Regional Farm & Food Project Summer 2007 News

If you believe now is the time to act, these news stories should
interest you!

12 news stories...

1.) The 2007 Farm Bill is Now Being Written, Here's What You Can Do
2.) Excerpts from Time Magazine's "The Growing Dangers of the China
Trade"
3.) U.S. Apple Growers Brace for China Rivals
4.) NH State Law Makes Homemade Goods Safer, Easier to Sell
5.) Will Congress Vote to Support Small Scale Meat Processors?
6.) A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech
7.) U.S. Farmers Plant Largest Corn Crop in 63 Years
8.) Corn Causes 50 Times More Soil Erosion Than Sod Crops
9.) Check Out New Food Safety Technology Approved by the USDA
10. For Your Amusement: A Short History of Gastronomy
11.) The Healthy Food Enterprise Development Program
12.) New DVD Features Farmers & Their High Tunnel Technology

+ C A L E N D E R

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

1.) The 2007 Farm Bill is Now Being Written, Here's What You Can Do

At the end of this article are the names and phone numbers of all the
members of the House Agriculture Committee.

We want a Farm Bill for the Northeast that fosters healthy, local food,
protects the environment, and provides equitable access to agriculture
programs. Our 24 Senators and 100 Representatives constitute a powerful
block. Their votes will shape the next Farm Bill.

Visit http://www.healthyfarmbill.org.

One click allows you to send letters to your representatives in
Congress. You simply enter your name and address, and the message is
automatically sent to your Representative and Senator. You'll see the
text of the message -- it reflects Northeast priorities
(http://www.nesawg.org/pubs/northeast_farm_bill_agenda_one_pager.pdf),
yet it does not lobby for any specific bill or proposal. This website
is sponsored by the Farm and Food Policy Project
(http://www.farmandfoodproject.org/). For every 100 messages from your
state, FFPP will hand deliver a basket of local food to your
representatives. Let's start counting!

Farm Bill Action Items from the Community Food Security Coalition...
http://www.FoodSecurity.org

I. Action Needed During July 4 Congressional Recess (July 2-5)
 
With Members of Congress in their home districts this week, it is an
important time to contact your Member at a local event or at the
district office, and request his or her support for maintaining the $30
million mandatory authorization of Community Food Projects, and the
inclusion of geographic preference language in the final version of the
Farm Bill.
 
This is an important moment to emphasize the value of our healthy and
local food priorities for a cross section of groups now interested in
the Farm Bill -- farmers, urban districts, rural communities, etc. --
all this at fairly low cost legislative requests. As the Farm Bill
process becomes increasingly complex, we must emphasize the value of
policies to support healthy food systems to our legislators.
 
Talking points on CFSC main issues—for Community Food Projects,
Geographic Preferences, and Healthy Food Enterprise Development
program—will be available shortly on our website:
<http://www.foodsecurity.org/policy> . Language in the recent
Resolution from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and a letter from four
governors to the Congressional Agriculture Leadership (see below) is
supportive of these priorities, and can be used as a guide for
conversations with Congressional offices as well as media outlets.

II. New Timeline - Two Farm Bills
 
Chairman Peterson announced last Friday, June 29, that there will be
two Farm Bills drafted by the House Agriculture Committee to account
for the lack of new funding included in the budget. One bill will
include all of the items that fit in to the existing Farm Bill budget,
and the other will include other items that are contingent upon offsets
being found. The Chairman has indicated that he hopes this will make
the process of moving a bill out of committee easier. For more
information about the 2 Farm Bill proposals, see this week’s
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Weekly Update at
<http://www.sustainableagriculturecoalition.org/actioncenter/
Weekly_Update_Current.pdf> .
 
Both bills will be released by Chairman Peterson on Friday July 6th,
and the committee will meet on July 17th to debate the proposals, with
space reserved for the Farm Bill on the House floor the week of July
26th.
 
The Senate schedule has not been released, but it is expected that the
Senate Agriculture Committee will likely meet in mid-late July to
review their own draft of the Farm Bill.
 
III. Groups Weigh In on Farm Bill

a. Last week, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution
sponsored by 12 Mayors from around the U.S. which resolved their
support for reforming U.S. agricultural policy in support of health and
nutrition for citizens and communities. The text of the Resolution is
available at http://usmayors.org/75thAnnualMeeting/resolutions_full.pdf

Several groups are working to capitalize on the momentum of the
resolution via a press release and coordinated op-eds with quotes from
Mayors around the country.
 
b. Additionally, a letter to the Congressional Agriculture leadership
from the Governors of Texas, New York, Florida and California outlined
similar goals for a reformed Farm Bill to support the health of
communities and farming. Click here for Press Release and the text of
the letter:
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/
PressRelease.2007-06-26.5150
 
c. A group of interested organizations and individuals has been
working on bringing a health-based perspective to support healthy food
and communities provisions in the Farm Bill. A series of calls during
the past several weeks has helped to steer the IATP sign-on letter from
health professionals that was released several weeks ago, and will be
organizing a series of meetings with target Congressional staff next
week. Please contact Thomas@... or
aliza.wasserman@... for more information or to get involved with
this coordinating group.
 
Other Farm Bill News

a. According to the National Journal’s Congress Daily, Senate
Agriculture Chairman Harkin said last Tuesday he intends for Congress
to pass a new Farm Bill with moderate reform, wanting to find money for
conservation, rural development and nutrition priorities by limiting
individual farm subsidy payments and by cutting back the program of
direct payments to farmers.
 
b. With the expiration Saturday of the Fast Track Presidential
authority over international trade negotiations, Rep. Kaptur says she
will introduce legislation in July that would suspend NAFTA.
 
c. With the failure of the Senate immigration reform bill, according
to Congress Daily last week, Senator Feinstein hopes that the AgJobs
agricultural worker provisions may be potentially attached to the Farm
Bill, although Congressional Agricultural leadership has expressed
reservations about adding any additional components to an already
complicated Farm Bill.

