What is the latest taxpayer-subsidized economic stimulus scheme?

Why, manure digesters on factory farms, of course!

At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen last December, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack unveiled plans to promote manure digesters as a way to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent. The trick is that you have to be a factory farm to qualify.

In his State of the State address in January, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle announced his latest round of tax credits for factory farm expansion, including a whopping $6.6 million for two manure digesters in Dane County catering to just a handful of mega-dairies. Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk has also been pushing for $1 million in her budget for these digesters.

The real tragedy is that manure digesters actually make global warming worse while “solving” a manure problem that would not even exist if cows were allowed to graze on pasture rather than being confined indoors. As Paris Reidhead documents in the January 2010 issue of the Milkweed, methane is 21 times as bad as carbon dioxide when it comes to causing global warming, and this methane threat largely stems from factory farms that store liquid manure in lagoons under anaerobic conditions. In contrast, utilizing manure as compost under aerobic conditions reduces the “carbon footprint” of dairy cows by over 90 percent.

From Jan. 11 to 24 I was in Germany to speak on the dairy crisis in the U.S. as part of the International Dairy and Eco Fair Trade Conference in Berlin. Representatives from around the world spoke on the problems facing dairy farmers in their regions. We agreed on global strategies to raise farmgate prices and bring dignity to family dairy farmers.

The European Milk Board hosted the second half of my trip, including tours of dairy farms and milk plants. Our first stop was a 950-cow dairy on a former East German collective farm. The farm buildings and connected methane digester were several years old and received huge government subsidies to keep them operating. There were chronic problems with the digester and at the time the mixer in the tank was broken, requiring special scuba divers to repair it. Similar problems plague manure digesters in Wisconsin, which seem to be on perpetual high-tech life support.

While in Germany we also toured newer 600-800 cow dairies with digesters. The owners explained that these digesters were simply not profitable without huge government subsidies. As problems developed they were forced to install a newer more expensive system, and with that “fix” came newer problems. It seemed this treadmill was mostly designed to benefit sales people, technicians and manufacturers of manure digesters, not family farmers or the environment.

Without a fair milk price that actually covers their cost of production, many of the German farmers said they would not survive through 2010. The same crisis is facing dairy farmers in the U.S. who have endured a 50 percent decline in farmgate prices due to corporate control, even as consumer prices for milk have not budged and the dairy giants report record profits. In contrast, sustainable organic grass-based dairy farmers were a bit better off in Germany, as they are in the U.S., though their future is not secure either.

Numerous studies by Tom Kriegl of the UW Center for Dairy Profitability have shown that the most efficient dairy operations have less than 100 cows, mostly outside and eating grass — yet, such a family farm is not large enough to qualify for taxpayer support and does not create enough manure to require a methane digester.

As long as my tax dollars and those of other organic sustainable farmers are being used to bankroll schemes that just increase pollution for more corporate profit, there will be no economic recovery. Indigenous communities developed “earth-friendly” farming methods that kept our planet healthy for thousands of years. Many of these practices are being incorporated into family farming today. In fact, a recent 2008 study by 400 scientists for the United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development concluded that small-scale organic agriculture is not only the best means to feed the world, but also the best response to climate change.

Let’s stop wasting money on expensive digesters for a manure problem that does not need to exist, and put cows back outside on pasture where they belong. When manure is treated as a valuable resource, as it is on small farms, then we can eliminate or drastically reduce the need for petroleum-based chemical fertilizers. Ending factory farm subsidies and promoting sustainable agriculture instead will not only lead to fairer milk prices for family farmers and healthier food choices for consumers, but it will actually help spare the planet from climate change, too.

John Kinsman, an organic dairy farmer from La Valle, is president of Family Farm Defenders. The organization is located in Madison.

The Iowa Independent
By Lynda Waddington

ANKENY, Iowa — Whether they realized it or not, the roughly 250 family farmers, workers and consumers gathered Thursday night fired off their own point-by-point response to a letter from two Republican Senators that urged the U.S. departments of agriculture and justice to maintain the existing status quo in the agriculture industry.

The often rambunctious townhall event was organized by a coalition of groups concerned that everyday people do not have adequate opportunity to express their opinions on the agricultural industry at a joint U.S. Department of Justice and USDA antitrust workshop on Friday. And it had one overarching message: “Bust up big ag.”

