One of the reasons so many people from so many different ethnic backgrounds and so many religions get along reasonably well in this country has been the respect engendered by our Constitution’s prohibition on legislating religion. Sure, there are regular efforts by religious extremists to sabotage the First Amendment by forcing prayer in public schools and religious exhibits in public places, but the courts usually stand against the mixing of church and state.
The key word here is respect. I’ve been struck in reading through the many comments over the last few weeks—aside from the guessing game over Lykke’s occupation and employer—at how respectful most of the comments have been. A lot of frustration shows through many of them, a frustration born of the health and food establishment’s unwillingness to acknowledge the personal right of food choice and the power of diet, in favor of so-called food safety and pharma-based health care.
Tim Wightman’s comment following my previous post is unusually candid in its acknowledgment about the failure of beliefs on both sides of the debate over raw milk and food safety, especially coming from the head of the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation. “We have the tools available to prove what we feel/experience to be true, as long as many from different view points are looking at the same test parameters and agree it is of specific information. That is now taking place…but to blindly say that absolutes exist is not gaining us any favors with those who believe they are entrusted to keep the public safe.”
His implicit appeal for flexibility on both sides is reminiscent of Steve Bemis “11 Great Thoughts,” (see the second group of ten comments) in which he similarly seeks to accommodate the needs of consumers determined to access raw milk, and the needs of regulators charged with ensuring food safety. For example, thought #9 says: “An open, collaborative, transparent and scientifically rigorous approach should be taken by producers, consumers and public health officials in all instances of disease outbreak with a common commitment both to protect public health and to protect continued viability of responsible producers. Public health warnings which are not connected to outbreaks of illness or which prove to have been unfounded, shall be followed by public health advisory followups which are communicated with the same level and extent of publicity as the initial warning, including exoneration of producers as appropriate.”
While Lykke has generally been supportive of at least some of the 11GT, one of the things that’s tough here is that the regulator establishment hasn’t shown itself willing to discuss such matters openly or candidly. Food poison lawyer Bill Marler, who is well connected in the regulator community, has set himself up as the only named anti-raw-milk person willing to have even a semi-dialogue, and he keeps changing his position.
Six weeks ago, he seemed to indicate important flexibility by his side, when he came out in favor of legalizing all sales direct from the farm, with appropriate inspection and labeling. Not my ideal, in completely shutting out retail and other similar sales, but certainly a starting point for negotiations.
More recently,though, he said (via an article in his firm’s Food Safety News) that states should seek to ban raw milk sales.
Maybe he’s trying to play both sides of the fence so as not to alienate the regulators whose support he sometimes needs when he pursues legal cases, but such confusion doesn’t help in potentially seeking out an accommodation to end ridiculous enforcement actions against raw milk producers, and interruption of supply to consumers.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that those of us on this blog pushing the public health and regulatory establishment for changes on raw milk aren’t alone. I’ve said many times that raw milk is a proxy issue for many others, particularly in the areas of health care and food safety. Yesterday’s New York Times contained an important column by David Brooks about the rising tide of frustration with our governing class, becoming known as the “tea party movement.” (Once it’s in the NY Times, it’s “official.”)
“The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation. The tea party movement is mostly famous for its flamboyant fringe. But it is now more popular than either major party.”
While Brooks doesn’t use the word, I will use it: arrogance. Americans bridle against arrogance by their public officials. It indicates a lack of respect. We are seeing immediate evidence of the ruling class’ fear about the tea party movement with the announcement by Thomas Dodd that he’ll retire from the Senate after nearly 40 years representing the solidly Democratic state of Connecticut. He’s clearly afraid he’ll be overwhelmed by opposition from disaffected voters.
***
Michael Schmidt and Mark McAfee pose last month on their way to Wisconsin.On first blush, I like Mark McAfee’s proposal to raise $170,000 for Organic Pastures Dairy Co. from raw milk consumers to buy 100 additional cows to make up for a shortfall in raw butter supplies (which he describes following my previous post). I like it because it hopefully represents a growing trend by food producers to raise necessary financing from their customers.
Michael Schmidt took a similar tack in Canada a few months back when he needed $400,000 to buy back some farm land. He offered his herd share members the opportunity to buy stock in his farm. Some 200 of them invested $2,000 apiece and presto, he had his $400,000.
Now, Mark is seeking loan funds, whereas Michael sought investment money in his farm. I have a preference for equity, since it gives consumers providing money a more direct stake in the food production operation, as well as an opportunity to benefit financially if the operation increases in value.
