|
|
|
|
|
The Kansas Rural Center publishes a newsletter, Rural Papers, eight to ten times a year. Contributors to KRC receive the newsletter at no cost. Subscriptions are available for $25/year. The newsletter offers practical information on sustainable agricultural practices and profiles of Kansas farmers. It includes timely coverage of farm policy and environmental issues from a state and a national perspective. The newsletter also offers analysis and commentary on developments in industrial agriculture, such as biotechnology and genetic engineering, corporate concentration, and factory livestock production. The editor is Mary Fund. Contact the KRC office for a complimentary copy or a subscription by email at ksrc@rainbowtel.net or call 785/873-3431. The Rural Papers became
available online in pdf format beginning Fall 2006. January/February/March
2008 Rural Papers HIghlights:
1) Energy Bills Drop
Renewable Pretenses: More Coal Plants
Click on the image to
download a pdf copy of this issue! 1) Energy Bills Drop
Renewable Pretenses: More Coal Plants Bucking national trends and the recently polled opinions of most Kansans, supporters of Sunflower Cooperative’s plan for 1400 Mw of new coal-fired electrical plants in southwest Kansas drove simultaneous bills through both houses of the Kansas Legislature. The bills were designed to not only reverse the decision of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Secretary Rod Bremby to deny permits, but to limit KDHE’s future power. Bremby denied the permits last October based on the 11,000,000 tons of annual CO2 which would be released into the atmosphere. The bills were fast-tracked through both the Kansas House and Senate Utilities Committees and were laden with wide-ranging and seemingly green provisions that on closer inspection caused many to question the haste with which the bills were constructed. Many of the provisions for carbon offsets and a solar net-metering program appeared to be ineffectual or not tied to market realities. Interestingly, during opponent testimony, national anti-tax groups showed up, catching the proponents by surprise. Because of the confusion and questions surrounding the bill, the House and Senate leadership, in another surprise move, stripped the bills of all things extraneous to the permit, and to limiting the Secretary’s authority. They then placed the bills into previously considered bills in both chambers, a move known colloquially as a “gut and go”. This technical maneuver prevented full chamber consideration of the bills, leaving that for reconciliation between the houses. The Senate passed its’ bill by a large margin. The House also passed its version by a wide but not veto-proof margin. The Governor is expected to veto the bill likely to emerge from conference committee, so the question remaining at this writing is whether the Republicans can override the veto. Labor unions, initially touted by the bills’ proponents, have made it clear that they support the Governor on this issue and will not “punish” legislators voting to sustain the veto. Legislators and others at the State Capitol report that proponents of the legislation are using harsh, aggressive tactics to sway votes. Tactics reported include quid pro quo deals for votes and possible legislative retaliation against unrelated bills favored by opponents of the bills. Kansas is once again in the spotlight. States near and far, that have made strong policy moves toward renewable energy and stepped up to limit their carbon emissions, watch and wait to see whether Kansas will neutralize their efforts. Kansas remains one of the very few states in the nation with an impressive wind resource, and virtually no progressive policies designed to help rural communities capitalize on it. The energy bills currently at the State Legislature do little to change that. 2) State Labeling Bill
Threatens Consumers and Producers Can of worms or hornet’s nest-- take your pick. SB 595 may be either one or both. Like similar legislation introduced around the country in recent months, the bill purports to protect consumers from misleading labels or advertising. But one does not have to dig far to find that the bill comes from a well-orchestrated campaign by one of agriculture’s biggest players. SB 595 does not mention rBGH or rBST, the synthetic growth hormone agri-business giant Monsanto markets to dairy producers to inject into dairy cows to increase milk production. But the bill would make it illegal for dairy farmers or processors to label their product as “rBGH-free”, or “from cows not treated with the growth hormone rBGH or rBST.” The bill would make it illegal to: 1) label any agricultural product as having a “compositional claim that cannot be supported by laboratory analysis” and 2) to state a “compositional or production-related claim that is supported solely by sworn producer statements, affidavits, or testimonials”. In short, if