Update on the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture's director search

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Feb 13, 2010 at 06:35:33 AM PST

For about two months, Louws neither accepted nor declined the offer to head the Leopold Center. Meanwhile, ISU President Greg Geoffroy denied that he had been influenced by the Farm Bureau, saying he had followed "very strong advice" from Wintersteen and ISU's Executive Vice President and Provost Elizabeth Hoffman. In the sustainable agriculture community, many people believe industrial agriculture interests influenced Wintersteen's and Hoffman's recommendation.

In any event, Louws has declined ISU's job offer, the Ames Tribune reported yesterday. Wintersteen said North Carolina State University made him "a generous counter offer," and Louws decided not to uproot his family.

According to the Ames Tribune, Geoffroy "advised [Wintersteen] to call Salvador back for a second interview" after Louws turned down the Leopold Center job. That interview has not yet been scheduled.

Food Drama: Organizers, Writers, Actors, Cooks, Board Members Wanted

by: Brad Wilson

Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:52:54 AM PST

I gave a brief panel presentation on the dramatic topic:  "Corn Farming and the World Food Crisis" at a conference of the Community Food Security Coalition in Des Moines Iowa last October.  I started with a bit of drama of my own.  I offered corn "safety nets" to audience members.  I offered two choices, one with a larger farm program "Crop Acreage Base,"  but a smaller "Program Payment Yield," and one that reverses the two.  These were soon rejected by my audience, as they got sort of, well, "hammered."  

I further introduced myself by explaining that I was working on a dramatized version of my presentation which I'm calling "Corn Farming and the Human Spirit."  For 15 years I have categorized my writings on farm and food issues into a series of unfinished, poorly edited, unpublished books, under the series title:  Hog Farming and the Human Spirit:  My Sequel to Moby Dick.  In these writings I seek, often unsuccessfully, as readers at La Vida Locavore can see, to incarnate a "yes" of renewal beyond what I interpret to be Melville's great "no" of renewal.  The "Corn Farming" drama is the latest volume in this larger work.  It is built around a wonkish PowerPoint presentation, starkly contrasted with a dramatic interpretation of my family's history as told through farm bill history (cf. my farm folk song and poetry pamphleteering and other materials in HFHS), and also a series of skits on topics from farm and food history (ie. NFO's dramatic throwing of a huge pile thousands?] of Sears Catalogs in response to the 1962 CED report, which I've mentioned here, or mud biscuits from Haiti [does anyone know the recipe?).  That's how I'm starting to build it.  I believe this work could become a presentation with a series of simple skits, or, with adequate assistance, a powerful play and/or film.

Later last fall I was able to see the artsy farm film, The Real Dirt on Farmer John, at CSPS, a small art and drama venue on the 3rd Street cultural corridor in Cedar Rapids Iowa.  After the show I went out with John and a local playwright who puts on a one man show about Grant Wood.  (Wood was a leading 20th century Iowa regionalist, and the painter of American Gothic).  The film and these conversations inspired me to realistically visualize a production Corn Farming and the Human Spirit at venues like CSPS.  Such a vision is probably not possible, however, without significant and holistic help.

GMO Corn Linked to Organ Damage

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 18:19:10 PM PST

The biggest question for me is: Are the American people a population of lab rats? Apparently so. These varieties are legal in the U.S. MON810 goes by the trade name YieldGard Corn Borer and MON863 goes by the trade name YieldGard Rootworm Corn in the U.S. and Canada. NK603 sells under the name Roundup Ready corn. If I understand things right, many farmers I met in Iowa used "triple stacked" corn, which means that all 3 of these traits were engineered into the same seeds.

As of 2009, according to the USDA, 17 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is "Bt" corn, 22 percent is "RoundUp Ready," and 46 percent has more than one trait stacked into it. Altogether, GM corn makes up 85 percent of the corn we grow. Translation: Unless you eat organic (and probably even then because of genetic pollution), congratulations! You are a lab rat! Enjoy the organ damage.

