EXAMINER                                                Issue # 79   June 22, 2000

Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective

A.V. Krebs

                                                    EDITORS NOTE
                                            The few sustaining the many!
That has been pretty much the story in the some 22 months since THE  AGRIBUSINESS  EXAMINER  first began appearing on computer screens. During the course of its existence, a small, but financially loyal group of folks have provided me with most welcome support, but their number is small compared to the near 1000 folks who today receive THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER.

In conceiving THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER, this editor wanted to make it as inexpensive to readers as he possibly could; hence, no subscription price, just personally affordable contributions. Thus, donations will, as always, be gladly accepted. Checks made out to A.V. Krebs, P.O. Box 2201, Everett, Washington 98203-0201 (NOT to the "Agribusiness Examiner") will continue to be received with much gratitude. To those loyal folks who have sent me financial support in the past my sincere thanks for your continued support.


Recently researched facts concerning the financial arrangements afforded the executives of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) have given added weight to the charges by former IFBF board member Don Narigon that the state organization's president Ed Wiederstien and his staff is withholding vital information from the organization's board and membership.

In addition, Narigon, a former member of the state organization's budget committee  has accused the IFBF executives with not providing sufficient information about the IFBF's business interests and "rather than complying with my wishes, they have now undergone a  systematic campaign of misrepresentations and innuendo seeking to persuade delegates to vote me out of office."

Research by popular syndicated farm columnist Alan Guebert shows that based on the Internal Revenue Service's Form 990 --- a detailed financial report that must  be made public --- which the IBFB is required  to file each year to keep its tax-exempt status and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings by FBL Financial Group, Inc., a publicly-held insurance company owned mostly by IFBF, the question remains very much in doubt whether the Farm Bureau is a farm organization that owns insurance companies or is it a series of insurance companies that  happen to compose a farm organization.

Writing in his "Farm and Food File" column on June 11, 2000 Guebert points out that according to the Form 990s, IFBF claimed $114.3 million in revenue in 1996, or about 33 times the $3.9 million it gathered in annual Farm Bureau member dues.  Most of that income, or $99.9 million, was earned when FBL Financial Group, a holding company  owned by 14 state Farm Bureaus including IFBF, went public.

Because IFBF owned much of the then-privately held insurance company, it received a large chunk of the sales proceeds when the company became publicly owned and still owns the lion's share of FBL's stock meaning that 87% of Iowa Farm Bureau's nearly $610 million in assets were tied directly to the insurance company FBL.

"SEC documents also show three key Iowa Farm Bureau officials tied just as tightly to the insurance company," Guebert notes.  "IFBF's president, Edward Wiederstein is listed as FBL Financial's chairman of the board and as a director" while "IFBF's general counsel and assistant secretary, Stephan Morain,  also serves as FBL's senior vice president and general counsel. IFBF's former secretary-treasurer, Richard Harris, served as FBL's  senior vice president and secretary-treasurer until last month, when
he was named to an executive position under new American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Robert Stallman.

"Serving both masters paid big for the trio. According to the 1997  Form 990, Wiederstein received $81,348 in salary and $21,221 in  benefits and deferred compensation from the Iowa Farm Bureau for  the year ending Oct.  31, 1998.  Simultaneously, Wiederstein  received $80,934 in salary and $124,599 in benefits and deferred  compensation from FBL.  Grand total: $308,102," Guebert reports.

Lawyer Morain had an even better year, according to the 990.  Morain received $117,389 in salary and $33,458 in benefits and  deferred pay from IFBF in addition to $312,296 in salary from FBL.  His pay from the two positions totaled $463,143. Harris, the third dual employee, knocked down $143,114 in salary and $42,198 in benefits and deferred compensation from IFBF in  1998 while pocketing $147,256 from FBL.  His total 1998  compensation was $332,579.

"Collectively then," Guebert summarizes, "according to the IFBF's own documents, the three IFBF officials who compose Iowa's Farm Bureau  Management Corporation earned $438,728 from IFBF and its affiliates and $665,096 from insurer FBL.

