A Newsletter
Surveying National Events
Affecting Rural America. |
Center for Rural Affairs
PO Box 136 Lyons NE
68038
(402) 687-2100
www.cfra.org
info@cfra.org |
February 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed
Conservation Security Program
Rule Is Faulty
The rule would limit participation to
certain watersheds, require stringent water and soil quality standards,
and offer low incentives.
The proposed rule for the Conservation Security Program (CSP) was finally
published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2004 and is open for a
60-day public comment period.
Bruce Knight, Chief of the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS),
indicated his agency may issue a supplemental rule to reflect the recently
passed Fiscal Year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill. The omnibus bill
lifted the funding cap placed on the program during the Fiscal Year 2003
appropriations debate.
Some real problems exist with the proposed rule – problems that would
dramatically limit the scope of the program and make it so inconsequential
that farmers and ranchers will forego participation. But these are
problems we can fix by delivering comments from the public that suggest
how the rule should be changed. |
|
Midstates Event on Rural Development
The Center for Rural Affairs is one of 13 organizations planning the 2004
Midstates Community Development Conference, coming March 23, 2004 to the
Marina Inn in South Sioux City, Nebraska.
The conference brings together community and business leaders, volunteers,
professional developers, and elected officials from Iowa, South Dakota,
and Nebraska to share their experiences and learn new ideas for community
and rural development. Everyone from rural communities is invited.
The conference features five tracks:
-
Media Strategies
-
Citizen Involvement
-
Technology
-
Entrepreneurship
-
Raising Community Resources from Private Funds
Center staff and program participants will be featured in
sessions on citizen involvement and entrepreneurship.
Registration is $25 before March 15 and $35 afterward. It includes lunch
and all conference materials. Send registration to Iowa State University
Extension – Woodbury County, 4301 Sergeant Road, Suite 213, Sioux City IA
51106. Make checks payable to Woodbury County Extension.
For more information, contact Dewey Teel. 402.370.4027; Alan Vandehaar,
712.276.2157; Sandy Johnson, 712.732.1851; or Tammi Schone, 605.352.1100.
|
One of the proposed rule’s biggest problems is the plan to limit
participation in the initial sign-up to qualifying farmers and ranchers
located only in priority watershed areas.
The CSP, as stated in the law written by Congress, is to be available
nationwide to all qualifying farmers and ranchers. Even considering the first
year’s funding is limited to $41 million, NRCS should follow Congressional
intent by making the program available across the country.
Another attempt at limiting the scope of the program is requiring farmers and
ranchers to address both soil and water quality to the highest possible level
before they even qualify for the program. The bar is being set so high that
very few farmers and ranchers would qualify.
The payment rates set out in the proposed rule are so low that the CSP would
fall far short of being a stewardship incentives program. As it stands now,
the base payment could be $0.50 per acre or even lower. The proposed rule also
calls for offering a miniscule 5 percent cost-share rate.
And several important elements are completely left out of the proposed rule.
These missing pieces make it very difficult to accurately assess the value of
the proposed rule and how it will affect program implementation.
You can access the proposed rule and the Administration’s explanation of it as
a 32- page pdf file at
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/03-31916.pdf
. Summaries of the rule, fact sheets, and the accompanying economic analysis
are available from NRCS at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/index.html#csp .
Contact: Traci Bruckner,
tracib@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 x 1016
for more information on CSP and how to submit comments on the proposed rule.
USDA Should Take Steps to
Reopen Beef Export Markets
The mad cow scare demonstrates the need for American agriculture to take a
consumer-oriented approach. And it illustrates both the risks and
opportunities for family farmers and ranchers in an era when consumers set
high standards of accountability for their food sources.
The Department of Agriculture should be taking the steps necessary to reassure
foreign buyers and reopen export markets to American beef producers. Japan is
key. It is our biggest export market, buying $1 billion of beef annually.
Japan has blocked all beef imports from the U.S. and Canada and is demanding
all animals be tested at slaughter. The European Union is now testing all
animals over 30 months of age, when the disease is far more detectable and
likely to be passed to those who eat infected tissue.
