Center for Rural Affairs Newsletter

Fixing the Broken Health Care System

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:17:53 -0700

Health insurance has become a leading obstacle to small business and family farm prosperity. Small business and family farm entrepreneurship are the most promising approaches for creating an economic future in rural communities. But we must overcome the health insurance obstacle.

Toward that end, the Center for Rural Affairs signed on to a set of principles for federal health reform developed by a coalition called Health Care for America Now. The principles stress three points:

Quality affordable health care for all Americans – The current system is not working for many hard working people who struggle to make ends meet. The problem is particularly severe in rural America, where the self employed and those who work in small business are often uninsured, underinsured, or at risk of being priced out of coverage.

Reform should ensure that the smallest businesses and their employees have access to the competitive rates charged the largest businesses, through either private plans or a public plan. Some still won’t be able to afford the full cost, and a system should be devised to assist with a portion of the premiums according to need.

Finally, reform should ensure no one is denied or priced out of coverage by preexisting conditions. The very concept of insurance is that we each pay something to ensure that none of us is financially destroyed or worse due to catastrophic circumstances.

Choice, Competition, and Quality – The best way to protect the quality of health care is to preserve choice and competition. That is the American way. And it is the only practical approach. Americans well served by their current insurance should not be forced to change coverage.

Preventative Care and Personal Responsibility – The best care is that which keeps us healthy. We will never keep the cost of health care within reason unless we do a better job of preventing sickness.

The current system is often counterproductive in that regard. Those who cannot afford health care often avoid preventive care and checkups for fear of the cost. But when they get really sick, they seek treatment in the one place available to those who cannot pay – the emergency room. That is the most expensive place for care, and we all end up paying through higher medical bills and insurance premiums. The better approach would be to pay up front to prevent sickness.

Equally important, we should do more to encourage and promote healthy behaviors that prevent sickness. And more health research should be focused on how to stay healthy – instead of focusing the lion’s share of medical research on developing treatments.

Fixing the broken health insurance system is the right thing to do. People should not die because they cannot afford reasonable care.

We believe the principles above provide the guidelines to develop practical reform that preserve the current system where it is working, while offering additional choices for instances in which it is not working.

Agree or disagree? Send your opinions to Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1018.

Child Health Care Rankings Highlight Several Rural States

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:14:42 -0700

By some reckoning, rural children are the Americans most in need of health care system reform. Rural areas, of course, face issues of access to health care professionals and services.

More rural children are covered by State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP) than are non-rural children, but eligibility and coverage vary by state. Nearly half of children in rural areas live in low-income families (again, a higher rate than non-rural children), and 44 of the 50 counties with the highest percentage of uninsured children are rural counties.

Against that statistical backdrop comes a new report on how states are performing on providing heath care to children. U. S. Variations in Child Health System Performance: A State Scorecard from The Commonwealth Fund examines 13 performance indicators of access, quality, costs, equity, and the potential to lead healthy lives, and rank states on each.

Iowa and Vermont were ranked the top states, with Kansas, Wisconsin, and Nebraska also included in the top quartile. Oklahoma was ranked at the bottom. The report also finds that New England, Upper Midwest, and North Central states perform well on indicators of access, quality, and equity, while Western and Southern states perform well on cost but not as well on access and quality.

Iowa and Alabama were the only two states to rank in the top quartile of states in the major three indicators – access, quality, and costs. The report cites as reasons Iowa’s recent policy decisions to expand SCHIP eligibility and to mandate reporting of quality of care by child health plans and local and regional children’s health systems and Alabama’s early and expanded SCHIP program.

It is often said in debates on health care reform that reform is limited in the United States because Americans desire a health care system that provides access, quality, and cost control, but in reality public policy can only provide any two of the three. The data in this report supports that general proposition as it applies to children’s health care systems in most states.

This report, however, lifts up Iowa and Alabama as two states whose children’s health care efforts are exceptions to the conventional wisdom on what can be achieved. The policy examples of Iowa and Alabama, two states with large rural populations, are important for the larger issue of health care reform. With all rural citizens facing issues of health care quality and access, this report provides state-level models of how those issues can be resolved in a cost-effective manner.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1013 for more information.

