COEXIST

“I am all for a world of diversity, but that means one farming system cannot claim to have a monopoly of virtue and aim at excluding all other options. Why can’t we have peaceful co-existence? This is particularly the case when it shackles us to old technologies which have higher inherent risks than the new.”

Mark Lynas, a former anti-biotechnology activist, spoke these words last week at the Oxford Farming Conference.

Mr. Lynas spent many years demonizing and vilifying biotechnology, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the companies that researched, developed and produced them.  He accomplished this by spreading fear and

 ”…employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends.”

However, as he pursued accurate scientific information for his book on global warming he came upon a realization that possibly he was wrong about GMO food. In his words:

“I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.”

Diversity, Coexistence & Acceptance.  I thought this was the world we lived in.  However, it seems to be lacking in agriculture.

It is happening all across the country when it comes to food, fiber and fuel.  It is happening on two different fronts in Oregon.  In Southern Oregon one group seeks to ban the growing of all Genetically Modified Crops in the area.  In the Willamette Valley farmers seek to ban the growing of canola.

Both groups claim to be concerned about cross contamination but they must look at the bigger picture.  They are limiting everyone’s freedoms by establishing these bans.  They lose the option to participate in current or future markets, eliminating crop diversity and hindering consumer choice.

I am not one for holding hands and singing Kum-ba-yah to settle a disagreement, but there is no scientific absolute reason for both of these bans.  What ever happened to being neighborly? Being considerate of what your neighbor is growing and he likewise of you?

I don’t think Mark Lynas’ words could be any truer.

“I am all for a world of diversity, but that means one farming system cannot claim to have a monopoly of virtue and aim at excluding all other options. Why can’t we have peaceful co-existence? This is particularly the case when it shackles us to old technologies which have higher inherent risks than the new.”

Related articles

• Organic farmers in southern Oregon seek ban on genetically modified crops (oregonlive.com)
• Mark Tercek: Mark Lynas and the GMO Debate (huffingtonpost.com)

Adult Conversations

 

“It’s time for us to have an adult conversation with folks in rural America,” Vilsack [U.S. Secretary of Agriculture] said in a speech at a forum sponsored by the Farm Journal.

I would love to have some “adult conversations” with Secretary Vilsack, Secretary Solis, Lisa Jackson and President Obama. Come on over. We, rural America, are talking, some might even say we are talking very loudly. However, the majority of us feel like no one is listening.

Secretary Solis, I would love to know why the Department of Labor has not responded to the Oregon Congressional Delegation. They asked the DOL over 6 months ago about their underhanded tactics & lack of due process in the Oregon Hot Goods Case. Congressman Walden has even made a plea on the House floor. Secretary Solis, we are adults and we deserve answers.

Lisa Jackson, where to begin, you have so many issues and regulations to oversee. You control one the largest agencies in the United States government, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Currently the definition of point & non-point pollution is up for discussion in the Supreme Court and the EPA. The current definition and Best Management Practices are sufficient enough. I know you have a lot of pressure on you to expand the reach of the Clean Water Act to waterways beyond navigable and into our farm ditches. Lisa, we’re willing to talk to you about these issues, please come see us, we can also talk about pesticides!

President Obama, I think you need to be at these discussions as well because you are the Commander-in-Chief. You appointed these guys, we need you on the side of America’s farmers & ranchers, the heart of rural America. Also while you here, a nice discussion about the future of the federal estate tax would be great. There’s only about 98% of all farms, that are 100% family farms that the death tax will affect.

Back to you, Secretary Vilsack, I thought you were the spokesperson for rural America and Agriculture. During this same speech you referred to rural America as “becoming less and less relevant.” You also

…criticized farmers who have embraced wedge issues such as regulation, citing the uproar over the idea that the Environmental Protection Agency was going to start regulating farm dust after the Obama administration said repeatedly it had no so such intention.

In his Washington speech, he also cited criticism of a proposed Labor Department regulation, later dropped, that was intended to keep younger children away from the most dangerous farm jobs, and criticism of egg producers for dealing with the Humane Society on increasing the space that hens have in their coops. Livestock producers fearing they will be the next target of animal rights advocates have tried to undo that agreement.

