Minnesota has had a dry start to the fall but saw record rain this past spring.
One farmer said changes to his land made it easier for the crop fields to survive, an encouraging sign in a more industrialized farming era. High rainfall amounts from April through June contributed to flooding in some parts of the state.
Adam Griebie, a Hutchinson-area farmer, no longer sees huge ponding and gullying in his fields after a heavy rain. The solution is a series of water retention basins funded by federal conservation programs. He said it is a big sigh of relief to the soil on his property.
"I like to say it slows the water down," Griebie explained. "The slower the water moves, the less that it erodes and gathers nutrients and pollutants."
Not only does it mean his crops are in solid shape for the fall harvest, local waterways are not exposed to harmful runoff. Griebie estimated eight surrounding farms also embrace the approach.
He pointed out it is harder for smaller operations like his to compete at a time when factory farms proliferate across the U.S. and despite the popularity of conservation incentives, he said there are still barriers to accessing them.
Over the past few years, the USDA has announced funding to improve access to these programs, often for selected projects involving historically disadvantaged farmers.
Even with the challenges in applying for cost-sharing aid, Griebie noted initiatives like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program help to ensure independent farms will not disappear, potentially giving them an edge as the nation rethinks how food is produced under the threat of climate change.
"It really gives us small to mid-sized farmers that opportunity to do the right thing," Griebie emphasized.
He has also tapped into incentives to improve prairie habitat. According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, only 26% of Environmental Quality Incentives Program applicants in Minnesota were awarded contracts. The Land Stewardship Project found hundreds of millions of dollars in funds have been spent on projects to support factory-farm operations, providing little environmental benefit.
get more stories like this via email
About 20% of fish caught in the wild are not used to feed people across the world but a recent study found the unused portions of fish prepared for the public could be a sustainable alternative.
Inedible portions, called byproducts, can increasingly be rendered to create fish meal and fish oil. The bulk of fish meal and fish oil has traditionally come from wild-caught fish but researchers looked at rendering practices in five fisheries across the globe.
Dave Love, research professor for the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University, said using byproducts from industrial fisheries is the most promising alternative to catching fish just to produce fish oil and meal. He added consumers in the U.S. have plenty of byproducts they could use.
"U.S. consumers favor things like fillets over eating whole fish or minimally processed fish," Love explained. "When you make a fillet, about 50% of the fish goes to the human food supply. About 50% goes to other uses. So we're really looking at that 50%, asking how much of it is used to produce fish meal and fish oil."
Fishmeal and fish oil are typically made from catching fish such as anchovy, sardine and menhaden, which are crucial to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
Of fish caught specifically to produce fish oil and fish meal, less than 60% of byproducts were reused. Love pointed out there can be tension in the industry as it both fishes to feed humans and to make fish meal for other fish. He said disposing of byproducts by fisheries is not the most sustainable method and it can be better used to make sure fewer fish are being caught solely to feed other fish.
"The ones that were not using their byproducts were grinding it and dumping it in the ocean," Love noted. "That's not a really great use of this resource. And we think going forward, we'd like to see policymakers really encourage industries to better utilize byproducts and not grind and dump them at sea."
The aquaculture industry is the biggest user of fish meal and fish oil.
get more stories like this via email
School districts across Arkansas have until February 28 to apply to participate in the Farm to School Institute.
The yearlong program, through the department of agriculture, helps schools launch or expand their Farm to School programs.
Jessica Chapman, program coordinator with the state Department of Agriculture Farm to School Institute, said selected schools will bring a team to a summer retreat to devise a one-of-a-kind plan for their campus.
"Even if they already have something going, this is a great way to build their Farm-to-School program in all different aspects," said Chapman. "So, we focus on classroom, we focus on getting Farm-to-School in the cafeteria and in the community."
Each team will be paired with a coach and receive $1,000 to implement its plan. The application is available at ARfarmtoschool.org.
Nearly 85% of schools in Arkansas are participating in at least one Farm to School activity. All schools can apply to be part of the institute.
Chapman said each campus is different, and they look for programs with a strong community base and an engaged administration.
"You've got some elementary schools that's got an outdoor classroom," said Chapman. "You've got some that are at middle schools, and they've got maybe a hydroponic system, or maybe at the high school it has like a really strong FFA program. We help you evaluate where your school's at."
Arkansas is one of only 16 states nationwide to offer the institute. Fifteen teams will be selected to participate.
get more stories like this via email
Recent editorials in The New York Times and Washington Post defending factory farms make one critical mistake, according to environmental advocates: They both assume there is no other option.
Peter Lehner, sustainable food and farming program managing attorney for the advocacy group Earthjustice, said industrial agriculture does not feed the world. It feeds itself, perpetuating a cycle of overproduction, sickness, and environmental degradation. And U.S. taxpayers foot the bill, sending tens of billions of dollars each year to large corporations.
"There are huge numbers of subsidies to the livestock industry," Lehner pointed out. "The hamburger that you pay for is only a fraction of the true cost as reflected by what taxpayers pay."
The New York Times editorial argued the crop yields of smaller-scale family farms are insufficient to meet the world's daily caloric needs. The Washington Post editorial urged readers to save the planet by not eating free-range beef, arguing moving millions of livestock off pastures and into high-density operations, where in many cases animals cannot even move around, conserves valuable farmland.
Lehner contended a better way to make more farmland available is to stop growing inefficient crops. For example, it takes 15 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.
"We use almost 60 million acres, an area the size of Indiana and Illinois combined, to produce biofuel," Lehner noted. "Where we could produce the same amount of energy with a couple hundred thousand acres of solar panels."
Lehner worries doubling down on industrial agriculture, which mostly produces commodity crops like corn, soy and sugar for highly processed foods, ignores other meaningful reforms like reducing waste. One third of all food produced in the U.S. ends up in landfills.
"Let's try to not have taxpayer subsidies for inefficient products," Lehner urged. "Ensure that we have a food system that produces nutritious food, not one that gets us sick, and we spend a trillion dollars a year in our health care system because of diet-related disease."
get more stories like this via email