110th CONGRESS: HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

Democrats
Collin Peterson (MN-7), Chair, p 202-225-2165, f 202-225-1593
Tim Holden (PA-17), p 202-225-5546, f 202-226-0996
Mike McIntyre (NC-7), p 202-225-2731, f 202-225-5773
Bob Etheridge (NC-2), p 202-225-4531, f 202-225-5662
Leonard Boswell (IA-3), p 202-225-3806, f 202-225-5608
Joe Baca (CA-43). p 202-225-6161, f 202-225-8671
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), p 202-225-6131, f 202-225-0819
David Scott (GA-13), p 202-225-2939, f 202-225-4628
Jim Marshall (GA-8), p 202-225-6531, f 202-225-3013
Stephanie Herseth (SD-at large), p 202-225-2801, f 202-225-5823
Henry Cuellar (TX-28), p 202-225-1640, f 202-225-1641
Jim Costa (CA-20), p 202-225-3341, f 202-225-9308
John Salazar (CO-3), p 202-225-4761, f 202-226-9669
Brad Ellsworth (IN-8), p 202-225-4636, f 202-225-3284
Nancy Boyda (KS-2), p 202-225-6601, f 202-225-7986
Zack Space (OH-18), p 202-225-6265, f 202-225-3394
Tim Walz (MN-1), p 202-225-2472, f 202-225-3433
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), p 202-225-5614, f 202-225-1168
Steve Kagen (WI-8), p 202-225-5665, f 202-225-5729
Earl Pomeroy (ND-at large), p 202-225-2611, f 202-226-0893
Lincoln Davis (TN-4), p 202-225-6831, f 202-226-5172
John Barrow (GA-12), p 202-225-2823, f 202-225-3377
Nick Lampson (TX-22), p 202-225-5951, f 202-225-5241
Joe Donnelly (IN-2), p 202-225-3915, f 202-225-6798
Tim Mahoney (FL-16), p 202-225-5792, f 202-225-3132

Republicans
Bob Goodlatte (VA-6), Ranking Member, p 202-225-5431, f 202-225-9681
Terry Everett (AL-2), p 202-225-2901, f 202-225-8913
Frank Lucas (OK-3), p 202-225-5565, f 202-225-8698
Jerry Moran (KS-1), p 202-225-2715, f 202-225-5124
Robin Hayes (NC-8), p 202-225-3715, f 202-225-4036
Timothy Johnson (IL-15), p 202-225-2371, f 202-226-0791
Sam Graves (MO-6), p 202-225-7041, f 202-225-8221
Jo Bonner (AL-1), p 202-225-4931, f 202-225-0562
Mike Rogers (AL-3), p 202-225-3261, f 202-226-8485
Steve King (IA-5), p 202-225-4426, f 202-225-3193
Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), p 202-225-4676, f 202-225-5870
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19), p 202-225-4005, f 202-225-9615
Charles Boustany Jr. (LA-7), p 202-225-2031, f 202-225-5724
John "Randy" Kuhl Jr. (NY-29), p 202-225-3161, f 202-226-6599
Virginia Foxx (NC-5), p 202-225-2071, f 202-225-2995
K. Michael Conaway (TX-11), p 202-225-3605, f 202-225-1783
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1), p 202-225-4806, f 202-225-5686
Jean Schmidt (OH-2), p 202-225-3164, f 202-225-1992
Adrian Smith (NE-3), p 202-225-6435, f 202-225-0207
Kevin McCarthy (CA-22), p 202-225-2915, f 202-225-2908
Tim Walberg (MI-7), p 202-225-6276, f 202-225-6281



2.) Excerpts from Time Magazine's "The Growing Dangers of the China
Trade"

From Time Magazine, July 9, 2007
Page 28 "The Growing Dangers of the China Trade"

Excerpts:

- The U.S. imported 40% of its consumer goods from China last year.

- The volume of consumer goods from China has tripled since 1997.

- Shipments of FDA regulated goods have jumped fourfold over the past
decade, according to the Congressional Research Service. But the FDA
has only 1,317 field investigators for 320 ports of entry. The agency
inspects just 0.7% of all imports under its purview, half of what it
did 10 years ago.

- Despite our buying power, the U.S. government simply has very little
leverage to impose new restrictions on Chinese goods, in part because
it is lobbying China to open up its markets to U.S. goods.

- No U.S. company goes to China to play watchdog, but that role is
getting more important, and much more difficult, as the U.S. depends
increasingly on China for what it eats. Manufacturing powered China's
economic revolution, and the Chinese government is pushing hard for
farming to follow suit. The Communist Party wants to keep the
countryside from falling too far behind the booming coastal cities.
One answer is the farm sector, which generated $31 billion worth of
exports last year, up from $13 billion in 1994.

- China has a population of 200 million small farmers, an astounding
number, and they "want to increase quantity, not quality, so they use
more chemical fertilizer and pesticide," says Hu Dinghuan, a professor
at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing. "The
government says the worst pesticides are banned, but actually farmers
can still buy them, and they do use them."

- The U.S. accounts for one fifth of Chinese exports.

- In 2006, the U.S. bought $203.9 billion in goods from China.



3.) U.S. Apple Growers Brace for China Rivals

By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press Writer, June 24, 2007

GETTYSBURG, Pa. - Farmers have been growing apples here since before
the Civil War, and as times have changed, they have changed with them,
planting smaller trees to speed up harvests and growing popular new
varieties to satisfy changing tastes.

Like farmers in the bigger apple-producing states, they are becoming
increasingly anxious about the prospect of China flooding the U.S.
market with their fresh apples — an event many believe is inevitable,
even if it could be years away.

With the Farm Bill up for renewal this year for the first time since
2002, apple growers are pressing for an unprecedented amount of federal
funding to develop technologies to make harvesting less costly, and aid
to develop overseas markets.

"We‘re facing a threat that we‘ve never faced before in terms of their
ability to come in and essentially replace every apple that we produce
in this country numerically and at a much lower cost," said John Rice,
a seventh-generation grower whose grandfather made money in the
Depression era by gathering apples from area growers and shipping them
to England in 100-pound barrels.

"We have to lower our costs and we have to do what other successful
business have done in the face of Chinese competition and that is to
innovate, to stay ahead, to either grow new varieties that they don‘t
grow in China, or whatever it takes," Rice said.

China‘s advantage is its cheap labor. A picker makes about 28 cents an
hour, or $2 per day, according to the U.S. Apple Association. In 2005,
workers in Pennsylvania made about $9 to $10 per hour, and those in
Washington state about $14 per hour, the association said.

To gain access to the market here, China must prove that it meets U.S.
standards for pest and disease control. The U.S. Apple Association said
the Department of Agriculture‘s Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service sent a list of more than 300 insects and diseases of concern to
the quarantine inspection agency of the Chinese government in 2003. The
Chinese government responded the next year, and then the United States
asked for information on 52 pests from the list.

Already, U.S. apple growers compete with Chinese growers for sales in
parts of Southeast Asia and India.

"It was an uproar within the industry," said Jim Allen, president of
the New York Apple Association. "What can we do? It just takes the
bottom right out of our market when the product is being delivered to
New York City for less than we can process and harvest it here in the
United States."

Third-generation Pennsylvania grower Dave Benner, 61, like most
growers, has slowly replaced older larger trees in his orchard with
smaller dwarf ones that are close together. That makes the fruit easier
and faster to pick. He also pays close attention to consumer demand and
to the world market.

"Business is still business whether you‘re in agriculture production or
you‘re in commercial manufacturing," Benner said. "When people want
small economical cars then the automobile industry had to change. When
people say they like the flavor of Gala or Fuji apples ... that‘s what
I have to be growing."

Because more than half of the cost of growing apples goes toward labor,
researchers have been working to develop technology and practices that
will help cut labor costs. Among the concepts under development are
machines that will allow apples to be mechanically picked without
bruising, and platforms that lift up pickers so they don‘t have to
climb ladders.

