Small Farms Raise Healthier Hogs

Corporate farms are causing havoc for many small livestock farmers inthe Midwest. It’s hard for the smaller producers to compete with theirmuch larger neighbors. So rather than compete, some farmers are lookingfor ways to become different, like adopting more humane methods ofraising animals. For those who do, they see it as a way to save thefamily farm, and preserve a special way of life. The Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

Corporate farms are causing havoc for many small livestock farmers in the Great Lakes region. It’s hard for the smaller producers to compete with their much larger neighbors. So rather than compete, some farmers are looking for ways to become different, like adopting more humane methods of raising animals. For those who do, they see it as a way to save the family farm, and preserve a special way of life. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports.


(ambient sound — at the pig farm)


About two hundred pigs are running around in a large outdoor pen on a farm in
Peoria County, Illinois. Half of the area is covered with a Quonset hut type roof and a mesh tarp. The other half is open, and the floor of the pen is covered with straw. This is the old way to raise hogs. The way farmers once did it before the development of indoor steel and concrete pens that make up factory style farms. Steve Christy owns this farm, and makes a living as an independent farmer. He is one of the last independent hog farmers in the county. Christy says he survives by not competing with the big companies.


“We play a different game. Because we are catering to a certain crowd of people and we know who our buyers are.”


Christy says he was on the verge of losing his farm to a large agriculture company until he found a new way to compete. Some of the hogs he raises are certified as organic. That means he meets strict standards for the care of those pigs. And he doesn’t use any chemicals to raise them. The rest of his animals are raised in what is called a humane and natural way. Some chemicals, such as pesticides may be used in their feed, but the pigs are not confined in tiny pens throughout their lives. Instead, they can wander the farm and lead more natural lives until they go to slaughter. Christy says all this makes his
pig’s meat more tender. And when he takes them to market, he only sells the best parts of the animals. Between using only higher quality cuts of meat and the way the animals are raised, this product is being sold for two to three times as much at health food stores and high-end restaurants. While organic and natural farming methods have long been a way for small crop farmers to stay in business, raising meat this way is just now getting more attention. Theresa Carbrey is with the Pioneer Co-op, an organic foods company based in Iowa City. She says increasing the number of organic and humane livestock producers will lead to safer food and the preservation of more family farms.


“We’re seeing the decimation of the small producers. They simply can’t compete. But this niche marketing gives them an opportunity, and it’s something a small operation can do better. In fact a large operation, I don’t know if they really could do it — giving the individual care to animals, attentiveness to all these little details, that real people on modest operations can do very, very well.”


Tom Garrett is with the Animal Welfare Institute, a Washington D-C based animal rights activist group. He says the group encourages small livestock farmers to practice humane and organic farming techniques because the animals are treated better. But he also says having small farmers focus on the market for humanely raised animals can be a financially realistic way to help preserve the way of life on family farms around the world.


“It can work economically, especially in the E-U, as the E-U Market opens up. Because right now today the overall organic market in the European Union is about ten times as large as it is in the United States.”


Garrett says an increasing number of people in the United States and Europe are
becoming more concerned about where their food comes from. Hog Farmer Steve
Christy agrees. He says he thinks consumers are also willing to pay a premium price for quality meats that come from more natural farming practices.


“I call it the evolution of the food industry. I think people are going to be more concerned about what they eat as time goes on here, and want to know where it came from. In combination with that, they are getting tired of buying poor meat at the store and having to throw a lot of it away.”


While farmers are pursuing organic and natural food markets to save their farms, the issue of quality may be more important in the long run to the businesses involved. Lori Janssen is the Quality Manager at Niman Ranch, a company that specializes in meat from humanely raised animals.


“If you don’t have good quality pork, no one is going to want it. Even if
somebody is eating it because they’re saving the family farmer, if it’s not tastier than the eraser on your pencil, they are not going to come back and buy it.”


