COVER STORY:

Freedom to Farm, Freedom to . . . ?

For the first time in six decades, darmers don't have to plant fields of monocrops to please the subsidy system -- so what now?

By Brian DeVore

The policy wonk who brainstormed the phrase "Freedom to Farm" to identify the law that now governs much of agriculture in this country was no dummy. It's the kind of phrase that conjures up images of farmers shucking the shackles of government intervention and, fueled by their new-found independence, sallying forth into the global marketplace.

Now that farmers have made it through their first planting season with this new-found "freedom" in tow, the high-flying rhetoric of Washington, D.C., has come home to roost on our nation's crop fields. In practical terms, what effect will such a transition into a free market have on the long-term sustainability of agriculture? If used right, it could serve as a transition for tens of thousands of producers into a system that relies less on huge fields of input-intensive monocrops, and more on smaller, more diverse farming enterprises, say agricultural economists and agronomists who specialize in sustainable agriculture. However, the wheels for such a system must be set in motion now, otherwise Freedom to Farm will simply lock in place an already unsustainable system for producing food and fiber.

The old way

For 60 years, the government has encouraged farmers to raise corn, wheat, cotton and rice by providing a price floor for those crops. The result has been a self-perpetuating cycle: The more acres planted to a certain program crop, the more subsidy payments a farmer qualified for. The more land given over to plantings that naturally break up weed and insect cycles and reduce soil erosion - forages, pasture-grass, certain small grains like oats - the fewer subsidies a farmer would qualify for. Of course, farmers always had the choice of dropping out of the program and raising whatever they wanted, and some have. But the volatility of markets and the lack of marketing infrastructure for alternative crops prevented most from striking out on their own. At least 98 percent of eligible producers receive government support in the form of "deficiency payments," or, as they have recently been renamed, "production flexibility contract payments."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that between 1990 and 1995, farmers received 5 percent of their gross cash income via direct government payments. Overall, that's not a huge chunk of the farm income pie. But for farmers who have not diversified beyond the production of one or two program crops, subsidies have evolved from being a safety net to a form of support that can play a critical role in an operation's economic survival. An analysis of the financial records of more than 400 farms in southeast Minnesota between 1991 and 1995 shows that on average 28 percent of their net income was made up of crop subsidy payments.

Such dependency develops because often the cost of putting in a crop isn't even covered by the price the farmer receives in the open market. In a state like Nebraska, on average it cost a farmer $2.40 to produce a bushel of irrigated corn last year.

"I've sold a lot more corn between $2 and $2.25 than over $2.50," says Lowell Schroeder, who farms near Stanton, Neb.

The new subsidy system

The Freedom to Farm Act mandates that between now and 2002, farmers will be given fixed subsidy payments, no matter what they raise. Congress also granted farmers the flexibility to hay and graze on acres previously set aside for program crops. In most cases, fruits and vegetables can't be raised on those acres. Those payment amounts will decline year-by-year until they are zeroed out by 2002, leaving farmers to fend for themselves in the open market.

By forcing farmers to plant more for the world market and less for the government, policymakers hope to save the $9 billion taxpayers have spent annually on subsidy programs in recent years.

Supporters of a more environmentally sound agriculture are excited about the potential this phasing out has for creating diverse cropping and livestock systems: a linchpin of sustainable farming. Our crop subsidies have created a situation where farmers are encouraged to plant one input-intensive crop on the same field year after year. This has created a cycle of chemical and energy dependency and made farms ecologically and economically unsustainable.

A new landscape

This spring, some farmers did take advantage of their new-found flexibility. On June 16, the Wall Street Journal reported that "·the result is unprecedented crop switching, altering both the scenic and the economic landscapes of rural America. Corn is sweeping through the South. North Dakota wheat farmers are storming into soybeans. Sorghum is becoming a major crop in Kansas. Rice is showing up less on the Texas Coast."

But this crop switching is not the kind that leads to long-term sustainability, points out Ferd Hoefner, Washington representative for the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. Yes, there may be more diversity from year to year under Freedom to Farm: A farm that had always raised corn may switch to soybeans one year to respond to a higher market. But there are indications that instead of integrating alternative cropping schemes into long range rotations - the cornerstone of a system that naturally breaks weed and pest cycles while building up soil quality - farmers are simply replacing one input-intensive, highly-erosive monocrop with another. Soybeans add nitrogen to the soil, so including that legume in a cropping strategy that in the past was dominated by corn may slightly reduce the use of fertilizers. But a corn-soybean farm is still a far cry from being a diverse, sustainable operation.

"Farmers from across the state are making comments that 'I will raise more corn,' or 'more soybeans,' " says Schroeder, the Nebraska farmer. "So we have 160-acre fields of one crop. That's a monoculture of 160 acres. Environmentally that's not the best."

Thomas Dobbs, an agricultural economist at South Dakota State University, says analyses of flexibility options that were part of the 1990 Farm Bill showed few farmers were interested in stretching their wings and flying into new farming alternatives. "Larger farmers have gotten into the habit of narrow rotations," he says. "They have the investment in machinery based on that. You've got a lot of built-in forces that would take some time to change."

Studies have shown even slight shifts from the same old row crop system can be quite profitable. A financial analysis of 418 farms from southeast Minnesota that are enrolled in the Farm Business Management Education program showed alfalfa hay had on average a net annual income per acre of $121 between 1991 and 1995, as compared to $17 for corn during that same period.

Dan Miller, a farm business management instructor based in Spring Valley, Minn., says farmers like the flexibility now offered, but are hesitant to pick up on alternatives - even ones that seem as consistently profitable as hay production.

"There should be more interests in alternatives like hay but human nature is you get used to one rotation," he says.

Dobbs and others who have studied the effects of ag policy down on the farm conclude that Freedom to Farm will basically free up farmers who have long considered sustainable options but were restricted from experimenting by the subsidy system.

"As far as prompting people to do something they hadn't considered before, that's open to question whether that will happen," says Dobbs.

Old habits die hard

It's become quite clear that the production end of farming is only one portion of a very large beast called agriculture. Dropping six decades of promoting the production of a handful of crops won't change the processing, marketing and transportation conditions those crops were raised under. In short, farmers and the agricultural infrastructure in general have been sapped of the ability or desire to consider other options.

"You've got the technology, you've got the delivery system from suppliers and you've got the drive to be globally competitive all centered around a few crops," says Garth Youngberg, executive director of the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture. "In my personal opinion, if making it easier to get into diverse rotations overrides all those other factors, I'd be surprised."

What's helping buoy up traditional farming systems in the short term is a spike of good prices for crops like corn and soybeans. This much corn hasn't been planted in America in a dozen years. Soybean prices reached an eight year high on March 10, prompting U.S. farmers to plant more acres of that oilseed than they have in 15 years.

Some farmers are finally getting to cash in on short supplies and high demand. But there are already signs of a dramatic dip in prices as record-breaking plantings on all those newly emancipated acres turn into bin-busting harvests.

No wonder the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's Hoefner wonders out loud: "What happens the first time prices drop?"

The meter's running

Dave and Diane Serfling aren't waiting around to find out.

The sound of fencing being nailed to posts made out of old railroad ties rings out on a brilliant summer day in the rolling hills of southeast Minnesota. It's the sound of the Serflings' continuing efforts to make their farm near Preston as diverse as possible.

"By the time it's done, any variety of livestock will use this pen," says Dave as he and a hired hand, Erik Larson, erect the fence in the midst of some pasture-farrowing sows and grazing sheep. Up the hill, beef cattle look on. "I think diversity is crucial. It's driven home to me all the time. When hog prices are down, then I can fall back on other enterprises."

