New York’s untapped syrup potential

Yes, we Canadians roll our eyes whenever someone includes maple syrup in a list of Canadian stereotypes. But it’s not like we’ve done nothing to perpetuate that; we even made a PSA about it. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) must want a piece of that action. While most of his fellow Democrats are tripping over themselves to add their names to the pro-same-sex marriage list, he’s proposing new federal grants for MOAR SYRUP. In New York, of course.

The original Maple Tapping Access Program (TAP) passed as part of the 2012 farm bill, and created grants for states to assist syrup producers with accessing maple trees on privately owned land. States could also get some money for researching and promoting their maple markets. Everything would be overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Schumer is looking to get a new Maple TAP Act included in the 2013 farm bill. Here’s his quote:

Despite reports that tapping season has begun, hundreds of millions of untapped trees are just sitting there, full of a lucrative natural resource that could propel New York to the top of the maple industry, as well as provide a huge economic boost and new jobs to maple-rich Clinton County.

Heaven knows they haven’t been leveraging their resources that much already. Less than one half of one percent tappable maple trees in upstate New York are used for syrup production, compared to 3 percent in Vermont, which despite such a low production rate put an image of maple tapping on its state quarter.

But it’s a win-win situation: Producers are spared the expense of new land, and landowners can not only get money or syrup in exchange for sticking tubes in their trees, but they can often get agricultural land assessments that lower their property taxes. And with less capital expense, producers are freer to hire more. Why would such a sensibl production method remain so uncommon?

New York may never produce as much syrup as Quebec, which Schumer invoked, but there has to be a market for made-in-America pancake sauce. That it would require federal grants to spread is baffling. I’m no fan of boutique tax credits, but if Schumer must use federal resources to facilitate this growth, he might, for efficiency’s sake, consider a credit for landowners who allow tree-tapping.

Even so, he shouldn’t be using federal resources. If his efforts get syrup producers to clue in to all the trees on which they’ve been missing out, and approach landowners on their own, we can give him some kudos. This does not require any government. It requires the industry to wake up and smell the coffee that goes so well with a plate of syrup-laden quick breads. (And bacon. Maple bacon. That’s some good breakfast stuff.)

It’s not better down where it’s wetter

If I arranged federal expenditures on a pyramid, with the top tier representing massive, well-known programs that need cuts now and the bottom representing obscure little programs that don’t mean much, direct farm subsidies would be on the middle tier. Not as bloated as entitlements and defense but, at one percent of spending, substantial. Thanks to lawmakers from New England, we have a new opening to bring those into the deficit debate.

These members of Congress, led by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), are seeking a $100 million relief package for fishermen:

• $67.5 million for job retraining and efficiency improvements;
• $15 million for independent observers who monitor the annual catch;
• $10 million for loans for new fishermen to buy boats and permits from outgoing fishermen;
• and $7.5 million for “cooperative fishery science research.”

That this industry is facing hard times is indisputable. Overfishing has led to sharp cuts in exactly how much fishermen are permitted to catch. Fish stock predictions have also been way off, so even those who abide by the regulations are suffering. That proposal for new research could be of great help. As for the independent observers, the industry is supposed to be paying for those starting this year, but with fish stock cuts as big as 72 percent, that’s not going to be easy.

It’s the reason for the total aid package that bothers me: Kerry’s spokesperson said it’s so “New England’s fishermen are treated the same way as farmers in the Midwest when hard times hit.” It’s certainly inconsistent for Midwestern farmers to have enjoyed federal aid of this nature for so long when it’s new to New England fishermen. But that doesn’t make all of it a good idea.

Is it easy for fishermen struggling to keep their businesses afloat (no pun intended) to move into new industries? Of course not; education doesn’t come cheap. Is it easy for new fishermen to buy boats and permits from old ones? Unless those are really crappy boats, I doubt it. Is any of the above the federal government’s responsibility? On the surface, yes. Does this run the risk of continuing when the industry outlook improves, as it has for Midwestern farmers, resulting in bloat? Absolutely.

With the proper oversight and means-testing, it is possible to make sure that any new agricultural subsidies only go to those who really need it. But if subsidies for farmers are any precedent, oversight may not be a priority. Kerry will have to make sure of that before he continues with this push.