Janssen says while producing quality meat, it’s an added benefit that this style of farming can lead to more humane treatment of animals, protect the environment, and perhaps even save some small, independent family farms. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Green Auto Marketing Takes Off

It used to be that horsepower, lots of chrome and cool colors soldcars. But now, automakers are using something different to market theirproducts: the environment. For the first time, they’re competing overwho’s the most green. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpertfiled this report:

Transcript

It used to be that horsepower, lots of chrome and cool
colors sold cars. But now, automakers are using something different to
market their products: the environment. For the first time, they’re competing
over who’s the most green. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie
Halpert filed this report.


“Introducing the new Silverado. It’s bigger. It’s more
powerful. It’s the truck from Chevrolet.”


This ad, with men working in a foundry, plays to the size and strength
of the General Motors truck. For years, car companies have succeeded in
luring customers by ascribing macho characteristics to their vehicles. But
now, they’re trying a new tactic. This ad, by Honda, takes place in a car
wash.


“The 75 Civic was the first in Honda’s line of clean cars.
Today, more than 88% of our cars are low emission vehicles. We’re planning
for tomorrow with our zero emission fuel cell vehicle. Is it any wonder
Honda was recently named the cleanest car company in the world?”


A few years ago, if you tried to plug the environmental attributes of a
car, buyers wouldn’t bite. But now, with gas prices near all-time highs,
consumer pocketbooks are being hit hard by driving big cars. And at least
some are feeling guilty about causing pollution. So automakers are
responding — trying to make their cars greener. Or at least they’re saying
they are.


In July, Ford Motor Company pledged to produce the cleanest sport
utility vehicle by 2003. Ford’s Neil Golitely says the time is ripe for
marketing on the environment.


“I think you’re seeing it more and more. In some of our
corporate advertising, for example, we’re kind of pointing to our seriousness
about environmental issues.”


After Ford’s environmental announcement, other automakers also
started trumpeting their accomplishments.


“We think our record stands on its own and it’s hard to
see anyone in front of us in terms of our environmental performance as a
company across the board.”


That’s Denny Manano, chief environmental officer for General
Motors. He says that GM wanted to make clear that it takes no back seat to
Ford on the environment.


“All we did was quite simply indicate that our
performance in model to model comparison in the SUV area and the truck
area already led the industry. That means that the plan we put in place not
this year, but the plans we put in place in 96, in 97 has led to products out
there that are the lead in fuel economy in product by product comparisons.”


Japanese automakers, though, were among the first to bring out the
heavy environmental artillery. For many years, they’ve been trumpeting their
environmental innovations. Toyota’s Michael Love says those innovations
have led to real results. He says his company is a leader in meeting federal
fuel economy requirements, known as CAFE.


“We’ve had better fuel economy for a multitude of
reasons for a long time. We’ve never had a problem complying with the
CAFÉ standards, and right now our fuel economy is roughly where Ford
says they want to take theirs in 2004.”


Still, some are worried that automakers are more flash than sizzle, that
saying you’re green doesn’t necessarily mean you are. Jason Grumet is with a
group of northeast state regulators. He said automakers need to stop focus on
changing current technology, which is limited. Instead, they should begin
thinking more about dramatic changes that could bring huge environmental
benefits.


“So I think the notion that we are going to have more
than incremental change, but actually a revolutionary change, in the ability
to propel ourselves around, seems to me is what’s going to be necessary in
the long-term.”


But car manufacturers say that kind of radical change could be
spurred on by the current fierce advertising competition over the
environment. And automotive analyst David Cole says it’s not just the
advertising that will do it. He says that automakers will provide the cleanest
cars because consumers are finally demanding them.


“It’s really nice to see them, in a sense, competing on the
basis of improving fuel economy and reducing emissions versus who can
build the largest, least fuel efficient vehicle and I think it’s one dimension of the transformation that the industry is going through right now.”


Automakers say they are ready to race each other on the environment.
And Ford’s Neil Golitely says the competition carries big benefits.


“We’re quite pleased with the competition, the fact that
other companies feel the need to sort of one up one another on the
environmental front is, quite frankly, good for the industry and it’s good for
society and it’s good for the customers.”


