First they came for the Alfalfa, and I said nothing

Then they came for the Brussels Sprouts.....

FROM-The Davis Enterprise

Supervisor and scientist question county’s climate change plan

Part of Yolo County’s strategy for slashing greenhouse gases is “dead wrong,” according to a UC Davis agriculture scientist.

On Wednesday afternoon, alfalfa expert Dan Putnam questioned the science underlying the county’s Climate Action Plan, which the Board of Supervisors passed at its Tuesday meeting on a 3-1 vote. Supervisor Don Saylor voted no. Supervisor Mike McGowan was not present.

Putnam, who works with farmers to implement academic research in the field, is skeptical of the county’s plan to cut emissions by 4,200 metric tons over the next decade by reducing the amount of fossil fuel-based fertilizer spread on alfalfa fields.

The entire plan outlines a way to cut emissions by nearly 6 percent between 2008 and 2020, the state deadline to roll back to 1990 levels. The county’s unincorporated area generated 613,651 metric tons of carbon dioxide that year. In 2008, the number increased 6.2 percent to nearly 652,000 metric tons.

Preparing the plan has cost the county $238,000 so far, said rural Supervisor Duane Chamberlain, and it’s “just a mass of errors.”

Alfalfa farmers, by and large, don’t use nitrogen fertilizer, Putnam said, and reducing what they do use by 25 percent would not result in a crop increase of 0.35 percent as the plan predicts.

“The alfalfa part of that is just wrong — dead wrong,” Putnam said. ”That’s just nonsense. I don’t agree with that at all.”

Moreover, Putnam said he usually needs to see much larger fluctuations in yield — at least around 3 percent — to attribute it to something other than margin of error.

“They’re using modeling to come to their conclusion,” he said of the plan’s architects. “There’s nothing wrong with using modeling … but the question is you have to be realistic about … the vagaries of nature.

“It’s one thing if the model spits out (a number), and it’s another if it’s something we can measure in the field. It’s another thing to ‘ground truth’ it.”

Chamberlain represents the county’s rural areas, farms alfalfa and lets Putnam conduct studies in his fields. He voted to approve the Climate Action Plan, but was the most vocal about his concerns over the underlying science.

Chamberlain said he talked to several UCD scientists, including Putnam, and they all agree carbon dioxide levels are going up. That, however, is about all they agree on. There’s no consensus about whether that’s a good or bad thing.

Board Chair Matt Rexroad said the “large global view” of climate change theory is irrelevant to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors.

“I’m not prepared to argue that today,” he said at Tuesday’s meeting. What is relevant is that the state Legislature and governor passed a law that requires local government, Yolo County included, to cut emissions by 2020.

“We’ve beat this thing to death,” he added.

Saylor, who ultimately voted against adopting the plan, said the science behind climate change is solid.

“It’s unambiguous that change is happening to our planet, and that human actions have led to many of these changes,” he said. “It’s important we begin to correct that.”

Chamberlain not only took issue with climate change theory on a global scale, he also questioned the specific data underpinning the plan’s strategy.

“We don’t have any real science that’s on the ground,” Chamberlain said of the plan. ”We’re still missing the true science. I’m not sure it’s even there. The guys that are doing the on-the-ground science say, ‘We’re not sure. We can’t answer this.’ I don’t want to make decisions based on erroneous assumptions.

“I’d like to see some science in here,” Chamberlain said of the plan. “The science is terrible. We don’t have any science. We have modeling. This is people who’ve drawn pictures.

“We don’t know this stuff,” Chamberlain said of data underlying the plan. “Someone’s made up all these numbers.”

It Never Ends!

From 1994 t0 1999?  Too warm at night? They are throwing everything they can out there to give the narrative meat, but it is nothing more than a cup of rice.

FROM-Borneo Post


Global warming takes its toll on rice production — Association chief

SIBU: Global warming has caused a deceleration in rice production in many regions in Asia.

This is the finding of a recent large scale study.

Chairman of Sibu Rice Wholesalers’ Association (SRWA) Yeo Keng Teck,

in stating this yesterday, said it was feared that the situation would deteriorate, thus aggravating poverty and starvation in Asia.

“According to an analysis done by American economists and scientists from the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations and the Philippines International Rice Research Institute from 1994 to 1999, the main cause of retardation in rice production is the rise in temperature during the night,” he said.

He was speaking during the SRWA annual general meeting held at the local Chinese General Chamber of Commerce and Industry premises here.

Yeo said the research was done in 227 swamp padi fields in six countries — China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.

He said the report suggested that there would be an increase in rice production if the day time temperature increased, subjected to certain range of temperature change.

However, he said the effect in day time could probably be off-set if the night time temperature rose higher.

“In other words, with the rising of daily average temperature, night time would become warmer, thus resulting in the decline of rice production.

“The research also discovered that the many major rice production areas in Asia had encountered a drop of 10 to 20 per cent due to the rising temperature in the past 25 years.

“If the global warming situation worsens, rice production could decrease further.

“On the other hand, in October last year, there were a series of heavy downpour and floods that affected 24 provinces in Thailand. About 700,000 acres of agricultural land were affected, the majority of which were padi fields,” he said.

He asked rice wholesalers to have a better understanding of the international scenario pertaining to rice and padi, adding that this was imperative to do their business well.

Grassroots Opposition to Climate Change Bill Delivered to Senate

FROM-The Voice of Agriculture (American Farm Bureau)

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 11, 2010 – The American Farm Bureau Federation’s successful, six-month campaign to oppose cap-and-trade climate change legislation, “Don’t CAP Our Future,” culminated Wednesday when farmer and rancher members from across the country presented key lawmakers some of the 100,000 grassroots calls-to-action gathered in opposition to the issue.

“Cap-and-trade provisions would create an energy shortage and ultimately reduce food production. That was the driving force behind the ‘Don’t CAP Our Future’ campaign,” AFBF President Bob Stallman said at an event on Capitol Hill.

Stallman, members of the AFBF Board and additional state Farm Bureau presidents and members, warmly thanked senators attending the event who have shown outstanding leadership in the battle against cap-and-trade legislation.

