|
|
|
|
Conservation Security Program Hotline The Center for Rural Affairs will once again be operating a “Hotline” to connect farmers and ranchers practicing effective conservation to the Conservation Security Program (CSP), created by the 2002 Farm Bill. The Hotline’s number is 402.687.2100. It will be open to field questions about the CSP and to learn about how the program is working on the ground.
CSP’s second sign-up will be held March 28 to May 27 in 202 watersheds
nationwide. The sign-up allows farmers with good conservation practices to receive cash payments for their efforts. But like last year, the time frame is very limited and comes during the busiest time for farmers.
Potential participants can find a self-assessment workbook and other application materials at the CSP website,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/
or from their local NRCS office. Contact:
Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org |
|
>> Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) has announced availability of the fifth edition of its
Farmers’ Guide to Disaster Assistance. Download the book from FLAG’s website at:
http://www.flaginc.org or call 651.223.5400 to order a copy (free to financially distressed Minnesota farmers, $40 for others).
>> The Social Implications of Management Intensive Rotational Grazing: An Annotated Bibliography is now available on the web at
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/bibliog2.php
The bibliography presents a comprehensive literature review of social issues of managed grazing, including a summary and analysis of future research needs.
Contact Sarah Lloyd at 920.210.7335 or slloyd@ssc.wisc.edu
for more information.
>> The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the Iowa State University (ISU) Graduate Program in Sustainable Agriculture, with the College of Business, is offering two graduate assistant positions for an MBA with a minor in sustainable agriculture. The assistantships are available fall 2005 and will provide support for up to two years.
Interested candidates should contact Charles Sauer, csauer@iastate.edu
>> A new voice is answering the phone at the Center for Rural Affairs.
Kim Kaup, a graduate of Beemer High School, joined the administrative team on February 10. Kim, husband Trent, and daughter Isabelle make their home in West Point, Nebraska.
We're also glad to have Hayley Hallstrom and Amber Bridges back at work.
They were gone to spend time with their new baby daughters. Welcome all! |
Payment Limit Reform Bill Introduced
A payment limitation reform legislation bill has been introduced by Senators Grassley (IA), Dorgan (ND), Hagel (NE), Johnson (SD) and Nelson (NE). The Rural America Preservation Act (S385) would close payment limitations loopholes and impose effective caps of $40,000 on direct payments, $60,000 on countercyclical payments, and $150,000 on loan deficiency payments.
The Senate Budget Committee adopted a Sense of the Senate Resolution offered by Senators Conrad (ND) and Grassley (IA) in support of payment limitation reform. Voting for the resolution were Senators Johnson (SD), Allard (CO), Enzi (WY), Stabenow (MI), Feingold (WI), Wyden (OR), Murray (WA), and others. Voting against the resolution were most southern Budget Committee members as well as Crapo (ID) and Gregg (NH).
Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1018.
Unicameral Update
This Nebraska Legislative session could be one of the best for family farm and rural development in recent years, with progress on four fronts.
- Senator Matt Connealy’s Small Business Microenterprise Tax Credit (LB 309) will likely be included in the business tax incentive package taking shape in the Revenue Committee. It would provide $2 million of refundable tax credits for microenterprises and beginning farmers. “Micro-enterprise” refers to owner-operated businesses with five or fewer employees.
- The preliminary appropriations bill includes a doubling of funding for microenterprise lending and training programs, from $250,000 to $500,000, as proposed in the Governor’s budget request.
- Senator Elaine Stuhr’s Agricultural Opportunities and Value Added Partnerships bill (LB 71) has advanced to final reading. It would provide $1 million of grants annually to value added initiatives that enhance family farm
opportunities.
- Senator Doug Cunningham’s Building Entrepreneurial Communities Act (LB 273) would provide grants to communities to be matched locally for entrepreneurial development initiatives. It has passed out of committee and been designated a priority bill, though funding was reduced from $1 million annually to just $200,000. The Center supports restoring the funding.
The legislature passed the midway point on March 16. To keep up-to-date with their activities, sign up for the Center’s weekly electronic legislative update by contacting
Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org The Update also appears on
our website and the web log, www.cfra.blogspot.com
Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1018 for more information.