“We are here today to make sure that the voices of everyday people are heard loud and clear and send a simple but powerful message to our government regulators and elected officials,” said Barb Kalbach, a fourth generation family farmer from Dexter and board member for Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. “Bust up big ag, pass policies that promote sustainable agriculture and local markets, and put people first during the workshop series by prioritizing public comments and input and adding more family farmers and consumers to panels.”

On Wednesday, however, two Republicans in leadership positions on the Senate Agriculture Committee urged U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to do just the opposite.

“We urge you to ensure that these sessions are balanced and reflect the wide array of producers and business operations in modern-day agriculture,” wrote Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Pat Roberts of Kansas.

After noting that “American agriculture is responsible for feeding the world,” that many industry “segments have become more vertically-integrated” and “other small and successful agriculture businesses have merged” to meet demands, the senators note that change is often met with frustration.

“Such change has led to better income margins for producers and processors as well as lower prices for consumers,” they wrote, adding that competition issues have been “studied extensively by several entities including the United State Congress and, specifically, the Senate Agricultural Committee.”

Although Chambliss and Roberts appear to call for a wide swath of American agriculture to have representation at the meeting, it is difficult to overlook the key point of their correspondence:

“Beyond our interest in a balanced review, we would hope that no correlation is planned between the upcoming workshops and current enforcement activity in your respective Departments. From recent news of lawsuits to undo mergers to heightened scrutiny of pre-merger activity and other investigative activities with agribusiness companies from a variety of sectors, it is readily apparent that both the Department of Agriculture and Department of Justice are already quite engaged in this area. We are concerned there is potential for your workshops to become venues for further fact-finding or public scrutiny of agricultural businesses that are already subject to existing antitrust laws and in some cases are under investigation or prosecution by the federal government.”

As of 2007, more than 45 percent of U.S. beef cattle are slaughtered by four companies (Tyson, Cargill, Swift and National.) Most U.S. Pork is also processed by just four companies (Tyson, Cargill, Swift and Smithfield). Seed corn is controlled predominately by two companies (Pioneer Dupont and Monsanto), and roughly 40 percent of the U.S. fluid milk supply is controlled by one company (Dean’s Foods).

Rhonda Perry, a Missouri livestock and grain farmer, said 30,000 cattle feed lots went out of business in the last 13 years. During the past 20 years, the nation lost 70 percent of its independent family hog farmers — but managed to keep production levels the same.

“We’ve been told that we have to have consolidation, concentration and vertical-integration in order to give consumers the cheap food they desire,” she said. “The reality is, if you look at the pork industry — a prime example because it has become really vertically-integrated in the last 25 years — that between 1985 and 2008 pork prices to consumers went up by 72 percent. At the same time the hog farmers’ share of that consumer dollar went down by 43 percent. So, somebody in this industry, in this consolidation process, is definitely getting rich. It’s working for somebody, but it is not working for producers and consumers.”

Fred Dowered, a Minnesota farmer, told the audience that when he began farming 34 years ago his state had 50 seed companies. Now, however, there are only four.

“When there were 50 seed companies, the price of seed corn was held to its own. Now they just let it go rampant,” he said.

That’s a situation that Jim Kalbach, an Adair Couty grain farmer, knows all too well.

“Monsanto soybean seed was $31 a bag last year. Now they jumped it up one third to $41 a bag — in one year,” he said. “That’s highway robbery.”

Many of the men and women in the audience also took exception to the belief that the U.S. food supply boasts the most healthy and inexpensive food in the world.

“The two things we are going to hear over and over on Friday is that we’ve got the cheapest and safest food supply in the world. Both of these statements are damn lies,” said Gary Klicker, a southern Iowa producer that can trace his family’s agricultural roots to 1666.

Klicker believes that taxpayers will be out “billions if not trillions” of dollars cleaning up rivers, nourishing soil and dealing with abandoned animal confinement facilities.

“Have you ever heard of 19 million pound beef recall in Sweden or Germany or Russia or Cuba or anywhere else? The food isn’t safe. We are eating garbage off the floors of our packing houses. It’s being fed to our kids in schools, and it goes into our grocery stores. Most of the people have no idea what they are getting, and wouldn’t know what real food tastes like if they had it. This is a serious, serious situation — one that we will be paying for 100 years from now. It isn’t safe. It isn’t even cheap.”