“On behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors, please accept my sincere appreciation,” Stallman said. “Thank you for your support of America’s farmers and ranchers and for your recognition of both the challenges that they face and their important contributions to our nation.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) was recognized by Stallman for “leading the charge” against cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate. Stallman and other Farm Bureau leaders also expressed appreciation to other strong supporters of the effort, including Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah).

A comprehensive approach was used for the campaign, including e-mails, online petitions, signed postcards from farmer and rancher members and social media outreach.

Earlier this week, AFBF and several dozen other organizations sent a letter to the full Senate urging support for S.J. Res. 26, a resolution to disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Senators from “both sides of the aisle” have said throughout the climate change debate that this issue should be decided by Congress rather than EPA, the letter noted. Last week, AFBF sent a letter of support for a companion House measure.



More...

Farmland Skepticism

FROM- Joplin Independent

Is global warming a threat to agriculture?

Add USDA to anti-ag list

by Trent Loos

As we charge into 2010, those of us in agriculture have come to realize that we must deal with groups outside of agriculture that want to forever change the structure of food production and, in most cases, simply eliminate the production of meat, milk and eggs in this country.

Today, I am adding another group to the list of those working against the heart of agriculture. You may have heard of it: the U.S. Department of Agriculture. If you think that sounds extreme, allow me to explain by providing this excerpt of what Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, speaking at last month's "climate change" conference in Copenhagen, had to report:

"While climate change will affect us all, there are particular vulnerabilities
and challenges for farmers, ranchers and those who make a living off the land.
Higher temperatures, changing rainfall patterns and more frequent extreme events
like droughts and flooding threaten to reduce yields and increase the occurrence
of crop failure."

I vividly remember Vilsack when he was governor of Iowa. It was clear that agriculture was not his cup of tea. He also doesn't appear to be good at history either.

Forget about the 10,000-year-old models theorizing how extreme climate change has been over the history of the world. Let's just look at the past 234 years. The worst blizzards occurred before 1900, the worst hurricanes happened in 1900 and we called the decade of the 1930s the "dirty 30s" for a reason.

My point is that farmers and ranchers have always dealt with climate change. It has nothing to do with fossil fuels or carbon sequestration.

While in Copenhagen, Vilsack also announced that USDA was releasing a report titled "The Effects of Climate Change on U.S. Ecosystems" (written in 2008 but not released until Dec. 17, 2009). I felt compelled to read this report, mostly because it has a polar bear on the front cover. What? A polar bear?!

While I am always looking for diversity at my ranch, I thought maybe USDA was suggesting that I could start raising polar bears. Lord knows this would have been a good winter to get a herd started based on the weather we have already had in the Great Plains.

Anyway, this report suggests that global warming could have a negative effect on livestock. Warmer temperatures could reduce mortality in the winter, but hotter summers will reduce productivity and increase death loss. Excuse me. The U.S. produces more than 9 billion animals each year, and the majority are in concentrated animal feeding operations. That means they are in a totally controlled environment, which means that no matter how hot or cold it is outside, the dairy cow, turkey, chicken or pig is in a temperature-controlled building without experiencing effects from the weather.

Vilsack not only supports this global warming campaign but also rejected the advice of his own Chief Economist Joe Glauber, whose data indicate that the carbon program the government is hoping to implement is not beneficial or plausible for American farmers. Reportedly, Vilsack told Glauber to find a way to make it work.

I can walk through this USDA report page by page and illustrate the incorrect statements made about modern food production, but allow me to just highlight some of what is said.

The authors clearly state that there is no way to say whether humans had anything to do with climate change in the past, but "we need to change our farming practices" because we believe in our theory. In fact, on page 21, there is something that no one at USDA will likely include in their presentations to the media and the public. It reads:

"For the moment, there is no viable alternative to using the existing systems
for identifying climate change and its impact on U.S. agriculture, land
resources, water resources and biodiversity, even though these systems were not
originally designed for this purpose...The authors of this report also have very
limited confidence in the ability of current observation and monitoring systems
to provide the information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken
to mitigate or adapt to climate change impacts. Much of our understanding of the
direct effects of temperature, elevated (carbon dioxide), ozone, precipitation
and nitrogen deposition has come from manipulative experiments. Institutional
support for such experiments is a concern."

Yes, it appears that we now have a new group looking to forever change the production of food in the U.S. through the use of an agenda and carefully selected bits of partial information that support its mission. This U.S. Global Change Research Program is housed -- where else? -- but at 1717 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington, D.C., and is working with the Heinz Center to develop "observation and monitoring systems that are able to support their analyses that can aid this management challenge."

Doesn't that mean gathering only data that support their theory? I believe this may well be just another public relations stunt by the Obama Administration to scare the American public into believing that U.S. agriculture and food production are in jeopardy so they can implement massive legislative and regulatory changes. I, for one, am not buying it, and I will not budge off of my notion that global warming is the largest man-made hoax the world has ever seen.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Trent Loos is a sixth-generation farmer/rancher based in Loup City, NE. He is founder of Faces of Ag, a national organization with the mission of promoting agriculture through the fact-based information.


More...

Angry farmers rally outside Australian parliament

watch video here


FROM-WAPO


CANBERRA, Australia -- Angry farmers wearing broad-brimmed hats and cracking kangaroo-hide whips rallied outside Parliament Monday as one of their colleagues continued a hunger strike to demand compensation for Australian climate change policy.

The protest by 250 farmers and their supporters drew public attention to the plight of sheep farmer Peter Spencer, who they say is on the 43rd day of his hunger strike to protest that he is not allowed to clear vegetation from his 20,000 acre (8,000 hectare) farm.

The 61-year-old has been living since Nov. 23, 2009, on a platform 20 feet (6 meters) up a steel wind-monitoring tower on his alpine farm at Shannon's Flat in New South Wales state, 55 miles (90 kilometers) south of Canberra, his supporters say.

