The official newsletter of the Land Stewardship Project
Are low doses of weed & insect killers hitting our children when they are least able to fight back?
By Brian DeVore
Warren Porter, thankfully, likes to use down-to-earth analogies to describe complicated concepts.
That's good, because the University of Wisconsin professor of zoology and environmental toxicology is often speaking about a subject that is anything but simple: the effects of pesticides on developing biological systems. Or, to put it plainly, what might happen when a baby is exposed to weed and insect killers while still curled up deep in the womb?
Well, try this sample explanation on for size: "During a two day window, key parts of the brain are developed in a baby," says Porter. "If the mom is struck by certain chemicals at that window of opportunity, it may affect development permanently."
Or this: "Imagine if you are a boxer standing in the ring and a professional fighter steps in. He smiles at you and holds out his hands so you relax. Then he punches you in the gut. That's like a sudden short-term exposure to toxic chemicals. We get punched in the gut when our chemical defenses are down."
Scientists like Porter are becoming increasingly alarmed about the possibility that even low levels of pesticide exposure at key points in the development of a child may negatively affect his or her ability to learn, reproduce or just plain get along with others. It's a relatively new, contentious theory that has the scientific community agreeing on only one point: not nearly enough research has been done in this area.
It has huge implications for an agricultural system that has become more dependent than ever on the use of pest-killing chemicals. Despite more precise spraying techniques and chemical industry rhetoric about a kinder, gentler "crop protection" system, we are pouring on more pesticides than ever. In 1995, a record 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides were used on this country's farm fields (three-quarters of all pesticides are used in agriculture), more than twice as much as was used when Rachel Carson's Silent Spring sounded the alarm about pesticides and biological systems three decades ago. The Midwest is ground zero for this increased use. More than 90 percent of row crops such as corn, soybeans and cotton are treated with pesticides. Almost three-quarters of all herbicides are applied to corn and soybeans alone.
Concern over the health effects of exposure to pesticides - chemicals that kill weeds, insects and funguses through various means - is nothing new. Dozens of studies have made connections between pesticide exposure and various forms of cancer. Farmers who apply these chemicals directly appear to be particularly susceptible.
In general, the jury is still out on what chronic, years-long exposure to chemicals - either through repeated use on the farm or consumption at the dinner table - can do to the human body. But a new, perhaps scarier, chemical smoking gun is emerging in the scientific literature, and in rural communities.
Low dose danger
Porter has been studying the effects of pesticides on the development of mammals since the early 1980s. He has become increasingly alarmed over the negative impact seemingly "safe" levels of these chemicals have on development, growth and reproduction. He is among a growing group of toxicologists who believe short-term "pulse" doses of these chemical mixtures - some at levels never before considered toxic - can in some cases have a more negative impact than long-term, high dose exposure.
A biological system may never get that "pulse," or "burst" of chemical exposure again, but the damage has been done, says Porter. Toxicologists are particularly concerned about the effect of pulse doses of chemicals on the thyroid system. This system regulates metabolism, determining a person's very disposition.
One experiment Porter conducted involved exposing rats to doses of common insecticides and herbicides. Some of those doses were at levels that are present in Midwestern drinking water. He found that exposing the animals for as short a time as six weeks made their thyroids overly active, in effect making them hyper.
In a 1994 article for Environmental Health Perspectives, endocrinologist Susan Porterfield concluded that exposure to chemicals such as PCBs and dioxins during key times of a human fetus' development can have disastrous effects.
A mother may show no health problems as a result of a certain levels of exposure, but she's in a different state of susceptibility than her baby. Thus, the baby could be negatively affected by doses that are harmless to adults, Porterfield wrote.
The effects of low doses of chemicals on human development has come front and center since the publication of Our Stolen Future in 1996. This book laid out evidence that low levels of pesticides and other toxic chemicals may be disrupting the endocrine system in animals, and pose a real threat to human beings. To grasp the importance of such a disruption, consider that the endocrine system controls the key development engines in our body, including systems that manage growth, development and reproduction.
The book summarized growing evidence that "endocrine-disrupting" chemicals cause reproductive abnormalities, reduced fertility, behavioral abnormalities and population declines - particularly in top predators. Chemical companies became particularly nervous early last year when Frederick vom Saal, a researcher at the University of Missouri, found that extremely low doses of a plastics component altered the reproductive development of lab mice. How low were the doses? Near those that humans are exposed to each day from sources like food packaging and dental sealants.
In short, the old saw "the dose makes the poison" is in need of some modification, say toxicology experts.
"Yeah, the dose does make the poison, but that dose is different for different people," says Vincent Garry, director of environmental medicine and pathology at the University of Minnesota's medical school.
Birth of a problem
But no matter how scientifically relevant experiments on lab animals may be, the real question in the minds of policy makers and the general public is what these chemicals are doing to humans.
That's why Vincent Garry's research is so intriguing. His study medium isn't the lab animal. It's the river of records produced by our society's desire to document everything from a baby's birth weight to the kind of weed killer his or her father used on his corn acres the month it was conceived.
Garry has been researching pesticides in one form or another for almost 40 years. For the past decade, he's been studying the health records of people within Minnesota who are licensed to apply these chemicals. That includes any farmer who uses pesticides, as well as commercial applicators who work for coops and other agriculture supply services. In 1996, he and his colleagues published research results that would send chills down the spine of anyone who has raised children in a rural area.
The results were based on records of babies born to licensed private pesticide applicators between 1989 and 1992. The almost 35,000 private pesticide users present in the state during that period produced 4,935 live births. The study compared the health of those babies to the health of all 210,723 babies born in the state during the same three-year period.
In western Minnesota, where intensive production of wheat, sugar beets and potatoes leads to heavy use of chemicals, on average 30 out of every 1,000 children born to pesticide applicators had some sort of defect at birth during the study period. The birth defect rate for the general population in that part of the state was 26.9 per 1,000 births. In areas of the state where agricultural chemicals are not used extensively, the general population's birth defect rate was 18 per 1,000 children during the study period.
In areas of heavy pesticide use, 19.8 of 1,000 babies conceived during the spring of 1991 had defects. The birth defect ratio for autumn-conceived babies in those same areas was almost half that. In the Midwest, spring planting season is when the majority of pesticides are applied.
These results have frightening implications for connections between pesticide use and birth defects, especially because they echo results of similar analyses done in Iowa and Nebraska. But Garry says nothing definitive has been nailed down yet. "I think pesticides are a contributor to these birth defects, but I don't know how much of a contributor," he says, adding that the fact that birth defect rates seem to go up in babies conceived in the spring is of particular concern. "There are so many different avenues for birth defects to occur. You can have too much of this. Too little of that."
Birth defects recorded during the study period included circulation, respiration and urogenital problems, as well as malformed muscles, bones and skin. It should be noted that these kinds of defects can be caused by several factors, including diet, genetics and stress.
That's why Garry and his team have spent the past two years following up with a more intense study of a 1,500-member subgroup of the licensed applicators. Using personal interviews, questionnaires, medical records and family histories, the pathologists are trying to determine what other factors may contribute to the defects.
