Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Crisis and opportunity in the farm belt

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Crisis and opportunity in the farm belt
  • Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:01:47 -0600

Crisis and opportunity in the farm belt
Sen. Grassley: Screw conservation, let's grow more corn!
Posted by Tom Philpott at 8:20 AM on 02 Jul 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/1/162839/2084

Here in the U.S., our grocery bills are rising faster than they have since
Gerald Ford bumbled about the Oval Office. Across the globe, the recent surge
in crop prices is putting sufficient food out of reach of millions of people.

The dismal human dimension of the food crisis has been amply (if
sporadically) covered by the media. But its budding ecological component has
gotten short shrift.

The price surge has inspired a virtual tsunami of agrichemicals to be spilled
onto farmland globally, not least the U.S. heartland, as farmers scramble to
take advantage of high prices by boosting yields. It's also pushing farmers
to plow into marginal, environmentally sensitive land to expand plantings.

For me, the obvious answer is to move away from highly concentrated,
input-heavy industrial agriculture and rebuild local and regional food
production globally.Oh yeah, and stop using government policy to ensure that
huge amounts of corn be turned into car fuel.

But I'm not a senator from an ag-heavy state. Responding to crop damage from
floods in Iowa, Sen. Chuck Grassley, (R-Iowa) recently floated the following
idea, The New York Times reports:

Senator Charles Grassley, ... one of Capitol Hill's main voices on farm
policy, on Friday urged the Agriculture Department to release tens of
thousands of farmers from contracts under which they had promised to set
aside huge tracts as natural habitat.

Now, the Times is being a bit gentle here with the bit about "natural
habitat." What Grassley is proposing here is gutting the Conservation Reserve
Program, probably the USDA's most effective conservation effort. The CRP pays
farmers to take ecologically fragile land out of production -- an act which
benefits society but would otherwise not benefit farm owners, since idle land
brings in no money. The program does much more than protect habitat. Here's
how the USDA itself describes it:

The Conservation Reserve Program reduces soil erosion, protects the
Nation's ability to produce food and fiber, reduces sedimentation in streams
and lakes, improves water quality, establishes wildlife habitat, and enhances
forest and wetland resources. It encourages farmers to convert highly
erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative
cover, such as tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees,
filterstrips, or riparian buffers.

In that context, Grassley's plea is particularly grotesque. Skulking around
Iowa's flood regions in search of photo ops, Grassley fretted about the
gravity of his proposal. "This is an extraordinary request," he told The
Times. "I would not make it if the situation in the Midwest were not so dire."

Of course, as an excellent recent article by Joel Achenbach in the Washington
Post shows, Grassley's proposal amounts to a dubious cure for Iowa's
troubles. University of Northern Iowa ecologist Kamyar Enshayan explains to
Achenbach how heavy rains turned into floods:

[Enshayan] points out that the heavy rains fell on a landscape radically
reengineered by humans. Plowed fields have replaced tallgrass prairies.
Fields have been meticulously drained with underground pipes. Streams and
creeks have been straightened. Most of the wetlands are gone. Flood plains
have been filled and developed. "We've done numerous things to the landscape
that took away these water-absorbing functions," he said. "Agriculture must
respect the limits of nature."

Thus if you thought the floods of 2008 were bad, imagine how awful they would
have been if land idled under the CRP had been plowed. Yet rather than reject
Grassley's reckless proposal, the USDA is taking it quite seriously, The
Times reports:

An Agriculture Department spokesman said Friday that the Grassley
proposal would be considered. This week, the agriculture secretary, Ed
Schafer, said his department would consider "everything possible" to aid
farmers.

While Grassley eyes sensitive land and dreams of seeing it go under the plow,
he "rejects" any suggestion that the government's ethanol mandate be cut this
year.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page