passed, since there is currently no laboratory test to affirm lack of rBGH and sworn statements could not be used, Kansas consumers concerned about health and safety issues could not be told how their milk is produced, and thus would have no choice in the marketplace. But Monsanto, the sole manufacturer, of rBGH would have an open door to increase sales of their product-- a product that has seen its share of controversy and market decline as more consumers assert their preference to not be guinea pigs. The bill would also call into question or deny use of other types of process based labels, such as pesticide-free, free-range, pasture-fed, antibiotic free, and other marketing labels. Thus the bill would have a broad impact on value-added enterprises and marketing alternatives being pursued by many farmers and ranchers. Background of rBGH Approved in 1993, rBGH’s approval was fraught with controversy, including fired scientists and reporters, and alleged incomplete or suppressed research. Those who follow the research trail of rBGH’s health and safety impacts, (such as Consumers Union and Food and Water Watch) claim that research shows the hormone increases the rates of 16 different medical conditions in cows and that there is substantial evidence that it may increase antibiotic resistance and some cancer rates in humans. The Posilac label (trade name rBGH is sold under) itself warns dairymen that its use may increase mastitis in cows and thus increase the use of antibiotics. Scientific concern over the human and animal health impact resulted in rBGH being banned in 27 European Union countries, Japan, and Canada. In the U.S. it created a market niche for enterprising dairies and responsive processors who saw a marketing opportunity in meeting rising consumer demands. Monsanto has reportedly seen a decline in its profits for rBGH as more processors opt for milk produced without rBGH treatment. Monsanto argues that ‘absence claims” are misleading, because there are no laboratory tests that indicate any difference in the milk from rBGH treated and untreated cows- a claim disputed by some scientists. While existing lab tests do not show a difference between the milk from treated and untreated cows, opponents of rBGH argue that Monsanto’s own studies have shown elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) compared to milk from untreated cows. IGF-1 is a protein hormone found in the milk of all mammals. Bovine and human IGF-1 are identical. The FDA maintains that the IGF-1 from rBGH does not survive digestion, but some scientists disagree. It is a concern because high levels of IGF-1 are associated with increased risks of some cancers. If the FDA is wrong, rBGH does pose a health threat. Changing the rules Early in 2007 Monsanto asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to declare “rBGH-free” or related labels as misleading and rewrite their guidelines regarding non-rBGH milk. Both refused, arguing that existing federal guidelines were adequate, and that food companies may inform consumers in advertising, as in labeling, that they do not use rBGH or rBST. With those letters in hand, Monsanto and some in the dairy industry apparently decided to make an end run around the federal guidelines, and go to the states and ask for state legislation or changes in state rules and regulations. Kansas is one of those states. Kansas hearings In a hearing before the Kansas Senate Agriculture Committee February 26 and 27, both sides presented testimony to a packed hearing room. On day one, supporters of the bill including the Kansas Dairy Association and a representative of AFACT (Americans Farmers for Advancement and Conservation of Technology) a newly organized national group supported by Monsanto, relied on small dairy farmers to carry the load. Supporters argued that they were put at an economic disadvantage by other dairymen and processors using the “rBGH-free” labels. They argued that it implied that milk produced with the artificial growth hormone was unsafe, thus leading to their claim of misleading labeling. The artificial growth hormone, they argued, allows them to remain in business because it increases milk production without related expansion of land for feed grains or additional cows. Dairy processors, though, have begun offering premiums to producers to not use rBGH. The supporters of SB 595 are skeptical that this premium will be enough or will last long enough to help them. Although rBGH labeling issues prompted the bill’s introduction, some conferees made it clear they were ultimately concerned with more than this one issue. Duane Simpson of the Kansas Grain and Feed Dealers Association stated that conventional agriculture using modern agricultural practices is increasingly under pressure at the grocery store due to misleading labels. We don’t want major grocery chains pushing conventional farmers out of business, he argued. Although Simpson and others