State laws introduced throughout Australia since 1995 restrict the amount of land that farmers can clear of vegetation that absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


Slowing land clearing is equivalent to reducing a country's greenhouse gas emissions in calculations under the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol.

Spencer and his supporters argue that farmers deserve federal compensation because the restrictions make their land less productive.

"This is not about whether or not a farmer should be allowed to clear land, it's about fair compensation for the land that the government is stealing from farmers," said rally organizer Alastair McRobert, a friend of the hunger striker.

"He's determined that he isn't going to come down," McRobert added, unless Prime Minister Kevin Rudd or an envoy agrees to meet him.

Rudd urged Spencer to seek urgent medical attention, adding that his land dispute should be decided by the courts.

"Policy will not be changed by threats of violence or self-harm," Rudd's office said in a statement.
Rudd, who was in Sydney during the rally, said government lawmaker Mike Kelly visited Spencer's farm before Christmas but Spencer had refused to meet Kelly.

Sarah Spencer, one of the hunger striker's four children who flew from her home in Cedar Springs, Michigan, to see her father on Christmas Day after reading of his hunger strike on the Internet, said he is consuming only water mixed with a little lemon juice.

"I wouldn't like to comment on how long he can continue like this," the 30-year-old mother of three said. "But his mind is sound and he knows what he's doing."

Spencer could not be contacted for comment on Monday.

He has been battling state authorities for a decade for permission to clear another 30 percent of his rugged highland property that he has owned for 30 years. He argues that with only 10 percent cleared, his potential to expand wool production was limited and his land is devalued.
He has made almost 200 appearances over the dispute in various state and federal courts.
More...

Regulating the Earth

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.."


This article from NPR is another example of the elitist outlook and attempt at controlling everything.

As with climate modeling where even a cursory look at the complexities should humble any normal person from believing they could program a realistic outlook of the future based on our limited knowledge of cause and effect in such a vast and unknown physical system-so too is the attempt to regulate CO2.

Reading the article below one quickly grasp that every possible outcome of a regulation can not only not be determined in advance, but may in fact lead to the opposite of the desired outcome.

This constant attempt by the arrogant elitist in science and government to not only understand but somehow predict and control the outcomes of every aspect of human existence and natural processes is not only arrogance, it shows an intellectual blindness that is staggering. They are so wrapped up in their tunnel vision view that they are incapable of common sense. In order to perpetuate their schemes they must constantly create even more complex justifications for their failures leading in turn to ever greater need to control. Like all such endeavors in human history when you build on a foundation of sand inevitably you will end up being buried in it.

FROM- NPR

Can Dirt Really Save Us From Global Warming?

This month the Senate is set to take up the climate and energy bill that Congress began work on last spring. One provision will likely set up a system to pay farmers for something called "no-till farming."

The concept: When crops are planted without tilling, the soil holds more carbon, which means less goes up into the atmosphere.

But scientists aren't sure no-till really sequesters carbon any better than conventional farming.

Soil scientist Michel Cavigelli of the U.S. Department of Agriculture agrees that no-till fields, like the one he studies in rural Maryland, can hold more carbon than plowed fields.

In part that's because the Maryland field has more organic matter — dead vegetation (mostly the residue from the previous crop), microorganisms, manure or compost.

"The percentage of organic matter in this soil is two percent," Cavigelli says of a no-till field of corn, "twice as much in some of the tilled systems, at the very surface."

But that is only at the surface. Researchers have discovered that when you dig down three feet or so, plowed fields hold just as much — if not more — carbon than no-till.

This is important because the energy bill would allow farmers to earn "offsets" if they practice no-till.

No-Till Offsets: A Fair Trade?

Offsets are like "get out of jail free" cards in Monopoly. If you do something that reduces carbon in the atmosphere, you earn an offset that you can sell to a company that would have to limit its carbon emissions if the bill becomes law. Each offset a company buys allows that company to emit more carbon at its own facilities.

But no-till only stores carbon as long as it isn't tilled. "If you till it, you can lose almost all the carbon you gained in the previous five years say with one tillage, even," says Cavigelli. "So one of the challenges is to maintain your no-till fields forever in essence to really gain the benefits of carbon sequestration."

Rattan Lal, a soil scientist at Ohio State University, says that's not what a lot of American farmers do. "The farmer plows one year and does no-till the next year."

But if it isn't tilled, Lal says, the no-till field can store more carbon than a plowed field if the conditions are just right — the right kind of soil, moisture, and soil temperature, for example.

The Question Of Residue

There's a possible conflict brewing here, though. Federal law and the energy bill encourage farmers to remove crop residue — the remains of the previous season's crop — to make ethanol.

"That's a no-no," Lal says. "The moment you take the crop residue away the benefit of no-till farming on erosion control, water conservation and on carbon sequestration will not be realized."

Nonetheless, Lal supports no-till for carbon offsets, mostly because when you don't plow, you use less fossil fuel to run equipment and make fertilizer.

These savings mean that no-till has a smaller "carbon footprint" than plowing.

Farm interests are eager to win offsets. They say the energy bill will raise their fuel costs across the board. The final list of what will be allowed in the bill could help swing votes when the Senate votes on the measure.


More...

The Land of Unintended Consequences

FROM- Stewardship Community

Africa's Famine: Case of Drought or Malware?

When one talks about famine in Africa, it is also crucial to take a moment to evaluate the hostile and intrusive programs operating in the background of food aid and aid in general.

There is a time in Africa, elders used to “talk” to drought and negotiate their way to receiving rainfall. Courtesy of their understanding of causation, elders would either sacrifice a black sheep or ask a virgin girl to bathe in a lake in order to draw the attention of the rain gods. If “African drought” was to answer back to modern leaders begging for food aid, its reply would read: “You earthlings that purport to be leaders of the hungry, I am not to blame for the famine; blame it on the malware!”

Computer experts are aware of malware – short form for “malicious software” that is designed to infiltrate a computer without the owners’ informed consent. Computer users are familiar with viruses, Trojan horses, worms, and spyware among other programs that cause harm to the operating system. When one talks about famine in Africa, it is also crucial to take a moment to evaluate the hostile and intrusive programs operating in the background of food aid and aid in general. What led to majority of Africans changing their diets?

