controversy stems primarily from the backhanded way the government has imposed a deeply unpopular policy...
A handful of industry stakeholders have cast their shadow over nearly every component of NAIS--past, present and future. A consortium of industry leaders--Cargill Meat Solutions, Monsanto and Schering-Plough, among others--pushed for NAIS for more than a decade and finally won the USDA's approval shortly after George W. Bush took office in 2001.

If you have any interest in the topic at all, I highly recommend the full article here.

Not surprisingly, the NAIS fight has been fierce, uniting the left and right in opposing a flawed and invasive government mandate (it's not hard to find information on the web- you can start at nonais.org).  As a result of this opposition, USDA decided to make participation in NAIS voluntary, but then started encouraging states to make participation mandatory.  The repeated back door efforts they've undertaken to make the program mandatory by default are worthy of a separate blog post.

But most egregious is the way in which the current NAIS completely favors a vertically integrated, CAFO-based meat production system.  Right from the get-go, the system is rigged against the small producer.  Large CAFOs whose animals essentially stay in one place their whole lives can use "lot tagging"- taking a large group of animals, assigning them one animal ID number, and not having to track and/or tag each individual animal.  The small producer, on the other hand, has to buy tags, complete paperwork, etc. for every single animal- unless they decide to put their animals in a tight controlled facility where their is no chance they'll come into contact with animals outside of their "lot".  And we all know what that means- more mega-CAFOs and all of their negative effects.

Furthermore, in a typical Bush administration move, USDA has actually turned over the management of NAIS databases to private companies.  This is a truly horrifying prospect.  From a purely market point of view, can you imagine Cargill (which is running an animal ID database) knowing where every single animal in the United States is located and how old they are?  Cargill would have the ability to predict how many animals were going to be delivered to their plants on any given day- creating the potential for massive market manipulation (of course, Cargill and others deny they would ever use this information for that sort of thing).

Even worse, those pushing NAIS have much grander plans for this data.  From The Nation:

At a recent animal genetics conference in Switzerland, a team of geneticists described how NAIS-like animal identification systems had "huge potential for a genetic improvement programme where lack of individual identification is one of the main hurdles."

Agribusiness is in a global scramble to secure intellectual property rights over the next generation of biotechnology products. China, Brazil, India and many other countries have accelerated animal biotechnology research. In Canada, Aqua Bounty Farms has patented the first transgenic salmon, which grows to adult dimensions in half the time it takes conventional salmon. Regulators are considering whether to approve the salmon for sale.

The National Animal Genome Research Program, which pioneered the first disease-resistant transgenic cow in 2001, describes NAIS as "a key user" of its national network of genomics resources... 

the most maddening aspect of NAIS: it's so vague that it's hard to pin down exactly what it will do or how or even why. The USDA has left NAIS open-ended so stakeholders can maximize the program's potential value by using it as a platform to develop additional processes or systems. NAIS is a set of open-ended standards and protocols that can support a wide range of operations and processes--including genetic tracking--many of which have nothing to do with disease surveillance.

Great- NAIS might give agribusinesses the information they needs to take control of the genetics of all the livestock in the country.  This is the last step in the complete commodification of livestock production, a completely vertically-integrated factory farm model.  Every animal will be genetically identical, and god forbid a small indepedent producer somehow ends up with genes in their animal they didn't pay a "technology fee" on.  I'm sure many of you remember Percy Schmeiser's difficulties with Monsanto in Canada.

Which brings us all the way back around to the requirement in the House bill for USDA to buy meat from operations registered with this junk NAIS crap.  But I've ran on long enough for today- tomorrow I'll talk about the particular reasons this is such a bad idea (beyond the fact NAIS sucks).

We're back from a much needed (and, of course, well deserved) vacation to fabulous western Nebraska.  Pictures and stories to follow later.  But for now, I should wrap up the list of organizations whose work I truly appreciate and enjoy, and if I miss anyone I apologize.  There are dozens if not hundreds of other great organizations that worked on the farm bill, and these are just a few of the ones I interacted with on a regular basis. If you have the chance, I recommend checking out their websites and maybe throwing a few dollars their way.

