To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
From: Pam Murray <csas001@unlvm.unl.edu>
Subject: March-April 1999 CSAS Newsletter
March-April 1999 CSAS Newsletter
The Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems (CSAS) in the Institute of
Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR) at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) is an interdisciplinary center formed in 1991 for the
purpose of bringing together people and resources to promote an agriculture
that is efficient, competitive, profitable, environmentally and socially
sustainable for the indefinite future. The electronic version of this
bimonthly newsletter is sent to SANET and PENPages 10-14 days before those
on our mailing list receive their hard copy. The newsletters are also
available along with other sustainable ag information on our World Wide Web
page: http://ianrwww.unl.edu/ianr/csas.
Note: The electronic version is not sent to individual e-mail addresses. To
be added to the "hard copy" newsletter mailing list beginning with the next
bimonthly issue (not sent to overseas addresses), or for questions or
comments, contact the newsletter editor, Pam Murray, Coordinator, Center for
Sustainable Agricultural Systems, PO Box 830949, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE 68583-0949, 402-472-2056, fax -4104, e-mail:
csas001@unlvm.unl.edu. Comments about the content or usefulness of this
newsletter are always welcome.
* * *
CONTENTS:
WE CAME! WE SAW! WE HEARD!
UNIVERSITY ROLE IN BIOTECHNOLOGY: WHO BENEFITS FROM NEW TECHNOLOGIES?
(Second in Series)
HIGHLIGHTS OF UPCOMING BOOK: UNDER THE BLADE (Sixth in Series)
STUDY FINDS CONSOLIDATION HARMS NATION'S CONSUMERS AND FARMERS
NATIONAL AG BIOTECH MEETING IN LINCOLN
NORDIC AGROECOLOGY COURSE WELCOMES STUDENTS
AGROECOLOGY FIELD COURSE OFFERED
RESOURCES
COMING EVENTS
DID YOU KNOW?
* * *
WE CAME! WE SAW! WE HEARD!
In response to concerns within the College of Agriculture and on the part of
agricultural and natural resources stakeholders, the Nebraska Legislature
passed LB 149 in 1973, establishing the University of Nebraska Institute of
Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR). The Institute officially began
April 1, 1974, and over the past year stakeholders, students, faculty,
staff, and administrators have been celebrating IANR's 25th Anniversary. One
of the celebration events was a series of 24 "Listening Sessions" held on
the campus and at various locations throughout the state. The intent was to
get participants' views in regard to the events and issues that impact the
quality of life of Nebraskans now and into the future. The information
received from more than 600 participants provides input for determining
IANR's program priorities, operations improvement, and strategic and action
planning. In addition, the sessions provided a discussion forum with IANR
administrators. The following are general themes participants offered and a
sampling of comments and questions pertaining to sustainable systems.
In general, participants supported IANR's programs in agriculture,
agribusiness, natural resources and human resources. Considerable support
was expressed for several areas including research, extension, leadership
education and student programs. The participants look to IANR for vision,
leadership, and as a source of unbiased information. We heard!
Nebraska Economy. Questions were raised in regard to the sustainability of
the livestock economy, which represents about 65% of the value of the
state's cash receipts from agriculture. Issues included the trends in
concentration, vertical integration, environmental impacts, and the
uncertain global demand. Stable, profitable income potential in agriculture
is a primary concern.
Water Quality and Quantity. Water continues to be important as participants
discussed protecting the environment. The environmental concerns appeared to
be more mainstream as compared to being the concern of a few participants.
Scenarios regarding water distribution among irrigation, stream flows,
community and industrial uses received considerable attention.
People and Communities. Nebraska's population is aging, and there are shifts
to urban and trade center locations. Rural community viability is a concern.
Quality jobs and getting young people started in farming are issues.
Compared to similar discussions held in 1994, there was a notable increase
in family, children, youth, multiple jobs, nutrition, and related people
concerns.
Education. The participants strongly support increased extended education
programs and strengthened student recruiting in all areas of the state. "The
University should encourage all students - not just the very top academic
performers." Stronger University linkages with K-12 schools and community
and state colleges were suggested.
Research. Participants expressed a need for continued basic and applied
research. We heard several times that unbiased information is vital in
evaluating commercial products, and it helps to reduce the uncertainties
that result from information voids.