The apple industry is working with other fruit and vegetable industries
to seek, in the 2007 Farm Bill, about $1 billion annually for research,
a state block program, a program that helps it develop overseas markets
and for expansion for a program that provides fruits and vegetables to
school kids.

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee,
called these "basic nuts-and-bolts" items that would improve
competitiveness.

The current Farm Bill, which was worth about $100 billion, passed in
2002 and expires in September. In it, country-of-origin labeling was
mandated, but its implementation has been delayed until September 2008
because of opposition by retailers and others who say it is too
burdensome.

Most apples already carry the labeling, but Mark Barrett, 52, a grower
in Washington‘s Yakima Valley, said full implementation is the best way
to help U.S. apple growers.

"I believe if we had country-of-origin labeling that the consumers
would buy U.S. all the time," Barrett said.

Allen, the head of the New York apple growers group, said it would be
hard to promote U.S. apples as being better than foreign-grown apples
if consumers can‘t be sure where they have been grown.

One bad apple, he said, might give all apples a bad name.

For more information visit U.S. Apple Association:
http://www.usapple.org



4.) NH State Law Makes Homemade Goods Safer, Easier to Sell

(Nashua Telegraph) - Summer’s arrival on Thursday marked the opening of
farmers markets across the region, venues for nature’s harvest and the
ever-popular homemade pies, jams and jellies long associated with
outdoor shopping. Selling and buying homemade products that don’t
require refrigeration will be easier and safer this year thanks to a
new, two-tiered state law that regulates home production in most
communities across the state. The law, which doesn’t apply in Nashua
because of its status as a self-inspecting community, affects sales of
products sold at farmers markets and farm stands, which have
established farmers markets. By city law, Nashua farmers markets aren’t
allowed to sell homemade products. The new regulation was designed to
protect the public from food-borne illnesses while encouraging the
development of small businesses, said Jack Potter, a Sanbornton farmer
who helped write the law.

Read the full article here:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070624/
BUSINESS/206240386/-1/news



5.) Will Congress Vote to Support Small Scale Meat Processors?

Background:

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) agency provides
approximately $43 million dollars annually to support the 28 state Meat
and Poultry Inspection (MPI) Programs currently operating. State Meat
and Poultry Inspection Programs are an integral part of the nation's
food safety system. FSIS provides up to 50% of the state's MPI
operating funds, as well as training and other assistance. About 2,100
meat and poultry establishments are inspected under state MPI programs.
All of these establishments are small or very small. State MPI programs
are characterized as providing more personalized guidance to
establishments in developing their food safety operations.

State MPI programs operate under a cooperative agreement with FSIS.
Under the agreement, a state's program must enforce requirements "at
least equal to" those imposed under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and
the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Establishments have the option to
apply for federal or state inspection. However, product produced under
state inspection is limited to intrastate commerce.

Here is the latest news:

NEW INTERSTATE BILL INTRODUCED. On  June 27, Rep. Zach Space (OH)
introduced H.R. 2876 which would allow interstate sales of
state-inspected meat and poultry. H.R. 2876 takes a different approach
than other bills to allow interstate meat sales. Specifically, the bill
would require USDA to verify that state inspection programs are equal
to the federal inspection program.  If USDA determines that an
individual state plant does not meet the “equal to” federal inspection
requirements, then that state plant would not be eligible to ship meat
and poultry in interstate commerce.  
 
2007 FARM BILL EXPECTED TO INCLUDE INTERSTATE. The House Agriculture
Committee is expected to include provisions in the 2007 Farm Bill
legislation that would allow interstate meat sales. The Committee
plans to consider the Farm Bill the week of July 17.
 
CONTINUE GRASSROOTS EFFORTS. Many lawmakers will be in their home
states and districts during the congressional recess next week (July
2-8)---this is a great time to let them know the importance of
interstate meat sales legislation.

Please take a few minutes to call, fax or write your House
Representatives--especially if they serve on the House Agriculture
Committee--they need to hear from us! Ask them to support and cosponsor
interstate meat sales legislation---and to include it in the Farm Bill.

The list of House Agriculture Committee members is in the first article
of this newsletter.

- - - P E T I T I O N - - -

Support Legislation For Local Economic Growth, Fair Markets, Small
Business and Consumers

Support Interstate Meat Sales Legislation
H.R. 1760 (Kind); H.R. 2315 (Pomeroy) and H.R. 2876 (Space)

An outdated and unfair law from the 1960s prohibits the sale of state
inspected meat products (beef, poultry, pork, lamb and goat) across
state lines. There are 2,000 state-inspected meat processors–mostly
small, family-owned businesses–who are prevented from competing in the
national marketplace. Legislation has been introduced in the House—H.R.
1760 by Rep. Ron Kind (WI),H.R. 2315 by Reps. Earl Pomeroy (ND) and Roy
Blunt (MO), and H.R. 2876 by Rep. Zach Space (OH). All of the bills
would allow state-inspected meat and poultry to be sold nationwide.

We urge Congress to take action now because:

Meat and poultry products from 34 foreign countries can be freely
shipped and sold anywhere in the U.S.—but our domestic small businesses
and processors cannot. Why are small businesses in the U.S. denied the
same opportunities given to companies in foreign countries?

Our locally-produced, state-inspected meats are some of the best
specialty products in the country. It doesn’t make sense to say
consumers in Iowa can enjoy these products while consumers across the
state border in Missouri cannot eat and enjoy the same products.

No other state-inspected food commodities are prohibited from being
shipped across state lines. Other state-inspected food products (milk,
dairy, fruit, vegetables, fish) are freely marketed across the country.
Why aren’t the same marketing options available for meat and poultry?

The restriction on interstate meat sales does not apply to products
such as venison, pheasant, quail, rabbit and others. It doesn’t make
sense to allow these products across state lines while beef, pork, lamb
and goat cannot be shipped interstate. Where’s the logic in this?

Interstate meat sales legislation will provide economic fairness and
open markets. Increased markets will not only benefit producers,
processors and small businesses, but it also gives consumers more
choices at the supermarket. It’s just common sense and it’s the right
thing to do!



6.) A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech

By DENISE CARUSO
The New York Times, July 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/yourmoney/
01frame.htmlex=1183953600&en=9c5e011065886d0b&ei=5070&emc=eta1

THE $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with
a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which
it was founded.

Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that
challenge the traditional view of how genes function. The exhaustive
four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human
Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80
organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found
that the human genome might not be a “tidy collection of independent
genes” after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single
function, such as a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.

Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and
overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet
fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will
challenge scientists “to rethink some long-held views about what genes
are and what they do.”

Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other
organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become
part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans.

With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions
far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate
independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first
biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory
foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.

Innovation begets risk, almost by definition. When something is truly
new, only so much can be predicted about how it will play out.
Proponents of a discovery often see and believe only in the benefits it
will deliver. But when it comes to innovations in food and medicine,
belief can be dangerous. Often, new information is discovered that
invalidates the principles — thus the claims of benefit and, sometimes,
safety — on which proponents have built their products.

