The Ag Secretaries Speak

I caught part of a rerun of the panel of ex-Secretaries of USDA, sponsored by Farm Journal, on C-Span. Some thoughts:

• there's not much here to please the greens. As you might expect, I find confirmation here for my ideas--the limited power of USDA administrators to act as Michael Pollan or others would wish. Money, and therefore OMB, is the prime factor.
  
• these are politicans, not administrators. Instead of the President saying "do X", and their saying: "yes sir, right away". they are operators. There were discussions of allying with other Secretaries, with members of the President's staff, of Congress in order to get one's way. There were a couple instances of a Secretary (Block and Glickman) admitting they worked around OMB (meaning, at least in theory, the President).
• the political mindset showed in discussions of possible reorganization. Most seemed to accede with Yeutter that it's just too difficult, that it's better to try to get good people, that people make more of a difference than boxes on an organization chart. On that point, I disagree. As politicians, these Secretaries have a short term focus. As administrators, you should have a longer term focus. (In their defense, most of them had a deputy secretary who focused on day-to-day management and the nitty-gritty of organization.)

The discussion did cause me to wonder whether John Podesta is doing a boot camp for the new administration memebers, just to go through, for those without experience, the process of moving regulations, getting a budget approved, coordinating message management, working with the Hill, etc.

Prairie Potholes Vanishing

The receding glaciers of the ice age left behind blocks of ice (think icebergs in the ocean) which, when melted, formed prairie potholes in the Dakotas and MN. These depressions were wet, with the degree of water varying according to the weather from year to year. Dan Morgan writes in the Post that they're now being converted to cropland.

I'd debate the story title [Updated to clarify--Morgan points the finger at subsidized crop insurance, which is valid, but most people, as did I originally and as did all the comments at Volokh.com, will think first of direct payments], but more importantly I wonder about NRCS and the swampbuster provisions (which make people who drain wetlands ineligible for program benefits). If Morgan is right, either I misunderstand the current situation on wetlands or there's something else going on.

Nobel Don't Guarantee Good English

Via Greg Mankiw from an AP story:

Nobel economics prize winner Paul Krugman said Sunday that the beleaguered U.S. auto industry will likely disappear.

"It will do so because of the geographical forces that me [sic] and my colleagues have discussed," the Princeton University professor and New York Times columnist told reporters in Stockholm.

In Krugman's honor, I'm establishing a new label.

And a Merry Christmas to All

Erin's Christmas letter goes for the verities.

Transparency in FSA (Recommendations for FSA)

Obama's "Your Seat at the Table" is posting the documents they receive from groups who meet with the incoming team. Here's recommendations for FSA, vis a vis CRP. Basically, bigger and better CRP, go for "sodsaver" and improve conservation compliance are the big 3 recommendations from some conservation groups.

I find it interesting the groups are hesitant about the farm bill--they want a broader consensus about the risks and benefits of reopening the 2008 Farm bill. They also don't provide any tentative cost scoring, nor any ways of possibly getting the money under pay/go financing rules.

My sense is that they're talking a few billion dollars here.

Needed-- an Agricultural "Wire"

My wife and I have gotten into the HBO series "The Wire", set in drug-ridden Baltimore. We're midway through the second season, but from reading critics I understand Ed Burns and David Simon, the creators, each season focus their drama on the operations of one Baltimore institution. The second season is the Baltimore docks (containers). Some dock workers are involved in smuggling (drugs and prostitutes--which provides some drama), there's carry over from the first season's Westside drug gangs with Omar and Stringer Bell, there's father and son tensions. Along the way you get an understanding, which feels realistic, about how this section of the world operates. That's good, that's very good.

How does this tie to agriculture? At Down to Earth Sara mourned the growing disconnect between consumers and farmers. I'm not sure about the "growing" bit--the stereotype of the city slicker ignorant of the country and the country bumpkin who can outwit the city man has roots in the far past. But, after reading "Musings from a Stonehead", who was asked whether you couldn't have pork without killing the pig, anything that contributes to mutual understanding is good. (Even, as with The Wire, it involves lots of profanity and politically incorrect language.)

Some Days You Just Can't Win

USDA takes heat from commenters for being TOO green. (Proposing too restrictive rules on grazing days needed to qualify as "organic". I'm a bit bemused by those concerned when cows are out in the cold and rain. Granted, it lowers efficiency, but it's natural,
and isn't that what we're aiming at? And, as I used to tell my soft-hearted (non-farm reared wife) after all they have natural leather coats.)