The Benefits of Being
$pecial: A Closer Look at Specialty Foods
Oregon Country Beef, a cooperative of 40 ranches in central and eastern Oregon, has achieved the near-impossible. While they are located in remote areas, far from any market, they successfully sell specialty beef products throughout the West Coast and Pacific Northwest. Their story offers important insights into the successful specialty marketing of products, and is part of the Fresh Promises report created by the Center.
Holding on to the profits
The goal of Oregon Country Beef is “to produce a sustainable lifestyle by producing a profitable product to meet customer demand for taste and integrity, created in a healthy environment.” The key to any successful co-op though, is to hold on to the profits.
Traditionally, preparation and delivery of the final product to the retail chain are where profits can be made or lost. More often lost, since these are areas generally reserved for specialists who master the arcane regulations and the special skills needed to process, ship, and market beef.
Oregon Country Beef appears to have mastered these challenges. With 40 members and 61 stores carrying their product, along with restaurants and food service outlets, they produced $10 million dollars in sales last year.
What lessons can we learn?
>> Pricing is realistic. The price is based on cost of production, necessary return on their investment, and a reasonable profit. They understand that cut-rate pricing eventually leads to a failure to be able to produce your goods.
>> Marketing is vital, and members are involved. Each member spends at least one weekend a year doing store visitations or in-store demonstrations. A team structure allows the group to share ideas and expertise, and appears to avoid the high cost of hiring outside marketing experts.
>> Most importantly, they did not try to create something new. They were already raising grass-fed beef free from growth hormones or antibiotics. They maintained that focus, believing it was a healthier choice of farming and ranching. They created a brand based on quality and reliability.
Where to get information
The Center has information for those striving to take home a greater portion of the consumer’s food dollar. To find out more, contact
Mike Heavrin, 402.687.2103 x 1008 or mikeh@cfra.org
— Russ Gifford
Preparing for another Round of Value Added Producer Grants
USDA has improved the application criteria for this competitive grant program based on suggestions provided by the Center
Expect changes to this year’s Value Added Producer Grant (VAPG) Program, designed for tapping into new and emerging markets.
“We applaud the USDA administration and staff for incorporating many of our suggestions for improvements to the Value Added Producer Grant program for fiscal year 2005,” says
Kim Leval, Senior Policy Analyst with the Center for Rural Affairs.
Among the changes adopted are targeting of grant amounts, providing new web-based information for applicants, discouraging multiple years of funding for the same applicant, and providing a pre-review of applications. At our urging, the turn-around time for applications was also increased from 45 days to 65.
Approximately $14.3 million will be available in fiscal year 2005. The value added program requires a 50-50 match in cash or in-kind contributions. Eligible applicants include independent farmers and ranchers, farmer and ranch cooperatives, and majority-controlled, producer-based business ventures.
According to USDA, value added is defined as the incremental value that is realized by the producer from an agricultural commodity or product as the result of: 1) a change in its physical state, 2) differentiated production or marketing, as demonstrated in the business plan, or 3) product segregation. The economic benefit realized from the production of farm or ranch-based renewable energy also qualifies.
USDA will now provide a section for frequently asked questions, application guidance, and a grant outline for applicants to follow on their website,
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov
One of the largest differences in this year’s criteria for selection is a penalty for applicants who apply for a planning or working capital grant if they have already received one. Ten points are docked if an applicant has already received either a planning or working capital grant.
New proposals are not docked any points, and groups who go first for a planning grant and then for a working capital grant will not receive a penalty. Leval sees this as closing a loophole that allowed mega cooperatives to receive big grants almost every year.
The new grant maximum is set at $100,000 for planning grants and $150,000 for working capital grants. Another change this year is that applications will be sent to the USDA’s Washington DC office rather than to an outside contractor.
USDA is also looking for proposal reviewers. If you are interested in submitting your name as a reviewer, please contact Kim Leval at 541.687.1490 or
kimleval@qwest.net Grant applications are due May 6.
Rural Recruiting
It all starts with a simple invitation to come back
The last three months we have focused on couples who have either returned to the area or have moved to small communities to enjoy what they have to offer. In most cases these individuals have made a conscious decision to do this.
Now that people have witnessed others coming into small rural communities and bragging about the good fortune they had by moving there, how do we get this process replicated and bring others into our communities and our region?
Jay Knobbe, a former West Point, Nebraska native, helped to start a group called the Norfolk Area Recruiters. His theory is that instead of bemoaning the fact that a huge number of people are leaving, why not simply ask some if they would like to return.