Speaking of operations increasing in value, I just completed an article for BusinessWeek.com about Amish farmer Amos Miller’s rapidly growing sales of nutritionally dense food. I wouldn’t mind buying stock in that farm, but alas, he seems to be doing such a gangbuster business he has no need for cash.
In any event, the authorities would be up against a wall if they tried to prevent true farm owners from drinking milk from their own farms.
In all fairness to Bill Marler, the legalizing all sales direct from the farm was taken from an article Bill wrote himself. Seeking a ban on raw milk was one of many ideas compiled from the publisher, staff, readers and food safety experts that contribute to Food Safety News.
cp
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/do-lab-test-results-on-raw-milk-samples-tell-a-different-story-than-news-releases-from-b-c-health-authorities/#more-13199
I am very sorry to ask the question but are the recent attacks in BC a PR stunt to shape public opinion and strike fear into the "raw milkers" and connected to what they will or will not do to our FRIEND and PATRIOT Michael Schmidt? Michael I am not ashamed to say that I have been and will be praying for you.
Broken trust? Perhaps non-existant trust in TPTB would better describe the picture I personally witness over the last 4 years.
The story in the above link is not a new one.
Best of luck to you, Mark, on securing funds for more cows. I know there’s been lots of debate on here about previously outsourced milk and whether it’s a big deal or not – the way I see it, it’s something to be proud of, that your customers so obviously are loyal to you and OPDC, they trust you and your milk, and they trust the way you raise YOUR cows that they want all of their product to come from you, and not someone they don’t know. I can certainly understand that. I have no doubt that you’ll be flooded with funding, so I’ll say "congratulations" now 🙂
I’m going tonight to see a screening of another food documentary, called "Locavore." Our Lancaster Buy Fresh, Buy Local Campaign is sponsoring (and taking donations) for a Food On Film monthly series this year, and Locavore is the first offering. I know they’re planning to screen Food, Inc., and FRESH! at some point over the next few months as well, as part of the series. They’re being shown to the public at a local college here in the city, Franklin & Marshall College. I think it’s a great way to fuel the fires of the local organic movement. I was wondering if anyone is aware of any films, like these, exist about raw milk? The Campaign is very open to suggestion on what films to air, as I had suggested FRESH! to them and they are planning to air that for sure, and I would love to see one devoted to raw milk, or even have a segment about it in a movie that’s aired.
David
Email below sent to me by an IT guy who’s job was outsourced; (and he’s over the top furious on the immigration issue), but still it’s alarming the judge ordered 3 websites be disabled to silence opposition. Not familiar with the case, but it sure sounds like 1st amendment violation to me…and judicial, corporate collusion.
-Blair
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: : This sucks
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:58:49 -0800 (PST)
call and write and fax and attack your congressional representatives with whatever is at hand.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142806/Court_orders_three_H_1B_sites_disabled
Accommodation might occur, but it might not. We all wish it does, but there’s such polarization between states. What’s legal on one side of the road is illegal on the other side. Your comparison with the homeschooling movement is valid for the ruthlessness of the regulators, but also for their lack of knowledge. Home schooling was in no legal danger during the 80s, regardless of how any regulator acted. Yoder v. Wisconsin (1972). Raw milk does not share the same standing. In 1978 it became legal to homebrew in the US – but there are still states where it is not permitted. Albeit this is a somewhat different situation because we have states that are allowing what is federally restricted. Maybe 2020 is a reasonable hope… What happens if every state ends up allowing raw milk in some form, but there are still federal restrictions?
pete,
I have the same bad feelings about Big Ag as you seem to, but since when is a businessman not in business to make money? I think Mark has a right to grow his business to whatever size he wants… with one caveat: that it is done sustainably. Because with all rights come responsibilities. I don’t know the answer as to what sustainable looks like for Organic Pastures, but I, too would like to hear how big Mark wants to get.
I apologize and retract the offer to call OPDC and offer a loan to us to buy more cows.
It is not legal to make general solicitations for offerings or raising funds from the public.
I was under the impression that if the solicitation was done privately and to a special class of investor ( raw milk drinkers ) that it was ok…it is not. I would need to me an SEC liscensed broker to make this offer.
So much for raising money by sending out 4000 emails to our consumers. We have several investors that are being vetted right now and if this does not fund us completely then we will get a brokerage complany involved and send out the 4000 emails with the solicitation legally.
Pete….I do not think that sustainable agriculture can ever be too big!
Pasture fed cows producing raw milk for people is wonderful and 450 cows on 500 acres is not too many.