Harnessing the Wind, Powering the 21st Century

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:09:13 -0700

Renewable energy is the source of much controversy and media coverage in rural America and all of America today. Right now, most of the controversy surrounds biofuels. But another form of renewable energy enjoys near-universal support in rural America – wind power. In fact, a recent University of Nebraska poll found 89 percent of rural Nebraska residents believe wind energy is an important part of our energy future.

When it comes to wind energy, there are optimists and pessimists. Optimists tend to overlook some of the major obstacles to wind energy growth, while pessimists often dismiss wind out of hand, refusing to believe it will ever play a major role in generating electricity in this country.

As usual, both sides cite their facts and figures to make their arguments, and if you only listen to one side you can easily find plenty to fit your preconceived notions. Often lacking in wind energy discussions are a serious overview of what it will take to generate a significant fraction of our electricity from wind – what the obstacles and opportunities are, what the benefits would be, how much would it actually cost, etc.

Fortunately, the federal government, in their wisdom, has published a report detailing a scenario in which 20 percent of our electricity is provided by wind in the year 2030. And they go to great lengths to explain what it will take to make that happen.

The Department of Energy (DOE) full report – 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply – is available online at http://www.20percentwind.org/. Topping out at 226 pages, it isn’t for the faint of heart or those with busy lives. Fortunately, a summary is also available on their website.

Today, wind energy provides about .8 percent of our nation’s electricity. Given that we have enough wind energy potential to power the entire country, this is a somewhat pitiful number. But we obviously have a long history of relying on fossil fuels.

The DOE report makes clear that significant expenditures will be required to vastly increase wind power electricity generation in the United States. However, the report also makes clear that generating 20 percent of our electricity from wind is entirely possible. The challenge to meeting that goal is not primarily economic or technical in nature, but rather a matter of political will.

As of 2006, the United States produced about 12 gigawatts (GW) of electricity from wind (today that number has increased to about 18 GW). To generate enough electricity to provide 20 percent of our electricity from wind power in 2030 will require a little more than 300 GW – a steep increase, to be sure.

However, this number pales in comparison to the estimated total potential wind energy electricity generation in the U.S. – 8,000 GW, which is far more than the total electrical demand forecasted for 2030. And that 8,000 GW number is only for potential wind generation that is currently viewed as “economically feasible” to capture, a calculation that can always change.

Can it be done? Can we actually reach 300 GW? Absolutely. It will cost approximately $197 billion in capital costs to build the wind turbines and transmission network to create a 20 percent wind reality. But that $197 billion is largely offset by $155 billion in savings from decreased fuel expenditures, and we all know how quick those prices are increasing. It’s not hard to imagine that decreased fuel expenditures could offset the entire cost of the increase in wind energy generation.

This basic cost/benefit analysis does not take into account the reduction in greenhouse gases and other pollutants associated with a decrease in fossil fuel production – the classic market externalities that have allowed fossil fuels to be priced artificially low for so long. Nor does the study examine whether wind energy actually creates more jobs and economic benefits for the communities in which it is located than fossil fuel power plants.

But there are serious obstacles to reaching a 20 percent goal, and it will take political courage to overcome them. Perhaps first and foremost, coal power remains cheaper than wind power if environmental concerns are not taken into account. A serious program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions could do much to make wind power economically competitive, if not the low-cost option. Without such a program (or other initiatives to encourage wind power) wind power will remain economically disadvantaged in areas without strong state support for wind power and renewable energy.

Outside of the political arena, the primary obstacles to a 20 percent wind scenario involve the transmission of power from windy areas to the cities/suburbs where most electricity is used. Major new power transmission lines will be needed to deliver the electricity. Investment in the power grid has fallen dramatically since the 1990s (often due to the deregulation schemes that led to Enron). Major investments are needed simply to maintain the power grid we have today. Yet those needs also point to an opportunity. If the U.S. needs to seriously upgrade its electrical power grid anyway, why don’t we do it in a way that supports wind energy?