At $30 per head, it’s not cheap. But it is far less expensive than sacrificing
our key export markets. In recent weeks, loss of markets due to the mad cow
scare has taken anywhere from $150 - $300 per head off the price of slaughter
cattle.
This is not a time for foot dragging at USDA or debating whether sound science
demands more extensive testing. If our buyers demand it, it is in our interest
to provide it. We must take the steps necessary to reopen lost markets. Those
who ignore what the consumer demands do so at their own peril.
If there is a silver lining to this cloud, it is that surveys demonstrate that
consumers intrinsically trust family farmers and ranchers more than corporate
agriculture. And many are willing to pay more to know where their food comes
from and that it is a source they trust.
For example, the Small Farms Cooperative has been gaining price premiums for
its farmer members for hormone-free beef sold in the European Union. Even with
the discovery of mad cow disease in the U.S., the cooperative continues
building its sales in the European Union. The Europeans know and trust the
source.
Therein lies the greatest opportunity for family farmers and ranchers in the
21st century and their inherent competitive advantage over corporate
agriculture. Most consumers trust family operations more and want to keep them
as stewards of the land. We need to build new cooperatives and other channels
to link those consumers with the family farmers and ranchers who can give them
what they want.
Agree or Disagree? Send your opinion to
Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or
402.687.2100 x 1018.
To learn more about the Center initiative to establish a regional family farm
and ranch livestock marketing cooperative, contact Michael Holton at
michaellh@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 x
1015.
Making
Rural Economics Work in Small Communities
A third of the nation’s rural counties claim a
majority of capital flowing to rural areas. Identifying a community’s purpose
may help to bring capital to the other two-thirds. We identify six purposes that
help some rural communities attract capital.
Last month’s newsletter discussed an economic and community development
definition of “rural.” The common assumption is that rural means what urban is
not. The next step in understanding rural economics is to locate the path rural
capital has followed.
Rural communities began for certain cultural or economic reasons – the railroad
came through or immigrants wanted to settle together to farm. Over time
communities evolved and changed, and the original purpose is no longer the
overriding one.
Today, rural capital flows primarily to only 33 - 40 percent of all rural
counties in the United States. Areas prospering are located in the Intermountain
West, the Ozarks, around major metropolitan areas like Kansas City, and along
major transportation corridors like I-80 in Nebraska.
Most flourishing small rural communities today can be defined by six distinct
purposes:
Academic Communities – Communities whose primary employers are boarding schools,
colleges, universities, research labs, and corporate training facilities. The
educational base provides the community’s asset.
Area Trade-Centers – Areas generally located far enough away from an
urban district so that their business climate still flourishes.
Exurbs – Rural areas located close enough to urban regions for people who
work in urban centers to buy cheaper land and commute. Exurbs are also called
bedroom communities.
Government Centers – County seats and or areas that house military bases,
federal and state agencies, prisons, or other nonprofit agencies. The economic
base of these communities is greatly enhanced by their presence.
Recreation Centers – Communities with a clear advantage or natural asset
which provide an attraction for others to visit. Historic locations or scenic
vistas often provide for tourism.
Retirement Centers – Areas drawing a disproportionate amount of elderly
by providing housing and other amenities for a peaceful retirement.
That leaves up to 67 percent of rural counties without a good flow of rural
capital. The question then arises, how is capital shifted to these areas?
Look and see how your community could fit with these categories. Next month
we’ll discuss how to incorporate rural economic strategies with these community
types, and how to make the fit compatible with pre-existing community assets.
Contact: Michael L. Holton,
michaellh@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 x
1015 for more information on rural community revitalization.
Corporate Farming Notes
Mounting troubles for Tyson; health group wants
no more CAFOs; and the No. 1 irradiator is cooked
The Tyson Foods’ cattle price-fixing case, also known as Pickett v.
IBP, began January 15. The class-action lawsuit trial, expected to last a
month, accuses Tyson of violating federal law protecting competition in the
livestock industry by using captive supplies. The plaintiffs represent 30,000
cattlemen who sold cattle to IBP or Tyson from February 1994 to October 2002.