For example, antibiotics were once considered miracle drugs that, for
the first time in history, greatly reduced the probability that people
would die from common bacterial infections. But doctors did not yet
know that the genetic material responsible for conferring antibiotic
resistance moves easily between different species of bacteria.
Overprescribing antibiotics for virtually every ailment has given rise
to “superbugs” that are now virtually unkillable.

The principle that gave rise to the biotech industry promised benefits
that were equally compelling. Known as the Central Dogma of molecular
biology, it stated that each gene in living organisms, from humans to
bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein.

Proteins are the cogs and the motors that drive the function of cells
and, ultimately, organisms. In the 1960s, scientists discovered that a
gene that produces one type of protein in one organism would produce a
remarkably similar protein in another. The similarity between the
insulin produced by humans and by pigs is what once made pig insulin a
life-saving treatment for diabetics.

The scientists who invented recombinant DNA in 1973 built their
innovation on this mechanistic, “one gene, one protein” principle.

Because donor genes could be associated with specific functions, with
discrete properties and clear boundaries, scientists then believed that
a gene from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into a larger
design — one that products and companies could be built around, and
that could be protected by intellectual-property laws.

This presumption, now disputed, is what one molecular biologist calls
“the industrial gene.”

“The industrial gene is one that can be defined, owned, tracked, proven
acceptably safe, proven to have uniform effect, sold and recalled,”
said Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology in the School of
Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and
director of its Center for Integrated Research in Biosafety.

In the United States, the Patent and Trademark Office allows genes to
be patented on the basis of this uniform effect or function. In fact,
it defines a gene in these terms, as an ordered sequence of DNA “that
encodes a specific functional product.”

In 2005, a study showed that more than 4,000 human genes had already
been patented in the United States alone. And this is but a small
fraction of the total number of patented plant, animal and microbial
genes.

In the context of the consortium’s findings, this definition now raises
some fundamental questions about the defensibility of those patents.

If genes are only one component of how a genome functions, for example,
will infringement claims be subject to dispute when another crucial
component of the network is claimed by someone else? Might owners of
gene patents also find themselves liable for unintended collateral
damage caused by the network effects of the genes they own?

And, just as important, will these not-yet-understood components of
gene function tarnish the appeal of the market for biotech investors,
who prefer their intellectual property claims to be unambiguous and
indisputable?

While no one has yet challenged the legal basis for gene patents, the
biotech industry itself has long since acknowledged the science behind
the question.

“The genome is enormously complex, and the only thing we can say about
it with certainty is how much more we have left to learn,” wrote
Barbara A. Caulfield, executive vice president and general counsel at
the biotech pioneer Affymetrix, in a 2002 article on Law.com called
“Why We Hate Gene Patents.”

“We’re learning that many diseases are caused not by the action of
single genes, but by the interplay among multiple genes,” Ms. Caulfield
said. She noted that just before she wrote her article, “scientists
announced that they had decoded the genetic structures of one of the
most virulent forms of malaria and that it may involve interactions
among as many as 500 genes.”

Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the
consortium’s findings. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the
scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of
today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops
to pharmaceuticals.

“The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for
biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an
incomplete understanding of genetics,” said Professor Heinemann, who
writes and teaches extensively on biosafety issues.

“Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are
both defined in terms of genes acting independently,” he said,
“regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these
network effects.”

Yet to date, every attempt to challenge safety claims for biotech
products has been categorically dismissed, or derided as unscientific.
A 2004 round table on the safety of biotech food, sponsored by the Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, provided a typical example:

“Both theory and experience confirm the extraordinary predictability
and safety of gene-splicing technology and its products,” said Dr.
Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution who represented the
pro-biotech position. Dr. Miller was the founding director of the
Office of Biotechnology at the Food and Drug Administration, and
presided over the approval of the first biotech food in 1992.

Now that the consortium’s findings have cast the validity of that
theory into question, it may be time for the biotech industry to
re-examine the more subtle effects of its products, and to share what
it knows about them with regulators and other scientists.

This is not the first time it has been asked to do so. A 2004 editorial
in the journal Nature Genetics beseeched academic and corporate
researchers to start releasing their proprietary data to reviewers, so
it might receive the kind of scrutiny required of credible science.

ACCORDING to Professor Heinemann, many biotech companies already
conduct detailed genetic studies of their products that profile the
expression of proteins and other elements. But they are not required to
report most of this data to regulators, so they do not. Thus vast
stores of important research information sit idle.

“Something that is front and center in the biosafety community in New
Zealand now is whether companies should be required to submit their
gene-profiling data for hazard identification,” Professor Heinemann
said. With no such reporting requirements, companies and regulators
alike will continue to “blind themselves to network effects,” he said.

The Nature Genetics editorial, titled “Good Citizenship, or Good
Business?,” presented its argument as a choice for the industry to
make. Given the significance of these new findings, it is a distinction
without a difference.

Denise Caruso is executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute,
which studies collaborative problem-solving. E-mail:
dcaruso@....

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company



7.) U.S. Farmers Plant Largest Corn Crop in 63 Years

Washington, June 29, 2007 – U.S. farmers planted 92.9 million acres of
corn in 2007, exceeding last year’s planted area by 19 percent and
surpassing the March projection by 3 percent, according to the Acreage
report released today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The actual planted acreage is
the highest since 1944, when farmers planted 95.5 million corn acres.

Driven by favorable prices, growing ethanol demand and strong export
sales, farmers in nearly all states increased their corn acreage. They
set state records in Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and North Dakota,
while Iowa continued to lead all states in total corn acres.

The increase in corn is offset mainly by fewer acres of soybeans in the
Corn Belt and Great Plains, and fewer acres of cotton in the Delta and
Southeast. Nationwide, NASS estimates planted soybean area at 64.1
million acres, down 15 percent from last year’s record high and down 5
percent from the March forecast. Area planted to cotton totals 11.1
million acres, marking a 28 percent drop from 2006 and the lowest level
since 1989.

The Acreage report shows that the nation’s farmers continued to embrace
biotechnology. Corn growers planted 73 percent of their acres with
biotech seed varieties, an increase of 12 percent from 2006. Cotton
farmers planted 87 percent of their acres with biotech varieties, up 4
percent from 2006, and soybean producers planted 91 percent of their
acres with biotech seed, up 2 percent from 2006.

NASS’s acreage estimates are based on surveys conducted during the
first two weeks of June on approximately 11,000 segments of land and
from a sample of approximately 88,000 farm operators across the United
States. Acreage and all other NASS reports are available online at
www.nass.usda.gov.



8.) Corn Causes 50 Times More Soil Erosion Than Sod Crops

PEAK SOIL
By Alice Friedemann
April 10, 2007
Culture Change: http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php,
More information at http://www.rachel.org

Excerpts:

Part 1. The Dirt on Dirt.

Ethanol is an agribusiness get-rich-quick scheme that will bankrupt our
topsoil.