Lack of Control. Participants expressed concern with the increasing number
of uncertainties and complexities such as global markets, regulations,
changing rural landscapes, and outside capital buying into farming and
ranching. As one farmer said, "I look back to the time when my biggest
concerns were hoping that it would rain and insect problems." The
participants expressed an interest in some form of state spending lid.
We heard about the need for more working sustainable models. The following
are some participant comments and questions.
- Partnerships with the Natural Resource Districts, state and federal water,
wildlife and conservation agencies are important. Do more!
- Water quality research and education is vital. We need more research on
environmentally friendly pesticides and fertilizers.
- There is an increased interest in organic production and certification.
Will IANR increase its efforts in this area?
- The sustainability of many of our rural communities is a most critical
issue. We need information, leadership, and quality jobs.
- The move to mega hog enterprises raises serious environmental, ecological,
social and economic sustainability issues.
- Cropping systems need to be assessed on environmental impacts - not just
yields; sustainable production is a major issue.
- Sustainability and the related environmental issues will be major
challenges over the next ten years.
- There is the need to do research and consider alternative sources of
energy including the wind and lightning.
- Niche markets and different marketing initiatives offer increased
opportunities for organic farmers and gardeners.
- We need more systems analyses in IANR and an understanding of the
integration of the social, physical and biological sciences.
- An immediate issue is the sustainability of farm and ranch families.
- How do we get young farmers started and keep them in farming?
- Sustainability and environmental compatibility need to be integral in most
all IANR teaching, research, and extension programs.
I was a discussion leader at all of the "Listening Sessions." It was a
pleasure to meet with the participants who had a wide range of interests and
experiences. Many expressed appreciation that University representatives
made the effort to meet with them and listen to their concerns and
questions. In my view, the "Listening Sessions" have been the high point in
IANR's Silver Anniversary celebration.
Submitted by Glen Vollmar
UNIVERSITY ROLE IN BIOTECHNOLOGY: WHO BENEFITS FROM NEW TECHNOLOGIES?
Second in a Series. There is growing debate about the emerging role of
universities in research and applications of biotechnology. Current interest
and investment in production and use of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) have sparked a revolution in university research laboratories and
fields. Perhaps no single set of new techniques and potential technologies
has caused such a substantial short-term shift in focus of people and
resources in universities. We hope that encouraging debate within the
university community and among our clients will help inform people of the
issues and aid in charting a rational strategy for the future.
Focus on Technology
There has been a near-singular focus by agricultural researchers on
increasing production and the returns to land, labor, and other inputs in
the production process. In the last article we raised two questions, one on
the current limitations to farm income and community viability, and the
other on who benefits from technologies. If low productivity is indeed a
constraint and we can improve farm income by removing some of the biological
or technical reasons that keep yields low, it follows that we can contribute
to improving the situation by more production research. Most of us in
agricultural research are trained to do just that. However, there is the
danger that we will continue to do what we know how to do, will continue to
be rewarded by our peers and by funding sources to do what we do well, and
will completely miss the mark on what is needed to solve the real problems
of income of farm families and stability of farming communities.
It is most comfortable to follow the well-worn path. The route is well
marked, and the destination seems clear. We are treading more rapidly,
perhaps publishing more successfully, because we have more tools and support
than many who went before us. Yet we need to be sure where that path leads.
Production research had obvious benefits to farmers, communities, and the
general public for much of this century. Now we should see whether things
have changed.
Impacts of New Technologies
Studying the social impacts of new technologies is not a new area of
analysis for social scientists. Since hybrid corn was introduced in Iowa,
social scientists have been evaluating the social implications of the
adoption of specific technologies. These analyses were often conducted after
the fact, following the introduction and adoption of specific technologies.
Yet, these studies also provide the scientific methodology for more creative
ways to examine the social impacts of new technologies before they are
introduced. This can help guide our decisions about what types of research
are most important for the university.
