In Historical Move, MPCA Orders EIS on Proposed Factory Farm

Posted by

By Paul Sobocinski, Land Stewardship Project

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Citizens’ Board ruled this week that Riverview LLP’s proposed 8,850-cow dairy operation in Stevens County must undergo an in-depth Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). To my knowledge, this is the first time that the MPCA has ordered an EIS of a factory farm.

This is a good decision. An EIS will allow the proposal’s negative impacts on water quality and quantity, local roads and existing independent family dairy farms to be fully analyzed before the project is allowed to seek a permit.

The proposed operation in Baker Township would house 8,850 cows and 500 heifers, making it among the largest operations of its kind in the state. Riverview LLP is already the largest dairy-producing firm in Minnesota, owning several other massive operations throughout this state, as well as South Dakota. In total, Riverview LLP owns over 45,000 cows, according to a 2013 article in Beef Magazine.

Fortunately, the MPCA Citizens’ Board took a careful look at concerns raised by neighbors and voted 6-1 for an EIS on Aug. 26. Water quantity and quality were chief among neighbors’ concerns. Many streams in the Pomme de Terre watershed, where the factory farm is proposed, are already polluted.

Another concern was that the cumulative impacts of already existing large feedlots, especially Riverview LLP-owned operations, needs to be assessed, including the impacts on water availability. Riverview LLP has four large operations in Stevens County, each over 5,000 cows. One has over 6,000 cows and is within six miles of the proposed operation. If approved, the Baker Township dairy alone would use almost 100 million gallons of water annually.

Neighbors to the proposed dairy are very concerned about hydrogen sulfide and its effects on their health. Hydrogen sulfide is a gas given off by liquid manure lagoons. Exposure to low levels of hydrogen sulfide over time can cause respiratory problems, headaches, eye irritation, insomnia, nausea and dizziness. If exposure is chronic, it can impact neurological functioning and cause more serious lung problems.

Hydrogen sulfide modeling for the proposed Riverview LLP operation indicates that the levels of hydrogen sulfide produced will be near the public health threshold. An MPCA Citizens’ Board member raised concerns that, if the Riverview LLP operation is approved, on-going monitoring for hydrogen sulfide must be required, and that this health concern should not be simply addressed through computer modeling.

Just as importantly, an EIS of the Riverview proposal will address socio-economic impacts. For example, many moderately-sized and beginning farmers in the area are concerned that the Riverview LLP operations push land prices to unaffordable levels. As a hog and beef farmer myself, I know that livestock operations on diversified family farms are essential to stewardship of the land and rural economic prosperity.

Factory farms like Riverview’s, however, displace family farms and generate many millions of gallons of raw liquid manure which is a waste product that is inevitably over-applied on neighboring fields. The MPCA Citizens’ Board decision was the right one for family farmers, the land and rural Minnesota.

Land Stewardship Project organizer Paul Sobocinski raises crops and livestock in southwestern Minnesota’s Redwood County. He can be reached at 507-342-2323 or

Taking steps to curb climate change would have a big impact on public health

Posted by

Ozone over earth

CC/Flickr/NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center

Too often, health impacts are left out of the conversation on climate change. That is unfortunate, because climate change threatens our ability to protect Minnesotans against the dangers of air pollution and increased allergens and asthma triggers linked to warmer summers, extreme weather and smoke from wildfires. This is especially true of the most vulnerable Minnesotans — the young, the elderly and those living with lung disease.

Power plants are the largest stationary source of greenhouse gases in the United States, and are a major source of air pollution in Minnesota. Placing carbon limits on existing power plants will not only reduce greenhouse gases, it will also reduce the amount of particulate pollution these plants emit. The negative health impacts of particulate pollution are well documented and include exacerbating lung diseases and causing cancer or premature death.

We know that temperature is a factor in ozone pollution, one of the major types of air pollution the American Lung Association has been fighting against for years. Our 2014 State of the Air report showed that warmer temperatures increased ozone pollution in large areas across the United States, including communities in Minnesota.

Extreme weather’s impacts

Climate change is associated not only with warmer summers, but extreme weather changes in many forms. Subtle changes in temperatures around the globe can mean drought and wildfires in one region, floods or blizzards in another. All of these extremes have negative effects on lung health, either because of the direct hazards of breathing particulate or ozone pollution, or the indirect health problems many Minnesotans would face due to increased levels of pollen, dust and mold extreme weather can cause.