Associated Press
Three class action lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court claim Tyson Fresh Meats
and John Morrell & Co. illegally deducted insurance costs from hog sale
payments. They consist of 1) all Iowans who sold swine to Tyson or IBP since
December 1999; 2) all Nebraskans who sold swine to John Morrell since December
1999; and 3) all Iowans who sold swine to John Morrell since December 1999.
Associated Press
The Arkansas Supreme Court will hear from about 90 Arkansas hog farmers
February 5 who say they should be able to challenge the termination of their
contracts with Tyson Foods Inc. in jury trials, instead of in expensive binding
arbitration.
The farmers want to argue in court that Tyson acted in bad faith by reducing
swine operations in 2002 shortly after convincing the farmers to invest $500,000
to $1 million for facilities to raise hogs. AP
Last month the American Public Health Association (APHA) issued a
resolution urging federal, state, and local government health agencies to impose
a precautionary moratorium on all new Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
and to initiate and support further research on the health impacts of air and
water pollution from them.
The reasons for calling for the moratorium include negative economic effects on
rural communities, health problems associated with air pollution and
contaminated drinking water from manure runoff, increasing antibiotics
resistance caused by the routine use of antibiotics in farm animals, and serious
respiratory problems found among CAFO workers and among neighboring residents.
SureBeam Corp., the nation’s largest irradiator of beef products, announced last
month it would cease operations and file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Lawsuits
filed on behalf of stockholders accuse the company of misstating earnings among
other things. Cow Calf Weekly
Contact: Brad Redlin,
bradr@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 x 1010 for
more information.
Agriculture ‘Visionary’ Receives
Research Award
 The
4th Annual Seventh Generation Research Award was presented to Bill Liebhardt
last November. Liebhardt began his career researching soil fertility and water
quality from poultry farm runoff at the University of Delaware. His work met
substantial resistance from industry and his own institution.
He became the Assistant Director of Research for the Rodale Research Center in
1981. At Rodale he established the longest running farming systems comparison of
organic farming systems in the country. His research led the way in
demonstrating that organic farming could be economically viable.
In 1987, Liebhardt became director of the University of California Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education Program, one of the first statewide,
university-sponsored sustainable agriculture programs in the country. After
retiring from UC, he returned to the Rodale Institute as Research Manager.
The Seventh Generation Research Award is cosponsored by the Center for Rural
Affairs and the Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education.
It recognizes innovators in food and farming system research.
|
|
Feature articles:
Clearing the Record on Initiative 300
A response to Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns’
public statements on the state’s anti-corporate farming law.
Nebraska Governor Johanns’ Views on Initiative
300
“ … young farmers and family farmers are
being hampered, not helped, by this 20-year provision (Initiative 300) … I ask
you to pass legislation to create a task force”
– Governor Mike Johanns, State of the State Address, January 15, 2004
“On or before December 15, 2004, the
(Nebraska Agricultural Opportunities) task force shall, in light of such
considerations, submit a report to the Legislature and the Governor with
recommendations, including proposed modifications to Initiative 300 …”
– LB 1086, introduced in the Nebraska Legislature on January 15,
2004 (emphasis added)
“He (Governor Johanns) will be supporting an
end to the state’s constitutional ban on corporate farming (a/k/a Initiative
300).”
– Lincoln Journal Star, December 31, 2003
Do you support or oppose Article XII, Section 8
of the Nebraska Constitution (commonly known as Initiative 300)? Support
Would you support or oppose modifications to Initiative 300? Oppose. In the
past I have opposed efforts to amend Initiative 300. If farm groups made the
case that Initiative 300 is hurting the chance for young people to farm and
ranch, I would closely study proposals for amending the Constitution.
– Governor Mike Johanns, response to Friends of the Constitution 2002 candidate
questionnaire
The Governor’s dizzying array of views on
Initiative 300 (above) in little more than a year has done only one thing –
place Nebraska’s Initiative 300 in jeopardy.
Let’s clear some things up. “Farm groups” have not made the case that Initiative
300 is “hurting the chance for young people to farm and ranch.” Some farm groups
rhetorically state that – but neither they nor Governor Johanns have yet to
point out a legitimate case where a young farmer or rancher is denied
involvement in Nebraska agriculture because of Initiative 300.
