There was a great article in the New York Times Magazine yesterday about the loss of biodiversity among livestock. This is a familiar tale, but Andrew Rice laid out the complexities very well in his story, “A Dying Breed.”
There are many factors leading to the extinction of heritage livestock breeds around the world, and Rice hits on a lot of them, including, rather unexpectedly, Heifer International. Heifer is a phenomenal organization that provides livestock to families in developing countries. They operate on the “give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for life” philosophy. They have changed millions of peoples’ lives for the better, however, their actions like those of many organizations whose goal is to help underdeveloped nations, have some unintended consequences. Among these, apparently, is a contribution to the loss of genetic diversity on a global scale.
According to this article, at least in some cases, Heifer donates animals that are not ecologically suited to the environments of the recipients. In fact, in the particular example to which Rice points, they are donating dairy cows that cannot survive without prophylactic medication that prevents them from developing tropical diseases. With all due respect to Heifer, I actually find that unconscionable. Never the less, the livestock that Heifer donates can yield higher amounts of meat, milk or eggs than native varieties.
Ultimately, people trying to support themselves on less than a dollar a day, will usually opt for a more productive, non-native species over an indigenous one. But this practice can lead to the endangerment or, in many cases, extinction of local breeds as the invasive species is crossbred with the native one in order to improve yields.
Wouldn’t it be nice to strike a compromise? It would be a beautiful thing for Heifer to join forces with the SVF Foundation or the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, building coalitions to feed people and promote biodiversity at the same time.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
High on the Hog
Peter and I recently returned from Bali, Indonesia, where he was charged with the gravity-defying mission of convincing American delegates at the UN Climate Conference to sign on to an agreement to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80% by 2050. That minor task having been accomplished (well done Pete), we set off for a two and a half week motorcycle trip through this beautiful, agrarian island.
A Word About Bikes
When one embarks on these journeys, with visions of Easy Rider dancing through his head, it is important to note that there are a few drawbacks to traveling by motorcycle. For one thing, when you put two people on one 250 cc bike, you leave very little room for luggage. While I have always prided myself on being a light packer, I have never tried to live out of half a book bag (the other half being occupied by my boyfriend's affairs) for more than a couple of days. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m just saying that after two and a half weeks, you get very, very dirty.
It didn’t help that we were there during the rainy season, which meant that every couple of hours the skies opened up and began shooting what felt like a relentless onslaught of blow darts at us for hours at a time. In addition to making for a rather uncomfortable ride, it also served to quickly transform our clothes into a wet and moldy mess that would not dry for the remainder of the trip.
Also, one should be aware of quality of bikes that are to be found in Southeast Asian countries. Ours had one-cylinder, which shook like an alcoholic before he’s had his morning fix, and gently lulled our asses to sleep within the first ten minutes of each day’s ride.
But all these inconveniences aside, a motorcycle-ride remains, in my view, the best way to see Bali, even in the rainy season. Rolling down narrow mountain roads that have yet to be widened to accommodate cars, we took in the picturesque manifestation of an ancient form of agrarian life. Only on a bike can you truly appreciate the sights, smells and sounds of the breathtaking landscape that surrounds you - gorgeous rice terraces, clove orchards, small-scale coffee farms and jungles.
Dewi Shall Overcome
By far, the most ubiquitous feature of the Balinese landscape is the impossibly green rice terrace. The Balinese diet depends on rice. In order to feed the island’s population of 5 million, there must be three crops a year. This is physically impossible without the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), which are planted extensively throughout the island. Even with genetically modified rice crops, Indonesia remains the largest importer of rice in the world. (see more on this subject)
The local citizens that we spoke to were consistent in their criticism of genetically modified rice, which they all claim is inferior to traditional rice. “Bali rice is more fragrant, flavorful and contains more nutrients,” was the common refrain. Still most people agreed that farmers who can harvest three crops a year are better off than farmers who can only grow two.
Obviously the economic argument has a greater thrust in a place where poverty is so wide spread. However, it was interesting to note the number of people who were familiar with the issues surrounding organic food and its genetically modified counterpart. I’d say it was more widely understood there than it is in America, where people can afford to eat good food, but don’t.
Eating Your Way to Enlightenment
When we arrived in Bali, we had the good fortune to spend some time with a couple of Pete's friends who have a home in Seminyak on the West coast of the island. Their names are White Star and Comet, and really, I think that speaks volumes about the nature of Bali. White Star and Comet were introduced by their marijuana dealer. Their relationship blossomed in a Tantric community in Maui, where female ejaculation was the most common form of meditation; although, as White Star admitted, he didn’t really like it because it “tended to make a mess and it required too many towels.”
Now they have a modest home in Bali with a pool and a “meditation room” which Comet informed me, “is where she likes to do her dancing.” I have nothing negative to say about these two, who I thought were beyond hospitable and taught us a lot about Bali and Balinese culture. They are both amazing. My only point is that these two have made a very happy home there, precisely because of their religious/spiritual leanings, which frankly, I do not share.
Bali is a beautiful place with beautiful traditions, but overall, it is an island where religion is more important than food. While that works for people like White Star and Comet, it puts Bali low of my list of places to which I want to return. When I left for Indonesia, I was hoping that it would be similar to Thailand, where food vendors line the streets, selling homemade noodles, soups and ridiculously spicy snacks at all hours of the day.
But Babi Guling (roast pig), Bebek Betutu (roast duck), and Pepes Ikan (grilled fish wrapped in banana leaves) aside, the food in Bali was uniform and uninspiring. If you’re looking for a culinary revelation there, you are unlikely to find it.
A Word About Bikes
When one embarks on these journeys, with visions of Easy Rider dancing through his head, it is important to note that there are a few drawbacks to traveling by motorcycle. For one thing, when you put two people on one 250 cc bike, you leave very little room for luggage. While I have always prided myself on being a light packer, I have never tried to live out of half a book bag (the other half being occupied by my boyfriend's affairs) for more than a couple of days. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m just saying that after two and a half weeks, you get very, very dirty.
It didn’t help that we were there during the rainy season, which meant that every couple of hours the skies opened up and began shooting what felt like a relentless onslaught of blow darts at us for hours at a time. In addition to making for a rather uncomfortable ride, it also served to quickly transform our clothes into a wet and moldy mess that would not dry for the remainder of the trip.
Also, one should be aware of quality of bikes that are to be found in Southeast Asian countries. Ours had one-cylinder, which shook like an alcoholic before he’s had his morning fix, and gently lulled our asses to sleep within the first ten minutes of each day’s ride.
But all these inconveniences aside, a motorcycle-ride remains, in my view, the best way to see Bali, even in the rainy season. Rolling down narrow mountain roads that have yet to be widened to accommodate cars, we took in the picturesque manifestation of an ancient form of agrarian life. Only on a bike can you truly appreciate the sights, smells and sounds of the breathtaking landscape that surrounds you - gorgeous rice terraces, clove orchards, small-scale coffee farms and jungles.