Over 50 years of food aid targeting Africa and the resultant increased famine episodes point at a possibility of a food “malware” – a malicious system that changes people’s dietary habits in favor for imported foods. The same malware has penetrated agricultural schools that prepare graduates to promote the new foods as opposed to upgrading local varieties. The worst bit is on the political leadership – their minds have been corrupted so much with the quest for kickbacks to such an extent that they do not invest in local solutions. Foreign solutions come loaded with a possibility of a quick “10%;” and in the absence of a working “anti-virus” it logs its intentions on to the African nations’ operating system forcing the continent to be perpetual beggars.

To reduce famine incidents on the continent, Africans must develop a system of detecting the “malicious background operating system” from donors that has not only denied them a chance to promote their local cuisines but has also exposed their land up for grabbing. It is time we invested in our indigenous crops, turned our rural populations into celebrated food suppliers through incentives and invested in technology to free our continent from perennial famine. Contrary to common beliefs, money is not the solution to Africa’s famine problem; food aid is not the solution either … getting rid of the “malware” is!




More...

Tiny fish threatens to turn California’s Central Valley into Dust Bowl

To date, the Obama administration has shown little interest in reversing a policy that favors fish over farmers.

FROM-CFACT

Consumers around the country may soon be facing steeper prices for fruits, vegetables and nuts thanks to an obscure three-inch-long fish, called the Delta smelt, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

In California’s storied Central Valley, for decades one of the world’s most productive agricultural regions, an estimated 250,000 acres of prime farm land are lying fallow or dying. The parched area bears all the signs of a prolonged drought, but the acute water shortage confronting farmers and growers is largely manmade, the result of the Interior Department’s rigorous enforcement of the ESA.

Responding to a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups, the Bush administration, in December 2008, agreed to divert more than 150 billion gallons of water this year from the fertile Central Valley to the San Joaquin Delta in an effort to protect the endangered Delta smelt. With the federal government withholding water from farmers, it didn’t take long for economic devastation to grip the Central Valley. Unemployment in the areas ranges from 20 percent to a staggering 40 percent in some agricultural communities. The Central Valley’s agricultural output is expected to decline by between $1 billion and $3 billion this year compared with 2008.

“Instead of stimulating jobs, federal environmental officials are turning recession into depression, and stimulating economic hardship for business, farms and families,” said Rob Rivett, president of the Pacific Legal Foundation. (Washington Times, August 18, 2009)

To date, the Obama administration has shown little interest in reversing a policy that favors fish over farmers. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was asked on a recent visit to the area if he would convene a special panel, known under the ESA as the “God Squad,” to reconsider the diversion of water. Salazar left little doubt where the administration’s priorities lie. Convening the God Squad, he said, “would be to admit failure, it would defeat ecosystem restoration efforts. It has been rarely invoked and usually leads to litigation.”

Angered by what he calls a “regulatory-mandated drought,” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California) believes the ESA has already failed both farmers and fish. “There are 130 animal species in California on the federal endangered list, including five salmon species, five steelhead species, and the North American green sturgeon,” Nunes wrote in the Wall Street Journal (August 15, 2009) “To date, not a single fish within the California water system has been removed from the Endangered Species list over the past 36 years. Despite massive amounts of water diverted to help them, the ‘protected smelt, sturgeon and salmon populations have continued to decline. It is hardly unreasonable to ask why farmers should continue to suffer if diverting water hasn’t even helped the fish.”

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.



More...

Let me count the ways

A love Affair of Science and Media as an inexact art form



could -2. (used to express possibility): I wonder who that could be at the door. That couldn't be true.

if-6. a supposition; uncertain possibility: The future is full of ifs.

predicted-1.to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.

scenario- an imagined or projected sequence of events, esp. any of several detailed plans or possibilities

depend-3.to be conditioned or contingent (usually fol. by on or upon): His success here depends upon effort and ability.


FROM-Newsroom.com

Global Warming Could Devastate US Crops Say Researchers

Yields of three of the most important crops produced in the United States – corn, soybeans and cotton – are predicted to "fall off a cliff" if temperatures rise due to climate change.

In a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, North Carolina State University agricultural and resource economist Dr. Michael Roberts and Dr. Wolfram Schlenker, an assistant professor of economics at Columbia University, predict that U.S. crop yields could decrease by 30 to 46 percent over the next century under slow global warming scenarios, and by a devastating 63 to 82 percent under the most rapid global warming scenarios.

The warming scenarios used in the study – called Hadley III models – were devised by the United Kingdom's weather service.

The study shows that crop yields tick up gradually between roughly 10 and 30 degrees Celsius, or about 50 to 86 degrees Farenheit. But when temperature levels go over 29 degrees Celsius (84.2 degrees Farenheit) for corn, 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Farenheit) for soybeans and 32 degrees Celsius (89.6 degrees Farenheit) for cotton, yields fall steeply.

"While crop yields depend on a variety of factors, extreme heat is the best predictor of yields," Roberts says. "There hasn't been much research on what happens to crop yields over certain temperature thresholds, but this study shows that temperature extremes are not good."

Roberts adds that while the study examined only U.S. crop yields under warming scenarios, the crop commodity market's global reach makes the implications important for the entire world, as the United States produces 41 percent of the world's corn and 38 percent of the world's soybeans.

"Effects of climate change on U.S. crop production will surely be felt around the globe, especially in developing countries," he says.

After all of that we end with "will surely" so says:

Economist-a specialist in economics
More...

The Politician and the Farmer

FROM-Agriculture On Line


Vilsack's pitch for global warming legislation meets cool weather in Iowa


Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack got a brief standing ovation when he walked into a sale ring at the Iowa State Fair cattle barn Wednesday.

It was another stop on the Obama Administration's "rural tour,' and once again, the former Iowa governor was reminded of tough times in the hog and dairy industries by farmers and their leaders including Craig Lang, president of Iowa Farm Bureau, and Chris Peterson, head of the state's Farmers Union.