Wiederstein was recently featured in a "60 Minutes" essay on the AFBF as an example of the generous and often times not reported executive compensation packages that are part of the AFB's bureaucratic culture while the essay was noting at the same time  the irony of such profits being in contrast to the steady and persistent erosion of family farmers income.

Narigon has also charged that "Ed Wiederstien asked me to take some money and
step down but I was counseled to consult an attorney.  I did so and IFBF took the money off the table. In discussions with my attorney, I did not agree succumb to the pressure to resign."

Morain said in a June 7 statement that delegates from the 12 southwest Iowa counties Narigon represents had asked for his resignation because of "internal matters detrimental to Farm Bureau caused by Mr. Narigon." Narigon, 65, said he was told at a May 2 meeting of Farm Bureau's 12-member board of directors that he had 48 hours to resign. He declined and hired an attorney.

In a June 2, 2000 letter to his fellow members (See Issue #78) Narigon outlined some of the "facts regarding my efforts to represent the interests of members of the Iowa Farm  Bureau Federation. I have been diligently seeking proper facts about the proper management of IFBF and its subsidiaries to carry out my duties as a board member."

"I also have a moral duty to those who elected me to reveal any  problems that I may find," Narigon continued.  "The IFBF membership have the right to know what is happening in this organization.  The leadership of Farm Bureau has been preferred secrecy.
"From what I have been allowed to see, the numbers vary between what has been legitimately set by formal procedures and what is reported to the IRS.  I am concerned about where the additional money is coming from.  It is possible that another corporation exists that is not legitimately controlled by the IFBF and that fails to report to the board or delegates.  Mere access to information would clear up these questions."

In conclusion, Narigon declared, "I understand that some have said that I should resign for  the `good of Farm Bureau.' I do not believe that it is proper to  resign when I have followed the duties I have to the  membership in this way.  Especially when it is unlikely that any potentially improper activities will go undiscussed after I am gone."


While American Farm Bureau  Federation leaders have hailed the recent Congressional passage  of an $8.2 billion crop insurance package as a major victory for  farmers the legislation, as was pointed out in last week's THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER, was another apparent political coup by the AFBF.

While the $8.2 billion is slated to go toward reducing premiums on federally subsidized crop  insurance over the next five years while the same time making a series of changes  in the insurance program designed to get more farmers to buy the coverage from an insurance industry in which the Farm Bureau has numerous vested financial interests.

Yet, as Scotty Johnson writes in the Defenders of the Wild Life's GREEN UPDATES  "progressive farmers say crop insurance does not  address the fundamental problems facing agriculture - low prices.  Even conservative Senate Agriculture leader Richard Lugar (Rep.-Indiana) says crop  insurance could aggravate price depression by prolonging  oversupply.  So why is Farm Bureau jumping up and down while their family farmer members want real solutions to the price problem?"

No one really knows how much Farm Bureau insurance companies stand to make from increased crop insurance funding.  Not even Congress and the USDA says they will not  release that data because to do so would reveal "corporate strategies."  However, according to RURAL UPDATE research a few basic facts are know about the AFBF insurance holdings.

1) The Farm Bureau's vast insurance network (currently 54  companies) owns and controls about one-fourth of the insurance companies approved by the USDA to provide crop insurance.

2) According to USDA documents obtained by RURAL UPDATE  sources, in 1998 Farm Bureau insurance companies wrote $81 million worth of crop insurance premiums.  Based on new federal  subsidies reaching approximately $3.4 billion annually, and  assuming Farm Bureau keeps the same piece of the crop insurance "pie," the Farm Bureau could be writing $161 million dollars worth of crop insurance premiums this year --- or $800 million over the nest five years, i.e., the duration of "emergency" funding.

"That's a good chunk of change," Johnson notes.  "Especially, when you figure all the
new members they will get.  Not to mention the fact that insurance companies are getting about one-third of the crop insurance subsidy paid directly to them in so-called administration and operating expenses. The Farm Bureau's involvement in the federal crop insurance program is highly suspect.

"One thing is certain: If the Farm Bureau leaders want to remove doubts about conflict of interest, they should divest themselves of all affiliation with the Federal Crop Insurance program.  Until they eliminate their stake in the crop insurance program, they cannot claim they advance crop insurance in the interests of their non-profit members," he adds.

