The Eat Well Guided Tour of America visits Nebraska!

The Eat Well Guided Tour of America is crossing America to celebrate local, sustainable food and the folks who produce, distribute, promote, and eat it!

Agriculture in Nebraska
Facts on Farming and Agriculture:
• Nebraska has 48,000 farms and ranches on 45.7 million acres of land– about 93% of the state's total land area – the average (mean) operation size is 952 acres.
• Almost twelve million of Nebraska’s farmed acres grow corn or soybeans.ii
• Of Nebraska’s whole workforce, 20.3% depends in some way on agriculture, with 5.4% directly involved in farm production and 9.6% in wholesale and retail trade.
• Nebraska produces a lot of grains and oilseeds (fourth in the nation), cattle (third in the nation), and hogs (sixth in the nation). However, the state ranks near the bottom in fruit and vegetable production: forty-fifth in “vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes,” and forty-first in “fruit, tree nuts, and berries.”
• Nebraska has only 69 farmers’ marketsv, despite being ranked fourth in the nation in terms of the total value of agricultural products sold.
• Nebraska’s five leading commodities are cattle and calves, corn, soybeans, hogs, and wheat. These account for 93.6% of all farm receipts. Cattle alone account for over half.
• There are almost four cows (total: 6,650,000)viii for every person in Nebraska (total: 1,768,331).

Factory Farms:
• The trend toward consolidated, industrial farming has affected most of the country, but Nebraska has more factory farms than most other states. It ranks top ten (or bottom ten, depending on your point of view) for concentrated cattle, hogs, and egg-laying hens.x
• In 2006, only 8% of pigs in Nebraska lived on farms with fewer than 500 others, while a staggering 71% lived in cramped quarters alongside over 2,000 of their fellow swine. Over half lived in operations that held more than 5,000 animals.xi
• In 1995, by contrast, 29% lived on farms with fewer than 500 pigs, and 31% lived alongside more than 2,000. Only 17% lived on operations with over 5,000 in stock.
• In 2002, Nebraska was home to 644 feedlots with 500 or more cattlexiii: more than any other state in the country.
• Three Nebraska counties harbor more cows than any others in the country: Cherry County, with nearly 162,000 cows, Holt County, with 99,000 cows, and Custer County, with 92,000 cows. The human populations of these counties are: 5,934,xvi 10,610,xvii and 11,242, respectively. In light of how much manure cows produce, it’s hardly surprising that people have been moving out in droves. Over the past six years, the population of Cherry County has declined by 3.5%, Holt by 8.1%, and Custer by 4.7%. Over the same period of time, the overall state population increased by 3.3%.
• The growth of these factory farms has been driven in part by the availability of cheap feed. Corn across the country has been made artificially inexpensive by lavish government subsidies, although the growing demand for ethanol recently sent prices upward.
• Nebraska agriculture received more in government handouts than all states but Texas, Iowa, and Illinois. 59% of these subsidies went to just 10% of recipients.

Issues Facing Nebraska’s Farms:
• Farmers and ranchers face a host of challenges including high property taxes, low prices for the goods they produce, the growing cost of inputs like fertilizer, fuel, and pest control, and the increasing concentration of suppliers and commodity buyers.
• In December, 2006, an appeals court upheld a previous ruling that the 24 year old Initiative 300 is unconstitutional. The purpose of the Initiative was to preserve Nebraska’s family farms. It remains to be seen whether the Legislature will draft an acceptable replacement. “Protecting Initiative 300.” Center for Rural Affairs. http://www.cfra.org/I300.htm
• Amidst the gloom and doom, the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society, among others, is busy promoting food systems that build healthy land and healthy people.
Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society. http://www.HealthyFarms.org/


Sustainable Table (www.sustainabletable.org), the New York-based nonprofit program that produced The Meatrix (www.themeatrix.com) series and the Eat Well Guide (www.eatwellguide.org)

Healthy Foods, Healthy Farms, Healthy People with John Ikerd

"This is the second in a series of quest entries of the NSAS blog featuring speakers and presenters for the Healthy Farms Conference of the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society"

Americas are the most obese people in the world. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, adult obesity has increased by 60% within the past twenty years. Trends for childhood obesity are even worse, having doubled for children and tripled for adolescents during the same time. One-third of American adults are now considered severely overweight or obese. Obesity is closely linked with other health problems, particularly diabetes and heart disease, and ranks second only to tobacco smoking as a cause of adult death. Americans are the most overfed yet undernourished people in the world.

