Blog for Rural America

Yesterday I mentioned the inadequacy of USDA’s animal ID system, the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  A provision in the House Agriculture Appropriations bill currently before Congress requires the School Lunch Program administered by USDA to only purchase meat from livestock producers registered with NAIS.

This provision is being championed as a “food safety” measure, a disingenuous claim at best.  NAIS has little to do with food safety- something even USDA admits.  From USDA’s website:

“Implementation of NAIS will support state and federal animal disease monitoring and surveillance through the rapid tracing of infected and exposed animals during animal disease outbreaks. Additional benefits of NAIS include enhanced consumer confidence in the health of U.S. livestock and associated products and improved productivity management for producers.” (http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/newsroom/news_2005-11-09.shtml)

As you might notice, public health is not mentioned.  That’s because NAIS stops at the packing plant door- there is no requirement to trace the meat during production.  Given that most contamination resulting in food recalls (and people getting sick) is a result of improper production practices you can start to see how this isn’t about public health.  If a person is sickened eating tainted meat, NAIS cannot help in identifying which animal actually caused the disease (if, in fact, there is a particular animal at fault) because during production meat from hundreds of animals is mixed together- and NAIS does nothing to address this problem.

I suppose one could argue that NAIS may benefit public health if you detect the disease before the animal is slaughtered.  But that’s not all that big of a priority for USDA either- they’ve repeatedly tried to prevent meatpackers from testing every cow they purchase for mad cow disease. 

Claiming involvement in NAIS will somehow result in safer food for the school lunch program is simply wrong.  Moreover, forcing those selling to schools to participate in this fatally flawed program could well result in less locally sourced, sustainably produced meat for schools.

Farm-to-school programs may be in their infancy on a national scale, but they represent an enormous opportunity for small farms and ranches. 

First, schools are locally controlled- providing an excellent opportunity for local citizens to insist upon locally-sourced foods.  And the increased volumes involved in such institutional purchases can provide the incentive for a producer to get into sustainable, humane production practices- especially when compared to the often fluctuating demand from farmers markets, etc.  Institutional purchasing has the potential to provide the sort of reliable demand that could really revitalize local processing capacity- both for meat and other food products- something that Tom Philpott has correctly identified as one of the single largest obstacles to a true local food system.  Placing yet another obstacle in front of farm-to-school programs will inevitably result in less local food in our schools.

In the bigger picture, requiring schools to buy meat from NAIS producers will absolutely favor the largest, most vertically-integrated meatpackers and CAFO operators.  Why?  Because they’re the ones that can guarantee large quantities of meat sourced from NAIS producers.  When hundreds or thousands of animals go into a ground beef production run, only the largest meatpackers can absolutely guarantee that every single one of those animals was tagged in NAIS- and those animals will be bought from giant CAFOs, whose costs to participate in NAIS are far lower than the small producer (the “lot tagging” I mentioned yesterday).  Small producers facing higher costs (and particularly much more burdensome paperwork requirements associated with NAIS) will face a big hurdle to participate, and if they don't register with NAIS the meatpacker selling to the School Lunch Program will not buy their animals at all.

So what we have is a bureaucratic requirement that does little to protect public health and is yet another federal policy that will encourage the consolidation and concentration of agriculture- pushing us even further from a truly sustainable, local food system.  And it will put a serious damper on the farm-to-school programs that could be a boon to small farms and ranches.  And let’s not even think what will happen to these markets if they extend this horribly constructed initiative to fruits and veggies.

All this is not to say the goals of NAIS are a complete waste.  There are compelling reasons to track livestock in this country.  But the current NAIS structure is unworkable and potentially devastating to small farms.  And this proposed requirement is a yet another back door effort to mandate a flawed animal ID system that will propel us even further into the factory farm future.

There's not much more that truly ticks me off than ignorant bureaucratic requirements that impose burdens on the little guy yet do nothing to accomplish their stated goal.  And the prime example of that right now is a tiny little provision in the House Agriculture Appropriations bill that requires the USDA School Lunch Program to only buy meat that comes from livestock producers registered in USDA's animal ID program.

This, of course, requires a little explanation.  The idea behind USDA's National Animal Identification System is that we  need to have the ability to track every single animal raised for human consumption in the United States.  That, as you might imagine, is a gargantuan undertaking- one website I visited put the number of animals at 2 billion, conservatively.  The point here is to be able to identify and isolate animals that may have been exposed to diseases in the event of an outbreak.  The obvious example is mad cow disease, but potentially just as devastating would be something like hoof and mouth disease.  And to tell the truth, there is some merit to this idea.  A widespread disease outbreak could devastate livestock producers- many, many livestock producers in England were driven out of business, have not returned, and were never adequately compensated for their loss.

This big NAIS push started after the mad cow incidents a few years back.  Interestingly, Congress never actually passed a law to create NAIS- USDA simply went ahead and did it on their own.  And when you get down into the details, you can see USDA went about it in practically the worst way possible.

Last December, The Nation published an article describing the current state of NAIS:

NAIS, ostensibly intended to contain disease outbreaks among livestock, has sparked the most severe political backlash rural America has seen in decades. The controversy stems primarily from the backhanded way the government has imposed a deeply unpopular policy...
A handful of industry stakeholders have cast their shadow over nearly every component of NAIS--past, present and future. A consortium of industry leaders--Cargill Meat Solutions, Monsanto and Schering-Plough, among others--pushed for NAIS for more than a decade and finally won the USDA's approval shortly after George W. Bush took office in 2001.