Dewi Shall OvercomeBy far, the most ubiquitous feature of the Balinese landscape is the impossibly green rice terrace. The Balinese diet depends on rice. In order to feed the island’s population of 5 million, there must be three crops a year. This is physically impossible without the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), which are planted extensively throughout the island. Even with genetically modified rice crops, Indonesia remains the largest importer of rice in the world. (see more on this subject)
The local citizens that we spoke to were consistent in their criticism of genetically modified rice, which they all claim is inferior to traditional rice. “Bali rice is more fragrant, flavorful and contains more nutrients,” was the common refrain. Still most people agreed that farmers who can harvest three crops a year are better off than farmers who can only grow two.
Obviously the economic argument has a greater thrust in a place where poverty is so wide spread. However, it was interesting to note the number of people who were familiar with the issues surrounding organic food and its genetically modified counterpart. I’d say it was more widely understood there than it is in America, where people can afford to eat good food, but don’t.
Eating Your Way to EnlightenmentWhen we arrived in Bali, we had the good fortune to spend some time with a couple of Pete's friends who have a home in Seminyak on the West coast of the island. Their names are White Star and Comet, and really, I think that speaks volumes about the nature of Bali. White Star and Comet were introduced by their marijuana dealer. Their relationship blossomed in a Tantric community in Maui, where female ejaculation was the most common form of meditation; although, as White Star admitted, he didn’t really like it because it “tended to make a mess and it required too many towels.”
Now they have a modest home in Bali with a pool and a “meditation room” which Comet informed me, “is where she likes to do her dancing.” I have nothing negative to say about these two, who I thought were beyond hospitable and taught us a lot about Bali and Balinese culture. They are both amazing. My only point is that these two have made a very happy home there, precisely because of their religious/spiritual leanings, which frankly, I do not share.
Bali is a beautiful place with beautiful traditions, but overall, it is an island where religion is more important than food. While that works for people like White Star and Comet, it puts Bali low of my list of places to which I want to return. When I left for Indonesia, I was hoping that it would be similar to Thailand, where food vendors line the streets, selling homemade noodles, soups and ridiculously spicy snacks at all hours of the day.
But Babi Guling (roast pig), Bebek Betutu (roast duck), and Pepes Ikan (grilled fish wrapped in banana leaves) aside, the food in Bali was uniform and uninspiring. If you’re looking for a culinary revelation there, you are unlikely to find it.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Will Harris: Bringing the Cows Back Home
I first met Will Harris at the Buckhead Whole Foods in Atlanta. He was standing in front of the meat counter, offering beef samples to a gathering of rapacious customers. He asked passers-by in a deep and dignified southern drawl, reminiscent of a more chivalrous time, if they would be interested in trying some local grass-fed beef. I, for one, could not resist. The combination of boundless charm and local livestock was just too much. So I took my place in line and waited for my meatball. It was delicious.
Will Harris is a fifth generation cattleman from Southwest Georgia. His 1,000-acre farm, White Oaks Pastures, which has been active since 1866, is a picture perfect example of what southern ranching used to be. Wide, green pastures of diverse grasses, dotted with majestic white oaks support nearly 700 Angus cows and about fifty Katahdin sheep.
Committed to the environmental stewardship of his land, Harris’ favorite axiom is, “you take care of the land, and the land will take care of you.” He never uses any chemicals, antibiotics or hormones, and is quick to invite anyone who is interested to come and visit his operation. “A lot of people play games these days,” he said, “but that’s the thing about getting beef from a local farm. You can come down and see it for yourself.”
White Oaks Pastures wasn’t always so ecologically friendly. “Growing up, my family taught me animal husbandry,” he said, “but when I went to school at the University of Georgia, they were teaching animal science. Instead of cooperating with nature, they were teaching us to use industrial tools to rest more from nature than we’re due.”
By the time Harris took the reigns of his family’s farm, there was no way to compete commercially using his grandfather’s techniques. He was forced to adopt the industrial model. Like most cattlemen in Georgia, he would start his cattle on chemically treated pastures and when they got big enough, he would ship them to Contained Animal Feeding Operations in the Midwest. He watched his cows stacked vertically onto trucks for a 30-hour drive to a Nebraska feedlot. With no rest, no food and no water for the entire journey, the cows would eventually be deposited onto a large, grassless wasteland where they’d be finished on processed grain, supplemented with antibiotics and growth hormones.
Recognizing that this was not a sustainable model, he felt a growing dissatisfaction with the business. Still he maintains that, at that time, there was no market for healthy, grass-fed beef. “The truth is, raising cattle the right way costs more money. The only way a farmer can do it is if he can find a sophisticated audience who is willing to pay more for beef that is raised humanely.” In the 1990’s, Harris was dubious that customers like that existed in the numbers necessary to make a humane, chemical-free operation profitable.
Then, about three years ago, he began to read about consumers who cared about their health and environmental sustainability. Scientific studies from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Center for Disease Control were showing grass-fed beef to be more healthy and nutritious than its corn-fed counterpart. Several studies demonstrate that grass-fed beef is higher in Omega-3’s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and beta-carotene. And as consumers became more aware of risks associated with factory-farmed cows, like E. Coli and Mad Cow Disease, he started to believe he could find an audience for free-range, grass-finished beef.
Harris began his conversion. He stopped using chemicals. He stopped shipping his cows half way across the country, and he started focusing on the land. With the elimination of herbicides, he began to notice new species of flora and fauna that he hadn’t seen since he was a boy. For the most part that’s good, but it also brought new challenges. He saw the reemergence of bothersome weeds too. In order to combat the problematic plants, he brought sheep to his farm. “The ewes love the weeds,” Harris explains, “so that’s the natural way of getting rid of weeds without using chemicals.” When Harris was a child, his family used goats for the same purpose. Raising cattle in an environmentally responsible and humane way is really a matter of remembering how his father and grandfather used to farm. “I can’t tell you how many times a day I stop and say to myself, ‘how did we used to do that?’”
Harris also plants 500 White Oaks every year. They provide shade for the cows and they are aesthetically pleasing. “It’s also the right thing to do,” he said.
After Harris had made his conversion, he had to find his target audience. He said it was tough, but Harris is not easily discouraged. He eventually formed a partnership with Tree of Life, a natural and organic food distribution company. They placed his ground beef in 220 Publix grocery stores and various natural food stores throughout the country. And in July, Harris began to sell his beef to Whole Foods stores in the Southeast region.
He is very enthusiastic about his new relationship with Whole Foods. “You know,” he said “some people like to call Whole Foods ‘whole paycheck,’ and that really isn’t fair. They sent no less than ten people down here to do inspections before they allowed my beef to be sold in their stores. They really go above and beyond to make sure they know what they have in store.” Whole Foods is equally pleased with the new partnership. After two weeks of carrying Harris’s beef, people were signing up on waiting lists for his steaks.
An eternally humble man, Harris insists that marketing isn’t his strong suit, but with the distribution he’s found, one could argue he’s being modest. Not only has he single handedly found his way into two of Georgia’s largest grocery chains, he’s made a concerted effort to bring other farmers from his area with him.