Unlike many farms in the Midwest, the Serfling operation is not reliant on one crop or one species of livestock for its success. In that sense, it's a poster child for how farm policy can work for the good of agriculture and the land. Over the years the family has utilized federal subsidy programs to help their operation become less reliant on chemicals, artificial fertilizers and other expensive inputs, and in the process more environmentally and economically sound. In an era when most Midwestern farmers had to make a drastic choice - subsidies or sustainability - the Serflings managed to strike a balance between the two. They've used the crop subsidy system as a safety net while experimenting with different crop-livestock combinations.

For example, they were some of the few farmers who took advantage of the Integrated Farm Management option, a loophole in the 1990 Farm Bill that allowed producers to raise forage and other soil-saving crops without threatening future subsidy payments that were based on how much corn they planted each year. More often than not, Dave, who follows farm policy like most people check the daily weather forecast, educates local USDA personnel on the nuances of how different conservation options work.

The result? A 350-acre farm that has moved away from being corn-intensive. In any given year, it produces oats, alfalfa, beef and pork. The variety of crops provides ample rotation options for naturally breaking up pest and weed cycles while building up soil quality. The livestock add value to homegrown feed while cycling nutrients back to the land in the form of manure.

Lowell Schroeder isn't wasting any time making a sustainable transition either. One element of the new Farm Bill, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), offers financial assistance to farmers looking to install alternative livestock production systems such as management intensive grazing. Schroeder's 480-acre Nebraska farm qualified for enough EQIP funds to cover the majority of the cost of a management intensive grazing system he's setting up. The land has a fair sized creek on it, making certain farming practices a threat to water quality and wildlife populations. Studies have shown management intensive grazing to be an environmentally friendly and profitable method of livestock production.

The EQIP money will help pay for grass seeding, a livestock watering system and fencing. Schroeder hopes to have the entire farm converted to a beef cattle grazing operation within four years. He'll use the transition payments from the subsidy program - a large part of the farm was planted in corn in years past - to pay land costs and taxes, putting him on more solid financial ground.

Schroeder figures if he weren't making the transition to grazing, he'd simply have to raise more row crops like corn and soybeans to stay in business.

Farmers like Schroeder and the Serflings weren't suddenly made good land stewards by the stroke of a bureaucratic pen in D.C. They were striving for a sustainable diversity long before Freedom to Farm came to town. Meanwhile, most of their farming counterparts across the country have used the subsidy program to become less and less diverse.

Those stuck in the conventional farming rut have a lot of catching up to do before 2002. Sustainable agriculture experts estimate five to 10 years for a conventional farm to make a transition into a solid sustainable production system. Some agriculturalists are hoping Congress will revisit farm policy before 2002 and reinstitute some type of support payment system. But it should probably be assumed for now that every growing season that passes with a farmer planting the same crops is another year of opportunity lost. The countdown has begun to a world without a financial fall-back, when experimentation with alternatives could be economically fatal, and extreme market fluctuations will make farming conventionally more hazardous than ever.

It's the infrastructure, stupid

But even alternatives to input-intensive row-crop farming such as grass-based meat production face a rocky path in a rural America that has fewer local processing plants and a distribution system that favors movement of mass quantities of commodified products. What if consolidation in the meat industry, already a growing problem, denies independent farmers a place to market their livestock? Where will they market alternative crops, such as organic grains, that are good for the land and water as well as have high profit potential?

In financial terms, a farm product is only as sustainable as the infrastructure it's processed, marketed and transported in. A truly sustainable farm policy involves more than how much of a particular crop is planted on a certain amount of acres - it involves the communities that surround those crop fields as well. That requires a focus on rural development that goes beyond manipulating commodity supplies.

Economist Dobbs says too many times "rural development" consists of erecting expensive processing facilities such as corn ethanol plants that only add value to one or two commodities, sticking farmers back in the mud of monoculturalism. What is needed is a rural infrastructure that fosters and supports diverse farm production systems, says Dobbs.

A report recently prepared for the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program concluded that there are "a number of niche areas of production, processing and distribution where sustainable community food systems can be competitive with the industrial food system." On-farm processing, localized marketing and packaging that emphasizes the food product rather than the package could go a long ways toward rewarding farmers for their sustainable practices. A sustainable infrastructure that emphasizes making a community as self-sufficient as possible could increase farm revenues by as much as 37 percent because of lower marketing costs, concludes the report, entitled, Adding Values to Our Food System: An Economic Analysis of Sustainable Community Food Systems. And it's not just farmers who would benefit from such an infrastructure. If such a food system could capture just 5 percent of the total food market, it would generate $13.5 million in annual sales for a community of 150,000, say the report's authors.

Sustainable farming's economic draw has long been its ability to cut the costs of raising food and fiber. However, in the future capturing more of the food and fiber dollar currently eaten up by off-farm marketing and processing will be an even bigger factor in rewarding sustainable farmers financially, concludes a recent Center for Rural Affairs analysis, Emerging Markets for Family Farms. That's why one particularly exciting portion of the new farm bill is the Fund for Rural America program. This program originally provided $100 million each year for three years for agricultural research and extension activities to improve farm profitability, strengthen rural communities and enhance environmental stewardship. By mid-summer, a good chunk of the program's funding was in jeopardy. However, any support for such an initiative is at least a recognition that no amount of farmer planting freedom will bring about truly diverse agricultural systems without processing, marketing and distribution systems that are just as flexible.

The program has generated so much interest that some 3,000 research proposals have already been submitted. Many of those proposals deal directly with setting up sustainable marketing and processing systems in rural areas.

And in an even more direct show of support for localized food production and processing systems, $2.5 million has been set aside each year until 2002 for food security projects that, among other things, increase the self-reliance of communities in providing their own food needs.

Have policymakers finally shed the simplistic notion that there's nothing wrong with rural America that a temporary spike in crop prices can't cure? It's too early to tell. But some farmers are already preparing for the day when being the best corn producer in the county won't ensure survival.

"We'd definitely miss the [subsidy] checks," says Dave Serfling of life after 2002. "But then we'd find out if a farm is really sustainable."

Buffer strips add sustainable edge As part of its National Conservation Buffer initiative, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has begun aggressive promotion of the use of buffer strips in cropped fields, along field edges and along waterways. Many of these practices are eligible for special treatment and even bonus payments under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and other conservation programs. Practices like contour strips, filter strips, windbreaks, grass waterways and other uses of buffers can pay big conservation dividends on a minimal commitment of land. They can help control erosion and keep soil, fertilizers and chemicals out of surface water. The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, to which the Land Stewardship Project belongs, is a partner in the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Buffer Initiative, which will call attention to the benefits of buffer strips and the ways that various conservation programs can be used to compensate farmers for establishing these practices. In particular, the CRP offers bonus payments for several buffer strip practices, and makes them eligible for continuous sign-up in the program. Land that qualifies under this provision will be accepted immediately into the CRP, if offered before Sept. 30, without waiting for an official sign-up period. Farmers who had land rejected in the most recent CRP sign-up should investigate ways to put the most marginal land they offered into buffer strips, instead of keeping the entire field in production. For more information, contact your local USDA Service Center. Options for farmers· Making the Most of Freedom to Farm: Innovative uses of Flexible Planting Rules and Conservation Programs is a new publication available from the Land Stewardship Project. This is a 30-page guide to options for farmers who are looking to use the flexibility of the 1996 Farm Bill to maximize their environmental and economic performance. It includes examples of farmers who have diversified . For ordering information, contact LSP at: 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110; tele. - (612) 653-0618. In addition, the Conservation Options Hotline - (402) 994-2021 - is open for business. Operated by the Center for Rural Affairs in cooperation with the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (a coalition of grassroots groups, including LSP), the hotline can provide assistance to farmers seeking information on the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Farm Option. ·and consumers An excellent way to support farmers attempting to make the transition to sustainable agriculture is to buy products straight from the land. The Land Stewardship Project's southeast Minnesota office is now offering free copies of the Southeast Minnesota Farmer-to-Consumer Directory. Produced by LSP and the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota, this booklet lists farms in southeast Minnesota that offer everything from vegetables and meat products to bed and breakfast services. For a copy, contact: LSP, 180 E. Main St., PO Box 130, Lewiston, MN 55952; tele. - (507) 523-3366. Here's a few other free resources for consumers interested in buying sustainably produced food: The Sustainable Farming Association of Central Minnesota Marketing Directory. This listing of farms offering products is updated periodically. For a copy, contact: DeEtta Bilek, Rt. 1, Box 4, Aldrich, MN 56434; tele. - (218) 445-5475. Fresh Produce & More Directory and Specialty Meats Directory. These are two popular publications of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture's Minnesota Grown program. For a copy of either directory, call 1-800-657-3878.