Payment Limitation

Two DTN columns relating to payment limitation:

• Grassley wants tighter limits
• Chambliss' reelection means a vigorous opponent to changes.
  

Misleading Graphs

Having screwed up on turkey weights, I return to the fray with a graph from Sebastian Mallaby's oped in today's Post. He argues for government intervention in the short term, but for cutbacks and wiser spending in the long term. He has a graph showing the percentage government expenditures are of the total economy, going from 20 percent in 1947 to 33 percent today.

But during the Ford administration we first breached the 30 percent level (guessing, about 32 percent) and since Reagan we've been in the 30's (except 1999). So for 25 or more years the size of government hasn't increased. That's not the inference one would draw from his words.

The CSA Experience

The Post had a writer join a CSA this year, doing weekly reports on her experience. Wednesday she interviewed other participants and posted her thoughts and on the year. She and they are not uniformly favorable:

• waste happens--too much produce at awkward times (vacations) or which doesn't please (beets)
• guilt (knowing the farmer creates a personal tie and personal obligations)
• risk (IMO this year had reasonable weather, though that may reflect poor memory) CSA's aren't uniformly successful--you take your chances.
  

So next year, her family is switching to a farmers' market.

Seems to me it encapsulates the trade-offs in CSA's. For a rigid personality (like me) who hates the unexpected and change, it's not a good choice. For someone who is more experimental, it may be. (Or maybe it's a question of age--the younger are more accepting but time leads you into ruts.)

How Soon They Forget--John Block

Agweb has an excerpt from a symposium with eight former Ag Secretaries:

“A Conversation with the Secretaries” was held Dec. 3 in Washington D.C., in conjunction with Farm Journal and Farm Foundation. Pictured, from left, Steve Custer, Farm Journal Publisher; Charlene Finck, Farm Journal President Editorial; Roger Bernard, Farm Journal Washington and Policy Editor; Michael Johanns, former secretary 2005 to 2007; Anne Veneman, former secretary 2001 to 2005; Dan Glickman, former secretary 1995 to 2001; Michael Espy, former secretary 1993 to 1994; Clayton Yeutter, former secretary 1989 to 1991; John Block, former secretary 1977 to 1981; Neil Conklin, Farm Foundation President; Sheldon Jones, Farm Foundation Vice President; and Mary Thompson, Farm Foundation Director of Communications.

John Block was Reagan's first Ag secretary, Bob Bergland was Carter's.

Ever Hear of Dean Foods?

Neither have I, but here's a long article in the Bangor newspaper on the Maine milk industry. And it mentions Dean Foods:

The report says that Dean Foods now controls around 40 percent of the nation’s fluid milk supply, 60 percent of all organic milk and 90 percent of soy milk. Consumers may not see Dean’s label in the dairy case, but the company owns or sells Borden, Garelick, Hershey’s fluid chocolate milk, Land O’Lakes, Verifine, Horizon Organic, Organic Cow of Vermont, Silk Soy milk and several dozen others.

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.

Problems in Enforcing the $2.5 Million AGI

A commenter suggests:"Why not, as with deceased people, pass a data file over to IRS and let them tell us any ID that got a FSA payment that is over the AGI limit. That way FSA does not have the data but IRS can tell us potential issues with ID's that have earned too much money to be AGI eligible. This should become easier as we move to direct attribution."

Seems to be a good question, but there's a catch. (Rule number X, there's always a catch.) Once you die, your Social security number is no longer private (just ask the genealogists who look at the Social Security death index). So SSA has no problem telling FSA who is dead. By contrast, periodically IRS gets beaten about the head and body about its abuses of taxpayers and releases of their information. (I believe Senator Grassley may even have been on the Senate committee that did the last set of hearings in 1998 or so.) Indeed, before I left USDA the Republicans (probably) passed a law putting big obstacles in sharing data among agencies. That act has probably been modified since 9/11.

So, IRS is very very reluctant to bend the laws restricting access to individual earnings data. I haven't located the description of their system of records required under the Privacy Act, but presumably they'd have to modify it to authorize this processing. That's assuming President-elect Obama calls in an attorney and says it's got to be done. (Of course, then you'd have all the Republicans calling him down for doing something the Democrats complained about when Bush/Cheney did the same thing.)

PETA, Animal Agriculture, and Cruelty

Spokesmen for animal agriculture fight back, here and here.

And Charley Stenholm, mentioned as a possible secretary of agriculture, is very concerned: "He makes the point that this anti-livestock and anti-technology crusade sweeping the country is far more detrimental than some people perceive."