If you have any interest in the topic at all, I highly recommend the full article here.

Not surprisingly, the NAIS fight has been fierce, uniting the left and right in opposing a flawed and invasive government mandate (it's not hard to find information on the web- you can start at nonais.org).  As a result of this opposition, USDA decided to make participation in NAIS voluntary, but then started encouraging states to make participation mandatory.  The repeated back door efforts they've undertaken to make the program mandatory by default are worthy of a separate blog post.

But most egregious is the way in which the current NAIS completely favors a vertically integrated, CAFO-based meat production system.  Right from the get-go, the system is rigged against the small producer.  Large CAFOs whose animals essentially stay in one place their whole lives can use "lot tagging"- taking a large group of animals, assigning them one animal ID number, and not having to track and/or tag each individual animal.  The small producer, on the other hand, has to buy tags, complete paperwork, etc. for every single animal- unless they decide to put their animals in a tight controlled facility where their is no chance they'll come into contact with animals outside of their "lot".  And we all know what that means- more mega-CAFOs and all of their negative effects.

Furthermore, in a typical Bush administration move, USDA has actually turned over the management of NAIS databases to private companies.  This is a truly horrifying prospect.  From a purely market point of view, can you imagine Cargill (which is running an animal ID database) knowing where every single animal in the United States is located and how old they are?  Cargill would have the ability to predict how many animals were going to be delivered to their plants on any given day- creating the potential for massive market manipulation (of course, Cargill and others deny they would ever use this information for that sort of thing).

Even worse, those pushing NAIS have much grander plans for this data.  From The Nation:

At a recent animal genetics conference in Switzerland, a team of geneticists described how NAIS-like animal identification systems had "huge potential for a genetic improvement programme where lack of individual identification is one of the main hurdles."

Agribusiness is in a global scramble to secure intellectual property rights over the next generation of biotechnology products. China, Brazil, India and many other countries have accelerated animal biotechnology research. In Canada, Aqua Bounty Farms has patented the first transgenic salmon, which grows to adult dimensions in half the time it takes conventional salmon. Regulators are considering whether to approve the salmon for sale.

The National Animal Genome Research Program, which pioneered the first disease-resistant transgenic cow in 2001, describes NAIS as "a key user" of its national network of genomics resources... 

the most maddening aspect of NAIS: it's so vague that it's hard to pin down exactly what it will do or how or even why. The USDA has left NAIS open-ended so stakeholders can maximize the program's potential value by using it as a platform to develop additional processes or systems. NAIS is a set of open-ended standards and protocols that can support a wide range of operations and processes--including genetic tracking--many of which have nothing to do with disease surveillance.

Great- NAIS might give agribusinesses the information they needs to take control of the genetics of all the livestock in the country.  This is the last step in the complete commodification of livestock production, a completely vertically-integrated factory farm model.  Every animal will be genetically identical, and god forbid a small indepedent producer somehow ends up with genes in their animal they didn't pay a "technology fee" on.  I'm sure many of you remember Percy Schmeiser's difficulties with Monsanto in Canada.

Which brings us all the way back around to the requirement in the House bill for USDA to buy meat from operations registered with this junk NAIS crap.  But I've ran on long enough for today- tomorrow I'll talk about the particular reasons this is such a bad idea (beyond the fact NAIS sucks).

We're back from a much needed (and, of course, well deserved) vacation to fabulous western Nebraska.  Pictures and stories to follow later.  But for now, I should wrap up the list of organizations whose work I truly appreciate and enjoy, and if I miss anyone I apologize.  There are dozens if not hundreds of other great organizations that worked on the farm bill, and these are just a few of the ones I interacted with on a regular basis. If you have the chance, I recommend checking out their websites and maybe throwing a few dollars their way.

I should also note that I'm just naming organizations here- I can't even begin to list all the good individuals I had the privilege of working with on this farm bill.  To all of you, thanks.  Here we go:

Community Food Security Coalition:  Steph Larsen.  Good people fighting for great programs, and they succeeded.  That's all there is to it.  Oh, and one of the top three e-updates/newsletters around.

Organic Farming Research Foundation:  A fellow member of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, I got to know more about them when we had a coalition meeting in California.  I was impressed.  Zach Baker, TraceyLerman and Mark Lipson are top notch policy advocates, with Tracy writing many of the better sustainable agriculture action alerts floating around on the web.  When you combine that with the impressive wins the organic sector had in the farm bill, you know they're doing great work and will be a major player in the policy world for a long time.

National Catholic Rural Life Conference- If you've ever met Bob Gronski, you know it's hard to improve on faith-based public policy advocacy.  In addition to the policy wonkishness, they have the truly moving social justice perspective that many of us in the nonprofit world would do well to pay more attention to.

Rural Advancement Foundation International:  Scott Marlowe knows as much about farm programs as anyone, and he works on crop insurance, an area in which I certainly wish we had more expertise.  They also did good work on livestock contract reform, and provide much needed geographical diversity to the farm bill campaign.

The Environmental Working Group:  They publish the farm subsidy database, which has probably done more to advance the cause of farm program reform than any other initiative in the past 15 years.  I had the particular privilege of working with Ken Cook and the inestimable Don Carr (formerly of South Dakota), both more than willing to share credit and media opportunities, an all-too-rare instinct in the nonprofit world.  While we didn't always agree with EWG on particular policy positions (and no one should get too worked up those sorts of things), we did have the opportunity to fight with them to win payment limits.  They never- and I mean never- wavered in their support of farm program reform, and no amount of funding for other priorities was going to change that.  And they work on a bunch of other righteous causes as well.