(Of course, Monsanto's already claimed that this study isn't true and that their products do not cause organ damage. I'd like to see further study happen - ASAP! And, in the meantime, how about pulling Monsanto's GM corn off the market until the science is conclusive one way or the other? I, for one, do NOT want to be a lab rat, thankyouverymuch.)

Iowa State let Farm Bureau choose the head of the Leopold Center

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 08:19:17 AM PST

Iowa Farm Bureau made it known to ISU aggies that the leading candidate for the post, Ricardo Salvador, the program director for the Kellogg Foundation's Food, Health and Wellbeing program, was not its prime choice. It preferred Frank Louws, a plant pathologist at North Carolina State.

According to interview and program evaluations, Louws was a clear second to Salvador in almost every category commented on by evaluators. He had limited experience with Iowa commodities, no livestock experience, no "national or international reputation in sustainable agriculture," and a "lower scope of vision" for the Center than Salvador.

Despite these shortcomings, Iowa State President Gregory Geoffroy authorized ag Dean Wendy Wintersteen to offer Louws the job. Simultaneously, Wintersteen sent Salvador an email Dec. 2 that informed him he would not be Leopold director.

Why, asks Laura Jackson, a center advisory board member and a professor of biology at the University of Northern Iowa, was Salvador, "clearly the most qualified applicant interviewed," sent packing before Louws either accepted or declined the position?

Those who have seen the documentary King Corn might remember Salvador from a few scenes. He is highly regarded by sustainable agriculture experts inside and outside the U.S. and is an expert on one of Iowa's leading crops.

Guebert reports that Louws has neither accepted nor declined the position at the Leopold Center, so perhaps there is still a chance for Salvador to be offered the job. Either way, the episode doesn't reflect well on ISU, which already had a reputation for being less than welcoming to sustainable agriculture advocates.

When Fred Kirschenmann was hired as director of the Leopold Center in 2000, none of the agricultural science departments wanted him on their faculty for fear of angering corporate interests. So, Kirschenmann was appointed to the ISU Department of Religion and Philosophy. But at least the Farm Bureau was not allowed to veto his hiring. It's a sad day for a university when a corporate group can overrule the strong preference of a hiring committee.

A Crunch of Jill's subsidy numbers

by: Brad Wilson

Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 15:11:05 PM PST

Ok, as a farmer, I start with cost of production per bushel (ERS full costs):
2008 -$3.68. (That's 54% higher costs than 2003, about 9% increase per year.)

Ok on corn a direct payment of 28 cents per bushel (same as 2003) to make up for the loss. (Well, a fraction of that)
2008: $0.28 x historical prog. yield (which might be 80% of real current yield) = $0.23
And then multiply by a percent of the acreage so it's reduced again.
2008: $0.23 x .833 = .19 (it was 85% in 2003, as Jill showed).

Ok, full costs vs income from direct payments.
2008 - $2.68 + $0.19 = - 2.49

So with a 50% rise in costs you get a slightly less in benefits 2008 vs 2003. Theoretically these are the "good" subsidies, "decoupled." (D. Ray: http://agpolicy.utk.edu/weekco... .) You're not "distorting trade." Everyone supports this, right. It's part of WTO philosophy, supported by Bread for the World and the Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill. Of course, that means farmers get the subsidy even on a rare year above costs, like 2008. Green Box? So don't praise it then turn around and bash it? Ok, the idea is that farmers will almost always lose money, (ie. 1981-2006; ie. Ray, lack of price responsiveness) so it's no big deal, right?

Ok Counter Cyclical payments. You only get it when you need it. Bad!!!? Not decoupled. In WTO theory it distorts Trade. (but see Daryll Ray)

How much for corn? If the market price falls below the Target Price you get it, up to the limit.