Lang said the state's hog and dairy producers are telling him they can survive if given help to get through the current crisis. Vilsack told him the USDA has stopped foreclosures on farm borrowers from the Farm Service Agency and is reviewing the loans. FSA is looking for ways to restructure loans of other borrowers. And next week USDA will host a conference call with commercial lenders to urge them to work with troubled borrowers.


When Petersen said he's concerned about the effects of vertical integration on competition within the hog industry, Vilsack said USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration will issue new rules on the Packers and Stockyards Act this fall. "We're going to try to make sure that the playing field is as level as it can be," Vilsack said.

But on rainy morning that seemed almost too cool for the a state fair in August, Vilsack was challenged by a hog farmer from northwest Iowa on the Administration's support for cap and trade legislation.

"We need to not pass the cap and trade bill, because I spend about $2,400 a month on electricity right now," Mike Ver Steeg of Inwood, Iowa told Vilsack, explaining that he's worried the bill aimed at slowing global warming will drive up costs for his 850-sow farrow-to-wean operation.

Vilsack replied that some estimates of the cost of cap and trade legislation may not be accurate and the cost of doing nothing could be high. Fisheries in Alaska and forestry in Colorado "are currently seeing the impact of climate change," he said.

Because of the way the House cap and trade bill was written vital industries like fertilizers will not be affected in the first few years, he said. Other energy-related costs would be offset by the ability of farmers to sell carbon credits to industries whose greenhouse gas emissions are capped, he said

And the chance to trade credits will eventually more than offset costs, he said.

"Over the long haul, it is potentially tens of billions of dollars of net income opportunity for farmers," Vilsack said.

Ver Steeg isn't convinced.

"I'm trading carbon credits right now," he told Agriculture Online after the meeting. "It's peanuts, but I do it because I no-till farm and it works for me."

Ver Steeg is an independent hog producer who sells early-wean hogs to his father for finishing. The family grows all of its hog feed and uses manure on the farm for fertilizer.

He agrees that carbon credit payments would likely go up if a cap and trade bill passes Congress this year, but expects his costs to go up even more.

Like many farmers, Ver Steeg also has a fundamental difference with Vilsack over global warming.

"While I respect the Secretary's opinion, we disagree. He believes in climate change and I don't," he said.

After the coldest summer since he started farming in 1995, he finds it hard to believe global warming is taking place.

"My corn leaves haven't curled at all this summer and the corn looks tremendous," he said. "I'm almost giddy to get out in the combine."

He also finds it hard to believe humans could cause global warming.

"If we can blame climate change on humans, that puts us above God, and we have no business being there," he said.

More of Vilsack's comments at the Iowa State Fair are posted on the USDA's home page, www.usda.gov.

More...

Farm Bureau: Climate Bill Will Not Change the Climate

FROM-Oregon Natural Resource Report


American Farm Bureau Federation: Climate change legislation currently being considered by Congress will have a devastating impact on family farms and agricultural production across the country. The House-passed bill (H.R. 2454), which is being examined by the Senate to serve as the potential basis for its climate change legislation, poses a real economic threat for the U.S. agricultural economy. It also places our nation at a competitive disadvantage with our trading partners and fails to provide viable alternative sources of energy to keep our economy strong and hold down costs. And, after all this, the measure would have little or no impact on the climate.

Not for Everyone

Farmers and ranchers are dependent on abundant and affordable energy not only for their vehicles, but also for the costs of fertilizers, irrigation and crop protection tools. Raising production costs while lowering farm income will affect all producers and all commodities. While offsets may help some farmers with these energy-related costs, it is not the complete answer. Even with a robust agricultural offset program, H.R. 2454 does not make economic sense for producers because a number of sectors will be unable to benefit.

Participating in an offset program will depend to a great degree on where the producer is located, what he or she grows and if his or her business can take advantage of the program. Not every dairy farmer can afford to capture methane. Not every farmer lives in a region where wind turbines are an option. Not every farmer can take advantage of no-till. And not every farmer has the land to set aside to plant trees.

Yet, these producers will incur the same increased fuel, fertilizer and energy costs as their counterparts who can benefit from the offsets market.

A Ton = A Ton

Our producers and the world depend on export markets. Unfortunately, H.R. 2454 doesn’t allow U.S. producers to stand on equal footing with their global counterparts. The bill’s cap-and-trade program would take effect whether or not competing nations like India and China adopt similar programs. The increased costs to U.S. producers will not be borne by competitive producers in other countries that do not have similar restrictions, putting our producers at a clear disadvantage.

H.R. 2454 provides no concrete alternative energy program, such as nuclear, to hold down energy costs. The bill creates a hole in our energy supply, leaving farmers, ranchers and others with either reduced sources of energy or energy that is too expensive.

Lastly, at the end of the day, there is no conclusive scientific data that all of these measures will have any significant impact on the climate. Most recently, the administrator of EPA testified before the Senate that H.R. 2454 would have a negligible impact on temperature by the year 2050 without the participation of other countries. Reducing carbon emissions must be a shared, global responsibility. Without other countries doing their part to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, H.R. 2454 will not work. A ton of GHG emissions emitted in China is the same as a ton of GHG emitted in Virginia. Regulating emissions in Virginia without regulating emissions in China will have little or no effect on the environment.

And virtually everyone agrees that the U.S. alone can’t solve the problem.

It is imperative that Congress look at this issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. On a matter that will affect our nation for decades to come it would be the height of folly to rush to pass climate change legislation that threatens our economy and has little hope of changing the climate.


More...

Sanity in the Heartland

FROM-Hoosier Ag Today

Climate Change Bill Not Good for Indiana or Agriculture
by Gary Truitt

The climate change bill that squeaked through the House last month is now before the US Senate; and, again Indiana and agriculture stand to lose if the bill is passed. American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman testified before a Senate committee on Tuesday that "Cap-and-trade legislation will have little or no impact on the climate because greenhouse gas emissions require a global response,” AFBF also contends that the bill will raise food prices for consumers unless an offset program is put into place to defray production input costs. An agricultural offsets program administered by the Agriculture Department is an essential cost containment measure, but revenues from offsets will only partially defray increased costs and not all agriculture sectors will benefit from offset opportunities.