Currently, Defenders of the Wildlife is spearheading a national effort to get an investigation of AFBF underway and while the campaign has the support of many environmental organizations it still needs the solid backing of many more local and national farm organizations to succeed.  Such an investigative effort, family farm leaders emphasize,  must not be seen as renewed conflict between farmers and environmentalists, but rather as a concerted attempt to bring long overdue economic and social justice to rural America.

A Defenders report, Amber Waves of Gain, highlights many areas of Farm Bureau operations and demonstrates that the Farm Bureau is an intricate web of interconnecting business interests, including insurance companies,agribusiness giants and banks, linked with the national federation, the 50 state bureaus, more than 2,800 county bureaus and 4.9 million members, although 1997 Census of Agriculture figures show that there are only 1.9 million farms in the U.S.

To obtain a copy of Amber Waves of Gain or a list of the hundreds of groups joining in the call for action, contact Ken Goldman at (202) 682-9400 x237.  The report is also available in PDF format at


John R. Block, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, from 1981 - 1986 has been named  to the board of directors of the California-based,  which hails itself as "the first one-stop,  low-cost, e-commerce portal for agriculture."

"We are delighted to have someone of John's caliber in the Food and Ag industry join our Board of Directors," stated Dr. Joseph Penbera, founder and Chairman of  "In the business-to-business food and agriculture sector, there is a growing need  for the use of electronic commerce. In these changing times it is crucial that we be ahead of the curve to be of service to the industry," commented Block on's importance to today's agriculture industry.

It was Block who in 1986 in a memorable address to the Harvard Institute of Politics and Public Affairs pointed out that "the Department of Agriculture does do all kinds of analysis, reporting, projecting, but I don't know. I guess you just have to realize that people have to always remember to look back at history and realize that most everything that goes up must come down and everything that's down, and every dog has its day, and it will go up, and it happens that way. I don't know why, but there are cycles in all this and when you are sick you think you'll never get well and when you are well you think you’ll never get sick. Those aren't very scientific, but they make a hell of a lot more sense than the stuff you read."

After leaving the USDA Block became the president of Food Distributors International (FDI), the leading trade association for food distribution companies that supply and service independent grocers and food service operations in the United States, Canada, and 19 other countries. Block also currently sits on the board of directors of  Deere & Company, Hormel Foods and Archer Daniels Midland ("Supermarkup to the World").

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Relative to Archer Daniels Midland, it was reported in Issue #78 that European Union had levied combined fines of $105 million against ADM and four Asian companies ---  Ajinomoto Co. and Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. of Japan; and Sewon Co. and Cheil Jedang Ltd. of South Korea ---  for their involvement in a world-wide lysine feed additive price-fixing scheme --- with ADM being fined alone $45 million.

Likewise, it was noted that Scott Kilman in the Wall Street Journal reported that ADM's total legal tab "for one of the biggest global price-fixing scandals of the 1990s" has now climbed to more than $250 million, including criminal fines, civil settlements and lawyer bills and that tab "will probably rise as more governments pile on" as "antitrust regulators in Mexico and Brazil are mulling whether to levy their own penalties."

However, a check of ADM's May 12, 2000 10-Q report filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reveals that "the Company has made provisions of $21 million in fiscal 1999, $48 million in fiscal 1998 and $200 million in fiscal 1997 to cover the fines, litigation settlements related to the federal lysine class action, federal        securities class action, the federal citric class action, the federal sodium gluconate class action, and certain state actions filed by indirect purchasers of lysine, certain actions filed by parties that opted out of the class action settlements, certain other proceedings and the related costs and expenses associated with the litigation described above."

Excluding the $45 million EU fine the above total of $269 million also excludes the years of 1995 and 1996 when the original legal action by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice began.


At the urging of state lawmakers from Minnesota the U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it is investigating whether a business-to-business Internet Web site being designed by six meatpacking companies --- an alliance which includes Cargill's red meat division, Excel Corp.; IBP; Smithfield Foods, Gold Kist Inc., Farmland Industries Inc and Tyson Foods --- violates federal antitrust law.