claimed no problems with the certified organic label, they did express skepticism about consumer’s preferences stating that organic food is no healthier than conventionally raised food, implying that consumers are just foolish to pay higher prices for organic. Carrol Campbell, Winfield Kansas dairy farmer and co-chair of AFACT, stated, “We consider this a pivotal issue. If we allow activist pressure to take this {rBGH} away from us, where will it stop?” He went on to say this is “not just about rBST but all technology.” Opponents to SB 595 testified not only on rBGH issues but on a number of other labels the bill would affect. Opponents included Good Natured Family Farms who currently represent 100 farmers in Missouri and Kansas marketing 27 labeled products, the Community Mercantile of Lawrence, Ks. and the Topeka Food Co-op who sell non-rBGH milk from local dairies, Shatto’s Dairy, a 250 cow non-rBGH-using dairy who bottles its own milk near Kansas City, Kansas Farmers Union, Kansas Organic Producers, and Kansas Rural Center. All basically argued that labels are a consumer issue, and that the bill takes away a consumers right to know. Absence claims are allowed by current law, and process verifiable claims are also legal. Some also argued with the assumptions of health and safety issues. In addition, the Kansas Livestock Association testified against the bill as it might impact some of their members’ meat labeling enterprises. They also questioned the bill’s impact on the impending country of origin labeling law. And finally the Kansas Department of Agriculture submitted written testimony that the bill was too broad as written, and they were concerned about the impact on free market economy. As this goes to press, the bill is waiting to be worked by the Senate Agriculture Committee. It is unlikely it will survive as originally written, but how it will be changed, if it will be dropped, or referred to a summer interim study committee, remains to be seen. In the meantime, Kansas consumers and producers have received what may be the first shot fired across a sustainable food future’s bow. 3) The Small Farmer
Commentary: “Sound Science” or Whose Science? I grew up on a small dairy farm. When I say small, I mean we never milked more than maybe 20 cows, strictly Grade B. But I know a little about dairying. I know that my mother waited for the milk check to buy groceries and pay the bills. That check provided the only steady cash flow on our small diversified farm. That background helps me empathize with the dairy farmers who recently came before the Kansas Senate Agriculture Committee testifying on SB 595- the bill that would ban “non-rBGH” labels on milk. (See related article) Their biggest concern appeared to be their bottom line. They claim that use of the artificial growth hormone allows them to increase milk production without buying more land and without more cows. In a world of decreasing dairy farm numbers, they fear losing their livelihood. This fear I understand. The dairy farmers using rBGH cannot be faulted for wanting to save their farms. But they, and the other proponents of rBGH use, can be faulted for not asking the right questions and for blind allegiance to a corporation that owes them nothing. During testimony, supporters of the bill dubbed opponents as “mouse-clicking activists” foolish enough to spend more dollars on exactly the same milk product, basing their decisions on emotion rather than “sound science.” SB 595 is about labeling law and preventing misleading claims. I am all for that. No one wants lies and misstatements. If there are problems with labels, then we- meaning farmers, processors, and government- need to address them. But when you throw around the term “sound science” you’d better know whose bed you are jumping into. The term “sound science” has little if anything to do with objective, reliable scientific research, or reason, as I am sure the dairy farmers who testified assumed. Even a short investigation found consensus that the term is used in public policy debates when one side says its’ science is “sound” and the other side’s is “junk”. The attempts of some neutral bodies to declare “sound science” as “reliable knowledge obtained by objective, logical and accepted systematic methods...” cannot wash away the origins of the term or the fingerprints of the industries behind it. For example, according to an article in the American Journal of Public Health (and other sources as well), when the tobacco industry’s lack of credibility (after discovery of decades of suppressed and derailed research about tobacco’s health risks), they developed “sound science” coalitions with other industries opposed to regulation to support positions similar to theirs (smoker’s rights etc.). The article points to a sophisticated public relations campaign developed by tobacco company Philip Morris to promote “good epidemiology practices” to “shape the standards