Question & answer time For now, toxicologists working in this emerging field are coming up with more questions than answers.
> For one, how do toxins enter our bodies? Most people associate pesticide exposure to the amount of herbicide spray left on vegetables once they reach the supper table. As a result, laboratory studies focus on ingestion through the mouth, or even direct injection into the bloodstream. But what about intake via drinking water, breathing contaminated air or absorbing it through the skin?
And in an attempt to make pesticides less of a threat to our ground water, chemical companies are making their products more volatile. That means they dissipate in the atmosphere quicker after being sprayed on a field, instead of hanging around long enough to be washed into a river during the next rain storm. But such volatility could make it easier for these chemicals to enter our bodies through the skin or the respiratory system.
Are pregnant women, with their higher water retention and respiration rates, more likely to take in toxic levels? Garry has been wondering that since 1987, when he investigated the tragic death of a 24-year-old woman who was seven months pregnant. Within a few hours of being exposed to a pile of grain saturated with an aluminum-phosphide-based bug killing fumigate, the woman went into cardiac arrest and died. Garry's investigation raised questions about whether a pregnant woman's altered metabolism increases her intake of toxins. But 11 years later, the question remains relatively unstudied.
Toxicologists are also concerned about the hidden contents of poorly labeled pesticide containers. These are the preservatives, anti-volatility agents, emulsifiers, solvents and other ingredients that help the pesticide more effectively do its job. Chemical companies clump all these components together and simply call them "inert ingredients," implying they have no pesticidal qualities. However, tests conducted by government laboratories have shown that many of these secret ingredients are carcinogenic or otherwise toxic. Some have even been banned as "active" pesticide ingredients.
Finally, what about the effects of combinations of chemicals? After all, a spring planting season in corn country can send half a dozen or more pesticides into the environment. One Tulane University study produced some alarming results in relation to the "multiplier effect" of being exposed to several chemicals at once. That study was retracted last year when the results couldn't be replicated. However, toxicologists point out that we've long known that we can't take certain pharmaceutical drugs in combination, so why should pesticides be any different?
These are important questions to ask as agricultural pesticides make their presence known virtually everywhere. DDT, banned in this country for more than a quarter century, keeps showing up in the Great Lakes region. Traces of other pesticides are found on the polar ice caps.
"This is a worldwide problem," says Porter, the University of Wisconsin toxicologist. "You don't have to live next to where herbicides are being applied to be affected."
Despite their global reach, attempts to regulate pesticides here and abroad have met with mixed results.
Bugging out on pesticides But it's not just scientists and lawmakers that have a responsibility to get at the bottom of what these pesticides are doing to future generations.
> Garry says consumers should diversify their diet as much as possible - both to improve general health and to make sure the body isn't exposed to the same toxins repeatedly. He also suggests that pregnant women be aware of their surroundings. Are pesticides being sprayed on your lawn or garden? What is the source of the produce in your grocery store? And finally, what incentives are farmers being given to raise pesticide-free food?
"There is a very simple solution to this problem," says Porter. "It's called market share. All people have to do is change how they spend their money."
| SIDEBAR: A Researcher's Dream
One common complaint of researchers, policy makers, farmers and consumers who are trying to decipher the impact pesticides have on human beings laments the lack of studies that take into account real world situations. University of Wisconsin toxicology expert Warren Porter has developed a list of six common problems with typical toxic dose tests. He's tagged these problems with the acronym DREAMS: 4 R=Routes restricted. Often in experiments on laboratory animals the chemicals are injected or put in the food and water. What about testing inhalation or absorption through skin? 4 E=Endpoints excessive. Scientists spend a lot of time and energy looking at what impact (cancer, mutations) chemicals have at the end of a life cycle. We should direct more resources toward examining the early developmental stages when toxic exposure can affect immune, neurological and hormonal systems. 4 A=Additions absent. Dosage tests often only take into account the chemical ingredients listed on the pesticide container by name. Chemical companies also use other toxins which are grouped under the general term "inert ingredients." 4 M=Mixtures missing. More studies are needed that take a look at the effects of pesticide mixtures. In the real world, there are lots of opportunities for chemicals to mix in the field - and in turn in the human body. It would be impossible to test all of the tens of thousands of possible mixes that can occur, but some common ones should be targeted. 4 S=Stresses are squelched. Lab studies normally involve animals living under very healthy, sterile conditions. But in the real world, animals and people are often exposed to toxins when they are at their most vulnerable - when they are malnourished, cold, sick or very young. |
| SIDEBAR: When Chemicals Are Cut
Farming sans pesticides is becoming easier as sustainable ag advances. The agricultural chemical industry is a big fan of the "feast or famine" scenario. As in, "Without crop protection, over 50 percent of our food crops would be destroyed each year." That statement is from a pamphlet called, not surprisingly, Feast or Famine: A Thin Line. It was produced by a chemical company that at one time or another has manufactured pesticides that go by names such as Ambush, Cyclone, Demon, Karate and Torpedo. But several recent studies have shown these claims to be based on some pretty thin evidence. In May 1997, the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture published an analysis of various studies that examined the economic costs of reducing pesticide use. It found that such studies seldom take into account the many crop protection alternatives now available to farmers seeking to reduce or eliminate pesticide use. They also don't factor in the many costs of pesticide use: a contaminated environment, endangerment of health, and creation of super-insects and super-weeds that no amount of "Karate" chops will kill. A Cornell University study did a similar analysis and concluded that with our present knowledge of alternative farming methods, chemical use could be reduced by half with only a slight increase in food costs (0.6 percent). Many of the claims about an agricultural apocalypse in a world where chemical use is reduced dramatically are based on the assumption that using less pesticides means plummeting yields. Yet studies and real-farm experiences don't support such an argument. Perhaps the longest running study comparing conventional and reduced chemical farming practices is the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, directed by the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute and supported by the Kellogg Foundation, the University of Wisconsin and that state's department of agriculture, among others. This ongoing study, launched in 1989, compares the long-term net income potential of three field management systems: continuous corn (which is heavily dependent on pesticide use for success); corn-soybean rotation (moderate pesticide reliance); and a system using corn-soybean-wheat/red clover in the rotation (no fertilizer, no insecticides; spot spraying of thistles with herbicides). For continuous corn, the gross profit margin was $151 per acre between 1992 and 1995. The returns were $204 for corn-soybeans and $195 for corn-soybeans-wheat/red clover. In short, the chemical-intensive mono-crop system was a financial bust. And although yields in the more diverse cropping system lagged behind continuous corn, they were still respectable. This study is showing, among other things, that rotating crops to build soil health and break up pest cycles is a key component of cutting pesticide use. But a diverse crop rotation is just one tool being used to control pests without chemicals. Integrated pest management (IPM) is a system of scouting for pest bugs, then utilizing everything from beneficial predatory insects to spot spraying to selectively control them. Better use of tillage equipment such as rotary hoes, and the banding of herbicides right on the row crop - as opposed to spraying them indiscriminately over an entire field - have also helped reduce pesticide use. Still others have had success with planting crops that smother weeds between the rows or using cropping strategies that encourage the reproduction of beneficial insects and diseases that kill harmful pests.