The epidemic of obesity is obviously related to the American diet. It might be easy to blame these maladies on the sedentary but high-stress American lifestyle, which probably is a significant casual factor. But an even more important cause might be the lack of essential nutrients in many of today’s foods. A growing number of scientific studies are finding significant declines in the nutritional value of our foods. And dramatic drops in nutrient density have occurred during a period when American farms were under pressure to specialize, mechanize, get bigger – to produce more food cheaper.

Meanwhile the evidence continues to grow that cheap food is abundant in calories but deficient in nutrients. For example, problems of obesity and diabetes are more common among people with lower incomes who logically tend to seek foods providing the cheapest source of energy – meaning the most calories for the fewest dollars. Because of time constraints, many such people also rely heavily on highly processed and ready-to-eat foods, including “fast foods.” On such diets, people can easily end up eating far more calories than they need without getting enough nutrition to meet the minimum requirements of a healthy diet.

One prominent academic study compared nutrient levels in 43 garden crops in 1999 with levels documented in benchmark nutrient studies conducted by USDA in 1950. The scientists found declines in median concentrations of six important nutrients: protein –6%, calcium –16%, phosphorus –9%, iron –15%, riboflavin –38%, and vitamin C –2%. While these essential nutrients may be lacking in most foods today, they may be found in abundance in foods grown naturally and organically on healthy, productive soils. A 1993 study comparing conventional foods with organic foods, found that organically grown apples, potatoes, pears, wheat, and sweet corn, purchased over a two-year period, averaged 63% higher in calcium, 73% higher in iron, 118% higher in magnesium, 91% higher in phosphorus, 125% higher in potassium, and 60% higher in zinc than conventional foods purchased at the same times.

Other studies establish clear links between declining nutrient density and the industrialization of American agriculture. One such study found that yield-enhancing technologies – fertilizers, pesticides, plant density, and irrigation – reduce the nutrient content of field crops by amounts generally consistent with declines in nutrient density over the past 50-years and nutrient differences between conventional and organic crops. These results should come as no surprise to anyone who understands that industrial agriculture profits primarily from quantity factors: acres farmed, head produced, yields per acre, rates of gain, and the cost efficiency of large-scale production. Quality factors affecting prices typically are incidental to profits and often related to cosmetic appearance rather than nutrition. The profits are in producing quantity, not quality.

The food processing and distribution industry also must share the blame. The corporations that market our foods are concerned about profits – not diet or health. In fact, the managers of the multinational corporations that currently control the American food system have a legal fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns to their stockholders. They have no social or ethical commitment to protecting public health and instead do only those things required by law. Current laws are clearly inadequate to protect the public from diet related illnesses, as is evident in current trends in the diets and health of Americans.

Food industry marketers know that humans have a natural taste preference, probably a genetic predisposition, for foods that are high in fat and sugar. Preferences essential for the survival and health of our primitive ancestors may threaten our health today. Regardless, it’s easier to market foods that are higher in calories, particularly when those foods are cheaper to produce. The primary sources of those cheap calories are plants and animals from farms using modern yield-enhancing technologies and thus lacking in nutrient density and encouraging over consumption while enhancing food industry profits. Some logical health consequences of such diets are obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

The food security of our nation depends on keeping farmland in the trusted care of family farmers who are committed to maintaining the fertility and productivity of the land while producing safe and nutritious foods for all. Rather than subsidizing the industrialization of agriculture and promoting cheap food, public policies should be refocused on sustaining our smaller, independent family farmers, people who are personally committed to producing good food for their families, their neighbors, and providing food security for their nation. Our food may cost a bit more and we may consumer a bit less, but only then, will Americans be well nourished and well fed.

John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia will give a capstone lecture for the conference on Saturday, February 6th. John was raised on a small dairy farm in southwest Missouri and received his BS, MS, and Ph.D. degrees in agricultural economics from the University of Missouri. He worked in private industry for a time and spent thirty years in various professorial positions at North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State University, University of Georgia, and the University of Missouri before retiring in early 2000. Since retiring, he spends most of his time writing and speaking on issues related to sustainability with an emphasis on economics and agriculture. Ikerd is author of Sustainable Capitalism, A Return to Common Sense, Small Farms are Real Farms, and Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture.