Nineteenth century western farmers converted their corn into whiskey to
make a profit (Rorabaugh 1979). Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), a large
grain processor, came up with the same scheme in the 20thcentury. But
ethanol was a product in search of a market, so ADM spent three decades
relentlessly lobbying for ethanol to be used in gasoline. Today ADM
makes record profits from ethanol sales and government subsidies
(Barrionuevo 2006).

The Department of Energy hopes to have biomass supply 5% of the
nation's power, 20% of transportation fuels, and 25% of chemicals by
2030. These combined goals are 30% of the current petroleum consumption
(DOE Biomass Plan, DOE Feedstock Roadmap).

Fuels made from biomass are a lot like the nuclear powered airplanes
the Air Force tried to build from 1946 to 1961, for billions of
dollars. They never got off the ground. The idea was interesting --
atomic jets could fly for months without refueling. But the lead
shielding to protect the crew and several months of food and water was
too heavy for the plane to take off. The weight problem, the ease of
shooting this behemoth down, and the consequences of a crash landing
were so obvious, it's amazing the project was ever funded, let alone
kept going for 15 years.

Biomass fuels have equally obvious and predictable reasons for failure.
Odum says that time explains why renewable energy provides such low
energy yields compared to non-renewable fossil fuels. The more work
left to nature, the higher the energy yield, but the longer the time
required. Although coal and oil took millions of years to form into
dense, concentrated solar power, all we had to do was extract and
transport them (Odum 1996)

With every step required to transform a fuel into energy, there is less
and less energy yield. For example, to make ethanol from corn grain,
which is how all U.S. ethanol is made now, corn is first grown to
develop hybrid seeds, which next season are planted, harvested,
delivered, stored, and preprocessed to remove dirt. Dry-mill ethanol is
milled, liquefied, heated, saccharified, fermented, evaporated,
centrifuged, distilled, scrubbed, dried, stored, and transported to
customers (McAloon 2000).

Fertile soil will be destroyed if crops and other "wastes" are removed
to make cellulosic ethanol.

"We stand, in most places on earth, only six inches from desolation,
for that is the thickness of the topsoil layer upon which the entire
life of the planet depends" (Sampson 1981).

Loss of topsoil has been a major factor in the fall of civilizations
(Sundquist 2005 Chapter 3, Lowdermilk 1953, Perlin 1991, Ponting
1993). You end up with a country like Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia, where
75% of the farm land became a salty desert.

Fuels from biomass are not sustainable, are ecologically destructive,
have a net energy loss, and there isn't enough biomass in America to
make significant amounts of energy because essential inputs like water,
land, fossil fuels, and phosphate ores are limited.

Soil Science 101 -- There Is No "Waste" Biomass

Long before there was "Peak Oil", there was "Peak Soil". Iowa has some
of the best topsoil in the world. In the past century, half of it's
been lost, from an average of 18 to 10 inches deep (Pate 2004, Klee
1991).

Productivity drops off sharply when topsoil reaches 6 inches or less,
the average crop root zone depth (Sundquist 2005).

Crop productivity continually declines as topsoil is lost and residues
are removed. (Al-Kaisi May 2001, Ball 2005, Blanco-Canqui 2006, BOA
1986, Calvino 2003, Franzleubbers 2006, Grandy 2006, Johnson 2004,
Johnson 2005, Miranowski 1984, Power 1998, Sadras 2001, Troeh 2005,
Wilhelm 2004).

On over half of America's best crop land, the erosion rate is 27 times
the natural rate, 11,000 pounds per acre (NCRS 2006). The natural,
geological erosion rate is about 400 pounds of soil per acre per year
(Troeh 2005). Some is due to farmers not being paid enough to conserve
their land, but most is due to investors who farm for profit. Erosion
control cuts into profits.

Erosion is happening ten to twenty times faster than the rate topsoil
can be formed by natural processes (Pimentel 2006). That might make the
average person concerned. But not the USDA -- they've defined erosion
as the average soil loss that could occur without causing a decline in
long term productivity.

Troeh (2005) believes that the tolerable soil loss (T) value is set too
high, because it's based only on the upper layers -- how long it
takes subsoil to be converted into topsoil. T ought to be based on
deeper layers -- the time for subsoil to develop from parent material
or parent material from rock. If he's right, erosion is even worse than
NCRS figures.

Erosion removes the most fertile parts of the soil (USDA-ARS). When you
feed the soil [with organic matter], you're not feeding plants; you're
feeding the biota in the soil. Underground creatures and fungi break
down fallen leaves and twigs into microscopic bits that plants can eat,
and create tunnels air and water can infiltrate. In nature there are no
elves feeding (fertilizing) the wild lands. When plants die, they're
recycled into basic elements and become a part of new plants. It's a
closed cycle. There is no bio-waste.

Soil creatures and fungi act as an immune system for plants against
diseases, weeds, and insects -- when this living community is harmed by
agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, even more chemicals are needed
in an increasing vicious cycle (Wolfe 2001).

There's so much life in the soil, there can be 10 "biomass horses"
underground for every horse grazing on an acre of pasture (Wardle
2004). If you dove into the soil and swam around, you'd be surrounded
by miles of thin strands of mycorrhizal fungi that help plant roots
absorb more nutrients and water, plus millions of creatures, most of
them unknown. There'd be thousands of species in just a handful of
earth -- springtails, bacteria, and worms digging airy subways. As you
swam along, plant roots would tower above you like trees as you wove
through underground skyscrapers.

Plants and creatures underground need to drink, eat, and breathe just
as we do. An ideal soil is half rock, and a quarter each water and air.
When tractors plant and harvest, they crush the life out of the soil,
as underground apartments collapse 9/11 style. The tracks left by
tractors in the soil are the erosion route for half of the soil that
washes or blows away (Wilhelm 2004).

Corn Biofuel -- Especially Harmful

Corn Biofuel (i.e. butanol, ethanol, biodiesel) is especially harmful
because: Row crops such as corn and soy cause 50 times more soil
erosion than sod crops [e.g., hay] (Sullivan 2004) or more (Al-Kaisi
2000), because the soil between the rows can wash or blow away. If corn
is planted with last year's corn stalks left on the ground (no- till),
erosion is less of a problem, but only about 20% of corn is grown
no-till. Soy is usually grown no-till, but [leaves] insignificant
residues to harvest for fuel. Corn uses more water,
insecticide, and fertilizer than most crops (Pimentel 2003). Due to
high corn prices, continuous corn (corn crop after corn crop) is
increasing, rather than rotation of nitrogen fixing (fertilizer) and
erosion control sod crops with corn.

The government has studied the effect of growing continuous corn, and
found it increases eutrophication by 189%, global warming by 71%, and
acidification by 6% (Powers 2005).

Farmers want to plant corn on highly-erodible, water protecting, or
wildlife sustaining Conservation Reserve Program land. Farmers are paid
not to grow crops on this land. But with high corn prices, farmers are
now asking the Agricultural Department to release them from these
contracts so they can plant corn on these low-producing,
environmentally sensitive lands (Tomson 2007).

