Here are some points from the notes I took at this session:

It is clear that producers feel they are under siege.  There is talk of
fly-over checks on phosphorus and nitrate. Producers don't know what is
going to come at them in the form of regulations or fines and they tend to
question whether the science behind them is sound.

They are concerned about the role of federal agencies, private property
rights and the proliferation of paperwork in programs that could assist
them in taking steps to protect the environment.  The NRCS terrace program,
however, can be taken care of on the internet and that is convenient.

The leader of this group, a woman in meat production, told us that if a
thousand animals can be fed with the flick of a switch, it's going to
happen.  She said the technology has gotten ahead of science with these
operations, and to this she attributes the problems that have caught the
public's attention.

A discussion followed:

The consensus seemed to be that all consumers are interested in is cheap
food.  On the other hand, as one older farmer said, "Profitability is the
name of the game."

Someone suggested that consumers might be willing to pay more for their
food if they knew that conservation practices were being followed, but
there was no mention of tying this to the safety of the food supply itself.
These producers do not seem to recognize the concern about the safety of
food as a legitimate issue (the facilitator kept saying "Perception is the
crucial factor").

There seemed to be total trust in the manufacturers, regulators and
marketers of chemical control products.  The prevailing opinion seemed to
be that all chemicals on the market are safe if application instructions
are followed.  There is information about such chemicals at the ISU and
NRCS websites if a user believes he needs to know more than his/her
salesperson has to say about the product, and the relationship between the
two is ordinarily one of cordiality and trust.  Again the facilitator said
"Technology gets ahead of the science."  People will use it until they see
a reason not to use it.

One farmer spoke up and said that the EPA set standards for lead and the
petroleum companies came up with ways to comply with them.  He suggested
that farmers could do the same if the EPA sets standards for phosphorus,
etc.  (Seems to me that the petroleum companies have a lot more funds and
technical expertise to help them than farmers, individually or collectively
would have.)

One example of an environmental project that has been successful in
bringing local people together to address local problems is the Raccoon
River Project.

In the hope that eventually we will have a cleaner environment,

Peggy Murdock

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]