Water, water, somewhere

How hard can it be to pass a farm bill? In this Congress, the task is, apparently, Herculean. Why? Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)! According to President Obama, he’s the one holding up the bill, resulting in a rather hasty purchase of $170 million in pork, chicken, lamb and catfish by the Department of Agriculture. But don’t accuse Ryan of being anti-farm; after all, his “veins run with cheese.” Might want to get that checked out, pal, you’re only 42.

But I digress. The meat purchase is part of a battery of Obama administration proposals for aid to farmers in the drought-stricken Midwest. With the cost of feed exceptionally high and the availability of water exceptionally low, this will be a jump-start to the industry, with the meat itself going to federal nutrition programs and food banks. Other proposals include:

• opening more federal land for grazing
• providing farmers and ranchers with access to low-interest federal loans
• “get[ting] water to livestock”

What does that mean, “getting water to livestock?” Irrigation? More livestock watering facilities? Good old-fashioned water pumps? Rows of people hauling buckets of water from hand to hand, starting at the nearest lake and ending at some holding pond? Selling them Evian for Cows? It hasn’t been made clear, but I’ll go for the first three, and perhaps the fourth if the people doing the hauling are all well-built men.

I can handle opening up federal land for grazing; the less grain consumed by livestock, the better for food prices. The loan proposal isn’t great when you consider how much federal money is given to farmers already. And the meat purchases? They’ll make farmers happy for a while, and it’s hardly as if users of nutrition programs couldn’t use some good meat (assuming we’re talking about users who really do have a hard time buying food and aren’t just taking advantage of weak oversight). A long-term fix? Absolutely not.

But if this drought is part of a continuing pattern, which remains to be seen, the priority should be getting more water to at-risk areas of the country. I recommend looking to Israel for help with this. In recent years, the techniques they’ve employed to “make the desert bloom” have been under fire for going too far, to the point that the reserves used for irrigation and pumping are starting to run dry. Any imitation of those techniques must be proportional to the areas they’re intended to help.

As for the farm bill, I say we keep Congress in session until they pass every spending bill for the year. If that means skimping on vacations, tough. Farmers aren’t getting one.

My township for a horse plant

Are you as tired of the banal, unproductive Beltway arguments over jobs, taxes and Obamacare as I am? If you’re not, you’re either a masochist or a lobbyist. Let’s move on to something simpler, more obscure, but probably equally controversial. And if you’re one of my staunchly pro-animal rights friends who saw my tweet yesterday announcing this column’s topic, I’m sure you’ve been sharpening your proverbial knives since, but do listen.

For the past five years, thanks to the efforts of animal rights groups, federal funding for the inspection of horse slaughtering plants has been verboten. This year, that funding was almost restored; it’s still in committee limbo. Since the funding was withdrawn, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has seen an increase in the abuse and neglect of horses. If you want to put a number on it, try 138,000 – that’s how many horses end up slaughtered anyway, in Canada or Mexico.

Here’s a spokesperson from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): “Americans are revolted by horse slaughter, it’s cruelty they just don’t want to support.” Except for the towns of Rockville, Missouri, and Roswell, New Mexico, both of whom have been selected as locations for new slaughter facilities and have majorities of residents who want them. Horses make glue, of course, as well as feed for zoo creatures. Not exactly market movers, but to a town like Rockville, which is 162 strong with a median household income under $20,000 and one grain elevator, it can mean a lot.

I realize that some people may not be swayed by economic arguments, so let’s try something else: Funding the inspection of plants like this ensures that any ensuing slaughter is done as safely and humanely as any slaughter of animals can be. (By the way, if you’re vegan, don’t even bother with this one.) The alternative, as we have seen, is to let horses die slowly after abandonment. Rescue ranches fill up fast. Horse-owning families can’t afford them forever. And domesticated horses can’t survive in the wild.

My point is that these horses will die of causes other than old age regardless of Congress putting up some money for their slaughter. If we accept this as an inevitability – which, unless you expect horse owners never to stop affording these animals – we might as well take the opportunity to create a few American jobs. It’ll help people in towns like Rockville much more than a few middling tax credits and streamlinings.

For those who have read this column and would like to make a scathing comment about my heartlessness, please offer a detailed alternative that would not involve lots of horse death. And I don’t want to hear about new state-run shelters.