One farm group in Nebraska – the Center for Rural Affairs – has operated the
nation’s oldest program linking beginning and existing farmers and ranchers. We
have worked for years on state and federal policy to provide opportunities for
beginning farmers and ranchers. We have not found ONE case of Initiative 300
interfering with a beginning farmer or rancher and an existing farmer or rancher
working together.
In fact, we recently published Profitable Practices and Strategies for a New
Generation, a compilation of stories and case studies of strategies to
increase farm and ranch profit. An entire section is devoted to strategies and
models to get beginning farmers and ranchers into production agriculture. And
all the beginning farmer and rancher strategies and models are legal under
Initiative 300.
Governor Johanns, we would be happy to provide you a complimentary copy, or you
can check these stories and models at
http://www.farmprofitability.org, the website of the North Central
Initiative for Small Farm Profitability.
So it seems the last thing this effort to repeal or modify Initiative 300 is
about is beginning farmers and ranchers. That is a political smokescreen for a
larger agenda.
And that larger agenda appears on page 13 of The Agricultural Economy in
Nebraska: Making Nebraska the Agricultural Leader of the 21st Century, a
report commissioned by Governor Johanns’ Nebraska Department of Agriculture and
released in July 2003. Tucked among the recommended strategies and visions for
the future of Nebraska agriculture is this statement:
“Nebraska needs to become and to promote itself as a corporate-friendly state
....”
It naturally flows that this report recommends changes to Initiative 300 to
promote and secure more corporate agribusiness in Nebraska. Surprisingly,
beginning farmers and ranchers were never mentioned in this report as a
rationale for repealing or modifying the popular will of Initiative 300.
And it naturally flows that Governor Johanns and others immediately adopted the
recommendations of this study to promote the need for a task force that – as
proposed in LB 1086 – is FORCED to make recommendations to change Initiative
300. The LB 1086 task force is not charged to study Initiative 300, or charged
with finding ways to bring more young people into agriculture, or charged to
address other issues facing agriculture – they are ORDERED to propose changes in
Initiative 300.
When the chief patron of the task force appears to have his mind made up on the
outcome and the task force is mandated to come up with a specific outcome, it is
hard to be optimistic that this is anything but a politically biased witch hunt
against Initiative 300 for the benefit of corporate special interests.
Contact: Jon Bailey, Center Rural
Research & Analysis Program Director,
jonb@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 x 1013 for information.
Responsibility and I-300
Governor Johanns’ attack on Initiative 300 is an attack on the fundamental
principle of responsibility. Without Initiative 300, corporate farm investors
can hide behind the corporate shield. They cannot be held personally responsible
if their operation wreaks havoc on the environment or fails to pay its bills.
Their neighbors and the community are left holding they bag.
Apparently, the Governor is of two minds when it comes to responsibility. On one
hand, he says we must weaken Initiative 300, which would almost surely free
wealthy investors from responsibility for the farming operations from which they
profit.
At the same time he demands that depressed rural communities and struggling
family farms assume more responsibility to make it on their own. He cut most of
the state funding for cooperative, value-added agriculture and small business
development. He demands more responsibility of those who can least afford it and
less of wealthy investors.
– Chuck Hassebrook
Copy ’N Save Initiative 300 Facts
Please save these to provide proof to anyone
who needs it that I-300 works for Nebraska, or to disprove any of the myths
being used to justify unnecessary changes to I-300.
I-300 and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers
- Nebraska has 42 percent more farmers and
ranchers under the age of 35 than the United States as a whole according to
the most recent data. (1997 Census of Agriculture, USDA)
- Nebraska has more farmers and ranchers under
the age of 35 than neighboring states, including Iowa, Illinois, Kansas,
Missouri and South Dakota. (1997 Census of Agriculture, USDA)
- I-300 was designed for the easy transition of
beginning farmers and ranchers into production agriculture. I-300 allows
unrelated farmers and ranchers to own up to 49 percent of an agricultural
entity before that arrangement is no longer considered a “family farm.” Then,
the arrangement has 50 years to regain “family farm” status.