He says his neighbors want to raise beef the right way, but they don’t because they are afraid they won’t find the market for it. Harris knows it’s difficult, but because he has pioneered relationships with retailers, he is hoping to help his neighbors will follow suit.
In the same entrepreneurial spirit that led Harris to reinvent his farm at the age of 50, he has recently undertaken the not-so-small task of constructing a fully compliant, USDA-inspected processing facility on his premises. His small-scale abattoir will allow him to process livestock more humanely and will provide a new service to the community. In the beginning of 2008, neighbors who are interested in converting their farms will have easier access to a proper facility, the likes of which are few and far between in South Georgia.
Right now 80 percent of American beef is processed by just four companies. Building a small-scale plant goes a long way toward ensuring a healthy local economy and eliminating the safety hazards that go hand in hand with industrial meat processing. But constructing a facility is difficult work. It is a two and a half to three year project if everything goes well.
Still, Harris’s friends believe he’s well suited for the task. Connie Dozier has known Harris for 20 years. “He’s a very determined person,” she said. “If he starts something, he usually sees it through. That’s why he’s got such a successful beef operation.”
When Harris isn’t starting new businesses and searching for distribution, he likes to volunteer his time to raise awareness about the benefits of sustainable, grass-fed beef. He is a board member for Georgia Organics, a local organization whose mission is to integrate healthy, sustainable and locally grown foods into the lives of all Georgians, and he is the Beef Director of the American Grassfed Association. The AGA is an organization dedicated to protecting and promoting grass-fed producers and products.
A father of three beautiful daughters, Harris says that he wants to get his business to a point where it is an opportunity for his kids and not an obligation. Still, he thinks farming provides a good lifestyle and he hopes his children will benefit from the family legacy. I can’t speak to their personal ambitions, but I hope for the sake of our environment, our local community and our gastronomic pleasures, that they will choose to follow in their father’s footsteps.
White Oak Pastures
P.O. Box 98
Bluffton, GA 39824
229-641-2081
www.whiteoakpastures.com
This article first appeared in the Fall issue of Edible Atlanta Magazine.
Will Harris is a fifth generation cattleman from Southwest Georgia. His 1,000-acre farm, White Oaks Pastures, which has been active since 1866, is a picture perfect example of what southern ranching used to be. Wide, green pastures of diverse grasses, dotted with majestic white oaks support nearly 700 Angus cows and about fifty Katahdin sheep.
Committed to the environmental stewardship of his land, Harris’ favorite axiom is, “you take care of the land, and the land will take care of you.” He never uses any chemicals, antibiotics or hormones, and is quick to invite anyone who is interested to come and visit his operation. “A lot of people play games these days,” he said, “but that’s the thing about getting beef from a local farm. You can come down and see it for yourself.”
White Oaks Pastures wasn’t always so ecologically friendly. “Growing up, my family taught me animal husbandry,” he said, “but when I went to school at the University of Georgia, they were teaching animal science. Instead of cooperating with nature, they were teaching us to use industrial tools to rest more from nature than we’re due.”
By the time Harris took the reigns of his family’s farm, there was no way to compete commercially using his grandfather’s techniques. He was forced to adopt the industrial model. Like most cattlemen in Georgia, he would start his cattle on chemically treated pastures and when they got big enough, he would ship them to Contained Animal Feeding Operations in the Midwest. He watched his cows stacked vertically onto trucks for a 30-hour drive to a Nebraska feedlot. With no rest, no food and no water for the entire journey, the cows would eventually be deposited onto a large, grassless wasteland where they’d be finished on processed grain, supplemented with antibiotics and growth hormones.
Recognizing that this was not a sustainable model, he felt a growing dissatisfaction with the business. Still he maintains that, at that time, there was no market for healthy, grass-fed beef. “The truth is, raising cattle the right way costs more money. The only way a farmer can do it is if he can find a sophisticated audience who is willing to pay more for beef that is raised humanely.” In the 1990’s, Harris was dubious that customers like that existed in the numbers necessary to make a humane, chemical-free operation profitable.
Then, about three years ago, he began to read about consumers who cared about their health and environmental sustainability. Scientific studies from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Center for Disease Control were showing grass-fed beef to be more healthy and nutritious than its corn-fed counterpart. Several studies demonstrate that grass-fed beef is higher in Omega-3’s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and beta-carotene. And as consumers became more aware of risks associated with factory-farmed cows, like E. Coli and Mad Cow Disease, he started to believe he could find an audience for free-range, grass-finished beef.
Harris began his conversion. He stopped using chemicals. He stopped shipping his cows half way across the country, and he started focusing on the land. With the elimination of herbicides, he began to notice new species of flora and fauna that he hadn’t seen since he was a boy. For the most part that’s good, but it also brought new challenges. He saw the reemergence of bothersome weeds too. In order to combat the problematic plants, he brought sheep to his farm. “The ewes love the weeds,” Harris explains, “so that’s the natural way of getting rid of weeds without using chemicals.” When Harris was a child, his family used goats for the same purpose. Raising cattle in an environmentally responsible and humane way is really a matter of remembering how his father and grandfather used to farm. “I can’t tell you how many times a day I stop and say to myself, ‘how did we used to do that?’”
Harris also plants 500 White Oaks every year. They provide shade for the cows and they are aesthetically pleasing. “It’s also the right thing to do,” he said.
After Harris had made his conversion, he had to find his target audience. He said it was tough, but Harris is not easily discouraged. He eventually formed a partnership with Tree of Life, a natural and organic food distribution company. They placed his ground beef in 220 Publix grocery stores and various natural food stores throughout the country. And in July, Harris began to sell his beef to Whole Foods stores in the Southeast region.
He is very enthusiastic about his new relationship with Whole Foods. “You know,” he said “some people like to call Whole Foods ‘whole paycheck,’ and that really isn’t fair. They sent no less than ten people down here to do inspections before they allowed my beef to be sold in their stores. They really go above and beyond to make sure they know what they have in store.” Whole Foods is equally pleased with the new partnership. After two weeks of carrying Harris’s beef, people were signing up on waiting lists for his steaks.
An eternally humble man, Harris insists that marketing isn’t his strong suit, but with the distribution he’s found, one could argue he’s being modest. Not only has he single handedly found his way into two of Georgia’s largest grocery chains, he’s made a concerted effort to bring other farmers from his area with him.
He says his neighbors want to raise beef the right way, but they don’t because they are afraid they won’t find the market for it. Harris knows it’s difficult, but because he has pioneered relationships with retailers, he is hoping to help his neighbors will follow suit.
In the same entrepreneurial spirit that led Harris to reinvent his farm at the age of 50, he has recently undertaken the not-so-small task of constructing a fully compliant, USDA-inspected processing facility on his premises. His small-scale abattoir will allow him to process livestock more humanely and will provide a new service to the community. In the beginning of 2008, neighbors who are interested in converting their farms will have easier access to a proper facility, the likes of which are few and far between in South Georgia.