Rep. Doug Peterson, one of the state lawmakers who called for the investigation, told Dow Jones Newsservice that participants in the $20 million e-commerce venture might try to control supply by jointly marketing their products and staying away from each other's customers. The six packers have combined annual sales of about $40 billion.

"I'm extremely pleased that federal authorities responded to our call to take a look at this plan, which we are concerned will create an `OPEC of meat' damaging to both farmers, consumers and small business," Peterson added.

Joel Klein, head of the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust division, indicated that the agency "is aware of this new venture and is taking steps to determine if its formation or operation is likely to have anticompetitive effects on producers and consumers. You can be assured that if we conclude that the venture violates the antitrust laws, we will take appropriate action," Klein wrote in a letter received by state officials last week.

According to the participating companies the venture --- still being formulated --- "would provide a single, convenient place for buyers and sellers of meat and poultry products to connect with each other and allow faster product comparison and price negotiation, reducing paperwork and other duplication."

Tyson spokesman Ed Nicholson said there would be "no collusion with regard to fixing prices. Comparing it to OPEC is completely unfounded."  "We will cooperate with any review," said Mark Klein, communication manager for Excel. IBP spokesman Gary Mikelson told Dow Jones that investigators are likely to be disappointed by what they will find. "What they will learn is that it is designed as an independent company . . .  If anything, we believe competition will be enhanced," he said.

Meanwhile, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus Corporation's Allenberg Cotton Co. division Dunavant Enterprises,  Cargill's Hohenberg division and Plains Cotton Cooperative announced that they are planning to create an Internet business-to-business marketplace for cotton, cotton-related products and services. Memphis, Tennessee will most likely be the headquarters of the "independently operated" company.

"To be designed by and for the cotton industry, the marketplace would give buyers and sellers of products and services a single, convenient place to connect, conduct and facilitate transactions" the companies said in a news release.

"In many areas cotton transactions still involve multiple redundant faxes and hone communications. An online marketplace offers great potential to allow manufacturers and merchants to more effectively purchase and sell cotton and to expose producers to a far broader range of buyers and services," William Dunavant Jr., chairman of Dunavant Enterprises, told Dow Jones.


Four years after the National Contract Poultry Growers Association (NCPGA) was found to be in contempt of court for its failure to provide documents to ConAgra, the Alabama Supreme Court acting on a grower suit reversed the contempt citation and sent the dispute back to the lower courts.

One of the documents that ConAgra had requested was a list of the Alabama poultry growers who are members of the National and Alabama associations of growers.

On February 27, 1996 a group of poultry growers sued ConAgra Inc. and a number of ConAgra employees, alleging that the defendants had engaged in discriminatory business practices when they required growers to sign a new contract requiring arbitration as the final dispute resolution method or lose their contracts to grow birds.

With advice from counsel, the NCPGA held that the courts of Alabama have no jurisdiction over the national association which is chartered in Arkansas and was housed in Louisiana at that time;  that the NCPGA was not party to the lawsuit; and that any subpoena would have to be served by the courts of Louisiana, not Alabama.

Likewise, the NCPGA refused to not only not respond to the subpoena, but also to a later motion filed by ConAgra to compel the association to produce the records. It subsequently also refused to show up at a hearing held by the circuit court on ConAgra's motion to compel.  It was at this time that the trial court ordered NCPGA to comply with the subpoena or show cause why they should not be required to comply.

In July 1998, the NCPGA filed a motion for a reconsideration of the order to compel them to produce the documents. The trial court denied the motion, but NCPGA again refused to turn over the documents. This time the trial court ordered NCPGA pay ConAgra's attorney $1,000 for expenses, to turn over the documents and, until the association complied with the order, the court ordered that the NCPGA was to have no further contact with the Alabama growers and vice versa, meaning no communication with the Alabama growers, no collection of dues, no solicitation of new members
or conducting business of any kind.

ConAgra took the case to the Supreme Court of Alabama where the court decided for the NCPGA by agreeing that the subpoena had to be issued by a Louisiana court and had to be served in accordance with Louisiana law.  The decision further stated, "the trial court lacked the authority to issue a subpoena directed to NCPGA.  Accordingly NCPGA cannot be held in contempt for failing to respond to that subpoena."