What a great way to run planet earth.
I have bent over backwards to get other CA dairies involved with raw milk. Who in the world would ever cut their own throat to do this….There have been few takers ( if any ). I have one small cow share that I am working with right now to get them up and going. I met with John Shock of Salinas last year and they seemed interested but no raw milk yet…I think that they like making high quality raw cheese instead. Other than that….no one wants to join the raw milk markets….not even the Steuves.
I have a responsibility to the health of my consumers. It is a moral obligation. There are no laws that say I must grow or feed people. The law I follow is in my heart and in my gut. When kids and families suffer becuase they can not get raw butter or raw milk….I feel it.
Mark
RE Raw Milk sales – I think a complete ban, although a lofty food safety goal, does not, and will not work. As I said in a bit of back and forth with Mr. Cox, I think that raw milk sales should be allowed on the farm, that is certified and inspected, like what is done here in Washington State. I do not believe that raw milk should be mass produced, or sold in retail – you should be able to "look the farmer in the eye," and, the product should be tested – "trust be verify."
In Washington state I walk into co-ops, IGA, Whole Foods, etc and buy however much state certified raw milk I want without looking the farmer in the eye.
It certainly is a nice ideal to be able to know the farmer and visit the farm, but almost none of our food supply works like that. Does it?
Perhaps only on-farm sales of spinach, eh? Oh, and don’t forget the peanuts… if you want a peanut you’ll have to drive to Georgia.
Maybe you prefer the Oregon law allowing on farm sales but only from TWO milking cows?
6) Parents are free to feed their children whatever foods they choose.
If there were to be some sort of legislation (hypothetical situation here) enacted that explicitly guarantees this, and I know we’re using this in the context of right to raw milk access, but how do you protect against situations like the sad case of the vegan parents the other year brought to court (and I think convicted?) over the death of their baby that they were feeding a vegan diet? Or am I being to broad with this?
Gord…that someone has a right, doesn’t make it right. Following the big ag model, mass production, and ‘blind’ distribution, is something that has created more problems than it’s solved. Sure raw milk can be created in this way, but if too many follow this model, the opportunity to change the way we view our food will be lost. Raw milk is different, and lends itself to a new model, where people can truly connect with the person that makes their food (farm share). While more smaller farms seems to be better, the ‘bottom line’ for some is to increase the supply, no matter what. A hundred more cows is sure preferable to buying from someone else.
Sooner or later, mankind will have to realize that more will never be enough, and that depending on growth to sustain us, is a dead end street.
The notion of testing to ‘protect’ the consumer from the dangers of raw milk is a straw man…for the turn around on testing is too long. By the time a problem is revealed (e coli, slamonella etc), the substance has already been distributed and consumed. Sure testing can alleviate some gradual problems with herd health…but it in no way will it protect from the stray ‘speck of manure’ that those who feign ‘food safety’ seems to freak out about.
There is no perfect food supply, and inevitably there will be a problem. Bill is a smart man, for he has set himself up, on both sides of the fence, to take advantage of the certainty that somewhere, eventually, someone will get sick from the food they eat. Crusader for justice, or a shyster that has ‘counted the cards’, it’s up to each of us to make up their own mind… But the fear that results from his actions, both in the consumer, and the farmer that is producing food, is something that only Ahriman could love.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/01/raw-milk-at-retail-a-glass-of-confusion/
by Colin Caywood
Mr Caywood I guess I beat the enormous odds you cited of the grave risks of consuming raw milk by the eldery and have done so for nearly 5 years. There have been huge positive changes in my health and body to be brief from age 68 to now 73 my health care cost to Medicare has been zero not one penny of your tax dollars. Plus I began consuming lots raw dairy at a time when my health was failing rapidly. I hope I don’t sound like I am bragging but these are the plain simple facts. How many 73 year olds can say they cost the Medicare system nothing? I know none.
The topic of Mark and OPDC comes up frequently and I just wanted to share my thoughts.
I find it interesting that in the recent past, there was a blogger (I honestly don’t remember who of us on here said it) who was talking about a "small" farmer they knew who had ~300 cows. My first thought to this was, wow, if 300 cows is small, then 400 cows (Mark’s size) isn’t that big. Compared to the truly large dairies in California, with some in the multiple of 10’s of thousands of cows, I think 400 is somewhat small. I have been to Mark’s farm and I wasn’t blown away by the expanse of the place (no offense by any means). Growing up mostly in a city, I always thought 400 acres would be someplace that I could stand in the middle of an not see the boundary on any side (400 acres sounds like a huge amount to me). That was not the case with Mark’s place.