Secretary, these are issues we are facing on a daily basis on our farms and ranches and we need your support not your criticism. You really confuse me because just 4 months ago you were praising rural America and being the heart of this country. I agree we need to do our part of telling our story, but having an advocate high up on the chain would not hurt us either.

Rural America, the farmers and ranchers, who provide food on your table want to have real, adult conversations. Washington D.C. we promise to continue to do our best to tell our stories if you quit making decisions that affect and insult us without consulting us.

We would really appreciate an adult conversation.

***UPDATE: USDA Virtual Office Hours, join Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack this Monday, December 17 at 3:30 p.m. EDT for a live Twitter chat on the important role of rural America to the national and global economy, increasing agricultural opportunities in U.S. communities, and the importance of passing a five-year Farm Bill.

Related articles

• USDA Chief: Rural America Is Becoming Less Relevant (businessinsider.com)
• Is Rural America Less Relevant? (http://gilmerdairy.blogspot.com/)

“Green” vs “Green”

There was an article recently in the Oregonian, “Lawsuit against wind energy project near Steens Mountain pits green groups against green project“.   After reading the article it became clear that there is just no pleasing some people.

I am skeptical of “green” energy particularly wind farms, especially in Oregon where we have an abundance of hydroelectricity.  I am unsure of its cost vs. production, the necessity of them, subsidies they receive, particularly when they get paid not to produce, and overall efficiency.

However the groups opposing the Echanis project weren’t objecting because of the concerns I shared.   In fact, I was really unsure what or why they were upset.  My first thought is apparently they’ve never been to Harney County or Southeastern Oregon because, well, there’s nothing really there in terms of people or jobs.  Also they apparently failed to notice that the wind farm would be on PRIVATE land.

Harney County is Oregon’s lowest populated county with little over 7,400 residents and the unemployment  is 12.5 percent. According to the article, “…the Echanis project to provide 100 construction jobs and up to 12 full-time maintenance jobs…equal to about 1,500 jobs in Portland…” 

The United States government has approved the project and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has published an Environmental Impact Statement on the project.  If this project was not environmentally friendly our current administration would have shut it down.  The Oregonian reports that the project would be on a 10,000 acre private ranch and have 44 miles of transmission lines. In Harney county those numbers are miniscule, particularly when comparing it to the 170,000 acre Steens Mountain Wilderness area.

The real issue here is not about the potential effect to the environment.  It is about a group of people out of urban Oregon, Portland, Bend and Eugene, trying to dictate how to rural Oregonians how to live.  They have no idea what it takes to be sustainable in Southeastern Oregon, an area that is not mild in climate nor the type of work it takes to survive.  If the residents of Harney County thought it was not good for them nor the environment they would oppose it themselves, they don’t need a weekend warrior telling them so.  They’ve been there a lot longer than you have.

“Green” groups if you truly care about a “green” economy, jobs and others overall well-being, then move your Prius out-of-the-way and let rural Oregonians go to work.

Proposed Wind Project

Related articles

• Lawsuit against wind energy project near Steens Mountain pits green groups against green project (oregonlive.com)

Ultimate Minority: A Farmer

I am a minority, not because I am women or a proud card-carrying member of the Cherokee nation.

I am a farmer.  Less than 2% of the US population have my livelihood.

That’s less than the population of Native Americans, African-Americans, Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans

If I remember correctly from my history classes many laws were passed to give equal rights to at least 3 out of the 4 groups mentioned above.

What is so wrong with laws passing to protect people of a minority group who’s end product eventually feeds the world?

In 1993, the Oregon legislature understood that there was a rural & urban divide.  Oregon’s agriculturally rich Willamette Valley is in the midst of metropolitan Oregon. Tthey needed to do something to protect farmers, ranchers & foresters rights that are “a generally accepted, reasonable and prudent methods,” because more urban folks were moving into the countryside and they  wouldn’t necessarily understand the natural practices of the area.  This is why they passed Oregon’s Right to Farm and Forest Act.

This law protects me from radical groups who see my natural & generally accepted practices as a nuisance and wish to end it.   Many of these same groups claim to love farmers & farming, however they typically advocate for one way of farming only. Which usually  limits others’ choices.  What is fair about that? At least Oregon’s law protects them too. I believe that’s equality.