Climate change is a serious public health issue. Unless it is addressed soon, more Minnesotans will be exposed to conditions that can result in illness and death due to respiratory problems, heat- and weather-related stress and disease carried by insects. These health issues are likely to have the greatest impact on our most vulnerable communities, including children, older adults, those with serious health conditions and the most economically disadvantaged.

As a nation, we have a very important choice to make. Placing first-ever limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants is a vital step to prevent the worst effects of climate change. The Clean Power Plan proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would not only reduce carbon pollution by 30 percent, it would reduce ozone and particulate pollution 25 percent by 2030 as it is implemented. That would result in an estimated reduction of 6,600 premature deaths and 150,000 fewer asthma attacks in children each year.

Act now, as we did 40 years ago

Forty years ago, we faced a similar choice as we confronted growing air pollution in our most populated area. We responded by passing the Clean Air Act, and by creating a strong federal agency to enforce the nation’s new clean air laws. They have been a tremendous success, making our air cleaner and healthier without hampering our economy or our ability to produce goods and services.

As a health charity dedicated to the mission of protecting the air and improving lung health, we know our nation must act against climate change immediately. To protect the health of Minnesotans, please join with us in fighting for air.

Robert Moffitt is the communication director for the American Lung Association in Minnesota. This post originally appeared in MinnPost.

The Environmental Benefits of Cycling for Minnesota

Posted by

Bicycling more and driving less offers numerous advantages, both for the individual as well as the community. As a transportation alternative, bicycling benefits public health and safety, reduces transportation costs and fuel consumption, decreases traffic congestion, boosts the local consumer economy, and reduces environmental impacts, among other things. While we certainly believe the economic, individual and public health, and quality of life benefits are important, this post focuses on some of the important and perhaps surprising ways in which cycling affects the environmental impact of our overall transportation system.

One oft-touted perk of cycling is a “zero-emissions” form of transportation. This of course is over-simplified – and slightly overstated – but it is true that the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from riding a bike are far less than other forms of transportation. The European Cycling Federation (ECF) recently published a study comparing the emissions from different forms of transportation and was able to quantify the emission of carbon dioxide (the most abundant GHG) resulting from the production, operation, and maintenance for bicycles, cars, and buses (1). They calculated that riding a bicycle contributes about 21g of emissions per kilometer traveled. Of that amount, 16g is attributable to the “fuel” – the food energy consumed by the rider. Since food is quite literally a cyclist’s fuel, their already-minimal emissions could be reduced much further by consuming a diet featuring local and sustainable menu choices. It should also be noted here that the emissions for electric-assist bikes was calculated to be an almost-identical 22g/km. The emissions for a bus at average occupancy was found to be about 101g/km per passenger, or approximately 5x the emissions of riding a bike. The emissions for automobiles was calculated conservatively taking into account average number of passengers, size and efficiency of the vehicle, and type of driving. In this study, they reported an average for European drivers of 271g/km, or 13x more greenhouse gas pollution per distance traveled compared to a bike. Since the actual distances traveled are on average much greater for motorized transit, the relative benefit of cycling is even greater. Increasing cycling in our transportation mix and thereby reducing usage of motorized vehicles will reduce the overall emissions from our transportation systems.

Group in green shirts that read "I'm Greener than this shirt

Biking is a zero-emissions transportation option. Photo credit: Norco Bikes via Flikr.

The ECF analysis only considered the GHG emissions, particularly carbon dioxide; these are considered harmful emissions due to their potential to influence climate change. As many people now realize, global climate change is recognized as a significant environmental challenge and has been linked to many serious public health and safety issues (including rising sea level, increased severe weather events and intensity, water scarcity, loss of agricultural productivity, species loss, air pollution, ocean acidification, and more). Motorized transportation is also associated with particulates and other forms of air pollution which are considered harmful to the environment and human health but were not considered in the above study. The more than communities can support transitioning to less-polluting transportation, the easier and less costly it will be to mitigate against the future impacts of these other harmful emissions. As a transportation alternative, cycling certain offers significant reductions in GHG emissions compared to public buses or motorized vehicles.

The ECF analysis also did not attempt to quantify the impact resulting from the infrastructure of each modality, but this is certainly another distinct difference between active- and motorized-transit. In another recent study done by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, they found that the cost of building protected bikeways was more than 100x less expensive per mile than roadways (2). The total distance of bikeways also tends to be smaller, and the associated maintenance is less frequent, so again the relative benefits are even greater than the figured cited. Beyond the costs, there are significant differences in the environmental impacts resulting from the infrastructure of different transit systems.