Ok, remember the full costs above: 2008 - $3.68. Well if the price falls way down to the Target Price, then you get some compensation. Ok, below $3.68 when prices fall you get 19-20 cents to make up for a drop down to the Target price, a drop of over $1.00.

Target Price
2003: $2.60 2008: $2.63 (as costs went up 50%)

You get countercyclical subsidies down to the Loan Rate.
2003: $1.98 2008: $1.95

So the gaps are: 2008: $2.63 - $1.95 = $0.68 subsidy per bushel of corn?
Well, except it's based upon program historic yield (maybe 80%) and acreage rules.
2008 $0.68 x 80%? = $0.54 x .833 = $0.45 (As Jill showed, it was 85% of acreage back in 2003)

So, if prices crash ANOTHER 68 cents (they've already fallen more than $1.00 and you already got a fraction of $0.28), you get about 45 cents as compensation for the free market losses. If they only crash down to, say, $2.65, you get no countercyclical payment.

Ok, subsidy number 3, Loan Deficiency Payments. You only get them if prices fall all the way down to the Loan Rate. Then you get compensated based upon actual yields. If you don't have a yield, (ie. Crop failure) that's a problem.

Ok, but under some conditions, this is still better than the ACRE program, which substitutes for some of these subsidies.

Ok, if prices crash (there's no price floor or supply management to prevent it), then, on the way down you get some subsidies, here and there. I've translated it into per bushel terms, like 2003 or 2008 farming, even though that's not how it's actually calculated.

Here's another way I crunched it a while back:
http://www.iowafarmertoday.com...

Where Does All the Corn Go?

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 22:13:47 PM PST

About 41% went to "food, seed, and industrial use." That is broken up as follows:

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS): 3.85%
Glucose and dextrose: 1.90%
Starch: 1.91%
Alcohol for fuel: 30.38%
Alcohol for beverages and manufacturing: 1.11%
Cereals and other products: 1.59%
Seed: 0.18%

Exports made up 15.35% of our corn harvest. That leaves nearly 44% of our corn unaccounted for. And THAT is (most likely) the exact amount of U.S. corn that was used as livestock feed in MY 2008-2009.

Subsidies vs Price Floors in Farm Bill History

by: Brad Wilson

Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 18:39:51 PM PST

Some Brief History of Subsidy Politics

The policies in the gray box (price floors etc.) came out of the New Deal, Roosevelt, evolving through several farm bills and the Steagall Amendment 1941 (banking committee) for farm parity as an economic stimulus (like we need today, instead of losing money on farm exports and driving down world prices, hurting wealth and jobs creation in farm areas including LDCs).

Prior to Roosevelt, for decades farm prices were usually low with many "panics." Coming from Hoover into Roosevelt in the Depression, my family saw 7¢ corn and lost the farm.  During the 1980s farm crisis my mother recalled this time (young teen then):  " My Uncle Clyde wasn't able to get my dad a job in the creamery or anywhere else.  This was the summer of 1932,  and the depression got even worse.  We couldn't pay the rent, so in the fall we had to move up to Aunt Alice's and move into their upstairs!  I felt terrible that we had to move in with relatives.  Now I realize how my folks must have felt!  The most humiliating thing of all was that my mother had to get Stewart to drive her over to Uncle Bill's and ask to borrow some money!  I imagine he said, 'I told you so!'"  

New Deal policies take it through Truman, with no commodity subsidies except a few on cotton in the early 30s.  We had 100% of parity in agriculture overall 1942-52.  Program costs in one estimate were about $13 million in the black, meaning that the government made money on the program through interest on price floor loans.  So with price floors and effective supply management, and with international implementation as advocated by the Africa Group at WTO (and by EU in the 80s) it can work.  So no subsidies were really needed.

Under Eisenhower price floors were lowered, however, lowering market prices, as the NFO rose up to oppose the drops.  Price floors were lowered further decade by decade (Under Republican and Democratic Presidents, but pushed more by Republicans in congress for big business) until they were ended (dropped to zero) in 1996.  One exception was the price spike during the 70s caused by the secret Russian grain deal ("The Great American Grain Robbery").  