Oxfam America:  Sure they're a big organization, but they do the grassroots stuff really well.  Jim French and the other farm bill organizers remind us constantly that the farm bill isn't just about the United States.  They deserve major recognition for giving a voice to overseas farmers and their concerns, and despite the claims of their critics, they certainly do not forget the plight of the American farmer either.

Bread for the World:  Another faith-based organization whose grassroots work is just incredible.  Tammi Walhof, Elise Young, Derrick Boykin and the many other BFW organizers do great work (though they also have a great video to help them out; I'm really jealous).  The Rev. David Beckmann is one of the most eloquent voices arguing in favor of farm program reform in Washington, period.  And from a purely professional perspective, it's incredible that their organizers continually transition to working on new issues.  I couldn't imagine having to learn new policy issues every year.

Like I said, these are just a few of the great organizations that worked on the farm bill.  If you have an individual or organization that you think just totally kicked ass in the farm bill, stick them in the comments and I'll put it up on the main blog page.  Next up, one of my usual rants and maybe some vacation pictures.

The 2008 Farm Bill includes the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account Program. This program uses special matched saving accounts to promote a new generation of farmers and ranchers by assisting those of modest means to establish a pattern of savings. The account proceeds may be used toward capital expenditures for a farm or ranch operation, including expenses associated with the purchases of land, buildings, equipment, infrastructure, livestock, or toward training.
 
For numerous aspiring farmers and ranchers, the actuality of starting their own operation is out of reach. One of the biggest obstacles to new farmers is financing the land and the farm operation. This program can bolster their opportunities by helping them save money on a down payment for example. It will also prepare them for success as a farmer or rancher by requiring the participants to acquire appropriate training that focuses on business planning, banking, conservation planning, market development and more.

The program will be tested in at least 15 states before national implementation. However, the farm bill did not provide any dedicated funding, even for the pilot program.  The opportunity to make a difference for the next generation of family farmers and ranchers is now.  But we must convince the members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to seize the opportunity and provide the funds needed to get this program off the ground.

For more information visit: www.cfra.org

Contrary to popular belief, the Center for Rural Affairs does not have staff in Washington DC.  In fact, during this entire farm bill process I only visited Washington ONCE, and that was all I needed to confirm a suspicion that I have no interest in returning to that town for work purposes.  Ever. 

Of course, we work on many issues that are decided in Washington DC, and the personal touch is often needed when dealing with the politicos.  We try to have face to face meetings in the districts, but in all honesty there is absolutely no substitute for good DC representation that is willing to go to bat for you 24/7. 

Ingeniously, we solve this problem by being a member of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and they seem to actually work 24/7 out of a tiny Washington office.  Which is good, because that means I don't have to. 

Ferd Hoefner is the farm bill super-swami, Aimee Witteman holds the whole outfit together, Martha Noble keeps USDA (and others) honest.  Recently departed Tazuer Smith provided the realist perspective.  Newly added Julie Hudson raises the money.  And they had a series of interns that I suspect did most of the work.  Notable among them is my main man Zach Baker, who still works with SAC (and OFRF) and Ariane Lotti, now laboring mightily somewhere in an Iowa field (hopefully not underwater).

If you want to know everything going on in the world of federal sustainable agriculture politics and policy, I strongly recommend you sign up for SAC's Weekly Update here.  And then give them a donation or at least send a thank-you email, because updates of that quality usually cost mucho dollars, especially in Washington DC.

Anyway, they are incredibly competent, and most of the good things in 2008 Farm Bill are at least partially a result of their hard work.  I admire them for many reasons, not least their willingness to live in that town. 

It suddenly occurred to us that the Farm Bill is finally over and we should have something to say about that, so click here for an overview of the 2008 farm bill. Also, I kind of figured I should write a big blog post with a brilliant meta-analysis of the entire process and its result.

But when I sat down to reminisce a little and think about how the whole farm bill played out, I spent a lot more time thinking about all of the good people I met over the past two years than what ended up in the actual bill. So the farm bill can wait. Right now I'm going to write the blog post I want to write, and I'll get to the policy wonk world later. This might be boring to some, but I have this platform (small as it may be) and there are many out there who deserve some sort of recognition, so I'm going to use it.

And what better place to start than right here in the home office? They may not like me mentioning their names, but hey, our staff listing is already on the internet.

I have had the misfortune of working in at a nonprofit that didn't have a top-notch administrative staff, and it was miserable. That is not the case at the Center for Rural Affairs. Amber Bridges, Tris Darnell, Hayley Hallstrom and Kim Kaup are the four people who make sure the Center for Rural Affairs doors remain open, and they deserve all the thanks they receive. Anything good that we accomplished in this farm bill is in large part due to them.

Amber Bridges makes sure I get paid, which means she's just about my favorite person in the whole wide world (I suspect she does this for others in the office as well, but I haven't bothered to find out). Additionally, she is a master pizza eater- if you need that slice to disappear, she'll make it happen; moreover, if your house is ever hit by a hurricane she'll come remodel, for free. However, with her around you should always remember to lock your office door when you leave. Always.

Tris Darnell makes the trains run on time. If you ever need an action alert to go out the door in a timely fashion, I strongly suggest you subcontract with her. If you have a problem with the temperature in your office give her a call, but be prepared for withering scorn. If you need a pool installed in your front yard or two tickets to the Bon Jovi concert, she's your contact. A pressing need to get a little concrete poured? Maybe considering a passive solar collector for your office? You know who. She never fails and never gives up.