In addition to the costs of building and maintaining motor vehicle infrastructure, another significant impact is the physical space that is occupied by the infrastructure. A typical cloverleaf intersection, for example, occupies 10-20 acres of space. More and larger roadways increases the distance between destinations, and is a major contributor to urban sprawl and habitat loss for wildlife. More cars also require more spaces for parking, especially with many city ordinances requiring businesses to provide abundant parking even if it rarely is fully occupied. The ECF study estimated that parking spaces alone might increase the total impact of automotive transit by 10% — an additional 27g/km, and more than the total impact of using a bicycle. In many US cities, automotive infrastructure accounts for 33-50% of the total area of a city. This is an astounding figure, and yet many people simply accept this reality as an inevitability of modern society. By decreasing the use and dependence on cars, bicycles allow higher-density more efficient urban development which reduces costs and impacts.

A hyper-abundance of motor vehicle infrastructure and the associated urban sprawl is negatively correlated with measures of community walkability and quality of life. The further apart places are located and the more roadways between those places, the more challenging and dangerous it becomes for pedestrians and cyclists to travel within their communities. The impermeable surfaces which nearly always comprise this infrastructure are further associated with more detrimental environmental impacts, including increased stormwater runoff, water scarcity, and the urban “heat island” effect. Because the automotive infrastructure is impermeable to surface precipitation, it creates runoff which must be managed rather than allowed to absorb into the ground or natural systems and can lead to erosion, flooding, and pollution of surface waters from oil and debris found on and along roadways. As the surface runoff is carried away into larger bodies of water, it isn’t allowed to absorb into the ground where it would eventually seep into the underground aquifers that many communities depend on for drinking water, agriculture, and industrial uses; in this way roads also contribute to water scarcity. And because the infrastructure absorbs solar radiation during the day and re-radiates it into the atmosphere, it increases local temperatures in an effect known as the “urban heat island”. It is estimated that this effect might account for as much as 10 degrees (F) of heating in urban environments on sunny days. All of these negative impacts can be reduced by increasing the share of safe and convenient active-transportation choices in our overall transportation system.

Clearly active transportation offers some significant advantages compared to motorized options, including major reductions in environmental impacts. Increasing cycling and walking as viable transportation alternatives is therefore an important priority.

CJ Lindor is an Education Specialist with the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota. The Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota envisions a state where cycling is a safe, easy, fun, and cool choice for everyone and where bicycling is truly integrated as part of the transportation system. To that end we advocate for bicycling and educate both children and adults throughout the state with the goal of more people bicycling more often.

If you want to learn more about and support these efforts, please visit


News Watch: Aug. 28

Posted by

Today’s Topics: Agriculture & Food; Climate Change; Conservation; Energy; Frac Sand Mining; Invasive Species; Mining; Oil & Pipelines; State Fair; Transportation; Water; Wilderness; Wildlife; Loon Commons Blog

Agriculture & Food
Climate Change
Frac Sand Mining
Invasive Species
West Central Tribune: Zebra Mussel Look-out 
Oil & Pipelines
State Fair
Minnesota 2020: VIDEO: The Eco Experience 

News Watch: Aug. 25

Posted by

Today’s Topics: Agriculture & Food; Conservation; Development; Energy; Invasive Species; Mining; Natural Disasters; Oil & Pipelines; Transportation; Waste & Recycling; Water; Wildlife; Loon Commons Blog

Agriculture & Food
MPR: State seeks fairgoers’ help for honeybees 
NPR: California drought has wild salmon competing with almonds for water (In MPR
Star Tribune: Aug. 2: ‘Superweeds’ emerge to challenge farmers 
Star Tribune: Commentary: A Cargill pig operation in Arkansas is contradictory 
Star Tribune: Weed blaster shows promise as alternative to herbicides 

Timberjay: Managing rock outcrops 

Corcoran News: Best practices from Green Building Tour (In TC Daily Planet
MPR: $28M affordable housing complex set for Green Line route 

Associated Press: US nuclear expert calls for California nuclear plant shutdown until proven safe (In Star Tribune
Grand Rapids Herald Review: DNR is paving the way toward energy savings 
Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal: Colorado solar player expanding to Twin Cities 
Red Wing Republican Eagle: County moves ahead on solar energy rules 
Star Tribune: Letter: Utility collaboration with active communities is necessary 