Pesticide-free farming pioneer Jim Bender says things are a lot better than when he started on his organic quest 23 years ago near Weeping Water, Neb. In fact, he's envious of the resources would-be chemical free farmers have at their disposal today, despite the significant barriers that remain. For one thing, these farmers can learn from the mistakes of Bender and others of his ilk. "I went cold turkey on chemicals and learned right away I had made a mistake," recalls Bender, the author of Future Harvest: Pesticide-free Farming. What kind of mistake? "That's a long list. Everything was wrong. The soils were reliant on those chemicals, my rotations weren't right..." Bender says he then weaned his land off its chemical addiction over a five-year period by experimenting with various rotations. By 1980, annual weeds had loosened their hold on the farm and the soil's natural biological activity took over. He has a diversity that stands out in the mono-crop country of eastern Nebraska: corn, soybeans, alfalfa, wheat, oats, clover and prairie hay. His 642 acres have been certified organic since 1990. He says loss of yield is not a problem once a good rotation is established. His main concern is what to do with crops like oats - good weed suppressors and protectors of soil in this highly erodible region, but almost valueless on the cash grain market. He can feed some to his cattle herd, but not all. It does help that buyers of organic products are now paying Bender up to three times the going market price for his chemical-free soybeans. But the farmer doesn't rely on those premiums. In fact, Bender cautions farmers against jumping into organic crop production as an attempt to make quick money. To him, it's a system that is just more reliable year-in and year-out - financially and environmentally. As he looks over at his neighbors' fields and sees them duking it out with pesticide-induced insect and weed resistance, the farmer feels more in control of his future than ever before. "The whole pesticide system could very well collapse on itself," he says. "It's just self-defeating." |
Dear Editor: Please find enclosed a $200 donation to your organization in memory of my mother, Shirley Hermes, who died a year and a half ago from cancer.
The Land Stewardship Project was chosen as a fitting place for some of my Mom's memorial money because of her rural Minnesota background and because of her concern for a small woodlot and farm field that has been converted into golf course fairways since her death. Shirley (Leukuma) Hermes was raised on a farm near Kingston, Minn., and spent most of her adult life in Annandale, Minn. Late in her life she took up cross-country skiing and in the winter would cross nearby farm fields to a small woodlot about half a mile from our home on a daily basis. Her trek would involve having food for birds and other animals which became so accustomed to her visits that they would start to assemble at the customary feeding spots when they saw her approaching. That little place on the edge of Annandale was the bright spot of many of her days before cancer prevented her from going on her daily ski outing.
A few years ago, surveyors began to stake out the little woodlot and surrounding fields to start the process of preparing to build a circle of townhomes surrounded by a golf course. My Mom was paralyzed by the prospect of losing her ski haven, and in a futile attempt to stop the development she knocked a bunch of the surveyor stakes down. Because the Land Stewardship Project provides hope in the face of such futility, I entrust this money to you with great respect and faith.
- Kathy Hermes
Duluth, Minn
We want to hear from you. Send letters to the editor and commentaries to: Brian DeVore, Land Stewardship Letter, 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110; phone: (651) 653-0618; fax: (651) 653-0589; e-mail: bdevore@landstewardshipproject.org
Farmers, ecologists, agronomists, writers and natural resource professionals discuss "making the farm a natural habitat" at LSP meeting.
Aldo Leopold's "shack" in south-central Wisconsin was the site of a special Land Stewardship Project meeting for three days in June. A group of farmers, ecologists, agronomists, writers and professional staff of natural resource organizations and agencies were invited to the weekend retreat of the late ecologist and writer to discuss the concept of "agroecological restoration."
Agroecological restoration is the renewal of a relationship between farming and the natural world that enhances the productivity and sustainability of both and protects options for rehabilitating natural ecosystems in the future. It is based on the idea that it's possible to improve land ecologically while it produces food and a good quality of life for families. This is important in a country where half of the land is owned and managed by farmers and ranchers.
"It's a way of farming that goes a step beyond just preventing soil erosion and chemical runoff," says Dana Jackson, LSP's associate director. "Conservationists, environmentalists, protectors of biodiversity and all consumers of food do not have to accept the assumption that industrial agriculture, with its millions of acres of monocultures, intense use of poisonous chemicals and livestock confined in factories, is an inevitable and necessary sacrifice of the natural world so that food can be produced.
"Most conservationists strive to protect nature from agriculture, without recognizing the distinct difference between agriculture as an industry and agriculture based on sustainable farming practices."
The shack - a remodeled one-room chicken house - was chosen as the site of the discussion because of the important ideas about ecology, land use, and farming that Leopold developed earlier in this century. His concept of the land ethic was presented to the public in 1949 in an eloquent collection of essays called A Sand County Almanac. Leopold died of a heart attack 50 years ago this past April while fighting a fire near the shack.
In his work as a teacher and writer, Leopold promoted the idea that what was good for the land was also good for farmers and the community at large. He put his words into action on the land the Leopold shack sits on, as well as in research projects undertaken in Wisconsin farming regions like Faville Grove and Coon Valley. During the June meeting, one of Leopold's daughters, Nina Leopold Bradley, described what it was like for the Leopold family to take over an eroded "sand county" farm in 1935 and restore it through years of planting trees, shrubs and prairie species.
"It had been corned to death - there was nothing left but cockleburs," she explained. "It was absolutely exposed dirt. So gradually, year by year, we kept planting indigenous species, and this was our project as we were growing up."
The Leopold land along the Wisconsin River has recovered to the point where it is again home to forest and prairie, a riparian habitat that supports dozens of species of birds and other wildlife. It is also now being used as a research and educational center, managed by the Aldo Leopold Foundation.
Although Leopold's ideas still ring true today, he did not foresee the changes in the structure of agriculture that have occurred. In a 1939 essay called "The Farmer as a Conservationist," Leopold expressed faith that good farmers on private land could manage natural habitats for the benefit of society. Leopold did not imagine the great decline in the number of farmers forced off their land in the wake of industrial agriculture.
Jackson says that the recent acceleration in factory-style livestock production, hogs and dairy in particular, has made it clear that some way must be found to keep stewardship-minded farmers on the land. But it will take more than a small group of committed farmers. The non-farm public must also take responsibility for the care of the land.
"We need to build a broader base of support for sustainable agriculture by capturing the interest and imagination of those conservationists who largely have been ignoring farming landscapes," says Jackson. "We need to show them that the farm can be a natural habitat."
LSP's agroecology initiative has its roots in Jackson's interest in promoting biodiversity on our nation's farmland. In 1990 she received a PEW scholar's award in conservation and the environment, and since joining the LSP staff in 1994 has chosen to use remaining funds from the award to promote biodiversity within farming systems. Also working on this initiative is Laura Jackson, Dana's daughter, an ecology professor at the University of Northern Iowa. In the last few years, she has done research with Iowa farmers to reestablish native prairie species for forage in some grazing paddocks within their pastures.