Right now 80 percent of American beef is processed by just four companies. Building a small-scale plant goes a long way toward ensuring a healthy local economy and eliminating the safety hazards that go hand in hand with industrial meat processing. But constructing a facility is difficult work. It is a two and a half to three year project if everything goes well.
Still, Harris’s friends believe he’s well suited for the task. Connie Dozier has known Harris for 20 years. “He’s a very determined person,” she said. “If he starts something, he usually sees it through. That’s why he’s got such a successful beef operation.”
When Harris isn’t starting new businesses and searching for distribution, he likes to volunteer his time to raise awareness about the benefits of sustainable, grass-fed beef. He is a board member for Georgia Organics, a local organization whose mission is to integrate healthy, sustainable and locally grown foods into the lives of all Georgians, and he is the Beef Director of the American Grassfed Association. The AGA is an organization dedicated to protecting and promoting grass-fed producers and products.
A father of three beautiful daughters, Harris says that he wants to get his business to a point where it is an opportunity for his kids and not an obligation. Still, he thinks farming provides a good lifestyle and he hopes his children will benefit from the family legacy. I can’t speak to their personal ambitions, but I hope for the sake of our environment, our local community and our gastronomic pleasures, that they will choose to follow in their father’s footsteps.
White Oak Pastures
P.O. Box 98
Bluffton, GA 39824
229-641-2081
www.whiteoakpastures.com
This article first appeared in the Fall issue of Edible Atlanta Magazine.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The 2007 Farm Bill
Attention farmers, foodies and fellow citizens of Georgia: the 2007 Farm Bill is about to make its way through Congress, so if you enjoy eating food, drinking clean water and stimulating your local economy, listen up. Now is the perfect time to get involved. Already members of the Congressional Subcommittee on Agriculture, three of whom are Georgians, have begun putting together the budget for this important piece of legislation. They need to hear from us.
Our current farm policy is breathtaking in its inadequacies; however, the tide may be turning. With a dramatic increase in influential media coverage on issues surrounding food, a notable amount of concern from consumers and continual pressure from the World Trade Organization to cut commodity subsidies, the government may be taking steps to pass one of its most progressive Farm Bills in the past 50 years.
A Brief History
US farm policy was originally intended to support farmers and ensure that America would never go hungry. Over time, however, the government’s approach has descended into an ineffective strategy for achieving either of these goals.
Before the 1970’s, the USDA supported farmers by stepping in whenever there was a bumper crop and purchasing a certain amount of the harvest, which they would then store for use in the event of future crop failures. By doing this, they ensured that there would never be a glut on the market that would drive prices too low. But in 1974, USDA Secretary, Earl Butz, completely dismantled the government’s practice of agricultural surplus management, and developed fiscal incentives for our farmers to plant from “fencepost to fencepost.” His program established certain commodity crops (corn, soy beans, cotton, rice and wheat) for which the government paid farmers directly regardless of the year's yield. This led farmers to ramp up production of these crops as much as possible, ignoring the market entirely.
The subsidies guarantee that, despite an almost continual surplus of commodities that drives market value down until it is well below the cost of production, farmers will continue to grow them in greater quantities year after year in order to get their government check. In other words, farmers are being compensated by the American tax payer to grow something we do not want and cannot use. Is this what Americans mean when they praise the free market?
Supporting our Farmers
The Farm Bill’s shortcomings don’t stop at the taxpayer. A major goal of US Farm policy is to support growers, but over the past century, America has lost 70% of its farms to bankruptcy or consolidation. The wealthiest 10% of farmers receive 72% of all direct payment subsidies, and according to the USDA’s own economic report from March 2006, “93% of farm households have negative farm operating profits, on average, and draw most of their income from off-farm sources.”
The “get big or get out” mentality under which we are currently operating, has forced most small farmers out of business while multinational agribusinesses continue to grow. As this consolidation continues, the few large farms that remain are actively encouraged by our government to industrialize their production through commodity crop monocultures. Farming this way requires vast amounts of petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in order to replace the natural health that a biologically diverse system provides. Chemical inputs have devastating consequences on our health and the environment. They also contribute to America’s dependence on foreign oil. As a result of chemical use and long distance food transportation, our agriculture industry now consumes 1/5 of the total oil used in the United States.
Feeding the Nation
Another goal of the farm bill is to ensure that our country will always have food. However, due to government incentives that encourage the production of commodities instead of food, 200 million acres of farmland in this country are dedicated to producing crops that we cannot or should not eat. The majority of commodity grain grown in this country is fed to animals. What is left over is most often processed into junk foods like high fructose corn syrup, which are primary contributors to our notorious obesity and diabetes epidemics. As a direct result of our food policy, 1 in 3 Caucasian children and 1 in 2 African American and Hispanic children, born in 2000, will develop diabetes in his or her lifetime, most before they graduate from high school.
Meanwhile food security is also on the decline. According to the USDA’s Foreign Agriculture Trade of the United States (FATUS) March 2007 Summary, this country is about to become a net importer of food for the first time in generations. We are importing vegetables and fruits from across the globe while we waste valuable farmland here growing crops that don’t make fiscal or ecological sense. At the same time, small scale farmers, who grow produce are going bankrupt because there is no infrastructure to sell their food, an issue which the farm bill should address.
Room for Change
There is hope, however. Several factors have made change inevitable. One is a continued pressure from the World Trade Organization to cut federal subsidies which make it impossible for developing countries to compete on the world food market. Because of this, the administration has submitted what many consider to be a fairly progressive proposal for the 2007 Farm Bill. The new proposal calls for the following:
• An increase of $7.8 billion for conservation financing
• An increase of $5 billion for fruit, vegetable and “specialty” growers
• Farmers making more than $200,000 would no longer be eligible to receive direct payments.
• $1.6 billion for research and development on cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste and nonfood crops
• Commodity payments based on low yields instead of low commodity prices.
While this proposal is a positive step, it can and should go farther. As it is, however, it faces serious challenges from several key Senators. Chief among them are Georgia’s own Senators, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chamblis who believe that the current farm policy should not be changed. Without pressure from their constituencies, Congress will assuredly step into line with industrial agribusiness, which has a definite interest in making sure the current policies stay in place. A House vote on the Bill is slated for late Summer or Fall. In the mean time, whether you are a farmer or a consumer, please contact your Senators and Congressmen and let them know where you stand on healthy foods and sustainable agriculture.
Concerned Citizen Wish List
1) Sustainable and Organic Production – With demand for organic food growing every day, the farm bill should make increasing supply a priority. We support funding for resources, research and education for farmers who are transitioning to organic production. We also support the full funding of programs like ATTRA (Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas) and NCAT (National Center for Appropriate Technology) which provide valuable information and educational services to farmers who want to grow more sustainably and/or organically.