In a move critics see as the first step to importing more beef raised on cleared Brazilian forest land, Titan Corporation's SureBeam Corp. subsidiary, which currently irradiates meat in its Sioux City, Iowa plant, has joined with a Brazilian company to build a network of irradiation facilities in that South American country.

SureBeam will hold up to a 50% equity interest and will share in recurring revenue with Tech Ion Industrial Brazil S.A., based in Manaus, Brazil. The joint  venture will be called SureBeam-Brazil.

In recent weeks, frozen hamburger patties --- processed for Huisken Meats of Chandler, Minnesota --- irradiated at the Titan's Sioux City facility have been sold in 250 stores in five states. Several other food companies --- including IBP Inc, the nation's largest meat packer --- have signed agreements to irradiate meat at the Sioux City plant. At Titan's facility, meat is zapped with electrons fired nearly to the speed of light-nearly 300,000 miles-per-second-from a linear accelerator (not unlike the one Titan developed for President Reagan's ill-fated Star Wars missile-defense program).

Meanwhile, the several U.S. large companies that produce and market irradiated beef have launched a campaign in the media, which critics say, is using misleading phrases like "electronic pasteurization" and "cold pasteurization" about irradiation. These companies have also succeeded in distinguishing "e-beam" irradiation from gamma ray irradiation-making the former sound more innocuous than the latter-when each type of technology poses precisely the same health risks to people who eat food that's been "treated" with radiation.

Leading this campaign is the Titan Corporation, an erstwhile defense contractor.    Titan's public relations material characterizes e-beam technology as safer and cleaner than gamma ray irradiation, which relies on decaying radioactive sources such as cobalt-60 and cesium-137. True, e-beam irradiators do not use radioactive material or generate radioactive waste, but their damaging effects on food are indistinguishable from those caused by gamma rays.

The Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project points out that food "irradiated by either process is deficient in vitamins and other nutrients, has caused serious health problems in laboratory animals, tastes and smells worse, is bereft of beneficial microorganisms that keep botulism and other potential deadly maladies at bay, may contain carcinogens and mysterious chemical compounds, and-in the case of meat-may still be tainted with feces, urine, pus and vomit resulting from filthy slaughterhouse practices.

"Facile comparisons," the Project claims,  "of e-beam irradiators to such everyday products as TV's and microwave ovens are so much hokum. Yes, television sets use streams of electrons to generate the pictures you see. But it would take 1.4 billion TV's to generate the amount of radiation generated when meat is `treated' by an e-beam accelerator.

"What's more, e-beam irradiators can actually make food radioactive, if only briefly. And this can happen at levels as low as one-third of the level at which meat is "treated" by Titan and other e-beam irradiators. This form of electromagnetic radiation is called Bremsstrahlung, which occurs when an electron gets so close to the nucleus of an atom that the nuclear charge creates a sudden change in the electron's path," they add.

While it is against federal law not to label irradiated food as such, companies such as Titan and Huisken have been permitted, according to the Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project,  by media organizations to blur the facts about the irradiation process and its harmful effects on our food supply. "For the sake of consumers, the misinformation campaign should be put to an end," they urge.

To learn more about food irradiation, visit the Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project website at

Questions about the radfood list can be directed to


Three major meat recalls were reported last week in the U.S.

In Nebraska, Del Gould Meat, Inc. of Lincoln voluntarily recalled  more than three
tons of its ground beef products ---- Del Gould brand Ground Beef Patties, Beef Patty Mix and Ground Beef --- that may be tainted with E. coli, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported.

The ground beef products were produced on June 2, June 5 and June 6 and distributed to restaurants, bars and cafes in southeast Nebraska and southwest Iowa. Larry Feerhusen, president of Del Gould Meats, told the Lincoln Journal Star he suspected all but 200 pounds of the recalled beef had been consumed.

He would not identify which restaurants received the meat or the three meatpackers that could have supplied it.

Officials said the products may have been tainted by the E. coli 0157:H7 strain. When ingested by humans, the E. coli bacterium can cause serious illness and sometimes death, especially in children and the elderly. Symptoms include dehydration and bloody diarrhea.