Crop residues are essential for soil nutrition, water retention, and
soil carbon. Making cellulosic ethanol from corn residues -- the parts
of the plant we don't eat (stalk, roots, and leaves) -- removes water,
carbon, and nutrients (Nelson, 2002, McAloon 2000, Sheehan, 2003).
These practices lead to lower crop production and ultimately deserts.
Growing plants for fuel will accelerate the already unacceptable levels
of topsoil erosion, soil carbon and nutrient depletion, soil
compaction, water retention, water depletion, water pollution, air
pollution, eutrophication, destruction of fisheries, siltation of dams
and waterways, salination, loss of biodiversity, and damage to human
health (Tegtmeier 2004).

Why are soil scientists absent from the biofuels debate?

I asked 35 soil scientists why topsoil wasn't part of the biofuels
debate. These are just a few of the responses from the ten who replied
to my off-the-record poll (no one wanted me to quote them, mostly due
to fear of losing their jobs): "I have no idea why soil scientists
aren't questioning corn and cellulosic ethanol plans. Quite frankly I'm
not sure that our society has had any sort of reasonable debate about
this with all the facts laid out. When you see that even if all of the
corn was converted to ethanol and that would not provide more than 20%
of our current liquid fuel use, it certainly makes me wonder, even
before considering the conversion efficiency, soil loss, water
contamination, food price problems, etc."

"Biomass production is not sustainable. Only business men and women in
the refinery business believe it is."

"Should we be using our best crop land to grow gasohol and contribute
further to global warming? What will our children grow their food on?"

"As agricultural scientists, we are programmed to make farmers
profitable, and therefore profits are at the top of the list, and not
soil, family, or environmental sustainability".

"Government policy since WWII has been to encourage overproduction to
keep food prices down (people with full bellies don't revolt or object
too much). It's hard to make a living farming commodities when the
selling price is always at or below the break even point. Farmers have
had to get bigger and bigger to make ends meet since the margins keep
getting thinner and thinner. We have sacrificed our family farms in the
name of cheap food. When farmers stand to make few bucks (as with
biofuels) agricultural scientists tend to look the other way".

"You are quite correct in your concern that soil science should be
factored into decisions about biofuel production. Unfortunately, we
soil scientists have missed the boat on the importance of soil
management to the sustainability of biomass production, and the
long-term impact for soil productivity.

This is not a new debate. Here's what scientists had to say decades
ago: Removing "crop residues...would rob organic matter that is vital
to the maintenance of soil fertility and tilth, leading to disastrous
soil erosion levels. Not considered is the importance of plant
residues as a primary source of energy for soil microbial activity. The
most prudent course, clearly, is to continue to recycle most crop
residues back into the soil, where they are vital in keeping organic
matter levels high enough to make the soil more open to air and water,
more resistant to soil erosion, and more productive" (Sampson 1981).

"...Massive alcohol production from our farms is an immoral use of our
soils since it rapidly promotes their wasting away. We must save these
soils for an oil-less future" (Jackson 1980).

...

Part 7. Where do we go from here?

Subsidies and Politics

How come there are over 116 ethanol plants with 79 under construction
and 200 more planned? The answer: subsidies and tax breaks.

Federal and state ethanol subsidies add up to 79 cents per liter
(McCain 2003), with most of that going to agribusiness, not farmers.
There is also a tax break of 5.3 cents per gallon for ethanol (Wall
Street Journal 2002). An additional 51 cents per gallon goes mainly to
the oil industry to get them to blend ethanol with gasoline.

In addition to the $8.4 billion per year subsidies for corn and ethanol
production, the consumer pays an additional amount for any
product with corn in it (Pollan 2005), beef, milk, and eggs, because
corn diverted to ethanol raises the price of corn for the livestock
industry.

Worst of all, the subsidies may never end, because Iowa plays a leading
role in who's selected to be the next president. John McCain has
softened his stand on ethanol (Birger 2006). All four senators in
California and New York have pointed out that "ethanol subsidies are
nothing but a way to funnel money to agribusiness and corn states at
the expense of the rest of the country" (Washington Post 2002).

"Once we have a corn-based technology up and running the political
system will protect it," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, a board member at
the Energy Policy Research Foundation. "We cannot afford to have 15
billion gallons of corn-based ethanol in 2015, and that's exactly where
we are headed" (Barrionuevo 2007).



9.) Check Out New Food Safety Technology Approved by the USDA

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/
New_Technology_Table_Feb_06/index.asp
The new technologies listed below along with the summaries were copied
from the above web page.

- Salmonella targeted bacteriophages applied as a spray mist or wash on
the hides of live animals in the holding pens prior to slaughter.

- E. coli O157:H7 targeted bacteriophages applied as a spray mist or
wash on the hides of live animals in the holding pens prior to
slaughter.

- Hide-On Beef Carcass Washing System using sodium hydroxide applied at
the post-exsanguination stage of slaughter.

- Accutab Chlorination On-Line Reprocessing in poultry establishments.

- Application of low pressure (25-30 psi) 20 ppm sodium hypochlorite
spray as an antimicrobial treatment on beef primals cuts after the
koshering process.

- Chlorine dioxide used as an anti-microbial agent in the processing of
poultry parts prior to packing or grinding.

- A poultry carcass dip tank using water that has been treated with 20
to 50 ppm of free available chlorine measured at the intake (influent).

- Praxair Carbon dioxide atmosphere stunning for turkeys.

- TOMCO's Pathogen Management System & On-Line Reprocessing utilizing
Hypochlorous acid in poultry establishments.

- Reuse of Inspexx 100 poultry wash and chill process water to reduce
microbial contamination on raw edible poultry products and/or to wash
poultry processing equipment and environmental surfaces.



10. For Your Amusement: A Short History of Gastronomy

Here’s an amusing food-for-thought video entitled "A Short History of
Gastronomy" created by Roger Doiron and posted on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkloPHbJJHc



11.) The Healthy Food Enterprise Development Program
 
A new program, Healthy Food Enterprise Development program, spurs
innovation and entrepreneurship in the food supply chain by providing
feasibility grants and direct USDA loans and loan guarantees.  The
program would be administered by the Market Services Branch of the
Agricultural Marketing Service.  The financing structure of the loans
and loan guarantees are based upon existing USDA programs which, for
every federal dollar appropriated secure 20 times more in private
sector capital.
 
First introduced in HR 2364, the Healthy Food Enterprise Development
program provides through up to $42.5 million in mandatory funds:

• Grants for feasibility studies, market analysis, facility design,
and business and financial planning up to $250,000 over three years. 
Authorized to $5 million.
• Direct Loans up to $1.5 million each, from USDA to spur the most
innovative projects and ensure financing in communities of the greatest
need. Authorized minimum at $15 million annually.
• Loan Guarantees up to $1.5 million each, to private banks and
financial institutions from USDA. Authorized minimum at $10 million
annually.
• Technical Assistance for minority producers and low income
communities. Authorized minimum of $200,000 to 5% of total program
funds annually.
 