Hayley Hallstrom keeps the books and tries to keep everyone happy, which is no easy task when you're in charge of the money. She does an admirable job. Not only that, she is an acknowledged master of dutch oven cooking and pop-up camping trailer packing techniques, important knowledge for family harmony (trust me, I have childhood experience). Her infinite patience while answering asinine questions about the Center for Rural Affairs budget is a testament to the human spirit.

Among (many) other talents, Kim Kaup has a sixth sense for booking me into Super 8 motels, often next to 100,000 head cattle feedlots. Memorably, she once booked a colleague of mine into a motel/funeral home, and another time she sent us to a motel whose aged owner had a very short robe and a very small dog. I kid you not. She is, how would I say, a wise steward of Center for Rural Affairs resources- which is why she's also doing double duty as our fundraising data management expert.  Along with Tris, she also makes sure the various egos of Center staff are kept firmly in check.

In all seriousness, Amber, Tris, Hayley and Kim are the heart of our organization. They ensure the rest of us can do our jobs. Most importantly, they make me laugh and I am proud to call them my friends.

It is my fervent belief that nearly all nonprofit organizations do not do a very good job of self-promotion, and perhaps more important don't do a good job of promoting other, like-minded nonprofits. There's a lot of room in the nonprofit advocacy world, and many great organizations, and all too often we don't do a good job of complimenting our partners. Which is a shame, and we here in the home office are trying to rectify that (See the "featured ally" box on the front page). I'll talk up a few of the truly good organizations we worked with in my next post.

To follow up a little bit, I'd like to answer one of the comments on a previous post.  Here's an excerpt:

In my neighborhood, every farming operation is a company of one sort or another (mostly "S" corps), but that does not mean neighbors don't help neighbors, no one cares about schools or public health, labor and environmental laws are ignored, etc. In my company, we provide paid vacations, pensions, health insurance, and (in some cases) housing. That allows us to attract and keep reliable employees, who are more than menial "hired hands"

I don't know the circumstances of the farm the commenter is referring to, but it sounds like a decent compromise.  Many farmers have little interest in selling at a farmers market or even being involved in a CSA.  And many despise marketing, be it produce or corn.  And benefits are always an enormous difficulty (we're working on that).  So if those services can be provided for them and still allow them to remain on the land, that sounds OK to me.  However, there must be ways to ensure that relationship doesn't end up as an exploitative share-cropping sort of thing, but I'm sure that can be worked out.

But as I mentioned before, this is not the sort of arrangement that built the rural Midwest.  In the John Phipps blog post I linked to yesterday, he makes the argument that the "family farm" is a relatively new development, and there is no guarantee it is even the ideal form of ownership.  I would argue that all evidence of the last 60 years points to the fact that family-scale agriculture is better for rural communities.  But that evidence is not a reason to ignore the fact that there may be alternatives.

In fact, depending on your definition of farming, in many ways the small farmer growing for a value-added market is the true farmer today.  If you want to see some on-farm innovation that provides a return to the farmer, look at small farmers.  Most of the innovation in conventional farming today is in marketing (forward contracting, hedges) or technology (autosteer, GM seeds).  That innovation does not come from the farm, and increasingly such innovation simply creates a higher return for the input producer, not the farmer.  Sustainable agriculture, on the other hand, thrives on on-farm experimentation and innovation.  Sure, small farmers have to market, etc- but small changes in farming practices can have an enormous impact on profitability, often because value-added agriculture has a high return precisely because it pays the farmer for labor and knowledge.  More labor and more knowledge equals more profit.

I suspect that what we're headed right now is a sort of dual system of agriculture, with commodity production on one end and very small farms focused on high dollar per-acre (or animal) on the other.  I also think the commodity grain production industry is headed towards the vertical integration commonplace in the livestock industry.  Already more and more farmers are contracting directly with processor, entirely avoiding grain elevators and the Chicago Board of Trade marketing system.  For those of you familiar with what has happened to independent livestock producers, you know this is not a good thing for farmers.  But it may be the easiest way to manage risk and debt in the short term.  In the long-term, it will spell the death of the independent family farm as we know it.  Some might say that sort of thing is inevitable.

Not only are some small farmers and sustainable agriculture activists fine with this dual system, they actually welcome it.  They're "building the alternative system" for when the "industrial ag system collapses".  Uh huh. Let me clue you in:  the industrial agriculture system may be unsustainable, but it isn't collapsing.  Not by a long shot.  There will always be a need for #2 yellow corn to feed hogs.  And if anyone wants proof industrial ag is here to stay, look at the Farm Bill that just passed.  Industrial ag got just about everything they wanted.  And if industrial agriculture prevails in Upper Midwest, I despair over the future of our small towns.  Building altnerative/sustainable agriculture is incredibly important, but don't expect us to just up and roll over when people talk about the inevitability of industrial agriculture's "collapse".

And even if industrial agriculture is headed for some sort of meta-collapse, is this really something we should be embracing?  "Collapse" pretty much implies ecological and social devastation, and from where I sit that isn't a good thing.  Who do you think will bear the brunt of that devastation?  I am sick and tired of hearing sustainable agriculture activists tell me I shouldn't worry about farm programs because in 20 years the corn and soybean industry will have "collapsed" and we'll have entered some golden era of small farm production (I'll admit this is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much).

