Picking a Secretary of USDA

The Post has an article on USDA (food safety is the top priority according to GAO) and a sidebar for three candidates for Secretary: Gov. Sebelius, Charles Stenholm, and Dennis Wolff. Interesting choice for Obama, not that I know any of the candidates or their capacity, but when does ignorance stop a blogger?

Stenholm would be strongest in the area of reforming farm programs and reorganizing the county agencies, but he doesn't exactly fit Obama's agenda or public face. Nor is there a farm bill on schedule in 2009-12. Neither Wolff nor Sebelius would bring any expertise in dealing with Congress. So the choice: take a chance on someone strong who might go off the reservation, or do a figurehead like most previous Secretaries. "Figurehead" is too strong, but IMHO Obama would be wise to go that way--USDA is simply not that important on his priorities.

A Concentration of Wealth in Tomatoes

From Ethicurean [senility approaches, corrected from "Epicurean" to "Ethicurean"], a piece on concentration in growing tomatoes. A portion:

Before World War II, there were commercial growers and canners in many states — including Delaware, Virginia, Utah, New Jersey and New York — and California produced only 20% of the nation’s tomatoes. Thanks to the development of both mechanical harvesting equipment and tomato varieties that can be picked by machine, the number rose to 50% in 1953, and reached 95% in 2007. (The 20% and 50% figures are from the “Oxford Companion to American Food,” the 95% figure is from the Chronicle.) There are several reasons for California’s dominance in the processed tomato business, with the biggest one being a climate that allows a far longer harvest period (90 days vs. 45 days) and is less hospitable to disease because of its low humidity and lack of summer rain.

The Potato Referundum

Via the Blog for Rural America, the Onion on the potato referendum. I can only say, someone at the Onion knows USDA.

(For those who may not be familiar, commodity referendums are one legacy of New Deal programs--essentially a way to cartelize agriculture, if, like Megan McArdle, you're anti New Deal.)

SNAP--Keep Up With the Times

You really should keep up with the good bureaucrats at USDA--don't call it the "food stamp program" any more, call it SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). (Of course, the FNS webmaster didn't change the path to the page.)


(Actually, it wasn't USDA which renamed it, but USDA's masters in Congress, as part of the 2008 farm bill.)

Unrealistic Expectations--Pollan

A delayed reaction to Professor Pollan, who opined at Grist:

The challenge is to align the goals of federal agricultural policy with the goals of public health, energy, and environmental policy (for the first time), and no one cabinet department has an interest in making those connections. The USDA is largely a captive of the farm lobby and can't be counted on to protect the public health when formulating farm policy; responsibility for food safety is, absurdly and fatally, divided between different agencies (with USDA charged with protecting meat; the FDA fruits and vegetables); jurisdiction over the environmental regulation of agriculture is similarly divided among the USDA, EPA and FDA. This balkanized approach suits the food industry, naturally, but it jeopardizes food security while making real reform impossible. Only when we have in place a White House adviser with the power to coordinate policies across the various relevant agencies and Cabinet departments will the government truly begin to represent the interests of America's eaters in its policies.

My opinion: For the first three sentences, Pollan is operating in the real world, although I'd quibble with some of his assertions. (For example, the "farm lobby" is splintered into many pieces, each trying to capture its own agency, but yes, it mostly represents the interests of producers, not of consumers.) The last sentence is where he gets unreal. USDA and FDA operate within their legislative authorities, as pushed by the various interest groups--i.e., the organic people push their legislation, etc. Because there's no legislative basis for his adviser and no support for establishing one there's no prospect this will work. The best an adviser could do is coordinate legislative and budget proposals, which is already the job of OMB.

Turkey Weights--I Was Wrong

I posted yesterday on turkey weights. I blew it, by being too quick to be critical and jumping to assumptions. The issue was "turkey weight"; what I failed to imagine was the difference between liveweight and dressed weight. Apparently the chart and article I criticized was relying on liveweight figures, not dressed. See this link, which I reached from Freakonomics. I should have thought of NASS stats, here.

My apologies to Mr. Madrigal.

I still wonder about the figures, but he reported them correctly. One thing he didn't note: the increase in price per pound for turkey over the last 30 years?

Zero.

The (Un)Importance of Being USDA Secretary

Oscar Wilde's play culminates in the hero's realization of the importance of being earnest/Earnest; the greens need to learn the unimportance of being Secretary of Agriculture.

(I write after a few weeks of concern and agitation over who Obama's Secretary will be. The latest is this post at DTN: will animal rights be a top concern or will the Secretary roll over for GM crops? The first, of course, was the omnipresent Michael Pollan in the Times Magazine, on whose piece I've drafted many more comments than I've posted.)

But the reality is, in my experience, the Secretary:

1. can't create a new program, only Congress can do that.
   
