Rice culture days return to Middleton Place

As an integral part of its educational programming, Middleton Place will celebrate Low Country Rice Culture Days again on Friday and Saturday, September 18-19, at the Outdoor Educational Center in the Middleton Place Stableyards. All activities associated with this event are included in the price of Gardens and Stableyards admission.

Though many aspects of the rice industry in the South Carolina Low Country will be discussed (i.e. origins, planting, cultivating, cultural impact), the bulk of the program will focus on the processing of Carolina Gold Rice and the tools used to complete this task.

Costumed interpreters will demonstrate and discuss the varied steps used in processing:

Threshing (the removal of the rice from the stalks); Winnowing or Fanning (separating the rice from the chaff and the hulls); Pounding (removing the hull off of the rice); and Polishing (removing the bran from the rice).

Costumed interpreters will also be creating tools used in the rice processing process, including the Flail (used in threshing) and Pestle and Mortar (used in pounding and polishing).

As South Carolina’s first great agricultural staple, Carolina Gold rice dominated the Low Country’s economy for almost two hundred years, influencing almost every aspect of life in the region from the early 18th century to the early 20th century.

Carolina Gold was responsible for the area’s rise to prominence in the colonial era, as it was sought worldwide. However, the commercial rice industry collapsed in the late 19th century, leaving much of the Low Country with few viable economic options for a half-century or more.

The rice was usually harvested from September through November. Enslaved people cut down the stalks just above ground level with hand scythes, called “rice hooks,” leaving them to rest on the stubble to dry. When dried, the stalks were gathered into sheaves and stacked on carts or flat-bottomed boats to take to the processing area.

Threshing, or separating the rice from the stalk, was done manually using hand tools called flails. Next, a large, round winnowing or “fanner” basket, commonly made of sweetgrass, was used to separate the rice from the chaff by “fanning” the mixture into the breeze to blow away the chaff. At this point, with the outer husks still on, the rice could be gathered and sold as “rough rice.”

To produce an edible product the rice was placed in a large mortar and with a pestle was pounded or “beaten” to remove the husks. Known as “brown rice,” this could be sold and eaten, but required further processing for shipment overseas.

Since most rice was grown for export, the oily, highly nutritious bran covering of the brown rice had to be removed before it could be packed into barrels for shipping. Otherwise, the rice would spoil due to the lack of air circulation. This process also used the mortar and pestle to “polish” the bran off the rice, and fanner baskets to separate the rice from the bran.

The white whole grain rice was then packed into barrels made by skilled enslaved coopers on the plantation. The barrels were then loaded on schooners for the trip to the port of Charleston. From there the barrels were loaded on seagoing ships for the journey to English ports such as London, Manchester, and Liverpool. Publicizing this non-profit event can help many locals and visitors learn more about the colonial economy of South Carolina and how Carolina Gold rice influenced Low Country culture.

For more information, please contact Stephen Reed, Director of Communications, at (843) 266-7476 or by email at: sreed@middletonplace.org.

‘Nigeria depended on imported rice for too long’

Rotimi Williams

Rotimi Williams, 34, is a rice farmer and the Managing Director, TW Heritage Company which includes Kereksuk Rice Farm in Benue State. In this interview he talks on why rice farming should be given priority in Nigeria.

Daily Trust on Saturday: Many people your age would not venture into farming, so what motivated you?

Rotimi Williams: I simply ask myself the question ‘if not me, then who?’ The primary problem in Nigeria today is that we wait for others to do things for us and this has to stop. We need to learn to take the initiative. I would like to view this as a ‘Revolution of the Mind’ rather than an agricultural revolution. So, I began with the farm out of Poverty campaign.

DT: What are the potentials for rice farming in Nigeria?

Williams: The potential for rice farming in Nigeria is enormous, but we have become lazy and dependent on imported rice for far too long. The former Minister for Agriculture, Dr Akinwunmi Adesina did a remarkable job in getting agriculture back on track, but most importantly, he led the Rice Revolution. This in my view is only the beginning and the in-coming Minister for Agriculture must follow the line. For example, Dr Adesina ensured that the 2014-2015 rice allocation was given to both rice producers and millers to ensure continued investment in the sector through backward integration. This allowed farmers to fund their activities without depending on bank funding. The minute he left office at the end of his term, another allocation was immediately drafted, which totally excluded producers and favoured only millers. Who then produces the paddy rice for these millers?

In terms of actual rice production, Dangote remains the largest landowner, with 100,000 hectares for rice production, while my company, Kereksuk has 50, 000 hectares, the second largest for rice production in Nigeria. Both farms are not running at full optimisation and even at full optimisation, both companies will produce at best 1.3 million tonnes of paddy. Assuming we are able to achieve 9 tonnes per hectare annually, this translates to approximately 810, 000 tonnes of milled rice, assuming we recover 60 percent of rice after milling. According to figures from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, the annual demand for rice in Nigeria is approximately 5,000,000 metric tonnes (mt) deducting what both farms will produce at full optimisation will still leave an enormous gap of 4, 190, 000mt.

