In St. Louis, just a few miles down the main east-west corridor from the National Corn Growers Association’s headquarters, concerned citizens and eco-enthusiasts alike will converge upon Forest Park, weather permitting, in droves to discuss a wide array of enviro-issues. In previous years, conversations tended to hold up food-related movements, such as those toward organics or locavore lifestyles, as models of how the eco-conscious should live.

This year, instead of dismissing these celebrations as agenda-driven vehicles for anti-ag activities, farmers and those who support them need to join the conversation. Attending events, participating in open forums and telling the story of modern American farming, growers can bring an informed, balanced voice in support of their industry to the conversation.

In many ways, be it through the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance or CommonGround, farmers have already learned about the importance of telling their story. Many have even practiced doing so. Earth Day marks a distinct opportunity to take a moment out of the field and actively cultivate public understanding and dialogue.

A new website featuring award-winning videos produced by the South Dakota Corn Growers Association and Utilization Council, www.trueenvironmentalists.com, reveals why farmers should value Earth Day in striking clarity. Using the example of their home state, the videos focus on how taking care of the land, air and water while increasing productivity provides hope. Hope that farmers will be able to help sustain a rapidly growing, hungry world. Watching the population counter tick up rapidly, thinking about the need to produce more food in the next 40 years than was produced in the last 10,000 years combined, it becomes obvious that we need to share the message of hope.

Take the time to share the incredible hope that farmers have for our growing world. Activists who would falsely accuse farmers of destroying the earth while promoting practices that would starve a constantly increasing segment of the population have already spun their yarn standing under the Earth Day banner for years. Let’s take part in a day that celebrates the earth, air and soil central to the very core of every farmer.

While the environmentalists are rallying in Washington and listening to Cheap Trick and Dave Mason, the agriculturalists will be working to feed the planet with modern farming techniques that decrease soil erosion and runoff and produce more food with less land.

While “people of all nationalities and backgrounds will voice their appreciation for the planet and demand its protection” on Earth Day, farmers and ranchers will be conserving land and water resources to feed them.

No other profession is so utterly dependent on the earth for its livelihood and no other profession has done so much to preserve and protect it, while still working to feed its growing population.

So, if you wonder why farmers and ranchers won’t be rallying in Washington this Sunday, it’s because they are out in the fields doing what they do best on Earth Day – being good stewards of the land and water and feeding the world.

According to the agency, “EPA evaluated all the data cited by NRDC and new studies submitted to EPA in response to the reregistration decision. Included in the new studies is a state-of-the-science extended one-generation reproduction study. That study provides an in-depth examination of 2,4-D’s potential for endocrine disruptor, neurotoxic, and immunotoxic effects. This study and EPA’s comprehensive review confirmed EPA’s previous finding that the 2,4-D tolerances are safe.”

In the decision, EPA noted that based on “studies addressing endocrine effects on wildlife species and the adequacy of personal protective equipment for workers, the Agency concluded that the science behind our current ecological and worker risk assessments for 2,4-D is sound and there is no basis to change the registrations.”

“The impact of this decision should not be understated,” said Jim Gray, executive director of the Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data. “This has been one of the most widely used and successful herbicides in history and growers along with other users around the U.S. and the world can continue to use it with confidence.”

The original patent for 2,4-D – a phenoxy herbicide and plant growth regulator – was issues in 1945 and today it is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. It is currently found in approximately 600 products registered for agricultural, residential, industrial, and aquatic uses. It is used on a variety of crops including wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, potatoes, sugar cane, pome fruits, stone fruits and nuts. In addition, 2,4-D controls invasive species in pastures, aquatic areas and federally protected areas and broadleaf weeds in turf grass.

Right now, corn is not among the big users of 2,4-D, but that is expected to change in the future since one of its major manufacturers, Dow Chemical, has developed a 2,4-D resistant hybrid and is seeking federal approval for it. USDA is currently accepting comments on approval for that hybrid, which runs through April 27, but they are being pressured by non-agricultural interests to decline.