In 1995, Dana Jackson and LSP's executive director, George Boody, presented a paper called "Sustainable Farming Practices Benefit Minnesota Landscapes" at a conference sponsored by Tufts University. This paper described how six farm families in southeast Minnesota, using a livestock production method called "management intensive rotational grazing," could see an improvement in the health of the soil, water and wildlife populations on their land. These farmers also found this method of production to be a profitable way of improving the quality of their lives. This initiative was called the Biological, Social and Financial Monitoring Project.
"The Monitoring Project and Laura's work have shown that we can put some natural diversity back into farming. This isn't just theoretical," says Jackson. "We have farmers all over the country who are quietly renewing the relationship between their farms and the natural world. It's time to get that story out there and figure out a way to encourage more of it."
During the June meeting, participants discussed the best way to "inoculate" society with the concept of agroecological restoration. Some of the ideas that came out of the meeting included developing an anthology of readings about "the farm as a natural habitat" and/or a series of discussion sessions based on the concept.
Participants also discussed how government policy could be modified to encourage agroecological restoration. Paul Johnson, former chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service and an Iowa farmer, laid out the idea of a "Stewardship Farming Bill" that would recognize and reward farmers whose farms provide ecological benefits.
"We need to remind people that one option with farming and owning land is to be a steward of wildness," said Johnson, who has served in the Iowa Legislature. "But we also need to find a way to reward farmers for being good stewards."
Ken Peterson joins LSP board, Dale Anderson retires
Ken Peterson has joined the Land Stewardship Project's board of directors.
Peterson raises beef cattle with his wife Ina near the northeastern Minnesota community of Tamarack. For more than seven years he coordinated the beneficial waste program for the Carlton County Extension office. Peterson, who also worked for the Production Credit Association, was a founding member of the Sustainable Farming Association (SFA) of Minnesota's state board. He was instrumental in creating the SFA's Northeast Chapter in the early 1990s.
Peterson occupies the position recently vacated by Dale Anderson, who had served on the LSP board since 1994. Anderson, who has been involved with banking and finance for many years, lives with his wife Nancy near Marine on St. Croix, Minn. They farm 90 acres of land using Belgian draft horses.
Kim Hiller has joined LSP as an intern organizer. Hiller holds a doctor of veterinary medicine degree from the University of Minnesota. She has worked as a laboratory research technician, chemical dependency youth worker and riding instructor. She has also served as a volunteer for the Nature Conservancy's Minnesota field office. Hiller, who lives in St. Paul, Minn., will work with LSP's 1000 Friends of Minnesota program.
Membership/outreach coordinator needed
The Land Stewardship Project is looking for a membership and outreach coordinator.
The primary responsibilities of this position would be to coordinate LSP's overall membership program, working with the membership team (a data base manager and membership liaisons in two other offices and one outpost). We need someone who can plan membership solicitation and member services, as well as conduct staff training to recruit members.
Qualifications include excellent speaking and organizational skills. Membership programming or fund-raising experience is also desirable. Desktop publishing aptitude and experience is a plus. This is the perfect position for an outgoing person who is comfortable working in a team setting and who has a personal commitment to land stewardship ethics and sustainable agriculture.
This is a three-quarter time position with a flexible daytime schedule. Starting salary is in the mid-20s (full time equivalent), depending upon experience. The position would operate out of LSP's Twin Cities office in White Bear Lake.
To apply, please submit a letter and resume to: George Boody, Executive Director, Land Stewardship Project, 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110; phone: (651) 653-0618.
The Land Stewardship Project is an equal opportunity employer.
Prairie planter purchased
Prairie restoration in western Minnesota received a boost recently when several conservation organizations teamed up to purchase a seed drill. The drill is available to landowners in Lac qui Parle County who want to plant native grasses.
A major part of the $14,000 drill purchase was financed with money from a Conservation Partners Grant provided through the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources to the Lac qui Parle Prairie Preservation and Restoration Project. The Lac qui Parle Soil and Water Conservation District is coordinating use of the drill. This initiative is a collaboration of the Land Stewardship Project, Lac qui Parle Prairie Preservation, the Lac qui Parle Soil and Water Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Lac qui Parle chapter of Pheasants Forever, the Lac qui Parle Lake Association's Watershed Project, Ducks Unlimited and Lac qui Parle Valley School.
Besides lending out the drill for a small maintenance fee, the prairie restoration initiative is developing a campaign to help educate landowners on the benefits of using native plant materials and how to establish and maintain them. Prairie plantings take time, patience and careful management. The timing of this initiative corresponds with recent Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) sign-ups needing native grass plantings.
The collaborative is also erecting a large educational sign in front of a demonstration prairie outside of Madison, Minn. In addition to the sign, a photography contest and weekly news articles on various prairie related topics are planned. Three workshops are scheduled for 1999: "Landscaping for Wildlife," "Prairie Management by Burning and Management Intensive Rotational Grazing," and "Prairie Seed Collection."
"This initiative will be a nice addition to all of the other excellent public and private prairie restoration efforts already being undertaken in the region," says Lynn Lokken, an organizer in LSP's Montevideo office who works on prairie restoration and watershed issues.
For more information on the initiative, call Lokken at (320) 269-2105, e-mail: llokken@MAXMINN.COM.
Hog farmers needed
Hog farmers are being provided an opportunity to shape how research proceeds in alternative swine production at the University of Minnesota. The university's new Alternative Swine Production Systems Program is looking for farmers who are using (or want to learn more about) hoop structures, pasture farrowing or some other production system that requires relatively low capital investment, says Julie Tranquilla, who is heading up the initiative. LSP's efforts during the past two years to promote sustainable swine research prompted the Minnesota Legislature to fund this initiative.
Tranquilla is gathering information from farmers during the next several months in an attempt to learn what research questions need to be pursued. She is also looking for farmers who would be interested in participating in on-farm research that would focus on pig performance and economic viability of alternative systems.
When they sign up for the Alternative Swine mailing list, farmers will receive information about field days, publications and conferences. When contacting Tranquilla, specify what kind of production system you are using, and what you would like to learn more about. She can be contacted at: Julie Tranquilla, Department of Animal Science, 385E Animal Science/Vet. Med., 1988 Fitch Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108; phone: (651) 625-6224; fax: (651) 625-1210; e-mail: tranq001@TC.umn.edu.
The seventh annual Clean Up our River Environment (CURE) Minnesota River Revival will be Sept. 20 between noon and 7 p.m. at the Lion's Park in the western Minnesota town of Watson. This year's event will feature live music, a tipi encampment, food, minnow races, fish prints, children's games, pony rides, blacksmithing, handicrafts and sheep's wool spinning. The admission is $3 for individuals and $5 for families. It's free for those 16 and under. Preceding the revival on Sept. 19 will be a special canoe trip down the Chippewa River and a tour of three farms involved in the Whole Farm Planning and Monitoring Team. The farm tour will feature discussions of streambank management, controlled grazing, wildlife buffers and organic vegetable production.
There's plenty of opportunities for camping in the area that weekend. For more information, or to register as a vendor, call the Land Stewardship Project's Lynn Lokken at (320) 269-2105 or e-mail her at llokken@MAXMINN.com.