For as "BIG" as Mark is, I think he is truly concerned about the people and I appreciate that!!! For as "BIG" as Mark is, he could just sit as his house and enjoy the quiet nights with his wonderful family (how nice would that be – I would like it). Instead Mark is constantly on the move promoting the raw milk agenda – for the benefit of us all. I think that Mark could easily sustain whatever lifestyle he wants with the market he currently has????? But instead he decides to help with the fight and I don’t think it is just to increase his market share.
I am glad that he is very vocal too! I personally am not that outspoken, but I am glad that there is someone who can compliment my not-so-vocal personallity to push back on those that would squash all of our rights to choose the food we desire.
My family is currently in the early stages of starting a sustainable farm, of which raw milk will be a component. I was very appreciative and impressed with how willing Mark was to share information with my father and I. In no way would I put Mark (and OPDC) in the same category as the big corporations we all deal with today. I think "BIG" is a very relative term. I hope that Mark can get the extra cows needed to support the demand for the product people are requesting of him.
Those are just my thoughts.
Brandon Peak
– buying any outside product to feed its cattle on a regular basis
or
– shipping milk farther than a horse can carry it and return in a day
or
– bottling in plastic
or
– using AI
or
– using tractors
or
– using anything that has to be "disposed of" due to toxicity
or
– usage of water exceeds rainfall
or
– native plants and animals are completely excluded from farm land
or
-any number of other practices are not SUSTAINABLE
Yes, I’m serious.
Situation: i live in Houston, and thus, going directly to the farm to get milk is somewhat problematical. There is a decided dearth of cows in the middle of town – no matter what the television seems to tell people. Therefore, to get milk, there is a rather long drive involved.
In order to mitigate some of the time and gas consumed, several people (myself included), have banded together to make a kind of milk carpool. We each take a turn and go get what is needed for the group. At this time, this is perfectly legal, if a tad inconvenient. Whomever has the turn, takes the orders and the money, goes and gets what is needed, and then comes back to town to distribute it.
Now the question: Since one person is running the errand, how does this fit in with the "legal from the farm" legislation that seems to be favored by our resident attorney-drone? Would this be something that is legislated? For us, it’s a way to spread the annoyance of our farmer not being allowed to bring the milk to a central meeting spot (like a Farmer’s Market). However, it does mean that there are a bunch of us who are not getting directly from the farm. So, technically, it could be seen as a violation of that rule.
How would you handle it? (That’s directed at the legislative types.)
– Follower of KYFHO
This will not work. The authorities in charge of said inspection want to shut down raw milk dairies. They can not be trusted not to use the inspection as leverage to make raw milk producers lives miserable to shut them down.
Even if they weren’t actively trying, cert and inspection would keep out most new producers and whittle away the current ones over time just as the PMO has driven most conventional producers out of business.
The inevitable end result of certification and inspection of raw milk producers will be a dwindling supply of raw milk will little to no new supply.
I’m not a lawyer but I’d expect your customer email list is not considered ‘the public’. The SEC exemption allows things such as yours so long as not offered to the public and only to people in your state. A few other details but that’s the jist of it.
Only a generation or two ago 300 was considered big. Having raw milk distribution mostly centralized in one big dairy is a strategic risk. Remember, this is not about food safety, its about control of the food supply. Limiting raw milk to just a small handful of large heavily regulated producers accomplishes that just fine. Shutting down Mark is a whole lot easier than shutting down a thousand loosely or unregulated small dairies.
There are people out there wanting to get into raw milk, but they’re more likely to be your small cow share operation with little ag experience than a big existing PMO dairy. You’re not likely to run into them and for them the challenges are gaining experience and getting access to land, cattle, and capital.
Nice dissection of sustainability. I agree with almost all of it, but in some areas are you mistaking sustainabiilty for self-sufficiency?
No man (or farm) is an island, nor needs to be, nor, IMHO, ought to be. A solid, healthy community is a necessary ingredient in the sustainability analysis. And while it may be right in the greater sense to rely on oneself as much as possible, it is just as right, as much as necessary, to rely on ones local community for what cannot be reasonably produced at home (and then, as a last resort, for what the local community cannot produce, go to the outside world). A local farmer or two or three that can be relied on every year to provide winter hay (a regular, outside product), or even an outside world of machines and fuel (including tractors, though I get your point on that and would agree that animal power is, at least, MORE sustainable than machine power) do not disqualify sustainability. One farm’s depenence on another is not much different than a community’s dependence on local farms for food.