The $2.5 Million Story, Followup

And here's what the AP made of the GAO report on payments made to people earning over $2.5 mill. And here's the Des Moines Register.

Brings back memories of the stories before Congress made foreign aliens ineligible (mostly) for program payments (was that in 1985 or before?).

Just as a bonus I'll throw in a URL to a Reuters story (at EWG) about the job faced by Obama's USDA appointee.

Bush and Records

Interesting interview at NextGov over e-mail records here. One excerpt:

Fuchs: What happened when the Bush administration came in is that they scrapped the e-mail archiving system [established under the Clinton administration].... and they didn't replace it. They actually did develop a replacement in consultation with National Archives, but they made the decision not to install it. So, for the eight years of the Bush administration, there is no archive of the e-mails that were sent or received within the White House. . . .

Obama Uses Farm Program Payments as Example

From Obama's press conference today:

"Let me give you one example of what I’m talking about. There’s a report today that from 2003 to 2006, millionaire farmers received $49 million in crop subsidies even though they were earning more than the $2.5 million cutoff for such subsidies. If this is true, it is a prime example of the kind of waste I intend to end as President."

He's referring to a GAO report.

I'm rather impressed [I'm sure people are surprised] by the FSA response.

But that's a side issue, and I want to hit two points:

• Part of the problem is that FSA accepts certifications that a person's adjusted gross income is $2.5 million or less, without having routine access to the IRS data which would allow for checking the certifications. As FSA points out, in accepting the GAO recommendation, Congress needs to permit this if they want effective administration.
• Another part is that legal entities "farm" and get program payments. So if ABC corporation is half-owned by Joe Croesus and half by John Empty pockets, and Joe is over the $2.5 limit and John isn't, FSA is supposed to make payments to ABC corporation reduced by half (representing Joe's share). GAO claims (in their response to FSA's comments) that they accounted for this.

As a former FSA employee, I can only imagine the anger I would be feeling--GAO had access to IRS data, which was how they did the report, but refuse (i.e., is not legally permitted) to provide the data to FSA so FSA can efficiently correct the overpayments. Almost a Catch-22, and certainly dispiriting to someone who wants to enforce the law.

Finally, I suspect this is just the beginning of what's going to be a hot and hard time for USDA and FSA.

Old Roads

Just saw an ad for a Wrightstown/Chanceford toll road company, chartered 1871. And I ran across an old map (circa 1890 or so) which showed the bridge on which I had my first car accident (not my fault, I hasten to add) was then a toll bridge.

It's easy to fall into the trap of assuming things have been the way they are, that the government has always done the roads and bridges, but not so.

Rural Children and Marriages

Here's a study showing that times have changed--the percentage of rural children living in 2-parent households has dropped over the last years and is now slightly lower than that for metropolitan (non-rural children). Hat tip--Rural Information Center

Just as a guess, given that the percentage increased in central cities, I suspect much of the change reflects the impact of immigration.

Women, Politics, and Republicans

Maybe the Republicans are doomed to minority status. The Christian Science Monitor has an assessment of how women did in the 2008 elections (in brief, inched upwards). A couple factoids they don't connect, but I do:

Vermont and New Hampshire are two of the top three states in percentage of women in the state legislature (NH's senate is majority women). South Carolina has no women in its senate. No Republican Representatives in New England.

The Republicans, as befits the "conservative" party, is more resistant to social innovations, like women in politics. That's why Sarah Palin is so interesting.

Time for a Convoy System

The Post has an article on the pirate problem off Somalia.

I always loved military history, and the Horatio Hornblower novels. (Jack Aubrey was good, but Horatio was better.) That tells me the answer is the convoy system. That's always been the response to raiders, whether pirates and privateers in the 18th century or submarines in the 20th. As long as tankers and cargo ships sail independently, the advantage is on the pirate side. Start convoys and the advantage swings, particularly if you can put up air cover (as in unmanned drones).

Continuity or Change?

Does a reformer do better by doing a "big bang", lots of big change fast, or by persistence--grinding it out, 3 yards and a cloud of dust as they used to say about Woody Hayes at Ohio State? We've elected a President and the focus is on his first 100 days. Two pieces in the Post today argue, at least in the context of education, for persistence and continuity.

A teacher in Fairfax county recounts the broken promises of the 90's--he qualified for bonus pay after a long process, but the pay raises he was to receive soon evaporated under the pressure of tight budgets and the loss of the people who pushed the bonus pay initiative.

And a former superintendent of the Arlington schools argues, using examples from around the country, that worthwhile gains come from a marathoner, not a sprinter.