Sources:
For studies of health benefits of natural and organic foods, see The Organic Center, http:// www.organic-center.org/
W. M. Jarrell and R. B. Beverly, “The Dilution Effect in Plant Nutrient Studies,” Advances in Agronomy, 34:197–224, 1981.

The key to rural economic development, sustainable agriculture

This is the first in a series of quest entries of the NSAS blog featuring speakers and presenters for the upcoming Healthy Farms Conference

By Kevin Fulton

Rural areas across the country have seen steady population declines over the last 70–80 years. Census reports of most rural Nebraska counties substantiate this, and in many cases this decline has been drastic.

Much of this population loss can be attributed to a shift in agricultural practices that moved us toward an industrial model. This took both people and animals off the land. Industrialization created an environment in the farm sector where it became more desirable to own your neighbor’s land rather than have the neighbor and his family around.

For years, leaders in rural America have worked to reverse this trend or, at the very least, slow it down. Many different strategies and incentives have been implemented. Ironically, many rural economic development plans center around the recruitment of large entities to develop industrial sites as a way to generate more jobs and bring more people to the community. Examples in recent years here in Nebraska include the development of ethanol plants and large CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) in or near our rural communities. But is this really the best strategy? Why do we promote more large industry in small rural communities when this led to our demise in the first place? Does the boom-to-bust cycle that many of these industries go through create a stable economic base for rural communities that is conducive to long-term growth? We have also seen many communities torn apart by the dissension that is created when bringing in certain types of industry that have a history of negative consequences, such as creating environmental contamination and odor problems. Many times this actually hinders the development of balanced long-term economic growth.

The best solution to this problem is to bring both people and animals back onto the land. This will create prosperity for farmers and the communities around them. Is this really a practical solution? We are already seeing this happen in some areas with great success, but can it work on a widespread scale? The answer is YES. Not only would this improve economic welfare in rural areas, but it would also alleviate many of the environmental problems associated with industrial agriculture, improve animal welfare and rebuild trust with the consumer. Sustainable farming and food production systems represent the model that will lead us down this path to prosperity for rural communities and provide a healthy food supply for the population. Critics say this would not only be impractical but also disastrous, claiming that it would lead to massive food shortages and starvation. These scare tactics simply have no foundation. To the contrary, if we do not move in a different direction, our industrial food system will lead us down a path of self-destruction. The warning signs are already present as we are currently moving down that pathway.

I hope you will join us at the 2010 Healthy Farms Conference, where I will be discussing these issues along with providing real solutions on how and why we must continue to create sustainable farming systems that will allow us to eat better, improve the environment and revive rural economies.

One Size Does Not Fit All When It Comes to Food Safety Legislation

Twenty-one grassroots farm, ranch, organic producers and consumers, and holistic health organizations urged U.S. Senators to make changes in pending federal food safety legislation to ensure that the option to select fresh, wholesome, locally produced and processed foods is not denied to consumers. The House passed H.R.2749 in July and the Senate will soon be taking up S. 510 sponsored by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin.

“Both bills attempt to get at the problem of foodborne pathogens in the industrial food supply chain, where issues of traceability and accountability are a challenge,” Jeanne Charter, Northern Plains Resource Council member and rancher who direct markets grassfed beef in Montana. “The food safety bills in Congress bring direct market farmers and small local processors under an onerous regulatory regime, when these small producers represent a viable alternative to industrialized foods, and also are regulated by longstanding local and state public health and agricultural laws. When it comes to food safety, one size does not fit all.”

“Under existing laws, organic farmers go through an extensive and expensive certification process,” Alexis Baden-Meyer of the Organic Consumers Association pointed out. “Congress would now overlay that with another cumbersome layer of regulations applicable to farmers who are selling locally grown organic food direct to consumers.”

"More inspections and red tape will not make our food supply any safer,” according to William A. Powers of the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society. “Look at all the beef recalls, each beef is 'inspected,' but that does not make it safe. We need to address the root causes for food contamination. The food safety bills under consideration are trying to address traceability and accountability. There is no better way to trace food and be held accountable then selling your products directly to the customer. The farmer sees the customer eye-to-eye, shakes her hand, and eats the same food. We need food safety laws that are size and case specific."