Meanwhile, with all the environmental consciousness raising,
consumers should expect to see many more green ads in the coming months.
For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

Ford Strives for Greener Image

Ford Motor Company chairman William Clay Ford, Jr. largely has his nameto thank for his quick rise to the top. But after just two years on thejob, he’s decided to take on a challenging mission: improving theenvironment while making cars people will buy. Can Ford carry out thisplan while leading a profitable company? The Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Julie Halpert reports:

Transcript

Ford Motor Company chairman William Clay Ford, Jr.
largely has his name to thank for his quick rise to the top. But after just two
years on the job, he’s decided to take on a challenging mission: improving
the environment while making cars people will buy. Can Ford carry out this
plan while leading a profitable company? The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Julie Halpert reports.


In 1970, the nation’s cities faced a severe air pollution problem. So
Congress passed the Clean Air Act that, in part, tightened standards on auto
exhaust. Car makers said those standards couldn’t be met, yet they were
quickly able to do so. Still, over the next twenty years, automakers
consistently fought new pollution and fuel economy standards as costly. And
every time, they complied with the rules without breaking the bank.
With this kind of track record, it’s not hard to see why domestic
automakers have a credibility problem when it comes to environmental
issues.


But now, Ford Motor Company is trying to set itself apart. Bill Ford
has declared his intent to address all types of pollution coming from cars.
For instance, he decided to tackle the controversial subject of global
warming in a recent speech to environmentalists in London.


“What role should the business community play in
addressing this issue? Well, there’s no doubt that business was overly
cautious — some may even say obstructionist — in its initial reaction.
Whatever reasons there were, and however genuinely felt they were, I
believe now there is more than enough evidence to warrant an immediate
and comprehensive — and considered response.”


Ford’s statement was shocking, since the auto companies typically
have fought initiatives to curb global warming. But it should not has come as
a surprise, because when Bill Ford took the reins of his company, he
announced his plan to make Ford the most environmentally friendly
automaker. So far, he appears to be trying to do just that. He’s promoting
efficient, clean manufacturing. He hopes to make redesign of Ford’s 80-year-
old Rouge manufacturing plant in Dearborn, Michigan, a shining example.


“We think this is a terrific opportunity to transform the
icon of 20th century manufacturing into a model of 21st century sustainable
manufacturing. The new Ford Rouge Center will be a world-class center of
lean and environmentally sensitive manufacturing.”


Ford also is targeting big polluting sport utility vehicles as part of his
environmental mission. He recently announced plans for the first mass
produced SUV to get 40 miles to the gallon. That was a pleasant surprise to
Dan Becker. Becker is with the Sierra Club. He was impressed when Ford
included in its stockholder report a Sierra Club quote calling the Ford
Expedition a rolling monument to environmental destruction.


“The first step in changing your behavior is recognizing
the problem with the behavior. So that when Ford admitted their SUVs were
unsafe and polluted too much, that was a first step that had to come before
they began to change them.”


Ford has pledged to increase fuel economy in sport utility vehicles by
25% over the next five years. But while Becker heralds that development,
others are more suspicious. Jason Grumet directs a group of northeast state
regulators. He believes the company is merely trying to head off criticism of
SUVs while maintaining their share of the market for the gas-guzzling
vehicles.


“They don’t want SUVs to become the fur coats of the
next decade so they’re trying to take some modest steps within the
boundaries of big internal combustion engines to be able to suggest a
corporate ethos of environmental concern.”


But federal regulators say that Ford’s actions shouldn’t be taken for
granted. The EPA’s Bob Perciasepe says that Ford is headed in the right
direction.


“Every little bit helps. We have to take the first step
toward making the existing cars that we use more fuel efficient, while we’re
investing money in newer technologies that will do even better.”


Others applaud Ford for trying to clean up the SUV market.
Automotive analyst David Cole says that Ford can’t simply turn its back on
the popular vehicles.


“You look at Bill Ford and he is absolutely a sincere
environmentalist. There’s no question about that in my mind and at the same
time he is a sincere business person that recognizes that his company, if it’s
going to be able to do what he wants to do over the long term, has to be very
profitable.”


Cole says those SUV profits could then fund ongoing research into
new environmentally friendly technologies.
But the question remains: will such changes be good for Ford’s bottom
line?