Invasive Species
Albert Lea Tribune: MnDOT to remove emerald ash borer infested trees 

Ely Echo: Editorial: Returning Ely to its mining roots 
MPR: McFadden makes mining an issue in Senate race against Franken 

Natural Disasters
MPR: Biggest earthquake to hit California in 25 years leaves mess in its wake 

Oil and Pipelines
Brainerd Dispatch: Opinion: Pipeline would benefit Aitkin County 
Inforum: Letter: Ag commissioner dismisses worries 
MPR: More Canadian crude could soon flow across northern Minn. under State Dept. plan 
MPR: North Dakota aims to boost rail safety checks 
Star Tribune: DNR: Consider rerouting proposed Sandpiper pipeline 
Think Forward: Tar sands, trade rules and the guttin of human rights for corporate profit (In TC Daily Planet

MinnPost: Commuting by transit, walking and cycling linked to lower weight and less body fat 
MPR: Along the Green Line, lives and businesses changed for good and bad 
MPR: Blue Line extension clears hurdle 
MPR: St. Paul leaders chafe at Green Line criticism 
NPR: Did an NPR story empower road rage against bicyclists? (In MPR
Star Tribune: Editorial: Minneapolis and the region would benefit from Southwest LRT 
Star Tribune: Editorial: Transportation should be a topic on the campaign trail in Minnesota 
Star Tribune: Met Council can design Blue Line extension to northern suburbs, feds say 
TC Daily Planet: Bike shops in the Twin Cities 
TC Daily Planet: The biggest transit show in Minnesota: The State Fair 

Waste & Recycling
Corcoran News: Residential organics drop-off coming to the South Transfer Station (In TC Daily Planet

Associated Press: More reports of large fishing spider in Wisconsin (In MPR
Associated Press: Wisconsin DNR considers inland Atlantic salmon stocking 
MinnPost: There will be blood: Minnesota’s state bird – the mosquito – is living large in 2014 
MPR: D.C.’s famous snowy owl dies in Minnesota 
Star Tribune: Commentary: Bird deaths: On this, we all live in glass houses 


News Watch: Aug. 21

Posted by

Today’s Topics: Agriculture & Food; Candidates & Legislature; Climate Change; Conservation; Energy; Forestry; Great Lakes; Invasive Species; Mining; Oil & Pipelines; Sustainability; Transportation

Agriculture & Food
Candidates & Legislature
Star Tribune: Time For A New Minnesota Miracle (written by Paul Austin, Director of MEP member group Conservation Minnesota)
Climate Change
Great Lakes
Invasive Species
Mesabi Daily News: Twin Metals gets high marks 
Oil & Pipelines





News Watch: Aug. 18

Posted by

Today’s Topics: Agriculture & Food; Conservation; Energy; Invasive Species; Oil & Pipelines; Transportation; Water; Wildlife

Agriculture & Food
Duluth News Tribune: Minnesota Land Trust, Duluth partner to market outdoors (featuring MEP member group Minnesota Land Trust
Star Tribune: Power surge in Minnesota 
Invasive Species
Oil & Pipelines 
Twin Cities Daily Planet: Blog: Green Line, green lights 


News Watch: Aug. 14

Posted by

Today’s Topics: Agriculture & Food; Conservation; Corporate Accountability; Energy; Fish & Wildlife; Frac Sand Mining; Legislative & Agency News; Mining;  Oil & Pipelines; Outdoor Recreation; Parks & Trails; Pollution; Transportation; Water; Loon Commons Blog

Agriculture & Food
Pope County Tribune: State Land Trust launches Wetland Protection Plan (featuring MEP member group Minnesota Land Trust) 
Twin Cities Daily Planet: Loon Commons: Saving Minnesota’s grasslands: Conservation, cattle and community (written by Brian DeVore of MEP member group The Land Stewardship Project and featuring Steve Chaplin of MEP member group Minnesota Nature Conservancy
Corporate Accountability
Fish & Wildlife
Frac Sand Mining
Rochester Post Bulletin: Opinion: DNR silica sand mine decision was right for Houston County  (written by Marilyn Frauenkron Bayer of MEP member group Land Stewardship Project)
Legislative & Agency News
Oil & Pipelines
Outdoor Recreation
Parks & Trails
Minnesota 2020: Bike Sharing and Safety 


Saving Minnesota’s Grasslands: Conservation, Cattle & Community

Posted by

It’s that age-old struggle: accepting a little short-term disturbance in the name of long-term stability. Dave Trauba regularly faces the challenge of explaining that tradeoff to hunters who visit the Lac Qui Parle Wildlife Refuge in western Minnesota only to find their favorite spot for shooting pheasants has recently been grazed by cattle from a neighboring farm. Why, they ask sometimes with more than a little anger and frustration, are domestic livestock being allowed to wander around in a place supposedly reserved for wild animals?