of scientific proof to make it impossible to “prove” that second hand smoke - among other environmental toxins- was dangerous.” The article went on to say “Public health professionals need to be aware that the ‘sound science’ movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients.” So while this “mouse-clicking” activist may seem annoying and irrational to the supporters of rBGH, I think I have reason to be cynical of the “sound science” claims for rBGH -- a product whose road to approval was fraught with controversy. And I am joined by consumers (and scientists) in 27 European countries, Japan, and Canada who think maybe just maybe we need to err on the side of caution when it comes to the milk we and our families drink. While I empathize with those dairy farmers who feel backed into a corner, I ask them to stop and think. Is a gallon a day per cow of increased production really worth it? Time after time, farmers have been sold one technology after another that is supposed to make us competitive and “save the farm.” Interestingly, after each round of new technology, there have been fewer farms for the next round. Those of us in the sustainable agriculture camp are as pro-technology as anyone. But we want to be able to decide what technologies are right for us, and certainly as consumers we want the right to choose. As farmers when we turn over our thinking to those corporations who sell us the inputs, we might as well hand over the deed to the farm. 4) Extending the Grazing
Season Featured at Conference Assaria, Ks. - Even though it is was the middle of a tough winter, around a hundred farmers participated in the annual winter grazing conference hosted by the Kansas Grazers Association. Gary Kilgore, a recently retired K-State Extension Specialist, spent most of the day talking with grazers about forage options to extend their grazing season. “As a grazer, your commodity is forage. And we’re pretty doggone lucky to have the number of forages we have available in Kansas,” concluded Kilgore. These forage options give farmers a way to graze throughout the four seasons of the year. “The one thing I want you to take home,” said Kilgore, “is to match the availability of forages to meet the nutritional needs of your animals.” For many farmers, this means combining a mix of cool season and warm season forages throughout the year. Kilgore devised a forage calendar to help farmers plan to extend the grazing season. When looking at these options, farmers should select forages best adapted to an individual farm’s soil and climate conditions. As an example, Kilgore compared K-State Bermuda grass research on trials near Ottawa and Parsons. The Ottawa trials produced 1.5 tons less than similar trials near Parsons even though the Ottawa plots had superior soils. After looking at the weather data, the shorter growing season near Ottawa caused the lower production. Bermuda grass produced less in southwestern Kansas under irrigation compared to dry land production in Parsons. The added moisture didn’t compensate for the cooler night time temperatures limiting growth in southwest Kansas. When a farmer is considering new forages, Kilgore recommended seeking out reliable information that is backed by scientific research. If you hear information from another farmer, be sure to put it in the context of the specific conditions of the soil, weather and management of that individual farm suggested Kilgore. During the question and answer session, farmers asked about interseeding forages in pastures to both reduce fertilizer costs and to improve the summer grazing conditions. While Kilgore recommended a variety of legumes, he advised choosing annual Korean lespedeza in most plantings because it has the ability to persist in the pasture due to its natural reseeding ability and its quick response to rainfall. Kilgore recommends leaving six inches of lespedeza growth in the fall for reseeding. Since lespedeza seeds late in the growing season, another option is to stop grazing in mid-September until frost to let the lespedeza reseed. Annual lespedeza will establish under lower light conditions so it has a chance to survive under taller native grasses. While lespedeza is a poor performer early in the season, after August lespedeza can outgrow the native grasses. Unfortunately as a legume it only produces enough nitrogen for its own growth. Kilgore recommended applying 15 pounds of seed per acre as a first time planting. If a farmer plants the smaller #2 seed, the rate can be reduced to 10 pounds per acre. Kilgore recommends mixing legumes in cool season pastures. One recommended mix for eastern Kansas is 4 pounds of red clover and 8 pounds of lespedeza broadcasted from mid-February through mid-March. Other legume options include ladino and alsike clovers. In order to get the full benefits of any legume, Kilgore advised, always mix the seed with the recommended inoculant. In the first year of