Our economy is struggling enough and our world population is growing. To limit any modern or progressive agriculture is a shame and should be frowned upon. Agriculture as a whole, not just limited to production ag, is vital to the United States economy, independent in food & fuel production. In Oregon, agriculture accounts for 15% of all economic activity, and in 2009 is credited with adding more than $22 billion to Oregon’s net state product.

My ultimate question in life is “Why can’t we farm & let farm?”  Why can’t some of us continue to ethically progress in agriculture as the environment and economics see fit, while others prefer to stay in 1915? There’s room for all of us.  As a whole we are already a minority.

Organic Propaganda

In today’s society consumers are bombarded with Organic Propaganda.  The Organic Food Movement, who doesn’t really care what your family eats, has done a great job of marketing organic food, mostly with scare tactics.  It often times aligns itself with campaigns that create the illusion that it is healthier or safer for you, which is simply false.

Four of these choices are either associated with a health condition or simply a better way to eat...organic does not fall into those categories.

Organic food is no more nutritious for you than conventionally produced food. In 2009, the UK’s Food Standard Agency commissioned a comprehensive review of articles and studies over the last 50 years comparing Organic and Conventionally produced food.  The conclusion found that there was no significant if any nutritional differences in the products and no additional health benefits from eating organic food.   Most people can agree with this because using common sense and some basic science one realizes that for example an apple is apple…you cannot alter the molecules that make an apple by using a different method of production.

A misconception that is often associated with Organic is that they do not use pesticides.  News Flash: They DO use pesticides.  Some pesticides used are the same ones used in conventional methods and others are not.  The difference in pesticides is whether they are synthetically produced or naturally occurring, not whether its safer or not.  A pesticide is meant to get rid a pest that is doing harm and are only used when necessary in any type of farming.   However Organic pesticide usage is not recorded or regulated by the government like conventional usage is.

Leaders in the Organic Food Movement acknowledge that pesticides are used when asked.  However they often to tote that Organic food has less pesticide residue.   Every year the Environmental Working Group publishes an article telling the public which produce contains the most pesticide residue also known as The Dirty Dozen. However they are not very upfront about their methods nor do they explain how pesticide residues are measured on food.  Residues are measured with the chronic reference dose, which is established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), meaning the acceptable level intake one can have without having effects throughout their lifetime.  A study recently published in April in the Journal of Toxicology finds that “dirtiest” produce had levels of pesticides 1,000 times lower than the chronic reference dose.  That means it is very safe to eat.

If Organic food has no additional nutritional benefit and is no more safe to eat than conventional then the cultivation methods must be better for the environment.  Again a misconception with advances such as No-till, GPS, and advanced breeding techniques conventional agriculture overall impact, some argue, is less than organic methods.  Often times organic methods require more tillage, more applications of chemicals and sometimes more land.

Diversity is what makes the agriculture world go around. Organic has a place in the world.  However it is no more superior than any other method of farming.  The Organic Food Movement has marketed it as such because that’s what marketing is.  Convincing consumers that one product is better than the other.  All to increase profits, which is ironic for a movement that’s roots are based in Socialism…but I’ll save that post for another time.  I applaud them for wanting to make more money.  All consumers have freedom of choice and we must all choose what is best for our families and pocketbooks not because someone scared you into it.

Using North Dakota Honey in Portlandia

I just returned from a very exhausting but very fulfilling, blessed week.  I started off the week in Nashville hanging out with people I aspire to be like and finished of the week with a best friend’s wedding! Life does not get much more awesome than that!

I was in Nashville to attend the AgVocacy 2.0 conference put on by the Agchat Foundation. The general purpose of the foundation and conference was to help the attendees communicate our farming, ranching or forestry story more effectively through social media.  A continual theme and conversation topic was how to do we go beyond the choir.  All the attendees do an amazing job interacting with each other, in fact I know I left with a couple more best friends.  But how do we truly breach our comfort zone get to the audience that we don’t have a lot in common with?