2) Conservation – All working land conservation programs, including the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) which reward growers who farm responsibly should be fully funded and open to all. Currently 75% of applicants are denied access to these programs. We propose doubling the budget to $3 billion in order to open the door to more growers. Additionally the application process should be simplified and streamlined to eliminate multiple forms, redundant entries and confusing program regulations.
3) New Farmers - We advocate the funding of a new farmer and rancher grant program that would provide financial assistance to new small-scale farmers who want to buy land and farm it in an environmentally responsible way as defined by current USDA conservation programs.
4) Infrastructure – We support $1 billion in funding for the development of local infrastructure for small scale farmers. This would include, but not be limited to, the development and marketing of farmer’s markets, community supported agriculture schemes, community gardens, and small scale processing.
5) Public Health – We propose funding to support the purchase of fresh, local and organic foods by public schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Large scale consumers should be able to purchase food from their own communities in order to build local economies and serve the health needs of those dependant on their services.
This story was adapted from an article I wrote for Georgia Organics, a Georgia-based non-profit supporting healthy foods, farms and families
Our current farm policy is breathtaking in its inadequacies; however, the tide may be turning. With a dramatic increase in influential media coverage on issues surrounding food, a notable amount of concern from consumers and continual pressure from the World Trade Organization to cut commodity subsidies, the government may be taking steps to pass one of its most progressive Farm Bills in the past 50 years.
A Brief History
US farm policy was originally intended to support farmers and ensure that America would never go hungry. Over time, however, the government’s approach has descended into an ineffective strategy for achieving either of these goals.
Before the 1970’s, the USDA supported farmers by stepping in whenever there was a bumper crop and purchasing a certain amount of the harvest, which they would then store for use in the event of future crop failures. By doing this, they ensured that there would never be a glut on the market that would drive prices too low. But in 1974, USDA Secretary, Earl Butz, completely dismantled the government’s practice of agricultural surplus management, and developed fiscal incentives for our farmers to plant from “fencepost to fencepost.” His program established certain commodity crops (corn, soy beans, cotton, rice and wheat) for which the government paid farmers directly regardless of the year's yield. This led farmers to ramp up production of these crops as much as possible, ignoring the market entirely.
The subsidies guarantee that, despite an almost continual surplus of commodities that drives market value down until it is well below the cost of production, farmers will continue to grow them in greater quantities year after year in order to get their government check. In other words, farmers are being compensated by the American tax payer to grow something we do not want and cannot use. Is this what Americans mean when they praise the free market?
Supporting our Farmers
The Farm Bill’s shortcomings don’t stop at the taxpayer. A major goal of US Farm policy is to support growers, but over the past century, America has lost 70% of its farms to bankruptcy or consolidation. The wealthiest 10% of farmers receive 72% of all direct payment subsidies, and according to the USDA’s own economic report from March 2006, “93% of farm households have negative farm operating profits, on average, and draw most of their income from off-farm sources.”
The “get big or get out” mentality under which we are currently operating, has forced most small farmers out of business while multinational agribusinesses continue to grow. As this consolidation continues, the few large farms that remain are actively encouraged by our government to industrialize their production through commodity crop monocultures. Farming this way requires vast amounts of petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in order to replace the natural health that a biologically diverse system provides. Chemical inputs have devastating consequences on our health and the environment. They also contribute to America’s dependence on foreign oil. As a result of chemical use and long distance food transportation, our agriculture industry now consumes 1/5 of the total oil used in the United States.
Feeding the Nation
Another goal of the farm bill is to ensure that our country will always have food. However, due to government incentives that encourage the production of commodities instead of food, 200 million acres of farmland in this country are dedicated to producing crops that we cannot or should not eat. The majority of commodity grain grown in this country is fed to animals. What is left over is most often processed into junk foods like high fructose corn syrup, which are primary contributors to our notorious obesity and diabetes epidemics. As a direct result of our food policy, 1 in 3 Caucasian children and 1 in 2 African American and Hispanic children, born in 2000, will develop diabetes in his or her lifetime, most before they graduate from high school.
Meanwhile food security is also on the decline. According to the USDA’s Foreign Agriculture Trade of the United States (FATUS) March 2007 Summary, this country is about to become a net importer of food for the first time in generations. We are importing vegetables and fruits from across the globe while we waste valuable farmland here growing crops that don’t make fiscal or ecological sense. At the same time, small scale farmers, who grow produce are going bankrupt because there is no infrastructure to sell their food, an issue which the farm bill should address.
Room for Change
There is hope, however. Several factors have made change inevitable. One is a continued pressure from the World Trade Organization to cut federal subsidies which make it impossible for developing countries to compete on the world food market. Because of this, the administration has submitted what many consider to be a fairly progressive proposal for the 2007 Farm Bill. The new proposal calls for the following:
• An increase of $7.8 billion for conservation financing
• An increase of $5 billion for fruit, vegetable and “specialty” growers
• Farmers making more than $200,000 would no longer be eligible to receive direct payments.
• $1.6 billion for research and development on cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste and nonfood crops
• Commodity payments based on low yields instead of low commodity prices.
While this proposal is a positive step, it can and should go farther. As it is, however, it faces serious challenges from several key Senators. Chief among them are Georgia’s own Senators, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chamblis who believe that the current farm policy should not be changed. Without pressure from their constituencies, Congress will assuredly step into line with industrial agribusiness, which has a definite interest in making sure the current policies stay in place. A House vote on the Bill is slated for late Summer or Fall. In the mean time, whether you are a farmer or a consumer, please contact your Senators and Congressmen and let them know where you stand on healthy foods and sustainable agriculture.
Concerned Citizen Wish List
1) Sustainable and Organic Production – With demand for organic food growing every day, the farm bill should make increasing supply a priority. We support funding for resources, research and education for farmers who are transitioning to organic production. We also support the full funding of programs like ATTRA (Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas) and NCAT (National Center for Appropriate Technology) which provide valuable information and educational services to farmers who want to grow more sustainably and/or organically.
2) Conservation – All working land conservation programs, including the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) which reward growers who farm responsibly should be fully funded and open to all. Currently 75% of applicants are denied access to these programs. We propose doubling the budget to $3 billion in order to open the door to more growers. Additionally the application process should be simplified and streamlined to eliminate multiple forms, redundant entries and confusing program regulations.
3) New Farmers - We advocate the funding of a new farmer and rancher grant program that would provide financial assistance to new small-scale farmers who want to buy land and farm it in an environmentally responsible way as defined by current USDA conservation programs.
4) Infrastructure – We support $1 billion in funding for the development of local infrastructure for small scale farmers. This would include, but not be limited to, the development and marketing of farmer’s markets, community supported agriculture schemes, community gardens, and small scale processing.
5) Public Health – We propose funding to support the purchase of fresh, local and organic foods by public schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Large scale consumers should be able to purchase food from their own communities in order to build local economies and serve the health needs of those dependant on their services.
This story was adapted from an article I wrote for Georgia Organics, a Georgia-based non-profit supporting healthy foods, farms and families
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Anarchy in the GA
In 2005, Georgia passed Senate Bill 87, which disallows any “county, municipal corporation, consolidated government, or other political subdivision of this state” from passing regulations against the use of genetically modified seeds.
