The Original How-to Magazine of Alternative and Traditional Crops, Livestock, and Direct Marketing—Established 1984
Editorials...
From the Ridge:
Mar/Apr 2008: Water, Water...
Jan/Feb 2008: Keeping the Fire Going
Sep/Dec 2007: A Look Back, and Moving On
Jul/Oct 2007: The Truth: An Irate Editorial
May/Jun 2007: Carbon Credits
Mar/Apr 2007: A New Year
Jul-Oct 2006: Say No to NAIS
May/Jun 2006: Planning Ahead
Jan/Feb 2006: Reading This Magazine
Nov/Dec 2005: Show Lessons
Sep/Oct 2005: A Farm by any Other Name...
Jul/Aug 2005: Poor Planning: Patenting Life and Preemptive Laws
May/Jun 2005: The Best Show in the Country
Mar/Apr 2005: Our Connection to the Earth
Jan/Feb 2005: Pricing Your Product
Nov/Dec 2004: Better Than Ever
Sep/Oct 2004: A Risky Business
Jul/Aug 2004: Sustainable Ag in Danger in Missouri
May/Jun 2004: Spring Renewal
Mar/Apr 2004: A Mostly Happy Anniversary to Us
Jan/Feb 2004: What Are Your Plans?
Nov/Dec 2003: Ramblings From the Ridge
Sep/Oct 2003: Some Risks You Have to Take
Jul/Aug 2003: Problems with the Farm Problem—Technology is Not the Answer
May/Jun 2003: Planning for the Show
Mar/Apr 2003: Old Breeds and Old Seeds
Jan/Feb 2003: A New Year, A New Cycle
Dec 2002: Start Planning Now! The New Year Brings New Opportunities!
Sep/Oct/Nov 2002: The Show is Here! Ten Years and Still Growing!
Jul/Aug 2002: Saving Seeds Makes Your Farm More Sustainable
May/Jun 2002: 10,000 for the 10th Show
Mar/Apr 2002: Biotechnology is NOT Saving the World
Jan/Feb 2002: Farm Numbers Dwindling? They Don't Have To.
Nov/Dec 2001: The Farm Program. Yes or No? or Why?
Sep/Oct 2001: Nothing is Inevitable
Jul/Aug 2001: A Problem With Soybeans
May/Jun 2001: Changes in Current Farming (and an apology)
Mar/Apr 2001: Trade Show Talk
Jan/Feb 2001: Changing Our Thinking
Nov/Dec 2000: Good Life, Good Money
Sep/Oct 2000: The GM Blues
Jul/Aug 2000: Eurofarming
May/Jun 2000: Doom and Gloom and Optimism
Mar/Apr 2000: Opportunity Knocks
Jan/Feb 2000: 2000 and Beyond
Oct/Nov/Dec 1999: Choosing the Right Solutions
Aug/Sep 1999: Attitude for Success
Jun/Jul 1999: Sex in the Field–and in the Laboratory
Apr/May 1999: The More Things Change...
Feb/Mar 1999: Protecting the Future
Contents:
Home
About Us
Content / Subscriptions
Country Store Books™
Books / Back Issues
Advertising
Writers’ Guidelines
For the Farm
(new and used products
for your farm)
Calendar
Online Resources (links)
16th National Small Farm
Trade Show & Conference™
November 6-8, 2008
• Schedule of Events
• Audio tapes from past seminars & short courses
about Small Farm Today
3903 W Ridge Trail Rd
Clark MO 65243-9525
573-687-3525
(call for fax number)
800-633-2535
smallfarm@socket.net
www.smallfarmtoday.com
Rebecca DeCourley
ChaosDesignArt
Feedback on our web site
Eurofarming
Editorial from the July/August 2000 issue of Small Farm Today® magazine.
Recently, Paul and I attended "US-EU Policy Issues in Animal Production," a symposium presented by the University of Missouri (MU) College of Veterinary Medicine and the MU European Union Center. The conference addressed biotech policy issues from both U.S. and European Union (EU) viewpoints–the challenge of feeding the world in a sustainable environment.
There are some major differences between the U.S. and EU perspectives. John Richardson, Deputy Head of the EU's Delegation to the U.S., said that food is a big deal in Europe–more is spent on food, meals are longer, and they are "an important social tradition–as compared to U.S. TV watching." Because quality food is so important, biotech in food is regarded with suspicion by EU consumers.
Voters in Europe do not want artificially Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and are rejecting biotech, regardless of its potential for good. Richardson said EU views are based on the precautionary principle–if scientific data is inadequate, the EU will err on the side of caution. For example, the U.S. has a consensus among reputable scientists that growth hormones in beef are safe, although a minority of credible scientists disagree. The U.S. accepts the technology, using "Majority rules." The EU does not. As long as any credible scientists dispute the food safety of a technology, the EU will reject it.