Big bureaucracy on the prairie

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. Yesterday, we briefly touched on a proposed rule from her department that would require child labor laws to apply to farms, specifically farms that are not owned by one’s parents. She’s getting a fair bit of backlash – from lobby groups? From libertarians? From agribusiness? Maybe. But mostly, from young people who work or have worked on farms and worry that this could cripple the industry.

You can read some of the best quotes in the above link, but I’ll quote one of my regular American sources, Alyssa from Illinois:

What if there was an old man [whose] only income was his small farm? He couldn’t afford to hire an employee so his grandchildren help him out. Without them he would have to do it all himself, which is actually nearly impossible, or go under. . . . They’ll be swallowed up by mega “farmers” who hire dozens of employees. It happens all the time, the old farm families can’t afford to farm anymore so they have to sell their land or rent it out.

For those who are asking, this wasn’t her post in its entirety; she went on to point out that her family has farmed the same land for six generations. So she gets it.

This rule isn’t ill-intentioned; it’s perfectly laudable to want to reduce workplace injuries. But those suffered by young people in the agriculture industry has fallen 40 percent from 2001 to 2009. And this happened without taking away government approval of safety courses given by 4-H and the Future Farmers of America (FFA), as the department is aiming to do. You know how people complain about the government trying to replace people who understand the industry with Washington bureaucrats? This is basically exactly that.

This isn’t like corporate agribusiness, in which barely illiterate workers don’t know how to demand better health care at the slaughterhouse. Family farms suffer much more directly when someone is injured or doesn’t know how to use equipment properly. I would trust someone running such a farm, as well as their kids, before I trusted some scarcely necessary federal directive.

Vacation update: Visited the Midtown and Uptown areas of Minneapolis, including the Midtown Global Market (lots of yummy natural foods at insane prices) and Magers & Quinn Booksellers (great selection).

Insert “Where’s the beef?” joke here

I don’t do much cooking with beef – except for flank steak, which I happen to make exceptionally well – but when I hear “lean beef,” I expect this. Not this. Does that even look like food to you? More like some unholy mass-produced toothpaste that is most definitely not minty fresh. Gov. Terry Branstad (R-IA) will tell you why it’s good to eat as he pursues a congressional probe into how people started complaining about it.

Known within the industry as lean, finely textured beef – which takes forever to type so we’ll stick to “pink slime” – this substance does include meat, although it’s typically the remnants from larger cuts of meat that you would normally make into pet food. It also includes ammonium hydroxide gas to kill pathogens, which sounds scary but is Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS) by the USDA. I’m sure that’s very comforting to every parent who has never done that while making hamburgers for the family.

Since there haven’t been massive amounts of health complaints that could conceivably be linked to pink slime, it’s easy to dismiss this as a bunch of people caterwauling over a non-harmful product that looks icky. That’s how Branstad sees it, and because one of the plants that makes this stuff is based in Iowa, he has a good reason to fight it. Recent corporate refusals to buy pink slime have led to the loss of 650 jobs, not only in Iowa, but in Kansas and Texas as well.

The article mentions that people linked to the company behind pink slime, Beef Products Inc., has donated $150,000 to Branstad, which may explain why he’s not looking at it from this perspective: American ranchers and meatpackers never used to do stuff like this. The goal of mass food production was to give families the same food they enjoyed at home, only faster. This isn’t the same food they enjoy at home – assuming they’re not eating frozen burger patties.

There are a number of things a congressional probe could do vis-à-vis pink slime, among them: finding out how this practice has impacted independent ranching and smaller-scale processing; whether or not the actual composition of pink slime is the same as the composition of plain old beef, sans the ammonium hydroxide; and whether there is the opportunity for adverse health effects after a certain level of consumption. But finding out why people are upset? You don’t even need a newspaper to tell you that.

I wonder what would happen if Iowa voters forced Branstad to insist that his wife Chris make burgers at their home only with pink slime. I imagine it would turn out much like this. (Sidebar: My mom made burgers last night from actual ground beef. They were good, but they needed seasoning salt.)