Another contention AFBF has is that the bill would reduce the use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, but does not specify what energy source will plug the hole left by these reductions. This could lead to energy shortages and much higher energy prices. Kreg Battles, State Representative from Southwest Indiana, says the legislation in Washington would increase energy costs and virtually wipe out the state’s coal industry, “With 94% of our electric energy coming from coal, it seems pretty unrealistic that we are just going to wipe that off the map.” Battles told HAT, in Southwest Indiana, coal along with oil and agriculture are the economic pillars of the community, All would be hurt by the Cap and Trade legislation, “In my county we only have 7% unemployment, which is nothing to brag about but is better than the 10% in other parts of the state. This is because we have two new coal mines providing jobs.” Supporters of the cap and trade concept say Indiana would gain new green jobs as wind energy would continue to grow, but Battles says this would only be trading jobs in one sector with another.

More...

Hmm, Any money in that?

FROM-Ecologist

Change farming to cut CO2 emissions by 25 per cent

A new report has revealed that a change in the way we manage agricultural land could help sequester a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions every year
How to remove carbon from the atmosphere and put it back in the ground? Although the Government might like its big-ticket solutions such as unproven carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies for coal-fired power plants, a more effective answer may lie right beneath our feet.

Soil is the third-largest carbon sink in the world (after the oceans and fossil fuels themselves), and a change in the way we farm could offset a quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions annually, a new report reveals. Land use accounts for more than 30 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use, a report by the Worldwatch Institute and Ecoagriculture Partners, identifies five ways in which changes in agricultural practices could reduce and sequester carbon emissions. More...
The measures include enriching soil carbon through minimising tillage, using less fertiliser and adding biochar to increase its carbon-storage capacity; farming with perennials; adopting a more climate-friendly approach to livestock production, including a reduction in numbers and rotational grazing; protecting natural habitats by minimising the effects of forest and grass fires, and limiting deforestation and land clearances; and restoring degraded watersheds and rangelands.

The findings of the report are consistent with a shift away from harmful industrial practices towards the adoption of a more organic approach.

‘Organic farming plays a key role in soil carbon sequestration in comparison to conventional farming, which instead of returning carbon to the soil relies on chemicals,’ says Clio Turton of the Soil Association. ‘Organic farming has more grassland and organic red meat production is a grass-fed system, and therefore maintains huge carbon stores in permanent grassland. Organic techniques such as crop rotations and adding organic matter to the soil also play key roles in sequestering carbon.’

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) acknowledges that industrial agriculture has a net negative impact on the environment. A spokesperson said the department was working to raise awareness of the issue, promoting emerging technologies such as anaerobic digestion, and conducting a research programme on other ways to reduce the impact of farming, such as emissions trading and incentives to increase greener land management.

‘Farming is on the front line of tackling climate change,’ said a spokesperson. ‘Through our Agriculture and Climate Change Project, we are aiming to equip the agricultural sector with the tools, expertise and support that will enable it make a strong contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of the changing climate – as well as making the most of the business opportunities that are presented by the emerging green industries.’

An International Trade Centre (ITC) report carried out in 2007 by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) found that organic agriculture techniques can contribute significantly to the carbon sequestration capabilities of soil. Under northern European conditions, converting to organic practices such as the use of animal manure, green composting techniques and rotational grazing would result in an increase of soil organic matter of 100kg to 400kg per hectare annually during the first 50 years. A steady state of organic matter would be reached in 100 years, the report found.

UK agriculture currently accounts for seven per cent of total UK greenhouse gas emissions, half of which occurs as a result of nitrous oxide emissions from tillage.

The National Farmers Union (NFU) was prickly towards the report.
‘The production of nitrous oxide is a side-effect of food production,’ said Jonathan Scurlock, the NFU’s chief adviser on renewable energy and climate change. ‘At the moment it’s not technically possible drastically to reduce these emissions.

‘In terms of actually mitigating greenhouse gas emissions there are a lot of embedded renewable energy options that are much easier to implement, from anaerobic digestion and the optimal management of slurries to wind turbines in fields and solar photovoltaics on farm buildings. We need policy measures that encourage the uptake of renewable energy and low-carbon opportunities within the agricultural sector.

‘Perennial crops have many advantages and the theory behind biochar is sound as a means of locking carbon into the soil, but I don’t agree that reducing livestock numbers is the answer. Farmers will follow consumer preferences, but most of the world is seeing an increase in meat production. We can reduce emissions through a variety of measures but there’s no magic bullet – it will be gradual and progressive. What is important is to transfer the best available technologies to emerging markets in developing counties.’

A report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) also supports a more natural approach to reducing emissions. Its authors claim trees and soil could sequester as much as 50 gigatonnes of carbon over a few decades – and do so far more effectively and cheaply than CCS.

According to the report, The Natural Fix? The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Mitigation, less intensively grown crops and a reduction in grazing rates would lead to an increase in the carbon-storage capacity of soil. It estimates the measures would cost as little as £6 per tonne of avoided carbon dioxide emissions. CCS – capturing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants at source and pumping it underground – could cost anything from £12 to £170 per tonne.

‘Tens of billions of dollars are being earmarked for carbon capture and storage at power stations, with the CO2 to be buried underground or under the sea,’ said UNEP executive director Achim Steiner. ‘The Earth’s living systems might be capable of sequestering more than 50 gigatonnes [billion tonnes] of carbon over the coming decades with the right market signals.’

Cost aside, with greenhouse gas emissions increasing at a rate of three per cent a year, the speed at which carbon-capture technologies must be developed and built may make CCS unviable. As Greenpeace’s False Hope report made clear last year: ‘The IEA estimates that for CCS to deliver any meaningful climate mitigation effects by 2050, 6,000 projects each injecting a million tonnes of CO2 per year into the ground would be required. […] Currently, only three such storage projects exist worldwide.