I should also note that I'm just naming organizations here- I can't even begin to list all the good individuals I had the privilege of working with on this farm bill.  To all of you, thanks.  Here we go:

Community Food Security Coalition:  Steph Larsen.  Good people fighting for great programs, and they succeeded.  That's all there is to it.  Oh, and one of the top three e-updates/newsletters around.

Organic Farming Research Foundation:  A fellow member of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, I got to know more about them when we had a coalition meeting in California.  I was impressed.  Zach Baker, TraceyLerman and Mark Lipson are top notch policy advocates, with Tracy writing many of the better sustainable agriculture action alerts floating around on the web.  When you combine that with the impressive wins the organic sector had in the farm bill, you know they're doing great work and will be a major player in the policy world for a long time.

National Catholic Rural Life Conference- If you've ever met Bob Gronski, you know it's hard to improve on faith-based public policy advocacy.  In addition to the policy wonkishness, they have the truly moving social justice perspective that many of us in the nonprofit world would do well to pay more attention to.

Rural Advancement Foundation International:  Scott Marlowe knows as much about farm programs as anyone, and he works on crop insurance, an area in which I certainly wish we had more expertise.  They also did good work on livestock contract reform, and provide much needed geographical diversity to the farm bill campaign.

The Environmental Working Group:  They publish the farm subsidy database, which has probably done more to advance the cause of farm program reform than any other initiative in the past 15 years.  I had the particular privilege of working with Ken Cook and the inestimable Don Carr (formerly of South Dakota), both more than willing to share credit and media opportunities, an all-too-rare instinct in the nonprofit world.  While we didn't always agree with EWG on particular policy positions (and no one should get too worked up those sorts of things), we did have the opportunity to fight with them to win payment limits.  They never- and I mean never- wavered in their support of farm program reform, and no amount of funding for other priorities was going to change that.  And they work on a bunch of other righteous causes as well.

Oxfam America:  Sure they're a big organization, but they do the grassroots stuff really well.  Jim French and the other farm bill organizers remind us constantly that the farm bill isn't just about the United States.  They deserve major recognition for giving a voice to overseas farmers and their concerns, and despite the claims of their critics, they certainly do not forget the plight of the American farmer either.

Bread for the World:  Another faith-based organization whose grassroots work is just incredible.  Tammi Walhof, Elise Young, Derrick Boykin and the many other BFW organizers do great work (though they also have a great video to help them out; I'm really jealous).  The Rev. David Beckmann is one of the most eloquent voices arguing in favor of farm program reform in Washington, period.  And from a purely professional perspective, it's incredible that their organizers continually transition to working on new issues.  I couldn't imagine having to learn new policy issues every year.

Like I said, these are just a few of the great organizations that worked on the farm bill.  If you have an individual or organization that you think just totally kicked ass in the farm bill, stick them in the comments and I'll put it up on the main blog page.  Next up, one of my usual rants and maybe some vacation pictures.

The 2008 Farm Bill includes the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account Program. This program uses special matched saving accounts to promote a new generation of farmers and ranchers by assisting those of modest means to establish a pattern of savings. The account proceeds may be used toward capital expenditures for a farm or ranch operation, including expenses associated with the purchases of land, buildings, equipment, infrastructure, livestock, or toward training.
 
For numerous aspiring farmers and ranchers, the actuality of starting their own operation is out of reach. One of the biggest obstacles to new farmers is financing the land and the farm operation. This program can bolster their opportunities by helping them save money on a down payment for example. It will also prepare them for success as a farmer or rancher by requiring the participants to acquire appropriate training that focuses on business planning, banking, conservation planning, market development and more.

The program will be tested in at least 15 states before national implementation. However, the farm bill did not provide any dedicated funding, even for the pilot program.  The opportunity to make a difference for the next generation of family farmers and ranchers is now.  But we must convince the members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to seize the opportunity and provide the funds needed to get this program off the ground.