For my money, there are two people I listen to over everyone else:  John Phipps and Tom Philpott.  John Phipps is a industrial farmer and not afraid to admit it, and knows where commodity agriculture is headed.  He certainly isn't hanging on to the family farm victimhood model that is unfortunately present among some industrial farming operations (disclosure: I've probably contributed to that at times).  Tom Philpott is willing to say the real truth about sustainable agriculture:  if we want any sort of real percentage of our food to produced in a sustainable, humane fashion, we must invest in processing capacity and we're going to have to have a lot more farmers.  Read them, and you'll get a very good idea of my preferred policy solutions.

Last week saw a cascade of articles regarding the industrialization of commodity grain production.  From the New York Times:

Huge investment funds have already poured hundreds of billions of dollars into booming financial markets for commodities like wheat, corn and soybeans.

But a few big private investors are starting to make bolder and longer-term bets that the world’s need for food will greatly increase — by buying farmland, fertilizer, grain elevators and shipping equipment... 

 

...the long-term implications are less clear. Some traditional players in the farm economy, and others who study and shape agriculture policy, say they are concerned these newcomers will focus on profits above all else, and not share the industry’s commitment to farming through good times and bad.

“Farmland can be a bubble just like Florida real estate,” said Jeffrey Hainline, president of Advance Trading, a 28-year-old commodity brokerage firm and consulting service in Bloomington, Ill. “The cycle of getting in and out would be very volatile and disruptive.”

This is not anything new, nor is it unanticipated.  It is the slow march of consolidation and concentration in agriculture, only now extremely high commodity prices have quickened the pace.  But the same things have been happening for decades.  The major difference right now is the new "players" jumping into the commodity production game- the hedge funds, institutional investors, etc referred to in the Times article.  Those players will drive up prices for everyone, reflecting increased profit potential (and their superior ability to manage risk in some instances), but is there really a difference between a grain elevator owned by Conagra or one owned by a hedge fund?  I suspect not.

As far as land goes, once again, existing trends are accelerated.  I'm sure we'll see more corporate absentee ownership of land, and further proliferation of farm management companies specializing in cash-rent farming operations.  At the end of the day, these structures may be the only way to secure the capital necessary for commodity production while managing risk.

I'll leave it to the hardheaded realist of agriculture, John Phipps, to sum it up:

The increased capital needs, significantly higher profit levels, and escalating risk in production agriculture will encourage the same forms of business as other sectors. We may look back a generation from now and date the disappearance of the traditional family farm from the 2006 October price explosion.

I'm afraid John might well be right.

But let me say this:  All of the free-trade, pro-market, consolidation-promoting farmers and policymakers should stay the hell away from my tax dollars.  John Phipps, to his credit, wants nothing to do with farm programs.  I support farm programs designed to support the family farm structure.  But we sure don't have those today, and the greed exhibited in the creation of the new ACRE program is pitiful.  If today's farmers and farm corporations want to be a business, hey, go right ahead.  Be a business, just like anyone else.  Take the forward contracting classes.  Learn to love triple stack, autosteer and GPS.  But stop latching onto tax dollars as a "safety net".  I'm happy to pay for conservation benefits, for rural development, and even for a farm program structure that might actually benefit rural communities.  But I'm not interested in subsidizing consolidation and the decline of rural America.

Last Sunday a good article appeared in the Washington Post about Danville, Virginia, an economically depressed town that was heavily reliant on the textile and tobacco industries. As those sectors withered, so did the future of Danville. But the town refused to give up:

Manufacturers gave up on this small town in Southside Virginia years ago. Textiles disappeared. Tobacco wilted. But scrappy little Danville refused to give up on itself.

Last week, its determination paid off when Ikea celebrated the opening here of its first furniture factory in the United States. Ikea, a Swedish company that has about a dozen factories in Europe, said it chose Danville in part because of the large, skilled labor force eager to work after years of layoffs and downsizing. The city paved its entry with new facilities, secured permits and state tobacco commission grants.

Additionally, the city invested in its historic downtown area and commissioned public art to prove their commitment to a better future, which helped attract employers. Danville should get enormous credit for undertaking so many efforts to revitalize their town. But when I see articles like this, I get a queasy feeling.

Because too many people think that attracting big industry is the only way to really improve a town. In Danville's situation, such projects are vital, given the rapid downturn in it's economic fortunes. It is extremely difficult to replace an industry like textiles, with tens of thousands of employees. Even Ikea and the various other large employers will not come close to replacing the number of industrial jobs lost in the previous decades. But they will provide some jobs to a population that desperately needs them.

I've haven't seen any details of the incentive package put together by the city and state to lure Ikea and others to the area. I fear it is the same typical boondoggle junk that happens in other areas. No doubt the government officials who put it together would claim the incentives were vital to securing the jobs, and even if they are wasteful everybody else is doing it, so they have to do the same. Unfortunately there is a grain of truth in that statement.

And I should note that this strategy will never work in an area such as the one where we live. Danville has approximately 50,000 residents.  Our towns are too small and our people scattered over comparatively vast distances. Encouraging micro businesses (five or fewer employees) is a much better use of our economic development dollars. That's not to say something like an ethanol plant or light manufacturing isn't important. But our tax dollars are a scarce resource, and we'll have a far better return on our investment if we put them into Main Streets instead of industrial parks.

In the end, we can all agree that putting together Ikea shelves is not the job of the future, and will probably require ever-less labor as time passes. Therefore, the key is to combine these sorts of (relatively) short-term fixes with long-term investments in training and education. And by education I mean everything from pre-K to college. If we want to have 21st century small towns with thriving economies, we need a 21st century workforce. All towns are made up of people, and it's time to stop focusing on bringing Ikea to town and start focusing on the people who live there.

Read the whole article here (and look at some nice pictures).