Upgrading existing power lines and building new ones is an expensive project, and once they’re built you can’t move them. So we have a choice – either we build multi-billion dollar power lines to existing and newly constructed fossil fuel power plants, or we build them to take advantage of wind power. If the U.S. chooses to go with the fossil fuel direction, it is highly unlikely those power lines will ever carry electricity generated from wind power.

Moreover, wind power does vary to some degree, though not to the extent skeptics claim, and the report notes that the variability is easily manageable at the local level. That overall variability will require that the grid be much more “balanced” if we want to take advantage of wind power. In short, the grid will have to be managed at the national level, instead of managed as a series of semi-autonomous states and regions.

These obstacles, while serious, can be overcome. And to translate this into real world numbers, the DOE report estimates that achieving the 20 percent wind scenario will add 50 cents per month to the electricity bill of each U.S. household. 50 cents. A pittance when compared to the benefits wind power can provide.

To top it all off, the DOE report assumes a 39 percent increase in electrical demand by 2030. The goal of receiving 20 percent of our electricity from wind power is not based on the electrical demand of today, not at all. As we’ve said before, any serious plan to encourage renewable energy must start with conservation – a topic not even covered in this particular DOE report.

When you start figuring conservation in, you begin to wonder why the goal is a measly 20 percent. With a real plan for conservation, it’s not hard to imagine that 20 percent goal should actually be 30, 40, or even 50 percent.

As usual, the danger is our short-sighted political system, and greedy corporations will fight to preserve the status quo – one that benefits their bottom lines and campaign chests while leaving the rest of us to bear the costs of their inaction. The 20 percent wind scenario is easily within our reach. It is simply a matter of politicians, businesses, and citizens joining together to make serious efforts to secure a more sustainable energy future for our country.

Contact: Dan Owens, dano@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1017 for more information.

Corporate Farming Notes: Regulators Scrutinize Effect of Possible JBS Acquisitions

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:26:47 -0700

The Department of Justice is looking more closely at the anti-competitive impact of JBS S.A.’s acquisition of Smithfield Beef’s Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, according to our investigations and several reports in financial trade publications. JBS announced in March their intention to acquire Smithfield Beef Group and National Beef Packing, purchases that would make JBS both the largest beef packer and cattle feeder in the U.S.

Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, a joint venture between Smithfield Beef and Continental Grain with the capacity to feed over 800,000 head of cattle, would come under the ownership of JBS if the transaction is approved. In conversations with a variety of government agencies looking at the JBS mergers, the ownership of Five Rivers by JBS has been called a “significant area of inquiry.”

Our investigations also lead us to believe that the JBS purchase of National Beef’s Dodge City and Liberal plants in Kansas combined with the JBS Swift plant in Cactus, Texas, as well as the combination of National Beef’s plant in Brawley, California, and Smithfield Beef’s plant in Tolleson, Arizona, are points of concern for the Justice Department.

Thousands of people from across the U.S. have weighed in with the Justice Department in opposition to the JBS - Smithfield Beef - National Beef mergers. We encourage you to keep up the pressure by expressing your opposition to the JBS mergers at http://www.cfra.org/JBS.

On June 30 the Organic Trade Association filed a legal complaint against Ohio’s Department of Agriculture challenging as unconstitutional an emergency rule seeking to prevent milk labeling that tells consumers whether cows producing the milk were treated with rBST, the synthetic growth hormone sold by Monsanto under the brand name Prosilac®.

“The Organic Trade Association firmly believes that consumers have a right to know, and want to know, about the products they purchase, and organic farmers and processors have a right to communicate with their consumers regarding federally regulated organic production practices,” said Caren Wilcox, the Organic Trade Association’s Executive Director.

USDA’s National Organic Standards prohibit the use of hormones to promote growth or increase production in organic milk production.

Contact: John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1010 for more information.