For more information visit: www.cfra.org

Contrary to popular belief, the Center for Rural Affairs does not have staff in Washington DC.  In fact, during this entire farm bill process I only visited Washington ONCE, and that was all I needed to confirm a suspicion that I have no interest in returning to that town for work purposes.  Ever. 

Of course, we work on many issues that are decided in Washington DC, and the personal touch is often needed when dealing with the politicos.  We try to have face to face meetings in the districts, but in all honesty there is absolutely no substitute for good DC representation that is willing to go to bat for you 24/7. 

Ingeniously, we solve this problem by being a member of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and they seem to actually work 24/7 out of a tiny Washington office.  Which is good, because that means I don't have to. 

Ferd Hoefner is the farm bill super-swami, Aimee Witteman holds the whole outfit together, Martha Noble keeps USDA (and others) honest.  Recently departed Tazuer Smith provided the realist perspective.  Newly added Julie Hudson raises the money.  And they had a series of interns that I suspect did most of the work.  Notable among them is my main man Zach Baker, who still works with SAC (and OFRF) and Ariane Lotti, now laboring mightily somewhere in an Iowa field (hopefully not underwater).

If you want to know everything going on in the world of federal sustainable agriculture politics and policy, I strongly recommend you sign up for SAC's Weekly Update here.  And then give them a donation or at least send a thank-you email, because updates of that quality usually cost mucho dollars, especially in Washington DC.

Anyway, they are incredibly competent, and most of the good things in 2008 Farm Bill are at least partially a result of their hard work.  I admire them for many reasons, not least their willingness to live in that town. 

It suddenly occurred to us that the Farm Bill is finally over and we should have something to say about that, so click here for an overview of the 2008 farm bill. Also, I kind of figured I should write a big blog post with a brilliant meta-analysis of the entire process and its result.

But when I sat down to reminisce a little and think about how the whole farm bill played out, I spent a lot more time thinking about all of the good people I met over the past two years than what ended up in the actual bill. So the farm bill can wait. Right now I'm going to write the blog post I want to write, and I'll get to the policy wonk world later. This might be boring to some, but I have this platform (small as it may be) and there are many out there who deserve some sort of recognition, so I'm going to use it.

And what better place to start than right here in the home office? They may not like me mentioning their names, but hey, our staff listing is already on the internet.

I have had the misfortune of working in at a nonprofit that didn't have a top-notch administrative staff, and it was miserable. That is not the case at the Center for Rural Affairs. Amber Bridges, Tris Darnell, Hayley Hallstrom and Kim Kaup are the four people who make sure the Center for Rural Affairs doors remain open, and they deserve all the thanks they receive. Anything good that we accomplished in this farm bill is in large part due to them.

Amber Bridges makes sure I get paid, which means she's just about my favorite person in the whole wide world (I suspect she does this for others in the office as well, but I haven't bothered to find out). Additionally, she is a master pizza eater- if you need that slice to disappear, she'll make it happen; moreover, if your house is ever hit by a hurricane she'll come remodel, for free. However, with her around you should always remember to lock your office door when you leave. Always.

Tris Darnell makes the trains run on time. If you ever need an action alert to go out the door in a timely fashion, I strongly suggest you subcontract with her. If you have a problem with the temperature in your office give her a call, but be prepared for withering scorn. If you need a pool installed in your front yard or two tickets to the Bon Jovi concert, she's your contact. A pressing need to get a little concrete poured? Maybe considering a passive solar collector for your office? You know who. She never fails and never gives up.

Hayley Hallstrom keeps the books and tries to keep everyone happy, which is no easy task when you're in charge of the money. She does an admirable job. Not only that, she is an acknowledged master of dutch oven cooking and pop-up camping trailer packing techniques, important knowledge for family harmony (trust me, I have childhood experience). Her infinite patience while answering asinine questions about the Center for Rural Affairs budget is a testament to the human spirit.