“The growing trend toward healthy, fresh, locally sourced vegetables, meats, fruit, dairy and value-added products improves food safety by providing the opportunity for consumers to know their farmers and processors, to choose products on the basis of that relationship, and to readily trace any problems should they occur,” the letter points out. “Food safety in the industrial food system with its long, multi-sourced food supply chains, can and should be addressed without harming the local food systems that provide an alternative for consumers.”

The letter calls on Congress to remove local processors processing local foods for local markets and direct market farmers from the federal legislation, to remove doubling regulations on meat, poultry , and organic farms, and to hold the Food and Drug Administration accountable for its regulatory oversight.

###

The Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society-NSAS is a non-profit, grass-roots membership organization who's mission is to promote agriculture and food systems that build healthy land, people, communities & quality of life for present and future generations. Initiated over 30 years ago by farmer members, NSAS has grown into a dynamic organization with members from all across Nebraska. We welcome all who are interested and concerned about where and how there food is produced, including farmers and non-farmers!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Margie MacDonald, WORC, 406.252.9672
Tami Wahl, AAHF, 202.467.1986
Judith McGeary, FARFA, 512.484.8821
William Powers, NSAS, 402-525-7794
Alexis Baden-Meyer, OCA, 202-986-6186

Corporations and Farming

"Corporate Industrialization will do for agriculture as it has done for other sectors of the economy. It will pollute the natural environment- the water, the soil and the air. The natural productivity of the land eventually will be depleted. Farmer and farm workers, like factory workers, will suffer ill health, low pay, and eventual abandonment- as agribusinesses find other people in other place who will work even harder, in more dangerous environments, for even less pay. The safety and healthfulness of the food supply will continue to deteriorate as a consequence of the inevitable race to the bottom, to see which corporation can produce the most stuff cheapest. However, once they have driven their competitors out of business, they will be free to raise prices to whatever level they choose.

The industrial era is over. The era of information and knowledge is upon us. Knowledge and information are quickly replacing capital as the source of new productivity and wealth. Potential productivity is now embodied in the unique ability of people to think and create, not in raw materials and factories. The main reason corporations continue to consolidate and grow is to gain greater economic and political power- to exploit workers, taxpayers, and consumers so they can continue to show profits and grow."

John Ikerd, 1999. A Small Farm Revolution


“Small Farmers are Real Farms” by John Ikerd is a fascinating book and one I believe anyone interested or concerned with where there food comes from and of the future of the family farm should read. From the beginning it will captivate you with ideas and philosophies that are fundamentally different and required to curb the corporate control over farming in the United States.

The book is a compilation of speeches and lectures that Mr. Ikerd has given over the past 15 years or so, and for some reason this particular chapter has stuck with me. One of the most important ideas is this “fundamentally different philosophy on life and farming” that he has. A gradual shift from just settling to actually doing something about these issues. He also mentions the FFA creed, and the opening line of “I believe in the future of Agriculture with a faith born not of words but of deeds.” That is a mantra that has been a part of me since my freshman year of high school when I was the creed speaker at my high school and I take great pride in that. We must, as farmers and consumers and Americans change the way we think and act.

Another interesting fact is the relation of the small farms movement to the foundation of our country and the American Revolution. Specifically he says we need a Thomas Paine approach to fix these issues. "We need a Thomas Paine approach to the new movement to revolutionize American society. I am talking about a fundamental different philosophy on life. The difference between the industrial and the post-industrial society will be as great as the difference between a monarchy and a democracy. The current enemy is not a misguided monarchy, but a misguided economy. The tyranny is not a kingdom, but instead is the marketplace." I believe this is a great idea. A misguided economy, predicated upon profit margins with no regard to where it’s been and where it’s going. Sustainability is the journey and that can’t be measured.

The closing line of this says it best.

“The only farms with a future will be farms that are sustainable- that are economically viable, ecologically sound, and socially responsible. The inevitability of the industrialization of agriculture is a lie. Sustainable small farms are better alternatives than getting bigger, giving in, or getting out. The American public must be told the truth. It’s time for a small farm revolution in America. The time for quietness has passed”

The Journey Towards Sustainability

Probably the most often asked question I get about sustainable agriculture is “what is it?” The questioners, usually prepared to defend their approach to agriculture, are often surprised to hear my answer. First I believe that most farmers have the desire to be sustainable; that is they wish to be able to continue what they are doing indefinitely. To do so indefinitely means that sustainability needs to be exemplified not only environmentally, but also in terms of productivity, economically, and socially in terms of health and well-being of the farmers and their communities. Further, sustainability in agriculture is better described as a journey than a destination. No one can be sure what practices will be sustainable in the long run. However, there are concepts that need to be addressed.