Social Impact Analysis provides the tools to examine several aspects of
impacts of new technologies such as GMOs. The questions generally addressed
include: How does this new technology influence the population base? Does
the technology force an out-migration, an in-migration, or a change in
population structure? How does the new technology influence the equity with
which the benefits of the new technology accrue? Do the elite gain
additional control over resources, or are resources distributed across the
complete social system? What is the impact of the new technology on
community structure? Will local institutions be impacted - changing the
decision-making process? This is often tied to an externally directed change
in the power structure. How does the new technology impact the culture of a
community, region or nation? Culture provides those guidelines as to what is
acceptable behavior and what is not. Does the adoption of GMOs change the
norms of a community? Norms within many rural communities still see one of
agricultural producers' roles as stewardship of the land. Does the adoption
of GMOs change these norms? In rural areas, does the adoption of GMOs alter
the blueprint of what is right or wrong in how we farm? Does the adoption of
these new technologies change the attitudes of farmers in how they deal with
each other or with customers of their products? The values associated with
food production influence behavior among agricultural producers and
residents in adjacent communities, as well as their relationship with and
the attitudes of the general public.
As a social scientist examines the social impact of new technologies, other
questions need to be included in the analysis. These include the impact on
family relations. While this may seem trivial, the family is the primary
socialization agent and changes in technologies may influence the process of
socialization of children. What does this mean for the future? What does it
mean for the encouragement and support of the next generation of farmers,
and who will control the land?
Issues of Equity
The questions of equity are imbedded in many of the aspects of social impact
assessment. Long-term sustainability is linked to social justice. Given that
food and fiber production is both a private and public function, and that
the natural resource base is a public good, then it is important for
scientists to examine the public side as well as the private side of the
adoption of new technologies. With a social impact assessment methodology,
it is possible to examine the secondary impacts of the adoption of new
technologies such as GMOs.
Ethical questions abound as we think about who benefits from research and
who loses. As a land-grant university, is the goal to create a research base
strictly for individual gain, or are there societal and global needs that
may be greater, and are these really served by the current model? If this is
the case, research aimed at evaluating the social, environmental, and
economic impacts of new technologies must be undertaken. We no longer live
in a world of continued expansion - the world of many agricultural producers
of the early 1900s. We have experimented with intensive farm production to
make up for the damage caused by an agricultural system based on
exploitation and expansion of acreages. The moral issues are becoming
clearer as we continue to explore in which directions our research will go.
The issues of social impact are at the core of many of the decisions made by
researchers. Our current system is built on the assumption that what is good
for one is good for all. We need to carefully examine this assumption in
light of concentration of land and resources, both in the farming sector and
in industry. We already have a great deal of literature showing that
concentration, centralization and depopulation have negative impacts on
rural people and the environment. We also have studies that indicate
patterns of change in rural attitudes as producers view themselves as
"managers" versus "farmers." The implications for communities, rural
residents, food safety, and environmental integrity should be central to our
decision making in the university. The question of who benefits is one that
can be researched, and it should have high priority for our institution.
Next newsletter: Who owns genes and diversity?
Submitted by John Allen, Charles Francis
HIGHLIGHTS OF UPCOMING BOOK: UNDER THE BLADE
This is the sixth and final article in a series that has been highlighting
information in a book titled Under the Blade: The Conversion of Agricultural
Landscapes. Information in this article is from a chapter by the book's
co-editors Richard Olson (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) and Tom Lyson
(Cornell University) and by Allen Olson (University of Arkansas). Additional
authors who contributed chapters in the book are from universities around
the country. For more information, contact Richard Olson at the CSAS office,
or e-mail him at csas005@unlvm.unl.edu. To order the book, see the Resources
section of this newsletter.
Policy Recommendations for Preserving Agricultural Landscapes
Few people would define their vision of the preferred future of the United
States as sprawling development, degraded landscapes, gridlocked roads,
decaying inner cities, and an increasing reliance on other countries for
energy and even food. Yet that is what we are moving toward, a function of
what some have referred to as the tyranny of small decisions. A five-acre
homesite here, a small subdivision there, and elsewhere the paving of a
gravel road - each action is of little significance by itself, but the
cumulative effect is very significant.
Overall, we seem to be using our wealth and power in a mindless frenzy of
consumerism, wanting more and bigger of everything, including roads, houses,
building lots, and a place in the country with two (or more) SUVs parked in
the drive. An editor of the Charlotte Observer referred to the "orgiastic
devouring of countryside" occurring around his city, a description that
applies to the urban-rural fringe of most U.S. cities.
