House Passes Budget Reconciliation Measure
The budget reconciliation process came to a close on Wednesday, February 1, 2006, when the House voted and narrowly passed the measure again after the Senate made a few minor changes to the bill, none of which affected the agriculture portion of the bill. The House vote was very close, and, in the end the bill passed by only two votes, 216-214.
Again we want to thank everyone for contacting their members of Congress on this issue. We believe the final bill reflects the wrong priorities for family farms and rural communities. However, the grassroots efforts on budget reconciliation were more than impressive. We need to continue that momentum into the new farm bill and continue to look for additional opportunities to push for reform.
If you would like to find out how your representative or senator voted, call Traci Bruckner at 402.687.2100. Thank you and keep on fighting!
Small Businesses Starved for Financing
A new survey shows a lack of available capital for small and start-up businesses
A recent survey of the self-employed and microbusiness owners shows the need for public policy attention to the capitalization of such businesses. The National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE) survey revealed that only one in ten self-employed or small business owners thought there were adequate funding resources for microbusinesses.
This lack of small business capital was also revealed in the primary sources of start-up capital for self-employment and small businesses. Personal savings and credit cards are the primary sources of start-up capital for 70 percent of the surveyed businesses. Only six percent employed loans from financial institutions or the government as the primary source of start-up capital.
Ongoing capital for small businesses or self-employment was little different. Personal savings (40 percent) and credit cards (19 percent) were identified as the primary sources of ongoing capital. Lending institutions provided a bit more capital for established businesses, but still less than 10 percent.
The obstacles faced in gaining access to capital by the surveyed businesses are familiar ones to those providing services to entrepreneurs. Credit rating, lack of collateral, and bank regulations and paperwork (these items were identified as the largest obstacle to capital by over two-thirds of the survey respondents) are obstacles faced by many entrepreneurs, particularly low and modest-income and start-up entrepreneurs.
The results of the NASE survey demonstrate the public policy needs for small businesses and entrepreneurship development. Despite the demonstrated validity of small business development in rural areas of the nation, there still exists a lack of public and private capital available to entrepreneurs, particularly start-up entrepreneurs.
Public resources through state and federal programs are not extensive enough to meet the entrepreneurial demand in many communities, and those that do exist are in a constant defensive posture to salvage their existence and some degree of resources. This is particularly true at the federal level where Small Business Administration programs for microbusiness capital are annually served up for elimination by the President’s budget and then saved but downsized by Congress. Meanwhile, the demand for such capital, particularly in rural areas starved for economic development resources, increases.
A nation that depends on entrepreneurship for job growth and economic vitality should not have to depend on maxed out plastic and penniless savings to build and maintain its business and asset infrastructure.
Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1013 for more information.
Packers & Stockyards Administration Audit
Agency fails to use its considerable authority, relying instead on deceptive practices
Last month, an audit of the Packers and Stockyards Administration revealed that they have utterly failed to enforce the very law that gives the agency a reason to exist.
The Packers and Stockyards Administration has become anything but an enforcer of competition in livestock markets – robbing farmers and ranchers of the best assurance they have that livestock markets will be fair, open, and competitive.
Senior officials in the Packers and Stockyards Administration blocked investigations from being referred to USDA lawyers or the Justice Department. Agency employees were instructed to create the appearance of enforcement activity by recording everything from routine correspondence and review of public data as “investigations.”
Over 1,800 so-called investigations were documented between 1999 and 2005. According to the Inspector General’s audit, 1,739 of those so-called investigations could not be traced to a specific complaint, producer, packer, or to other details that a true investigation would contain.
The Packers and Stockyards Administration perpetrated a lie and disillusioned farmers and ranchers in the process. It is wrong for government to turn a blind eye to citizens’ concerns. It is worse when government tells citizens that their concerns are valid and, through pretense and deception, leads them to believe that their concerns are being addressed when they are not.
USDA has proven, again, that they cannot be trusted to use the considerable authority vested in the Packers and Stockyards Act to breathe life back into American livestock markets. Surely they will claim that new leadership at Packers and Stockyards, including the new Administrator James Link, will fix the problem. But they will not, and farmers, ranchers and rural communities will continue to pay the price.
Repeated calls for competition reforms from farmers and ranchers as well as the Commission on Small Farms, General Accounting Office, and Inspector General have fallen on deaf ears at USDA.
That is why Congress must act to define the rules of livestock market competition and provide clear direction for USDA’s enforcement. Congress should move forward with reform now and prepare for a larger debate over a comprehensive competition title in the 2007 farm bill.