My friend Katie Pinke (Blog, Twitter) was a presenter on Basic Blogging and she absolutely rocks at going beyond the choir. Well she just plain rocks in general too!  After her presentation she rewarded people with North Dakota honey for asking questions and then told us to blog about the honey.  I could easily write about all the crops in Oregon that require bees for pollination and hence there are many crop/flavors/varieties of honey in Oregon, but I thought I would take the honey to a deeper meaning.

I believe Ben Franklin once said, “Tart words make no friends; a spoonful of honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar.”  If we want to effectively reach our targeted audience we must make friends or acquaintances and then the conversation will come easier.

I by no means am an expert at this, however lately I have been thinking about scenarios in my head and how I would address a subject if it came up.  I also knew I would most likely have a few engaging conversation opportunities come up at the end of the week since my friend was getting married in Portlandia. (Watch this clip if you have not seen it, very accurate portrayal.)

While I had a few great conversations about farming, ag, natural resources and social media at the end of the week one moment stuck out in particular.

While I was getting my hair done Friday morning the hairdresser and I through normal conversations started talking about life. We talked about jobs and that I worked in agriculture; she thought that was neat.  She told me was reading up on the wolf controversy in NE Oregon and she understood both sides and thought there could be a solution in the middle.  I didn’t say much, she seemed to be open-minded.  I ask her why she moved from the East Coast to Portland and she explains it’s because they fell in love with how progressive it is. I bite my tongue because well that could be a can of worms.  She needed a pen to write something down so I grab one out of my purse.  It’s a Monsanto pen. I strategically hand it to her. She comes back 5 mins later and asks if I work for Monsanto in a kind of fearful expression.  I say, “No but I know people who do and I toured their facility in St. Louis last year.” She says, “That just kind of scares me all the weird stuff they do that’s not natural.” I say, “Oh I think it’s neat. They are just helping plants along to where they would get to eventually.  It’s just basic genetics and breeding.”  She says, “Oh, ok interesting.” End of conversation.

While I have no idea if I changed her mind I can at least hope that I unlocked something in her that makes her think differently on GMOs now.  Maybe that’s the first step to going beyond the choir by planting simple seeds of truth.

Ignorance, Intentions, Hell & Water

My definition of ignorance: Good intentions mixed with a lack of common sense and often a result of lack of due diligence on a matter.  I often use this word when it comes to the government’s regulations of Oregon‘s and the United States’ natural resources.  Particularly when a government agency wants to facelift an act that needs little improvement…plain ignorance.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), wants to improve a system that is not broke and will disrupt the current way of efficient and effective pollution management of the state’s greatest natural resource: water.

Eighteen years ago the natural resource community, the environmentalists, the DEQ and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) came to a consensus on how agricultural non-point pollution sources were regulated and managed.  The Water Quality Management Act (AgWQMA) mandated that a landowner prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities. The ODA, the decided regulatory agency of the act, with the help of 45 Soil and Water Conservation Districts developed plans and rules for 39 identified watersheds. Each watershed has a committee made up of local stockholders that oversaw rules and plans.

The watershed management structure outlined by the ODA works.  It gives the locals control to adjust and apply best management practices for the area and for the watershed to prevent non-point source pollution.  Oregon is a diverse state in terrain, weather and agriculture so what works for one area does not for another.  That’s why the ODA’s AgWQMA structure works great because the management and plans are based local by the people who know the area the best. 

No problems have arisen from the current system.  However, the DEQ wants to amend the AgWQMA.  They want to specify the definition of Best Management Practices  for the state and have local watersheds conform to the state’s definition.  How is it a best management if it’s not controlled at a specific local level?  Also, they want to change how Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are calculated.  TMDLs are based of human fish consumption to measure water pollution. Currently, the TMDL is based on a consumption 6 grams of fish per day certain interest groups want to raise it to 175 grams per day.  That’s 2 servings of fish per day 365 days per year! Ridiculous! Who eats that much fish?  

I acknowledge that the AgWQMA and the DEQ’s proposed rules have a lot of layers.  However, why change the AgWQMA?  Oregon has some of the cleanest waters in the nation.  Obviously something is going right.  In my opinion, the DEQ is mad that the ODA, farmers, ranchers and foresters can successfully manage the environment without their help. 

Just remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions or perhaps ignorance! :)