Incentives for food marketing entrepreneurship and meeting public
needs:

• Foster business solutions for needed supply chain innovations by
facilitating the development of small-scale processors, distributors,
and other entities crucial for market access to small and mid-sized
producers. 
• Incentivize projects which support minority producers.
• Incentives to distribute healthy, fresh foods to low-income
communities.
• Employment creation in low employment areas and in economic
Enterprise Zones.
• Enhance a producer’s share of the final retail food price, by
distributing locally and regionally and minimizing transportation and
transaction costs.
• Reduce fresh food costs by removing the local and regional food
supply bottleneck.
 
Why? Gaps in the food supply chain, from lack of access to financing
capital, severely limit the development of entrepreneurial businesses
needed to link food service companies, retail food stores, and public
institutions with local and regional agricultural producers. 
 
• In some states, the DOD Fresh program has to rely on
government-leased warehousing and government-owned trucks to deliver
fresh, healthy foods to public schools.
• National food service providers cannot meet the demand of local and
regional foods because supply is not efficiently aggregated into
distribution points.
• Schools which want to purchase local foods cannot manage purchases
from multiple farmers, nor can their loading docks handle daily
deliveries from multiple farmers.
• Many mid-sized farmers are interested in the success of direct
markets, but have no way to get their high volume, high value products
into the food service and retail markets.
 
Call or fax a letter of support to bill co-sponsor, Representative
Gillibrand's ag aid, Brooke Jamison 202 225 5614, or Representative
Hinchey's contact, Moira Campion 202 225 6335, or Senator Clinton’s
(bill S 1432) contact, Trevor Dean 202 224 5643. 

Track the bill’s progress at
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill./xpdbill=h1102364.
 
For more information contact the New York State Small Scale Food
Processors Association at http://www.nyssfpa.com/



12.) New DVD Features Farmers & Their High Tunnel Technology

Free copies available for ag educators and service providers

"High Tunnels: Using Low-Cost Technology to Increase Yields, Improve
Quality, and Extend the Growing Season," is a 43-minute DVD that
features six farmers from five northeastern states explaining how
and why they constructed their high-tunnel system, what they grow in
it, and how it helps sustain their farming operation. The DVD was
produced by Ted Blomgren of Cornell Cooperative Extension and Tracy
Frisch of the Regional Farm and Food Project, and was funded by the
Northeast SARE Professional Development Program.

Free copies of the DVD are available until September 15 2007 – or
until supplies run out – to people who conduct agricultural
education programs, including Cooperative Extension and nonprofit
staff, teachers, or farmers who give presentations to others. If you
qualify for a free copy, please send an e-mail to
sustainable.agriculture@... containing the following
information: Your name, your organization, your main professional
role, postal mailing address with zip, telephone(s), briefly
describe how you plan to use the video, and estimate the number of
people that will view it in one year.

By accepting a free video you agree to respond to a brief e-mail
survey that will take place in 2008 to evaluation how the video was
utilized.

Copies of the DVD are also available to people generally interested
in the topic but not in a teaching or service role as described
above. The cost is $15, including postage, and the order form is at:
www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/Videos/hightunnelvideo.html; credit card
orders can be placed by calling (802) 656-5459.

A free companion High Tunnel Manual is available on line at
www.uvm.edu/sustainableagriculture/hightunnels.php. This manual can
also be requested in print for an additional $15, including postage.
If placing an order by mail for the manual or DVD please make checks
payable to 'UVM' and mail to:

Center for Sustainable Agriculture
University of Vermont
63 Carrigan Drive
Burlington VT 05405-0004


* * *


+ C A L E N D E R


Cayuga County Grazing Group Pasture Walk - Tuesday, July 10th - 6:30 to
8:30 pm - Matt Schiavi Farm, 316 Bird Cemetary Rd, Locke.  Topics will
include a discussion of how the farm has planned and implemented their
grazing strategy and how they incorporate grazing into their ration. 
Karen Sullivan, NRCS NY Animal Scientist, will answer questions about
the fine points of formulating a dairy ration to include grazed
forages.  For more information on location, and to register, call
Cayuga County CCE at 315-255-1183.
 
Pasture Walk - Wednesday, July 11th - 12:00 noon to 2:30 pm - Windy
Gale Farm, Marty & Melody, Charlie & Maxine Peterson, 1036 Oak Hill
Road, Frewsburg (Chautauqua County) - The Peterson family has been
successfully rotationally grazing their 115 cow dairy herd for the past
10 years.  They graze their lactating cows, dry cows, and breeding age
heifers on 100 acres of pasture divided into numerous paddocks.  The
herd is supplemented in the barn with a TMR throughout the summe and
the amount fed varies with quality and quantity of pasture available. 
Typically 60% or more of the herd's forage dry matter comes from
pasture.  We will start with a light lunch sponsored by Lottsville
Milling and Upstate Farms, Inc.  Further funding support provided by
NYS GLCI.  Registration is requested to plan for lunch - please contact
David Munsee at 716-664-9502 ext. 202 by Friday, July 6th.
 
Pasture Management for Milk Production - Wednesday, July 11th - 1:00 to
3:00 pm - Dove Tales Farm, Dan and Karen Dove, Truxton (Cortland
County) - Dan and Karen will share their experiences grazing their 180
cow dairy herd.  They are a successful dairy that does a good job of
utilizing pasture, and have been grazing since 1998.  A heifer grazing
system was just installed this spring.  Guest speakers will be Darrell
Emmick and Karen Sullivan from USDA-NRCS.  Darrell will share his
research on the behavior of cattle on pasture and how to use behavior
for optimum milk production.  Karen will discuss general grass-based
nutrition principles for grazing dairy herds.  The program is sponsored
by Cortland County SWCD with support from NYS GLCI and the NYS
Agricultural Environmental Management (NYS AEM) program, and is free,
but please call to register at 607-753-0851 ext. 3 by July 9th.
 
Saturday, July 14 The New York Nut Growers Association will hold its
summer meeting in Trumansburg and Dryden.  In the morning we will visit
the Carpathian walnut plantings on John Wertis' BWW Farm, 8144
Searsburg Road, in Trumansburg, and do some fence building to protect
against deer damage.  In the wooded section of the farm, an
agroforestry staff member from Cornell will demonstrate mushroom
inoculation of logs.  Select your lunch at the Hazel Nut Cafe: mild
goat curry, hazelnut broiled trout, or vegetarian pasta.  In the
afternoon Janet Hawkes, of RPM Ecosystems, will make a presentation
about their tree propagation system in the Trumansburg Village Hall
(across from the café).  Then we will drive to Dryden, about a half
hour away, to visit RPM's greenhouses and field plots.  Registration
includes a light breakfast and lunch -- all for $15.  Please mail a
check, made out to "NYNGA," to Tom Potts, NYNGA Treas., 26 Willets
Ave., Belmont, NY 14813.  Drop-ins are welcome, too.  Questions &/or
directions, call Tom at (585) 268 - 5588.