Many local governments, land trusts, and other citizen groups are attempting
to preserve agricultural lands. However, a general theme emerging from 21
case studies of towns, counties, and states throughout the U.S. is that most
regions face tremendous threats to farmland and rural landscapes, and
current preservation efforts are often inadequate. Quotes from the case
studies illustrate the problems and negative trends:
- Barriers to maintaining the SE Pennsylvania food and farm system currently
outweigh the opportunities. Changes in policies, programs, attitudes, and
behavior are required for agriculture to survive.
- Significant negative changes have occurred in western Washington's
agricultural resource base, despite the many farmland protection strategies
in place in the 14 counties.... Western Washington's farmland protection
programs have been ineffective.
- Planning, zoning, and special tax laws have failed to protect prime
agricultural land in Waukesha County [Wisconsin]. In late 1996, virtually
the entire County is zoned for development, and it appears as if the
majority of agricultural lands remaining will soon be lost forever.
- The future of, and the ability for, agricultural production in Lake County
[Florida] have been forever changed. The necessary infrastructure for
agricultural production is disappearing...
Even Oregon, whose land use and farmland protection program is among the
strongest in the country, has fallen short of its goals during the past 20
years as graded by the citizen group 1000 Friends of Oregon. The group's
conclusion is that Oregon's "land use laws are not strong enough or working
well enough to protect our quality of life."
Local efforts to preserve agricultural landscapes face many barriers. A
state or federal decision on the placement of a new highway can completely
override a town's desire as to where growth should occur. Development in one
community can spill into neighboring towns. The addition of 2.6 million
people in the U.S. each year is creating overwhelming pressures. Collapsing
global commodity prices make agricultural uses of land even less competitive
against non-agricultural uses. Local planning boards are often strongly
influenced by developers who have a huge financial interest in subverting
farmland protection efforts, and zoning and other laws are often perceived
as impermanent and vulnerable to legal challenges.
In 1973, Congress debated the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act,
which would have required the states to develop comprehensive statewide land
use plans. The bill passed the Senate but was narrowly defeated in the House
of Representatives. In today's political climate, such a national mandate is
impossible, but there is much that the federal government could do to
increase the chances of success for local farmland preservation efforts.
Some examples are:
- Adopt a national policy of stabilizing U.S. population.
- Strengthen the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act to require that
federally-funded infrastructure projects be designed to minimize both direct
and indirect losses of farmland.
- Through legislation and court actions, promote a restrictive definition of
a regulatory taking so that zoning for exclusive farmland use is not
considered a takings.
- Revise estate tax laws to exclude from a decedent's taxable estate 100% of
the value of farmland encumbered with a permanent conservation easement.
- Conduct a thorough review of the direct and indirect effects of federal
laws and policies on farmland loss, and require a similar analysis of state
laws.
STUDY FINDS CONSOLIDATION HARMS NATION'S CONSUMERS AND FARMERS
A small number of dominant "clusters" of firms control the decision-making
throughout all levels of the U.S. food chain, threatening America's system
of independent family farms and ranches, according to a new report, prepared
by Dr. William Heffernan, a rural sociologist at the University of Missouri,
and unveiled February 10 by the National Farmers Union.
The study details the relationships forming the three major clusters -
Cargill/Monsanto, ConAgra, and Novartis/ADM - which now dominate the food
system. Some of the study's findings are:
- The complexity of the linkages in the system undermines market competition
and makes it difficult to measure. The network of relationships is creating
a seamless system with little market transparency along the various stages
of the food system. Because of the complexity, a firm that does not hold a
majority share of a specific market may still have great decision-making
power within the food chain.
- Technological advances are accelerating the process of vertical
integration. Biotechnology and the terminator gene have put the farmer at
the mercy of the food cluster for seed to plant the crop. Also, precision
farming's global positioning system separates management from the production
of agriculture. With this technology, it is possible for "managers" in
distant offices to make decisions about farm production, while producers
simply become laborers.
- The new structure threatens independent producers. The clusters influence
opportunities all along the food chain - from production inputs to global
trade - which severely hampers producers' ability to earn a fair return on
their product. It also erodes the independence of producers by shifting
major decision-making to a handful of firms.
- The new structure is harming rural communities because corporate returns
are reinvested in the firm, rather than in local economies where the goods
are produced.
Details of the study are online at
http://www.nfu.org/Newsroom/NewsRelease/newsRelease.cfm?NRID=16#Study.