Beginning Farmer Advisory Committee Makes Recommendations to Secretary of Agriculture

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:26:27 -0700

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers held their annual meeting July 9-10 in Washington, DC. The Committee discussed and passed 5 recommendations for implementing the new farm bill.

The recommendations to create new farming and ranching opportunities include:

Provide special conservation planning assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers through cooperative agreements with other organizations.

Issue a timely rule on the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) to facilitate a sign-up early next year.

Increase the set-aside in CSP and EQIP from 5 to 10 percent for beginning farmers and ranchers and socially disadvantaged producers.

Establish extra ranking points under the Value Added Producer Grants Program for projects from beginning farmers and ranchers.

Place the newly created Office of Outreach and Advocacy as a stand-alone office at the Departmental level equal to other offices as the farm bill indicates.

The new Office of Outreach and Advocacy is critically important if issues concerning small and beginning farmers and ranchers and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers are to get the attention they need and deserve. The farm bill clearly states that this office needs to be placed at the top level of USDA and to report directly to the Secretary, rather than through other offices and departments.

The Advisory Committee plays an important role in highlighting issues facing beginning farmers and ranchers and how to get them started in agriculture successfully. The Center’s Traci Bruckner sits on the committee with 19 others from across the country. To learn more, go to http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=fmlp&topic=bfl-er

Contact: Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfr.org or 402.687.2103 x 1016 with questions.

35 Years - Wheels of Fortune Report Drew Thoughtful Conclusions and National Attention

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:21:10 -0700

The Center for Rural Affairs’ 1976 report Wheels of Fortune was written five years before I was born and 31 years before I came to work at the Center. And before I sat down to write this newsletter article I had heard of the report, but had not read it.

The report was intended to spur debate about irrigation trends in Nebraska. It worked.

Rather than being an outright indictment of irrigation, the report examined the impact of center pivot irrigation development on the ownership and control of farmland and water rights in the state. The report found that center pivot irrigation was a more capital intensive form of irrigation, and the popularity of the method was driving concentration of land by non-farm investors.

Wheels of Fortune told a story. We used our research skills to find out who was investing in irrigation and on what kind of soil in Nebraska counties most impacted by irrigation development. The report named names and substantiated the facts.

Knowing the controversy that was likely to follow publication, we put three family farm irrigators on the committee that oversaw the production of the report. They helped us analyze the data, and when that data showed that the growth of center pivot irrigation was resulting in an increase of absentee and corporate control of Nebraska farmland, they stood with us behind the report. Together we warned that irrigation development by non-farm investors was a threat to the social, economic, and political institutions that built Nebraska’s rural communities:

Traditionally, rural Midwestern communities have placed a very high value on equality and independence and self-reliance. These values have shaped a social structure which is relatively free from class divisions. This will change under the emerging pattern of ownership which we have described here. The classic urban-industrial divisions between ownership, management and labor are already apparent in many of the larger farms in Holt and Dundy County.

The report also warned of the environmental implications of corporate control of farmland:

We found that existing development has nearly exhausted suitable soils in the western part of [Dundy] county, but that ambitious plans to develop delicate soils were nonetheless present. There is a very strong correlation between development of such soils and investor ownership, and nearly all of the requests for electrical service for future irrigation development on Class VI soils in Dundy County have been submitted by Investor-owned farms.

Wheels of Fortune drew attention from the Washington Post and the New York Times, but its impact might best be measured by the rueful description given it in the newsletter of the Nebraska Society of Professional Farm Managers and Appraisers: “It appears,” the newsletter reluctantly reported, “to have been professionally done.”

The debate over both water use in the West and corporate control of our agricultural assets continues to this day, driven to an even more fevered pitch by the surge in biofuel production and unprecedented commodity prices. Any thoughtful citizen wishing to understand the environmental, social, and economic implications of this debate should return to this 1976 report. The lessons are timeless.

To read a copy of the original report, click here.