While this is an important victory for agricultural users of the herbicide, it is just as significant for suburban lawn care and other non-agricultural uses, such as controlling invasive plant species that pose risks to the environment. The major problem with 2,4-D is that it is perpetually linked with Agent Orange, the defoliant used in the Vietnam War. However, while it was an ingredient of Agent Orange, it is now widely believed that the main health problems came from contamination of 2,4,5-T, the other major ingredient in Agent Orange. Regardless, the link still creates a bit of an image problem.

NRDC is none too happy with EPA’s decision and may yet appeal it because the underlying agenda here is to get rid of ALL chemicals used in crop protection, no matter how safe they are. Thanks to the EPA for standing their ground this time around.

That’s the basic conclusion of a recent paper issued by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST).

“Quantifying energy issues associated with agricultural systems, even for a two-crop corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) rotation, is not a simple task,” reads the abstract of the paper. “It becomes even more complicated if the goal is to include all aspects of sustainability (i.e., economic, environmental and social).”

That’s why the whole issue of lifecycle assessment and related indirect land use change is so difficult. In fact, the authors of the paper choose to say indirect land use change might be nearly impossible to evaluate with any degree of certainty, explaining that “because of the uncertainties involved, it may not be possible to reliably model the indirect effects of biofuels outside of the country in which they are produced.”

The relatively brief paper considers many key agricultural sustainability issues, including nitrogen management, economic viability, market prices and public policy. The authors ultimately make suggestions that might address some concerns, including:

- quantify real versus perceived effects of no-tillage on C sequestration and the associated GHG mitigation value;
- find ways to decrease adoption barriers for energy-conserving practices;
- develop integrated usage of renewable fuels and co-products; and
- develop consistent federal, state, and local policies for bioenergy development to provide guidance for private and public investment.

Interesting reading. The full text of www.cast-science.org”>’Energy Issues Affecting Corn/Soybean Systems: Challenges for Sustainable Production” may be downloaded free of charge on the CAST website at www.cast-science.org/publications, along with many of CAST’s other scientific publications. The paper also is available in hard copy for a shipping/handling fee.

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) Vice President of Research and Analysis Geoff Cooper wrote about the “Ethanol Shuffle” last week on the RFA E-xchange Blog. Basically, we are shuffling sugarcane ethanol from Brazil to California to meet that state’s Low Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS) – while at the same time, Brazil is importing lower priced corn ethanol from the United States to make up for not only the ethanol it is exporting to California, but the shortfall that country has experienced in ethanol production recently.

So, that’s how the “Ethanol Shuffle” works. California imports sugarcane ethanol from Brazil rather than corn ethanol from Nebraska or Kansas; and in turn, corn ethanol from the Midwest travels to Houston or Galveston via rail, then is shipped to Brazil via tanker to “backfill” the volumes they sent to the U.S. Picture the irony of a tanker full of U.S. corn ethanol bound for Brazil passing a tanker full of cane ethanol bound for Los Angeles or Miami along a Caribbean shipping route.

This is more than ironic, it’s just plain ignorant. First of all, sugarcane ethanol costs more than corn ethanol. According to Cooper, the ethanol California has been importing from Brazil has been an average of $1.56 per gallon MORE than corn ethanol from the Midwest. “As far as E10 goes, that’s about a 16 cent per gallon differential,” said Cooper.

The reason California prefers sugarcane ethanol over corn is because they claim it is better for the environment, a claim which can be disputed, depending on how the life cycle analysis is determined (see previous post). But, even if sugarcane ethanol actually does have a better carbon footprint than corn ethanol, that advantage is lost in the transportation shuffle. “If we were serving the California market with corn ethanol from Nebraska and the Brazilians were satisfying their own demands with their own fuel, the emissions related with moving that fuel are about half of what we’re seeing with this shuffling dynamic,” said Cooper.