I-300 and Rural Communities
- Nationally renowned rural sociologists Dr.
Rick Welsh and Dr. Thomas Lyson found in a 2002 report that anti-corporate
farming laws are beneficial to the economies and people of rural communities.
- Communities in states with anti-corporate
farm laws have: lower poverty levels, lower unemployment, and a higher
percentage of farms reporting cash gains.
- States with more restrictive laws – and the
Welsh/Lyson report named I-300 as the nation’s most restrictive – have even
lower unemployment rates and more farms with cash gains.
I-300 and Agricultural Production
- Nebraska led the nation in 2002 in:
commercial livestock slaughter, commercial red meat production, commercial
cattle slaughter, great northern bean production, and light red kidney bean
production. (Nebraska Agriculture Statistics Service, Nebraska Dept. of
Agriculture)
- In 2001 and 2002, Nebraska ranked second,
third or fourth in the nation in: cash receipts from all meat animals, cash
receipts from cattle and calves, all cattle on feed, pinto bean production,
all dry edible bean production, cash receipts from all feed crops, all cattle
and calves, millet production, cash receipts from corn, cash receipts from
sorghum, cash receipts from livestock and livestock products, corn production,
cash receipts from farm marketing, and ethanol production. (Nebraska
Agriculture Statistics Service, Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture)
- Since 1982 Nebraska has increased its share
of the nation’s cattle on feed, while the number of feedlots with cattle on
feed remained constant since 1997 (compared to a national decline). (Analysis
of Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture and USDA data)
- Nebraska ranks at the top in the number of
smaller commercial feedlots (far exceeding that of Kansas and Texas, two
states that respectively have a weak anti-corporate farming law and no law at
all). (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)
- According to a University of Nebraska study,
Nebraska is the only major cattle producing region that has feedlots of all
sizes. (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)
- “Actual numbers of cattle and hogs rose (by
30 percent and 12 percent, respectively) from 1990 to 2000; yet their value of
production either increased little or decreased due to declining market
price.” The Agricultural Economy in Nebraska: Making Nebraska the Agricultural
Leader of the 21st Century (the Nebraska Department of Agriculture report that
called for changes in I-300)
- “[Nebraska] is currently the #3 corn producer
in the U.S., the #5 soybean producer, the #3 livestock producer, and the
largest red meat producer and livestock slaughterer. In total, Nebraska
produces more agricultural value than all but three states in the U.S., and it
has increased its position in each of the above categories over the past
decade.” The Agricultural Economy in Nebraska: Making Nebraska the
Agricultural Leader of the 21st Century.
I-300 and the Environment
- I-300 does not allow corporate skirting of
liability and responsibility and absentee ownership associated with
environmental damage by corporate agriculture in other states.
- Studies have found that higher levels of
geographic concentration of livestock and resulting environmental damage are
associated with the “corporate-driven style” of production; I-300 has
prevented such concentration and the damage it can do to our water, air, and
land resources.
I-300 and Responsibility
- I-300 does not prohibit anyone from being
involved in Nebraska agriculture. I-300 does require all participants in
Nebraska agriculture to take personal responsibility for their actions.
- I-300 protects all Nebraskans from
irresponsible environmental practices and negligent financial schemes.
I-300 and Public Opinion
- In a 1994 University of Nebraska and Nebraska
Agricultural Statistics Service survey, Nebraska farmers and ranchers
supported I-300 as is by a 65 percent to 20 percent margin. Only 18 percent of
Nebraska farmers and ranchers supported repeal of I-300, and only 22 percent
to 27 percent supported suggested modifications to I-300.
- In the 1999 University of Nebraska Nebraska
Rural Poll, 80 percent of rural Nebraskans and 89 percent of farm/ranch
households prefer that in 20 years none of Nebraska’s farms and ranches be
owned by non-family corporations – exactly what I-300 provides.
- In the 2000 University of Nebraska Nebraska
Rural Poll, farm/ranch households supported by a 72 percent to 12 percent
margin the inclusion of a ban on packer ownership of livestock in the 2002
Farm Bill – I-300 has provided Nebraska a packer ban since 1982.