For more information, contact Brian Depew, 402.687.2103 x 1015, briand@cfra.org

Climate Change to Bring More Frequent Extreme Weather Conditions

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:16:34 -0700

New analysis from the National Climatic Data Center predicts that climate change will bring more extreme weather and more problems for those who rely on Mother Nature for their livelihood.

The Associated Press summarized the findings as follows:

Droughts will get dryer, storms will get stormier and floods will get deeper with changing climate. … There has been an increase in the frequency of heavy downpours, especially over northern states, and these are likely to continue in the future, Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said in a briefing. For example, Karl said, by the end of this century rainfall amounts expected to occur every 20 years could be taking place every five years. … A day so hot that it is experienced only once every 20 years would occur every three years by the middle of the century, under the mid-range projections of climate models, the report said.

The report predicts that rainfall will be less frequent, but when it comes, more intense.

Earlier analysis by a panel of the nation’s leading climate scientists said the earth is warming and concluded with 90 percent certainty that it is caused by humans releasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

There is good news in that finding. It means that we have a 90 percent chance of reducing the severity of climate change and extreme weather events if we take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1018 for more.

Center for Rural Affairs Helps to Distribute Flood Aid in Iowa

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:13:25 -0700

Historic flooding in the Midwest this spring hit farmers who grow for specialty markets or specialty crops especially hard as they are not eligible for crop insurance. Farm Aid’s Family Farm Disaster Fund is providing relief, and the Center is helping.

In Iowa, Farm Aid is supporting the disaster-relief efforts of the Iowa Grassroots Coalition. The Center for Rural Affairs is a member of the coalition and is assisting in distributing relief checks to qualifying farmers. For more information, visit http://www.iowafarmrelief.org.

Development Matters: Gift of Grain Benefits Both Your Taxes and Charity

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:10:12 -0700

If you avoided destructive summer storms and are looking at a big boost in your farming income, a gift to a charitable endowment can leave a legacy while saving much more in taxes than you might think possible.

If record prices have pushed you into the 28 percent federal tax bracket, an outright gift of grain can reduce your combined state and federal tax liabilities by 48 cents on the dollar. Unlike cash gifts, grain gifts reduce social security taxes as well as income taxes.

When you commit to a future gift, you can get the tax savings now, and draw investment income for the rest of your life on the money set aside for the gift.

The immediate tax savings from a gift of grain invested at a five percent return will grow to more than the gift’s cost in 15 years (at the 28 percent federal tax rate). If you are a Nebraskan eligible for the 15 percent Endow Nebraska Tax Credit, you can save the same amount with a cash gift.

Do some good, leave a legacy, save for retirement, and, in the end, come out as well as if you had put the money in the bank.

Contact: John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1010.

Across the Nation

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:05:49 -0700

Colorado – The Colorado Health Foundation is now offering a new repayment program for medical students who agree to practice in rural areas. The program will pay $150,000 in a three-year period to 18 physicians. The Colorado Community Health Network and the Colorado Rural Health Center are partners of the program that seeks to address the shortage of doctors facing most of Colorado’s 57 rural counties.

Kentucky - Dr. Jay Perman, dean of the College of Medicine at the University of Kentucky, said, “About 43 percent of Kentucky residents live in rural areas, but less than 25 percent of doctors practice in rural areas.” To address this shortage, UK has set up a new Rural Physician Leadership Track with 10 students set to participate this fall. Students will take business courses in setting up a rural practice and meet with practicing rural doctors in conjunction with their medical training.

Nationwide – The Pew Internet and American Life Project reports that the share of rural American homes with high-speed Internet service grew 23 percent last year. Despite this growth, rural America’s broadband Internet access is still well behind urban parts of the nation, and the rate at which it is expanding is also slower. A group called InternetforEveryone.org said, “High-speed Internet is a necessity, not a luxury, for education, the economy, free speech, and America’s ability to lead.”

North Dakota – Gov. John Hoeven will host the Governor’s Rural Community Summit “Ac-celerate Your Impact on Rural North Dakota” on Aug. 26-27 in Bismarck. The conference will be focused on providing information about effective practices helping small communities become more sustainable.

