More young people see opportunities in farming

A Wisconsin factory worker worried about layoffs became a dairy farmer. An employee at a Minnesota nonprofit found an escape from her cubicle by buying a vegetable farm. A nuclear engineer tired of office bureaucracy decided to get into cattle ranching in Texas.

While fresh demographic information on U.S. farmers won't be available until after a new agricultural census is done next year, there are signs more people in their 20s and 30s are going into farming: Enrollment in university agriculture programs has increased, as has interest in farmer-training programs.

Young people are turning up at farmers markets and are blogging, tweeting and promoting their agricultural endeavors through other social media.

The young entrepreneurs typically cite two reasons for going into farming: Many find the corporate world stifling and see no point in sticking it out when there's little job security; and demand for locally grown and organic foods has been strong enough that even in the downturn they feel confident they can sell their products.

Laura Frerichs, 31, of Hutchinson, Minn., discovered her passion for farming about a year after she graduated from college with an anthropology degree. She planned to work in economic development in Latin America and thought she ought to get some experience working on a farm.

She did stints on five farms, mostly vegetable farms, and fell in love with the work. Frerichs and her husband now have their own organic farm, and while she doesn't expect it to make them rich, she's confident they'll be able to earn a living.

"There's just this growing consciousness around locally grown foods, around organic foods," she said. "Where we are in the Twin Cities, there's been great demand for that."

Farming is inherently risky: Drought, flooding, wind and other weather extremes can all destroy a year's work. And with farmland averaging $2,140 per acre across the United States. but two to four times that much in the Midwest and California, start-up costs can be daunting.

Still, agriculture fared better than many parts of the economy during the recession, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts record profits for farmers as a whole this year.

"People are looking at farm income, especially the increase in asset values, and seeing a really positive story about our economy," said USDA senior economist Mary Clare Ahearn, citing preliminary statistics. "Young people are viewing agriculture as a great opportunity and saying they want to be a part of it."

That's welcome news to the government. More than 60% of farmers are over the age of 55, and without young farmers to replace them when they retire the nation's food supply would depend on fewer and fewer people.

"We'd be vulnerable to local economic disruptions, tariffs, attacks on the food supply, really, any disaster you can think of," said Poppy Davis, who coordinates the USDA's programs for beginning farmers and ranchers.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has called for 100,000 new farmers within the next few years, and Congress has responded with proposals that would provide young farmers with improved access to USDA support and loan programs.

One beginning farmer is Gabrielle Rojas, 34, from the central Wisconsin town of Hewitt. As a rebellious teen all she wanted to do was leave her family's farm and find a career that didn't involve cows. But she changed her mind after spending years in dead-end jobs in a factory and restaurant.

"In those jobs I'm just a number, just a time-clock number," Rojas said. "But now I'm doing what I love to do. If I'm having a rough day or I'm a little sad because the sun's not shining or my tractor's broken, I can always go out and be by the cattle. That always makes me feel better."

Rojas got help in changing careers from an apprenticeship program paid for by the USDA, which began giving money in 2009 to universities and nonprofit groups that help train beginning farmers. The grants helped train about 5,000 people the first year. This year, the USDA estimates more than twice as many benefited.

One of the groups that received a grant is Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, or MOSES. The Spring Valley, Wis., chapter teaches farming entrepreneurs how to cope with price swings and what to do in cases of catastrophic weather.

MOSES also organizes field days, where would-be farmers tour the operations of successful farms to learn and share tips. Attendance is up 20% this year, director Faye Jones said, and some outings that used to attract 30 or 40 people have drawn as many as 100, most between the ages of 18 and 30.

"I think for many people, farming has been a lifelong dream, and now the timing is right," she said. Among the reasons she cited: the lifestyle, working in the fresh air and being one's own boss.

If farming is beginning to sound like an appealing career, there are downsides. The work involves tough physical labor, and vacations create problems when there are crops to be harvested and cows to be milked.