“We try to explain to them the big picture, but…,” says Trauba, his voice trailing off. Trauba, the manager of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) refuge, knows that the big picture is this: the soil and vegetation on wildlife refuges and other natural areas require regular, sometimes violent, disruption to remain healthy and resilient. That has become evident to natural resource managers in places like western Minnesota as they watch grasslands deteriorate under a ragged blanket of invasive species like red cedar and buckthorn.

In the past, these grasslands were kept healthy thanks to bison and wildfires. Now, innovations in managed rotational grazing make it possible to expose natural habitat to short-term impact followed by long rest periods—just the kind of disturbance it requires to be healthy. The DNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and even private groups like the Nature Conservancy are inviting domesticated hooves—mostly cattle, some sheep and goats—onto lands to help manage them. In recent years, conservation grazing has proven it can not only bring back threatened habitat like grasslands, but keep it resilient into the future (see the blog, “Grazing as a Public Good in Western Minnesota”).

Minnesota natural resource professionals have ambitious plans for conservation grazing. The DNR is working with farmers to use conservation grazing on around 10,000 acres of its 1.4 million-acre Wildlife Management Area system, for example. The DNR’s goal is to use the tool on 50,000 acres by 2015. But numerous obstacles must be overcome before conservation grazing becomes a consistent tool on natural ares. For one thing, many refuges lack the basic infrastructure needed to host livestock.

But perhaps an even bigger challenge is changing the conventional wisdom that livestock and natural areas do not mix. Much of this perception is based on the reality of what’s occurred in Western states, where livestock producers have been given almost unfettered, long-term access to public areas, causing major ecological harm in some cases. As a result, mention “public grazing” in any other part of the country, and the typical reaction is decidedly negative.

“Sportsmen beware of this latest craze in grazing on public lands,” wrote Renville County (Minn.) Soil and Water Conservation District technician Tom Kalahar in a commentary for Outdoor News. “If we go down that path, be ready for fences, cows, and less grass.”

Wildlife professionals say privately that agencies like the DNR have been experiencing significant internal and external push back on proposals to increase the use of conservation grazing. That’s why Minnesota conservationists are using public tours, articles and other forms of educational outreach to explain the difference between using well-managed rotational grazing systems to manage habitat on a limited basis and simply letting livestock run amuck on the taxpayer’s real estate. There has also been an emphasis on working closely with livestock producers and refuge managers to develop grazing plans that put the health of the resource front and center.

“The worst thing we can do is have people use this management system without proper training,” says J.B. Bright, a Fish and Wildlife Service specialist who works with graziers in western Minnesota.

The way Dan Jenniges sees it, the best way to get the non-agricultural public on board with conservation grazing is to find a common goal that farmers, wildlife professionals, environmentalists and hunters can agree on. In this case, that means a mutual desire for a healthy grass system.

Jenniges, who has a pasture-based livestock operation in west-central Minnesota, has watched over the years as grasslands in his area get plowed up for crops or are closed off to livestock by conservation agencies, environmental groups and private landowners who want more wildlife habitat. The result has been less perennial forage, and what remains is being threatened by invasive species on idled land. Meanwhile, livestock producers hoping to graze are forced to put too many animals on too few acres, or get out of the business altogether.

“No matter what they want grass for, nobody’s getting it with the way the land is being managed today,”says Jenniges, who grazes cattle and sheep on DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land. “Without livestock, there is no reason for a community to have grass.”

Bruce Freshke, manager of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Morris Wetland District in Minnesota, agrees. “You see people who change their farming, and if they don’t have cattle, the grass is just a waste,” he says.

A Team Approach

That’s why some years ago Jenniges started talking about an initiative that would help bring together as a community all those individuals and groups who want more grass on the landscape.