Genetically engineered organisms aren’t just creepy because they could open a window to “human animal hybrids,” an abomination our president roundly denounced in the 2006 State of the Union Address. It turns out they have some pretty nasty side effects. For example, Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds were engineered to be resistant to their Roundup herbicide. You can spray this herbicide right on your crop. All the soy beans you want with none of the weeding. Neat! Except, Glyophosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup Ready has been shown to triple the risk of the increasingly widespread form of cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. (see the Townsend Letter)
In fact, herbicide “tolerant” seeds encourage farmers to use more herbicides than ever before. Disorders associated with exposure to herbicides include but are not limited to:
• Autoimmune Disease
• Cancer
• Cardiovascular Disorder
• Endocrine Disruption
• Gastrointestinal Disturbance
• Infertility
• Kidney Damage
• Low Birth Weight
• Neurological Disease
• Obesity
• Sick Building Syndrome
• Spontaneous Abortion
Sounds bad. What can we do?
Well, unfortunately, even having a discussion about this is technically against the law. By describing the potential health problems associated with Roundup Ready soy beans, I have violated Title 2, Chapter 16 of the Georgia Code. I’ve disparaged a legume. Having seen what trash talking an agricultural commodity did to Oprah, I should probably think twice. While no judge has ever found in favor of the plaintiff in these cases, these lawsuits sure do have a way of running up your legal fees. Oprah spent more than a million dollars defending herself against the beef industry. I better start saving.
Genetically engineered organisms aren’t just creepy because they could open a window to “human animal hybrids,” an abomination our president roundly denounced in the 2006 State of the Union Address. It turns out they have some pretty nasty side effects. For example, Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds were engineered to be resistant to their Roundup herbicide. You can spray this herbicide right on your crop. All the soy beans you want with none of the weeding. Neat! Except, Glyophosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup Ready has been shown to triple the risk of the increasingly widespread form of cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. (see the Townsend Letter)
In fact, herbicide “tolerant” seeds encourage farmers to use more herbicides than ever before. Disorders associated with exposure to herbicides include but are not limited to:
• Autoimmune Disease
• Cancer
• Cardiovascular Disorder
• Endocrine Disruption
• Gastrointestinal Disturbance
• Infertility
• Kidney Damage
• Low Birth Weight
• Neurological Disease
• Obesity
• Sick Building Syndrome
• Spontaneous Abortion
Sounds bad. What can we do?
Well, unfortunately, even having a discussion about this is technically against the law. By describing the potential health problems associated with Roundup Ready soy beans, I have violated Title 2, Chapter 16 of the Georgia Code. I’ve disparaged a legume. Having seen what trash talking an agricultural commodity did to Oprah, I should probably think twice. While no judge has ever found in favor of the plaintiff in these cases, these lawsuits sure do have a way of running up your legal fees. Oprah spent more than a million dollars defending herself against the beef industry. I better start saving.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
The Saudi Connection
For the 32% of the population who still believe Bush is doing a “heck of a job” in Iraq, sustainable agriculture may be a hard sell. For whatever reason, there are some people who have bought into the status quo, and aren’t letting go. For these people, I give you the Ag Rag talking points:
1. Our food supply is susceptible to a massive terrorist attack.
Former Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson said, “I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do." Experts like Professor Larry Wein of Stanford University have argued that poisoning our food supply would be a very efficient way to kill millions of people. Over the past 30 years, our government has done everything possible to promote the consolidation of farms and food processing plants. As a result, a few drops of a deadly toxin into one industrial milk silo, and America could be looking at hundreds of thousands of casualties. Got anthrax? Listen to the NPR interview with Professor Larry Wein
2. Our current food distribution system is contributing to terrorism.
Our food travels, on average, between 1,000 and 2,500 miles before landing on our plates. Even if a radicchio was grown 15 miles away from your house, chances are it was driven to a giant distribution center hundreds of miles away before being sent back to your local grocery store. Between food’s healthy appetite for travel and Agribusiness’s healthy appetite for petroleum-based fertilizers, America’s agriculture industry consumes 1/5 of the nation’s oil imports. With that record, it is hard to separate our tomatoes from the terrorists. Our salads are funding Al Qaeda. See the Institute for the Analysis on Global Security's report on how oil funds terrorism.
Are you scared yet? Good. Here’s a couple of course correcting measures that are available to you.
Urban Gardens:
These gardens have sprung up in cities all around the country. They provide fresh, local, and often organic, but always sustainable produce to the neighborhood residents. One of the most successful urban gardens can be found in Red Hook, Brooklyn. In this neighborhood, the average annual income is $14,000 per family. Before the garden was planted there, it was a culinary wasteland. With nothing but fast food chains and convenience stores available to them, it is not surprising that the rate of diabetes among children there is twice the rate of New York City. (See Tom Philpott's blog on the subject) By creating a local garden on an abandoned park, the community has managed to train kids a useful skill, give them an opportunity to make a little extra cash, and provide the neighborhood with good, clean food. They have even begun an edible schoolyard program, where local first-graders spend three hours a week in the garden learning where their food comes from.
Gardens have a great way of bringing a community together. In 1985, Catherine Sneed started a garden program at the San Francisco County Jail. The program was designed to build self-confidence and to teach prisoners a useful skill while they were behind bars. A study showed that the prisoners who participated in this program were 50% less likely to return to jail compared to prisoners who did not participate.
When they were released, Sneed offered many of them jobs in her own community garden, which she started in Bayview-Hunters Point, right next to the local police station. The policemen from the station will often volunteer their time in the garden. This project allows ex-convicts and policemen to work together, building a bridge where there is normally a fairly sizable rift. It has created trust between the local residents and the police force, a fact that has contributed to a significant decrease in crime. (For more on this, pick up a copy of Hope’s Edge by Frances Moore Lappé). Not only has the garden fostered trust, it has also given former prisoners a healthy sense of purpose. Some of the people who have worked in Sneed’s garden, have gone on to start their own landscaping businesses, and many have found steady work within their community.
Community Supported Agriculture:
Community Supported Agriculture, or CSAs are subscription schemes where you can pay a local farm at the beginning of the growing season and have a box of fresh, seasonal, organic vegetables delivered to your house once a week. This is a cheap and easy way to support local agriculture. By paying farmers in advance, they know how much they need to cultivate and can budget much more effectively, and you know that you will get the very freshest, tastiest seasonal vegetables available without even having to go grocery shopping.
Farmers’ Markets:
Sure, they usually only happen once a week and sometimes that can be inconvenient, but really, aren’t open air markets more fun than grocery stores? You can actually meet the people who are growing your food, and you can find beautiful, delicious, seasonal heirloom varieties the likes of which rarely, if ever, show up in a grocery store.
The main thing that separates all of these options from the current industrial food chain is that by patronizing them, you are supporting your local economy, sustainable agriculture and biodiversity. You are also helping to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. So in the process of eating produce with a flavor that cannot be found in grocery stores, you can feel good about the contribution you are making to society. Try not to be too smug about it.