NATIONAL AG BIOTECH MEETING IN LINCOLN
The National Agricultural Biotechnology Council (NABC), in collaboration
with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the Wallace Institute for
Alternative Agriculture, is sponsoring a symposium entitled World Food
Security and Sustainability: The Impacts of Biotechnology and Industrial
Consolidation, to be held in Lincoln, Nebraska, June 6-8, 1999. Readers of
this newsletter will recognize the names of many of the presenters,
including Fred Kirschenmann, Cornelia Flora, Dennis Avery, Chuck Hassebrook,
and William Heffernan. NABC provides an open forum for exploring issues in
agricultural biotechnology. All plenary sessions are free and open to the
public. All workshop sessions require registration and a fee. Early
registration (on or before April 15) is $175; after that it is $200.
Proceedings will be available free of charge in Spring 2000. For more
information, contact the Center for Biotechnology, 402-472-2635, or see
http://www.cals.cornell.edu/extension/nabc/webmeeting.html.
NORDIC AGROECOLOGY COURSE WELCOMES STUDENTS
An intensive one-semester course in Agroecology will be introduced starting
in August 1999 at NLH, Norway. See
http://www.agsci.kvl.dk/coem/NOVA/MSC.html.
AGROECOLOGY FIELD COURSE OFFERED
The North Central Institute for Sustainable Systems will offer the second
annual for-credit field course, Agroecosystems Analysis, August 13-20, 1999
in the northwest Iowa area. Contact the CSAS office for details, or see
http://www.ag.iastate.edu/departments/agronomy/nciss/.
RESOURCES
Under the Blade: The Conversion of Agricultural Landscapes. 1999. $25.
Examines the patterns, causes and consequences of current land use decisions
in the U.S. Looks at farmland loss from several perspectives, and then
integrates the results into policy recommendations (see related article in
this newsletter). Westview Press, 5500 Central Ave., Boulder, CO 80301-2877,
303-444-3541. To order a $5 course examination copy, call 1-800-386-5656.
Natural Beef: Consumer Acceptability, Market Development and Economics.
Free. Presents sample marketing plan and four case studies for farmers and
ranchers interested in grass-fed beef production and marketing. Linda
Fugitt, UC SAREP, One Shields Ave., U. of California, Davis, CA 95616,
530-752-7552.
Field Grown Cut Flowers: A Practical Guide and Sourcebook. $39.95 + $5
s&h.Wisconsin grower John Hurd worked with Kansas State U. floriculture
specialist Alan Stevens to produce a 400-page book detailing production and
marketing of flowers and ornamentals. Call 800-884-4730.
Clues to Rural Community Survival. 1999. $15. Profiles 18 successful
communities ranging in size from 300 to 35,000, mostly in the Midwest and
Great Plains, and includes new information about the Heartland Center for
Leadership Development's widely acclaimed characteristics of thriving small
towns. Call the Center to order: 800-927-1115 or 402-474-7667.
Organizing Your Community Against Large-Scale Animal Feedlot Pollution, and
A Citizen's Guide to The Environmental Review Process for Large-Scale
Livestock Operations. $7 ea. MN Clean Water Action, 326 Hennepin Ave. E.,
Minneapolis, MN 55414, 612-623-3666.
Getting Food on the Table: An Action Guide to Local Food Policy. 1999. $12.
Provides overview of U.S. city and county policies and programs that affect
community food security. Profiles nine organizations, offers basic
organizing information, identifies potential project funders, and recommends
resources. Community Food Security Coalition, PO Box 209, Venice, CA 90294,
310-822-5410, http://www.foodsecurity.org.
Holding Our Ground: Protecting America's Farms and Farmland. 1997. $34.95.
Discusses reasons for protecting farmland and methods to advocate for
farmland preservation. Analyzes federal, state, and local protection efforts
and techniques. Explores land protection options such as purchasing
development rights and private land trusts. Island Press, Box 7, Dept. 2AU,
Covelo, CA 95428, 800-828-1302, info@islandpress.org,
http://www.islandpress.com/islandpress/index.html.
Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmer's Survey. 1999.
Compiles survey findings from 4,638 organic farmers. Prioritizes their
perceived needs for organic farming research, ranks usefulness of production
resources, ranks products grown as well as marketing outlets. Gives an
overview of organic management strategies utilized and examines constraints
and challenges to organic production. Executive Summary available online.