On the regulatory side, no bureaucrats, only the actual scientists…and then ones with open minds, not already decision made closed minds…perhaps the person who used to post here a year or so ago…don’t remember the nick…something like C2 or something like that…on the producer side someone like Tim Wrightman, and on the consumer side maybe Lynn Toll (former customer of mine who was truly an "educated consumer).
If Sheehan, Marler, McAffee, or many others had a say in it I’d discount it out of hand.
I like your response – it made me think more carefully about why I believe what I do about sustainable farming. I most certainly agree that community is essential and I would not want to take away from its importance.
As for tractors…
1. The economics of animal power are infinitely better than machine power – hands down.
2. Their feed is grown on-farm and their manure remains on-farm. So we have a net gain in terms of enrichment of the soil. Whereas tractors contribute nothing but pollution, soil-compaction, and noise, while all their "feed" comes from off-farm unsustainable sources.
3. Animals are more versatile in the types of work that can be performed.
4. Why would I buy a tractor when I already have cows? Cows can pull a load through ground a tractor would just not.
As for the majority of feed needing to be on-farm…
I believe occasional off-farm inputs are acceptable; my beef here is with major off-farm inputs. I appreciate your example of winter hay. I wish I could draw a picture here, but I’ll try to explain. As I explained above, feed grown on-farm comes out in manure, which enriches the soil of a farm. If I purchase winter hay to feed my animals, that’s a tremendous input for my land – a real bonus for sure. This is where it breaks down, though. Those off-farm inputs are great for my farm, but it means that those inputs are now lacking in the soil where they came from. What this amounts to is a mining of the soil – and it will eventually fail – on that other farm. So your analysis was partly correct: the farm that buys the hay has a plus, and can remain sustainable so long as it’s product makes a profit, however the farm that sells the hay has a continual negative, and as such the system is unsustainable, IMHO.
Thanks for your thought-provoking, Dave.
An acquaintance of mine farms with oxen. This past year I visited his farm, mostly to help harvest potatoes, and the team were used that day to pull his wagon, which we loaded, then drove on to the barn. It dawned on me as we were collecting the team, hitching them up, and then heading for the barn, that everything worked at this farm at a walking pace. Every task, from planting to harvesting to transporting, tugged along at about 3 miles per hour, whether humans were at it, or draft animals. That may not sound like a big deal, but it really stunned me to notice. I had to admit that I was very used to moving along in most farm-field tasks at a much faster speed. And the thing is, the walking speed just felt right. It really was an improvement, and not a little one. So I’ll go you one better, and say that, in addition to the likelihood that draft animals are more efficient (all externalities considered) than tractors, they also provide a more natural, and even more soothing, work experience.
Now with that said, I’ll offer that not all machines are bad, even some of the big, complicated ones. Once, for kicks, I counted the squirts required to hand-milk our 3-cylinder Jersey. The total: 3,500. I enjoy milking, but daily or twice daily of anything more than, say, 2 cows, would definitely have me longing for a mechanical milker.
http://www.mundanedaily.com/?p=631
Anyway, thanks for the helpful diversion, and for the vision.
You have just disqualfied every farmer in North America ( and most of the World ) including all the Amish from the definition of sustainable.
You completely miss use the idea and definition of sustainable.
By the way…there is no such definition of sustainable… There is no agreement on what it really means.
I was told by a ag extension USDA guy that if your kids were happy and taking over the farm…your farm was sustainable cause the next generation was thriving.
My definition of sustainable includes the USDA concept but much more. I include helping biodiversity ( all the animals and including the wild ones ) , the earth, carbon sequestration, our consumers health, the farmers economic health and so many more things…including the evolution away from carbon based energy and use of wind and solar.
Gord….in my deepest most respectful and most humble warmest hug voice I must say…you are in the dark ages and have never worked a day on a farm in your life…you are describing a near starvation or starvation Pilgrims village. You are suggesting that I abandon 65,000 people that dearly love raw milk in CA. I consider that a sick thought and immoral.
As far as Brandon Peaks post…..thank you for sharing your experience that you had with OPDC when you visited. You can attest that I care more about education and health and market building than competitive capitalism. I emptied my heart to you and your dad when you were in CA in hopes that you could serve your community in your state with raw milk…. I am proud to say that you are doing just that. Congrats!!!
Thanks for telling the truth and shewing awaying the thankless vultures.
The problem with America is this…..to many people are blogging from soft couches and shopping from stores with full shelves filled with fake mentally numbing and dumbing foods and not enough people are actually working with their hands and getting dirty. It is so easy to speak….so much harder to act. That is why there are only two raw milk dairies in CA.
Last time I checked any dairy in CA that wanted to start producing clean milk could follow the OPDC and Claravale road maps. It is legal and it is a wide open road.
I stop with providing my competion with financing. I will give almost everything but that. I will even provide financial support to those in our food chain. I consider it part of supporting the end result of success and health to our consumer.
I am a humanitarian not a welfare giver. A raw milk market is earned and you must educate your own consumers to earn your marker share. That takes time, money and ass, mind and voice busting work. I gave 59 "Share the Secret Presentations" in 8 months in 2009.
Hard work has its rewards…for everyone.
I get hugs and thanks from my consumers….what a great and ultimate gift.
Mark
I agree with Dave that you appear to be mistaking sustainability with self-sufficiency.
I also get the impression that you are focusing on livestock farming. What would be your definition of a sustainable fruit or vegetable farm?
In my mind and for the sake of practicality sustainable agricultural practices are best achieved by maintaining diversity via small independent family farm operations that are committed to natural, organic principles.
Being an AI technician I fail to see where the use of AI is non-sustainable.
I use the practice of breeding a select number of my cows artificially in order to bring genetic diversity into the herd. What is the greater evil using AI which I agree stretches the definition of natural or purchasing cattle from an outside herd?
Ken Conrad
I agree with Mark that there is a lack of agreement and a lot of confusion out there regarding the definition of "sustainable" in the context of agriculture production systems.
IMHO we do not know what economy is—we measure only what we spend, and call it economy. That problem, and it’s a foundational whopper, is what Gord Welch was addressing in his crazy post about sustainability. He is attempting to consider the true costs of his farming activities—those infamous externalities like fuel-related pollution, soil compaction, loss of carbon, health-degradation, all of it. We really ought to ask, who is more crazy, the externality idealist, or the one who ignores externalities? Or perhaps the question ought to be, who is the more dangerous? (And for that question add a third category—the one who selectively ignores externalities as it suits his business.)
A true economic measure accounts for our future, not merely what we spend in a narrow present. If we have diabetes, that ought to be measured as a negative. If we have a welfare program, that ought to be measured as a negative. If we have lost our soil, that ought to be measured as a huge and serious negative. Instead, all those things are seen as economic positives in the rush to gain wealth, because they engender spending. They are measured as economic INCREASES, sometimes dramatic increases. A good bit of our medical care, pharmaceuticals, non-infrastructure bureaucracies, corporate and personal welfare programs, artificial fertilizers, and on and on, are purchased to repair the side-effects of chasing short-term wealth, and are presented to us as evidence that we are rich! That is truly crazy.
About 120 years ago where I live timber men came in, virtually shaved the ground clean, made millions of dollars, and when the trees were gone, they skedaddled, leaving in their wake eroding soil, newly impoverished displaced workers, (a term that ought to put the fear of God in all of us) and uninhabited buildings. Fifty years later the same thing happened with coal, only the devastation was far worse, with more topsoil lost, plus added poisoning of streams, rivers, and air. (We are a hills-and-valleys region with hundreds of streams which now require artificial alkalizing to remediate coal-mine acid run-off, at a cost of approximately $100,000.00 per stream per year, for at least the next millennium.) Now it’s all happening again, with natural gas extraction, and as usual, every spent cent is sold as positive economic activity. Undoubtedly all this prosperity will only drive more nails into the coffins of our environment and our human health, which will be conveniently overshadowed by the growth of our economy. No matter that our most cherished measures of life quality (health and happiness) are decreasing precipitously; no matter that the last shreds of local economic self-sufficiency are being wiped out; no matter that just about everybody now lives on corporate or government wages and spends their money on cheap Chinese junk and processed food at the likes of Walmart.
Perhaps I am more passive than Gord Welch about the acceptability of externalities, but of the two of us, whom would you rather have farming the land next door? I know I would be happy as an earthworm in compost to have a Gord Welch next door, while I would have continual worries about living alongside someone who takes a laissez-faire attitude about what he leaves in the wake of his life.
Ken, I vehemently deny confounding those terms. Self-sufficiency is largely an unreachable hermitic utopia, and cannot exist in a world of property tax; although it might be applied to certain parts of a system. For example, one might say that he is self-sufficient in feed, but not in equipment. When I wrote my points on sustainability, as I wrote, they were being directed toward dairy farms. A vegetable farm without animals is likely to be on the negative side of input/output just as much as a livestock farm without plants. So really, in farming there can be only emphasis, not specialization. Nature knows no monoculture. Upon reflection, I probably did mistake my abhorrence for AI with it being unsustainable – good call on that one.