Looking for good grub?
Interested in buying sustainably produced meat, vegetables, cheeses or fruits direct from the farm? Twenty farms south of the Twin Cities have teamed up to create the Southeast Minnesota Farmer-to-Consumer Directory, a free publication now available from the Land Stewardship Project.
More than a dozen different food products are offered by the operations listed in the directory. These farms produce food using little or no chemicals and various sustainable methods that treat the land well. They are all members of the Land Stewardship Project and/or the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota.
To order a copy, contact the Land Stewardship Project at: PO Box 130, Lewiston, MN 55952; phone: (507) 523-3366; e-mail:lspse@landstewardshipproject.org. An electronic version of the directory can also be accessed via the LSP home page.
Tax workshop Nov. 20
"Tax Strategies in Land Conservation Transactions" is the title of a workshop being held Nov. 20 in Roseville, Minn. Sponsored by the Green Corridor Project - a collaborative that includes the Land Stewardship Project - this workshop is designed for professionals helping clients plan for the future of family lands: Realtors, tax and probate lawyers, appraisers, certified public accountants and financial advisers. The featured speaker will be William Hutton, an attorney and editor of The Back Forty, a newsletter on land conservation law. There will be a charge for this workshop. For more information, call LSP's Kim Hiller at (651) 653-0618. You can also e-mail Michael Pressman at mpress@mtn.org.
The Land Stewardship Letter reported in its April/May/June issue that University of Minnesota officials were taking a hard look at the agriculture college's conflict of interest policies in the wake of the revelation that animal scientist Robert Morrison has strong financial ties to the hog industry.
However, as fall approaches, it's unclear how much concrete action is being taken to address the issues brought up by Morrison's industry ties and his failure to report them.
University officials say a "Private-Public Partnership Committee" will examine how to handle similar situations in the future. Such a committee is an "informal, advisory" group made up of university officials/faculty and representatives of private industry (for example, food giant Pillsbury has been represented on the committee in the past), says Chris Roberts, a spokesperson for the university. Roberts says U of M officials want to make it clear that Morrison was not found in violation of conflict of interest policy and no sanctions will be imposed on him (he stepped down as head of the University's Swine Center in July but remains a faculty member within the college of veterinary medicine). However, she concedes that some of the issues brought up by his relationships with the hog industry are worthy of further examination.
"When conflict of interest questions come up, there are so many gray areas" that policy doesn't address, says Roberts. "We are all struggling with how to balance protecting taxpayer interests, protecting the privacy of faculty and using the university's resources to encourage economic development."
But by late summer, little if any action had been taken to bring the issue before the committee. To exacerbate the situation, some key players in the Morrison case have left, or are soon to leave, the university:
LSPer travels to Germany
The Land Stewardship Project's Lee Ronning visited Germany in July as part of a three-year European-American exchange program focusing on "Regional Environmental Issues in the Face of Globalization." On her trip, one of three she will make to various parts of the country, Ronning saw how German towns have preserved their economic, social and historical foundations while keeping farmland free of development.
"In the region we visited, the town is the town and it does not intrude into the countryside," she says. "But they are worried about how to compete in a global marketplace and there is a movement in some places in Germany to Americanize their development. In other words, bring suburban sprawl to the countryside. I think both countries can learn something from each other."
Minnesota will host German visitors as part of the exchange program during the fall of 1999.
Planning grants available
The passage of the Community Based Planning Act of 1997 created an opportunity for Minnesota communities to obtain grants for bringing about sustainable growth. Minnesota Planning currently has $750,000 in new grants available. A total of $375,000 is allocated for planning grants, and another $375,000 is earmarked for technology. Applications must be submitted by Sept. 17.
This second round of grant opportunities is a result of an appropriation made with the original passage of the law, which was developed and helped through the Minnesota Legislature by the Land Stewardship Project. Any future grants will rely on money set aside during the 1999 legislative session. Many lawmakers are watching the pilot projects that receive grants to see if future allocations are justified.
For more information on the grants program, call Elizabeth Hallowell at Minnesota Planning, (651) 296-6550; e-mail: elizabeth.hallowell@MNPLAN.STATE.
Five western Minnesota farms are connecting with consumers via cyber space as part of an innovative new effort to encourage production of sustainable food. The farm families have teamed up with the Land Stewardship Project and the Sustainable Farming Association (SFA) of Western Minnesota to create prairiefare.com, a web site that went on line at the end of August.
The site gives consumers a virtual tour of the five farms, providing, among other things, vivid color pictures of the farm families engaged in daily activities. Computer users can click their way onto pages that describe everything from a farm's history to how it produces pork or beef on pasture. Pricing and ordering information is also available, and orders can be made either via e-mail, or by contacting the farms through the phone and regular mail.
The web site was launched in an effort to reach more consumers who might be interested in buying their food straight from farms that raise it in a way that's kind to the land, says LeeAnn Van Der Pol, coordinator of the Western Minnesota SFA. Creating consumer-farmer relations is key to the success of the initiative, she says.
That's why one of the key elements of prairiefare.com is the presence of a computer kiosk at Java River, a local coffee shop in Montevideo. Java River was recently started by Patrick and Mary Moore. Patrick Moore is a longtime Land Stewardship Project organizer who has focused his work on cleaning up and protecting the upper reaches of the Minnesota River, one of the most polluted waterways in the country. He recently returned from a three-month professional leave during which he examined ways that consumers could support farming practices that protect and improve the ecological health of a watershed. Rewarding sustainable farmers financially through direct purchase of their products seemed like the best way to do this, says Moore.
Van Der Pol, who raises pork, beef and lamb with her husband Jim near Kerkhoven, says members of the Western Minnesota SFA have proven they can raise food in a manner that protects the ecosystem, but they've had a hard time getting rewarded for it. Using a $10,000 producer grant from the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Resource Education program, the Van Der Pols and four other farm families got together with Moore to form a study circle that could research and design a method for reaching consumers who were interested in supporting sustainable food production. Included in this study circle were Audrey Arner and Richard Handeen. Arner is an organizer in LSP's western Minnesota office and she and Handeen produce natural beef and organic row crops on their farm near Montevideo.
The World Wide Web, with its widespread accessibility and ability to carry vivid graphic images, seemed a natural way to bring sustainable farms into the homes of consumers, especially those that live in places affected by agricultural pollution in the Minnesota River watershed.
"We want to connect farmers upstream with consumers downstream," he says. "The water these farmers are protecting is flowing right into the Twin Cities."
Java River is being operated as a source of coffee, sandwiches and information about where to get sustainably raised meat, vegetables and fruit. It already practices sustainable retailing by selling coffee that's grown with a minimum of chemicals, no child labor and in a way that protects wildlife habitat. The prairiefare.com computer kiosk provides an opportunity for Java River to bring its sustainable consumption philosophy closer to home, says Moore.
The kiosk is set up so that people who are not comfortable with computers can tour the farms right at the cafe. It features a screen that responds to touch, eliminating the need for a keyboard and mouse, thus making even the most digitally challenged feel comfortable. It's hoped consumers will use the cafe as a place where they can meet the farmers and learn more about sustainably raised food.