Richardson denied that the EU banning of beef hormones is "a contrived trade barrier." He says the EU would love to receive hormone-free beef from the U.S. They are willing to pay top prices for high quality food. He predicts that once the U.S. organic rules are in Place, the organic market will be huge.
Richardson noted that farmers in the EU are more numerous (as a percentage of population) and farm smaller acreages. The EU "wants no flight of populations from the land." The EU wants to preserve the small farm–farming is not to be treated as every other form of economic activity. Another difference is production. Richardson said the U.S. largely exports commodities, while the EU exports value-added items.
Michael Roberts, Chief Scientist for the USDA National Research Initiative, mentioned the Holstein as "the ultimate GMO", although he noted that the U.S. dairy industry is not competitive with New Zealand or Australia. Roberts talked about the importance of diversity and the disappearance of breeds such as the Ayrshire. He stated that we should not trust germplasms to the efforts of "amateur farmers", but need an international effort of industry and scientists to keep diverse breeds as viable resources.
I think that an international effort would be great. It is interesting to note, though, that 300 breeds of livestock, and 1,000 varieties of open-pollinated corn were developed by the American Indian, settlers, and early farmers of this country before the first agriculture college was founded. Over the past 40 years, almost every college dispersed their flocks and herds of rare breeds, and they are only preserved today through the efforts of concerned farmers and rare breed associations. Were it not for today's amateur farmers and seed savers, we would not have the Ayrshire, or any of hundreds of other breeds and strains of livestock and plants. These dedicated people have preserved the past for future generations, while the bureaucracy only talked about it or even derided it. I would pick "amateur farmers" as the best place to trust the preservation of germplasm.
That aside, Roberts made two good points. First, he noted that GMOs had acceptance problems because production went ahead before full awareness of them was out (and, in my opinion, before all safety issues had been adequately explored). Second, he said that "only 4% of research dollars in the U.S. are spent on agriculture–and that is indefensible."
In general, the EU perspective seemed more in line with sustainable agriculture than the U.S. viewpoint. I noticed the EU speakers tended to use the word "sustainable" in their talks (and with the correct meaning) more than their U.S. counterparts. More importantly, the EU really does believe in treating farming different than other economic activities, as a biological activity rather than as a factory "economies of scale" endeavor. They consider the health of rural communities and the importance of maintaining small farms. They want to keep their farmers on the land in large numbers, and use direct payments, rural developments, or whatever it takes to do so.
Whether you call this kind of "big picture" thinking sustainable, or holistic, or whole-farm planning, or multifunctional agriculture (the EU term), I believe it is the way we need to go–and the EU is doing it better than the U.S., overall. They already understand the advantages of individual over industrial, they believe in diversity and sustainability, and in the advantage of value-added products over commodities.
All of the speakers took the necessity of exports of agricultural products as a given–but is it? Dr. Daryll Ray, Director of the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center at the University of Tennessee, recently analyzed the history and impact of agricultural exports over the last century in Policy Matters newsletter, Volume 5, Number 3. The commonly held belief, writes Ray, is that exports are the salvation of agriculture, but his data shows differently. The results of U.S. agricultural export policies:
Grain prices have declined. Average grain prices are lower for the ten-year period after the 1985 Farm Bill than for the ten-year period before the farm bill. Grain prices during the four-year tenure of the 1996 Farm Bill are lower yet.Ray goes on to show that the standard model in U.S. history is a short export boom followed by a long period of low demand. There have been three periods of high export demand: during World War I, around World War II, and in the 1970's. The demand in the '70's was due to political decisions in the USSR and bank loans to underdeveloped countries. Lower prices do not remove competitors or increase grain purchases by importing countries.
So, have average grain export volumes increased over these periods? No, they have not. In fact, export averages for grains (corn and wheat, which are the major export grains) have declined somewhat over those three periods....
With export volumes for corn, wheat, and soybeans flat, the U.S. share of world exports and export share of total U.S. use has declined.... Today, exports of major U.S. crops represent smaller percentages of world exports and smaller proportions of total U.S. grain and soybean disappearance than before the U.S. lowered price supports and instituted other measures designed to increase exports....
Exports have not been the driving force behind the U.S. grain and soybean markets since the mid-1980's.
It is clear to me that export markets are not sustainable. As Dr. Ray points out, most importing countries do so because they have to, not because they want to–if they can reasonably produce it themselves, they will.
Factory farming, consolidation of agricultural companies, GMOs, and vertical integration are all relatively new on the agricultural horizon. Unfortunately, neither export markets nor these innovations are sustainable, as proven by past history. We need more conferences and articles to discuss agriculture technologies (whether new, old, industrial, or sustainable) and all their ramifications on the world we live in.
As I mentioned, the EU believes in multifunctional agriculture. I hope this multifunctional editorial (more than two connecting thoughts), gives you food for thought and communication. I would like it if you sent in your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree, to this magazine, to your local media, and to your policy makers–local, state, and federal. It's time to talk.
Happy and Profitable Farming,
Ron Macher
Publisher/Farmer