Organic Farming Research Foundation, PO Box 440, Santa Cruz, CA 95061,
831-426-6606, email research@afrf.org, http://www.ofrf.org/.
Making the Transition to Organic Farming, Conference Proceedings, University
of Guelph, January 29-31, 1999. $10. Workshops include weed management, soil
fertility, getting your farm certified, permaculture, community supported
agriculture and more. Tomas Nimmo, Conference Coordinator, Box 116,
Collingwood, Ontario, Canada, L9Y 3Z4, 705-444-0923, email
organix@georgian.net; http://www.gks.com/OrgConf/.
1999 National Organic Directory. $47.95 + $3 s&h. Community Alliance with
Family Farmers, PO Box 363, Davis, CA 95617, 1-800-852-3832.
Food Bytes. E-mail newsletter that provides news and analysis on genetic
engineering, factory farming and organics. Looks at the influence of
powerful agribusiness trade associations as in the case of the EPA's
brochure on food safety and pesticides. To subscribe, send an email to
majordomo@mr.net with the message: subscribe pure-food-action. For more
information, contact Campaign for Food Safety/Organic Consumers Association,
860 Hwy 61, Little Marais, MN 55614, 218-226-4164, alliance@mr.net,
http://www.purefood.org.
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has initiated a listserv on
agriculture and climate change. To subscribe, send an e-mail to
listserv@iatp.org with the message: subscribe ag_climate. Direct questions
or comments to Mark Muller at IATP, 612-870-3420, mmuller@iatp.org.
COMING EVENTS
Contact CSAS office for more information.
1999
June-Sep. - Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society tours throughout NE
June 6-8 - National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Meeting - World Food
Security and Sustainability: The Impacts of Biotechnology and Industrial
Consolidation, Lincoln, NE
http://www.cals.cornell.edu/extension/nabc/webmeeting.html
June 12-16 - 6th Conference on Agroforestry in North America: Sustainable
Land-Use Management for the 21st Century, Hot Springs, AR,
tclason@agctr.lsu.edu
http://www.missouri.edu/~afta/Sixth_Conf.html
June 14-16 - XXVIII International Congress Work Sciences in Sustainable
Agriculture, Horsens, Denmark, http://www.sp.dk/~cgs/ciosta/
Aug. 8-11 - Soil and Water Conservation Society Annual Conference, Biloxi,
MS
Aug. 9-10 - Amaranth Institute 1999 Meeting, Omaha, NE
Aug. 9-13 - Nebraska Forestry Shortcourse, Chadron, NE
Aug. 9/14/17 - Organic Grain Farming Workshops, Randolph/Aurora/Clarkson, NE
Aug. 24 - Alternative Ag Expo: Diverse Systems that Work, South Sioux City,
NE
Oct. 12-15 - Second National Small Farm Conference: Building Partnerships
for the 21st Century, St. Louis, MO
Oct. 20-23 - North American Chapter Association for Farming Systems Research
and Extension (AFSR/E) Biennial Meeting - Sustaining Agriculture in the 21st
Century: Thinking "Outside the Box," Guelph, Ontario, CA, (abstracts due
Apr. 1), http://www.oac.uoguelph.ca/FSR/
For additional events, see:
http://www.sare.org/wreg/view_notice_adm.pl
http://www.agnic.org/mtg/
DID YOU KNOW?
Nebraska highlights from National 1997 Census of Agriculture: 51,454 farms
in Nebraska, down 2.8% from 1992; average size 885 acres, up from 839 in
1992; all Nebraska farms with annual sales of less than $50,000 had combined
annual marketings of $403 million, or 4.1% of the state's total sales, yet
they accounted for 49% of all Nebraska farms. At the other end, 4.9% of
Nebraska farms had annual sales of at least $500,000, accounting for more
than 55% of Nebraska's agricultural marketings. For more, see
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/highlights/ne/ne.htm.
Celebrate Earth Day April 22!
***********************
Pam Murray, Coordinator
Center for Grassland Studies and
Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems
PO Box 830949
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68583-0949
phone: 402-472-9383
fax: 402-472-4104
e-mail: csas001@unlvm.unl.edu
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail