Showing posts with label farming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label farming. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Monsanto Fails at Improving Agriculture Article


Help UCS Set the Record Straight by Sharing Our New Ad Campaign
Monsanto's advertisements tell an impressive tale of the agribusiness giant's achievements: Feeding a growing population. Protecting natural resources. Promoting biodiversity. 
It sounds wonderful, but unfortunately, there's a catch: These claims are often exaggerated, misleading or downright false. Monsanto's products—and the practices they promote—may sustain the company's profits, but the evidence shows that they stand in the way of truly sustainable solutions to our food and farming challenges.
In the ads below, we counter Monsanto's feel-good rhetoric with some facts gleaned from UCS analysis. Share them with friends, and spread the word:  when it comes to healthy farming, Monsanto fails!
(Click on the images to see full-size versions.)

#1: More Herbicide + Fewer Butterflies = Better Seeds?

Monsanto Says: "In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help meet the needs of our rapidly growing population, while protecting the earth's natural resources."
In Fact: Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops, genetically engineered to tolerate the company's Roundup herbicide,increased herbicide use by an estimated 383 million pounds between 1996 and 2008. And Monarch butterflies have laid 81 percent fewer eggs thanks to habitat loss since Roundup Ready was introduced.

#2: A Bumper Crop of Superweeds

Monsanto Says: "Our rapidly growing population is putting limited resources--such as land, water, and energy--under increased pressure."
In Fact: The challenge is real, but Monsanto's products aren't the answer. UCS analysis shows that GE crops have so far done little to improve yields in the U.S. Meanwhile—speaking of rapidly growing populations—overuse of Roundup Ready crops has spawned an epidemic of "superweeds," causing huge problems for U.S. farmers.

#3: All Wet on Drought Tolerance

Monsanto Says: "With the right tools, farmers can conserve more for future generations."
In Fact: If farmers want to conserve more water, Monsanto's DroughtGard corn isn't the right tool. A recent UCS study found that DroughtGard won't help farmers reduce water use—and its engineered drought tolerance will likely only be useful in moderate drought conditions. (Research has shown that organic farming methods could improve drought-year yields by up to 96%.)






Wednesday, August 4, 2010

CRP Offers Pollinator Habitat Incentives

For Immediate Release

August 2, 2010

CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM OFFERS POLLINATOR HABITAT INCENTIVES

New rules passed by the USDA now offer financial incentives for the establishment of pollinator habitat through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The limited time program sign-up, which opens today to new enrollment, provides one of the largest pollinator conservation opportunities ever in the United States.

The CRP program, first established in 1985, is the largest private landowner conservation effort in the United States with up to 32 million acres eligible for enrollment through the USDA’s Farm Service Agency. Program participants take highly erodible land out of crop production, and establish permanent vegetation to protect topsoil and provide wildlife cover. Contracts which run 10 to 15 years provide annual rental payments on enrolled land, and cost-share assistance for establishing vegetative cover.

New rules which go into effect today offer priority ranking for land enrollment that include pollinator-friendly wildflowers and shrubs. Under the current CRP enrollment system, landowners who want to participate are ranked against one another to prioritize enrollment that offer the most conservation benefits. To receive a higher score on the pollinator ranking criteria, participating farmers must plant at least 10% of the CRP acres in wildflower parcels (or at least one acre for CRP enrollment less than 10 acres in size).

The addition of a pollinator habitat incentive for CRP has been promoted by numerous wildlife and pollinator conservation groups in recent years, and the new ranking system now offers one of the largest potential habitat creation opportunities of its kind ever for native bees, butterflies, and managed honey bees, all of which have experienced significant decline in recent years due to habitat loss and other factors.

In developing the new CRP technical requirements, the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) worked closely with Dr. Marla Spivak, a leading honey bee researcher based at the University of Minnesota, and the California-based advocacy group, Partners for Sustainable Pollination. Now, as the enrollment period for new CRP contracts begins, the NRCS is working with the non-profit Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation to develop wildflower seeding recommendations for states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon. Those recommendations will focus on selecting native wildflower species that are abundant pollen and nectar sources, and that are most likely to thrive in their respective regions.

Rural landowners interested in more information about CRP, including the current sign-up period which ends August 27th, should contact their local Farm Service Agency office. For location information, visit their web site at http://www.fsa.usda.govhttp://www.fsa.usda.gov/> .