David Andrea, chief economist of CSM Worldwide, thinks Ford can
generate profits. He says the effort to reduce pollution in manufacturing, in
particular, could save money.


“If you view any type of pollution as a waste and waste
as a cost, it’s in perfect alignment with continually improving your cost
structure and your bottom line.”


Andrea says that Wall Street will naturally be keeping tabs on the
company’s stock price. Similarly, EPA and environmentalists plan to keep a
close eye on Bill Ford to make sure he lives up to his fuel economy
promises, in particular. EPA will have the chance to measure Ford’s success
when the company unveils its high mileage Escape, due in 2003. For The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

Painter Gets Stamp of Approval

  • Robert Hautman of Minnesota won this year's Federal Duck Stamp Art Contest with this acrylic painting of a pintail.

A Minnesota wildlife artist has won the top honor in the nation’s only federally sponsored art competition. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A Minnesota wildlife artist has won the top honor in the nation’s only
federally-sponsored art competition. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester Graham reports.


There’s no cash prize- but the winner of the federal duck stamp art contest
stands to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars from the sale of limited
edition prints based on the stamp. This year’s winner, Bob Hautman also won
in 1996. For this year’s competition, Hautman painted a Northern Pintail
Duck. Populations of that particular duck have fallen from about ten-million
in the 1950’s to less than three-million birds today. Hautman’s pintail
painting will be used on the stamps waterfowl hunters are required to
purchase. Many of the stamps, though, are also bought by collectors. The fee
for the stamp is used to preserve and establish habitat for waterfowl. Hautman’s brother
Joe –also from Minnesota– won third place in this year’s duck stamp art competition.
Like his brother, he’s also won the top honor in the past.
For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Two Cities Receive Bad Sprawl Listing

A new study ranks two of the region’s largest cities as being among the nation’s worst for urban sprawl. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A new study ranks two of the region’s largest cities as being among the
nation’s worst for urban sprawl. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester
Graham reports.


Detroit and Chicago made the list of 13 worst sprawling cities. The Fannie
Mae foundation commissioned the study- to find out how sprawl affected
home ownership opportunities and affordability. George Galster is an urban
affairs professor at Wayne State University. He was one of the study’s lead
researchers. Galster says each city needs to identify what’s causing its
particular kind of sprawl- before it can begin to fix the problem.

“You want to identify which dimension you have in your metro
area and what particular consequences this dimension of sprawl creates for
you. Then you can direct your policy resources sensibly.”

The study found Chicago fared better than many on the list because of
compact housing clustered around the downtown. Detroit was third worst in
the nation because so much of the city’s core has been abandoned and left
vacant. For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Rewarding Alternative Fuel Producers

The federal government is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that increase production of ethanol and other alternative fuels. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The federal government is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to
companies that increase production of ethanol and other alternative fuels. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Rather than going directly to farmers, the federal funds will be given to
companies such as Archer-Daniels Midland that produce ethanol and other so-called
bioenergy fuels. However, the USDA says the new 300-million
dollar program will indirectly benefit farmers. That’s because corn,
soybeans, and other crops are used to make the fuels. So- the USDA’s
Steve Gill says it’ll be good for farmers because the companies only get the
money if they buy more grain.

“You’re correct; direct payment does not go to the individual
grower. It goes to the producer. But, we’re hoping to create enough
incentive that that producer will be even more of the stocks.”

Despite a general accounting office report that questions the benefits of these kinds of government handouts for bioenergy, they remain politically
popular. For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Commentary – Cider Rules

Roadside stands and small farms are great places to enjoy the colors and tastes of fall. Yet Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Tom Springer is afraid that food safety regulations may threaten this tradition:

Transcript

Roadside stands and small farms are great places to enjoy the colors and tastes of fall. Yet Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Tom Springer is afraid that food safety regulations may threaten this tradition.


Enjoying a sweet glass of fresh cider is one of the simple pleasures of autumn. Since my wife’s Uncle Dayton owns a fruit farm a few miles away, we always have a ready supply.