LSL Q&A:
Sowing the seeds of change

EDITOR'S NOTE: As the Land Stewardship Project's original community organizer, Steve O'Neil helped develop the foundation for the way this organization has worked to empower farmers and other rural residents during the past 15 years. O'Neil was hired in 1982 by Ron Kroese shortly after Kroese and Victor Ray founded LSP. O'Neil's first job for the new organization was to organize meetings in southeast Minnesota counties that had extremely high erosion levels. These meetings, which included a blend of literature, music, hard facts and open discussion, helped set the tone for how LSP brings people together to talk about stewardship issues today. O'Neil left LSP briefly in 1983 to work on homeless issues in Washington, D.C., and returned to Minnesota in 1985, where he continued working with LSP until 1992. An organizer for more than two decades, O'Neil has a degree in sociology from Illinois State and did graduate work in social development at the University of Minnesota in Duluth. Before coming to LSP, he worked as an organizer in Chicago and Milwaukee. He was also a Public Service Employee in Glenwood City, Wis. O'Neil now lives with his wife, Angie Miller, and their two children, Brianna 12, and Brendan 9, in Duluth. Steve and Angie also serve as foster parents. O'Neil recently talked to the Land Stewardship Letter about those first meetings in southeast Minnesota and the role grassroots organizing plays in positive change.

LSL: In the beginning, LSP meetings were known for their inclusion of a humanities component: a talk by a writer or a musical performance. Was that a conscious strategy?

O'Neil: My task was to get people to those meetings and make sure they had a forum to speak their minds. But farmers are fiercely independent and aren't always open to discussion and getting involved. Victor and Ron were really into opening people up through the use of the humanities. They learned that from their work with the National Farmers Union. They held that this humanities slant was a good way to get people to talk about the big picture. Writers like Carol Bly, Joe and Nancy Paddock and others would help break the ice.

So at the meetings we typically would present some materials and the humanities people would speak and then there would be an open discussion.

Those first meetings weren't all great successes. There were times when only 15 or 20 people would show up. And even when we got a good turnout, in some meetings it just didn't click. Frankly, sometimes it worked best when the humanities people said something controversial. That got people discussing things, even if it was based on a controversial comment.

The Planting in the Dust play also helped provoke discussion. It really evoked people's emotions and got them to speak their minds.

In those early meetings we found that the people who attended - a mix of farmers, church people, soil conservation professionals, humanities people - often identified key issues that ranged from the way an absentee landowner was treating a farm to getting more books on land stewardship by authors like Wendell Berry in their local libraries.

LSL: Did the farm crisis cause a shift in the emphasis of LSP's organizing?

O'Neil: We still focused on the ethical aspects of land stewardship, but as the 1980s wore on it became clear the farm crisis was dominating any discussion of stewardship. During the open discussion at these meetings people would say 'I want to be a good steward but the farm crisis is forcing us to be bad managers, forcing us to make decisions that are bad for the land.' LSP even had a couple of board members who lost their farms. I can name five or six families with close ties to LSP who were in danger of losing their farms at one time.

Things were so bad that in the darkest years there was a real debate within LSP over whether we should just work with the big landowners on stewardship issues because they were the only ones that were going to be left.

So we started working with groups like Farmers Union and Groundswell on blending the economic aspects of agriculture with the stewardship issue.

LSL: LSP had some success in those early years in areas such as developing soil erosion ordinances on the county level and organizing against the abuse of land by absentee landowners. The organization even got involved with tree planting campaigns. But the first big controversy that brought LSP into the national limelight was the Hauck Farm issue. Tell us about the organizing that served as the foundation for that.

O'Neil: In 1984, the John Hancock Insurance Company foreclosed on a farm in Wabasha County [Minn.] and within a matter of months, the 270-acre farm was transformed from a picturesque showpiece complete with terraces, grass contour strips and waterways to a massive plowed field ready for continuous plantings of row crops. The conservation practices, which had been put in place during a 28-year period, had reduced annual soil loss levels to three tons per acre. Soil conservation officials estimated that destruction of those structures would raise annual erosion levels to more than 35 tons per acre.

Local people were very upset at the transformation of the farm. It was such a black and white issue: Here's a big insurance company from Boston that's stripping the land. At one point the company had $2.4 billion worth of farm investments, yet had produced no written conservation policy to guide their management. And Hancock wasn't alone. In 1986, a dozen major insurance companies held more than $11 billion in farm mortgages around the country, making these firms the second largest institutional source of farm mortgages in the country. We were hearing more reports of insurance companies foreclosing on land and then renting it to large cash grain farmers who ripped out all the conservation practices.

We started out with house meetings in Millville that consisted of 10 to 15 people. In some ways it seemed a little preposterous. Here we are at these meetings asking: How can we beat this huge corporation? At first we started out doing the traditional stuff like writing letters, etc., but Hancock officials ignored us. Then we would hold small press conferences in the area. I'm sure the Hancock people must have been laughing. They didn't even have an agricultural office in Minnesota. The closest one was in Sioux City, Iowa, and the people there weren't very helpful, so we took 50 people to their sales office in St. Paul to protest.

It was [former LSP staffer] Chuck Thesing's idea to get a plane to fly over the farm and take photos. He and this friend who had a plane flew over just as the farmer renting it was plowing out some of the conservation practices. Once we published that photo alongside a photo showing the farm before it was stripped, that grabbed people's imagination. It was so wrong and so clear.

Suddenly it took off. The photos appeared in local newspapers, we were featured in the Boston Globe, on CNN, and even Fortune magazine did a story. We printed 15,000 fliers featuring the before and after photos on the farm and mailed them all over the country, including every Soil Conservation Service office in the Midwest. The fliers generated hundreds of letters to Hancock.

Hancock finally agreed to meet with us in December 1985. But they wouldn't come to Minnesota, and instead agreed to pay for two plane tickets to Boston. Through that meeting, which included two Wabasha County farmers and a local soil expert, we were able to convince Hancock officials to restore some of the conservation practices on the farm and to improve management practices on some of the other farm properties they controlled. We also got calls from people from all over the country complaining about how insurance companies were treating the land. The Hancock campaign really set the tone for future efforts to hold insurance companies accountable for how they managed the land they owned.

LSL: What are you doing these days?