1. Our food supply is susceptible to a massive terrorist attack.
Former Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson said, “I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do." Experts like Professor Larry Wein of Stanford University have argued that poisoning our food supply would be a very efficient way to kill millions of people. Over the past 30 years, our government has done everything possible to promote the consolidation of farms and food processing plants. As a result, a few drops of a deadly toxin into one industrial milk silo, and America could be looking at hundreds of thousands of casualties. Got anthrax? Listen to the NPR interview with Professor Larry Wein
2. Our current food distribution system is contributing to terrorism.
Our food travels, on average, between 1,000 and 2,500 miles before landing on our plates. Even if a radicchio was grown 15 miles away from your house, chances are it was driven to a giant distribution center hundreds of miles away before being sent back to your local grocery store. Between food’s healthy appetite for travel and Agribusiness’s healthy appetite for petroleum-based fertilizers, America’s agriculture industry consumes 1/5 of the nation’s oil imports. With that record, it is hard to separate our tomatoes from the terrorists. Our salads are funding Al Qaeda. See the Institute for the Analysis on Global Security's report on how oil funds terrorism.
Are you scared yet? Good. Here’s a couple of course correcting measures that are available to you.
Urban Gardens:
These gardens have sprung up in cities all around the country. They provide fresh, local, and often organic, but always sustainable produce to the neighborhood residents. One of the most successful urban gardens can be found in Red Hook, Brooklyn. In this neighborhood, the average annual income is $14,000 per family. Before the garden was planted there, it was a culinary wasteland. With nothing but fast food chains and convenience stores available to them, it is not surprising that the rate of diabetes among children there is twice the rate of New York City. (See Tom Philpott's blog on the subject) By creating a local garden on an abandoned park, the community has managed to train kids a useful skill, give them an opportunity to make a little extra cash, and provide the neighborhood with good, clean food. They have even begun an edible schoolyard program, where local first-graders spend three hours a week in the garden learning where their food comes from.
Gardens have a great way of bringing a community together. In 1985, Catherine Sneed started a garden program at the San Francisco County Jail. The program was designed to build self-confidence and to teach prisoners a useful skill while they were behind bars. A study showed that the prisoners who participated in this program were 50% less likely to return to jail compared to prisoners who did not participate.
When they were released, Sneed offered many of them jobs in her own community garden, which she started in Bayview-Hunters Point, right next to the local police station. The policemen from the station will often volunteer their time in the garden. This project allows ex-convicts and policemen to work together, building a bridge where there is normally a fairly sizable rift. It has created trust between the local residents and the police force, a fact that has contributed to a significant decrease in crime. (For more on this, pick up a copy of Hope’s Edge by Frances Moore Lappé). Not only has the garden fostered trust, it has also given former prisoners a healthy sense of purpose. Some of the people who have worked in Sneed’s garden, have gone on to start their own landscaping businesses, and many have found steady work within their community.
Community Supported Agriculture:
Community Supported Agriculture, or CSAs are subscription schemes where you can pay a local farm at the beginning of the growing season and have a box of fresh, seasonal, organic vegetables delivered to your house once a week. This is a cheap and easy way to support local agriculture. By paying farmers in advance, they know how much they need to cultivate and can budget much more effectively, and you know that you will get the very freshest, tastiest seasonal vegetables available without even having to go grocery shopping.
Farmers’ Markets:
Sure, they usually only happen once a week and sometimes that can be inconvenient, but really, aren’t open air markets more fun than grocery stores? You can actually meet the people who are growing your food, and you can find beautiful, delicious, seasonal heirloom varieties the likes of which rarely, if ever, show up in a grocery store.
The main thing that separates all of these options from the current industrial food chain is that by patronizing them, you are supporting your local economy, sustainable agriculture and biodiversity. You are also helping to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. So in the process of eating produce with a flavor that cannot be found in grocery stores, you can feel good about the contribution you are making to society. Try not to be too smug about it.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
The Oily Politics of Corn
I first heard about biodeisel from an alternative fuels magnate here in Atlanta. And by “alternative fuels magnate,” I mean anti-corporate anarchist. My heart skipped a beat as he explained to me in detail how you can turn used grease from fast food restaurants into energy. Wide use of this technology would mean a completely renewable local fuel source - no war required. Needless to say, I became a huge proponent of the stuff. I thought it was the answer to our problems. Rather than spending between $100 and $150 billion overseas every year supporting various dictators and other would-be evil-doers, we can produce everything we need right here, support our local economy and simultaneously turn a McMuffin into something patriotic.
Make no mistake, its potential as a renewable energy source does not absolve the fast food industry for what it’s done to the American palate, not to mention its waistline. And fast food restaurants, alone, will not be able to support America’s overfed oil addiction, at least not unless we drastically increase the national level of french fry consumption. If America truly wants to free itself from dependence on foreign oil through biofuels, there will have to be other sources.
And that seems to be just what our politicians are looking at right now. Everyone from George W. Bush to Barack Obama seems to be on the ethanol bandwagon these days. But corn ethanol, as bright a future as it seems to have, is not quite as ecologically efficient as a Wendy’s grease trap.
In order to explain why corn ethanol may not be the panacea that everyone is hoping for, let’s take a brief look at the history of corn.
At $23 billion a year, corn is America’s number one cash crop. There are many contributing factors to corn’s central role in America's heartland, but by far the most significant is government subsidies.
Before the 1970’s, the USDA supported farmers by stepping in whenever there was a bumper crop and purchasing a certain amount of the harvest, which they would then store for use in the event of future crop failures. By doing this, they ensured that there would never be a glut on the market that would drive prices too low. But in 1974, our then USDA Secretary, Earl Butz, completely dismantled the government’s practice of agricultural surplus management, and developed fiscal incentives for our farmers to plant from “fencepost to fencepost.” His program, which is the one currently in use, established certain commodity crops for which the government paid farmers directly regardless of the year's yield. This led farmers to ramp up their production of these crops as much as possible by converting their farms into giant monocultures fueled by massive amounts of chemical fertilizers.
The subsidies guarantee that, despite an almost continual glut of corn that drives market value down until it is well below the cost of production, farmers will continue to grow it in greater quantities year after year in order to get their government check. In other words, farmers are being compensated by the American tax payer to grow something we do not want and cannot use. Eat your heart out, Adam Smith.
Due to this unending surplus, agribusiness corporations, like Arthur Daniels Midland, are keen to come up with new and exciting ways to squeeze more money out of their golden goose. And the latest craze seems to be to convert it into fuel. However, from an ecological standpoint, this really makes no sense. Conservative estimates have said that if every single ear of corn grown in the United States was used for the production of ethanol, it would only offset 12% of our crude oil use. If you count the petroleum that is required to produce ethanol (from farming to transporting to processing), it would only account for 3% of our oil needs. Less conservative estimates have declared the entire process a net loss. (Z Magazine Online, “Will the new Congress act to change our disastrous energy policy?”, Brian Tokar, January 3, 2007)
Still, there is a potential for success in the world of vegetable fuels. It’s just that it doesn’t lie with corn. Alternative plants, which have no digestive value, may be more suited to the task of creating biofuel. Some varieties of algae, for example, are 60% oil by content. Algae is a quick-growing crop that can be farmed on salt ponds in the middle of the desert. It requires no arable land, and it doesn’t even require fresh water. It does well in highly polluted areas and can be cultivated on waste streams (either human waste or animal waste from feedlots).
The DOE’s Office of Fuels Development, conducted a study known as the Aquatic Species Program, which detailed the potential for algae as a combination waste water treatment and biofuels feedstock. The study confirmed that Algae could supply substantially more biofuel than existing oilseed crops could. Microalgae are capable of producing 30 times the amount of oil per unit area of land than their terrestrial counterparts. According to Michael Briggs, a physicist at the University of New Hampshire, we could completely eliminate our need for crude oil if we dedicated 28.5 million acres of otherwise non-arable land to algae. Compare that to the roughly 16 million acres of perfectly good farm land that are presently being used to grow corn for ethanol. That 16 million acres hasn’t done much to alleviate our reliance on foreign oil (See Iraq War).
I don’t want to suggest that algae is a silver bullet. It isn’t. But doesn’t it make more sense to put research money into something that
• doesn’t take up valuable land
• produces more oil than any known alternative
• can be used simultaneously as a waste water treatment
than it does to invest in corn monocultures, which are demonstrably wasteful and harmful to our ecosystem? If you answered yes, you may want to take it up with your congressman. In 1998, the Department of Energy completely eliminated the Aquatic Species Program and our Congress continues to write legislation that supports the research and development of corn ethanol.
When it comes to agriculture in this country, it always seems like there is a better solution than the one Washington gives us. Corn ethanol seems to be nothing more than a reallocation of our tax dollars. It does very little to address a serious issue the nation is facing.
It is the classic one-two punch. We take something that we don’t need and turn it into something we waste and the American tax payer loses money every step of the way. It would be nice if this country would have a meaningful discussion about our immanent oil crisis. But, unfortunately, until alternative agriculture can develop enough financial and political power to compete with the National Corn Growers Association, we may be a long way from a biological solution to this problem.
Make no mistake, its potential as a renewable energy source does not absolve the fast food industry for what it’s done to the American palate, not to mention its waistline. And fast food restaurants, alone, will not be able to support America’s overfed oil addiction, at least not unless we drastically increase the national level of french fry consumption. If America truly wants to free itself from dependence on foreign oil through biofuels, there will have to be other sources.
And that seems to be just what our politicians are looking at right now. Everyone from George W. Bush to Barack Obama seems to be on the ethanol bandwagon these days. But corn ethanol, as bright a future as it seems to have, is not quite as ecologically efficient as a Wendy’s grease trap.
In order to explain why corn ethanol may not be the panacea that everyone is hoping for, let’s take a brief look at the history of corn.
At $23 billion a year, corn is America’s number one cash crop. There are many contributing factors to corn’s central role in America's heartland, but by far the most significant is government subsidies.
Before the 1970’s, the USDA supported farmers by stepping in whenever there was a bumper crop and purchasing a certain amount of the harvest, which they would then store for use in the event of future crop failures. By doing this, they ensured that there would never be a glut on the market that would drive prices too low. But in 1974, our then USDA Secretary, Earl Butz, completely dismantled the government’s practice of agricultural surplus management, and developed fiscal incentives for our farmers to plant from “fencepost to fencepost.” His program, which is the one currently in use, established certain commodity crops for which the government paid farmers directly regardless of the year's yield. This led farmers to ramp up their production of these crops as much as possible by converting their farms into giant monocultures fueled by massive amounts of chemical fertilizers.
The subsidies guarantee that, despite an almost continual glut of corn that drives market value down until it is well below the cost of production, farmers will continue to grow it in greater quantities year after year in order to get their government check. In other words, farmers are being compensated by the American tax payer to grow something we do not want and cannot use. Eat your heart out, Adam Smith.
Due to this unending surplus, agribusiness corporations, like Arthur Daniels Midland, are keen to come up with new and exciting ways to squeeze more money out of their golden goose. And the latest craze seems to be to convert it into fuel. However, from an ecological standpoint, this really makes no sense. Conservative estimates have said that if every single ear of corn grown in the United States was used for the production of ethanol, it would only offset 12% of our crude oil use. If you count the petroleum that is required to produce ethanol (from farming to transporting to processing), it would only account for 3% of our oil needs. Less conservative estimates have declared the entire process a net loss. (Z Magazine Online, “Will the new Congress act to change our disastrous energy policy?”, Brian Tokar, January 3, 2007)
Still, there is a potential for success in the world of vegetable fuels. It’s just that it doesn’t lie with corn. Alternative plants, which have no digestive value, may be more suited to the task of creating biofuel. Some varieties of algae, for example, are 60% oil by content. Algae is a quick-growing crop that can be farmed on salt ponds in the middle of the desert. It requires no arable land, and it doesn’t even require fresh water. It does well in highly polluted areas and can be cultivated on waste streams (either human waste or animal waste from feedlots). The DOE’s Office of Fuels Development, conducted a study known as the Aquatic Species Program, which detailed the potential for algae as a combination waste water treatment and biofuels feedstock. The study confirmed that Algae could supply substantially more biofuel than existing oilseed crops could. Microalgae are capable of producing 30 times the amount of oil per unit area of land than their terrestrial counterparts. According to Michael Briggs, a physicist at the University of New Hampshire, we could completely eliminate our need for crude oil if we dedicated 28.5 million acres of otherwise non-arable land to algae. Compare that to the roughly 16 million acres of perfectly good farm land that are presently being used to grow corn for ethanol. That 16 million acres hasn’t done much to alleviate our reliance on foreign oil (See Iraq War).
I don’t want to suggest that algae is a silver bullet. It isn’t. But doesn’t it make more sense to put research money into something that
• doesn’t take up valuable land
• produces more oil than any known alternative
• can be used simultaneously as a waste water treatment
than it does to invest in corn monocultures, which are demonstrably wasteful and harmful to our ecosystem? If you answered yes, you may want to take it up with your congressman. In 1998, the Department of Energy completely eliminated the Aquatic Species Program and our Congress continues to write legislation that supports the research and development of corn ethanol.
When it comes to agriculture in this country, it always seems like there is a better solution than the one Washington gives us. Corn ethanol seems to be nothing more than a reallocation of our tax dollars. It does very little to address a serious issue the nation is facing.
It is the classic one-two punch. We take something that we don’t need and turn it into something we waste and the American tax payer loses money every step of the way. It would be nice if this country would have a meaningful discussion about our immanent oil crisis. But, unfortunately, until alternative agriculture can develop enough financial and political power to compete with the National Corn Growers Association, we may be a long way from a biological solution to this problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