Oklahoma – A researcher at the University of Oklahoma has found that the success of rural schools is dependent on the positive attitude of both those running the school and the community at large. Successful rural schools had educators who did not feel rural schools lead their students to failure. Embracing the challenges of rural schools by rejecting a “burdened” tone, educators taking on multiple duties, and being creative with available resources were all key success strategies.

Contact: Casey Franics, caseyf@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1021 for more details.

Leadership in Rural America Needs Diverse Skill Set

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:02:14 -0700

Michael Scott Karpovich, a certified professional speaker from Michigan, sums up clearly what it takes to be a leader in rural America. We need diversity of strengths and skills and teamwork to be effective decision makers. He uses the characters in the Wizard of Oz to demonstrate what is needed for an effective leadership team.

Dorothy displays many of the skills prevalent in rural communities. It wasn’t until a crisis, the tornado, came to Dorothy that she exhibited her fairness, kindness, and firm resolve. Her determination came from what she was missing – her home in Kansas. She clearly saw her goal and what was needed to get her and the group to reach that goal.

The scarecrow tries for the brain he so desperately seeks, but what he lacks makes him even stronger as a leader. If the scarecrow had a brain, he wouldn’t be as creative and carefree. Entrepreneurs associate with the scarecrow. They don’t always listen to what can’t be done, and so we have many of our greatest inventions and innovations.

What the tin man lacks in having a heart actually allows him to make the tough decisions. Karpovich points out that every group needs the tin man. When the tough decisions need to be made, you need to be “heartless” but fair.

The cowardly lion shows his cowardice at every turn. In our world he is looked on as cautious. This is a positive way of describing his leadership skills. In rural America and elsewhere, caution often tempers the exuberant enthusiasm of the scarecrow and helps Dorothy with dangers they encounter along the yellow brick road.

The Wizard represents people who enter our communities and tell us how they are going to make us a great community. Like the wizard, these resource providers often come up empty in their promises.

We need to create and control the destiny of our communities. That doesn’t mean we can’t search for help, but we need to be aware that rural development is a long-term process and must come from the inside out. We must look to the resources available with firm resolve (Dorothy), risk (scarecrow), calculation (tin man) and caution (cowardly lion).

I agree with Michael Karpovich’s view of the Wizard of Oz and how it shows leadership in the 21st century. No longer is leadership a solitary position. The Wizard of Oz characterizes the type of team we all need to put together.

The Center for Rural Affairs is engaged in leadership development throughout northeast Nebraska. The analogy of the Wizard of Oz will strengthen the conviction rural leaders need as they search for a better future for rural America.

Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org or 402.582.4915 for more information.

An Intern Bids Goodbye

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:00:10 -0700

As a child, summers were magnificent. It was a time with no worries whatsoever. My only responsibility was to check the mail after I woke up. The best part, I usually woke up at noon.

Summer seemed to shorten as I became older. Maybe it gradually shortened because responsibilities started to pile up: take out the trash, walk the dog, paint the back porch, and recently, care for my baby sister Ady.

Working at the Center for Rural Affairs for a second summer in a row, I have learned responsibility that will help me in college and in the long run. I have taken on the role of Administrative Assistant, aka “holding down the fort” and Community Development Assistant.

As an Administrative Assistant, I have learned to multitask. Once, I was talking on the phone, writing notes, checking my email, and cleaning my desk. In college, I will have confidence in my multitasking skills.

Being a Community Development Assistant taught me to meet important deadlines and pay attention to detail. As I was mapping assets in the town of Lyons, detail was important, and the assets had to be mapped in two weeks. Term papers of 50 pages and this role have plenty in common.

Thank you Center for Rural Affairs for preparing me for college in a way I would have never thought.

Good luck: Steele Valenzuela is heading to Creighton University in Omaha to pursue a pre-med degree. We wish you all the best.