The cider that Dayton makes is unpasteurized. That means it hasn’t been cooked to kill off all the microorganisms. Dayton’s done it this way for 35 years and has never had any problems.


Yet for the government, that may no longer be good enough. In 1996, a one-year-old girl died from drinking unpasteurized apple juice that was contaminated with E. coli bacteria. Since then, regulations have grown tighter. In 1998, the FDA required unpasteurized cider to carry a label that warns of its health risks to children, the elderly, and people with weak immune systems.


In most states, farms that sell unpasteurized cider must have regular inspections. They can no longer make cider from apples that have fallen to the ground. Each year, Uncle Dayton says, the inspectors who visit his orchard become more aggressive. As a small operator, he fears that more regulation will force him out of the cider business.


Perhaps I should be grateful that the government’s looking out for my safety. But there’s something about their logic that escapes me. In my state of Michigan, there’s never been a single reported case of anyone becoming ill from drinking unpasteurized cider. And no matter where you live, the chances of a healthy adult getting sick from fresh cider are statistically miniscule.


Yet my biggest gripe about pasteurized cider is its taste – or lack thereof. Fresh cider is a living organism, an organic mixture of molds and yeasts. Fresh cider has a wine-like subtlety, and each blend has its own flavor and aroma. Fresh cider is gold and sparkling, like fine amber from the Baltic Sea.


By comparison, most pasteurized cider has a coarse and waxy taste. Its muddy
appearance resembles the rusty fluid that leaks from old radiators.


What I’m saying here, is “Give me a choice.” The warning labels for fresh cider are a good idea. But there’s no need to over-regulate this healthy product. In America, 450,000 people die each year from heart disease. Yet no one’s suggested that we limit the sale of cheesy fries or half-pound monster burgers.


Last week, I stopped by a new supermarket that’s 3 miles from Uncle Dayton’s farm. We bought some FDA-approved juice boxes for my 2-year-old daughter. And here, I saw a label that was truly frightening. “This carton,” the juice box read, “may contain apple juice from the U.S.A, Argentina, Chile, Germany, or Austria.” In other words, we have only the vaguest idea where your food came from. But if there’s a problem, we can narrow it down to three of the seven continents.


I’ll take my chances with Uncle Dayton’s fresh cider any day. I know it comes from 80 acres of apples that he’s planted and tended with his own hands. For me, that’s assurance enough. Because a life with zero risk is a lot like pasteurized cider – it offers little color and even less flavor.

Breeding Cold Weather Corn

Gardeners across the northern reaches of the Great Lakes have given uptrying to grow sweet corn. That’s because a cool summer, or an earlyfrost,typical for the region could ruin their efforts. But Frank Kutkarefuses togive in. Instead, he’s experimenting on his northern Minnesota farmwithcorn from all over the world. He hopes to create a hardy variety ofcornthat will grow where few others can. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’sStephanie Hemphill visited his farm during the harvest, and filed thisreport:

Transcript

Gardeners across the northern reaches of the Great Lakes have given up
trying to grow sweet corn. That’s because a cool summer, or an early frost
typical for the region could ruin their efforts. But Frank Kutka refuses to
give in. Instead, he’s experimenting on his northern Minnesota farm with
corn from all over the world. He hopes to create a hardy variety of corn
that will grow where few others can. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Stephanie Hemphill visited his farm during the harvest, and filed this report:


On Frank Kutka’s farm, he has asparagus and other favorite vegetables. He also devotes
a quarter of an acre to experiments with two dozen varieties of corn. He’s
trying out seeds from other chilly places around the world. And unlike a lot of plant
research these days, Kutka isn’t manipulating genes in the lab; he’s designing plants the
old-fashioned way, selecting for desired qualities through many generations. In the
popcorn garden, he’s cross-breeding plants from the highlands of Mexico and Peru
with an early New England variety and a good popper from Iowa.


“We have a very nice stalk that you get from the Andean corn and
these hard yellow kernels that you get from the New England corn and so
this is a pretty nice looking corn, it’s much more cold-tolerant than the
original stuff from New England and it also is better adapted to here than
the Andean things are, and sometime here I think we’ll have a very nice
garden variety.”