Iowa Insects Mailing List
IOWA-INSECTS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
http://atmos.cgrer.uiowa.edu/herbarium/MailingList.htm
IOWA-INSECTS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU

The Iowa Insects Mailing List provides a forum for those interested in Iowa’s insects and,
more generally, invertebrates, their identification and ecology. Its purpose is to encourage
novices who are trying to expand their knowledge about the incredible world of insects.
Another objective is to support the Iowa Native Plant Society.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Ethanol: On Beyond Corn

Is there a future for farmers in the ethanol industry beyond corn? It was the agricultural community that gave birth to “gasohol” 25 years ago, and corn farmers throughout the Midwest took part in ethanol promotion activities at service stations, county fairs, and anywhere a reporter might get interested in their pitch for a new market for corn. But with the federal biofuels mandate corn-based ethanol to 15 billion gallons, is there a future economic opportunity that agriculture can harvest?

The Federal Energy Independence and Security Act implements a growing market for corn based ethanol until the 15 billion gallon limit is reached in 2012, in an effort to preserve sufficient corn quantities for other market needs. Beyond that, cellulosic ethanol is expected to grow beyond the 30 billion gallon total biofuel supply in 2022. But where do farmers fit into that overall plan?
Agricultural economist Tom Capehart of the Congressional Research Service examined Congressional policy issues involving cellulosic biofuels and says they must overcome three challenges:
1) First, cellulosic feedstocks must be available in large volumes when needed by refineries.
2) Second, the cost of converting cellulose to ethanol or other biofuels must be reduced to a level to make it competitive with gasoline and corn-starch ethanol.
3) Third, the marketing, distribution, and vehicle infrastructure must absorb the increasing volumes of renewable fuel, including cellulosic fuel mandated by the RFS.
Obviously, farmers must carve out their niche in the first challenge, if there is to be one. Capehart notes there are doubters who are “questioning whether the United States could ever produce and manage sufficient feedstocks of starches, sugars, vegetable oils, or even cellulose to permit biofuel production to meaningfully offset petroleum imports.” To many biofuel communities in the Cornbelt, “the gauntlet has been thrown down.”

Ethanol will likely be produced from a variety of cellulose sources, according to Capehart, including municipal solid waste, construction debris, and residues from the logging, lumber, and paper industries. Not much for farmers in those areas. However, other potential cellulose sources include crop residues, such as corn stalks and wheat straw, as well as perennial grasses, such as switchgrass and miscanthus. But farmers wanting to cultivate the latter will run into a challenge the CRS economist describes as, “Cellulosic feedstocks may have some environmental drawbacks. Some crops suggested for biomass are invasive species when planted in non-native environments.”

The prairie grass issue might be resolved if your ancestors could testify that they burned off switchgrass in Cornbelt states when they began the farmsteads you now operate. It was the dense, itchy stuff that pioneers fought every day as their covered wagons traveled westward. But to grow switchgrass that might be profitable, it may require several years to reach its full yield potential. Capehart quotes University of Tennessee statistics that indicate the top yield potential is two tons per acre in the first year and seven tons after the third year, which would produce up to 1,000 gallons of ethanol. An alternative is the Asian grass miscanthus, which can produce 2.5 times the amount of ethanol that corn currently produces, which is estimated at 1,100 gallons per acre. Researchers at South Dakota State and the University of Minnesota have both looked at other native prairie grass mixtures that seem promising for ethanol production, without the criticism of being “a non-native specie.”

Farmers who have baled wheat or oat straw have harvested and stored biomass for years, so there is nothing new there. Cornstalks are another issue, and Capehart suggests the need for a single machine that can harvest corn for grain and stalks for biomass in one pass through the field. And protective storage for corn stover will be a significant process and investment, which will have to borne by farmers. But imagine that an enterprising group of investors plans to build a cellulosic ethanol plant in your neighborhood and recruits you to produce the feedstock for it.
• It will produce 10-20 million gallons of ethanol per year
• It will operate 24/7 and will need 700 tons per day.
• If the plant wants corn stover, it will cost $39 to $46 per ton to transport it 30 miles.
• If the plant wants switchgrass, it will cost $57 to $63 per ton to transport it 30 miles.

CRS economist Capehart notes that harvesting corn stalks will not reduce food output, but growing grasses would displace food crops on cropland. Farmers considering such a new crop would have to calculate the multi-year commitment that would be required. The initial start-up years would have equipment investment along with a lower level of revenue for grass production. However, planting grasses will required a commitment from landowners, should such production occur on rented land, and that would mean multi-year leases.

Summary:
With US energy policy moving toward biofuels, and a limit on how much corn can be used for ethanol production, farmers will not be shut out of the market. Options are available for substantial involvement in supplying feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol producers. Those include both production of grasses, as well as harvesting of corn stalks. Farmers will have to work out marketing agreements that would compensate them for additional equipment outlays, storage and transportation costs, and early revenue losses in the case of grass production.

Source: Stu Ellis, http://www.farmgate.uiuc.edu