O'Neil: I got hooked on housing and homeless issues while living in D.C., and in 1989 my wife and I helped start the Loaves and Fishes Catholic Worker Community in Duluth. It offers hospitality to homeless people in the Duluth-Superior area and for several years helped refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador who were on their way to Canada. We eventually bought three houses to house families, single men, and single women in need. I also work on various other peace and social justice issues.

LSL: Looking back on your career so far, how do you feel about the effectiveness of grassroots organizing?

O'Neil: Clearly we've had some great successes through LSP and other organizations. On the other hand, we still have a lot of problems and you could argue things are worse than they ever were.

The bottom line for me is we have to believe in it and keep trying. Succeeding is not the only measuring stick. Just being out there and trying to create a better world is enough. Of course, I like to win but you're not always going to win. And so if you don't follow that first philosophy of just getting out there it can be very frustrating.

It's like Wendell Berry's poem about the Mad Farmer where he talks about planting the seeds for the millennium. That's what we have to be about: giving people seeds.

LSP News:

New LSP staff

Michael Pressman has joined the Land Stewardship Project as a project leader in its 1000 Friends of Minnesota program. Pressman, of St. Paul, has extensive experience working on land use and conservation issues. Most recently he was the Midwest regional manager for 4Ever Land Conservation Associates, Inc. Pressman has a bachelor's degree in American civilization from Lafayette College in Pennsylvania and a master's degree in regional planning from the University of Pennsylvania.

He will coordinate the creation of a green corridor of protected land in Minnesota's Washington and Chisago counties (see story, page 6). Mark Thalacker is the Land Stewardship Project's new accountant. Thalacker is a certified public accountant who has worked for a variety of private and nonprofit organizations. A resident of Woodbury, Minn., Thalacker has a bachelor's degree in accounting from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.

Terry Van Der Pol recently joined LSP's western Minnesota office as the project coordinator for the Chippewa River Stewardship Partnership Whole Farm Planning and Monitoring Team (see Update below). A resident of Granite Falls, Minn., Van Der Pol has 20 years of experience as a community organizer. Most recently, she worked as the Community Alliance Program Officer for the Southwest Minnesota Initiative Fund.

Van Der Pol has a bachelor's degree in psychology and sociology from the University of Minnesota-Morris, and studied research design, methods and statistics at the University of Missouri.

Elizabeth Schroeder has joined LSP as an intern in its Twin Cities office. Schroeder, of Stillwater, Minn., is pursuing a bachelor's degree in ethics, politics and economics at Yale University. She has previously worked for the Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School.

Nell Hanssen is a new intern in LSP's western Minnesota office. She is a recent graduate of Oberlin College in Ohio, where she received a degree in biology with a minor in anthropology. Her previous work experience includes a job with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, where she studied Amish farming practices. She lives in Montevideo.

OFFICE UPDATES: Western Minnesota
Flooding & drainage: Going beyond blame

By Patrick J. Moore

Once the floodwaters of 1997 began to recede, many residents of the Upper Minnesota River Valley started questioning the role that agricultural drainage played in this most recent catastrophe.

Until recently, questioning drainage has been taboo. No one denies farmland drainage has brought tremendous agricultural productivity and economic prosperity to western Minnesota: we're all hesitant to bite the hand that feeds us. But now we seem to be in the midst of a polarizing debate about the impact of drainage on flooding. There's more than enough blame to go around, and upstream farmers, downstream dwellers, government policies and nature itself can all take a share.

In this highly charged mud-slinging environment, it is refreshing to know that since 1994, a group of farmers, landowners, government agencies, sportsmen and environmental nonprofits have been cooperatively working on ways to address water quality and flooding problems in the Chippewa River Basin. Put together by the Land Stewardship Project's western Minnesota office and known as the Chippewa River Stewardship Partnership (CRSP), this group offers a model for bringing people together based on the sometimes unwieldy outlines of a watershed, rather than the arbitrary political boundaries no river respects.

Because agricultural drainage is such a major force in the Chippewa River (a tributary of the Minnesota), farmers are seen as the key to creating a healthy watershed. That's why the underlying vision guiding the CRSP is that agricultural prosperity and rural economic development can be fostered by environmental restoration activities and alternative land uses. Nearly three dozen agencies and organizations, as well as more than 10 private landowners, are involved in the partnership. Many of these people were on opposite sides of the table when it came to drainage issues in the past. However, it's become clear in recent years that when it comes to water quality and quantity, we agree more often than not.

To kick off the discussion, three years ago the CRSP held focus groups with farmers and landowners in the lower Chippewa River Basin to ask them what it would take to get wetlands and riparian areas - keystones of ecologically sound flood control - restored in the lower Chippewa.

The farmers who took part in the focus groups said although they find permanent easement agreements for restoring wetlands too restrictive, they are interested in short-term and long-term protection programs. They said they want to be paid a decent price for restoring these areas, and they still want to be able to graze or harvest hay off the uplands surrounding a wetland once it is restored. The farmers were suspicious of the long-term power government easements held over their land, yet they are willing to consider working with nonprofit land trust organizations. Finally, and most importantly, the farmers and landowners want to have a say as to how any wetland restoration project is designed and implemented, rather than having programs imposed on them and their neighbors by an unseen committee.

In short, these farmers are willing to work at making it possible to hold more water upstream if given the right incentives and conditions.

As a result of these meetings, custom-designed perpetual easements were secured from area landowners Sherman Olson and Gary Lentz through the Minnesota Land Trust. These two farms are serving as models for new kinds of easements that allow limited economic use of protected lands in a way that does not compromise the environmental benefits of the restoration projects.

For example, on the Olson farm a 44-acre "temporary storage basin" was created and 100 acres of upland was seeded with natural grasses which the easement allows to be harvested and grazed. The basin enhances Olson's fee-based hunting reserve with seasonal wetland habitat.

"I'm interested in keeping water, while many of my neighbors just want to get rid of it," Olson, who farms 1,000 acres of ridge-till corn and soybeans, told me recently.

On the Lentz farm, the CRSP purchased a permanent "grassland easement" on 70 acres of worn-out farmland near the Chippewa River. The easement prohibits row crop production on the fragile riparian soils, but will allow grazing and some limited building on the land. Lentz used the funds from his easement purchase to finance the construction of a state-of-the-art fence for management intensive grazing. This profitable method of livestock production has proven effective at radically reducing erosion and nutrient runoff.

The Lentz and Olson pilot sites demonstrate a farmer-based approach which seeks to combine environmental protection with economic profitability. Such a balancing act would be impossible without the input of all the groups and individuals involved in the CRSP. Initiatives like this are a recognition that between any flood management policy and the river there stands landowners. The legitimate concerns and creative ideas of these people must be heard if we are to craft a lasting solution to our watershed problems.

Patrick J. Moore is an organizer in LSP's western Minnesota office.

OFFICE UPDATE: Policy
Citizen action fuelslegislative success

By Mark Schultz

The Land Stewardship Project and its allies experienced unprecedented success during the 1997 session of the Minnesota Legislature (see stories, pages 6-9). LSP's constituent organizing around livestock concentration and factory farm issues over the past five years can be credited with a lot of our recent success. But specific actions were taken by LSP members during the past 12 months that made a real impact this legislative season. Citizen science: In spring 1996, meetings held with LSP members and others in farmhouse kitchens led to citizen testing of hydrogen sulfide gas emissions from factory farms in Renville County. This testing laid the groundwork for a new law ensuring that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will monitor factory farms for hydrogen sulfide emissions and require compliance with the state's pollution restrictions.

Direct action: This winter, one of our chief adversaries on the issue of factory farms and livestock concentration, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), blundered badly. The NPPC's Minnesota affiliate, the Minnesota Pork Producers Association, has lobbied hard for a pro-factory farm agenda, and against reforms supported by family farmers and other rural citizens. So when the story of NPPC's surveillance of LSP and other grassroots groups that oppose the commodity organization's pro-factory farm policies broke, we saw an opportunity to publicly expose its agenda. The Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, of which LSP is a founding member, launched an aggressive action campaign, culminating in a demonstration at NPPC headquarters in March that involved more than 300 farmers and rural residents from five states, including Minnesota. The Campaign's action put the NPPC and its state affiliates on the defensive during legislative sessions throughout the Midwest. That was a critical reason citizens working for reform were able to make headway in the Minnesota Legislature this year.

Working with allies: Collaboration with other organizations also led to legislative success. In particular, LSP worked closely with Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota Catholic Conference, Minnesota COACT and the Farmers Legal Action Group. Grassroots mobilization: Hundreds of key citizens and grassroots leaders across the state worked tirelessly during the legislative session. Phone calls, letters to newspapers, radio interviews, testimonials, visits to legislators and simply attending key committee hearings made the difference. It provided the support for legislative allies - particularly Gary Kubly, Doug Peterson and Ted Winter in the House and Tracy Beckman and Steve Morse in the Senate - to do their work, and do it well.

Mark Schultz is director of LSP's policy program.

LSP Legislative News

LSP scores major legislative victories

The 1997 session of the Minnesota Legislature bore an unusually good crop of laws pertaining to the good stewardship of farmland and sustainable community development. Land Stewardship Project staff and constituents helped draft and push through laws related to, among other things, protection of farmland from sprawling development, restrictions on gases produced by large manure lagoons, and development of on-farm processing of agricultural products. It appears that the many years of efforts to educate lawmakers on the true costs of basing future growth on unsustainable practices is starting to pay off.

"For the first time since I started going to the Legislature, lawmakers seemed to understand why this was important," says Lee Ronning, director of LSP's 1000 Friends of Minnesota program, which focuses on sustainable land use issues. "We didn't have to convince them why sprawl is bad."

And on legislation related to livestock concentration issues in particular, the willingness of LSP members to call lawmakers, write letters and travel to St. Paul for committee hearings made a significant difference. One senator reported receiving more than 100 phone calls on a particular piece of LSP-related legislation.

"To have legislators tell you 'I got the message, quit calling,' was pretty cool," says Julie Jansen, an LSP member who helped create legislation related to air standards near factory farms.

The following is a summary of what was passed, and some of the implications.

A vote for sustainable growth

Minnesota lawmakers took some key steps toward balancing growth with conservation during the 1997 session.

Passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Arne Carlson was an initiative the Land Stewardship Project helped draft that creates a statewide framework for community-based comprehensive planning. Another LSP initiative - legislation that clears the way for communities to utilize purchase and transfer of development rights to protect farmland - was also made into law. In addition, a proposal to create a permanently protected green corridor of open space in Washington and Chisago counties received funding through the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources.

Planning framework

The 1997 Community-Based Planning Act will create a framework for sustainable planning that establishes 11 goals: 1) citizen participation in the process every step of the way; 2) cooperation among communities; 3) creation of sustainable economic development strategies that will achieve a balanced distribution of growth statewide; 4) conservation of agricultural, natural, historic and archaeological areas; 5) strengthen communities by following the principles of livable community design in development and redevelopment; 6) creation of affordable housing; 7) creation of efficient, sustainable transportation systems; 8) establishment of a community-based framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to land use; 9) an accounting for the full environmental, social and economic costs of new development; 10) support of research and public education on a community's and a state's finite capacity to accommodate growth; 11) provide a better quality of life for all residents while maintaining nature's ability to function over time by minimizing waste, preventing pollution, promoting efficiency and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy.

Counties will receive money and technical assistance for community-based plans that are consistent with the 11 goals. A total of $1.5 million was appropriated by the bill, including $500,000 for four pilot land use planning projects in communities threatened by sprawl.

"Too often neighboring local units of government create zoning laws that work at cross-purposes to each other, thus contributing to wasteful sprawl," says Lee Ronning, director of LSP's 1000 Friends of Minnesota program. "We owe legislators such as Representative Dee Long and Senator Steve Morse a big thank you for recognizing this and championing such a farsighted piece of legislation that helps coordinate planning for the benefit of everyone."

Minnesota joins about a dozen other states that have set up statewide land use planning in an attempt to battle unsustainable land use. During the next several months, an advisory council will create a model for involving citizens in community-based planning. That council, which will include, among others, nine citizen members, has been given the duties of: 1) creating a model to involve citizens in community-based planning; 2) holding meetings statewide to gain input on implementation of community-based planning; 3) developing specific, measurable criteria by which plans will be reviewed for consistency with goals; 4) recommending a review and comment process for community-based plans; 5) recommending a process for coordination of plans among jurisdictions; 6) recommending an alternative dispute resolution method for citizens and local governments to use to challenge proposed plans; 7) recommending incentives to encourage state agencies to implement goals; 8) recommending incentives for local governments to develop community-based goals; 9) describing the tools and strategies that a county, city or town can use to achieve the goals; 10) recommending the time frame in which the plans must complete; 11) considering the need for ongoing stewardship and oversight of sustainable development initiatives and the community-based planning process; and 12) reviewing and recommending changes to this framework. The council is mandated to propose legislation for the 1998 legislative session to further develop and implement the framework. John DeGrove, a nationally recognized expert on sustainable land use planning, came to Minnesota last fall at LSP's invitation and talked to policy makers about the need for such a framework in the state. He has reviewed the newly passed legislation and says it is a significant first step in the right direction. The key is making sure there is strong follow-up efforts to implement and strengthen the law, he says.

"The goals are fine, but just sitting there they don't do anything," says DeGrove, who is director of the Florida University/International Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems. "It's all in implementation. Otherwise, it could slip away from you."

Green corridor

Legislators and Carlson supported the green corridor proposal through a $500,000 grant to develop a pilot land preservation project that would serve as a model for the rest of the state. The grant will allow the Land Stewardship Project and a coalition of other organizations to develop a corridor of undeveloped land through Washington and Chisago counties, two areas threatened by sprawling development. Approximately 10,000 acres of land would be made a part of the corridor using land protection tools such as voluntary conservation easements, purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights, and land acquisition.

Get involved

The Community-Based Planning advisory council will be holding public meetings in communities around Minnesota during the next several months. These meetings will play a key part in gathering citizen input into how this framework should take shape and what proposals will be presented to the state legislature in 1998.

For information on the locations and times of these meetings, contact LSP's Lee Ronning or Scott Elkins at (612) 653-0618.

Using planning to ensure true local control What is the basis of community-based comprehensive planning? In a sense, it's a recognition that no unit of government - from the smallest township to the largest city or county - is an island. "Local units of government really don't have local control if their neighbor can do them in" with bad planning, says land use planning expert John DeGrove. "Sometimes they mean to, sometimes it's by accident, but the result is bad either way." Take Minnesota's Stearns County for example. It's the home of St. Cloud, the ninth largest city in the state. But there are also 29 other municipalities and 36 townships crowded within its 1,394 square miles, making the county a hotbed of local government. Unfortunately, it's also a hotbed of the kind of sprawling growth that eats up farmland in a wasteful manner. "The squeeze is really on," says Stearns County planner Chelle Benson. "We need to do something." Part of the reason is those 66 local units of government don't always work together when it comes to growth and development. One township may take special care to zone an area agricultural, thus preserving an economic and social farming infrastructure in the area. However, without some sort of overall framework of planning, there's nothing to stop a neighboring municipality from promoting the construction of residential subdivisions or an industrial park literally next door, making it difficult for dairy farms and crop fields to survive. That's why the county is in the process of creating a comprehensive plan. Benson says the framework, which is scheduled for completion in spring of 1998, will give all local government officials guidelines to work under as they figure out the future of growth and development in their community. It's up to the local residents if they want to get more detailed in their community's zoning ordinances. For example, the county plan may call for zoning that protects the agricultural character of the region; a more specific local government comprehensive plan could specify that a specific type of land use be promoted or restricted. Stearns County officials also plan on providing a "planning kit" to local units of government wanting to pursue more specific planning options. Benson says many local units of government don't have the resources to even hire a professional planner and have no idea how to go about taking the first steps toward drawing up a basic zoning ordinance. "We have some townships with no planning or zoning." Local government officials have made it clear to Benson that they don't want mandates handed down from the county courthouse or the state capitol specifying that this building can go here, and that road there. But they do want help in coordinating their own planning and zoning with their neighbors. Stearns County has nine other counties adjoining its borders. That leaves plenty of room for county-wide comprehensive plans to run smack-dab into each other. That's where the statewide planning framework passed in the Minnesota Legislature this spring comes into the picture. It can help counties blend their individual comprehensive plans under a statewide umbrella of guidelines - similar to how local townships or cities would dovetail their individual plans within the county. Benson says perhaps the most exciting part about community-based planning is that it's based on the wants and needs of local residents. That creates the potential for the kind of planning that takes into account all aspects of what makes for a good quality of life in a community. "We really need to combine the social type of planning with the physical sort of planning," she says. "Too often we get stuck on the physical aspects of planning instead of being able to pull back and take a look at how everything fits together."

Factory farm restrictions, alternatives get boost

The Minnesota Legislature is no stranger to livestock concentration issues. But the 1997 session marks the first time legislation to hold factory farms accountable to their neighbors was passed alongside initiatives promoting alternative production systems that eliminate the environmental problems created by factory facilities in the first place.

Hydrogen sulfide enforcement

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is now required by law to develop a protocol for enforcing air quality standards related to hydrogen sulfide emissions. This legislation provides $163,000 the first year and $92,000 the second year for air quality monitoring and compliance activities around manure lagoons. The law requires the MPCA to use portable survey instruments, a strategy likely to make the agency better able to respond to citizen complaints from a wide geographic area. Permanent monitoring stations provide accurate readings at a few specific sites, but leave little room for responding to complaints from different parts of the state. MPCA officials must report back to the House and Senate in 1998 on their efforts to resolve the hydrogen sulfide problem.

This legislation is the result of intense lobbying on the part of LSP members and other rural residents who have experienced symptoms of hydrogen sulfide poisoning within the past few years. Last year, LSP and a group of citizens used state-of-the art monitoring equipment to test air quality in the vicinity of several lagoons in Renville County. They found many of the lagoons were in violation of state hydrogen sulfide standards. They also found there was no protocol in place to take action on facilities producing illegal amounts of the toxic gas.

"I don't want this to happen to anyone else," says Julie Jansen, whose rural Olivia home is within a mile of two large manure lagoons. She and her family have experienced blackout periods, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms of hydrogen sulfide poisoning during the past few years. "I'm really excited about the legislation. Now we just need to see if the MPCA will do its job."

That's easier said than done. Mike Sandusky, acting manager of the agency's Air Quality Division, says the money allows him to purchase a few more portable monitors, but doesn't come anywhere near providing the staff needed to respond to complaints.

"This will help purchase some equipment but it's people who will do the testing, people who will do the response and people who will do the enforcement," says Sandusky, adding that $600,000 a year would have helped the agency better fulfill the law's intentions.

But Sandusky did say the MPCA is committed to developing a protocol for responding to air quality complaints in the vicinity of lagoons. He says because they can't respond to all complaints, the agency is in the process of developing a criteria for when a lagoon needs to be investigated by personnel. In other words, say MPCA officials, the more complaints received on a particular facility, the more likely it is to be investigated with portable monitoring devices.

"By the time we provide a report to the Legislature next year we will be able to demonstrate we have a policy in place, that we have staff working on this, that we have developed a strategy for responding," says Sandusky.

The Legislature also mandated that anyone proposing to construct or expand a livestock facility with a capacity of 500 animal units or more shall provide notice to each resident and each property owner within 5,000 feet of the construction site. Currently, many rural residents only learn of a new livestock factory in the neighborhood after it is under construction, giving them no opportunity to provide input into whether such a facility should be allowed into their community.

Local control

Local units of government attempting to hold off the invasion of factory farm facilities had a good news-bad news experience at the Legislature. The good news is that LSP and its allies were able to hold off attempts by Sen. Steve Dille of Dassel to weaken the powers of local government to control what kind of livestock development occurs. His proposed legislation would have required local units of government to submit changes in their feedlot ordinances to the Pollution Control Agency and the Commissioner of Agriculture who would then be actively involved in the development of the new ordinance. Instead, the law now just requires the county to notify the state. Local officials can then decide if they want information and technical assistance in developing the ordinance. Paul Sobocinski, a Wabasso, Minn., hog farmer and LSP organizer, says it was a minor victory to keep the powers of local control from being eroded further. However, the fact that the state must be notified leaves open the possibility that state officials will have a negative influence on how an ordinance is structured.

"We stripped out the worst of Dille's language, but damage was inflicted on local control," says Sobocinski.

Alternatives to factories

As part of a $525,000 odor research initiative, the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture will receive $125,000 for researching, developing and promoting low-emission and low energy alternative hog production systems such as hoop houses, the Swedish system, and pasture farrowing.

In addition, a grant program was developed for groups of farmers who are trying to process livestock. Value-added on-farm processing has proven to be an effective way for sustainably produced commodities to access profitable markets. Under the provisions of the new program, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture can make grants of up to $50,000 each for feasibility, marketing analysis and pre-design of facilities.

LSP member and Boyd, Minn., hog farmer Dennis Timmerman testified before lawmakers about the many obstacles he and 14 of his neighbors have faced during the past three years in establishing their own pork processing facility.

"I thought I knew a lot but we've had plenty of expensive obstacles to overcome," says Timmerman of the Prairie Farms Cooperative, which plans on opening a plant in New London, Minn., this fall. "That $50,000 would be helpful for anyone doing something like what we're doing."

Book Review

The Forgotten Pollinators
By Stephen L. Buchmann& Gary Paul Nabhan
Foreword by E.O. Wilson Illustrations by Paul Mirocha
Island Press, Washington D.C.
1996
320 pages
$25.00

Reviewed by Dana Jackson

Beekeeping was a part of my life once, so I'm attracted to articles and stories about honeybees. When I first heard about The Forgotten Pollinators, I assumed it would be all about domesticated bees and the loss of colonies due to tracheal mites and Varroa mites. The decline of bee colonies is of great concern today, not only to the honey industry, but to those whose crops are pollinated by bees.

But this wonderful book is about a lot more than the honey bee. The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims that this familiar bee, apis mellifera, provides four-fifths of all insect pollination services received by cultivated crops in this country; the other one-fifth of the pollination is provided by "other unknown pollinators." That one-fifth is critical to the success of crops like alfalfa seed, which the domesticated bee cannot efficiently pollinate, but the wild alkali bee can. And this is an important point: as effective as domesticated bees are, they cannot always replace the native pollinators whose habitats have been destroyed by "highly engineered agricultural landscapes," roads, and development.

The authors describe the domesticated bee as a classic example of a colonizer. First introduced into North America 375 years ago, the bee, like the white European, has spread into "every exploitable niche in the continental United States." And like white Europeans, it displaced many native residents. All of the trees and wild flowers found here were dependent upon native pollinators, most of them insects and some quite specific to particular plants. Since scientists were not keeping good records hundreds of years ago, we don't really have facts about the impact of the invasion. But ecologists speculate that the native pollinators were the "victims of scramble competition by honeybees - the disruption of many plant-pollinator relationships by a single dominant exotic."

This book is about relationships, critical plant-pollinator relationships that are increasingly at risk. Farmers, eaters, those who want to preserve species diversity should sit up and take notice. The authors inform us that 80 percent of the species of our food plants worldwide depend on pollination by animals, almost all of which are insects, and one out of every three mouthfuls of food we eat comes to us in a roundabout way through the services of pollinators. The authors give us examples of symbiosis between rare and endangered plant populations and animal pollinators that illustrate an underlying theme of the book stated by Steve Buchmann: "a biologically rich place is rich in relationships as well as in species. Conversely: the loss of biodiversity is always more than the simple loss of species; it is also the extinction of ecological relationships."

Buchmann and Nabhan describe the diversity and complexity of plant-pollinator interactions. We learn that some of these ecological relationships are very specific. The structure and shapes of certain flowers have evolved to be hosts to particular bees, beetles, ants, butterflies, birds and bats. Pollinators are also attracted by fragrances, colors, nutritional rewards and blossom opening times.

I was particularly struck by the critical importance of timing for migrant pollinators. Hummingbirds that migrate from northern Mexico through the southwestern United States in the spring arrive in each place just when various ocotillo species are flowering. The long-nosed bat is a generalist migratory pollinator that follows a nectar corridor in its migratory route, specializing in just one kind of flower at each stop. If natural or human-caused events destroy large numbers of hummingbirds or bats, the plant populations are also diminished. If the construction of roads and buildings, or careless applications of herbicides, destroy plant populations, the pollinators die out. If global warming causes earlier blooming, will migratory pollinators adjust their departure and arrival times?

The same risk exists for non-migratory pollinator relationships. For example, only a small population of a particular evening primrose exists in the Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge in California. Its main pollinator, a sphinx moth, has not been seen in the area for decades because of the large-scale regional use of pesticides. Seed set is relatively low because other pollinators are not as effective as the sphinx moth, so this primrose is functionally extinct.

The authors give examples from all over the world of habitat fragmentation and deforestation that endanger plant-pollinator relationships. The monocultural row-cropping system that defines modern agriculture plays no small part in the destruction of these pollinators.

The structure of this book is unusual. The team of writers - Nabhan is an economic botanist and Buchman an entomologist specializing in pollinator species - distinguish their individual voices for the reader by inserting GARY REMEMBERS: or STEVE REMEMBERS: at the beginning of passages. And they are remembering, recounting their biological observations from Mexico to Malaysia and the Galapagos. Hearing Gary's voice as I read, I recalled the foray into Mexico just south of the Sonoran Desert that my daughter Laura and I took with Nabhan in 1990. DANA REMEMBERS: bumping down roads in Gary's truck to visit particular populations of plants, as well as Gary's human Mexican acquaintances.

This book has prompted me to ask my neighbor Karen, who gardens with me: "What creatures pollinate our strawberries? Do you know what those small winged insects on the chives are? I wonder if most of the garden is pollinated by those large bumblebees, or are there other wild pollinators that I just haven't seen?" I hope so.

Dana Jackson is associate director of the Land Stewardship Project. For information on the Forgotten Pollinators Campaign, see Resources, below.

Poetry

Echoes at San Antonio de los Banos, an Agricultural Lighthouse

Like so many farmers just in from the field,
he takes a seat at the front of the meeting room,
preparing to share his story.
Here at the Jorge Dimitrov Cooperative Farm
the chief of production speaks
in a tone of humility and dignity
that is instantly familiar to me.
As in so many Sustainable Farming Association
of Minnesota workshops,
the changemaking land steward opens his message:
"It is difficult for farmers to speak to a group.
We are not orators. We don't have fancy language. . ."
And then proceeds to captivate the focus of everyone present,
"But we speak with our heart in our hand."

Using a simple potato as a punctuating visual aid,
he conveys his very vivid understanding
that land covers only 25% of the planetary surface.
He slices away three fourths representing the waters,
and from the remaining quarter he breaks off
the portions representing earth that has been
desertified. . .
poisoned. . .
covered with concrete and asphalt. . .
leaving a small chunk of potato with very thin skin:
the 10% of the land surface that is arable
and upon which all of civilization depends for its survival.

The resonance reverberates.
In essence, this is the same illustration that
conservation educators like Jane and Kathy and myself
have used time and again, though with northern apples,
to convey this reality to CROP Walkers and
sixth graders and fair-goers back home,
where the topsoils in March
are still frozen and bared to the wind.

The chief of production acknowledges his responsibility
to feed people, improve profitability
and preserve the red earth of his home hectares,
with rotations and biological pest controls,
with animals and green manures.

He reminds Richard of his grandfather
Fred, the tree planter and philosopher,
acting on behalf of the greater community,
rooting his words and action
in a profound understanding of the natural world
and in a responsibility to those
that will come long after we
are returned to dust.

- Audrey Arner
March 1996 - Food First
Cuban Agroecological Tour

Opportunities/Resources

The buzz on pollination

"The Future of our farms depends on pollinators," claim the people who run the Forgotten Pollinators Campaign. After reading The Forgotten Pollinators, the book that inspired this nonprofit organization, one would have a hard time arguing with that statement. Forgotten Pollinators is an excellent resource for anyone interested in how our pollen-based food production system will survive in the face of industrial agriculture. One Forgotten Pollinators publication, Partners in Production: How to work with pollinators to improve your harvest, offers some quick how-to guidelines for farmers and gardeners. For more information, contact: Mrill Ingram, Forgotten Pollinators Campaign, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, 2021 N. Kinney Rd., Tucson, AZ 85743; tele. - (520) 883-3006; Email: fpollen@azstarnet.com

Life after CRP

With approximately 900,000 acres of Minnesota farmland being released from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) this fall, a lot of landowners might be interested in checking out a free set of 12 fact sheets on what to do post-CRP. The Minnesota CRP Information Series focuses on alternatives to returning land to row crop production. Everything from grazing and forage production to organic cropping and energy generation options are covered in the sheets. The fact sheets can be ordered individually or as a set.

For more information, contact: Barbara Weisman, Sustainable Agriculture Program, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 90 West Plato Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55107; tele. - (612) 282-6831 or (612) 296-7673.

Ironing out weeds

Steel in the Field is a new book about mechanical weed control available from the Sustainable Agriculture Network. The 128-page book highlights the firsthand mechanical weed control experiences of 22 farms from across the country. It also contains supplier contacts, tool price ranges, resource lists and clear descriptions for more than 50 implements and accessories.

For a copy, send a check or purchase order for $18 (that covers shipping; call (802) 656-0471 for rush orders) to: Sustainable Agriculture Publications, Hills Building, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405-0082.

Farmer(s) wanted

Shepherd's Hill Farm near Northfield, Minn., is looking for a live-in farmer (single or couple) to partner in a pasture-based beef and lamb Community Supported Agriculture operation. Send an informal resume to: Shepherd's Hill Farm, 3216 Edmund Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55406.