’
Eifion Rees is a freelance journalist

Put a fork in it

FROM- American Farm Bureau

Statement by Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Regarding Climate Change Legislation

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 24, 2009 – “Climate change legislation working its way to a vote on the House floor this week continues to be seriously flawed. The bill’s provisions and omissions are very problematic for U.S. agriculture, our national economy and domestic energy security. Even after the stellar efforts of House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson and many rural members of Congress to win vital changes for America’s farm and ranch families – efforts that we strongly endorse and support – there are simply too many flaws in the underlying bill. Peterson has shown once again that he is a determined advocate for America’s farmers and ranchers and a leader to be reckoned with in the halls of Congress.

“But this legislation raises a wide range of issues that are detrimental to U.S. agriculture. One of the chief challenges is the energy deficit the bill will create. New technologies hold great promise for our nation, but are nowhere close to coming on line. The bill forces agriculture and other productive sectors of our nation’s economy into a position of severe competitive disadvantage with trading partners like China and other nations who will not burden their economies to control carbon emissions.

“Despite inclusion of Chairman Peterson’s hard-fought provisions to reward farmers for carbon offsets and to remove the phony indirect-land-use calculation, this bill should be amended further or defeated.”

More...

"It's just the right thing to do,"

FROM- AP

Vt. farmers cut cows' emissions by altering diets

COVENTRY, Vt. – Vermont dairy farmers Tim Maikshilo and Kristen Dellert, mindful of shrinking their carbon footprint, have changed their cows' diet to reduce the amount of gas the animals burp — dairy cows' contribution to global warming....

read entire article here
More...

Weather worries wheat

FROM- UK Telegraph

Crops under stress as temperatures fall

Our politicians haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, observes Christopher Booker.

For the second time in little over a year, it looks as though the world may be heading for a serious food crisis, thanks to our old friend "climate change". In many parts of the world recently the weather has not been too brilliant for farmers. After a fearsomely cold winter, June brought heavy snowfall across large parts of western Canada and the northern states of the American Midwest. In Manitoba last week, it was -4ºC. North Dakota had its first June snow for 60 years.

There was midsummer snow not just in Norway and the Cairngorms, but even in Saudi Arabia. At least in the southern hemisphere it is winter, but snowfalls in New Zealand and Australia have been abnormal. There have been frosts in Brazil, elsewhere in South America they have had prolonged droughts, while in China they have had to cope with abnormal rain and freak hailstorms, which in one province killed 20 people.

None of this has given much cheer to farmers. In Canada and northern America summer planting of corn and soybeans has been way behind schedule, with the prospect of reduced yields and lower quality. Grain stocks are predicted to be down 15 per cent next year. US reserves of soya – used in animal feed and in many processed foods – are expected to fall to a 32-year low.

In China, the world's largest wheat grower, they have been battling against the atrocious weather to bring in the harvest. (In one province they even fired chemical shells into the clouds to turn freezing hailstones into rain.) In north-west China drought has devastated crops with a plague of pests and blight. In countries such as Argentina and Brazil droughts have caused such havoc that a veteran US grain expert said last week: "In 43 years I've never seen anything like the decline we're looking at in South America."

In Europe, the weather has been a factor in well-below average predicted crop yields in eastern Europe and Ukraine. In Britain this year's oilseed rape crop is likely to be 30 per cent below its 2008 level. And although it may be too early to predict a repeat of last year's food shortage, which provoked riots from west Africa to Egypt and Yemen, it seems possible that world food stocks may next year again be under severe strain, threatening to repeat the steep rises which, in 2008, saw prices double what they had been two years before.

There are obviously various reasons for this concern as to whether the world can continue to feed itself, but one of them is undoubtedly the downturn in world temperatures, which has brought more cold and snow since 2007 than we have known for decades.

Three factors are vital to crops: the light and warmth of the sun, adequate rainfall and the carbon dioxide they need for photosynthesis. As we are constantly reminded, we still have plenty of that nasty, polluting CO2, which the politicians are so keen to get rid of. But there is not much they can do about the sunshine or the rainfall.

It is now more than 200 years since the great astronomer William Herschel observed a correlation between wheat prices and sunspots. When the latter were few in number, he noted, the climate turned colder and drier, crop yields fell and wheat prices rose. In the past two years, sunspot activity has dropped to its lowest point for a century. One of our biggest worries is that our politicians are so fixated on the idea that CO2 is causing global warming that most of them haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, with all the implications that has for whether we get enough to eat.

It is appropriate that another contributory factor to the world's food shortage should be the millions of acres of farmland now being switched from food crops to biofuels, to stop the world warming, Last year even the experts of the European Commission admitted that, to meet the EU's biofuel targets, we will eventually need almost all the food-growing land in Europe. But that didn't persuade them to change their policy. They would rather we starved than did that. And the EU, we must always remember, is now our government – the one most of us didn't vote for last week.

More...

CYBER WAG - crop killer!

CYBER WAG (computer generated Wild Ass Guess)

Not content with killing polar bears, various animal species and ice caps, our computer modellers have been unleashed on crops throughout Africa.

The purveyors of all things alarmist (Reuters in this case) bring us the sad news "Climate change threatens African farmland -study". After I recovered from the shock that climate change was threatening an African farmland study, I read the article.

All that you need to know to identify this as an official CYBER WAG attack is found in the following paragraph:

Using climate models, they determined that if carbon emissions remain high by 2050, the number of reliable crop growing days would fall below 90 for almost 1 million square kilometers of arid and semi-arid lands in Africa.

A million square kilometers, or killometers in CYBER WAG lingo, gone in one quick computer run! Zippo, gonzo, zap. It is just a matter of time before this study (If it survives climate change) will be used for further CYBER WAG attacks on humans and animals who depend on these crops for survival, mark my word.

But as bad as this is, it may not tell the entire story, it may be worse! CYBER WAG needs to be fed in order to determine the full impact.

INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR MORE ACCURACY

The study pinpointed areas in Africa where small farmers would be best served by transitioning more of their enterprise to livestock than crops.