DT: In what ways will CBN’s decision on the ban of importers from accessing Forex affect rice processing in Nigeria?

Williams: From the perspective of a local rice farmer, the decision by the CBN will certainly encourage investment and participation in the rice sector, but not as easily as CBN suggests, someone still needs to fund this sector. The issues of insufficient rice production in Nigeria cannot simply be narrowed down to rice importation, but a failure to fully understand the rice value chain and address the issues that affect the value chain. If anything, importation itself is a function of our inability as a nation to tackle the issues affecting local rice production and rice traders have simply taken advantage. One of the most prevailing issues with rice production, which till date remains a problem, is that of funding. Our local banks are happier to fund the processing aspect of rice production, but not the actual farming and if we rely on the contribution from the subsistence farmers, there is the issue of quality, quantity as a result of insufficient inputs and the know-how.

Another direct result of the CBN ban on accessing Forex is increased smuggling activities from neighbouring countries. The ban on accessing Forex and 70 percent duty and levy on importers makes Benin Republic and Cameroun a more attractive trading hub for cheaply imported rice and they simply truck it down to Nigerian markets. I thought we had learnt our lessons from 2013, but clearly not, the Nigerian government is going to lose a substantial amount of their revenue to these countries.

So, if the CBN is willing to address the issue of funding for the entire value chain, and not just processing, then by all means, ban importation of rice. However, if this is not going to be the case, I will suggest that the CBN, in consultation with the relevant ministries, come together and reach a common consensus on how to progress, as I am aware that the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Trade and Investment, and Ministry of Finance in 2014 agreed on an import quota system for local rice stakeholders, which phases out in two years.

DT: Why is our locally produced rice more expensive?

Williams: There are too many factors affecting the price of our locally produced rice, but I will mention a few that I feel needed to be addressed with urgency. I will first touch on the quality of our seeds, which I think are playing catch-up with leading rice-producing countries, making our produce less competitive. The resulting yields from these seeds means that the cost at which millers purchase paddy is high with varying quality and subsequently, the rice recovered after milling is below the global average of 62 percent.

The land preparation process and inputs for rice farming is a lot more demanding than most crops and because majority of the rice paddy available for sale to millers are grown by subsistence farmers, it is obvious that yields will be a lot less in comparison to the likes of Thailand and India, that use full mechanisation process for land preparation and all inputs, that is, fertiliser and high-yielding seeds.

The next point is funding. Banks in Nigeria rather take a risk on funding machinery, rather than the production of the raw material, rice. This coupled with the fact that cost of funds are in double digits, most farmers have no access to such funds and those that have access struggle to pay up and this is reflected in the price of rice. Given the high cost associated with the actual production of paddy, there is no subsidisation on the cost of paddy to millers, as we see in Thailand, thus, this cost is passed on to the final consumer.

Another major issue is infrastructural deficit such as access roads, which increases transportation cost and lastly, but most prevailing, power supply. Inadequate power supply means that the rice millers have to run on diesel-powered generators.

Given these challenges faced by rice producers, we now have the issue of cheaply imported and smuggled rice in the market. With uncontrolled influx of cheap imported rice, the locally produced ones become less attractive for consumers.

DT: What advice would you give the government to enhance the growth of rice farming and processing in Nigeria?

Williams: Firstly, take time to understand the entire rice value chain and understand how each section is funded, then create a special fund, with strict compliance and monitoring. I believe that such fund should focus more on large-scale farms as they are better organised to utilise such funds in area of technological know-how and production and easier to monitor.

Secondly, map out the rice processing states and regions for better organisation to aid input distribution and economies of scale. Such arrangements will make it easier for both potential local and foreign investors to identify their areas of investment.

The government needs to have a better understanding of who is doing what in the rice industry and verify all claims, as we have had issues in past with some big corporate organisations claiming to be pioneers, but with no products to show.

As a matter of fact, during the tenure of Dr Adesina, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture found that they were bagging imported rice as local rice. Such an exercise will enable us better understand our position and put policies and measures in place to promote the industry.

Lastly, on the issue of smuggling, I see two solutions. First, an outright ban on rice will go a long way in ensuring that rice brought into the country is limited and for those that are successful, it may be at an unattractive cost. Secondly, drop price of locally produced rice below imported, but this can only be achieved if the other issues are resolved.

Yet another land mine for GMO Golden Rice

Good God, what a mess: That’s what I kept thinking as, face in palm, I read the latest updates on an evolving controversy over Golden Rice. I was alerted to it by a recent piece in the Boston Globe, but Retraction Watch had the story first. Here’s their summary:

 The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is retracting a paper that showed genetically engineered rice serves as an effective vitamin A supplement after a Massachusetts judge denied the first author’s motion for an injunction against the publisher.

 The journal announced plans to retract the paper last year following allegations that the paper contained ethical mis-steps, such as not getting informed consent from the parents of children eating the rice, and faking ethics approval documents.

 Last July, first author Guangwen Tang at Tufts University filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against the journal’s publisher, the American Society for Nutrition, to stop the retraction.

 According to the ASN, on July 17, a Massachusetts Superior Court “cleared the way” for the publisher to retract the paper. So they have, as of July 29.

 Basically, the study gave some kids Golden Rice, some kids vitamin A supplements, and some kids spinach. The study found that Golden Rice worked as well as the vitamins, and the spinach wasn’t as good. And those findings seem to be valid, despite the retraction. Here’s what Tufts University told Retraction Watch:

 The journal indicated that its retraction was based on the fact that the authors were unable to provide sufficient evidence that the study had been reviewed and approved by a local ethics committee in China and that parents and children involved in the study had been provided the full informed consent form as well as eligibility issues identified in regard to two subjects in the study. No questions were raised about the integrity of the study data, accuracy of the research results or safety of the research subjects.

 Tang isn’t talking, but here’s what I bet happened: She thought she was testing the ability of a totally safe rice to deliver vitamin A, and so she only sought consent for that. I can imagine that many scientists might not even think to mention, or get consent, for the fact that this rice happens to be genetically modified, because to many scientists genetic modification is a non-issue — no more important than the color of the hat the farmer wore when cultivating. But it turned out, it was an issue for people, and that’s important, whether it’s a scientifically valid safety issue or not.

 Consider the issue through the lens of a different hypothetical case: Let’s say I’m doing a clinical trial on a drug in gelatin capsules. I’m just testing the drug, and the gel-caps may be perfectly safe from my perspective. But if I’m working with any strict vegetarians, I better be damn sure to tell them that the drugs are delivered in a capsule made from animal products. People’s values matter. And when it comes to GMOs, I bump into a lot of scientists that have a hard time accepting that: They are empiricists — they are interested in facts, not values!

 Values can be disgusting and hateful, and I’m not saying anyone should kowtow to cultural ideals they consider wrong. I’m just saying that failing to consider people’s values, no matter how groundless you think they are, is a recipe for failure. If you want someone’s cooperation — so that they might participate in your study, or get a flu shot, or start fighting climate change — you have to understand their values. You can try to convince them they are wrong, but you can’t expect them to simply agree that science has closed off the debate, and start helping you.

 Scientists are usually best at doing science, and not always the best at doing diplomacy or cross-cultural communication. We need scientists to inform the decisions we make about handling new technologies, but it can be hard to hear the scientists whose findings don’t fit with our values. Our ability to communicate lags behind our ability to discover.

 At this point, after 30 years of vitriolic debate over genetic engineering, it seems to me that many of the most empathetic scientists, the people who can understand and speak to the values of their opposition, have retired to the sidelines. The people who keep up the struggle often have great conviction, and little interest in seeing the world with the eyes of their adversaries. Stories like this only speed the vicious cycle.

OAG says graft in low-cost rice sales scheme cost state B3.8bn Please credit and share this article with others using this link:http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/662196/oag-says-graft-in-low-cost-rice-sales-scheme-cost-state-b3-8bn. View our policies at http://goo.gl/9HgTd and http://goo.gl/ou6Ip. © Post Publishing PCL. All rights reserved.

The Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) has found several irregularities in the Public Warehouse Organisation's (PWO) implementation of the low-cost rice sale programme under the Yingluck administration, saying their misconduct cost the state about 3.8 billion baht in losses.

 A source at the OAG said implementation of the project -- which aimed to distribute low-priced rice to consumers -- was not in line with the project's objectives.

 The prices at which the rice was sold to consumers were higher than the required 70-baht per bag stipulated by the rice-pledging scheme.

 As part of the scheme, the PWO was allowed to purchase 503,518 tonnes of rice at half the market price.

 The PWO then signed contracts with six companies to distribute the bagged rice for sale, but none of the contracts with the companies said the rice had to be resold at 70 baht per bag.

 The contracts should have stipulated that if a third party bought the rice from the companies, the same 70-baht rule would apply for its resale. In its absence, consumers could not reap economic benefits.

 The OAG investigation also found that only one of the six contracted companies had experience as a rice retailer and some of the five other companies were related to the first one, said the source.

Witnesses said the companies without experience in selling rice had secured the contracts with the PWO through personal connections, said the source. Worse still, the OAG's probe into the money trail of the project showed the same person purchased cashier's cheques for all six companies when they paid for the rice purchases from the PWO, said the source.

Most importantly, the OAG found the six companies had re-sold the bagged rice to other rice retailers for between 72-75 baht a bag, higher than the project requirements that the rice be sold for under 70 baht per bag, which marked up the consumer cost even more.

 In addition, the rice was bought from farmers for 15,000 baht per tonne.

 But an inspection of the rice warehouses in October 2014 by the Prime Minister's Office found the rice was improperly stored for too long a period of time and only 10% of the 18 million tonnes was good quality and edible.

 The results of the OAG probe have been forwarded to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, along with recommendations that the PWO officials involved be prosecuted for causing damage to the state.

 The report also recommends legal action against the companies for violating the 1999 State Organisation Bidding Act. .