We had resolved not to be all doom-and-gloom all the time now that the farm bill is over. Unfortunately, we think we're pretty good at doom and gloom and besides, certain news items cause our heart rates to go through the roof.

Background: In 1982, Nebraska voters appoved Initiative 300, a ban on non-family farm corporate ownership of agricultural assets in Nebraska. Anybody could still own agricultural assets, but only family farms could use the corporate ownership structure. The primary advantage of incorporation is limited liability. In 2006, a federal judge ruled Initiative 300 violated the US Constitution (dormant commerce clause, for you policy wonks). In 2008, the Center for Rural Affairs and many other organizations tried to pass a new corporate farming ban in the Nebraska legislature, but we failed. The opposition to the bill was led by the Nebraska Farm Bureau. You can learn more about Initiative 300 and corporate farming bans by clicking here.

We spent a lot of time fighting for the corporate farming ban in the Nebraska legislature, and we issued strong warnings on what could happen now that Nebraska's had disappeared. Unfortunately, we didn't have any really good concrete examples. Now we do. Here's what happens when you don't have a corporate farming ban:

A corporation from Delaware recently paid $52 million for part of the largest farm in Lincoln County.

It was the most money paid in a one-time land deal in Lincoln County in anyone’s memory.

The sale could mark a milestone in the way farm business is conducted in Nebraska. For nearly 25 years, from 1982-2006, the Nebraska Constitution prevented such corporations from owning any Nebraska farm or ranch land.

This is the future, people. And rural citizens and legislators who oppose corporate farming bans need to wake the hell up. There are all sorts of economic reasons for the ownership of agricultural land involved in commodity production to transition to exactly this sort of model- a big-ass corporation owns the land and pays a farm manager to run a farm on it. Maybe that's not inherently evil, but it sure as hell is not the way small towns in the Upper Midwest were built and definitely not the way small towns will survive, let alone thrive. Ownership of assets matters, and we're going to lose control of the most precious asset rural America has- land. And there's a lot of it involved in this particular transaction:

According to county records, the deal (which includes some ranchland) contained:

— 15,322 irrigated acres

— 3,690 grassland acres

— 108 dryland acres

— 53 acres of roads

— 20 acres of farm out buildings

— 7 residences of one acre each.

Now, a corporate farming ban does not prevent out-of-towners from buying up land. No sir. And it does not prevent farms from getting really big- obviously, the farm above sold as a single tract, so it was already big. There are other policy tools that can address those situations. However, the important thing here is the liability issue- who the hell knows who owns this corporation, which was apparently set up solely for the purpose of holding this land. I tried to look it up, but no luck there. The corporation, Lincoln Farm LLC, was incorporated in Delaware on Feb. 5th, and bought the land on Feb. 20th. According to the North Platte Bulletin, it is apparently investment fund money, though the paper gives no details on why they are led to believe that.

But we do know the previous owner- Don Oppliger, a New Mexico cattle feeder and mega-farmer. I don't like him owning all that land, but at least we know who it is.

Because now, if Lincoln Farm LLC totally screws the community or the environment over, there is almost no recourse. If they build 10 mega-hog buildings on the land and end up dumping millions of gallons of manure into local waterways, what do you think will happen? I'll tell you what- Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality will try and fine Lincoln Farm LLC, but if that fine is for any actual substantial amount of money, Lincoln Farm LLC will simply go bankrupt. And the people behind the money will simply walk away.

You may have noted that a most of the land involved is irrigated. Nebraska has some serious water supply issues. What do you think would happen if Lincoln Farm LLC simply pumped as much water as possible as quickly as possible? Where's the economic incentive to conserve? And again, if Lincoln Farm LLC violated laws governing irrigation, they can just walk away.

Or if commodity prices go in the tank at some point- all of Lincoln Farm LLC's suppliers will be out of luck if they decide to declare bankruptcy.

Limited liability really only means that liability is shifted- in this case to other members of the community and taxpayers. Because they're the ones who will have to pay the price if Lincoln Farms LLC screws up. When that liability is shifted within the community, that's one thing- a family farm incorporating still has people living in that community, and they will be held accountable by that community. But a bunch of investment funds? They could care less about the community. Their only concern is profit. And even if they hire a farm manager who lives in the community, his or her only concern will be profit too- if it isn't, Lincoln Farm LLC will find itself a new farm manager.

The future is now. Bad government policy and low commodity prices equal farm consolidation and concentration. Bad government policy and high commodity prices equal faster consolidation and concentration. Unless something is done, there will be more of these LLCs. I think I might be sending this North Platte Bulletin article to the members of the Nebraska legislature. And I might include a special note to all of them who voted against a corporate farming ban, because what they really did was vote for Lincoln Farm, Limited Liability Corporation.

If you come around here often you've probably noticed some changes on the site in the last couple of weeks. It started with a face-lift of our design about two weeks ago, then a whole new front page, and now a new feature on the blog.

In the right hand sidebar you now see a "What We're Reading" block with links to news stories, blog posts and reports that are keeping us occupied here in the office. If you read our blog by RSS feed you can get a separate RSS stream of "What We're Reading" by clicking here. Maybe someday I will get fancy and combine the two feeds into one, but not right now.  

Also, if you only ever read these posts in your RSS reader, now is a good time to come on over and check out the website and blog.

Can this get any more ridiculous? The farm bill passed the House and Senate last week and was then sent to the White House. And yesterday, President Bush vetoed the bill. And yesterday, the House of Representatives overrode his veto. Seems pretty simple, right?