Although U.S. Sens. Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley are on the schedule for Friday, along with U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, no federal elected officials attended the townhall meeting in person. A handful of audience members used their very limited comment period to note their disappointment that the officials themselves did not attend, and at least two were openly hostile toward lawmakers who had long-served without providing notable solutions to the competition issues in their industry.

“This was a huge crowd,” Dave Campbell, district representative for Boswell, said following the meeting. “What I’m going to pass on to the Congressman is the fact that were a whole lot of people here who are hurting. He will have an opportunity to hear from both sides, and will hopefully make the best decisions possible.”

John Moreland, staff assistant for Harkin, also said that he would be taking his reflections on the “passion” expressed at the meeting back to his boss. Although The Iowa Independent attempted to speak with Bret Schuster, a member of Grassley’s campaign, he quickly exited the meeting.

A notable appearance at the townhall was made by members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. After the meeting Mark Lauritsen, vice president and director of the UFCW Meatpacking Division, explained that his members understand how closely their livelihood is tied to that of the farmer.

“We should have been getting together back in the 1980s and having these discussions. … Our lives are connected with farmers. Our members’ lives are connected to farmers. Our success rises and falls with the American farmer,” he said.

Producers from at least 10 states traveled to Ankeny for the townhall. Many also plan to attend the workshop, and would like opportunity to speak. Since only one hour at the end of the day has been allotted for public comment, however, it isn’t likely that there will be time for them all. That being said, it also isn’t likely that these motivated individuals are going to go away. Wisconsin Dairy producer Joel Greeno said several groups are already gearing up for the June meeting planned in their state, and that other producers are organizing in relation to the workshops planned for Colorado and Alabama later this year.

“The situation in agriculture these days, even though it has been coming on for a long time, is reaching critical mass,” said Frank Jones, a Missouri owner and producer. “I’m afraid that if we don’t have some type of meaningful change in the way business is done that agriculture will be lost forever.”

Our food safety system is broken. Toxic food-borne pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 and salmonella are no longer just contaminating meat and eggs, but have caused outbreaks in traditionally safe foods like spinach, peppers, tomatoes, and nuts.

Yet instead of addressing the root of the problem, lawmakers and regulators in Washington, D.C. have rushed to action, proposing to fix our food safety system with band-aid solutions that may actually threaten the small-scale, organic and local farms that are part of the food safety solution. We cannot let this happen!

A highly centralized, chemical-intensive, corporate-driven agricultural system, deeply out of balance with nature, lies at the root of our nation’s food safety woes. Any proposed bills and rule changes must recognize and address the root causes of food-borne illness outbreaks, as well as acknowledge and protect the unique benefits of organic farming and local food systems.

For example, while manure infected with dangerous bacteria from grain-fed cattle in crowded feedlots has been linked to contaminating our food supply, not a single bill in Congress or regulatory proposal at the USDA or FDA acknowledges this problem—much less tries to solve it. In fact, the food safety bills in Congress entirely exempt animal agriculture from stronger regulation, placing added regulatory burdens solely on the shoulders of the fruit and vegetable growers and processors whose products may have been contaminated by feed-lot manure pathogens.

And in the rush to find a solution to our food safety problems, numerous lawmakers and government officials have put forward their own proposed solutions—creating a confusing array of food safety bills, proposed rule changes, revised guidance documents and even court cases.

To help people cut through the confusion, The Cornucopia Institute developed an organized chart of current legislative and regulatory proposals. For each proposal, we outline different avenues for taking action, sample talking points, due dates and addresses for sending in comments, and websites for additional information. The document will be periodically updated as new developments occur.

We hope this information will help farmers and consumers of organic and locally-grown foods send the message to Washington D.C. that food safety reform should recognize the unique value of organic and local food systems to food safety, and should contain protections for these farms and not needlessly place them at a competitive disadvantage due to their style of operation.

We encourage people to take action by contacting the lawmakers and agencies. Information on how to take action, deadlines and addresses for sending comments, and sample talking points are offered here.

Wall Street Journal
By Scott Kilman

Crop biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. has the most at stake in the first of an unprecedented series of public meetings that the antitrust wing of the Justice Department is holding across the Farm Belt.

In January, the Justice Department launched a formal antitrust investigation of the St. Louis company’s handling of the most widely planted genetically modified crop in the U.S., a herbicide-immune soybean.