I've sympathy with both--I've seen an incoming administration discard the initiatives of the incumbents because of "not invented here" syndrome. But it's also true that bureaucrats, like me, are creatures of the rut. IMHO you need a mix of personalities with common goals--someone to stir the pot and someone to smooth hurt feelings--who can last for 10 years or so.

They're Playing That Tune Again

From Keith Good's Farm Policy, excerpting from a Chris Clayton interview of the House Ag chief:

Mr. Clayton added that, “Peterson wants to reorganize USDA next year that will include emphasizing computer overhauls in major agencies such as the Farm Service Agency and the Risk Management Agency. Peterson said whoever takes the mantle at USDA needs to focus heavily on upgrading the computer systems and using software vendors that understand agricultural lending and risk management.

“Peterson added that he also thinks there are serious changes needed at RMA, particularly regarding how overall policy is created at the agency and implemented between the headquarter in Washington and satellite office in Kansas City, Mo.

Been there, done that, thoroughly disillusioned.

Bottomline--there's too many moving parts in USDA with too little forceful leadership. Add in a group of second-guessers (OMB and GAO, especially) and it's practically impossible to achieve the goals he wants.

Geezer Is Amazed by Advances: Seed Size??

Excerpt from the most recent farmgate:

"If you buy the new Roundup Ready 2 Yield seed beans, you are buying a bag with a specific number of beans inside, not bags with a uniform weight. That is the industry trend, says MO Extension’s Bill Wiebold, who says you will get 140,000 beans, but not necessarily 50 lbs. of seed. Wiebold says a seed size of 2,800/lb. is about average, but seed size will vary by variety and will vary due to environmental conditions.

The constant number of seeds per bag will not be welcomed by those farmers who buy smaller seeds, believing they will be able to plant more acres with fewer bags of seed beans. Those farmers may resist the change, says MO agronomist Bill Wiebold. But he says knowing the number of seeds per bag allows more precise calibration of planters.

The size of seed beans is not as important as yield potential and pest resistance says Wiebold, who says seed size does not affect emergence percentage, seedling vigor, or yield potential. But he says smaller seeds have less reserves, and planting depth is more critical. Read more."

No comment, I'm speechless.

Innovation in DOD, Wikis Even

A piece at Nextgov describes DOD's use of wikis during the Russian/Georgian war.

The Times and Farmers

I missed my hardcopy Times today, but the website has this article talking about Texas farmers who failed to sell their wheat at $10, and the effects now. Some reference to the boom of the 70's., but land prices are less than $1000.

Most Surprising Headline Today

Salt Lake County, Utah, Goes for Obama

From the Post blog.

Mathematical Illiteracy in the AP

From an article on this document from ERS:

50 percent more US children went hungry in 2007

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN – 3 days ago

Some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007, while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately even before this year's sharp economic downtown, the Agriculture Department reported Monday.

The department's annual report on food security showed that during 2007 the number of children who suffered a substantial disruption in the amount of food they typically eat was more than double the 430,000 in 2006 and the largest figure since 716,000 in 1998.

Note the headline is accurate, but the writer is not (i.e 691,000 is not double the 430,000). When you look at the ERS study, the 2005 figure for children was close to the 2007, making me suspicious of the accuracy of the 2006 figure. In general, the ERS study doesn't indicate dramatic changes in "food insecurity".

My Memory Isn't Too Bad

Despite the gloom and doom, I've had the feeling we've had comparable crashes before. Turns out to be true, though this one is faster. And granted the economic situation isn't reflected in this graph.

New Yorker and Food

The New Yorker magazine has its food issue this week. James Surowiecki, their economics correspondent, discusses food prices.

His thesis is that, over the last 20 years or so, agricultural production and marketing systems, particularly in developing countries, have been made more efficient, with fewer agricultural marketing boards, more production driven by the market and less by government subsidy, lower or no levels of government-owned grain reserves, etc. But, while the systems are more efficient, they are more fragile. He writes:

"The old emphasis on food security was undoubtedly costly, and often wasteful. But the redundancies it created also had tremendous value when things went wrong. And one sure thing about a system as complex as agriculture is that things will go wrong, often with devastating consequences."

It's an interesting contrast with Prof. Pollan's thesis which says that government subsidies have distorted production, and made corn cheap.

Farm Bill Blues in the EU Too

The greens were disturbed with the outcome of our 2008 farm bill process. Apparently similar forces are also at work in the EU--apparently the resolution of the EU CAP (common agricultural policy) "health check" debate is for very minor moves of money from income support/direct payments to conservation and minor reductions of the biggest payments.