Kutka is guiding his plants through generation after generation to create a
new variety of corn that will be well adapted to the short, cool northern
summers found in many of the Great Lakes states. He started out trying to
find a successful sweet corn for his own family garden, but now he thinks he might create
varieties that farmers could use for silage – chopped, fermented stalks fed to animals – or
even grain, which nobody tries to grow this far north.


“My whole world has exploded since the first year I started on this
because now I have corns, many of these are tall plants with lots of leaves
and they stand well, they might be good silage corn. And some of them are
early enough we could grow grain up here, ourselves, I think. And the
popcorn goes into local gardens pretty nicely, so there’s so many possibilities.”


Kutka shared some of his seeds with Carlton County Extention Agent Troy
Salzer. In the north, where agriculture is barely possible, Salzer says
farmers could benefit in a big way if they could grow a well-adapted corn.


“In years like this where we had late frost it could make quite a
dramatic difference. In our area specifically we do get a lot of cool east
winds off the lake, and If we had corn varieties that were cold tolerant,
that wouldn’t set them back so far.”


There’s another advantage to the plants Kutka is experimenting with. Some
of them have a lot more protein and minerals than standard corn.
Successful farming depends on finding a specialty niche, and corn with high
protein or oil content can be used as specialty feeds. South Dakota State
University researcher Zeno Wicks says some farmers are also interested in
breaking away from the highly consolidated seed market.


“Monsanto owns DeKalb, DuPont owns Pioneer. Two of the biggest
chemical companies now own the two biggest corn companies and a whole
different wing of people start to get concerned along those lines. Not
just hippies but people who are like hey I like to buy by corn from one
place and my chemicals from another.”


Kutka, meanwhile, seems to be having a lot of fun in his cornfield, and
he’ll probably never stop trying new combinations.


“There’s so much variety as far as kernel shape, size, colors,
number of rows, and yeah you never know exactly what you’re gonna get when
you pop one open. I have a lot of fun in my garden. I think it’ll be
useful but it’s also good for me.” (laughs)


Kutka has just enrolled in graduate school to learn more about plant
genetics, and he’s gotten a federal grant to research the nutritional
content of his corn and to search for ways to market it. I’m Stephanie
Hemphill in Duluth.

COLLECTING LAKE HEALTH INDICATORS (Short Version)

  • Researchers are trying to come up with a manageable number of measurements to regularly determine the health of the Great Lakes. They've reduced the total number of indicators from 850 to about 80.

The governments of Canada and the U.S. are close to agreeing ona way to measure the health of the Great Lakes. Researchers are already gathering data for several indicators. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The governments of Canada and the U.S. are close to agreeing on a way to
measure the health of the Great Lakes. Researchers are already gathering
data for several indicators. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester
Graham reports.


Government agencies on both sides of the border as well as environmental
groups have been working to come up with a set of indicators to measure the
health of the lakes. The initial list included an overwhelming 850
measurements. to narrow the list, researchers asked three questions about
each indicator- was it really necessary- was it sufficient by itself- and
was it feasible- in other words could it regularly be measured. Harvey Shear
is with Environment Canada and co-chairs the indicators effort.

“So, when we screened that 850 through that sieve of those three
criteria, we reduced it down to 80. and this was done through scientific
panels of people within the Great Lakes basin.”

Already data are being collected for 31 of the indicators. Shear says it
will be 2006 before data for all the indicators are regularly gathered. For the GLRC, this
is Lester Graham.

Collecting Lake Health Indicators

  • Researchers are trying to come up with a manageable number of measurements to regularly determine the health of the Great Lakes. They've reduced the total number of indicators from 850 to about 80.