Listen to an interview with Cooper about the Ethanol Shuffle here: Geoff Cooper on the Ethanol Shuffle

While most people have capriciously wished for an end to modern technology following a particularly annoying late-night text from an employer, only the smallest minority actually advocates a return to the workplace technology of 50 years ago.

So, why do so many people outside of agriculture think that a return to equally antiquated technology would actually improve farming?

Recently, a column in Stock and Land magazine examined the impact of a large-scale return to the farming methods of our forefathers, a romantic notion with dismal consequences. Instead of growing a crop large enough to share with the world, U.S. farmers would produce only enough food to feed half of the country’s current population.  Maintaining levels of dairy, meat and milk production would require two-thirds more land.  Increased environmental degradation and social unrest further complicate this already hungry scenario.

Simply, removing technology and scientific advances from modern life seriously damages productivity and effectiveness whether done in corporate or agrarian America.  Notably, the negative impact on farming creates a food shortage thus depriving an incredible number of those in towns and cities of the sustenance needed to survive.

Instead of buying into the soft-focus vision of farming that replaces knowledge and understanding with a vague sense of nostalgia, get the facts.  Question the farmers and ranchers who produce food about how and why they use the technology and practices that they do.  Look at the bounty of healthy options U.S. agriculture offers.  Become part of national discussion about food that seeks a better tomorrow instead of a rose-tinted version of the past.

Truthfully, their ongoing and Zombie-like fight against proven GMO technology has been like watching a bad movie that you just can’t stop watching. The ludicrous and persistent effort has been watched by farmers, scientists, regulators and some consumers without cable TV around the world. And one might suspect there might even be some betting pools initiated regarding who would finally put a bullet in the head of this persistent, riveting political theatre. (Ok, I have France planting their first GMO crop in 2013 with 3-1 odds).

Both courts overturned the national ban declaring the French Government presented no scientific evidence of any risk to health or the environment from these crops. EuropaBio’s Director of Green Biotechnology Europe, Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, said: “These judgments from the highest European court and the highest French court send one message loud and clear: bans of GM crops cannot be based on political dogma. As both judgments state, no ban on planting GM crops can be declared without valid scientific evidence, something that France and other European countries have not produced.”

Even if French corn growers don’t get to enter the modern world of corn production in 2012, this is yet another positive sign that the belabored and disingenuous GMO soap opera is on its final legs. Forgive me for saying this but I can hear the EU fat lady signing.

The French court’s decision also offers support for what U.S. scientists, regulators, and industry have been saying all along….there has been copious scientific testing and years of actual use in the real world and the GMO bogeyman remains firmly in the closet where he belongs. However, evidence rises that France will launch new restrictions. French president Nicolas Sarkozy said this week the government was preparing a “new safety clause” to forbid sowing of MON810 produced by Monsanto.

“The French government keeps and will keep its opposition against the cultivation of the Monsanto 810 maize on our soil,” Sarkozy said during a visit in southwestern France. Why do I have this feeling that President Sarkozy DVR’s the “Walking Dead?”

2011 has been a devastating year for farmers along the rivers.  In May, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers blew up three levees in southeast Missouri, flooding 200 square miles of homes, fields and businesses along the banks of the Mississippi River. Shortly thereafter, they released historic amounts of water from the Missouri River Reservoir System, flooding an estimated 400,000 acres of prime farmland for four months. Stress, frustration and a sense of hopeless rolled in with the water.

The Missouri Corn Growers Association and Missouri Corn Merchandising Council are working along these growers that the government does not turn its back on the farms that they chose to flood.  Through a new documentary, Underwater and Overlooked: Crisis on the Missouri River, the groups bring the facts  to the forefront, holding the Corps accountable for the 2011 flood along the Missouri River banks and pushing them to take steps to ensure this never happens again.