Lykke, My Answer: no to part a; yes to part b The question of sustainability, in my mind, is not what we sometimes do, but what we usually do. These are my thoughts and perhaps not what most people think.
Rural and industrial development on prime agricultural land is the single most important factor leading to non sustainable farming practices and is a reflection of a politically motivated cheap food policy. It is also indicative of societys overall lack of concern for the farmland from which its food is derived.
Attitudes need to change and the first order of business is to stop hacking away at the hand that feeds us.
Ken Conrad
I suggest to you all that…there is no such thing as true earthly sustainability…there are only best stewardship practices and behaviors and those things change with the times and technologies and the temporatures etc.
Our Sun will burn out in 5-15 billion years at its current burn rate. Our best scientists tell us that it will start to cool subsantially in less than 5 billion years and become much less bright and much dimmer. This will cool the earth and plant life and bacterial life will slow and change and eventually we will become a dry waste land of planet "icecube" or worse.
The entire concept of being sustainable is highly questionable to begin with.
The only thing I can imagine that is truly sustainable is the spirit and our souls…..summing it up…our Karma points. They are the only things we can take with us and the only things of value in life.
Yes…we should strive and try our best to make earth a better place than it was when we arrived…but make no illusions about it…earth will not last. It is inherently not sustainable. Earth depends on something we have zero control over…the life giving heat and radiant light of our only Sun.
So pround earthings…..perhaps eat some humble soup as we all live the few days we have in our little lives. No amount of oxen riding and living in hemp tents will stop the Sun from burning out. My bet is on strong Karma points and working with humanity as peace makers, food producers, earth caregivers, healers, teachers and overall good people. It is your best shot at anything even close to being sustainable that can be measured and that is eternal. This is not a religious statement although it may be seen as religious. Religions fall terribly short of the Humanitarian Karma task at hand and the negative points that religions gather by their exclusiive, divisive condemning nature disqualify them as the focus of my intent. All people must sustain their personal sustainability and all the carbon Karma point credits will be counted. No one else can add or subtract to your Points…your points are your points. These air miles are yours only and not tradeable. Personal responsibilty to the extreme. Your good actions for others….super points.
Be good to one another while we question why we are even here on this fragile temporary liftraft to begin with. In the end…it is love.
My second grandson James Michael Lutz ( Kaleighs son ) was born three hours ago when be joined the liftraft and he is perfect. His Karma point list is already positive for the gifts he has given me. He has reaffirmed in me a sense of reality and what really matters.
It is love and humanity.
Mark
Mark, I will infinitely grant you that humanity is more important than anything else. And if that is the end of your answer – it is good. You are in no way doing something bad. I do support what you are doing. My answer is the same as yours, but it has extra complication and deepness that is difficult to fathom.
It would be neat to have you and your oxen as neighbors (and learn the skill of plowing with animals). In today’s rural landscape, that would be definitely nicer than living next to a pasture full of dead cars on blocks, or a farm heavily dependent on pesticides.
Each brings what they can to the table.
I would love to be surrounded by Amish.
Thank you,
Mark
I am surrounded by a growing Amish community and I do a considerable amount of custom work for them.
They are a good hard working people and I have a great deal of respect for them and what they believe. However when it boils down to it they are in the same boat as the rest of us and realize that life on the farm is merely a lifestyle choice which can only be preserved with off farm income.
Ken Conrad
IS RAW MILK THE LAST MAN STANDING DOWN ON THE FARM?
http://lancasterfarming.com/node/2728
Farmer Compaigns for Nutrient Dense Food Production What does that title alone reveal about the food grown on our farms? Something is very very wrong IMHO.
As a soil consultant it is my job, or in some cases calling.. to audit each farm as its own organizim, factor in what has been done to it in its history, the players(farmers, type of animals and numbers, past fertilizer, soil amendments) involved and the goal of those who have invited me there to offer help…and the goals of those who are resistant to the invite.
Each farm is its own microganism and the humans are a part of that…..there is no one size fits all…never has… never will be..
To attain a sustainable and an increasing economic benefit on farm is to produce nutrient dense crops, forage and food, which by focusing on nutrient density… production(bounty) will follow…the by-product of that expression is soil, plant, animal, human health which is true sustainability.
However….here is the but.