2. can't move money from one program to another, only the appropriations committees can do that.
3. can't reorganize the department, only Congress can do that (just ask Secretary Glickman, who spent much time and effort to prepare a combination of the administrative support personnel for NRCS, FSA, and RD, only to have Congress veto it).
4. can't close offices (without time consuming negotiation and consultation with the affected member of Congress)
5. can't talk to the public, without telling Congress first (okay, that's an exaggeration--the prohibition is not across the board).
6. can try to sway Congress when the farm bill is being prepared (ask Venneman and Schafer how well that worked), unfortunately there's no farm bill due during Obama's term of office.
7. is limited in what he or she can direct USDA employees to do (like proposing user fees).

See Sec. 712 of the Agricultural Appropriations Act for an example:'"a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds which--

(1) creates new programs;

(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;

(3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted;

(4) relocates an office or employees;

(5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or

(6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities presently performed by Federal employees; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds."

(I admit, I exaggerate a bit--John Block in 1983 created a big expensive program, using CCC inventories, without Congressional authority and by strong arming the attorneys. But we don't have big CCC inventories now and Bush gave strong use of executive power a bad name.)

A Concentration of Wealth in Hogs

I was struck by 1 and 2.

Try out these on your friends. MO livestock economist Ron Plain’s market facts:
1) The smallest 75% of U.S. hog farms produced 1% of the hogs.
2) The largest 1% of U.S. hog farms produced 75% of the hogs.
3) Since 1930 the sow inventory has declined 42%, but pork production rose 221%
4) Jan-Sept pork production was 17.25 bil. lbs, up 9.3% over Jan-Sept of 2007.
5) Jan-Sept pork exports were 3.62 bil. lbs, up 65.8% over Jan-Sept of 2007.
6) Jan-Sept pork imports were 614 mil. lbs, down 16.6% from Jan-Sept of 2007.
7) Pork, beef, and poultry production will all drop in 2009, the first time since 1973.
8) In 2007, swine herds with 1-99 head averaged 7.53 pigs per litter.
9) In 2007, swine herds with 5,000+ head averaged 9.28 pigs per litter.

Turkey Weights and Misleading Science

[This post was wrong. See here.]

Here's a link to an article by one Alexis Madrigal that disses the modern turkey, modern corn, and modern potatoes as oversized, oversweet, and genetically "hacked". It has a chart, supposedly illustrating the growth of the average turkey. According to the chart, in the 1920's the average turkey weighed about 13 pounds, today's turkey weighs about 29 pounds. There's no source cited for the chart (though mousing over shows the chart title to be "new_sweet_chart"??

A brief session of Googling doesn't turn up any facts, so I'm not sure what they are, except Mr. Madrigal's chart and statements are misleading, at the least, and most likely wrong. Let's start with the concept: "average turkey". My wife and I have been having turkey since 1980 or so, each time we buy the same size bird: 10-12 pounds. Given the American household has shrunk in size over the years, I think it's safe to guess that "average turkey weight" does not mean: the average weight of turkeys sold at retail in the U.S.

So, could "average turkey weight" mean the genetic potential--what would a turkey weigh if it grew to its maximum weight? Well, probably not. From the heritage turkey page at Rodale comes this paragraph:

Heritage birds command a premium (consider a store-bought turkey at 39 cents per pound) because of their genetic value and added labor costs. They are, on average, much smaller birds (10 lbs for hens, 12 lbs for toms) that take twice as long to mature as the Large Whites. Still, Frank Reese, an experienced heritage turkey farmer (Good Shepherd Ranch in Linsborg, Kansas, www.reeseturkeys.com), estimates that if done properly, growers can make a nice profit of $60 to $80 per bird. Thanks to careful selection and breeding, his heritage birds average 18 - 33 pounds. (Reese and other heroes in conserving heritage turkeys are recognized by the ALBC at www.albc-usa.org/alerts/Oct13_03.htm)

So heritage birds can reach 33 pounds. (The Diestel Family Turkey Ranch advertises such birds.)

For a turkey grower I'd guess the two metrics most important are weight gained per pound of food and age to marketable size. Madrigal does give a sentence to this, crediting modern turkeys with being very efficient at converting grain to meat and being twice as fast to market. But it's a lot more sexy to say: "Science Supersized Your Turkey Dinner" than to say: "Science Made Your Thanksgiving Dinner Both Energy-Efficient and Bland." (Less grain for the same meat is more energy efficient.) By focusing on size rather than efficiency, Mr. Madrigal skews his piece.

Visit DC

We've a new attraction, according to the Post's Marc Fisher, the visitor center at the U.S. Capitol. He says:

"After too many recent experiences with empty, ahistorical and timid attractions such as the World War II Memorial, the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian and this month's remake of the National Museum of American History, Washington needed a winner on the culture front. Now it has one."

Open for business on Dec. 2.