But much remains unknown about local impacts of climate change as current climate science and models today are best suited for regional studies, the researchers said.

"There is currently a mismatch between the kind of localized climate change impact information that is urgently needed, and what can objectively be supplied," the study said.

Investment to improve the accuracy of climate models could help groups determine the communities most at risk from global warming, the researchers said.

We used to believe that if we continued to feed CYBER WAG, they would lay off a bit. But it appears the tribute payments only feed the mad modellers appetite to destroy more of the planet. Will it ever end?


More...

Common Sense down on the farm

picture- "Morning Surprise" by Terry Redlin


"...the bill "does not adequately provide for alternative sources of energy that will 'plug the hole' created when fossil -fuel costs escalate dramatically."

FROM-The Rural Blog
Farm Bureau opposes climate-change bill; Farm Foundation schedules carbon-policy forum June 2

The American Farm Bureau Federation declared its opposition to the Waxman-Markey climate change bill this week, saying it "ignores the complex needs of American agriculture." AFBF President Bob Stallman said the bill "is laden with so many policy prescriptions that its impact on the U.S. is almost impossible to measure and evaluate. We can be certain of some things, however – it will increase our operating costs and reduce our competitiveness abroad.

”More specifically, Farm Bureau said the bill "does not adequately provide for alternative sources of energy that will 'plug the hole' created when fossil -fuel costs escalate dramatically.More... Farm Bureau is also concerned about the potential impact on fertilizer prices, given their sensitivity to natural gas costs." (Read more) Farm Bureau and the National Corn Growers Association "have come out against the bill for failing to provide mechanism for farmers to sell carbon credits on the market and for not adequately providing for alternative sources of energy when fossil fuel costs escalate," reports Rita Jane Gabbett of MeatingPlace. (Read more)
The next Farm Foundation Forum, 9 to 11 a.m. June 2 at the National Press Club in Washington, will be on carbon polucy options and implications for agriculture. Presenters will include Iowa farmer Varel Bailey and Jon Scholl of the American Farmland Trust. Invitations have been extended to the energy industry, the livestock industry and greenhouse-gas researchers. To attend, RSVP by noon CDT Friday, May 29, to Mary Thompson, Farm Foundation communication director. There is no charge to participate.

Which way do we go?

"Efforts to store carbon by planting trees, for instance, may have mixed consequences because tree cover may increase local warming."

FROM-COP15

Farming keeps the earth cool

New research suggests that farmed fields can counter global warming – and that planting trees to store carbon should be approached with caution.

Fields have a chilling effect on the earth. This "cool farms factor" has mitigated the effects of global warming across the entire continental US, and could continue to do so, new research suggests.

Using a high-resolution climate model, Noah Diffenbaugh of Purdue University in Indiana has calculated how agriculture has influenced the climate in the United States. He found that farming has caused a significant cooling across the US.

The model found that the farmed scenario was 0.19 degrees Celsius cooler than the "wild" scenario. Furthermore, areas covered by mixed fields were 0.36 degrees cooler, and the air above irrigated crops was 1.52 degrees cooler.

Diffenbaugh says that if it weren't for the expansion of agriculture during the 20th century, the US may have felt the effects of global warming more than it has.

The question is how land use will change. Efforts to store carbon by planting trees, for instance, may have mixed consequences because tree cover may increase local warming. This needs to be taken into consideration when deciding how to reward forestation efforts, he says.

read more-


New Scientist: Farmers' crops keeping US cool

More...

The Real Danger

This story from Tulsa World exemplifies the real danger. While our erstwhile climate science community is preparing the world for the scourge of global warming, the real killer is the cold. What a period of extended cooler climate such as occurred during the little ice age would do to our modern world is far more a threat than all the fantasies propagated by the media and a large portion of the science community.

The sad part is that they will never be held to account for their shortsighted quest for acclaim and funding, future generations of scientist will be left to bear the brunt of the publics disdain of science.

"Soothsayers have always tried to persuade people that they could predict the future. What is new today is that the incredibly powerful tools of science - nuclear weapons, flights to the moon, computers, iPods - have such huge implications for civilization that they may contain the seeds of their own destruction.

Thirty years from now, we will probably not be interested in today’s specific computer forecasts, but we may have lost our faith in science, a deeper and, to me, a more important problem."

Daniel Botkin



via Climate Depot

Cold snap may have broken wheat crop
The freezes of April 6 and 7 may have cut this year's production


Last week's freezes have devastated Oklahoma's winter wheat and could end up killing 40 percent to 60 percent of the crop.

The freezes of April 6 and 7 dropped temperatures into the low teens in some parts of the state, damaging the maturing plants, especially in southeastern Oklahoma.
Agriculture researchers and officials say many farmers were hit so hard that it will be unprofitable to harvest their fields this year.
"It was just bad timing because most of the plants were a week or so ahead of schedule," said Jeff Edwards, an assistant professor at Oklahoma State University.

Oklahoma's farmers usually start harvesting wheat at the end of May.

The state's other grains, vegetables and fruits were spared from significant damage, officials said.

An unusual winter made the late freeze particularly harmful.

Warm weather helped wheat to grow faster, putting the plants closer to the harvest stage but making them more susceptible to cold weather.

Officials from OSU and the Oklahoma Wheat Commission spent the last week surveying the damage in various parts of the state.

In an average year, Oklahoma will harvest some 120 million to 130 million bushels of wheat, Edwards said, but the freeze will likely reduce that to below 90 million bushels.

Oklahoma farmers planted some 5.6 million acres of wheat in 2007 for a value of $617 million. Producers will be fortunate to get anywhere near that figure this year, officials said.
Edwards is recommending that some farmers consider plowing under their fields and planting summer crops like sorghum or soybeans.

Mike Schulte, executive director of the Oklahoma Wheat Commission, said most wheat fields in the southeastern part of the state had 90 percent of the crop destroyed.

Only areas close to the Kansas border avoided most of the damage, he said.

"Its real bad out there," Schulte said. "In some places it's a total loss."