As this newsletter is written, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and a bipartisan team of senators are preparing to introduce a comprehensive package of livestock market competition reforms. If Congress acts boldly on behalf of livestock market competition, farmers, ranchers, and rural citizens will stand with them.
Contact: John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1010 for more information.
Financing Our Future through Children the Focus of New Program
Because child care is a vital community development issue, South Dakota is offering capital for child care providers and centers
Last month’s article dealt with children and child care in rural areas, or maybe more importantly, the lack of both. The article also looked at the lack of qualified child care givers. South Dakota has come up with a unique and novel way to address this need and help people attain financial capital to be used for child care.
On December 29, 2005, the Development Corporation for Children in partnership with the South Dakota Rural Enterprise, Inc. announced that loans will be made available for the purpose of working with child care providers and licensed child care centers in South Dakota. The program is known as First Children’s Finance – South Dakota.
As Beth Davis, president of South Dakota Rural Enterprise, Inc. made very clear, child care services are a vital element in successful community development. Now with opportunities to get financing for start-ups in this field, people will have more opportunity to put their children in qualified and professionally run facilities.
Eligibility requirements for the program include:
- Must be a registered family child care provider, licensed child care center, Head Start, or other early education program located in South Dakota.
- Start-up family providers who could become registered child care providers are also eligible to apply.
- Start-up child care centers who could become licensed child care providers are also eligible to apply.
- The provider must be willing to care for children from households with incomes meeting South Dakota Child Care Subsidy guidelines.
- Family child care applicants must own the home for which an improvement loan is being sought.
- Applicants must demonstrate that they are unable to secure a loan from a bank or other conventional lender.
- An eligible applicant will make or have made an investment in their business and be able to offer collateral for the loan.
The loan amounts are available from $1,000 to $25,000 for family providers and up to $75,000 for centers. There is also assistance with such areas as technical assistance for business plans, completing loan applications, and developing a cash flow.
The non-refundable cost to the applicant is $25, or $100 if the applicant is a child care center. There may also be some out-of-pocket expenses that would be required at the time of closing the loan. The actual loans may be used for cash flow, facility improvement, fences, curriculum, equipment, toys, remodeling, and other child care related needs.
For more information on this program, call 866.562.6801 or 605.978.2804.
Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1015 for more information on this monthly column on rural
community revitalization.
CORPORATE FARMING NOTES
USDA is reconsidering privatization of the National Animal Identification System; I-300 appeal case to be heard by St. Louis panel
>> After strong opposition from farmers and ranchers, USDA announced in February they will reconsider proposed privatization of portions of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
USDA maintains that the Animal Health Protection Act passed in the 2002 farm bill gives them the authority to develop a national animal identification system. But their attorneys are reconsidering earlier conclusions regarding the legal authority to require producers to report to a private entity.
There are manifold failings of USDA’s NAIS proposal, including:
- Privatization invites bias, perhaps even graft and corruption, and could be distorted in favor of meatpackers and to the detriment of farmers and ranchers.
- Privatization through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and National Pork Producers Council is clearly no guarantee that such a meatpacker bias would not occur.
- No adequate safeguards have been proposed to ensure that NAIS information could not be used by packers to discriminate against small and mid-sized producers.
- Financial impacts on producers are inequitable – with much higher per head costs likely for small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers.
Animal identification for the purpose of keeping our food safe has merit. But USDA is proposing a system too easily corruptible; discriminatory and injurious to small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers; and too expensive for taxpayers, consumers, and producers.
>> The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced in January that a three judge panel in Saint Louis will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Initiative 300, Nebraska’s ban on corporate farming and ranching. Initiative 300 prohibits non-family farm corporations from owning land or livestock or otherwise engaging in farming or ranching.
The appeal is a result of a ruling by Federal District Court Judge Laurie Smith Camp that Initiative 300 violates the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Contact: John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1010 for more information on the Center’s Corporate Farming Notes.
Administration Proposes Increasing Ethanol Production Research
President Bush’s proposal to increase research on ethanol production from cellulose – switch grass, crop residues, etc. – holds promise. But it must be accompanied by appropriate conservation policies to protect the land.
The president proposes a two-thirds increase in federal research on cellulose-based ethanol production to $150 million annually. With the right break-through, an acre of switch grass could produce three times as much ethanol as corn. And it offers real potential for rural development.
Switch grass and crop residue are expensive to ship, so processing plants would have to be decentralized in many communities across the country. Cellulose-based ethanol production also has the environmental benefit of offering an income-earning conserving use for highly erodible land. And mixed grass plantings for ethanol production could benefit wildlife.