People like to be wanted. Making the effort to contact young adults who are considering raising a family or deciding where to spend their lives seems like a reasonable investment of our time and resources.
The Norfolk Area Recruiters work with four teams, and the areas they work on are:
- Sending letters to people who have moved away after graduating from area schools.
- Creating a website to sell former area residents on the opportunities of living in a small community.
- Collecting data for research and marketing, including finding names of people to send letters to.
- Conducting public relations within high schools to let young people know there is a resource for them if they choose to live closer to home when graduating.
The Norfolk Area Recruiters have targeted 6,000 people, but they know these former residents won’t all come back. They believe it would be significant if they could get 10-20 families to move back.
That would have a measurable impact on the local economy and increase the knowledge base that has been threatened. Let’s call this the “Brain Gain” initiative and use this model as an example of what could be done to stem the out-migration.
Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org
for more information on community revitalization.
Corporate Farming Notes
Market concentration rises in beef and pork industries; packers threaten to cut production; Montana legislature kills GMO liability bill
>> A study by Mary Hendrickson and William Heffernan, both from the Department of Sociology at the University of Missouri, indicates livestock market concentration levels continue to rise.
The top four beef packers now control 83.5 percent of the market, up 11.5 percent since 1990. The top four include Tyson Foods, Cargill, Swift & Co., and National Beef Packing Co.
Things don’t look much better for pork. The top four pork packers control 64 percent of that market, an increase of 24 percent since 1990. The top four include Smithfield Foods, Tyson Foods, Swift & Co, and Hormel Foods. Notice a similarity? View a copy of the report at
http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/CRJanuary05.pdf
>> Both Swift & Co and Cargill have announced they will slow production at some of their beef processing plants. The companies state low demand and tight supplies (due to continued closing of the Canadian border) as reasons for the slowdown.
These packers are two of the four (listed above) controlling 83.5 percent of the total cattle market. It seems reasonable to suggest there might be other reasons behind the production slowdown.
Companies with such market clout would directly benefit if the Canadian border was to reopen to cattle imports – not U.S. cattle producers – because it would allow them to drop prices dramatically for cattle procured in the U.S. Unfair manipulation of markets and uncompetitive pricing seem to accompany high concentration.
>> Montana Senate Bill 218 was effectively killed on February 22, 2005. The bill would have made biotechnology companies, not farmers and grain elevators, liable for damages from genetically modified crops. Similar bills were introduced in North Dakota and Vermont. The Vermont bill, S.18, is still alive.
The Montana Senate reached a stalemate on the bill, with 25 in favor and 25 opposed. The Senate then moved to indefinitely postpone the bill. The Western Organization of Resource Councils has been involved in this work. Contact
John Smillie at 406.252.9672 for details.
Contact: Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org
for more information.
Ag Classes Flourish in Urban Schools
In Toledo, Ohio, high school students are growing lettuce and basil hydroponically (without soil). In Philadelphia, teens tend a herd of cows. Students in Minneapolis are researching how different kind of soils affect grass growth.
The National FFA Organization, formerly Future Farmers of America, has its highest membership in years, 476,000 students. Much of the growth has come in urban schools, according to spokesman Bill Stagg. FFA has programs in 11 of the nation’s 15 biggest cities. Youth in suburbs are also taking agriculture classes and considering careers in the industry.
Source: Associated Press, Christian Science
Monitor, 1-11-05. Thanks to the long-time newsletter reader who sent us this item.
|
|
Feature
article:
Reopening the Farm Bill: Myth and Reality
Members of congressional agriculture committees and agricultural interest groups are fond of stating that a Farm Bill, once law, should not be “reopened.” Any proposed correction to a program, any response to an agricultural disaster is seen as “reopening” the Farm Bill.
In 2004, when parts of the country sought agricultural disaster recognition, Rep.
Bob Goodlatte, House Agriculture Committee Chairman, said, “The (2002) Farm Bill was a very carefully negotiated agreement, and once you reopen it, it essentially becomes a piggy bank susceptible to the whims of others.”
We have opposed reopening the 2002 Farm Bill. But Congress, despite its public stand has very clearly and very strongly done so. For example, the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations cut previously approved
mandatory Farm Bill spending by $527 million. That’s reopening a Farm Bill with a tank.