Now, Justice’s tight-lipped antitrust division is taking the unusual step of inviting competitors, farmers, politicians and activists to air any gripes about Monsanto — and to suggest ways to limit the company’s reach before a high-profile audience.

The Obama administration disclosed Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder will speak Friday at the first of five such meetings, billed as joint “workshops” with the Department of Agriculture on competition issues.

Friday’s meeting in Iowa will focus on genetically-modified seeds, the 14-year-old market largely created and led by Monsanto, which has at least one of its patented genes in about 90% of soybeans grown in the U.S. and in about 80% of U.S. corn.

Monsanto declined to make Hugh Grant, its chairman and chief executive, available for comment, but issued a statement that “an objective review of the agricultural sector will reveal that competition is alive and flourishing.” A Monsanto vice president is scheduled to speak Friday.

Farmers and the seed companies that license genes from Monsanto have long complained about the prices it has been able to command. The price of a bag of soybean seed, for example, has roughly quadrupled since Monsanto began licensing genes.

Pioneer Hi-Bred, the seed unit of Wilmington, Del., chemicals concern DuPont Co., has alleged that Monsanto is trying to use gene licenses to limit competition. Monsanto has also tried in recent months to dispel fears among some farmers and seed breeders that Monsanto will make it hard for them to use generic versions of genetically modified crops after the company’s patents expire.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean is genetically modified to survive dousing by a weedkiller made by Monsanto called Roundup. Introduced in 1996, the seed made it so easy for farmers to chemically weed their fields that many stopped using other herbicides or mechanically tilling their fields. With that seed losing its ability to draw royalties after 2014, Monsanto is trying to get farmers to switch to a second generation of Roundup Ready seed that it has patented.

Mr. Holder will be joined Friday by Christine Varney, his antitrust chief, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and several states’ attorneys general, some of whom have been investigating Monsanto’s business practices for years.

“Seed technology is pretty heavily consolidated,” said Mr. Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa, a state where Monsanto and Des Moines-based seed giant Pioneer Hi-Bred are locked in a bitter fight for farmer loyalty that includes dueling lawsuits in a federal courthouse. “I’m not taking sides,” Mr. Vilsack said Wednesday. “What I’m really concerned about is farmers getting a fair shake.”

The USDA estimates that U.S. farmers spent $17.2 billion on seed in 2009, up 56% from $11 billion in 2006.

President Obama promised early in his administration to “reinvigorate” antitrust enforcement, which involved the Justice Department disavowing Bush era guidelines. His antitrust chief has largely pushed on her own for a closer look at agriculture, where everything from hogs and cattle to corn, soybeans, milk and seeds are processed by a handful of big concerns.

Ms. Varney said she came up with the idea for the workshops a year ago during her nomination hearings, when Sen. Russ Feingold (D. Wis.) and other farm-state legislators complained the Bush administration permitted a merger wave among agricultural processors that undermined farmers. More than 15,000 people have submitted comments to the Justice Department on the workshops.

Ms. Varney, who said she worked for a time during her youth organizing farm workers, said she feels a personal connection to farmers, who by nature of their business are usually dwarfed by the companies they buy from and supply. “I don’t have any preconceived notions,” she said, adding that the Friday workshop is arranged in a way that will allow her “to get a variety of views” on Monsanto, among other things.

Still, several of Friday’s slated speakers have been critical of Monsanto, and the meeting is an opportunity for them to present to senior government officials what they see as remedies for curtailing its influence. While it is far from clear that the Obama administration will adopt any of these ideas, which mostly touch on how Monsanto licenses its genes, it’s probably the best chance that many speakers will ever get to present their arguments. “This is a rare opportunity,” said Diana Moss, vice president of the American Antitrust Institute, a Washington think tank.

Neil E. Harl, a retired Iowa State University economics professor, says the meetings are “a very different tactic for the (antitrust division) to go public like this,” he said. “Maybe they think just talking about these things might have an impact on the boardroom.”

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, for example, filed a comment for the workshop that calls on the federal government to stop biotechnology companies from using gene licenses to block independent seed companies from stacking genes from various companies in a plant.

In testimony before the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Dr. Dean Wyatt testified as to how the agency supports unhealthy practices at the national slaughterhouses and endangers the nation’s meat food supply.

Dr. Wyatt, a public health supervisory veterinarian with the USDA’s Food and Safety Inspection Services (“FSIS”; www.fsis.usda.gov/), testified to numerous instances where FSIS executives overruled his and other inspectors’ citations of slaughterhouses’ abuses endangering the safety of the nation’s meat supply. For example, Dr. Wyatt recounted such abuses and acts of cruelty as:

* cows being shot multiple times in the head regardless of regulations requiring immediate unconsciousness with a single bullet;
* calves being dragged and thrown, while others were deprived of food and water resulting in death from dehydration and starvation;
* conscious pigs shackled and stabbed on the slaughter line despite rules that they be stunned and unconscious before butchering;
* pigs being trampled by one another while being unloaded from a truck by a worker with a paddle;
* and a frustrated employee hitting a pig in the face 8-12 times.

Dr. Wyatt also testified that he was directed by his superiors to “drastically cut back” the time spent on ensuring that animals destined for food were treated humanely. In fact, according to Dr. Wyatt, he and other inspectors were chastised, reprimanded, and demoted for reporting violations. Dr. Wyatt was also threatened with termination.

Prior to his testimony, Dr. Wyatt had issued orders to shut down of Vermont’s Bushway Packing on three different occasions. Each time, Dr. Wyatt’s superiors overruled his orders and allowed the plant to reopen without it addressing the underlying health and humane issues. Subsequently, in October 2009, the Humane Society of the United States video-recorded the same instances of inhumane abuse at Bushway triggering a flood of calls for reform of the industry (www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/10/calf_investigation_103009.html).

Dr. Wyatt’s testimony coincided with a report from the Government Accountability Office reprimanding FSIS for its lax enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (“HMSA”; uscode.house.gov/download/pls/07C48.txt). FSIS was also reprimanded for lacking a comprehensive hiring strategy, as well as a lack of clarity in guiding and training inspectors.

Deputy undersecretary for Food Safety at the USDA, Jerold R. Mande, told the subcommittee, “I want to assure [the subcommittee] that [FSIS is] deeply committed to the humane handling of livestock and to meeting the [FSIS's] obligations to enforce HMSA at federally inspected establishments.” Mande further testified that FSIS is making a series of improvements to its enforcement of animal-handling practices within slaughter facilities.

Asked why he blew the whistle and ruined his career, Dr. Wyatt responded: “I truly believe that the USDA inspector is the only advocate animals have in slaughter plants. When we turn our backs on the helpless, when we fail to speak on behalf of the voiceless, when we tolerate animal abuse and suffering, then the moral compass of a just and compassionate society is gone.”

The agency’s actions and inactions may go a long way to explain the rash of salmonella and e. coli outbreaks over the last few years.

ARROW ROCK, Mo. — This tiny historic town has emerged as a battleground over rules that agricultural groups say have hog-tied big pig farms.

In 2007, residents of the town of 79 filed a lawsuit to stop a farmer who wanted to build a farm with 4,800 pigs on the outskirts of town.

They not only won the case but a ruling that appeared to keep any future applicants at least two miles away from town. “We were elated,” said Julie Fisher, a landowner in Arrow Rock.

Then, last year, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster appealed the decision in state court, vowing to roll back a thicket of local obstacles to big farms that largely began in “The Show Me State” and rippled across the Farm Belt in recent years.

“In the eyes of the agricultural community, this is starting to spin out of control,” said Mr. Koster, whose pending appeal has the backing of the Missouri Farm Bureau, one of the biggest farm groups in the state.

As livestock operations have grown more industrialized, residents across rural America have banded together to try to keep them out. They say the bigger farms are wreaking havoc on their communities, polluting waterways with manure that can kill fish and sicken people. A popular tool has been county-level “local control” ordinances that govern where a large farm can locate.

While many states have retained authority over the siting of livestock farms, Missouri has a staunch local-control movement that took root in the early 1990s as corporate-controlled hog processors moved in. In 1999, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that a county can implement an ordinance governing livestock farms, including where they are located, if it is rooted in concerns over public health. Today, more than a dozen of Missouri’s 114 counties have the ordinances.

In Arrow Rock, residents used another means after learning that a big hog farmer had won a permit. In late 2007, the village of Arrow Rock and others sued the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which had granted the permit. Residents said the permit conflicted with the state’s constitutional duty to protect historic sites.

Arrow Rock was designated a national historic landmark in the 1960s for its role in westward expansion and its painstakingly preserved 19th century buildings.