Among (many) other talents, Kim Kaup has a sixth sense for booking me into Super 8 motels, often next to 100,000 head cattle feedlots. Memorably, she once booked a colleague of mine into a motel/funeral home, and another time she sent us to a motel whose aged owner had a very short robe and a very small dog. I kid you not. She is, how would I say, a wise steward of Center for Rural Affairs resources- which is why she's also doing double duty as our fundraising data management expert.  Along with Tris, she also makes sure the various egos of Center staff are kept firmly in check.

In all seriousness, Amber, Tris, Hayley and Kim are the heart of our organization. They ensure the rest of us can do our jobs. Most importantly, they make me laugh and I am proud to call them my friends.

It is my fervent belief that nearly all nonprofit organizations do not do a very good job of self-promotion, and perhaps more important don't do a good job of promoting other, like-minded nonprofits. There's a lot of room in the nonprofit advocacy world, and many great organizations, and all too often we don't do a good job of complimenting our partners. Which is a shame, and we here in the home office are trying to rectify that (See the "featured ally" box on the front page). I'll talk up a few of the truly good organizations we worked with in my next post.

To follow up a little bit, I'd like to answer one of the comments on a previous post.  Here's an excerpt:

In my neighborhood, every farming operation is a company of one sort or another (mostly "S" corps), but that does not mean neighbors don't help neighbors, no one cares about schools or public health, labor and environmental laws are ignored, etc. In my company, we provide paid vacations, pensions, health insurance, and (in some cases) housing. That allows us to attract and keep reliable employees, who are more than menial "hired hands"

I don't know the circumstances of the farm the commenter is referring to, but it sounds like a decent compromise.  Many farmers have little interest in selling at a farmers market or even being involved in a CSA.  And many despise marketing, be it produce or corn.  And benefits are always an enormous difficulty (we're working on that).  So if those services can be provided for them and still allow them to remain on the land, that sounds OK to me.  However, there must be ways to ensure that relationship doesn't end up as an exploitative share-cropping sort of thing, but I'm sure that can be worked out.

But as I mentioned before, this is not the sort of arrangement that built the rural Midwest.  In the John Phipps blog post I linked to yesterday, he makes the argument that the "family farm" is a relatively new development, and there is no guarantee it is even the ideal form of ownership.  I would argue that all evidence of the last 60 years points to the fact that family-scale agriculture is better for rural communities.  But that evidence is not a reason to ignore the fact that there may be alternatives.

In fact, depending on your definition of farming, in many ways the small farmer growing for a value-added market is the true farmer today.  If you want to see some on-farm innovation that provides a return to the farmer, look at small farmers.  Most of the innovation in conventional farming today is in marketing (forward contracting, hedges) or technology (autosteer, GM seeds).  That innovation does not come from the farm, and increasingly such innovation simply creates a higher return for the input producer, not the farmer.  Sustainable agriculture, on the other hand, thrives on on-farm experimentation and innovation.  Sure, small farmers have to market, etc- but small changes in farming practices can have an enormous impact on profitability, often because value-added agriculture has a high return precisely because it pays the farmer for labor and knowledge.  More labor and more knowledge equals more profit.

I suspect that what we're headed right now is a sort of dual system of agriculture, with commodity production on one end and very small farms focused on high dollar per-acre (or animal) on the other.  I also think the commodity grain production industry is headed towards the vertical integration commonplace in the livestock industry.  Already more and more farmers are contracting directly with processor, entirely avoiding grain elevators and the Chicago Board of Trade marketing system.  For those of you familiar with what has happened to independent livestock producers, you know this is not a good thing for farmers.  But it may be the easiest way to manage risk and debt in the short term.  In the long-term, it will spell the death of the independent family farm as we know it.  Some might say that sort of thing is inevitable.

Not only are some small farmers and sustainable agriculture activists fine with this dual system, they actually welcome it.  They're "building the alternative system" for when the "industrial ag system collapses".  Uh huh. Let me clue you in:  the industrial agriculture system may be unsustainable, but it isn't collapsing.  Not by a long shot.  There will always be a need for #2 yellow corn to feed hogs.  And if anyone wants proof industrial ag is here to stay, look at the Farm Bill that just passed.  Industrial ag got just about everything they wanted.  And if industrial agriculture prevails in Upper Midwest, I despair over the future of our small towns.  Building altnerative/sustainable agriculture is incredibly important, but don't expect us to just up and roll over when people talk about the inevitability of industrial agriculture's "collapse".