For years, activists, researchers and government officials have all been trying to figure out how they could best measure the health of the Great Lakes. Now, they’re getting close to an answer. Scientists have announced that they are almost finished designing a set ofindicators that together can provide an in-depth look at how well the lakes aredoing. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

For years, activists, researchers and government officials have all been
trying to figure out how they could best measure the health of the Great
Lakes. Now, they’re getting close to an answer. Scientists have announced
that they are almost finished designing a set of indicators that together
can provide an in-depth look at how well the lakes are doing. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Lots of different agencies and groups have been working on ways to improve
the environment in the great lakes region. for years- the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Environment Canada have been identifying polluted
areas and cracking down on pollution sources. Other federal agencies in both
countries have been trying to improve wildlife habitat and restore a
natural balance in the lakes. state and provincial agencies- environmental
groups- and hunting groups- have all been working on bits and parts of the
great lakes ecosystems- trying to make things better.


And the Great Lakes are certainly better than they were 35 years ago- but
how much better? Until recently no one seemed to have a good way of
measuring progress. In the early 1990’s it became clearer to all those
involved in improving the Great Lakes that there needed to be a gauge
everyone could use, a way to measure the health of the Great Lakes. Paul
Horvatin is with the US EPA and co-chairs the effort to find that gauge. He says it was
hard to decide where to start.

“What is the best measurement? What is the best yardstick that we
should be using to be able to measure against, to be able to say whether
things are getting better or not.”


Scientists of all stripes- government agencies- and environmental groups
came up with 850 indicators- different things that might tell how healthy
the Great Lakes are. Things such as the number of fish- the amount of
contaminants in the water- the number of birds hatching from eggs. Horvatin
says the initial list was overwhelming.

“Well, we realized that, you know, we would not be able to use
and collect all that data, assimilate it into something useful to be able to
explain to the public, so what we did is we took that information and
actually boiled it down to the eighty, the eighty indicators that we do have
reporting on, of which the 31 we do have data now, hopefully we’ll be able
to point to the future to be able to tell the public says ‘yep, the fish are
safe to eat,’ or ‘no, they’re not.’ ”

Paul Horvatin’s counterpart in Environment Canada is Harvey Shear. Shear
says it was tough reducing the number of indicators. Several indicators
might be necessary to measure the health of one component of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. For example- the health of lake trout might be a component. The
number of fish- the size of the fish- and each contaminant found in the fish
flesh might each be a separate indicator. Shear says they had to screen some
of the data somehow- so they agreed to use three criteria on each of the 850
indicators.


“Was the indicator necessary to describe the component? Was it
sufficient; was it on its own enough to describe that component of the
system? And was it feasible to do it? Feasible was important because it may
be a great indicator, but if it cost 500-million dollars a year to collect
three samples or something, obviously it’s not feasible. So, that was a very
important factor. So, when we screened that 850 through that sieve of those
three criteria, we reduced it down to 80. And this was done through
scientific panels of people within the Great Lakes basin. And that’s how we
came up with 80.”

But shear says as more information is gathered the list of indicators will
likely change.

“This list is not sort of set in concrete. We may find that some of
these indicators that are in the developmental phase are just not practical.
we thought they were feasible; they may not be. There may be nobody out
there doing the research or monitoring. There may be others that we for some
reason we didn’t put in and so we feel it’s more like a framework in which
people can work in a kind of comprehensive way.”

The researchers hope to gather data for a final list of 80 or so indicators
by the year 2006.


All of this measuring and clean-up is being done because of a treaty between
the United States and Canada called the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The
international joint commission —the IJC— is the organization that’s supposed to monitor
how well the two nations are meeting the agreement. Thomas Baldini heads up the US
sector of the IJC. He’s been closely watching the governments and others come up with
the list of indicators- and is impressed with the progress.

“I mean, I remember when we began talking about this and everyone
said it was impossible to do it. Well, now at least we’re beginning to say
at least we have a target date of six years from now that we should have
sufficient data to support those eighty indicators.”

Baldini says whether the number of indicators ends up to be 80 or 800- is
not as important as what is learned about the Great Lakes.

“Eighty may be too many, may not be enough, but you have to begin
somewhere. I mean, when we first started, we asked only three questions: is
the water of the great lakes drinkable; is it swimmable; and are the fish in
it edible?”


The organizers trying to determine the best list of indicators say- those
are still exactly the questions they’re trying to answer. For the GLRC, this is Lester
Graham.