Introducing Subsidies

But in the mean time, subsidies were added to quiet down angry farmers. Subsidies compensated for farmer losses (which is rarely mentioned in most recent subsidy discussions).  

Subsidy compensations were part of Nixon/Butz policy.  With the 70s price spike costs raced upward.  Farmers won a rise in price supports (Carter) to address skyrocketing costs, but not back up to parity and not enough to prevent the 80s farm crisis.  The rise of the devastating crisis, in hindsight, occurred under the better farm bill than we've seen since.

Reagan greatly increased subsidies, but lowered price floors even more.  Farmers got more from the government for a lowering of farm income.  Bush senior continued this.

Clinton slightly raised the price floor, and vetoed Freedom to Farm once before signing it in the Gingrich era.  FtoF called for new "decoupled" (Direct Payment) subsidies for a few years, declining and ending for a free market (Hooverism/think 7¢ corn).  This was quickly seen as a way to destroy farming, and bankers joined farmers to win 4 emergency farm bills which added a second kind of (counter cyclical) subsidy.  I think LDP (3rd kind) was an administrative option that Clinton implemented to address the crisis.  So farmers ended with another big increase in subsidies and a total reduction in farm income, since market prices with no price floors, fell even more.  This was massive dumping on LDC farmers, not caused by subsidies, but by zero price floors/supply management.  So CAFOs and processors got the hidden benefits.

Another trend here is that many farm state Democrats continued to advocate for New Deal style programs over the decades of decline.  During the 1980s when farmers were again activated in a large number of groups such a farm bill was formulated and won quite a few votes in congress.  It was known variously as the Farm Policy Reform Act, The Save the Family Farm Act, and the Harkin-Gephardt Farm Bill (Harkin in Senate, Gephardt in House, both Democrats).  Today it continues as the National Family Farm Coalition's "Food from Family Farms Act."  The main groups supporting this bill or similar concepts include the National Family Farm Coalition and its members, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Food and Water Watch, the American Corn Growers Association (not the National Corn Growers Association), the American Agriculture Movement, and the National Farmers Organization.  

In 2002 when Tom Harkin became chairman of the Senate Ag Committee he switched sides.  He stopped advocating for price floors and supported a greened up version of the worst Republican Farm Bill since Hoover, a green Freedom to Farm.  That goes for 2002 and 2008 farm bills.  In 1996, however, Harkin and the other Democrats (ie. Gephardt, Daschle, Wellstone) totally rejected this kind of a farm bill.  But all of them followed Harkin in a Green Freedom to Farm.

During the 1980s mainline churches also supported this kind of farm bill.  Today they support some version of a Greened up version of the Republican Freedom to Farm, as do most other progressive groups including the food movement, environmental movement and sustainable agriculture movement.

Sustainable and Organic farmers are a special case.  During the 1990s in trying to stop Freedom to Farm, the family farm movement worked hard to bring in sustainable and organic farm coalitions (SAWGs, NCSA, SAC) but failed and they have consistently supported some version of Green Freedom to Farm (big subsidies, no price floors or supply management).  Their policies provide or would continue multibillion dollar below cost gains for CAFOs and even bigger gains for Cargill (beyond billion in CAFO gains) and ADM.  Sustainable/organic folks have won greener subsidies like organic EQIP and CSP, but at those costs.  Likewise, when Michael Pollan, in Food Inc. and Fresh, speaks of cheap junk foods, Green Freedom to Farm Policies, with no price floors, do not raise the prices on corn, etc.  So when Pollan speaks of "subsidized corn" it's misleading.  The low/no price floors caused the low prices and the cheaper high fructose cory syrup and corn/soy transfats, as can be seen historically.  The subsidies prevent the destruction of farmers.  The bigger the farm, the bigger the losses to be compensated by subsidies.  Again, this is rarely mentioned when bashing farm subsidies.  Of course there are some economies of scale with larger farms, which changes their need somewhat.

