There was some curiosity as to what stance U.S. Department of Agriculture chief Tom Vilsack would take in his speech this week before the National Association of Wheat Growers. Surprisingly, he came as the bearer of bad tidings. According to this report:
Vilsack called on farmers to accept the political reality that U.S.
farm program direct payments are under fire both at home and abroad and therefore farmers should develop other sources of income. In his
remarks to the groups he said he intends to promote a far more diversified income base for the farm sector, saying that windmills and
biofuels should definitely be part of the income mix and that organic agriculture will also play an increasing role.
Um, what? Leave aside the “prepare for a pay cut” thing for a moment. Did Vilsack just use the O-word in front of a bunch of large-scale industrial farmers? Once they stopped laughing, I wonder if they starting thinking about the implications of what he was saying. Maybe this guy is for real.
Vilsack’s comments certainly jibe with his plans for the new USDA Office for Ecosystem Services and Markets—an entity that is charged with cataloging the climate impacts of forestry and farming practices. The Christian Science Monitor characterized it thusly:
The idea is to nurture food- and fiber-producing activities that are more
climate-friendly. Over time, [OESM Head Sally] Collins says by phone from Washington,
“Where we go from here will alter the discussion of how the country thinks about natural resources.”
The program will be similar to payments farmers currently receive to rest their land in order to preserve the soil, restoration of wetlands along rivers by
municipalities to promote water quality and flood control, and
“biodiversity banks” in which landholders that affect habitat for
endangered species are required to provide equal or greater amount of
habitat elsewhere.
If implemented on a significant scale, that would be pretty radical—and an interesting way to wean farmers off commodity crop subsidies while creating incentives for adopting sustainable agriculture practices. Maybe that’s why the USDA just announced a pilot project that will let wheat, corn and soy farmers who receive subsidies to plant vegetables on their so-called “base acreage,” a practice that is currently illegal—to set the stage for this kind of transition.
While I, like others, want broad reform as soon as possible, it’s crucial that industrial farmers be brought along slowly and are properly prepared for what’s ahead. Otherwise we risk another replay of the dynamic from the debate over the 2008 Farm Bill when, as sustainable ag advocates admit, they portrayed industrial farmers as obstacles to, rather than partners in, reform.
You need only to look at Europe to see where this kind of conflict will lead. Industrial farmers and environmentalists in Britain are right now engaged in a fierce fight over the EU’s soon-to-be finalized pesticide ban. Though the ban won’t take effect for several years, conventional farmers are already warning of disaster—whole crops being lost, huge increases in prices and the end of farming in Britain—while sustainable ag proponents yell back that organic yields are just as high and farming without pesticides isn’t only possible, it’s necessary.
Caught in the middle is the U.K. government, which, while vigorously opposing the ban, will still need to help British farmers adapt. Their USDA equivalent, Defra, is planning a new green-oriented agricultural research center and is publishing a new Green Farming Guide. Somehow that doesn’t quite seem like enough. If the proper groundwork isn’t laid here in the US, the British battles will look positively sedate. It certainly looks like Vilsack gets this. It will be interesting to see how our Big Ag responds.
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
GoodGuide scanner makes healthy food shopping point and click
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
Inoculated Mind Posted 3:30 pm
10 Feb 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:58 pm
10 Feb 2009
Elimination of GMO crops, pesticides and herbicides is going to take robotic organic farming, it's just too hard to grow grain and soybeans on an industrial ag scale with human labor. Even getting enough veggies will be difficult with human powered organic farming.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Tom Laskawy Posted 5:35 am
11 Feb 2009
Permalink
J4zonian Posted 2:36 am
18 Feb 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:21 am
18 Feb 2009
Here is my robot reasoning: what is the advantage of herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizer, and standard irrigation? High productivity. But that doesn't produce farm profits, only subsidies bring farmers out of the red. Overhead is way to high with all the expensive chemicals, fuel, and machinery involved in chemical ag.
This is a planned farm economy, socialism that has nothing at all to do with any sort of free market.
And then there are all the hidden costs. Healthcare costs, species extinction (bees for instance), aquifer destruction, GHG from chemical fertilizer and fuel, soil depletion and the return of a mega global dust bowl.
So how could organic robotic ag get similar productivity while eliminating overhead, hidden and obvious costs to farmers and society?
By doing all the planting, weeding, bug elimination, fertilizing, watering, and harvesting the old fashioned way, by hand. But not by human hand, by robotic hand, that works without stopping at mass production speed, using solar electricity, and tiny amounts of water and organic fertilizer/soil ammendment. Bugs and weeds yielding to robotic "hands' and organic pest repelling plants strategically planted amongst the rows.
Imagine the weed controlling mulch between rows consisting of nitrogen fixing alalfa, a valuable, healthy animal feed crop.
Farmers would program the robots with their PCs and walk the fields to make sure the robots are working and apply needed maintenance and repairs.
And of course a whole huge wave of great tech manufacturing jobs would be created in the process. Remember the internet tech boom? How many times bigger would the robotic ag boom be? 2 times, 100 times? It would be great to find out.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
peapack Posted 3:34 am
18 Feb 2009
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 3:11 am
27 Feb 2009
Permalink