The First Lady says to eat your damn peas

Yesterday for lunch, I had a sandwich made with turkey, bacon, cheese, green peppers and spinach on ciabatta bread. (I also had a venti mocha from Starbucks, which was a bad idea because I’m pretty sure their coffee is partially composed of Ex-Lax.) Except for the bacon and cheese, neither of which I can live without, I’d say it was a fairly healthy option. When you hit your twenties, veggies become much more attractive. Don’t expect new federal guidelines to sway K-12 students in that direction.

The guidelines were announced by First Lady Michelle Obama, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and celebrity chef Rachael Ray, queen of chili cheese fries. They would impose limits on calories, salt, fats (especially trans fats) and various ingredients deemed unhealthy. School districts will receive federal funding to help with the transition, and will extend similar limits on subsidized meals for low-income students to all other meals.

The reasons school lunches have been so unhealthy in recent years is mostly economic. With schools and districts seeing their funding diminish, they have outsourced their food services to private corporations (notably Aramark, the heathens behind the cafeteria at my old college), who mostly depend on frozen and heavily processed food from one or two interstate suppliers. Were they to rely on fresh food from multiple local suppliers, you can bet they’d pass on the costs to the schools.

In short, healthier food is great, when you can get it. That’s the problem. The federal government wants to be the facilitator of less costly access to good food, which they’d be authorized to do if not for the mandate. Making school lunches healthier is relatively low on Americans’ list of “Things For Which We’ll Forgive New Federal Deficit Spending,” if it’s there at all. And with the First Lady spearheading it, it’s hard not to see it as a pet cause, which few want from her.

Instead of specific nutritional guidelines, which would be impossible to enforce without some new task force, they could make this effort simpler: buy local, fresh and healthy and keep current funding; buy the same old crap and get crap in return. It’s not impossible to find people in town who would gladly sell it to schools, often for the same price. Individual schools and districts have done it before without federal help. They need to be giving the advice.

In the end, when it comes to economics, people respond to governments when they offer rewards and punishments at the same time, not one or the other. President Obama has a habit of painting people into a corner when he wants them to do something. A person with better persuasion skills knows this is the surest way to make people rebel.

30 minutes or less or your veggies are free

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by every House member who voted to classify pizza – or, more accurately, the two tablespoons of tomato paste present in the pizza – as a vegetable. Now I’m not going to criticize pizza itself; in fact, yesterday at work, I didn’t have much to eat for lunch, and all I could think about was some nice, hot, crispy Brooklyn-style pepperoni and green peppers lovingly layered with cheddar cheese . . . I apologize. The mind wanders.

Two piddly little tablespoons of tomato sauce do not a serving of vegetables make. By that logic, one of those little plastic packets of ketchup would qualify as a vegetable, something which the hardest-core of Reaganites might approve of. Throw in the dairy, starch, fat and red meat that accompanies pizza, and you have the least healthy vegetable on the planet. You might see all those tots finishing off entire pies and declaring “I make the MyPlate work for me!”

I imagine this vote has VETO written all over it. Nonetheless, I think Congress should explore some other disguised vegetables that the food industry lobbyists kids will enjoy:

• Popcorn. What’s the problem? It’s corn and hot air. And salt. And butter. And, occasionally, cheese dust.
• Chocolate. The logic is unassailable. Chocolate comes from cacao beans. They might be starchy, but they’re usually eaten as a vegetable; the kind that produces chocolate will be a much easier sell.
• Green M&Ms. The word “greens” is ambiguous; has anyone explicitly stated that the word only applies to produce? Start with M&MS and work up to Gummi Bears.
• Raw cookie dough tubes. They can just peel down the paper and eat it like a banana. That counts, right?
• Lollipops. What? They’re usually fruit-flavored. I bet some of that flavoring comes from actual fruit.
• These potato chip flavors: ketchup, dill pickle, sour cream and onion. Potatoes and vegetable flavor = double serving in every bag! And if you add onion dip, it’s triple!

No kid will fail to see through this. If you need healthy dishes they’ll actually like, I have vegetarian lasagna, sautéed green peppers, carrot pudding (it’s actually a cake, but very low-fat), cucumber salad and acorn squash that tastes like apple pie filling. Just ask and I’ll send over the recipes post-haste.