BUT NO. The farm bill that was sent by Congress to the White House was not the same farm bill that Congress passed. In fact, it was missing an entire title (section), the "Trade" title. Somehow when Congressional staffes got down to the business of writing the final version of the bill to send to the White House, they left that part out. In effect, when Bush vetoed the bill, he vetoed a bill that had never actually passed Congress.

Predictably, the meaning of this isn't exactly clear. At first it was theorized that the House and Senate would have to pass the Farm Bill all over again. And that's exactly what the House did this morning. But now the Senate seems to think there may be some other ways of dealing with this, namely overriding the veto and passing the credit title as its own piece of legislation, and if Bush vetos that they can override it later. This is apparently an unprecedented situation, so nobody is quite sure how to deal with it.

Beyond the embarassment this causes, it does not appear that this will make any difference in the final farm bill. Once they figure out what to do, Congress will perform the necessary legislative gymnastics and a farm bill will come into law, but given this snafu that might happen in June instead of next week.

Sometimes you just have those epiphanies about your work. Dumping out one of the couple hundred cups of water on my office floor, windowsill, bookshelf and desk this morning I had one of them.

I arrived at the office this morning to find my office door closed. Opening the door revealed hundreds of plastic cups (just a few of them pictured above) half filled with water covering my floor, bookshelf and desk and making it impossible for me to get to my desk to do the vital work of saving rural America from the farm bill.

With working conditions like these it's no wonder we lose on the big fights.

And yes, the perpetrators got Dan's office too.

I do believe I've hit the pinnacle of my profession. Yesterday I got an email inviting me to participate in a "White House Farm Bill Bloggers Conference Call". Evidently, they haven't read the many blog posts we've posted in direct conflict with stated White House positions, and seem to think that we'll just be on board with whatever they say since we support the upcoming White House veto. Even though I suspect participation could put me under surveillance for decades, when El Presidente needs me, I'm there.

I'm on the call right now, and some dude from the White House just got done with an overview of the process so far. Pretty dull and predictable. Now Chuck Conner, deputy USDA secretary (and former Acting Secretary) is talking specifics, and I, as always, am ready to cast a skeptical eye. Mucho paraphrasing to follow. Highlights:

• Chuck Conner mentions the increased loan rates, but does not mention that payments tied to those rates are not being made to high prices. he also doesn't mention their primary objection there is WTO-related.
  
• Chuck mentions record farm income nationally and how that means subsidy spending should be cut, but fails to mention that USDA's own proposal asked for a dramatic increase in direct payments, which are paid no matter what and are about $5 billion per year right now- most of all farm subsidies paid right now. However, direct payments are nominally considered "WTO-friendly", so the Bushies would like to increase the payments.
• Now he's going on and on about a $200,000 income limit, which we have noted is weak and ineffective. Of course, the higher limits proposed in the conference report by Congress are even worse.
• Chuck says Congress "totally dropped the ball" on the AGI limit issue. Hard to disagree with that, but that's not the only ball they dropped, for sure.
• Chuck bashes the sugar to ethanol program, which is not something we work on a lot, but it does seem to be quite a boondoggle for a fairly small number of people.
• Chuck mentions some salmon part of the farm bill (I'm not familiar with it) that include payments to "pay fisherman not to fish". Well, that sounds a lot like direct payments, which are paid to farmers whether they actually plant a crop or not. Again, those would be the payments that the administration wanted to increase. I'll try to ask a question about that.
• The White House guy mentions an expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act as something they really object to. Gee, it would just be terrible if people would have to be paid a living wage while constructing an ethanol plant built with federal subsidies.

My first question: Is there anything in the nutrition, conservation or rural development titles that you would consider grounds for a veto by themselves? Or are the administration's veto principles contained with the commodity title?

A very paraphrased answer: On nutrition, they actually took some of the administration's proposals, so we don't have any problem with that title.

On conservation, they made some improvements and tried to write a good conservation title, we do have some objections and it is not the title we would write, but that's certainly not where our veto objections are.

On rural development, there is very little rural development money in this bill, and we had supported a vastly higher amount of funding for rural development in our administration's proposal for sewer projects, etc. But Congress could find only a tiny amount of money for rural development because they couldn't even take money from the richest Americans.

Tom Philpott of Grist just asked a couple of good questions on ethanol and trade- unfortunately, he got stock political non-answers that totally indicate how little concern they really have for policy that supports family farms and people around the world (think typical free-trader crap language). I'll let him write it up on Grist if he wants.

Parke Wilde- Following up a little bit on what Dan asked, How can supporters in gains for rural development, conservation, and nutrition be assured giving at least tacit support to a veto will not undermine the gains they received in the farm bill already?

Super paraphrased answer- simply look at out policy book. We did more for nutrition, more for conservation, and certainly more for rural development than Congress has done. White House dude- I may concede that the farm bill in Congress is better in certain ways than the 2002 bill, but I would argue that the President's proposal (from last spring) is much better on those three topic than what is before Congress today.

That's some damn political junk, but still reinforces the message that the administration basically accepts the conservation, nutrition and rural development title as written by Congress.

This is the question I didn't have the chance to ask: You mentioned record farm income and how that is an argument for lowering subsidies, but the administration's own proposal recommends dramatically increasing direct payments- the only payments being made right now, in a time of record high prices. Additionally, you mention a salmon provision that will "pay fisherman not to fish". Isn't that basically the same as direct payments?