Craig and Joanie Murphy's operation near Morris is one of the farms featured on prairiefare.com. For the past four years, direct marketing of beef to consumers in the Twin Cities and Fargo areas has proven to be an effective way of diversifying their income, says Craig. All 460 tillable acres of the Murphy farm are certified organic, allowing them to produce chemical-free soybeans, sunflowers and wheat for specialty markets that reward such production with premium prices. Livestock such as cattle, sheep and hogs play a key role in keeping the operation organic because of their ability to recycle nutrients and make use of the small grains and forages needed for chemical-free, soil-building rotations.
Craig says a farming system that integrates livestock and crops into a system that benefits the land seems to appeal to his non-farm meat customers.
"I've had people say they have a sense that's just the way it should be done," he says. "The web site could really help raise awareness of that."
By Brad DeVries
While few of us would choose a career as a coroner or forensic pathologist, it is hard to deny the contributions the study of death makes to the pursuit of justice for the living. While it may be unpleasant, an autopsy of the disastrous Agricultural Appropriations bill for 1999 may teach us valuable if painful lessons for a long-term effort to change the face of agriculture in this country. In their respective appropriations bills, both houses of Congress left on the cutting room floor the Conservation Farm Option and the Fund for Rural America, two of the sustainable agriculture movement's biggest victories from the 1996 Farm Bill. While heroic measures may still save some shadow of these two programs when the House and Senate hammer out their difference on the bill in early September, it is appropriate to begin to ask what and who went wrong in the two short years after the Farm Bill.
The Fund's supporters intended it as a new way of looking at problems of agriculture and rural development, with a real focus on family farming, community growth and innovative approaches. While some of the program's early grants went to research that was firmly in the "bigger is better" mode, much of the first year's $80 million appropriation went to exciting, original, field-level research that will have direct benefits for diversified, family-scale farms. The Conservation Farm Option (CFO) pilot program was the direct result of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's efforts to bring together the welter of federal conservation and farm programs into a "whole farm" system that could adapt to the real-world needs of a diversified farming operation. The recent report of the USDA Commission on Small Farms hailed both measures as keys to any Department effort to aid moderate-scale farms.
These important measures fell victim to bumbling implementation by the USDA, and to short attention spans there and on Capitol Hill. The USDA's handling of the CFO is a good case study in how not to implement a program.
After nearly two years of foundering, the USDA finally issued a draft of how it intended to manage the program, then called simultaneously for public comment on the plan and for funding applications all in the space of a month, right in the middle of planting season. Despite the unreasonable schedule and the fact that information on the program was virtually nonexistent in county offices, more than 120 proposals, 42 of them from farmers, poured in for this pilot program. Unable to understand why a small pilot program was not in the field two years after the law passed, the Appropriations Committee drew the curtain closed.
The Fund suffered in part from a change of fashion on the Hill and at the USDA, both of which have found a new toy in the freshly-minted "Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems." In marked contrast to its lugubrious pace on CFO and the Fund, the USDA has jumped at the chance to support the Initiative, which will direct more federal research money into six areas: genome mapping, biotech, food technologies, precision agriculture, new uses, and farm efficiency and profitability. Make no mistake; this shifts funding out of a program that was intended to address the problems of farmers and rural communities. Instead, that money is heading toward a fund that will mainly help industry with its primary research objectives.
In the midst of this carnage, there were at least stirrings of new hope. Senator John Kerry of Nebraska won a razor-thin vote on his amendment to establish a three-year pilot program on mandatory cattle price reporting, over the loud objections of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. With an ever larger share of beef traded between giant feedlots and oligopolistic packers under secret contracts, this price disclosure is crucial to smaller producers' efforts to make beef markets open and fair. The Senate bill also increased the amount of money available for direct farm ownership loans, with 70 percent of those funds targeted at beginning farmers.
While we can take heart in these victories, and fight to make sure they survive in the final bill, we must understand the pressures and the mistakes that will likely doom two good initiatives that came alive in 1996. That understanding makes us stronger, wiser, and more willing to hold those in power to account. In the end, that may be the most lasting legacy of these two short-lived ideas.
Brad DeVries is a LSP staff member based in Washington, D.C., where he works as the public information coordinator for the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. He also works with the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. He can be reached by calling (202) 547-5754, or e-mailing him at bdevries@MSAWG.ORG.
FACTORY FARM UPDATE
Hydrogen sulfide still hangs in the air
Five more large-scale hog operations have received warnings from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) about the production of unhealthy levels of a toxic gas.
In late July it was revealed that the manure storage facilities of the operations were producing high levels of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), according to MPCA monitoring. Thus far, 12 out of 49 large livestock facilities monitored exceeded state H2S standards. The majority of the facilities produce hogs, although one dairy and one chicken factory have also been found to exceed emissions standards for the gas. One of the hog facilities warned is owned by Elaine Neitzel. She served on the MPCA's Citizens Board from 1994 until this past January. In that capacity, she helped set MPCA policy for, among other things, regulation and monitoring of livestock facilities.
MPCA officials recorded the most recent high readings after neighbors of the facilities complained about odors. Hydrogen sulfide gas is produced by decomposing manure. Scientific studies have suggested that exposure to high levels of hydrogen sulfide gas can cause respiratory problems, nausea, sore throats, and headaches. Large-scale livestock operations often store liquid manure in pits the size of a city block.
This testing program was initiated after Renville County residents showed signs of being exposed to high levels of H2S. In 1996, Land Stewardship Project staff and members helped set up a citizen testing program, and used its results to convince the Minnesota Legislature to fund an official monitoring program.
So far, only one facility has been shown to be in official "violation" of H2S standards. MPCA officials must follow up any initial high recordings with long-term, 24-hour monitoring before it can find an operation in violation. It is unclear what action MPCA officials will take against the facilities beyond issuing letters of warning.
Ammonia too?
In addition, preliminary results of computer modeling indicates that air emissions of ammonia may be as big a problem at some feedlots as hydrogen sulfide gases, according to the MPCA.
This study, which centered around the town of Hancock in western Minnesota, also indicated that when weather conditions are correct, several feedlots in an area may multiply their H2S emissions to create one high level of pollution.
Another major spill
In the Aug/Sept. 1997 issue of the Land Stewardship Letter, we reported how quick citizen action helped authorities catch the perpetrator of the largest manure-related fish kill - 690,000 - in Minnesota to date. On Aug. 5, local citizens helped track down the source of yet another major fish kill.
More than 250,000 fish died in southern Minnesota as a result of manure runoff, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The kill was reported by two children who had been fishing in the area.
"They had been fishing on the creek all week and then they went down there one day and there was nothing but dead fish," says the MPCA's Larry Landherr.
The runoff occurred after Austin farmer Leon Holst allegedly spread 130,000 gallons of liquid hog and cattle manure on 4.6 acres of a recently picked pea field, say MPCA officials. The recommended application rate for manure is 3,500 to 4,500 gallons per acre. Holst has refuted the MPCA's claim about application rates, saying that he actually spread approximately 40,000 gallons of manure on 15 acres.