O Christmas tree, of all the trees most taxing

Yes, two agriculture-related columns in a row! I don’t believe I’ve done a twofer since the health care talks. Really, “conservation” would have been inappropriate for trees that are designed to live for about a year. Why could Christmas trees be a political topic? Are the “War on Christmas” complaints starting already? No, but the tax complaints are still alive and well, however inaccurately.

At the request of Christmas tree farmers – a few, anyway – the Department of Agriculture (USDA) was prepared to impose a 15-cent fee on each tree sold in order to fund federal promotions for real Christmas trees, but has withdrawn the offer after criticism. This may seem ludicrous, but these promotions, known as “checkoff programs,” are already in use for 18 other agricultural commodities. Even the Got Milk? campaign was a checkoff program created by the California Milk Processor Board, and that one was certainly effective.

Unfortunately, farmers are divided over who benefits from the effects. In 2001, the checkoff program for mushrooms was declared unconstitutional, as it compelled smaller farmers to pay for promotions that largely benefited Big Farma. I couldn’t name a corporate Christmas tree farm offhand if you made them pay me; nonetheless, the ones who are most likely to afford slick ad placement will reap the rewards.

That wasn’t the point made by critics. They saw a federal department asking farmers to pay fees for something, and all they could think was “TAX!!!” I doubt a 15-cent tree fee would mean a noticeable shift to consumers; furthermore, since the (larger) farmers asked for it, and it would have (presumably) gone back into their pockets, I’m not sure it counts as a tax. And I’m amused by David Addington at the Heritage Foundation: “The American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn’t need any help from the government.” As opposed to the German Christmas tree?

My point: The next time the USDA comes up with a new checkoff program, don’t oppose it because it kind of looks like a tax. Oppose it because if farmers wanted to pool their resources into promoting their products, they could do it without any help from the government. Granted, it’s not requiring farmers to sell their products directly to you so you can sell it to actual customers, but it’s close. (Again, count your blessings, America.)

Perhaps someone outside the government will start up a PR agency specifically for family farmers who think their products are getting insufficient attention. Until then, I’d say the ruling on the mushroom program had the right idea for all the others. Too bad American distaste for judicial activism slows down the spreading process.

Like a good neighbor, federal farm insurance is there

Agriculture may be the least predictable sector of the American economy, except tourism in certain areas. The success of a farm is more contingent on environmental factors and global markets than anything else. You can’t blame lawmakers in “farm states” for wanting to ease their constituents’ minds. Unfortunately, some may end up worrying even less than before with a possible new farming subsidy.

With direct payments falling out of favor, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) have crafted a bill that would provide free insurance to farmers who experience “shallow crop losses” – a loss in yield of a certain percentage; most purchased insurance for 65-75 percent losses as of 2009 – before they get access to their paid insurance. This would help farmers maintain their incomes in the face of unforeseen circumstances, such as lowered global prices or extreme weather. Southern rice and cotton farmers prefer the old system, as their farming is more expensive but Midwestern corn and soybean farmers are fine with this.

The bill has more opposition than support so far. Stabenow and Lucas are rolling this bill into a promise to cut $23 billion in agriculture spending, but fiscal conservatives aren’t convinced of the savings. Environmentalists don’t want to make it easier to cultivate unspoiled land or give a greater edge to First World farmers. Even the American Farm Bureau Federation fears this will incentivize riskier behavior.

But the biggest argument against the bill is the fact that it doesn’t discriminate. Suppose that a farm is still profitable even following a five percent revenue loss (the minimum required to access the insurance)? Suppose “Big Farma” is able to enjoy the free money while family farmers actually use it for their operations? And as the article notes, what if someone demands this insurance using current prices as a baseline, instead of their actual financial circumstances?

The bill is still in its infancy, so Stabenow and Lucas are perfectly willing to heed their critics’ warnings. Here are my suggestions: First, bring up the threshold to 15 to 20 percent loss; second, require applicants to demonstrate that their farms have legitimately suffered from annual fluctuations; third, make sure this system actually requires people to apply; and fourth, nothing to Big Farma. This should be a bill for family farmers who don’t want to look for a second job to make ends meet.

While I agree that farmers are one of the four vertebrae of America – the others being manufacturers, soldiers and Kardashians – and should be afforded unique treatment, let’s ensure that the ones in genuine need for that treatment get it first, shall we?