LSP 15th Anniversary Report

Anniversary celebration Sept. 13

"The Landscape of Stewardship" is the theme of the Land Stewardship Project's all-day 15th anniversary celebration. The Sept. 13 event will be held in Jordan, Minn. (about an hour southwest of the Twin Cities) and will feature music, speakers, good food, fun activities for kids and an opportunity to see a sustainable farm firsthand. It begins at 10 a.m. and concludes at 9 p.m.

General schedule

• A keynote address by Neil Hamilton, director of the Drake University Agricultural Law Center in Iowa. Hamilton has written widely about ways agriculture can become more sustainable in a changing world. The title of his keynote will be "Stewardship and the New Agriculture: Planning the Harvest We Desire." He writes a regular column for the Des Moines Register and has written for Successful Farming magazine and the defunct New Farm magazine. See the April/May issue of the LSL for a sampling of his writings.
• A tour of the Dave and Florence Minar farm near New Prague, Minn. The tour will feature "stewardship stations" led by farmers, university faculty, government agency personnel and LSP staff.
• A tour featuring urban sprawl and a discussion of alternatives.
• An evening concert by John Gorka, an internationally acclaimed musician who is featured on the LSP video Houses in the Fields. Since his first album, I Know, in 1987, Gorka has been - in the words of Rolling Stone magazine - "The preeminent male singer/songwriter of the new folk movement."
• Lunch and pork barbecue supper with all the trimmings.

The Cost

The fees (10 percent discount for LSP members) are $30 each for the full day; $17 for the keynote, lunch and farm tour only; $17 for the hog roast and concert only; $11 for children 5-15 years old; preschoolers are free - morning child care and activities will be provided for $6.

There are several motels in the area. Camping will be available at the Scott County Fairgrounds (free, with very limited facilities) or at Minnesota Valley State Park.

Stewardship stations

• Houses in the Fields - a Changing Landscape: En route to the Minar farm, learn about the potential of Minnesota's 1997 Community-Based Planning Act to positively affect development patterns.
• Practicing Stewardship - Tour of Minar Family Farm: Tour will feature stops to see chickens, hogs, dairy cows, young calves and milking facilities.
• Creeks & Critters: By Sand Creek flowing through the Minar farm; we'll talk about monitoring and improving the health of streams, rivers and riparian areas and learn about the work of Clean Up our River Environment (CURE).
• The World Beneath Our Feet: Join a farmer, soil scientist, entomologist and forage agronomist in looking at the indicators of a healthy landscape.
• What Do We Want: Factories or Farms Producing Hogs on the Landscape?: Farmers can review alternative, independent hog-production systems and consumers can learn what they are and how to support them.
• Eagle Eyes & Bird Spies - Birds as Barometers of a Healthy Land: Techniques and resources to help you monitor bird activity on your landscape - bring those binoculars.
• Buying Healthful Food, Supporting Healthy Farms: Discussion of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), farmers' markets, farm-direct sales (farm-fresh food samples available).
• Healthy, Wealthy & Wise - Creating the Quality of Life You Want: Basic steps for holistically managing your household or farm.
• Farming - the Next Generation: Beginning farmers and sustainable practices belong together in a landscape of stewardship. Who will grow food and care for the land in the future?

Stewardship Calendar

AUG. 2 - Field day on intensive grazing of gestating sows, Byron Bartz farm, Barrett, Minn.; Contact: (320) 528-2301

AUG. 5 - Winona County Commissioners will consider a six- month moratorium on livestock facilities larger than 300 animal units, Winona, Minn; Contact: LSP (507) 523-3366

AUG. 5-6 - Grazing Basics Workshop, featuring a panel of experienced graziers, $150 fee, West Central Experiment Station, Morris, Minn.; Contact: Chris Staebler (320) 589-1711

AUG. 7 - Field day featuring the use of livestock to manage riparian buffers & stream banks, Todd Lein farm, Northfield, Minn.; Contact: (507) 645-9036 Field day on forage mixture performance under grazing & stored feed management systems, Russell Mathison farm, Grand Rapids, Minn.; Contact: (218) 327-4352

AUG. 9 - A field day for consumers on environmental & health issues related to production & consumption of lean pork & beef, Payton & Peterson farms, Tamarack, Minn.; Contact: (218) 727-1414

Field day featuring native flowering plants & solar energy, Prairie Moon Nursery, Winona, Minn.; Contact: (507) 689-2988

AUG. 13 - Workshop on farming methods and beginning farmer programs in New Zealand & Australia, featuring Wabasha County Extension Educator Chuck Schwartau, Plainview Public Library, Plainview, Minn.; Contact: (612) 565-2662

LSP's Dana Jackson will speak at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Toronto, Canada

AUG. 14 - Chippewa River Stewardship Partnership bus tour, Montevideo, Minn.; Contact: LSP (320) 269-2105

Grass-based cow-calf production field day & potluck picnic supper, Richard Handeen & Audrey Arner farm, Montevideo, Minn.; Contact: (320) 269-8971

AUG. 15 - Field day featuring therapeutic & cosmetic crops that produce well in poor soils & are in high demand in certain markets, Brett Pearson farm, Cottage Grove, Minn.; Contact: (612) 768-7875

SEPT. 6 - Alternative hog production field day & potluck picnic supper, Van Der Pol farm, Clara City, Minn.; Contact: (320) 847-3432 Field day on buckwheat production, processing & marketing, Bilek farm, Aldrich, Minn.; Contact: (218) 445-5475

Northeast Chapter of the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota 4th Annual Bayfront Harvest Festival, Duluth, Minn.; Contact: (218) 727-1414

SEPT. 8-9 - Farming Systems Analysis: Tools to Accomplish the Task (a workshop for farmers and farm service providers in Minnesota, Iowa & Wisconsin), Madison, Wis.; Contact: Michelle Miller, UWEX-Agronomy, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706; tele. - (608) 262-7135; Email - mmmille6@facstaffwisc.edu

SEPT. 11 - Annual Thompson Farm Field Day, Boone, Iowa; Contact: Dick & Sharon Thompson, 2035 190th St., Boone, IA 50036-7423; tele. - (515) 432-1560

Field day on interseeding hairy vetch in sunflower, Red Lake Falls, Minn.; Contact: (218) 253-2897

SEPT. 13 - Land Stewardship Project 15th Anniversary Celebration, featuring Drake University's Neil Hamilton, the Minar farm & musician John Gorka, Jordan, Minn.

Poultry field day, Lynne Farmer farm, Rushford, Minn.; Contact: (507) 689-2988

Field day on grass & forage based finishing of beef & pork, Lake Superior Meats Cooperative, Wrenshall, Minn.; Contact: (218) 727-1414

SEPT. 21 - Clean Up our River Environment (CURE) River Revival, featuring teepees, story telling, fish prints, music, food, bus tour around Lac qui Parle Lake; Lion's Park on the Chippewa River, Watson, Minn.; Contact: LSP (320) 269-2105

OCT. 5 - Field day on native grasses & seed collecting, Vic Ormsby farm, Winona, Minn.; Contact: Bev Sandlin (507) 689-2988

OCT. 20 - Field day on variable rate fertilization on ridges, Howard Kittleson farm, Blooming Prairie, Minn.; Contact: (507) 583-7158

NOV. 7-8 - Northeast Regional Community Supported Agriculture Conference, Hancock, Mass., Contact: Elizabeth Keen, (413) 528-4374; Email - csana@bcn.net