In addition, many farmers need second jobs to get health insurance or make ends meet. As the USDA notes, three-fifths of farms have sales of less than $10,000 a year, although some may be growing fruit trees or other crops that take a few years to develop.

None of those factors dissuaded 27-year-old Paul Mews. He left a high-paying job as a nuclear engineer last year to become a cattle rancher in Menard, Tex. His wife's family has been ranching for generations, and Mews decided he'd much rather join his in-laws and be his own boss than continue shuffling paperwork at the plant.

"When you're self-employed, it's so much more fulfilling. You get paid what you're worth," he said. "It's really nice that what you put into it is what you're going to get back out."

By Dinesh Ramde, Associated Press

Is That Soda Safe?

If you’ve always suspected that neon-colored sodas like Mountain Dew, Fanta Orange and various citrusy Gatorade drinks contain less-than-savory ingredients, you’re right. These and other highly sweetened, highly colored citrus-flavored sodas contain brominated vegetable oil (BVO), a synthetic chemical first patented as a flame retardant that some scientists now say deserves closer scrutiny. According to a recent article posted on Environmental Health News, BVO is found in 10% of sodas in the U.S., yet research about its health effects are limited.

What research does exist is decades old, and fails to account for the many worrisome potential consequences of over-exposure to bromine, including “skin lesions, memory loss and nerve disorders.” The article adds: “Other studies suggest that BVO could be building up in human tissues, just like other brominated compounds such as flame retardants. In mouse studies, big doses caused reproductive and behavioral problems.”

Essentially the BVO—derived from soybeans or corn—weighs flavoring down, preventing it from separating out. But it’s now known that these chemicals build up in human tissue and breast milk and they have been linked to reproductive problems, early puberty and altered thyroids. It’s particularly concerning for children and teens who consume large quantities of these sodas (often, as noted in the article, to stay awake while playing video games) and severe reactions to bromine in these drinks have landed some in emergency rooms.

In 1970, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pulled BVO from its list of chemicals on the Generally Recognized as Safe list, but later rescinded after industry studies indicated it was safe. While BVO is currently accepted for use as a “stabilizer” in fruit-flavored drinks at 15 parts per million, the FDA approval remains at the “interim” level, indicating more studies are needed. It’s been at this level since 1977. Meanwhile, studies with both pigs and dogs have not revealed significant health problems. Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest told Environmental Health News: “Is it harmful at the amounts consumed? Probably not. But it would be nice if the FDA did a thorough review of the literature and finalized an approval or a ban.”

But enough health risk is suspected with BVO that both Europe and Japan have banned it from food products for decades. Naturally based hydrocolloids replace the brominated chemicals in beverages abroad.

Facebook Greens Up

Facebook has announced they will begin collaborating with Greenpeace, the site's most "liked" environmental nonprofit organization, as part of a major push to eventually power their data centers with clean and renewable energy.

Facebook looks forward to a day when our primary energy sources are clean and renewable, and we are working with Greenpeace and others to help bring that day closer, said Marcy Scott Lynn of Facebook's sustainability program.  As an important step, our data center siting policy now states a preference for access to clean and renewable energy.

Facebook’s announcement comes nearly two years after Greenpeace launched its global Unfriend Coal campaign, which called on Facebook to power its data centers with clean energy instead of coal. Unfriend Coal’s Facebook page was “liked” by over 700,000 people in 14 countries, and in a rally for Facebook to “go green” by this past Earth Day, more than 80,000 supportive comments in over 11 languages were posted on Unfriend Coal’s wall in a span of just 24 hours, setting the Guinness World Record for the most Facebook comments in one day. The Unfriend Coal campaign has officially ended with Facebook’s new announcement.

“After 20 months of mobilizing, agitating and negotiating to green Facebook, the Internet giant has today announced its goal to run on clean, renewable energy,” Greenpeace stated last Thursday. “The clear message to energy producers from Facebook is: invest now in renewable energy, and move away from coal power. That’s a status update we can all celebrate!”