But cellulose-based ethanol production also presents some threats to natural resources if not accompanied by appropriate conservation policies. Removing crop residues could increase erosion and almost certainly reduce soil organic matter. Soil organic matter is essential in drought tolerance and reducing erosion because it increases the soil’s water holding capacity.
Furthermore, we should be increasing soil organic matter to combat the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is contributing to climate change and unstable weather. Soil is the earth’s biggest carbon sink.
Finally, we must protect wildlife habitat and natural space. If all wild land is harvested, we’ll lose opportunities to enjoy the rural environment. That would undermine rural community development because access to uncrowded natural space is one of the amenities we have to draw young families.
Conservation policies to prevent the use of every stalk and acre for ethanol production would also benefit farmers. If everything is harvested, the price will be driven down to dismally low levels.
The president’s initiative is positive and promising, but it must be accompanied by conservation policies to prevent potential pitfalls.
Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1018.
Natural Meat Market Ripe for Farmers
and Ranchers
Family farmers and ranchers have a competitive advantage in the fast-growing natural meat market – they have earned consumers’ trust
Family farms have a ripe opportunity to capture a growing segment of the livestock market – the natural market – if they band together. But if they don’t act, that market will be lost to the corporate giants.
A new cooperative of Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota cattle and hog producers has formed to address the need and is looking for members.
The natural market is the fastest growing segment of the meat market. It ranges from hormone-free beef to pork raised on natural bedding. It offers premium prices and potentially much higher returns.
What makes the natural market most intriguing is that it offers smaller producers a
competitive advantage with consumers over corporate farms. A nationwide Roper poll found that consumers trust small farms more than large industrial farms to produce safe food responsibly by a 2:1 margin.
This is a market based on trust. The families paying premiums for natural are doing so to get a product they trust. The farms that have their trust can win the opportunity to supply them.
Consumer trust in small family farms gives them an edge as suppliers of natural food companies. The natural food company that demonstrates that its meat comes from the small operations that consumers trust most will win consumers’ dollars. And mega farms won’t be able to take it away. They cannot offer that.
But to fully exploit that competitive advantage and capture the opportunity, family-size operations must band together to overcome a disadvantage. Natural food companies like to deal in volume. Like the rest of corporate America, they like suppliers that can provide them the volume they need when they need it. The mega producers can offer that. A family-size operation cannot offer it alone.
But an association of family farmers and ranchers jointly marketing could provide the volume and secure supply that natural meat companies need – along with a product that can win the trust of consumers.
Family operations do not have to make high-risk investments in building packing plants and brand names or battling for shelf space in supermarket chains. They simply need to band together to agree on standards, coordinate production, and negotiate price.
Producers must take the lead. Natural food companies won’t negotiate with family farms and ranches until they get together to offer sufficient volume to give them leverage.
The opportunity is ripe. But that which is ripe never lasts for long. The threat is illustrated by the rush of corporate farms to capture the organic milk market, setting off a critical debate over whether organic farming means corporate farming. It is time to act to protect natural livestock markets for family farms.
The new Family Farmers and Ranchers Meat (FFARM) cooperative was established for that very purpose and is open to producers in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota. To learn more, contact Wyatt Fraas at the Center’s Hartington, Nebraska office, 402.254.6893 or by email,
wyattf@cfra.org.
Localists vs. Globalists
Many political and social commentators have written that the political debate in the United States is not really between democrats and republicans or between liberals and conservatives, but rather between localists and globalists. This debate can be seen in numerous issues – Wal-Mart vs. local retailers, trade agreements, and agriculture.
This debate is also rearing its head in several bills in the Nebraska Legislature that seek to restrict or preempt local control in favor of control or regulation at the state level. The debates over school consolidation and the control by local people over school restructuring resurface almost annually (as they will this year). This year the Legislature is dabbling in new ways to restrict local authority, primarily in agriculture and environmental regulation.
LB 834 is a perfect example. It would preempt counties and municipalities from regulating the registration, labeling, and sale (thus the planting) of crop seed. It is a reaction to efforts in other states (notably California) of local governments prohibiting the sale or planting of GMO seed within the boundaries of the county or municipality. LB 834 is apparently part of a state-by-state effort by some corporations to head off such local regulations.
Putting aside the GMO debate and the fact no local regulation prohibiting the sale or planting of any sort of seed has been proposed in any municipality or county of Nebraska, LB 834 is really about removing the power of the citizenry within a geographic area to influence and decide issues related to the life and economy of that area.