We have gone so long in most cases treating soil like dirt…(mining to soil and depleteing the mineral base by altering the soil activity)the cost of our products cannot in our current understanding of economics be raised enough to cover the costs of remineralization and activation of the system…in a timely manner which may have an adverse effect on sustainability
Banks will not loan (in most cases)on that paradigm and we do have a ceiling reflected in our costs to where we become elite and we are only serving the top 1% of the population….which will put us in a negative postion related to karma that was eluded to by Mark.
However..here the answer….
If we look to consumers to become co- producers (Carlos Petrini words) we have the ability to restore the energy loop(karma) lost in purchase of our current economic model, replaced with partial ownership of ones(current consumer) own sustainability model(food security) and we can midgate costs over a broad number of people..to get over the hump of activating the system to bring down costs as production, quality per animal/acre increases and is now more affordable to the many…in short captialism is very hard on the soil….some farmers may not be up to the challange of this type of paradigm.
I can take the mineralization nutrient dense model(1000 acres and up) as is to the larger farms and they have capital in most cases to get over the hump themselves….given they are in the graces of the system(banking ect).
Small local producers however are not in that system..by choice or nature… so the co-producer idea fits very well…which is one step beyond CSA & animal share models to true risk and ownership of an outcome which benfits more than those involved…the soil, environment, local economies and reduced health care.
The Amish have this model to a degree but are facing the same restrictions we do in the ability to be sustainable……they hit the wall on a smaller scale because a mule is a mule and the soil will not forgive if you just lighten the imprint by the means to pull an implement.
Our soil needs help from years of misuse…and a true sustianable model does not just depend on one farm family too risk it all to regain that spark.
To steal another phrase…we all need skin in the game……I am thankful to the multitude of people who have started opening their pocket books to the local food issue…..however 5-10-maybe 15% of your total food dollars on local produced food on average will not be enough.
We are paying for the sins of our fathers….and it takes a village to raise a farm.
Tim Wightman
On top of coal-mining, we have the TrAIL and PATH high-voltage power lines cutting a destructive swath across our state. West Virginians don’t get any power from these lines – just environmental degradation, leukemia from the EMF, and black lung from the coal-fired plants producing the power. All this so the power companies can get a guaranteed 14% profit for every dollar they spend, courtesy of the rate-payers in 11 states.
I know why many Amish people have off-farm jobs. The dirty little secret about farming is unless you are very very, lucky you can’t even make a subsistence living on a sustainable farm. People just don’t want to pay the price for good food. Witness Lykke’s criticism of the cost of raw milk. Proper land, animal and plant stewardship keeps you pretty busy and most adults want to make more than minimum wage.
Believe me, the Amish are masters at sustainability and have a huge store of "institutional" knowledge. If they can’t stay on their farms full-time, the rest of us don’t have a whelk’s chance in a supernova.
Farmers can’t make a living for one reason: They are competing against so-called "cheap" food.
But "cheap" food really isn’t. It merely appears to be cheap, because all we can see is the up-front cost—the grocery store price tag. The true cost of cheap food has been disconnected from the product and is being paid by somebody other than the producer (and sometimes somebody other than the eater). The same thing is happening with your power lines, and with a zillion other goods and services. I am talking here again about externalities, for example, the medical expenses, fertilizer expenses, and soil loss associated with growing and processing commodity corn.
That is why we really must redefine the terms we use to measuring our economy. Once the full, actual costs of cheap coal, cheap electricity, cheap food, and so on, are properly allocated, an $8.00 gallon of farm-fresh raw milk from grass-fed cows is no longer expensive.
The plain reality is that you (or if you’re clever, your children and grandchildren) are going to pay, one way or another. The question is, do we want to pay for good food, or for bad food plus fixes for bad health?
My accountant considers my milk cow a dreadful idea because his balance sheet has no line on which to record the value of my health and happiness, or the health and happiness of future generations who might live on my land. The government and its regulatory apparatus has the same sort of nearsighted vision. How else could they justify subsidizing big ag for producing diabetes in a box while forcing small-time farmers to get permission, pay fees, and submit to nearsighted inspections from an agency, before they may sell me fresh milk?
You and others are figuring out the scam. Let the insights continue!
Procedures such as gall-bladder removal were once common only in the "fair, fat and fifty" set. In my hospital pharmacy no less than 5 of my technicians have had this procedure. All were under 30.
So people are paying. They just aren’t aware of what they’re paying for. The FDA, USDA and other federal entities aren’t protecting the American public at all. They are helping Big Ag and Big Pharma get rich while both causing then treating chronic diseases – including diseases in children. When I saw the latest food pyramid I had to laugh to keep from crying.