Both parties plan to take on a range of endeavors, including ongoing research into clean energy solutions for Facebook’s future data centers as well as conversing with utility providers about increasing the supply of renewable power to Facebook’s current data centers. They will also promote energy efficiency to Facebook users through an upcoming Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and OPower affiliated social energy application. According to the NRDC, improvements in energy efficiency have the potential to deliver more than $700 billion in cost savings in the U.S. alone. Motivating consumers to take action, they add, is the key to unlocking this potential.

“Social networking represents the next frontier in delivering consumer energy savings,” said Dan Yates, cofounder and CEO of Opower. “This application will give users the ability to share their personal energy use information with like-minded individuals—fostering more conversations about energy savings and engaging a broader segment of the population, one that may have had little interest in energy efficiency to date. This application is about giving consumers the information and motivation they need to use energy more efficiently.”

As the already significant energy used to power data centers is projected to grow 12% or more per year, Facebook and Greenpeace will also encourage other large energy users and producers to utilize clean energy rather than re-commission coal plants or build new coal plants. Greenpeace’s website now includes links for visitors to tweet Facebook’s new environmental incentives to executives at Microsoft, Apple and Twitter.

“Facebook’s commitment to renewable energy raises the bar for other IT and cloud computing companies such as Apple, IBM, Microsoft and Twitter,” said Casey Harrell, Senior IT Analyst for Greenpeace International. “The Facebook campaign proved that people all over the world want their social networks powered by renewable energy and not by coal.”

Eating Less Meat is Good for the Environment

Our meat consumption habits take a serious toll on the environment. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the production, processing and distribution of meat requires huge outlays of pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, feed and water while releasing greenhouse gases, manure and a range of toxic chemicals into our air and water. 

A lifecycle analysis conducted by EWG that took into account the production and distribution of 20 common agricultural products found that red meat such as beef and lamb is responsible for 10 to 40 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as common vegetables and grains.

Livestock are typically fed corn, soybean meal and other grains which have to first be grown using large amounts of fertilizer, fuel, pesticides, water and land. EWG estimates that growing livestock feed in the U.S. alone requires 167 million pounds of pesticides and 17 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer each year across some 149 million acres of cropland. The process generates copious amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, while the output of methane—another potent greenhouse gas—from cattle is estimated to generate some 20 percent of overall U.S. methane emissions.

“If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” reports ecologist David Pimentel of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He adds that the seven billion livestock in the U.S. consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire U.S. population.

Our meat consumption habits also cause other environmental problems. A 2009 study found that four-fifths of the deforestation across the Amazon rainforest could be linked to cattle ranching. And the water pollution from factory farms (also called concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs)—whereby pigs and other livestock are contained in tight quarters—can produce as much sewage waste as a small city, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Further, the widespread use of antibiotics to keep livestock healthy on those overcrowded CAFOs has led to the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that threaten human health and the environment in their own right.

Eating too much meat is no good for our health, with overindulgence linked to increasing rates of heart disease, cancer and obesity. Worldwide, between 1971 and 2010, production of meat tripled to around 600 billion pounds while global population grew by 81 percent, meaning that we are eating a lot more meat than our grandparents. Researchers extrapolate that global meat production will double by 2050 to about 1.2 trillion pounds a year, putting further pressure on the environment and human health.

For those who can’t give up meat fully, cutting back goes a long way toward helping the environment, as does choosing meat and dairy products from organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed animals. “Ultimately, we need better policies and stronger regulations to reduce the environmental impacts of livestock production,” says EWG’s Kari Hammerschlag “But personal shifting of diets is an important step.”

Are Gas Furnaces Cheaper and Greener Than Oil?

December  2011 | E Magazine

 It is true that natural gas has been a more affordable heat source than oil for Americans in recent years. The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that the average American homeowner will pay only about $732 to heat their home with gas this winter season (October 1 through March 31) versus a whopping $2,535 for oil heat. 

While the price of natural gas has remained relatively stable in the last few years, oil prices have been high and rising thanks in large part to continued unrest in Middle Eastern oil producing countries. Just two years ago the average winter home oil heating bill was $1,752.