overseeding legumes, Kilgore recommended a rapid grazing rotation during the first three weeks following seed-ling emergence. Flash grazing lets cattle clip off the top of grasses to remove the light competition for the smaller legumes. Kilgore recommended preventing any significant grazing of the legume seedlings for the first 40 days to get them to a good start. If a farmer can drill the legumes in the cool season pasture, it is best to do this before the grass starts to green out. Timing is important since the seedlings need to compete for light and moisture with the established forages. Fescue serves as another complementary forage for eastern Kansas. Fescue is especially adapted for fall stockpiling and winter grazing to reduce expensive winter feeding. Fortunately for Kansas grazers, Max Q fescue, a new and improved Jesup fescue variety, is endophyte friendly improving hardiness and productivity without the toxins often found in Kentucky 31 fescue. Kilgore recommends planting Max Q if you are planting a new stand of fescue. Crab grass is one of the best summer annuals in Kilgore’s experience working with farmers and research trials. Quick-N-Big, a new crabgrass variety developed by R.L. Dalrymple, can emerge sooner and produce more tonnage than the older Red River variety. Kilgore has noticed occasional foxtail problems in crabgrass pastures. One management strategy is to heavily graze the foxtail while it is still tender before heading. This will help give a competitive edge to the growing crabgrass. Another advantage of crabgrass is complementing a summer crabgrass and winter cereal grazing rotation. A tillage operation, usually in spring, helps to create a break between the two forage life cycles. Brad Windholz, a farmer near Marquette, described at the grazing conference how he stockpiles brown midrib forage sorghum for winter grazing. In early July Windholz no-till drills in wheat stubble 15# of brown midrib sorghum seed per acre in 15-20 inch rows. During the winter, Windholz likes to integrate grazing milo stubble, wheat and the stockpiled brown midrib sorghum. He will strip graze the brown midrib sorghum to prevent trampling and to force the cattle to eat most of the forage. Protein cubes are used as a supplement. Windholz has found the cost, not including any supplemental protein, for grazing a cow on the stockpiled brown midrib forage sorghum can vary from 11 to 60 cents per day depending on the weather conditions. Windholz likes grazing the stockpiled brown midrib sorghum because it has higher digestibility than other sorghums and it saves winter hay feeding costs. One year the brown midrib forage sorghum gave Windholz an extra three months of winter grazing. The Kansas Grazers Association hosts this
annual grazing conference in January. Next year the educational
themes will include strategic supplementation of winter forages
and grazing alternative forages including 5) CWFP Profile:
Removing Abandoned Waste Tanks Protects Water Quality Ransom, Ks. — Ness County wheat farmer Craig Blocksome was motivated to make changes on his 1,360 acre farm after completing the River Friendly Farm Plan (RFFP) environmental self-assessment .While completing the assessment was initially his wife Carol’s idea, Craig said he knew there were environmental issues on his farm that needed addressing. The RFFP helped bring those issues to the forefront. Specifically, two waste containment tanks, one buried and one above ground, left from the hog operation which ceased in the mid-nineties, concerned him. To offset some of the cost of the removal, the Blocksomes sought cost-share through KRC’s Clean Water Farms Project (CWFP). Field Organizer Troy Schroeder assisted the Blocksomes in completing the RFFP, applying for cost-share and establishing a work plan and timeline to remove the tanks. Craig said he knew removal of the tanks needed to get done. “I was concerned the tanks were a safety hazard, as well as being an environmental problem,” Craig said. However since the Blocksomes no longer had hogs, it was hard for Craig to financially justify the removal of the tanks, he explained. “Without the income from the hogs, I didn’t have an incentive any longer.” In spite of this, the prospect of cost-share “prompted us to do it,” he said. When the tanks were abandoned there was some manure left in them, which was a concern for Craig. “Anytime you have something like that, eventually it’ll rust down and manure may leech out into the soil,” Craig said. The Blocksomes were concerned that the contamination, if it occurred, could reach the water table or Bazine Dry Creek which runs through the farm. “The waste tanks posed a continued water quality threat if leaks were to develop over time and allow waste into the water table,” Troy said. To ensure that the soil under and around each tank was not affected by manure, which is typically loaded with nitrates, soil testing was done. “Soil testing was done at each tank site to confirm that no significant leakage had occurred,” Troy said. “Soil tests were well within tolerance so no soil treatment was necessary.” Craig then scraped the area around each of the tanks and backfilled the hole caused by the removal of the buried tank. Grass seed was sown into the bare areas to stabilize the soil and reduce erosion from runoff. After removing the tanks, he extracted the remaining manure and spread it on his crop ground. Craig then cut each tank into pieces and took it to the salvage yard to be recycled as scrap steel. While completing the project, Craig said the biggest obstacle was getting the buried tank out of the 14’ hole. He said the removal took several attempts. “I ended up putting a lot of time in on this deal,” he said. After using a backhoe to dig around the tank, a ramp was built out of the hole. Craig and a neighbor attempted to roll the tank out of the hole using a tractor. After several failed attempts, eventually the neighbor’s Steiger four-wheel drive tractor and a substantial tow rope (normally used to tie submarines to the dock) succeeded in getting the tank out of the ground. Troy said that when “working through the RFFP assessment, producers almost always discover some things to improve their operation or protect water quality.” For the Blocksomes three unplugged wells stood out as well as the method in which they fill the chemical sprayer. “Plugging abandoned wells is one of the easiest water quality protection practices to complete, but a very important and effective one,” Troy said. The Blocksome’s plugged the three wells, and Craig said they also “came up with a better system for filling the sprayer” including an anti-siphon device for the sprayer tank hose. An anti-siphon device on the well, for example, is a small addition that will prevent chemical from siphoning back into the well (and aquifer) while filling a sprayer. Overall, by making these changes on their farm, the Blocksomes hope to help protect water quality on their farm and downstream. 6) Dealing With
Dissolved Oxygen Eureka, Ks. - How do you deal with something you can’t see, smell, taste or touch but is essential for nearly all living things? Namely, oxygen. Yes, life revolves around water, oxygen, and energy for both terrestrial and aquatic organisms. But for those species living in streams, ponds, and lakes where the concentration of oxygen is only a fraction of a percent, the lack of oxygen can be a killer. For this reason, low dissolved oxygen (DO) is considered an impairment to water quality, just as the recognizable forms such as sediment, coliform bacteria, and excessive nutrients. Even though you cannot “sense” the level of oxygen in water, the results of low dissolved oxygen may be startling. Can you imagine the shock at seeing hundreds of dead and dying fish lining the banks of a large pond used for livestock water as well as fishing (a personal experience by author)? Oxygen depletions are the most common cause of fish kills in ponds, according to the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences at Texas A&M University. Numerous small streams and lakes in Kansas have been identified by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) as being impaired by low levels of dissolved oxygen. Most of these are in the eastern half of the state and many are small streams in grassland areas like the Flint Hills. What causes the oxygen concentration to drop in these waters to critical levels? Oxygen is abundant in the atmosphere at about 20 percent or 200,000 ppm (parts per million) But it is very limited in water, generally less than 10 ppm in ponds and slightly higher in streams at times. Oxygen enters the water from two sources, diffusion from the atmosphere and release from algae and submerged plants through photosynthesis. Wind creating waves at the surface of a pond or lake can increase the diffusion process due to greater surface area. Likewise, riffles in streams increase the surface area of the water increasing the oxygen level. Photosynthesis by aquatic plants requires sunlight to penetrate the water. Cloudy days, excessive shading and turbid conditions (sediment in the water) can reduce the rate of photosynthesis and production of oxygen. But the “evil” twin of photosynthesis in living organisms, both plant and animal, is respiration which uses oxygen. So the “greenies” that produce oxygen during the day also use oxygen, even during the dark of night. But the biggest oxygen users are those large and small critters that decompose dead and dying organic matter in the water. And these decomposers work fastest and demand the most oxygen when the water is warm. Unfortunately, warm water will hold less oxygen than cool water. Most fish kills in ponds happen in late summer. Maximum algae growth occurs earlier when nutrients are abundant after spring runoff and daylight periods are longest. As the nutrients are used