The Feminization of American AGriculuture

Via Ethicurean, the Christian Science Monitor reports women own almost 50 percent of the farmland in Iowa. And they, some of them, have definite expectations for how the land should be farmed, namely with a concern for conservation and the environment. It's a long story. (I wonder if owners these days feel rich enough to be concerned for these issues, as opposed to maximizing return. Or, is it just a feminine thing?)

Reducing Base Acreage on Federally Owned Land

Here's an article about a change in rules by FSA. I'm not clear on the details. Here's the notice. I remember Mississippi had a bunch of leased land, maybe Corps of Engineer land, maybe between the river and the levee (what's that song--the chevy and the levee) ONe of the big problems in administering a nation-wide program is the variation in timing--different states have different times at which leases change, sometimes, perhaps always governed by laws. It may be DC thought Dec 2008 was early enough, but it may not have been for Mississippi.

In the old days, when Jamie Whitten was the head of the House Appropriations Committee (one of the longest serving Congressmen, though I think Dingel just broke his record) one knew the rule would get changed. I'm not clear the current delegation from MS has that much clout. We'll see.

The Unappreciated Importance of Infrastructure

We take things for granted, things which over time for many people count up. Malcolm Gladwell's new book suggests that Chinese get a leg up on math because the structure of the language in counting is so much more logical than English. (For example, "one two" instead of "twelve"; "two one" instead of "twenty-one".

Another example is the metric system--one of the great Enlightenment ideas which Thomas Jefferson hoped to give to the U.S., but only succeeded in part (i.e., money). See here for some of the friction which results from our failure to adopt it. (The difference between EU metrics and US metrics on airline safety.)

Meanwhile, the Farm Payment Story in Europe...

While Obama initiates a fight against direct payments to farmers with gross income over $250,000, Europe has its own payment system costing about $50 billion (at current exchange rates). Jack Thurston starts an explanation why that's politically unsustainable:

1. the payments started as replacement for subsidies but have been in place for 2 decades
2. most money goes to the biggest farmers with the best land, like Queen Elizabeth II
3. landowners get rich, not working farmers
4. poultry, pig and horticulture people don't get paid
5. the most money often goes to the people who do the least for the environment (i.e, who farm the most intensively)

Most of the above sound as if they could apply to the U.S.

Welcome to DC, Foodies

Via Treehugger:

CBS News Hot Sheet is reporting that Neil Hamilton, an adviser to USDA head Tom Vilsack, was heard saying:

I believe that by this summer there will be a garden – another garden, a vegetable garden – on the White House lawn...I believe the Obamas are committed to that. It’s a big idea, and its gonna happen. During the campaign, going around shaking peoples’ hands, he never got sick once. He was eating well, and it could have to do with having an organic chef with him. This is someone who 'gets' nutrition.

I've got news for you--anyone hoping to garden in DC this year needs to be started already (said smugly as I've turned a majority of my garden space already). And, unless the Park Service has been tending the lawn organically, it will be years before the Obamas can have an organic garden, at least one warranting certification by USDA.

Obama and PART

Some hints of direction on PART from Government Executive:

In addition to eliminating redundant or wasteful payments and programs, the Obama administration plans to "fundamentally reconfigure" the Program Assessment Rating Tool, a questionnaire the Bush administration used to determine which federal programs were effective.

The summary said Obama will address criticisms of PART by opening up the "insular performance measurement process" to the public, Congress and outside experts. The administration pledged to eliminate "ideological performance goals and replace them with goals Americans care about and that are based on congressional intent and feedback from the people served by government programs."

A Clarification from Chris Clayton

At DTN, Chris clarifies that Obama's proposal doesn't cap payments based on Adjusted Gross Income, but on Gross Income. Most of the articles I've seen weren't that specific.

This is going to be fascinating. There's a big difference. Sen. Chambliss and Sen. Johanns (former Sec of USDA) had a go-round on this early in the 2008 farm bill fight (if I recall correctly). Let the bloodletting begin--us geezers need the entertainment (think of Imperial Rome and the gladiators).

(See here for Sen. Johann's release, per Chris.)

[Updated] I'm not sure of the logic here. Seems to me the AGI figure is better than a gross figure so the only thing going with gross gets you is the appeal of hitting the big guy, or at least someone who sounds bigger. That's not a good basis for policy making.

The Fewer the Farmers, the Bigger the Outlook Conference

Here's the fancy program for the annual Agricultural Outlook Forum now underway in DC. (I did a quick search for "organic" in the program and got no hits, but "sustainable" got 5. :-) ) It's grown much more elaborate than when it was in the Jefferson Auditorium in the South Building.

Shout out to Charles Cunningham, who keeps going though he's getting up there. (He retired long before I did and now has his own firm: Charles V. Cunningham, President,
Cunningham Associates, Mineral, Virginia. He must have 55 years in the cotton business. A nice guy.

Obama Budget on Direct Payments

From the budget, page 48:

• Reduce direct Payments. As part of an effort to transition large farms from direct
payments provided to owners of base acres to increased income from revenue derived from emerging markets for environmental services, the President’s Budget phases out direct payments over three years to farmers with sales revenue of more than $500,000 annually. Presently, direct payments are made to even large producers regardless of crop prices, losses, or whether the land is still under production. The program was introduced in the 1996 Farm Bill as a temporary payment scheduled to expire, but was included in the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills. The President wants to maintain a strong safety net for farm families and beginning farmers while encouraging fiscal responsibility. Large farmers are well positioned to replace those payments with alternate sources of income from emerging markets for environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, renewable energy production, and providing clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat. USDA will increase its research and analytical capabilities and conduct Government-wide coordination activities to encourage the establishment of markets for these ecosystem services

I Wonder, Was It an Error

From the President's budget, a note of an error being corrected:

The President supports the implementation of a $250,000* commodity program
payment limit, which will help ensure that payments are made only to those that most need them. To spur the development of small business and value-added agriculture in rural America, the President’s Budget provides $61 million for five Rural Development programs: the rural microentrepreneur assistance program, rural cooperative development grants, value-added producer grants, grants to minority producers, and cooperative research agreements.

* This page corrects an amount erroneously included in the printed
version of A New Era of Responsibility [Note: because the footnote "1" doesn't copy over, I replaced it with "*".

I wonder what was the figure in the print version.