While oil prices are likely to remain high and volatile in the foreseeable future, most energy analysts agree that pricing for natural gas, much of which is still derived domestically, is not expected to rise or fluctuate substantially in the U.S. any time soon. 

According to EIA economist and forecaster Neil Gamson, the U.S. already has a glut of natural gas and expects even more domestic production to come online soon as drillers are set to open up the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York to more gas development.

Only about eight percent of U.S. homes are on oil heat today. Most are in the Northeastern U.S. and were built back in the day when oil was the cheapest way to keep toasty through the long winters. Many utilities have since put gas lines into neighborhoods that didn’t have them in the past, opening the door for homeowners to switch out old inefficient oil furnaces for more efficient gas units.

The federal government’s 30 percent tax credit (capped at $500) for upgrading to a high efficiency furnace expires at the end of 2011 but will likely be extended in one form or another into 2012. In the meantime, some states, municipalities and utilities offer their own incentives and low-interest loans on upgraded, high-efficiency furnaces. 

Check what’s available in your area via a zip code or map-based search online at the website of the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE). Regardless of incentives, gas furnaces tend to cost less than their oil counterparts anyway, but installing one from scratch will incur an extra thousand dollars or two to run a gas line to it from the street. 

If natural gas continues to be substantially cheaper than oil, the fuel cost savings alone would pay back the up-front equipment and infrastructure investment within five years in most cases.

Environmentally speaking, gas has lower carbon emissions than oil, but hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”)—the highly controversial gas extraction method increasingly employed today (drillers inject water, sand and chemicals at high pressure underground to break through rock and access the natural gas)—takes a heavy toll on surrounding ecosystems and regional water quality. 

Most environmental advocates would rather see people transition to truly renewable heating sources like geothermal or solar. If you’re going to the cost and trouble of switching out an oil furnace for something new, a geothermal heat pump may cost more ($7,500 and up) than a new gas heating system but will save big bucks and emissions in the long run. 

For those in reliably sunny areas, a solar heating system will cost even more up front but can deliver similar long term economic and environmental benefits.

Fracking Linked to Toxic Tap Water

The underground drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has for the first time been definitively linked to contaminants in drinking water. As reported by investigative news site ProPublica, on December 8 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft report revealing that water contamination discovered in Pavilion, Wyoming, is almost certainly caused by fracking.

Frackng involves injecting water, sand and chemicals into the ground to fracture rock and release natural gas, and environmental groups and concerned community residents have long argued that these toxic chemicals can then leach into surrounding drinking water supplies. But definitive studies have been hard to come by. In Wyoming, however, 10 compounds related to fracking were found in residents’ drinking water, including benzene, methane, glycol ethers and alcohols. Benzene was found at 246 micrograms per liter, leagues above allowed concentrations of five micrograms per meter.

ProPublica writes that: “The agency’s findings could be a turning point in the heated national debate about whether contamination from fracking is happening, and are likely to shape how the country regulates and develops natural gas resources in the Marcellus Shale and across the Eastern Appalachian states.”

In light of the findings, a spokesperson for Canada-based Encana Corp., responsible for the wells, has said the data remains inconclusive, but shares of the company’s stock still fell more than 6% following the report’s release.

And despite the company’s denials, The Wall Street Journal reports that Encana “has been providing fresh water to 21 homes in the area since August 2010, when it began meeting with the EPA and state regulators to find a long-term alternative to well water for the area.”

The EPA study followed complaints from residents of Pavilion, Wyoming, who voiced concerns about the way their drinking water smelled and tasted. Coverage of the new findings has noted that Wyoming fracking wells are only 1,220 feet deep, compared to rocks being fracked in Pennsylvania and other spots along the Marcellus Shale, which are thousands of feet deeper than water wells.

But as Amy Mall, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council writes on her blog: “This draft report makes it obvious that there are many factors at play, any one of which can go wrong. Much stronger rules are needed to ensure that well construction standards are stronger and reduce threats to drinking water.”