The Legislature should be careful in creating precedent of preempting local authority. Taking away the authority of local people and officials to act and centralizing that authority in the hands of a higher level of government has potential serious consequences.
Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1013 for more information. Keep up with the Nebraska
Legislature through our weekly email Legislative Update. Send an email to Jon to
sign up for a weekly dose of Nebraska news and analysis.
Conservation Security Program Sign Up Underway through March
Eligible watersheds were scaled back to 60, not the 110 originally promised; Center’s Conservation Hotline available for questions
The 2006 Conservation Security Program (CSP) sign up is underway. It began February 13 and continues through March 31, 2006. CSP was originally supposed to be available in 110 watersheds across the country this year, but it was scaled back to only 60 watersheds. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) claims the scale back was necessary due to limited funding availability.
Nonetheless, this scaling back has undoubtedly led to confusion and disappointment for those in watersheds that have been cut. Farmers and ranchers were told the watershed approach would allow them to put in place what they needed so as to be ready when CSP came to their area. For those who listened to such advice – and happen to be in the areas that were cut – they will have to continue to wait.
Moreover, sustainable farmers and ranchers who do not fall into qualified areas and who have had their conservation systems in place for years – the ones this program was designed to serve – will now be waiting longer too. In fact, they could be waiting a long time unless the watershed numbers begin to increase instead of decrease.
If the current watershed rate is extended to future sign ups, CSP would go from an 8-year rotation to roughly a 37-year rotation. That is simply unacceptable.
We will again be hosting our Conservation Hotline to assist farmers and ranchers with the CSP during this sign up – call 402.687.2100. There are always a few changes from one sign up to the next, so we encourage those needing assistance to contact our hotline.
We also would like to learn about your experience with CSP. With each sign up we compile the lessons we learn from farmers and ranchers who go through the process, including those who were told they don’t qualify, and we work to improve program implementation.
Lessons from previous sign ups indicate that NRCS needs to improve the program by giving more emphasis to sustainable farming systems. An even more urgent need is for the White House and Congress to stop reducing the size and scope of the program so it can benefit the farmers and ranchers who deserve to participate.
To view the watersheds for the 2006 sign up and for more information on the CSP, go to the following NRCS webpage:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/
Contact: Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org
or 402.687.2103 x 1016 if you have questions about the Conservation Security Program sign up or the Hotline.
Customers Keep a Business Going — Keep Yours Close to You
All businesses believe they are very close to their customers, but often they know very little about them. This is the most important group of people to a business.
Customer turnover is frequently high, but usually this turnover is not analyzed. Rather than find out why customers cease to buy their products/services, most businesses increase promotion to find new customers. Usually, this is very costly.
Customers determine the success or failure of a business. Without them a business cannot exist. To capture customers, a business owner must find out what customers want and will buy.
Expectations and demands are influenced by non-economic as well as economic factors, such as attitudes, desires, and expectations. Also, people want as much as possible for their money.
Evidence indicates that staying close to customers can pay off. A sale never ends, but continues to make customers come back. Customer satisfaction must be continuously monitored.
A few questions you might want to ask include:
- Are your customers satisfied or not satisfied with your present products/services?
- Do your products/services have the features they need/like/dislike?
- Do you provide a needed product/service or one that is considered a luxury?
- Are they satisfied with the price range of products/services?
- Do they understand why your prices are set as they are?
- Are customers’ expectations being met?
- Do they feel they are getting value for their dollars?
Ways to obtain information from customers include customer surveys, conversations with customers, observing customers, keeping track of customer’s questions, requesting customer suggestions, etc.
It takes some time and effort but a business owner can know his/her customers well and be able to solve their problems and retain their business.
Contact: Monica Braun with the Center’s Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP) for more information,
mbraun@alltel.net or 402.643.2673.
Campaign Finance Reform Needs to Address More than Lobbying
Campaign contributions are as seductive as personal gifts to those in power; federal government should look to states for reform
Washington is once again awash in scandal and talk of reform over free gifts from lobbyists. But no reform will reduce the excessive influence of money in politics unless it reduces the dependence of both political parties on moneyed interests and personal wealth to finance campaigns.
The current debate seems to assume that acceptance of personal gifts from lobbyists is more corrupting than the way campaigns are legally financed. But is it?
Most individuals elected to high office are more interested in securing power than personal wealth. There are better ways to make money. They have chosen to pursue power – whether for its own sake or to do good. Given that reality, most elected officials can be seduced at least as well by campaign cash as personal gifts.
