Sausage-bean Cassoulet

Image courtesy USDA The application deadline for students who want to apply for the 2010 USDA/1890 National Scholars Program is February 1, 2010.

Applications for the 2010 USDA/1890 National Scholars Program are now being accepted. Aspiring high school seniors and rising college sophomores and juniors are encouraged to apply before the Feb. 1, 2010, deadline.

The scholarship program is a partnership initiative between USDA and the 1890 Land-Grant Universities and Tuskegee University. It is designed to expand diversity in USDA through the recruitment of talented students into public service in agriculture and related fields, including food sciences, natural resource sciences and agricultural sciences.

“This program furthers the Obama administration’s goal of promoting and encouraging America’s young men and women to consider careers in agriculture and public service,” says Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Under this terrific partnership, college-bound students benefit from an outstanding educational opportunity, and USDA benefits from the knowledge, talent, diversity and skills that they will one day bring to our organization.”

Since the inception of the National Scholars Program in 1992, USDA has funded scholarships for more than 500 students. The scholarship recipients receive full tuition, fees, books, use of laptop computers and printers, software, employment and employee benefits for each of the four years they pursue a bachelor’s degree. For each year of the scholarship, students receive room and board provided by the partnering institutions.

Through this partnership, USDA also hires these graduates into career positions. Students are required to work one year at USDA for each year of their scholarship.

The mission of the land-grant system is to teach, conduct research and provide outreach. The system was initiated by President Abraham Lincoln with the passing of the Morrill Act of 1862. A second Morrill Act was passed in 1890 to grant freed slaves and African Americans access to land-grant institutions in southern states. The passage of this bill brought educational opportunities in technical, military and agricultural sciences to the general working class population who had no other access to higher levels of learning.

The USDA selects scholars based on recommendations of participating 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University.

For more information about the USDA/1890 National Scholars Program, visit the program website or click here to download an application.

Photo courtesy Weed Science Society of America Weeds such as ragweed have developed a resistance to glyphosate, a commonly used herbicide

In a recent presentation to the EPA, representatives from the Weed Science Society of America reported nine U.S. weed species to have developed a resistance to glyphosate, the most widely used weed-control method for farmers and gardeners.

Many farmers rely almost exclusively on glyphosate throughout the growing season. However, using a single herbicide increases the odds that the weed population will shift to resistant plants that are able to escape treatment and compete with crops for moisture and nutrients, the WSSA warns.

Unfortunately, it is too late to prevent glyphosate resistance from developing,” said David Shaw, WSSA president. “It’s a problem that is already with us. The challenge now is to adopt effective management techniques that can keep resistance from spreading.

“A common recommendation offered by university scientists for preventing or managing resistance is to rotate herbicides used. Shaw says farmers initially were slow to recognize the seriousness of glyphosate resistance and adopt rotation methods.”

“One issue may have been the mistaken perception that adopting resistance-management practices will cost more since glyphosate tends to be very affordable,” he said.

Harriet Behar, an organic specialist at the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, also recommends farmers test their soil for nutrient imbalances, including in trace minerals.

“Many weeds are actually indicators of soil that is not in balance,” Behar said. “When [farmers] start balancing their soils, they end up not having as many of those weeds.”

By increasing the amount of organic matter in the soil, farmers and gardeners can achieve a better nutrient balance as well as make the soil looser and loamier so that weeds can be more easily pulled by hand, she said.

In a four-year research project now underway in six key agricultural states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska and North Carolina), researchers are comparing the economics of herbicide-resistance management programs with the use of glyphosate as an exclusive treatment for weed control. As of the end of the third year of the study, researchers say the net returns on fields managed according to recommended best practices are equal to or greater than the returns on those where glyphosate is used alone. Increased yields appear to offset any increase in herbicide costs.

When glyphosate was first introduced for weed control, its unique way of inhibiting protein synthesis and growth in plants led many to believe that resistance would not be an issue,” Shaw said. “Obviously that prediction was wrong. However, best management practices can slow the development of resistant weeds, and one effective approach is to rotate glyphosate with herbicides that work very differently.”

According to Behar, for those who decide to implement organic methods of weed control, the soil also becomes more resilient under weather stresses, such as drought, also leading to higher crop yields.

Small-scale farmers and gardeners who use Roundup or other brand-name herbicides that contain glyphosate should adopt a broad set of weed management techniques, the WSSA recommends.

“By rotating the types of herbicides used and by complementing them with hoeing, hand-pulling, black plastic and other nonchemical weed control measures, we can prevent or delay resistance and preserve glyphosate as an effective weed control tool,” Shaw said.

The Clean Energy bill could provide offset costs for farmers who reduce their greenhouse gas and carbon emissions, such as through implementing no-till farming methods.

As Congress discusses the Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454)—the infamous cap-and-trade bill—those in the agriculture sector wonder how they will be affected economically by potential changes in U.S. climate change policy.

According to an analysis performed by Kansas State University, while the Clean Energy bill could cause a modest decline in short-term profits for farmers, it will not hinder profits in the long-run. The analysis, which was sponsored by American Farmland Trust, looked at six economic studies as of December 1, 2009, that examined the effects of the bill.

“Overall, the research suggests U.S. agriculture has more to gain than lose with the passage of H.R. 2454,” said Bill Golden, a research assistant professor at KSU’s Department of Agriculture Economics who led the study. “The bill specifically exempts production agriculture from emissions caps, provides provisions to ease the transition to higher fertilizer prices and fosters the development of carbon offset markets, which will likely enhance agricultural revenues.”

Globally, the agriculture industry is responsible for 15 percent of emissions, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told attendees at the Agriculture and Rural Development Day in Copenhagen on December 12, 2009. Thus, the agriculture industry must play a role in mitigating climate change.

The bill would require the agriculture department to establish an incentive program for activities that reduce greenhouse gas and carbon emissions, such as no-till farming, as well as a cost-offset program.

“At the present time, it is not completely clear how renewable energy legislation and climate offset markets will function together,” Golden said. Success will be determined by how carbon trading and renewable fuel policies are implemented. 

The KSU analysis found that the six studies made different assumptions about key variables that could significantly impact the results, such as what agricultural offsets will be included in the Clean Energy bill. The economic impacts will vary by region and by crop and livestock sub-sectors.

The Clean Energy bill also establishes a Renewable Energy Standard, requiring a portion of U.S. electricity to be produced from low-carbon renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaic systems. According to KSU’s analysis, as the market expands, the agriculture sector will see financial benefits.

The analysis could not conclude a definitive impact the Clean Energy bill would have on the agriculture sector because it will depend on what climate change policies are included. However, Jimmy Daukus, director of AFT’s Agriculture and Environment Campaign, said he expects it to have significant implications for farmers and ranchers.

“Farmers and ranchers have a great deal at stake,” Daukus said. If the Clean Energy bill is not passed, the EPA will have to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. “Regulations without opportunities will only bring cost to producers. Agriculture needs the USDA and others to analyze the effects of a regulatory-only alternative to better understand the potential economic impact.”