Rains soon after the application apparently washed the manure straight into a tributary of the Root River, a popular spot for canoeing and fishing. More than nine miles of the tributary and river were contaminated, causing the asphyxiation of suckers, minnows and crayfish. Water samples taken in the tributary after the spill indicated dissolved oxygen levels of 0.2 parts per million. Normal oxygen levels in a waterway like that would be more in the range of five to 10 parts per million. Nutrients in manure promote rapid growth of bacteria and algae, which deplete oxygen in a water column.
MPCA officials say "several" enforcement actions are being considered against Holst, who did not have a state feedlot permit and who allegedly did not report the runoff.
Court supports local control...again
Local control of large-scale livestock facilities has received another shot in the arm. On July 14, the Minnesota Appeals Court ruled that New Prairie Township has the right to write and enforce zoning ordinances that control the placement of livestock buildings and lagoons.
This was the third time the courts had upheld the western Minnesota township's right to regulate livestock facilities. The lawsuit was originally filed in 1996 by Canadian Connection, a hog production partnership involving the former head of the University of Minnesota Swine Center. The owners of Canadian Connection filed the lawsuit after they were turned down for a variance, as well as use permits to build a five-barn hog facility that would house 6,936 swine (1,892.4 animal units) in the township.
At issue was an ordinance passed in January 1996 by the township that requires a conditional use permit for operations over 450 animal units, and minimum setbacks for operations over 250 animal units. The hog partnership's attorneys had charged in the lawsuit that township officials, among other things, had targeted Canadian Connection's proposal unfairly. The hog company also claimed that state regulations preempted township ordinances. But through careful documentation of what went on during the township's process of developing the new ordinances, New Prairie has been able to show the courts it did things properly and fairly and was justified in enforcing its own regulations.
Despite being repeatedly trounced in court, the owners of Canadian Connection, and its supporters, apparently haven't exhausted their legal war chest yet; they may appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.
Living Downstream
An Ecologist Looks at Cancer & the Environment
By Sandra Steingraber
Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.
New York
1997
320 pages
$24.00
Reviewed by Paul Homme
For many years, proponents of sustainable agriculture have instinctively worried about the increasing amounts of newly synthesized chemicals being released in the world. Seemingly endless repetitions of "such and such may cause cancer" on the evening news have not been helpful, since the information available has been fragmentary, and often confusing. Most people are left with the gut feeling that if one ounce of something will kill all the weeds on an acre of land, then that something probably isn't good for you.
This attitude has been, and is, ridiculed by the proponents of better living through chemistry, who equate risk with opportunity and promote economic growth (usually their own) as the true purpose of life. The fact is, less that 3 percent of commonly used chemicals in this country have actually been tested for carcinogenicity. However, industry and government in concert for years now have taken the expressed attitude that lack of information about the effects of chemical use is equal to lack of evidence of harm.
Now, one book has appeared which puts a huge amount of scientific (as opposed to sound bite) information in one, easily understandable place. A book reviewer for the New England Journal of Medicine recently proclaimed Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment, a polemic. I couldn't disagree more. Rather it is a readable, well researched, scientific discussion of the relation of chemicals in our environment to cancer. There are 67 pages of footnotes and references, and for the most part, writer Sandra Steingraber - a biologist and native of Illinois farm country - uses the cautious understatements of a scientist in her narrative. This is especially commendable considering she was afflicted with bladder cancer while in college.
The book was made possible by recent right-to-know laws, and by the equally recent institution of cancer registries at state, federal and international levels. In this country, about 3,400 people per day are told for the first time that they have one form or another of cancer. Collectively, their stories add up to what is now rightly called an epidemic, based too often on body counts.
But Steingraber puts a human face on these body counts with writing that is beautiful, even lyrical. She uses a technique of alternating statistics and scientific information with personal vignettes and anecdotes. The result is that a book of facts (lots of them) is also a story.
It is almost impossible to prove that any particular substance or thing causes human cancer. There have been 30 years of "not enough proof" in the case of tobacco. The huge profits at stake make a difference, but there are other things, as well. First, human experiments are rightly banned. Second, if a particular substance 20 years ago were, in fact, the cause, how does one eliminate exposure to everything else in the interval? One way is by using massive amounts of data and looking for patterns. Now that information on chemical releases and uses, and cancer incidence, are becoming available, patterns are emerging, and this books shows some of them.
As Steingraber points out, there are general associations of cancers with chemicals. In 1994, 2.26 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released in this country, of which 1.77 million pounds were known or suspected carcinogens. For many years, enormous amounts of hazardous chemicals have been released into the environment at the same time that cancers have shown a parallel rise. People living in 39 counties with hazardous waste dump sites were shown to have significantly higher cancer rates than those in counties without such sites. Industrialized nations have half the cancer and one-fifth the population of the world. Farmers in those nations have more cancer than non-farmers. Immigrants have cancer patterns consistent with their new country, not their old one. Adopted children have an increased cancer rate when their adoptive parents die young from cancer, but not if their biological parents do!
A particularly nasty characteristic of many hazardous chemicals is that they can show up where least expected. Thus, bottom sediments of the Great Lakes and other areas are polluted with chemicals generated elsewhere. In warm areas they can evaporate, move with air currents long distances, and be deposited in cooler areas. Long-lived chemicals and those that are stored in the body long term are concentrated as more enters the body and remains. Herbicides are applied to plants, which are eaten by animals, and those animals are in turn eaten by others... You get the picture. Man, at the top of the food chain, gets the most concentrated dose. Many environmental pollutants, especially the persistent ones like DDT, dioxin, and PCBs, are fat-soluble, not water-soluble, thus are not easily excreted.
Steingraber reports one shocking consequence of the fatty nature and ubiquitous dispersion of these pollutants: A 1974 study found PCBs in 99 percent of breast milk tested, and 25 percent exceeded the legal limit for commercial formula.
Since only 1 percent of pesticides actually reach their target, more could actually get in the food chain than be used for its intended purpose. It is disconcerting to live in a society where carcinogens are part of the food production system.
Our society's approach to carcinogenic chemicals in our environment could perhaps be described as ignorance, neglect, or maybe "see no evil." The general approach seems to be fix, rather than prevent. For example, the disinfection by-products of water treatment are carcinogenic. Using more and more chlorine to treat dirtier water compounds the problem. Filtering the water concentrates the chemicals on the filter, which then is hazardous waste. There are no good options, but banning the chemicals in the first place is never considered.
The medical community's approach is treatment, early diagnosis, and changes in life-style. Both treatment and early detection imply that prevention is impossible. Is that really true? Advice to change one's life-style seems specious. Reducing fat intake is pointless if the fat is laced with PCBs. One may choose to drink coffee, but the water used may contain chloroform. Vinyl chloride from the environment causes liver lesions which can become cancerous when alcohol is consumed. Are these life-style or environmental causes?
Steingraber has some suggestions for dealing with chemicals:
Private industry engages in a very public act when it releases toxic chemicals into the air, water and soil. Citizens everywhere are being asked to assume cancer risks that others have decided, on their behalf, are acceptable. Living Downstream makes it clear that such risk-taking isn't an inevitable fact of modern life -- it's a crime rooted in arrogance and neglect.