up and daylight periods become shorter, algae begin to die off and the decomposers, helped by higher water temperatures, are actively using oxygen, leading to depletion levels. Overstocking with fish can also contribute to this problem. Some management practices may help protect ponds from this situation. Riparian buffers and filters in the drainage above the pond will reduce the amounts of nutrients and organic debris entering the pond. Removal of trees around the pond edge will allow more wind circulation over the surface and also reduce the leaves and dead twigs falling directly into the water. Aeration with mechanical pumps can also minimize the risk of oxygen depletion and fish kills in ponds. Late summer is also a critical time for many small streams, as documented by KDHE sampling which reveals low levels of dissolved oxygen. Several factors combine to reduce oxygen levels in the water. Warmer temperatures increase the evaporation rates in the stream and adjacent area to cause reduced stream flows that in turn reduces turbulence and oxygen diffusion at the riffles. While adjacent trees shade the stream and help cool the water, they also transpire large volumes of water. At the same time leaves and twigs are falling in to the stream to be decomposed, lowering the oxygen supply in the water. Land users and watershed managers face a difficult challenge in dealing with low dissolved oxygen in these small streams. Can stream flows be maintained throughout the year, especially in late summer? What is the correct balance of trees and herbaceous vegetation on the banks of small prairie streams? A logical solution would be to restore streamside vegetation to conditions similar to what the first European settlers encountered. Many surveys and records indicate that the riparian areas of many small grassland streams in Kansas now harbor heavy populations of invasive woody species that were not present historically. These include Osage orange, honey locust, mulberry, Siberian elm and others. Changes in land use, intensive agricultural practices and absence of intense, naturally-occurring fires have contributed to this woody encroachment. Restoration of natural streamside vegetation means removal of invasive woody species, selectively leaving native trees such as cottonwoods, willows and bur oak, and protection of the native grasses from heavy grazing. Judicious use of fire is also necessary in the tallgrass prairies of Kansas. Fortunately, there are models of well-managed riparian areas of small streams in nearly every community. While restoration measures involve individual landowners, watershed or community-based efforts will be needed to enhance streamflows in late summer, thereby improving dissolved oxygen levels and water quality. The River Friendly Farm Plan Environmental Assessment tool can aid farmers and ranchers in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses on their land. Questions in the notebook help land-users assess and score the status of soil and water conservation, as well as nutrient, pest and livestock waste management on the farm or ranch. All of these issues can have an impact on the amount of dissolved oxygen in a body of water and, in turn, the quality of that water. KRC field organizers are available to work with the individual farmer or rancher through all phases of the project: completing the assessment; developing the whole farm action plan; identifying solutions, and monitoring progress. Farmers and rancher completing the RFFP receive a $250 incentive payment. For more information, contact the Kansas Rural Center at 785-873-3431 or email at ksrc@rainbowtel.net 7) Wind for Schools Announces Deadline for Applications Whiting, Ks. - The Kansas Rural Center (KRC) and the Kansas Wind Applications Center at Kansas State University announce a deadline of April 1, 2008 for a second round of Wind for Schools proposals. From these applications, five rural schools will be selected to install 1.9 kW wind turbines in order to encourage integration of renewable energy education in their K-12 science curriculum. Dan Nagengast, KRC executive director and coordinator of the project, said the program gives “each school a leg-up in science education, engineering, and math.” “Kids ‘get’ the concept of renewable energy and they understand that wind and solar will be important energy sources during their lifetimes,” he said. The criteria for evaluation of applicant schools include: a wind classification of class 3 or better; a high and open site; community awareness and desire; administrative support at the school, and science teacher(s) willing and able to incorporate the turbine into school curriculum, (with assistance). The project will install the Southwest
Windpower Skystream 3.7, a 1.9 kW turbine suitable for residential
use. With a blade diameter of just over 12 feet, the Skystream
typically generates $300 to $400 worth of electricity in a year. .