Contact: Jon Bailey, Rural Research &
Analysis Program, jonb@cfra.org or
402.687.2100 x 1013.
|
|
|
Catch the Express to the
Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Conference
People from Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska can travel
by bus to this event. The conference is focused on risk-reducing strategies and
resources to help the next generation of farmers and ranchers get established on
the land.
A chartered bus will be available to provide low-cost transportation to The
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Conference, to be held March 27, 2004 at the
Holiday Inn and Convention Center in Kearney, Nebraska.
The Route: The bus will depart from La Crosse, Wisconsin on Friday
morning, March 26 and travel west on I-90 across southern Minnesota and
southeastern South Dakota. The Express will head south on I-29 in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota and continue south to Omaha, and then west on I-80 to Kearney,
Nebraska.
Who Can Ride: Stops along the way will be available for interested
farmers, conference speakers, and participants. En route stops are planned in
Rochester, Albert Lea, and Worthington, Minn.; Sioux Falls, SD; Sioux City,
Iowa; and Omaha, Neb.
Bus travelers will have the chance to network with beginning and established
farmers and participate in farm tours. Entertainment is also planned, and
sightings of sandhill cranes are also possible along the Platte River. The bus
will depart after the conference ends on the evening of March 27.
The Fee: Round-trip cost for the bus is $25 per person. Bus registration
will be taken on a first-come, first-serve basis. Riders are asked to bring
their own food. Conference registration is $30. Checks may be sent to the Center
for Rural Affairs, along with registration materials.
For more information on the conference Express Bus, contact Heidi Busse, Land
Stewardship Project, 507.523.3366 or
heidib@landstewardshipproject.org .
Conference registration and
conference information are available on our
website.
Contact: Joy Johnson,
joyj@cfra.org for
more information.
|
|
Using Innovative Programs to
Pass on the Farm to Beginners
Two Pennsylvania programs help to provide a
manageable purchase price for the buyers and an equitable return for the
sellers.
Patty Huff grew up on a dairy farm in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Although
she left the area for a number of years, she maintained her ties in the
community.
Dairy farmers Suzanne and George Lamborn remembered Patty as a teenager. The
Lamborns offered to rent their farm to Patty and her husband. The Huffs declined
that offer, but they kept in touch.
In 1999, the Lamborns decided to sell. They had learned about a Pennsylvania
Bureau of Farmland Protection program that would allow them to get the
development value from their land while ensuring it would be farmed.
The Lamborns called the Huffs. The Huffs decided it would be a good move for
them if they could arrange the financing. Using a mix of farmland protection
programs available in Pennsylvania, the Lamborns sold their farm to the Huffs at
its farmland value, considerably less than its development value.
The selling price used the appraised development value, less the purchase price
of development rights received from the Pennsylvania Bureau of Farmland
Protection program. The couple financed the remaining amount – the farmland
value – on a contract
for deed.
With equity gained previously, the Huffs were able to secure financing from the
Farm Service Agency. This allowed them to expand the milking facility, add a
six-month manure storage facility, build a silo, and complete soil conservation
measures including new stream-bank fencing.
The Huffs also participated in the aggie bond program available in Pennsylvania,
which provided an additional return on the interest to the Lamborns. This
arrangement has been so successful, the older couple is considering investing in
additional farmland to help another young farm family get a start.
|
|
|
Rural Enterprise Program
Lends $2 Million to Small Businesses
Loans from our small business support program
surged last year, totaling over a million dollars and bringing total lending to
$2 million.
The Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP), a program of the Center, has
loaned over $2 million to startup and existing small businesses in rural
Nebraska since its inception in 1990.
REAP is Nebraska’s largest microenterprise program and operates on a statewide,
rural basis through regionally-based Business Specialists. REAP provides
lending, training, networking, and technical assistance opportunities for
startup and existing microenterprises (businesses with 5 or fewer employees).
This latest milestone is important both for what was attained and when,
according to REAP program director Jeff Reynolds. “It wasn’t until 2002 that
REAP reached that first $1 million in direct loans, and now we are already
surpassing the $2 million mark,” said Reynolds. “That says a lot about the need
for and success of our program.”