Policymakers frequently take positions or avoid stands based on their impact on campaign fund raising. Weeks ago, the staff of an elected official acknowledged to me the enormous popularity of Nebraska’s anti corporate farm law – Initiative 300 – but said they would not take a stand because it would hurt campaign fund raising.
It’s affecting each of us. Campaign contributions are having a profound influence on a wide range of policies from regulation of meatpackers to drug companies.
We’ve almost come to accept what should be profoundly troubling. But we cannot accept it. For the democratic process to have integrity, it must be responsive to all citizens, regardless of their capacity to write large checks.
No less important, elected office must be reasonably open to qualified citizens dedicated to public service. But today, many who would provide excellent representation for ordinary Americans would not even think of running because they cannot raise and do not have the money.
The use of personal wealth in campaigns has equally troubling effects. It puts ordinary citizens at a disadvantage in running for office and has left us with a U.S. Senate of millionaires.
Furthermore, elected officials fear the wealthy in their districts because they know their next credible opponent will most likely come from their ranks. Most ordinary citizens don’t pose that threat.
The most promising models for taming the excessive influence of money are in the states. In Nebraska, candidates who agree to abide by voluntary limits get matching funds if their opponents exceed them. The law needs fine-tuning to allow more effective enforcement and to provide matching funds when independent groups campaign against a candidate who abides by the limits.
Most people who run for office want to do good and serve their neighbors and country well. But the campaign finance system often pushes them in the wrong direction. If we want democracy to work well for all Americans, we have to fix it.
Agree or disagree? Send your opinions or comments to Chuck Hassebrook, 402.687.2103 x 1018 or
chuckh@cfra.org.
FEATURE ARTICLES:
President’s FY07 Budget Endangers Rural Asset-Building Programs
The Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposal released by President Bush on February 6, 2006, makes another attempt at dismantling any federal role in rural economic and community development.
As with the FY06 budget proposal, the president’s FY07 budget proposal again recommends the termination of nearly every rural economic development program. Small Business Administration programs that provide capital and technical assistance for rural small businesses are also again recommended for elimination. And the president’s budget again proposes a new initiative that will reduce the federal investment in economic and community development and which, we have shown, will not work well in many rural areas of the nation.
With that background, following are selected highlights of the president’s FY07 budget proposal:
>> Rural Development. The rural development portion of the USDA budget would suffer a $433 million cut in program funds from the FY06 budget, a 22 percent reduction. As it did last year, the budget proposal recommends the elimination of several rural economic development programs, including several that assist in the development of rural small businesses. In fact, the budget proposal recommends a 40 percent cut in the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, a collection of USDA programs that assist in rural businesses and job creation.
The budget proposal also recommends cutting nearly half the funding and half the staff of the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program, a private-public partnership that assists local communities on community and economic development projects.
>> Entrepreneurial Agriculture. The budget proposal would scale back the Value Added Producer Grant program from $40 million to $20.3 million, a 49 percent reduction. For the past two years, the president’s budget has requested the same amount as the previous year’s actual appropriation.
>> Small Business Development. As happens annually, the president’s budget recommends the termination of three microenterprise programs administered by the Small Business Administration – the MicroLoan program, the MicroLoan Technical Assistance program, and the Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs (PRIME).
These programs are crucial to rural economic development because they focus on rural low and modest-income and start-up businesses in a way that no other SBA program does. In the interest of full disclosure, the Center’s REAP program is a beneficiary of these programs.
>> Rural Housing. The budget would also eliminate two programs that help community organizations develop affordable housing in rural communities, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Rural Housing and Economic Development program and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Community Development Initiative.
These programs are crucial to creating assets in rural communities through funding local affordable housing projects and addressing the issue of aging and deteriorating housing stock in rural communities. The budget proposal would also eliminate rural rental housing loan programs and severely decrease rural rental grant programs. While home ownership rates are high in rural areas, the availability of affordable and decent rental housing is a challenge.
>> Community Development. As he proposed in his FY06 budget, President Bush again proposes a major community development initiative in his FY07 budget. Again, this proposal appears to fail many rural communities.
The FY07 budget proposes to reduce funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program by over 27 percent. This would take another $300 million out of the rural economy, funds that are used to modernize crumbling infrastructure and to create businesses and jobs in rural communities. In addition, the budget proposes changing how these funds are distributed to communities. While details are sketchy at this time, the budget proposal speaks to linking funding to community indicators that will not serve many rural communities well (unemployment and low home ownership rates, for example).