Today, it attracts 150,000 visitors a year to a Main Street that boasts a quaint boardwalk and the Arrow Rock Tavern, which opened its doors in 1834.

In Arrow Rock, tourism and large-scale farming “are conflicting interests,” said Kathy Borgman, executive director of nonprofit Friends of Arrow Rock.

Judge Patricia S. Joyce of the Circuit Court of Cole County said the state department couldn’t issue a permit to the hog farmer, Dennis Gessling, or any similar operation within two miles of Arrow Rock, because the “odors and volatile and dangerous airborne pollutants” would “decimate” the historic area.

Even though the original applicant decided to locate his farm elsewhere, Mr. Koster appealed. He said he was worried that if the ruling stood, Missouri’s more than 300 circuit and associate circuit judges could begin ruling separately on the matter, adding another layer of complexity to county health ordinances. Mr. Koster added that while he was in favor of protecting historic parks, he believed the state needed a “unified regulatory structure so that we don’t have 500 different zoning units over agriculture.”

Oral arguments will be heard later this month in the Western District Court of Appeals in Kansas City.

In recent years, the Missouri Legislature has tried at least four times to roll back the county rules, citing conflicting state statutes that prevent counties from zoning animal agriculture. Mr. Koster, a former Republican state senator who is now a Democrat, sponsored one such bill in 2007. Backers of local control view the attorney general’s appeal as a power grab. An editorial in The Kansas City Star said Mr. Koster’s effort could “kill local control” and is the “wrong approach.”

Missouri Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon, who spoke in Arrow Rock in 2007 against the proposed “factory farm,” declined to comment through a spokesman, citing the litigation.

Farm lobbies in other states recently have defeated budding local control movements, including a case that went to the state Supreme Court in Iowa and an appeals court in Ohio.

“We will do everything we can in our power to preserve our exemption from local control,” said Larry Gearhardt, director of local affairs at the Ohio Farm Bureau. “It’s not a pretty fight,” he said.

MADISON – Gov. Jim Doyle announced that Wisconsin is second in the nation in the number of organic farms, according to numbers released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural (USDA) Statistics Service.

“Farming is the heritage and the future of Wisconsin, and we’ve worked hard to strengthen and diversify agriculture across the state,” Doyle said. “Organic farming is one of the areas that Wisconsin is leading the way, and I am proud to support these efforts.”

According to the USDA’s survey, Wisconsin has 1,222 organic farms, the second highest in the nation, behind California. Wisconsin organic farms use 195,603 acres of land. Organic sales in the state total $132.8 million, including $30.1 million in crops sales and $102.6 million in sales of livestock, poultry and their products. Sixty-four percent of total organic sales in Wisconsin were from milk from cows.

Organic farms in Wisconsin had average sales and production expenses similar to all farms statewide. Organic operations had average sales of $115,247 in 2008, compared with average sales of $114,288 for all types of farms, as reported in the 2007 Census of Agriculture. Production expenditures averaged $77,760 per organic farm, compared with the average of $86,011 for all farms.

Most Wisconsin organic producers sold their products locally, with 56 percent of sales occurring less than 100 miles from the farm. In Wisconsin, 7 percent of sales were direct to consumers via farm stands, farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture, and other arrangements, while over 75 percent of Wisconsin organic sales were to wholesale channels. These percentages are consistent with those seen at the national level.

Doyle said incentives to help modernize the dairy industry have helped increase milk production to record levels and have strengthened the state’s status as the number one producer of cheese in the country. At the same time, efforts to strengthen diversity in agriculture have made Wisconsin a leading producer of cranberries, specialty cheeses, organic vegetables and many other products.

Nearly 20 percent of the nation’s certified and exempt organic farms are in California. The top 10 states were:

1. California with 2,714

2. Wisconsin with 1,222

3. Washington with 887

4. New York with 827

5. Oregon with 657

6. Pennsylvania with 586

7. Minnesota with 550

8. Ohio with 547

9. Iowa with 518

10. Vermont with 467

Complete results of the 2008 Organic Production Survey are available HERE

Longtime organic farmer, journalist, Inspector, community leader, and raconteur, Steve Sprinkel (and Cornucopia board member) makes a cameo appearance on CNN as the farmer, along with his wife,, Olivia Chase, in the up-and-coming restaurant the Farmer and Chef, in Southern California. Sure does look good to us Northerners in the winter!