So, it appears that when some parts of the Farm Bill are threatened, the warnings are loud and clear. When other parts of the Farm Bill are slashed or never implemented, no comparable cry is raised. Hypocrisy may be too strong a word, but it is curious.
To satisfy that curiosity, we will examine some parts of the 2002 Farm Bill that have been cut, implemented incorrectly, or completely ignored – in other words, “reopened.”
Conservation
One of the programs under continual attack since the signing of the Farm Bill is the Conservation Security Program (CSP). The CSP as passed in the 2002 Farm Bill was designed as a nationwide entitlement-status program; meaning that it would be open and available to all qualifying farmers and ranchers.
Problems for the CSP began before the ink even had time to dry. It was first targeted and treated like a slush fund when appropriators were forced by the Bush Administration to find drought disaster assistance through cuts in other programs.
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) added to the predicament by delaying implementation by about two years. The Interim Final Rule they finally published, which guided the program in its first year, failed to resemble the program designed by Congress.
For example, CSP was offered in 18 watersheds across the country – it was supposed to be nationwide. NRCS created brand new contract limits that
benefited larger farms and didn’t exist in the written law. The initial sign-up period was short and limited, though the sign-up was supposed to be continuous. The list goes on. This year’s Final Rule will be released March 28, although USDA promised it very early this year.
Not only have funds been cut and programs incorrectly rolled out, NRCS has failed to implement some very important conservation provisions, ones that don’t even require a separate allocation of money. All these programs need is innovation and a will to get them on the ground working.
Partnerships and Cooperation (Sec. 2003 of the 2002 Farm Bill) is one of those provisions not requiring a separate appropriation. It would operate under the premise that selected projects could draw funds through the applicable conservation programs that relate directly to the particular project.
This provision was intended to provide assistance for projects to help farmers and ranchers implement effective conservation initiatives that solve special resource concerns. It was to provide the flexibility needed to address unique local circumstances and to forge farmer-community partnerships to enhance natural resources and use them as an economic development asset.
NRCS has not implemented this provision as designed in the Farm Bill. Instead, they implemented their own version of the program, called the Conservation Partnership Initiative (CPI). This version is very specific and does not contain the flexibility originally envisioned. In CPI, final project approval decisions are made nationally rather than locally.
Beginning farmer conservation provisions have so far been completely ignored. This also does not require a separate appropriation. All it requires is creativity to foster a new generation of farmers and make it easier for them to implement conservation practices.
The national NRCS has been given creative ways to implement this program, yet it remains unused at a time when creating opportunities for beginning farmers is more important than ever.
Status of Select 2002 Farm Bill Conservation Programs*
|
 Program
|
2002 Farm Bill Annual Authorized Funding
|
Status
|
|
Conservation Security Program
|
Uncapped; Nationwide; Entitlement Status
|
Cut and capped in FY03 Appropriations;
Restored funding in FY04; Cut again in FY05; Implementation delayed by two
years
|
|
Partnerships and Cooperation
|
Does not require
separate appropriation – can pull funds through other conservation
programs
|
Never Implemented – NRCS
creates a different program (Conservation Partnership
Initiative) totally out of the blue
|
|
Beginning Farmer
Conservation Provisions
|
Does not require
separate appropriation
|
Never Implemented
|
* Other conservation cuts have been made; these are the programs we have worked on the most.
Rural Development
The Consolidated Federal Funds Report for 2001 (the most recent data available) shows a $6.5 billion annual federal funding disadvantage to rural America – the difference in the amount of federal funds going to rural areas compared to non-rural areas.
To begin to address this funding disadvantage and to increase the capacity of rural America to address their economic challenges, the Rural Development Title of the 2002 Farm Bill was full of new and innovative programs – regional planning and development, small business assistance, value-added agricultural grants, and grants to small communities to meet environmental needs.
Apparently, most of Congress and President Bush believed these were worthy efforts when the Farm Bill was signed in May 2002. Again, the ink was barely dry on the new Farm Bill before the innovative ideas supported by Congress and the President were dispatched to the history books.
For rural development, the 2002 Farm Bill was not so much re-opened as slammed shut. Over 90 percent of the funding authorized for rural development in the 2002 Farm Bill has been cut or never materialized.