Such a system would not only expand the benefits of conservation grazing beyond refuge boundaries, but would make private, non-farming landowners a part of this team effort. Steve Chaplin, senior conservation scientist with the Nature Conservancy’s Minnesota field office, calls such a concept “coordinated landscape management”—it’s a way to prevent the creation of islands of habitat that are overwhelmed by bad land use throughout the rest of the region

“By having a mixture of private and public lands managed well, we can have a wider landscape level impact,” says Chaplin. “We need to talk about the overall landscape and not just a particular plot of ground.”

Such a community approach to conservation is the focus of the “Simon Lake Challenge,” an initiative launched by the Land Stewardship Project in west-central Minnesota last year. In the vicinity of Simon Lake, which lies mostly in Pope County, is a gently rolling landscape dotted with farms, a mix of DNR and Fish and Wildlife Service land, and property that has been bought up by non-farmers looking to use it for hunting or other recreational purposes.

Unfortunately, much of that land—public and private—is getting overgrown with invasive plants, says Andy Marcum, who does landowner outreach for the Chippewa 10% Project, a joint initiative of LSP and the Chippewa River Watershed Project.

During community meetings in the winter of 2012-2013, it became clear that, despite some differences of opinion, many Simon Lake landowners, farmers and non-farmers alike, share one goal: bring back healthy grasslands and other perennial plant systems. In that light, many landowners are starting to see the value of teaming up to battle a denizen that doesn’t respect even the stoutest fence: invasive species.

“Landowners were finding it didn’t do any good to control invasives if your neighbors didn’t, so they wanted to work communally, across property lines,” says Marcum. “You can’t spray, mow or chainsaw enough to control these plants, so they are willing to try anything, including livestock, even if they were anti-grazing before.”

During 2014, LSP is working with seven landowners representing 1,500 acres in the Simon Lake area—another five landowners are working with the project through the Working Lands Initiative of the Glacial Lakes Prairie Implementation Team. The Nature Conservancy is renting to the participating property owners a skid steer loader with a rugged carbide cutter so they can remove cedar and sumac. Marcum and Chippewa 10% Project coordinator Robin Moore are then meeting with the landowners to set up five-year management plans. These plans will cover getting rid of the invasives as well as setting up, among other things, rotational grazing systems that can keep the plant pests at bay while improving grassland habitat.

Marcum is using an aerial drone to take before and after photos of the impacts of invasives removal (see photo at right).

“It’s a huge difference,” he says.

Cattle herds owned by four different producers are already this summer being used to control invasives on land in the area. The ultimate goal is to combine many smaller herds that could be moved across public and private property lines in long-term rotations, providing the right mix of large-scale impact and rest natural habitat requires while giving livestock producers flexibility. In the next year or two, around 6,000 acres of public and private land will be included in the Simon Lake demonstration area, but there is the long-term potential for as much as 50,000 acres in the region to be managed this way.

“The focus of this is to create a community-based approach to conservation,” says Marcum. “We want to make sure this is completely run by the landowners.” (For more on this work in the Simon Lake area, see LSP’s latest Ear to the Ground podcast.)

Jenniges, who farms in the Simon Lake area, sees an opportunity where farmers and non-farmers could be a part of a common marketing cooperative in which they own a percentage of the livestock being used to manage the landscape. Such a cooperative would not only help bring together the large numbers of animals needed to manage a large expanse of land, but could provide natural, grass-fed meat and other products to consumers who want to know their food choices support healthy habitat. Through such an effort, a whole new group of people could be drafted into a community effort to create more resiliency: conscientious eaters.

Jenniges says this could have a trickle-down effect. More cattle being marketed directly, for example, means a local locker plant stays busy processing meat, creating economic activity year-round.

“That kind of activity starts to add up,” says the farmer. “Somebody coming hunting for a few months in the fall isn’t going to do it. It’s not going to support schools, churches and businesses the rest of the year.”


News Watch: Aug. 11

Posted by

Today’s Topics: Agriculture & Food; Energy; Mining; Oil & Pipelines; Transportation; Waste & Recycling; Water; Wildlife; Loon Commons Blog

Agriculture & Food
Mesabi Dailiy News: McFadden blasted on steel issue 
Oil & Pipelines
Brainerd Dispatch: Opinion: Greedy oil industry 
Brainerd Dispatch: Opinion: MPCA and the pipeline 
TPT: Almanac: 8/8/14 (On Enbridge-Sandpiper pipeline) 
Twin Cities Daily Planet: Blog: A Southwest Light Rail explainer 
Waste & Recycling