An Economist Bureaucrat Is Still a Bureaucrat

Brad DeLong has a recommendation for Austan Goolsbee, which reflects his experience in the bureaucracy:

As a non-negotiable condition of his taking the job, Austan should insist on at least his two deputies—the other two members of the CEA—having offices inside the Eisenhower EOB. Six eyes can cover three times as much ground as two, and a surprisingly large share of the business of government is done by wandering around the Eisenhower building and the White House talking to people in hallways (or just hanging out in the Starbucks at 17th and Pennsylvania and talking to whoever comes by

I agree. Things may have changed a little bit with modern technology, but nothing fully replaces hanging out.

Organic and CRP Land

A newspaper account of a meeting on organic agriculture in Minnesota. What strikes me is the speaker's emphasis on the CRP-organic linkage. (Because CRP land has been out of production for years, it probably meets the 3-year requirement (no chemicals) to qualify as organic. )

So the greens might say, if you're getting out of CRP, go organic. But some greens must be a bit ambivalent about the idea, as tilling CRP land would cause a larger carbon footprint. Life is so complicated, it's unfair.

The Demise of Literacy

If this quote is right, not only is the author of a biography of V.S.Naipaul deficient, so too is the NY Time book reviewer and its copy editors:

Even the cameos in Mr. French’s biography are crazily vivid. Here is his hole-in-one description of the editor Francis Wyndham: “Popular, gentle, solitary and eccentric, Wyndham lived with his mother, wore heavy glasses and high-waisted trousers, gave off random murmurs and squeaks and moved with an amphibian gate.”[emphasis added]

My point--"gate" should be "gait" (a manner of walking).

Automated Analysis Isn't Reliable

Via Greg Mankiw, this site tries to analyze a blog in terms of the Myers-Briggs categories.

This blog comes out as ISTJ--Duty Fulfiller:

"The responsible and hardworking type. They are especially attuned to the details of life and are careful about getting the facts right. Conservative by nature they are often reluctant to take any risks whatsoever.

The Duty Fulfillers are happy to be let alone and to be able to work int heir[sic] own pace. They know what they have to do and how to do it."

Unfortunately, my other blog, Harshaw Family, comes out a ESFP--Performer:

"The entertaining and friendly type. They are especially attuned to pleasure and beauty and like to fill their surroundings with soft fabrics, bright colors and sweet smells. They live in the present moment and don´t like to plan ahead - they are always in risk of exhausting themselves.

The[sic] enjoy work that makes them able to help other people in a concrete and visible way. They tend to avoid conflicts and rarely initiate confrontation - qualities that can make it hard for them in management positions"

Not to be too critical--I'm definitely aware of writing differently depending on the blog. And each analysis picks up aspects--I'm averse to confrontation and I try to be careful to get my facts right.

For Those Who Didn't Go to Harvard

Some news to please one's schadenfreude sensor--Harvard's taking big big losses on its endowment.

Burrowing

Understanding Government expresses concern at the Post's report of "burrowing" (i.e., political appointees being converted to career status) in the Interior Department. Personally, it's what one would expect who has been around for several administrations.

Variable Cash Rents and "Actively Engaged"

Farmgate has a post on variable cash rent arrangements. And Farm Policy has excerpts from a discussion of possible changes to the definition of "actively engaged" in farming. Both issues from the 2008 farm bill and its implementation which will create full employment for lawyers, if no one else.

USDA Head

A reasonable assessment of candidates for Secretary of Agriculture at Ethicurean.

I don't take the mention of John Boyd seriously, for secretary, at least--the CQ article referred to suggests a more likely position: state executive director of the FSA Virginia office. He'll get something.

The Past Under Our Feet

The NY Times has an article about Egypt, the hook being the recent discovery of another pyramid, the foundations of which were buried under yards of sand. Given Egypt's long history, the people seem haunted by the past.

Mr. Amin mused: “This deep conviction, ‘Leave it to time, leave it to God, God will resolve it, don’t worry too much, everything will be all right in the end’ — can’t this also be the result of the length of history? When you have a short amount of time, you can’t rely on bad things to be corrected or mistakes to be corrected. But in the long run, things are bound to be all right at the end.”

There's a contrast with our consciousness of history (see my recent post), or lack thereof. Certainly with the election of Obama we think we're progressing, ever onward and upward.

[Added] Strange Maps has a comparison of the Obama vote and the 1860 cotton production--for an example of how the past influences the present.