So ending, greening, and/or capping subsidies are not policies that address the biggest CAFO benefits, processor benefits, ethanol benefits, exporter benefits against LDC farmers.  By the way, "family farm" advocates and their friends (ie. La Via Campesina with 200 million members) lost over and over on the price floor issue (without much food/consumer/environmentalist/organic help, and still today without help).  So some of them invested in ethanol to try to raise prices (and end processor below cost gains, dumping on LDC farmers).  So they lose money on corn, but then make it on ethanol, or in 2008, made money on corn but lost in on ethanol.  No where have I seen this understood in the progressive community outside of NFFC related groups.

(Least Developed Countries are 70% rural.  The US  has long had huge export market shares of some commodities, bigger than the middle East in Oil, but our leaders tried to get low world prices, not high world prices with it's clout, (clout of well above 50% export market share for corn and soybeans, for example, or up to +80%, but less each decade).

Subsidies vs Price Floors for the 2008 Farm Bill

Today these issues appear to be almost totally unknown outside of NFFC and its friends.  EWG listed 477 mainstream media articles supporting their position in support of a Green version of the Republican Freedom to Farm Act.  The Kind Flake Amendment and probably all others amount to the same.

Sometimes Republicans support Hooverism instead of what we have had  since 1996, which is Hooverism (free markets and free trade) with subsidy protection for farmers in rich countries.  Low subsidy caps are a way to force large farms out of business or to force them to break up.  It would probably be a kind of land reform, like forcibly running them out of business or making them illegal.  Note that in the 90s we had a $50,000 cap and called for $25,000, while well meaning progressives have recently called $200,000 cap a good step.  But these measures have nothing to do with price floors, and do not solve any of the big problems.  

Cargill and DAM (and to a lesser degree, Tyson and Smithfield) are the huge beneficiaries of all the diversionary talk about subsidies, with no mention of price floors.  What they've bought in Congress is policy that blames farmers and leads to no mention that the policies are designed primarily to benefit them, even at the expense of America losing money on farm exports of the major commodities virtually every year for a quarter century.  If you look at the EWG 477 editorials, you'll probably find hundreds of criticisms of farmers (who are merely partially compensated for losses caused by the lack of price floors) for every criticism of these real beneficiaries.  Not also that Cargill, DAM, (processors and exporters) Tyson and Smithfield (poultry hog CAFOs) and the others (ie. Kelloggs).

You can find footnotes for much of this in my Zspace blog articles, as well as many links to online sources.  I am also one place that explores this movement crisis online.  I've seen NO other place online that writes much on these issues, especially in reference to mainline churches, hunger groups (Bread for the World and Oxfam are among the worst on the Commodity Title issues I raise), sustainable agriculture, and the food movement.  (I link a few things from IATP on myths and APAC's Daryll Ray on some media/etc. misunderstandings, however.)  

Further Reading and Links

From my blog see especially my "foodie" and food movement pieces, such as my comparison of the National Corn Growers Association with so called progressives that supposedly hold radically different views:  http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/...

My "Farm Bill FACTs: Commodity Title: A Family Farm View" briefly goes right down a list of the main things I hear in the food movement and among the other groups I see as similarly missing the real issue, and then proves them wrong with online links:  http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/...

If you look around at (http://www.zmag.org/zspace/bradwilson) you'll see where I have footnoted pieces.

Who Gets All the Subsidy Money

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 14:23:21 PM PST

The results? 10 out of 21 members of the Senate Ag Committee comes from the top 10 farm subsidy recipient states. Go figure.

Also interesting is that the #1 rice and #2 cotton state's Senator, Blanche Lincoln, currently chairs the ag committee. Her policy advisor from 2000-2001 (Ben Noble) currently lobbies for the National Cotton Council and the USA Rice Federation. And Monsanto.

