I received this action alert yesterday from The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. We have until September 28 to tell the USDA to base Conservation Stewardship Program application approval on environmental outcomes, not on when a conservation practice is implemented. See below:

Since the 1930s, we've been paying farmers to produce corn, wheat, rice and cotton. What if we paid farmers for producing healthier soil, cleaner water, climate change mitigation and greater bio-diversity instead? That's the "Big Idea" behind the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Pay farmers to produce environmental outcomes that contribute to the public good.

Sustainable and organic farming advocates have an important, urgent opportunity to help shape the implementation of this working lands conservation program. The USDA has requested comments on the administrative rules that will govern implementation of the new CSP.  

The USDA is considering giving a higher rank to CSP applications proposing the adoption of new conservation practices vs. the maintenance of existing practices. Current rules give equal weight to existing and proposed conservation practices. Please tell the USDA that CSP applications should be ranked on the basis of environmental outcomes and not on the basis of when a conservation practice is implemented.  

The USDA has posed a specific question for comment:  Should the program give greater weight and therefore a higher rank and a higher likelihood of acceptance into the program to applications proposing new conservation practices? Or should existing and new practices be given equal weight?  

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and other conservation programs pay farmers to adopt new conservation practices. The CSP, however, is unique among working lands conservation programs. The CSP rewards farmers who are already farming at a high stewardship threshold and provides an incentive to maintain those high stewardship standards.  

If a farmer has previously adopted advanced conservation measures and systems, the program is designed to reward that behavior and help pay for continued active management and maintenance of those systems and practices. Farmers should also be expected to and be rewarded for adopting new practices. But CSP ranking and payments should be keyed to environmental outcomes and not on when conservation activities are adopted.

CSP design and regulation should equally balance the benefits of both existing and new practices with the primary measure being the environmental benefits secured by the total conservation system regardless of the timing of adoption of various parts of the system. This is essential to making CSP a program that recognizes and rewards the multiple benefits of sustainable and organic farming systems.  

Comment letters can be as short or as long as you want. Put your comments in your own words, and raise the points most important to you. You can submit a comment from the National Sustainable Agriculture website, or you can email comments directly to the USDA at CSP2008@wdc.usda.gov.  
 
If you send your own email:  Be sure to identify the Docket Number at the top of your letter:  RE:  NRCS-IFR-09004. Address your comment letter to: Mr. Gregory Johnson, Director, Financial Assistance Programs, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 5237-S, Washington, DC 20250-2890. Be sure to identify yourself by providing your name and contact information. You may also mail your letter to this address if you prefer not to email it. The deadline is September 28.

ISTOCKPHOTO/LILLIDAY

Look out filthy, disease-ridden factory farms: There’s a new kid in town. An organization has surfaced to restore law and order, Wyatt Earp/Dodge City-style. 

The Center to Expose and Close Animal Factories (CECAF) was launched April 30, with the objective to “achieve safe, sensible, and sustainable farming and ranching in America through policy development, public education, corporate pressure, community forums and advocacy partnerships.” The launch of this group couldn’t be more appropriate, considering that a Smithfield Foods swine operation is rumored to be ground zero in the recent H1N1 swine flu outbreak. 

Attorneys and co-founders Charlie Speer and Richard Middleton plan to use the experience they gained from the more than 300 lawsuits they helped bring against industrial agriculture giants to mobilize communities in opposition of factory farms, which it says endangers the health of both humans and the environment. With an armory of regulatory, legal and legislative tools, CECAF is on a mission to end the inhumane and dangerous practices of confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.   

Don't forget to sign up to receive e-mail updates on CECAF's progress. 

Let’s address the elephant (or should I say “pig”) in the room: Across the globe, illness is spreading due to completely avoidable circumstances. The link between factory farms and H1N1 is clear. While no one can blame the hog industry for asking the World Health Organization to change the name of the illness to H1N1 (the virus contains swine, avian and human components), I have a really hard time not blaming them for the current epidemic, as well as each and every one of those deaths.   

In fact, some believe the virus can be traced directly to a Smithfield Foods hog farm. Read more on the topic in this piece, “Swine Flu Outbreak Could Be Linked to Smithfield Factory Farms” from Grist. 

Today the Cornucopia Institute issued an alert, calling to action its troops in support of organic and sustainable agriculture. Three bills have been introduced to Congress (HR 875, 759 and 1322), all designed to strengthen our country’s food safety system, but all falling short. 

Like the Organic Consumers Association, the Cornucopia institute was quick to point out that none of the bills are backhanded attempts from agriculture giants to cripple organic producers, as many have been led to believe. (Read HR 875: No Need for Alarm ... Yet.) But they do urge you to visit their website to read up on the bills, and contact your representatives to make your opinions known. As always, sample message wording and contact info for members of Congress are supplied — it will take a matter of minutes to make a big difference!

ISTOCKPHOTO/MARGITA BRAZE

The bill is designed to address inadequacies in our food safety system, but it doesn’t create controls specifically for filthy factory farms. Instead it applies the typical one-size-fits-all regulations on the entire industry, which almost always spells trouble for small producers who don’t have the extra funds to implement them. 

You can learn more about the bill, OCA’s stance, and tell your representatives that revisions are needed through this handy tool. Simply plug in your zip code and all the work is done for you! Speak out for organic farming.

Quick! If you want to secure grant funds for your farmers market, roadside stand, community-supported agriculture program, agri-tourism venture or related activity, you must apply to the USDA by April 27. 

The Agricultural Marketing Service has announced that $5 million will be available for these purposes through the Farmers Market Promotion Program. Take a look at these guidelines to see if you’re eligible.

The National Animal Identification System — what exactly will it mean for small- and medium-size farmers? By now you’ve likely heard our thoughts on the subject (in The Truth About the Animal ID Plan, and Speak Out Against NAIS), but here’s a number-crunching look at how NAIS will affect New York farmer Shannon Hayes, from yesterday’s op-ed in The New York Times.