After using conventional farming techniques for years, Jim Koan of Almar Orchards in Flushing wanted to try growing his apples and animals in a more natural way.

He eliminated synthetic sprays and drugs and began incorporating natural methods to control pests, fertilize plants and treat sick animals. “Everything we use is made by God,” he said.

Koan is among the increasing number of Michigan growers who have switched from conventional to organic farming in the past decade for environmental, health and marketing reasons.

There were 309 certified organic farms in Michigan in 2008, more than double the number in 2000, when there were 143, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Michigan ranked 11th in the country in 2008, with 461 certified organic and exempt organic farms, according to the USDA. Exempt organic farms are those with less than $5,000 in sales annually; those farms are allowed to market their goods as organic without being certified.

In 2008, Michigan had 68 farms in the process of transitioning 5,387 more acres of cropland to organic production, according to the Michigan 2008 Organic Production Survey, which was released Wednesday by the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Wayne Kiel of Blueberry Heritage Farms in Holland began changing over his farm to organic three years ago. He has 160 acres; 20 of them are already organic and another 20 are in transition.

Kiel’s family has been growing blueberries using conventional farming methods for years. But, when the nonsmoker was diagnosed with lung cancer, he figured synthetic chemicals sprayed on the plants may be the culprit.

“We all want to make money, but it’s not all about that,” said Kiel, whose transition to organics has been profitable. “It’s about having healthy food.”
Benefits debated

Conventional farmer Brent Wagner doesn’t think organically grown foods are any better for people’s health or the environment.

He said conventional farmers use very little pesticides and the materials they use to fertilize and keep pests away are mainly made up of organic ingredients.

“We eat the food that we grow,” he said. “We feed it to our kids and our grandkids. We’re not going to put anything in the ground that hurts us.”

Organic farms, he said, produce less food on more acres, making it impossible to organically grow enough food to feed the population.

Still, concern for the land and soil, and marketing and economics move farmers toward organic methods, said Matt Grieshop, assistant professor of organic pest management at Michigan State University.

Both of those reasons convinced Koan to transition his farm to organic.

Koan said he became disturbed when he realized that only about 30 percent of the chemical pesticides he sprayed on his trees landed on the target; the other 70 percent ended up on the ground.

Besides the environmental concerns, Koan said he noticed an increased demand for organic products from consumers, starting five years ago. Even though he charges 25 percent more for organic apples, customers are buying them faster than the conventionally grown fruits, he said.The extra cost of growing things organically comes from more pricey pest management methods. And because organic farmers don’t use drugs to treat sick animals, livestock tends to die faster and their treatment is more costly, Grieshop said.

Average annual sales for all organic operations were $217,675, compared with $134,807 for U.S. farms overall, the USDA reports.
Sales see growth

Despite the higher prices, organics are one of the fastest-growing segments in the retail market, according to the Organic Trade Association based in Greenfield, Mass.

The growth rate has slowed in the past couple of years because of poor economic conditions, but sales of organics still are strong. Nationwide, sales of organic food increased 15.8 percent to $22.9 billion in 2008 compared to 2007, according to the association. Sales of organic nonfood items such as personal care products, household cleaners and flowers rose 39.4 percent in 2008 to $1.6 billion from the previous year.

Sales of organic products at Kroger grocery stores have been booming in the past three or four years, said company spokesman Dale Hollandsworth. Since 2006, sales of fresh organic produce have increased tenfold, and the number and variety of organic products Kroger offers has increased dramatically.

“The reality of it is, whatever you sell at a store has to have an organic equivalent,” Hollandsworth said.

Randy Hampshire of Hampshire Farms in Kingston can attest to that demand. He transitioned his farm to organic back in 1988 and was concerned that the higher prices for his organic chickens, eggs, grains and produce would scare away customers. But, he said, “it was just the opposite.”

“Interest in organics is growing every year,” he said. “Organic is here to stay.”

Resulting contamination of non-GE and organic alfalfa hay and seed would devastate livelihoods and organic industry

The National Organic Coalition (NOC) today announced that more than 200,000 people submitted comments to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) critiquing the substance and conclusions of its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on Genetically Engineered (GE) Alfalfa. Groups, including NOC, Center for Food Safety (CFS), Organic Consumers Association, Food & Water Watch, CREDO Action and Food Democracy Now, mobilized their communities to help generate the unprecedented number of comments.