The budget proposal also seeks to implement the Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative (SACI) proposed in the president’s FY06 proposal. SACI calls for the termination of numerous community and economic development programs. The budget calls for the eventual merging of all federal economic and community development programs into one competitive grant program tailored toward technology-based economic development.
Our analysis of SACI last year found it would not meet the needs of many rural communities – particularly those in the Midwest and Plains – because of its emphasis on job loss and unemployment. One omnibus economic and community development program also may not meet the needs of rural communities suffering from aging infrastructure and housing, low-wage work, and declining and aging populations. Several federal agencies will be developing this initiative in FY07 if President Bush has his way.
The silver lining of this budget proposal is that many of the same ideas were proposed and rejected by Congress in the FY06 budget deliberations and appropriations. As that process begins anew for FY07 we will keep you informed. A convenient way to stay on top of these important issues is through our Rural Action Briefs. Contact Jon Bailey,
jonb@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1013 to be added to the Rural Action Brief.
Getting Help on the Ground: Persistence Pays for Farmers/Ranchers
Getting help on the ground with your farm and ranch business often means navigating the brambles of state and federal agencies. Kim Leval, Center for Rural Affairs Senior Policy Analyst based in Oregon, specializes in advocating for the USDA Value Added Producer Grant program, among other things. Kim says, “I’ve learned a thing or two about where to find help while assisting people who want to enter new markets, expand their on farm value added processing capacity, or market directly at farmers’ markets.” Kim shares her insights below.
USDA has on the ground state staff to help you with marketing, farmer/rancher loan programs, and rural development programs like the Value Added Producer Grant program that assist with new marketing ideas. These offices can be found in the white government pages of your local phone book under USDA.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) is a powerful information source. On any given day their information requests might include a Texas rancher wanting to know if he can boost pounds of beef per acre with rotational grazing, or an organic farmer in Iowa who needs sources for canola seed.
They have a toll free number (800.346.9140) you can call and inquire about your particular business idea or production problem. Their team of specialists provides information free of charge, and you get to talk to a real person on the phone. They then research and develop a packet of information and resources just for you.
The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program is a grant program with staff in each of four regions of the country (Northeast, Southern, North Central, and Western). There are grants for farmers who wish to seek answers to their production problems via on farm research.
SARE also grants research and education and professional development grants for extension agents and others who wish to learn more about applying sustainable agriculture production or marketing approaches in farming and ranching operations. Check out the SARE website for grant deadlines and information in your area at:
http://www.sare.org .
Almost every state has a State Department of Agriculture. This state agency often works with staff of federal agencies that are on the ground. For example, the Oregon Department of Agriculture staff put together a list of resource people who can assist farmers and ranchers with information and grant proposals for the Value Added Producer Grant program and other state and federal funding sources.
If you have difficulty accessing state or federal program staff and programs in your state, I suggest you contact your
Governor’s office or the members of your Congressional delegation (senators and representatives). Often they have staff assigned the duty of helping state citizens access federal programs.
I’ve learned that many state and federal employees have way more programs to administer than they have time or resources. So, they may not have worked with a particular program enough to know all the ins and outs and regulations. Or they may only be familiar with certain types of agriculture practices. If you want to do something a little “differently” you may also have to find a person open to hearing you.
If that is the case the members of your delegation and their staff can be very helpful in finding the person or department at the state or federal level (often located in Washington DC) that can help with a bottleneck at the state level. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, understanding your rights to contact those at the federal or state level can often make all the difference, not only for your own success but for the success of that program nationwide.
Every state and location is unique, but there are similar programs that can help you no matter where you live. Some examples are your land grant colleges (state agricultural schools) and your state Cooperative Extension staff, small farm programs, or rural development centers across the country. Visit:
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/family/res/rural_res_rrdcmap.html
for more information on the rural development centers.
Resource Conservation and Development Districts (RC&Ds) are funded by USDA Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS). I’ve been on the board of the Cascade Pacific RC&D in Oregon for several years. We hope to grow processing and marketing capacity and help small/mid-size livestock producers in a six county area.
Our RC&D staff also helps with watershed projects, provides information for growers and landowners on the Conservation Security Program and assists rural people in finding creative avenues and funding to bring projects to fruition. Check out
http://www.rcdnet.org/councils.htm
for more information on the RC&Ds in your area.
If you need help in figuring out how to get help in your state, call Kim Leval at 541.687.1490 or email her at
kimleval@qwest.net . Remember, persistence pays off!
|