REAP provides “peer group” loans up to $10,000 through locally formed
associations of small business people in a “step-up” process, along with
individual loans up to $25,000 through the REAP Direct loan program, added in
1999. REAP also provides “Quick Grow” loans up to $5,000 in collaboration with
the GROW Nebraska program, a service added in 2002.
Since 1990, REAP has placed 273 peer group loans totaling $463,423 (total
includes Quick Grow loans). Since 1999, REAP has placed 110 direct loans
totaling $1,550,508. REAP has leveraged an additional $3,667,420 in loans from
traditional sources since 1997 through its business planning and loan packaging
services.
In rural Nebraska the primary employment source is self-employment and the
dominant type is microenterprise. REAP provides key business development
services to entrepreneurs. Funding from the Nebraska Microenterprise Development
Act, Community Development Block Grants, Small Business Administration, United
States Department of Agriculture and other sources make the services possible.
Contact: Jeff Reynolds, 402.656.3091 or jeffr@alltel.net
or visit www.cfra.org/reap for
information.
Unique Blend of
Enterprises Supplements Agriculture Income
Nebraska leads the nation in the number of people
holding multiple jobs – a statistic this resourceful agricultural family lives
daily.
Keith and Sue Roberts, Orleans, Nebraska, are prime examples of the
innovative entrepreneurial drive shown by rural residents in Nebraska. In the
midst of declining family farm income due to drought and poor prices, the
Roberts own 188 acres of ground and help Keith’s folks on their farm.
To create enough total family income, Keith and Sue are blending outside
employment with agricultural and non-agricultural small business enterprises.
These include an active and successful recreational business, Twin Creek
Paintball in Orleans.
This enterprise is a clear example of taking an agricultural resource, native
pasture, and converting it to a higher net income from a non-agricultural use.
They are also initiating a meat goat enterprise on their farm.
Keith and Sue both maintain outside employment. The couple also owns the Sappa
Creek Trading Post in Orleans, which features t-shirts, collectibles,
upholstery, working furniture, etc. Keith mows lawns at two area cemeteries.
Their two boys and their daughter provide help in some or all of these
entrepreneurial efforts.
Twin Creek Paintball is their oldest and most lucrative venture, with an 8-year
history and steadily increasing volume of revenue and net profitability. The
Roberts have used peer loans from REAP, the Center’s small business support
program to help this enterprise expand and grow.
As resourceful and steeped in the work ethic as the Roberts are, they are yet
another example of why Nebraska ranks #1 in the country in the number of people
holding multiple jobs. As Keith states, “You have to have a lot of things going
these days to supplement agricultural income in order to make a decent living.”
The Roberts are charter members of the South Central Business Development (SCBDA)REAP
association in Phelps and Harlan County, and Keith is currently chairperson.
Keith has generously donated time to speak on behalf of small rural business. He
has served on several panels, including ones exploring alternatives in
agriculture.
Volunteers Help to
Move the Center Office in Less than Two
Hours
Led by an outpouring of volunteer support from the people of Lyons, Nebraska,
the Center for Rural Affairs moved into its new home in Lyons on December 22.
Close to 70 community volunteers joined 20 Center staff and volunteers in moving
literally hundreds of boxes, over a dozen desks, and scores of filing cabinets
and other essential goods to the Center’s newly-completed 6,400 sq. ft. office
building.
When a date for moving was set, Center Development Director, Greg Finzen, asked
the Lyons Community Club if they would help with the move. They agreed, and
Lyons’ resident, John O’Mara coordinated getting volunteers and equipment to
make the move happen.
In an atmosphere resembling an old fashioned barn-raising, volunteers with
pickups, goose-neck trailers, grain trucks, a truck from an antique store, and a
half-dozen hand carts started the big move at 9 a.m. By 11:00 a.m. everything
was moved and the crowd retreated to a free lunch provided by local Lyons church
groups, the Lyons bank and other businesses.
Contact: Kim Preston by phone (x 1022) or
e-mail, kimp@cfra.org.
|
|
|
Revised:
March 21, 2007
|
Editor: Marie
Powell
|