Paul Homme farms near Granite Falls, Minn., and serves on the Land Stewardship Project's Board of Directors. A trained microbiologist, he is past director of the microbiology branch of the U.S. Air Force's epidemiology division.
Whole farm planning Whole Farm Planning
Combining Family, Profit, and Environment is a new publication available from the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and the University of Minnesota Extension Service.
This 30-page publication describes the steps needed to implement whole farm planning and provides information on farm planning tools. It also uses farmer profiles to show whole farm planning in action and concludes with a list of resources.
Whole farm planning is a process for creating profit while enhancing human values and improving the environment.
For a copy, send $2.50 (add $2 for shipping; Minn. residents add 7% for tax; make checks payable to the University of Minnesota) to: University of Minnesota Extension Service Distribution Center, University of Minnesota, 1420 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108-6069. Call 1-800-876-8636 for credit card orders and information on bulk orders.
Chemical accounting
Will reducing chemical use bankrupt agriculture? The Myths and Realities of Pesticide Reduction: A Reader's Guide to Understanding the Full Economic Impacts, provides an analysis of the economic predictions made in studies about restricting the use of agricultural pesticides.
For a copy of the 35-page report, send $6 (that covers shipping) to: Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, 9200 Edmonston Rd., #117, Greenbelt, MD 20770; phone: (301) 441-8777.
A good hand of bugs
The Good Guys! Natural Enemies of Insects is a set of 31 laminated photo-cards of beneficial insects and bug-killing diseases that are likely to show up in Midwestern gardens. These cards, which are bound with a ring, include on the flip side helpful information for gardeners and farmers hoping to use beneficial insects and diseases as a way to reduce pesticide use.
To order, send an $8 check payable to the Ill. Natural History Survey to: 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820.
Land Steward award
The American Farmland Trust is accepting nominations for its third annual Steward of the Land Award. The $10,000 award recognizes outstanding efforts by an individual farmer or farm family in land stewardship, agricultural conservation policy and the use of environmentally and economically sustainable farming practices.
The deadline for submitting a nomination is Nov. 2. For more information and a nomination form, contact: AFT, 1920 N. St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036; phone: (202) 659-5170, ext. 3044; fax: (202) 659-8339.
SEPT. 19 - Canoe the Chippewa & tour three western Minnesota farms; Contact: LSP (320) 269-2105 Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society Harvest Festival, Charlie Johnson farm, Madison, S. Dak.; Contact: (701) 883-4304
SEPT. 19 - Canoe the Chippewa & tour three western Minnesota farms; Contact: LSP (320) 269-2105 Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society Harvest Festival, Charlie Johnson farm, Madison, S. Dak.; Contact: (701) 883-4304
SEPT. 20 - Annual CURE Minnesota River Revival, Watson Lion's Park, Watson, Minn.; Contact: Lynn Lokken, LSP (320) 269-2105
SEPT. 22 - Reviving & enhancing soils for maximizing performance of pastures & livestock, Doug Rathke & Connie Karstens farm, Hutchinson, Minn.; Contact: (320) 587-6094 Minnesota Department of Transportation workshop on land use & transportation, Detroit Lakes, Minn.; Contact: (651) 297-3888
SEPT. 23, 24 & 25 - Minnesota Chapter of American Planning Assoc. Annual Conference, featuring a presentation by LSP's Lee Ronning, Bemidji, Minn.; Contact: Teresa Hyde (612) 349-26481
SEPT. 25 - New Zealand Agritech Road Show, featuring New Zealand graziers talking about their system of raising livestock at low cost, 10 a.m.-3 p.m., Goodhue County Fairgrounds, Zumbrota, Minn.; Contact: (612) 388-8261 or (507) 237 -5162
SEPT. 29 - Minnesota Department of Transportation workshop on land use & transportation, Willmar, Minn.; Contact: (651) 297-3888
OCT. 1 - Minnesota Department of Transportation workshop on land use & transportation, Mankato, Minn.; Contact: (651) 297-3888.
OCT. 4-7 - North American Conference on Enterprise Development Through Agroforestry: Farming the Forest & Agroforest for Specialty Products, Minneapolis, Minn.; Contact: Scott Josiah (612) 624-7418
OCT. 8 - Whole Farm Planning Workshop, Southwest State University, Marshall, Minn.; Contact: Wayne Monsen, Minnesota Dept. of Ag (651) 282-2261; e-mail: WAYNE.MONSEN@STATE.MN.US
OCT. 13 - Minnesota Department of Transportation workshop on land use & transportation, Rochester, Minn.; Contact: (651) 297-3888
OCT. 15 & 20 - Minnesota Department of Transportation workshop on land use & transportation, Twin Cities; Contact: (651) 297-3888
OCT. 17 - Small farm composting of urban "wastes," Dick Gallien farm, Winona, Minn.; Contact: (507) 454-3126 Regional tour of rural homes using alternative energy, featuring solar powered water pumping system, a garden watering system and other alternative energy systems, Todd County, Minn.; Contact: Greg Nolan (320) 594-6317
OCT. 19 - Whole Farm Planning Workshop, Southwest State University, Marshall, Minn.; Contact: Wayne Monsen, Minnesota Dept. of Ag (651) 282-2261; e-mail: WAYNE.MONSEN@STATE.MN.US
OCT. 22-23 - National Eco-Label Conference, Portland, Ore.; Contact: (503) 493-1066
OCT. 24 - An alternative management system in an organic Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) market, featuring chemical free fruit and vegetable production using draft power, Candace Mullen farm, South Haven, Minn.; Contact: (320) 236-7852
NOV. 6-7 - Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (MSAWG) quarterly meeting, Kansas City; Contact: Dana Jackson, LSP (651) 653-0618; e-mail: danaj@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU
NOV. 13-14 - National Catholic Rural Life Conference, Des Moines, Iowa; Contact: (515) 270-2634
NOV. 18 - Extending the grazing season with the use of silage clamps, Jon Luhman farm, Red Wing, Minn.; Contact: (612) 388-6789.
NOV. 20 - "Tax Strategies in Land Use Conservation Transactions"; Contact: Kim Hiller, LSP (651) 653-06188
DEC. 10-12 - Acres U.S.A. Annual Eco-Agricultural Conference, Minneapolis, Minn.; Contact: 1-800-355-5313
JAN. 22-24 - Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (MSAWG) annual gathering, Madison, Wis.; Contact: Dana Jackson, LSP (651) 653-0618; e-mail: danaj@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU
FEB. 5-6 - Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society annual winter conference, Bismarck, N. Dak.; Contact: Theresa Podoll (701) 883-4304 '
JUNE 11 - Growing Smart in Minnesota Conference, featuring educational opportunities for citizen activists, local and state officials, professional planners and others who have an interest in promoting sustainable growth in Minnesota, Convention Center, Minneapolis, Minn.; Contact: LSP (651) 653-0618
Check the Calendar for the latest on upcoming LSP events.
Back to top