Wednesday evening, July 18 from 6 to 9 p.m. New Yorkers can celebrate
food, exulting in the bounty and superior flavor of locally grown
ingredients at the 100 Mile Menu fete, benefiting two food focused
organizations, The Sylvia Center and Just Food. While indulging in a
buffet of dishes made from ingredients sourced within a 100-mile radius
of New York City, guests will savor edu-taining interactive activities
that reflect the evening’s theme in the Spring Street kitchen of Great
Performances, the leading catering and events company. All proceeds
from the 100 Mile Menu celebration will be shared by The Sylvia Center
and Just Food. Tickets for the 100 Mile Menu celebratory evening range
from $65 per person to $500 for two. At Great Performances, 287 Spring
Street (between Varick and Hudson). Tickets can be purchased via
brownpapertickets.com/event/17131 or by calling Asya Ollis at Great
Performances, 212-337-6058. For more information about Just Food,
visit http://www.justfood.org and to find out more about The Sylvia
Center, go to http://www.katchkiefarm.com and click on The Sylvia
Center page devoted to the non-profit the farm sustains.

Great Grass!  Pasture Workshops and Walk - Thursday, July 19th - 8:30
am to 3:00 pm - Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, 630
Bedford Road, Pocantico Hills (Westchester County).  Two tracks of
grazing workshops for horse and livestock owners.  Discover the great
grass tools, technology and methodologies in fencing, feeding, and
pasture management for optimum land use.  Registration fee of $23
covers coffee break and Stone Barns picnic lunch - space is limited, so
call 914-962-6355 or email croton@... to register or for
more information.  Sponsored by the NYC Watershed Ag Council, Lower
Hudson-Long Island Resource Conservation and Development Council, NYS
GLCI, and Stone Barns.  Directions to Stone Barns Center for Food and
Agriculture available at www.stonebarnscenter.org.
 
Cayuga County Beef Discussion Group - DOT Livestock Transportation
Regulations - Thursday, July 19th - 6:30 to 8:30 pm - CCE Cayuga
County Education Center, 248 Grant Ave., Auburn.  A representative from
the NYS Department of Transportation will be talking about regulations
involving livestock transportation.  Refreshments provided.  Please
RSVP by calling Cayuga County CCE at 315-255-1183.
 
July 24th: 10a - 12p, Voorheesville, NY, Composting Road Kill  The
Cornell Waste Management Institute is sponsoring workshops
demonstrating how to compost road killed animals. The workshops are
being held at 5 locations across New York State this summer and fall
and are free and open to anyone. The targeted audience of state and
local highway workers, health and environmental staff, and local
officials will find the workshops useful in deciding whether composting
suits theirs needs, and how and where to do it. For more information
about the workshops and this project, please call us at 607-255-1187 or
go to our web site at: 
http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/roadkillworkshops.htm

PA Project Grass Rotational Grazing Field Day - Wednesday, July 25th -
9:30 am to 3:00 pm - Big Horn Ranch, Michael Wright, Pittsfield, PA
(Warren County, PA).  This field day will include a farm tour of the
home farm where Michael will explain his rotational grazing practices
as well as barnyard conservation.  In the afternoon, we will travel to
a rented pasture where Michael will discuss pasture renovation with the
use of goats and pigs.  There is a registration fee of $8.00 per person
to cover lunch expenses, payable to Warren County Conservation
District.  Sponsored by PA Project Grass, Western Pennsylvania
Watershed Program, Northwest Project Grass, Warren County Conservation
District, USDA-NRCS.  For more information and to register by July 18,
contact Warren County Conservation District at 814-563-3117.  
 
July 25, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Cornell to Host Fruit Field Day
and Equipment Show at the New York State Agricultural Experiment
Station in Geneva, NY. This is one of several events that commemorate
the 125th anniversary of the Experiment Station, which opened its doors
on March 1, 1882. Fruit growers, consultants, and industry personnel
are invited to tour field plots and laboratories and learn about the
latest research and extension efforts being carried out by researchers
on the Geneva, Highland and Ithaca campuses. The focus will be on all
commodities key to New York's $300 million fruit industry: apples,
grapes, raspberries, strawberries, peaches, pears and cherries. During
lunch, equipment dealers will showcase the latest techniques to improve
sprayer deposition and reducing drift. Representatives from various
companies will advise growers on the latest technologies. The event
will be held on the Experiment Station's Fruit and Vegetable Research
Farm South, 1097 County Road No. 4, 1 mile west of Pre-emption Rd. in
Geneva, NY. Signs will be posted. Attendees will be able to select from
tours of apples, stone fruits, small fruits, and grapes, as well as a
tour of the Experiment Station’s labs and greenhouses. Admission is
free and lunch is provided courtesy of industry sponsors.
Pre-registration is encouraged. For sponsorship and exhibitor
information, contact Debbie Breth at 585-798-4265 or <mailto:
dib1@... >dib1@... . More information will be posted to
< http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/fieldday/ >
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/fieldday/ For additional
information, contact Nancy Long at 315-787-2288 or NPL1@...
Register on line at:
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/fieldday/index.html

Whole Farm Health Pasture Walks - Friday, July 27th and Saturday, July
28th - Dr. Ann Wells, DVM, will be in New York for 4 pasture walks
where she will identify areas of farms that are "healthy" and areas
that need a "check-up".  Dr. Wells is a well-known veterinarian from
Arkansas who specializes in animal health practices that integrate soil
and plant health as management strategies, and encourages grazing as a
foundation principle.  She has been highly involved in the development
of many of the standards for the National Organic Program as well.  The
dates, locations, and contact info for additional information are as
follows:Friday, July 27th - David Hoover Farm (dairy), Benton Center
(Yates County), and (tentatively) Ros Parks Farm, Seneca Falls (Seneca
County).  Contact Bill Henning at 315-536-5123  or email
wrh6@... for times and directions. Saturday, July 28th -
Tradewinds Farm, Rodney and Janet Aldrich (dairy), Oxford (Chenango
County), and Quarry Brook Farm, Adam and Steve Perrin (beef, sheep,
pigs, and chickens), Sherburne (Chenango County).  Contact Karen
Hoffman Sullivan at 607-334-4632 x116 or email
karen.sullivan@... for times and directions.


# # #

Billie Best
Board of Directors
Regional Farm & Food Project
P.O. Box 8628
Albany, NY 12208
518-271-0744
http://www.farmandfood.org

The Regional Farm & Food Project is a member supported, farmer focused,
non-profit serving the greater Hudson-Mohawk Valley food shed. We work
to promote earth-friendly agriculture and community food systems. Our
Farm & Food Network hosts regular meetings and a listserv to connect
farm and food entrepreneurs with each other and strengthen their
business relationships. Our pods are activist groups organized around
public issues education. Together we are restoring the balance between
farms and factories, people and profits, local and global.