In Washington, D.C. Safeway Inc. announced that a Wisconsin meat-packing firm --- Packerland Packing Co. of Green Bay --- was voluntarily recalling approximately 196,000 pounds of ground beef products, including some sold in Safeway stores in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, because of concern that it may be contaminated with E. coli bacteria.

Neither Packerland nor Safeway had received any notice of illnesses, but Safeway indicated that consumers could return and receive a full refund for Safeway ground beef labeled "80 percent lean ground beef"with a sell-by date from May 26 to June 7.
Safeway said its eastern division, which includes Washington metropolitan area stores, had received a "small amount" of the meat being recalled.

Because of possible exposure to non-food grade lubricating oil Farmland Foods Inc, the largest farmer-owned cooperative in the United States voluntarily recalled about 86,000 pounds of sliced  turkey products the USDA  reported. The company headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri , recalled its brand of "Turkey Ham" in 10 and
16-ounce packages with labels bearing establishment number "P2122" and
use by dates of "JUL 05" and earlier.

The products were distributed to retail stores nationwide. USDA said some consumers reported experiencing temporary intestinal discomfort from the food products.


Tests requested by India's Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) prove that while the corn-soya blend being distributed by the U.S. government in Orissa as food aid after the Orissa super cyclone the U.S. was also using the Orissa victims as guinea pigs for genetically engineered products which have been rejected by consumers in Europe and elsewhere.

Samples of the GE food were collected by the RFSTE team during their relief work in Orissa after the super cyclone and tests were carried out by U.S. based Genetic I.D. - the world's leading laboratory on testing for GE products The RFSTE has been involved in ecological studies and biodiversity regeneration in the cyclone devastated coastal regions of Orissa.

Of the $7.5 million given by the U.S. as relief for Orissa  $4.15 million was for food aid. The Genetic I.D. tests reveal that the U.S. government has been using public funds, the RFSTE charges, meant for aid to create profits and markets for the biotech industry whose food products no one wants in Europe.

The RFSTE has demanded that the U.S. government stop using money meant for relief to the poor for subsidizing the biotech industry and helping it to use emergencies
to create market access and market entry for GE products. They have also called upon
the Government of India and Government of Orissa to immediately withdraw the corn - soya blend from distribution in Orissa and introduce mandatory segregation and labeling of all food imports for presence of GE constituents.

The RFSTE points out that such labeling is now an international obligation under the
Biosafety Protocol and that Indian citizens cannot be unwillingly used as guinea
pigs in this experiment with GE foods.


Another new feature has been added to the Corporate Agribusiness Research Project (CARP) web site. A streamlined search engine which will allow viewers to find needed information by simply using a key word. While the search engine will soon become a fixture within the current site, it can presently be accessed at:

The CARP web site, which is now posted on the World Wide Web, features: THE AGBIZ TILLER, THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER and "Between the Furrows."

THE AGBIZ TILLER, the progeny of the one-time printed newsletter, now becomes an on-line news feature of the Project. Its initial essay concerns one Hillary Rodham Clinton, the candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in New York State.

In "HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON'S $99,537 MIRACLE: IT'S THE PITS!!!" now available through THE AGBIZ TILLER you'll learn some of the messy details behind her cattle futures "miracle." You will also find in this section the archives for past editions of the THE AGBIZ TILLER.

By popular reader demand THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER  section includes not only an issue-by-issue and verbose index of this weekly e-mail newsletter, but an archive of past issues #1 through #51..

In "Between the Furrows" there is a wide range of pages designed to inform and educate readers on the inner workings of corporate agribusiness. In addition to CARP's "Mission Statement," "Overview" and the Project director's "Publication Background," the viewer will find a helpful "Fact Sheet" on agriculture and corporate agribusiness; a "Fact Miners" page which is an effort to assist the reader in the necessary art of researching corporations; a "Links" page which allow the reader to survey various
useful  public interest, government and corporate web sites; a "Feedback" page for reader input, and a page where readers can order directly the editor's The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness.

The CARP web site was design and produced by ElectricArrow of Seattle, Washington.

Simply by clicking on either of the addresses below all the aforementioned features and information are yours to enjoy, study, absorb and sow.