Overall, it was a predictable conversation, and I'm not sure if it's worth the increased surveillance activity of my person sure to result. And I don't want to hear any more about how a sustained veto would just be so awful for the priorities of the sustainable ag and nutrition community. If a veto is sustained and farm bill negotiations start back up again, the gains in the nutrition, rural development, and conservation titles of the farm bill in Congress will not be under threat from the White House (If they do come under attack, you can definitely blame our so-called Congressional allies, who are desperate to override a veto right now).

The subsidy reforms we would like are not in accordance with what the White House is pushing, either. Which stinks, because we won't have their support, but no matter. We will fight for what we believe is right no matter the views of the President or Congress.

UPDATE: Elanor of Ethicurean fame mentions in the comments the salmon payments are probably in response to a dramatic drop in salmon populations along the West Coast, which in turn has shut down the commercial fishing industry. So something along the lines of a disaster payment would be a better analogy than direct payments, and the salmon payments are perhaps more defensible than even disaster payments. I never like things stuck into bills at the last minute without any sort of public scrutiny, but it sounds like this may not be the worst thing. Also, a couple of hundred million bucks for the salmon people is peanuts compared to the $5 billion per year in direct payments USDA sends out.

Ah, 1956. Just mention any year in the 50s and it conjures up days of prosperity and civility in political discourse. In 1956 America was booming (thank you unions!), the GI Bill was fueling a wave of prosperity, and the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Jack Kennedy was still somewhere in Congress, and you could turn on your brand-spanking-new color TV to watch good, wholesome programs on weekdays and hit the drive-in on weekends. Don Larsen pitched the only perfect game in World Series history, and Elvis Presley was on Ed Sullivan for the first time.

However, there were signs of discord. Marilyn Monroe married playwright Arthur Miller (!), Jackson Pollock didn't make it past August, and that pesky Egyptian Nasser spent most of the year messing with the Suez Canal.

And then, in a shocking display of moral fortitude, President Dwight Eisenhower vetoed a farm bill. Now we have to remember, at that time there were about 23 million people living on farms in the US (around 2 million now), and not only that, it was a presidential election year. Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson rubbed his hands with glee (lot of glee back then, you know), thinking of the possibilities. He was going to make the General pay a heavy political price for vetoing one of the most popular pieces of legislation ever. Time Magazine, 1956:

Right after President Eisenhower's veto of the farm bill, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson set the style for Democratic reaction. "The veto of the farm bill," keynoted Johnson, "can be described only as a crushing blow to the hopes and the legitimate desires of American agriculture." Then, as other Democrats arose in the Senate to lambaste the President, Johnson sprawled out in his chair, grinned broadly and winked at his party colleagues. Feeling that they had at last been handed a deadly issue against Dwight Eisenhower, other Democrats grinned along with Lyndon Johnson in the early days of last week.

But somehow, things didn't work out the way Johnson wanted:

In the hours before the vote on overriding, a secondary political reaction began to set in. Congressmen with an ear cocked to the country began to hear editorial approval of the President's veto in such Midwestern cities as Milwaukee, Kansas City, Omaha and Chicago, and from such Southern centers as Dallas, Miami, Richmond and Memphis. Even the Des Moines Register, a supporter of the farm bill, was philosophical. Republican leaders meeting in Washington (see below) began to perk up after initial despondency. The President, they figured, had pulled the rug from under the Democrats by his principle-over-politics decision, as well as by his offer of administrative relief to farmers and his request for immediate soil-bank payments. By midweek, House Republicans who had backslid on the farm-bill vote (TIME, April 23) began to rally.

The veto stood- and the Democrats, who needed 2/3 of House votes to override, couldn't even muster the simple majority it took to pass the bill in the first place (211-202).

You know, it occurs to me that the Mulch Blog has been compiling quite the list of pro-reform editorials, from many of those same cities. Some things never change. 1956 was the last time any president vetoed a farm bill, and Eisenhower came out looking good. He won re-election handily. And more than 50 years later, Eisenhower is still viewed as someone who put principle over politics.

Despite our collective fond remembrances of the 50s, political discourse was probably just about as nasty back then as it is now (think McCarthy). One thing has changed, though. They had some serious orators in Congress back then. I know I'm posting practically the entire article here, but it's just so good:

Promising that he would call Agriculture Secretary Ezra Benson on his Senate Agriculture Committee carpet within 48 hours, Louisiana's Allen Ellender nonetheless took direct aim at Eisenhower. "The choice was the President's," cried Ellender. "He has chosen to let our farm population dangle at the end of Secretary Benson's flexible noose." Oklahoma's Senator Robert Kerr supplied the oratorical topper: "From his ivory tower at the Augusta country club, where he has been completely insulated from the voice of the people, the President has again acted on the advice of little men who made his decision for him . . . The nails that have been driven into the farmer's hands, the cross upon which he is being crucified, may have been furnished by Benson, but the hammer that drove those nails into the farmer's hands was wielded by the hand of Eisenhower. The hand that placed the crown of thorns upon the farmer's head was the hand of Eisenhower."

Damn. I wish I could have live-blogged some Senate debates back then. I listened to the Senate press conference for about 30 seconds last Thursday and had to get another cup of coffee to stay awake. Politics beat out principle in that press conference. Let's hope Congress has enough principle as a whole to sustain a veto.

UPDATE/CORRECTION:  Bill Harshaw notes in the comments that more veto activity took place after 1956, just not on stand-alone farm bills  Chris Clayton makes the same point at DTN. 

More 1956 factoids.

Happy Mother's Day to all, but especially to moms who work in libraries and have recently visited Istanbul (That's in Turkey, or so I'm told).