The Army Corps of Engineers made the decisions that changed the lives of Missouri farmers. Now is the time to hear their stories, understand this tragedy and join with those supporting the victims as they rebuild.  Click here to see what actually happened in Missouri’s farmlands as they sat flooded for 16 weeks.  When the water goes down, the cameras go away and the spotlight dims, keep this story in the public eye until the levees are repaired and flood management is recognized as the top priority by the Corps.

While the epic creativity of the ever-rotating crop of insightful local reporters attempting such crazy feats allows us to giggle at the heat, or at least their tired antics, for many, the heat brought about a level of panic, suffering and problems more likely to make a sane person cry.  From illness to electric bills that trigger a special sort of nausea, the heat wave wreaked havoc on what could otherwise have been a productive, enjoyable summer.

Children trapped indoors and sidelined runners aren’t the only groups stopped dead in their tracks by the blistering bubble.  Corn farmers have watched as the crop they worked late into the night to plant following this spring’s unrelenting monsoon season begins to show signs of heat stress.

While the farmers themselves can escape to the icy, dark confines of the closest movie house, corn plants must find ways to endure the heat and preserve precious moisture.  As corn plants are past the pollination stage at this point in the season, each individual plant makes a variety of small adaptations that best allow it to produce the maximum amount of viable seed possible.

As for each of us who has eschewed a morning jog or skipped an outdoor barbeque to cope with the insipid temperatures, corn plants make sacrifices to survive in these conditions.  These sacrifices, although vital to preserving the corn and to the inherent objective of spreading its own genetic material, negatively impact the crop in a number of ways that can subsequently impinge on each individual farmer’s profitability at harvest.

Just walking through a corn field, the toll heat stress takes on a plant becomes obvious.  The normally green, flat leaves that jet from the stalk have rolled in around the edges to reduce surface area, therefore preserving moisture.  Near the ground, leaves have been fired from the stalk completely and now lie in brown, crumpled piles.  The once lush, green field no longer resembles the perfect stands picturesquely surrounding the baseball diamond in “Field of Dreams.”

Heat damage affects more than the cosmetic in corn.  As the nights stay hot and days reach record highs, the plant must further shut down to preserve the seeds encasing its valuable genetic material. The small kernels from the top of the ear abort to save the more desirable brethren at the base.  Even the kernels for which much of the plant was sacrificed may not reach their maximum potential.

At harvest, these ears of corn will still be useful.  The crop will still provide food, feed or fuel depending upon its destination.  Yet, the farmer will again suffer as low test weights and diminished yields chip away at the profitability of the year’s corn crop.  With high fertilizer prices and increasingly expensive land, farmers may find the heat burning them in the pocketbook long after a chilly fall breeze begins to blow in the evenings.

Farmers know from a very young age, most often by observing as their parents and grandparents worked that same land, that every year, every day their livelihood is at the mercy of the weather.  Long after the average person’s electric bill is paid, farmers feel the impact of a long, hot summer.

So, next time a peppy freshman reporter cracks an egg onto a white hot sidewalk remember that the heat dome of 2011 will continue to loom large in the memories of many long after the holidays.  America’s family farmers toil on despite the risk because they realize the importance of producing enough corn to supply the world’s growing demand.

Say thank you by becoming more informed.  Take a moment to read a simple, short brief on how farm programs, such as those coming before Congress next year, help protect farmers from the heat and ensure a vibrant future for this key industry.  If the television station can invest in the same tired heat story year-after-year, the country should invest in the men and women who provide the food that actually ends up on a plate.

Addressing fallacies about food prices, water use and greenhouse gas emissions, Forrest Jehlik shows clearly how the many misconceptions that plague ethanol have no scientific basis.  Backed by Argonne’s laudable reputation for scientific excellence, his statements provide the direct, clear facts.

Noting that the 900,000 barrels of ethanol the U.S. produces per day is equal to our Nigerian oil imports and “within striking distance of the amount we import from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia,” Jehlik gives strong reasons to reexamine our view of ethanol itself and of the policies and regulations aimed at this amazing industry.