Cedar County Energy Fair

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:54:47 -0700

The Center for Rural Affairs is planning an Energy Fair at the Hartington, Nebraska, Fairgrounds on September 18, 2008. Workshops and demonstrations are planned for energy conservation, small-scale wind turbines, Nebraska’s C-BED Project (community-owned wind energy), solar collectors, photo voltaics, bio-fuels, methane, and much more. Contact Martin Kleinschmit, 402.254.6893 or martink@cfra.org to find out more.

2008 Nebraska Grazing Conference

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:53:41 -0700

The eighth annual Nebraska Grazing Conference will be held August 12-13, 2008 at the Kearney Holiday Inn. A panel of grazing managers will discuss how they have been adapting to high feed and fuel costs. Speakers from Kansas, Montana, and Nebraska will talk about marketing grass-fed beef, modifying animal behavior, and transitioning to organic production.

A session for students will focus on grazing-related career opportunities. Winter grazing, wildlife and grazing, land monitoring, feeding ethanol coproducts, and meals fill out the conference agenda. Contact the Center for Grassland Studies for more information, grassland@unl.edu, 402.472.4101, www.grassland.unl.edu.

MarketPlace 2009 Request for Proposals for Food

Casey Francis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:50:51 -0700

The Center for Rural Affairs is looking for Nebraska producers who are interested in supplying food at the next MarketPlace: Opening Doors to Success conference. The event takes place on Feb. 25, 2009 at the Sandhills Convention Center in North Platte, Nebraska. See the Request for Proposal or contact Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org for information.

35 years—Renewable Energy & Conservation

Casey Francis — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:54:36 -0700

Looking back at 35 years of Center for Rural Affairs history, it is easy to see some of the landmark projects that defined the Center for Rural Affairs. Reports like Who Will Sit Up With the Corporate Sow? and Wheels of Fortune put the Center on the map when it came to research and policy. But the Center also became know for its work with farmers on the ground, in rural Nebraska. One of the very first projects of the Center, the Small Farm Energy Project, defined the Center and its values in a way that rings true today.

A three-year (1976-1980) research and demonstration project funded by the federal Community Services Administration working with 48 farms in Cedar County, Neb., the Small Farm Energy Project sought to demonstrate that the adoption of alternative energy technologies by small family farms can make positive contributions to their incomes. To make a three-year story short, it worked. And it worked. In 1979, an average of $1,138 in energy expenses was saved for each participating farm.

More importantly, the project put the Center on the map when it came to on-farm sustainable agriculture research, and helped propel the Center for Rural Affairs into the top tier of nonprofits working in the sustainable agriculture field.

Martin Kleinschmit has worked directly for the Center for Rural Affairs since 1993, but he first encountered the Center in 1976 as a farmer working with the Project. As Martin remembers:

They used that project; because our farms turned into “show and tells” for other foundations [to raise money for future work]. I remember a lady showed up from the Ford Foundation on a muddy day in her heels; ruined her shoes. But largely because of that visit, the Ford Foundation got introduced to the Center for Rural Affairs. That project, as I understand it, turned into a huge steppingstone for the Center to enter the real world. … They brought people out all the time [to visit the farm]. We were also targeted for foreign tours, people from other countries came to see us.

But the Small Farm Energy Project wasn’t just a benefit for the Center for Rural Affairs, and its benefits went far beyond a cold dollars and cents calculation. Martin:

What it did for us, as individuals— it led us to believe we could make a difference, that we are not powerless, that we can make decisions that are going to change our future. That was the message of the Center then— you can make a difference.

Thirty years later, that is still a primary message of the Center for Rural Affairs, and it is one that I hope we articulate as well today as we have in the past. And the impact of the Small Farm Energy Project continues today as well. Later this summer, Martin will host a renewable energy presentation at the Cedar County Fairgrounds, and several local farmers will be there to lend Martin a hand. Farmers who, 30 years ago, started working together through a Center for Rural Affairs program, the Small Farm Energy Project.

Contact: Dan Owens, dano@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1017 for more information. See the Small Farm Energy Primer, a report from the Small Farm Energy Project.