And even if industrial agriculture is headed for some sort of meta-collapse, is this really something we should be embracing?  "Collapse" pretty much implies ecological and social devastation, and from where I sit that isn't a good thing.  Who do you think will bear the brunt of that devastation?  I am sick and tired of hearing sustainable agriculture activists tell me I shouldn't worry about farm programs because in 20 years the corn and soybean industry will have "collapsed" and we'll have entered some golden era of small farm production (I'll admit this is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much).

For my money, there are two people I listen to over everyone else:  John Phipps and Tom Philpott.  John Phipps is a industrial farmer and not afraid to admit it, and knows where commodity agriculture is headed.  He certainly isn't hanging on to the family farm victimhood model that is unfortunately present among some industrial farming operations (disclosure: I've probably contributed to that at times).  Tom Philpott is willing to say the real truth about sustainable agriculture:  if we want any sort of real percentage of our food to produced in a sustainable, humane fashion, we must invest in processing capacity and we're going to have to have a lot more farmers.  Read them, and you'll get a very good idea of my preferred policy solutions.

Last week saw a cascade of articles regarding the industrialization of commodity grain production.  From the New York Times:

Huge investment funds have already poured hundreds of billions of dollars into booming financial markets for commodities like wheat, corn and soybeans.

But a few big private investors are starting to make bolder and longer-term bets that the world’s need for food will greatly increase — by buying farmland, fertilizer, grain elevators and shipping equipment... 

 

...the long-term implications are less clear. Some traditional players in the farm economy, and others who study and shape agriculture policy, say they are concerned these newcomers will focus on profits above all else, and not share the industry’s commitment to farming through good times and bad.

“Farmland can be a bubble just like Florida real estate,” said Jeffrey Hainline, president of Advance Trading, a 28-year-old commodity brokerage firm and consulting service in Bloomington, Ill. “The cycle of getting in and out would be very volatile and disruptive.”

This is not anything new, nor is it unanticipated.  It is the slow march of consolidation and concentration in agriculture, only now extremely high commodity prices have quickened the pace.  But the same things have been happening for decades.  The major difference right now is the new "players" jumping into the commodity production game- the hedge funds, institutional investors, etc referred to in the Times article.  Those players will drive up prices for everyone, reflecting increased profit potential (and their superior ability to manage risk in some instances), but is there really a difference between a grain elevator owned by Conagra or one owned by a hedge fund?  I suspect not.

As far as land goes, once again, existing trends are accelerated.  I'm sure we'll see more corporate absentee ownership of land, and further proliferation of farm management companies specializing in cash-rent farming operations.  At the end of the day, these structures may be the only way to secure the capital necessary for commodity production while managing risk.

I'll leave it to the hardheaded realist of agriculture, John Phipps, to sum it up:

The increased capital needs, significantly higher profit levels, and escalating risk in production agriculture will encourage the same forms of business as other sectors. We may look back a generation from now and date the disappearance of the traditional family farm from the 2006 October price explosion.

I'm afraid John might well be right.

But let me say this:  All of the free-trade, pro-market, consolidation-promoting farmers and policymakers should stay the hell away from my tax dollars.  John Phipps, to his credit, wants nothing to do with farm programs.  I support farm programs designed to support the family farm structure.  But we sure don't have those today, and the greed exhibited in the creation of the new ACRE program is pitiful.  If today's farmers and farm corporations want to be a business, hey, go right ahead.  Be a business, just like anyone else.  Take the forward contracting classes.  Learn to love triple stack, autosteer and GPS.  But stop latching onto tax dollars as a "safety net".  I'm happy to pay for conservation benefits, for rural development, and even for a farm program structure that might actually benefit rural communities.  But I'm not interested in subsidizing consolidation and the decline of rural America.