The Value Added Producer Grant Program continues at $15.5 million annual funding in the President’s FY 2006 budget. The Rural Strategic Investment Program and the Northern Plains Regional Authority – both designed to assist states and communities in economic and community development planning and implementation – are terminated by the President’s budget. The others weren’t even given a funeral.
The 2002 Farm Bill authorized funding for these and other programs for five federal fiscal years. In total, these programs would have pumped $321 million annually into rural development efforts across the nation – a total of $1.605 billion over the life of the 2002 Farm Bill. Instead, only $129 million will be paid out (assuming the appropriation for the Value Added Producer Grant Program remains as is for the next two years).
By ignoring their own laws and their own ideas, Congress and the Administration cost rural America $1.476
billion in needed rural development resources. While the rural federal funding disadvantage remains, Congress and the Administration neglected a golden opportunity to address the issues of rural poverty, rural business and job creation, rural community development, and rural depopulation.
The warnings and hand-wringing about “reopening” the Farm Bill are beginning anew with the debate over the new federal budget. While rural development, conservation, nutrition, community development, and health programs that benefit rural communities are being slashed, some are sounding the alarm about “breaking a contract” with farmers when talking about the effort to enact effective payment limits.
The Farm Bill contract has already been broken, in more ways than one. Taking additional cuts from the Farm Bill’s conservation and rural development sections, sections that have already surrendered approximately $4 billion since passage of the Farm Bill, is both unfair and unwise.
More cuts in the guise of “spending discipline” – which is really “reopening” the Farm Bill to provide these programs less viability for the next Farm Bill – only places sustainable ag-minded farmers and ranchers and rural communities at a disadvantage.
Cutting from the top by enacting effective payment limitations and closing egregious loopholes does not break any contract. Instead, it puts farm policy back in line to serve its intended purpose – strengthening small and mid-size farms, which in turn strengthens our rural communities.
Status of Rural Development Provisions from the 2002 Farm Bill
|
Program
|
2002 Farm Bill Annual Authorized Funding
|
Status
|
|
National Rural Development Coordinating
Commission
|
$10 million
|
Never Implemented
|
|
Northern Plains Regional Authority
|
$30 million
|
$2.99 million appropriated in 2004 and
2005
|
|
Rural Strategic Investment Program
|
$100 million
|
Never Implemented
|
|
Rural Electronic Commerce Extension
Program (from rural small businesses)
|
$60 million
|
Never Implemented
|
|
Rural Telework
|
$30 million
|
Never Implemented
|
|
SEARCH Grants for small
communities (to meet
environmental needs)
|
$51 million
|
Never Implemented
|
|
Value Added Producer
Grant Program
|
$40 million
|
Implemented at a lower level ($40 million
in 2002 and 2003; $15 million in 2004; $15.5 million in 2005)
|
Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org
or Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org , 402.687.2100.
|
|
|
Center’s Annual Gathering Generates an Enthusiastic Crowd
Old friends mixed with many new faces on February 26 for the Center for Rural Affairs’ Annual Gathering. “It is always good to see a great crowd of people who are enthusiastic about the work of the Center,” said
Don Reeves of Central City, Nebraska. Reeves serves as President of the Center for Rural Affairs Board of Directors.
Perhaps as many as 300 people attended the event, this year held at the Lifelong Learning Center in Norfolk, Nebraska. Attendees had many workshop options to choose between, with five tracks of teach-in sessions covering topics in agriculture, conservation, small business, legislation, and
agri-tourism.
“People were very interested and excited to hear what was going on,” said Wyatt
Fraas, assistant director of the Center’s Rural Opportunities and Stewardship Program. “I heard enthusiasm in the halls.”
Comments on the feedback forms certainly agree. It isn’t always easy to book programs when listeners already know the basics and are there looking for “what’s the next step?” But according to the evaluation forms, it appears we came pretty close!
Many people noted their favorite part of the program was the abundance of information from presenters and the large variety of teach-in topics available. The Center’s Business Fair, featuring displays and goods by regional small businesses, was also a winner.
The evaluation forms show the big hit of the day was the speakers. The Center’s executive director,
Chuck Hassebrook set the tone over lunch, putting a sharp focus on “Why Rural Matters.” His evaluation of the current situation and why a healthy rural economy is important to everyone nationwide certainly struck listeners and got them excited about making a difference.