The Iowa "Three Sisters:" Corn, Soybeans, and Hogs

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:14:21 AM PDT

Welcome to Iowa

If you'd rather watch instead of read, you can view this video of George Naylor describing why GMOs and corporate giants win (thanks to Andrew Kang Bartlett for shooting and sharing the video).

GM Corn FAIL

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 06:33:24 AM PDT

Many African nations are reluctant to try GMOs, but South Africa allows them. Corn is the country's main staple. From the article:

South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds.The plants look lush and healthy from the outside. Monsanto has offered compensation.

Monsanto blames the failure of the three varieties of corn planted on these farms, in three South African provinces, on alleged 'underfertilisation processes in the laboratory". Some 280 of the 1,000 farmers who planted the three varieties of Monsanto corn this year, have reported extensive seedless corn problems.

A New Frankenfood to the Rescue?

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 21:01:51 PM PDT

I'm a skeptic about this. I'd be very interested in two bits of information before I pass judgment. First, how much corn do you need to eat per day to get your recommended amounts of these nutrients? Second, how does the nutrient profile of this new GM corn compare to that of the three sisters, eaten together.

Here's why I ask. The three sisters, corn, beans, and squash, grow well together (the beans provide the nitrogen the corn needs, for example) and provide complimentary nutrients to those who eat them. Corn grown alone sucks up a lot of nitrogen. So if we've already got a system to grow corn as one of the three sisters that provides needed nutrients, why do we need a special new GM corn (that might give humans lots of nutrients when eaten alone but does not grow in a sustainable manner all by itself) to replace it?

Also, I think we need to look into why people in the developing world are malnourished to begin with. Is it lack of variety in their diets, or just plain old lack of FOOD in their diets? Because if they can't afford food now, they won't be able to afford GM corn. And if we're gonna give them the GM corn for free, well then why can't we give them the foods they need for a varied, healthy diet for free instead?

As the article notes, presumably new GM superfoods like this are intended to save the starving people of Africa, but many African countries ban GMOs. I'd like to know: Why are we so intent on helping Africans in the exact way that they do NOT want to be helped? First of all, it's paternalistic and insulting that we think we know what's good for them better than they do. Second of all, there are obviously other ways to help the hungry besides GMOs, methods that exist now and don't require 10 years to develop (as the article noted this new corn requires). If Africans don't want GMOs and we are spending 10 years to create GMOs to "help Africans" while letting a decade of Africans die of starvation, doesn't that prove that we aren't really doing any of this "for Africa" after all? My take on this: If it's not for profit, it's a PR stunt.  

Mexicans Tell Obama: Sin Maiz, No Hay Pais

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

Germany Says Nein to Frankenfood

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 15:30:00 PM PDT

More below...

You Are What You Eat: My Tour of Morris Grassfed Beef

by: Curtis Abbey

Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 13:09:21 PM PDT

Though that doesn't seem novel on first glance, in today's industrial-fed America, it is. But, don't confuse simple with easy. Corn-fed beef is easy, profit is their only concern.

Simple is raising cows the way it's sustainably been done for centuries. Morris uses a holistic approach that considers more than profit. They're focused on what's best for: the cows, the environment, community, the health of the consumer, and the grass.  

Food News: Vegan Pet Food? Smoke Shop Food Stamp Fraud?

by: Curtis Abbey

Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 03:59:25 AM PDT

Vegan pet food -- and the decision to force one's pet to go vegan -- is suddenly very buzzy. ABC News reports that it's a bit easier for a dog to go vegetarian than it is for a cat, and one person they interviewed said she suspects that "vegan" cats are supplementing their diets by hunting.

What would a vegan do in a situation where their vegan cat was caught with a mouse, or a fly, or whatever it is kitty attempts to dine on? Would you scold it? Or attempt to stop him/her from the action?

Warning this is a long blog!