In addition, more than 300 public interest organizations, farmers, dairies, retailers and organic food producers from the U.S. and Canada delivered a strongly worded letter to USDA, calling upon it to deny approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered, Roundup Ready alfalfa (GE alfalfa). The letter cites the inevitable contamination of organic and non-GE alfalfa hay and seeds and threats to the viability of organic dairies, livestock, and meat and dairy producers as reasons for urging the denial. NOC, Organic Valley, Whole Foods, National Cooperative Grocers Association, CFS and others agree that it would be irresponsible government policy to approve GE alfalfa in the absence of legal requirements holding companies accountable for GE contamination, as is currently the case.

In 2006, CFS sued USDA for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s GE alfalfa. USDA failed to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS), as required by law, before deregulating the crop. The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE alfalfa plantings until USDA analyzed the impacts of GE alfalfa on the environment, farmers and the public. Today marks the deadline for submitting public comments on the draft EIS, which recommends approving Monsanto’s GE alfalfa.

USDA’s EIS claims that organic consumers do not care about GE contamination of their food, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Consumer surveys show that 75 percent or more of respondents repeatedly say that they do not want to eat GE contaminated food and cite their desire to avoid GE food as one of the top five reasons for buying organic.

“GE alfalfa threatens the very fabric of the organic industry,” adds George Siemon, one of the founding farmers and CEO of Organic Valley. “Organic consumers want seeds and products to remain unpolluted by GE.”

Independent, empirical studies and past experience show that containment of GE pollen and seeds is not possible GE alfalfa pollen can travel six miles or more in the air, via bees or other pollinators. Seeds can also travel long distances on harvesting equipment and on the boots and in the trucks of people who work in fields and transport hay and seeds. More than 200 known cases of GE contamination have been documented within the last decade. The most serious and immediate cases of contamination are in canola (rapeseed) crops. Due to widespread contamination, canola crops and oil can no longer be marketed as organic or non-GE in Western Canada.

“The continued deregulation of GE crops threatens our food supply and the diverse organic and conventional farming systems that have fed the world’s growing population for centuries,” said Lisa J. Bunin, Ph.D., Organic Policy Coordinator at Center for Food Safety. “It is unconscionable for USDA to increasingly allow the concentration of our nation’s seed supply in the hands of a few GE companies that produce a limited number of novel, pesticide-promoting seed varieties.”

Despite the inevitable contamination from GE alfalfa, the EIS disavows this harm and places the entire burden for preventing contamination on non-GE farmers, with no protections for food producers, consumers and exporters. “If Roundup Ready Alfalfa is permitted to be sold commercially, the ripple effect would wipe out many organic and non-GE businesses, from organic seed and forage growers to organic dairy farmers and retailers,” said Liana Hoodes, Director, National Organic Coalition. “Every American’s right to cultivate, sell and eat non-GE and organic food would no longer exist.”

Even though the EIS acknowledges that GE alfalfa would increase Roundup herbicide use, since the vast majority of alfalfa farmers do not use any herbicides at all (93 percent), it omits the fact that planting GE alfalfa would require many farmers to use Roundup for the very first time. This would result in the spread of toxic chemicals in regions where such toxins were previously non-existent. Over the past 13 years, the planting of GE crops has significantly increased herbicide use on corn, soybeans and cotton – by 383 million pounds. GE alfalfa deregulation would markedly add to that high toxic burden on the environment.

“Our genetic gene pool is extremely valuable, and we can’t afford to destroy it by handing it over to the biotech companies,” warns Conventional South Dakota alfalfa seed and hay grower, Chuck Noble. “If we’ve learned anything from Europe’s potato famines when millions starved to death, humans need seed variety to protect against blight and famine. Genetic engineering severely compromises that diversity.”

To receive updates on GE alfalfa and action alerts for other food issues, consumers can visit Center for Food Safety (www.truefoodnow.org) and join the True Food Network community.

About the National Organic Coalition

The National Organic Coalition (NOC) is a national alliance of organizations working to provide a “Washington voice” for farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, consumers and progressive industry members involved in organic agriculture. NOC seeks to work cooperatively with, and add value to, existing organic and sustainable agriculture organizations, networks and coalitions to ensure a united voice for organic integrity.