Sustainable agriculture begins with a set of values that include such things as productive soil, clean water, a reasonable income, healthy lifestyle, nutritious food, a diverse environment, and an appreciation of biological systems, community, and future generations. The journey to sustainability is determined to increase the positive impacts to these values and decrease the negatives.

Now lets get down to the nitty gritty! What about chemicals? All sustainable production is not chemical free nor is all chemical free production sustainable. Chemical use in excess is clearly not sustainable as it can have negative impacts to water, wildlife, human healthy, and profitability. Judicious use of production chemicals may or may not be sustainable in that we don’t know the long-term effects. I thijnk it would be fair to say that the journey toward sustainability would include a reduction of chemical use over time through intensive management and the substitution of biological systems for chemicals. Given the knowledge to accomplish this I find that most farmers can embrace this concept.

What about marketing? From a sustainability standpoint, marketing must increase the bottom line to a point that the farmer receives a reasonable income. Generally this means that the farmer would move towards systems that increase his/her market share from the current 10% or less to a share that matches production capability with standard of living requirements. This can include producing for a new or niche market and cooperative marketing to face-to-face sales to consumers.

Finally let’s consider the human factor. Sustainable agriculture has a high regard for the health and happiness of the farmer, the health of the consumer, the viability of passing a farming operation to the next generation, and the impact to the community. These values set the parameters as to how food is produced and the quality of that food. Probably the first step in the journey towards sustainability in this area is the recognition that we are producing food as opposed to commodities. Even further we might consider that we are producing human nutrition.

In conclusion I would reiterate that the nature of sustainable agriculture is a journey and as such no onehas yet arrived at the destination or the complete and comprehensive definition. If you share any or all of the values suggested in this article and are working toward them, you are sustainable agriculture. NSAS is a community of producers, consumers, vendors, and researchers working together to promote the values of sustainable agriculture!

Healthcare via Sustainable, Healthy, Local Foods!

Healthcare via Sustainable, Healthy, Local Foods!

At a recent congressional hearing on healthcare held in Lincoln, a predominant theme was the necessity of lifestyle changes. One of the panelists that testified for Congressman Jeff Fortenberry and Congressman Joe Baca was Pam Edwards registered dietitian and director of UNL dining services. A major point she made was that healthy local food systems could and would reverse the trend in childhood obesity, decrease the soaring number of diabetic children in the United States, as well as create healthier individuals overall. Pam Edwards coordinates the surging “Good, Fresh, Local” program at UNL, and I have seen first hand the growth in the program. The last one we attended in April had twice as many students (and other attendees, as they are open to the public) as the previous in March! It is incredibly popular, and not just because the food is that much healthier for you; “It just taste better” as said one attendee in April.

A recent study showed in the 1970’s the average American household spent 17-20% of their income on food and 9-11% on healthcare. In 2005 these numbers had reversed, and the obesity epidemic had taken hold of our country. We may pay a little more for healthy, local foods, but they reduction in health care costs and improved quality of life, in the long run far outweighs it. In Nebraska alone, 27% of the population is overweight. Another disturbing trend is in the cost of healthcare for children. In 2000, it cost $185,000 to treat adults as a result of poor nutrition from K-12 grade school. These numbers have doubled since than.

Those of us fortunate to have the choice to buy local, healthy foods should do so. But at a recent panel discussion of the movie “Food, INC” an important question was posed about food deserts, where grocery stores and fresh produce are scarce. The example was of an area in East Omaha, but the same is happening throughout towns across rural Nebraska. My suggestions are to support your local groceries and ask more of them. Ask for local products. Start a farmer's market. As they stated in the movie, you can vote “3 times a day with your food dollars.” As demand increases, so to will the products sourced from sustainable food channels.

A major reason for this health care crisis, I believe, is the lack of access (and sometimes willingness) to buy healthy, sustainable, and local foods. I believe proper healthcare comes from making a choice. A choice to eat healthy, sustainable, local foods will result in a healthier lifestyle, not just for you and your family, but also your community. It is absolutely vital in today’s world to frequent your markets, support your local businesses, ask for local products, to grow some of your own food when you can, and to know where and how your food was raised. Talk with your neighbors, your farmers, and work as a community to make healthy lifestyle decisions for everyone!