 Best selling author
Thomas Frank, pictured at left, brought the crowd to their feet to end the day, with his straight-from-the-heart assessment of why things have gotten out of control between the political parties. After finishing his talk, Frank took questions and discussed issues with the audience for another half-hour, and then signed books and programs as the Center supporters headed for home.
“The work of the Center is really based on strengthening the things folks are already doing for themselves,” said Board President Reeves. “It is evident from the large turnout and the great response that the Center’s Annual Gathering was a success.”
photo courtesy of Curt Arens
The Center staff would like to thank everyone for attending and for your support through the year. Put a note on your calendar now to join us at next year’s gathering,
scheduled for February 27, 2006.
Contact: Russ Gifford, Communications Director at 402.687.2103 x 1009 or
russg@cfra.org
Fresh Promises for America’s Rural Places
Presenting strategies and practices that are helping to revitalize rural communities
“Come one! Come all! We have free land to give away, if you are willing to relocate to our rural town!”
Mini Homestead Acts
Many small towns are offering free lots to new folks who are willing to relocate from the hustle and bustle of urban life to the quiet countryside. In our report,
Fresh Promises, we looked at five different communities offering a “Mini Homestead Act.”
The goal behind these offers is to plug the leak of community depopulation, reinvigorate local business, increase the tax base, maintain public schools, and create hope for the future of the community.
Kansas is one state that is really taking advantage of this opportunity. You can visit
http://www.kansasfreeland.com and see pictures of the communities, lots available, and other amenities the communities have to offer. Other states using this land give-away approach include Nebraska, Minnesota, and Texas.
There are requirements to qualify for the land. Each community is different. For example, you must bear all construction costs, must live in the community for a specified period of time, your house must be built within a year, and it must meet certain dimension requirements.
While these options are creative and working in many areas, some conditions need to align if such programs are to be successful. The community must be able to offer some kind of job opportunities – whether in the community or within a reasonable driving distance. Affordable land, financing for the community to purchase that land, and maintainable community amenities and infrastructure are basic requirements for success.
Contact: Kim Preston, kimp@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1022 for more information.
“Help Wanted: Organic
Farmers” Educational Campaign Kicks Off
A double-digit growth rate is fueling interest in transitioning to organic production, and financial and educational help is available
Organic Valley Family of Farms is looking for organic corn, soybean, grain, and hay producers. A leading organic farmers’ cooperative, Organic Valley is supporting a new education campaign, Help Wanted; Organic Farms to provide farmers with information about converting to organic. The educational campaign is sponsored by MOSES, Midwest Organic Sustainable Education Service, Inc.
George Simeon, Organic Valley’s CEO, says the time is ripe for a switch, “Consumer demand for organic products is high and shows no sign of straying from its course of double-digit annual growth.” In 2004, the cooperative’s sales jumped 33 percent over 2003 ($208 million in 2004 and $156 million in 2003), surpassing the industry’s growth rate. Sales of $259 million are projected for 2005.
More information on the Help Wanted campaign is available at the MOSES website, www.mosesorganic.org
or by calling 715.772.3135. More information on Organic Valley is available at their website,
www.organicvalley.coop
Additional help is available in some states for the organic transition process. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska offer “organic transition” incentive payments as part of its EQIP conservation program.
Martin Kleinschmit, the Center’s Sustainable Agriculture Specialist, is working with seven counties in Nebraska on an
Organic Incentive Pilot Project.
The biggest obstacle to transitioning to certified organic production for many farmers and ranchers is the 36-month transition period, where no unauthorized chemicals can be applied. EQIP will provide financial incentives to help offset potential risk. A three-year education program accompanies the incentives. National Organic Program (NOP) rules are available at USDA’s website,
www.usda.gov
Contact: Martin Kleinschmit, martink@cfra.org
or 402.254.6893 in Hartington, Nebraska, for information.
Funds for Organic Research
and Extension Projects
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) is requesting applications for the Integrated Organic Program. In FY 2005, approximately $1.8 million will be available to support the Organic Transitions Program area, which funds development and implementation of research, extension, and higher education programs to improve the competitiveness of producers who are adopting organic practices.
Approximately $2.9 million will be available to support the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, which funds research and extension programs to help producers and processors who have already adopted organic standards to grow and market high quality organic products.
Applications proposing project periods of up to four years will be accepted. The due date has been changed to May 2, 2005. More information can be found at
www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/organic.html
|