For more information on the Skystream, visit the Southwest
Windpower website at: (See story below for schools selected in the first round of applications) For more information on the Wind for Schools Project, for application criteria or proposal format, please go to http://www.eece.ksu.edu/psg/wac/ Also you can contact: 8) Schools Selected for Wind Energy Project First Round Whiting, Ks. - Last fall the Kansas Wind for Schools Project announced the selection of five rural primary and secondary schools to receive a Skystream 3.7 wind turbine as part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Wind for School initiative. The Kansas Wind for Schools is a project of the Kansas Rural Center and the Wind Applications Center at Kansas State University. The program will place up to five of these small, 1.8Kw wind turbines at rural schools throughout Kansas each year for the next three years. Applications were solicited through the K-12 school districts’ communications networks, through the Kansas Association of Teachers in Science, and by word of mouth. Schools were selected on the basis of a good wind site and strong community, school administrative, and science teacher support. The schools selected for the first round are:
In addition, the Kansas Wind Application Center will install an anemometer tower and instrumentation at the SE Kansas Educational Service Center in Greenbush, near Girard, in Crawford County. The Wind for Schools Program aims to train young engineers for jobs in the rapidly growing wind industry and to increase public awareness and understanding of wind power. Schools receiving WFS wind turbines will incorporate education about wind energy into their science curricula. 9) Peace Corps:
Volunteering is not Just for Kids Marion, Ks. - The United States Peace Corps will be celebrating its 47th anniversary on March 1, 2008. Since the founding in 1961, 187,000 Peace Corps Volunteers have served in 139 countries. Currently there are 7,750 Peace Corps Volunteers serving in 73 countries. My wife Margie and I joined the Peace Corps in 2002 when we were in our mid-fifties, after our three daughters were either well into or finished with college. We served in Belize, Central America; our site was an isolated Mopan Maya village; San Jose, Toledo. Margie was a Rural Community Development/Environmental Education Volunteer and I was a Rural Community Development/ Sustainable Agriculture Volunteer. During our service we worked in the village primary school, with farmer cooperatives, an eco-tourism group and women’s groups. The two years of service passed very quickly as we were very engaged in projects and village life. Our lifestyle was simple and we were very comfortable in our small house once we adjusted to being without electricity. The average age of currently serving Peace Corps Volunteers is 27 years old with 5% of the current volunteers being over 50 years old. Recognizing the value of older volunteers, the Peace Corps has a goal of increasing the “over 50” age group to 15% of the total in the next few years. Readers of the Rural Papers with a back-ground in sustainable agriculture, environmental issues and education will have the interests and skills that are very attractive to the Peace Corps. As a member of the “baby boom” I mark my first political experiences with the election and call to service by President John F. Kennedy. The creation of the Peace Corps is a lasting legacy of his time in office and I feel honored to have been allowed to serve at this time in my life. Anyone interested in the Peace Corps, young or old, can call me (620-382-8480) or go online to www.peacecorps.gov for more information. December 2007 Rural Papers HIghlights:
1) Pharma Crops:
Agricultural Salvation or Pandora's Box?
Click on the image to
download a pdf copy of this issue! *********************************** October/November 2007 Rural Papers HIghlights:
1) Passion for the Prairie
Drives Flint Hills Ranchers
Click on the image to
download a pdf copy of this issue! *********************************** August/September 2007 Rural Papers HIghlights:
Click on the image to
download a pdf copy of this issue! ***********************************
June/July 2007 Rural Papers Highlights
1) Farm Bill Draft Misses Opportunity
Click on the image to
download a pdf copy of this issue! ***********************************
March/April/May 2007 Rural Papers Highlights
1) Drugs in Rice Not Approved by FDA; Food
Contamination Likely
Click on
the image to download a pdf copy of this issue! *********************************** January/February 2007 Rural Papers Highlights 1) Seeking Balance in U.S.
Farm and Food Policy
Click on
the image to download a pdf copy of this issue! ***********************************
November/December 2006
Rural Papers Highlights
1) Coalition Calls for
Reform in 2007 Farm Bill
Click on
the image to download a pdf copy of this issue!
*********************************** August-October 2006 Rural
Papers Highlights 1) Community Wind Energy
Spotlight of October 31 Workshop
Click on
the image to download a pdf copy of this issue!
*********************************** Kansas Rural Center Links Who We Are Projects Calendar & News Policy & Advocacy Publications Heartland Network Kansas Food Policy Council Clean Water Farms Project Links Home Page © Copyright
2007, Kansas Rural Center. All rights reserved. |
|
|
