Category: Farm Report

In 2012, Kim Nace, Rich Earth’s administrative director and partner Abe Noe-Hays collected 600 gallons of urine from friends and neighbors. The next year, the organization brought in about 3,000 gallons from 170 human volunteers. Rebecca Rueter, a board member for Rich Earth, invited members of the local women’s chorus to donate their pee.

Rich Earth hopes to double that amount this year to a round 6,000 gallons — enough to fill a third of an average American swimming pool. “We’ve given volunteers a few things to make it easier — some funnel devices and things like that,” says Nace.

The Modern Farmer Report

Many organic farmers are hopping mad right now at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and their reason involves perhaps the most under-appreciated part of agriculture: plant food, aka fertilizer. Specifically, the FDA, as part of its overhaul of food safety regulations, wants to limit the use of animal manure.

“We think of it as the best thing in the world,” says organic farmer Jim Crawford, “and they think of it as toxic and nasty and disgusting.”

Every highly productive farmer depends on fertilizer. But organic farmers are practically obsessive about it, because they’ve renounced industrial sources of nutrients.

The NPR Report

Though the Pew commission is not a foodie household name, its 2008 report has subtly shaped many consumers’ view of how our food animals are produced. It’s not the rosy view — it’s the highly critical one.

Back then, the commission identified the most worrisome systemic problems of producing 9.8 billion food animals every year in the U.S. It called out the animal agriculture industry for the excessive use of medically important antibiotics, particularly the industry’s habit of giving animals low doses for nontherapeutic uses like growth promotion.

It also hammered the conventional system of handling of liquid waste from huge animal operations, and standard industry practices of confining animals in gestation crates and battery cages. And it called for enforcement of antitrust laws to restrict the concentration of the industry into a handful of companies that would have inordinate sway over the marketplace.

The NPR Report

I’ve been reading a couple of recent books on historical accounts of Jesus…and the state of the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus. Tiberius would have been great as a CAFO operator.

Yesterday I had a wonderfully informative (and formative) meeting with Andy Radin, the new (relatively…one + year) Cooperative Extension person at URI.

We shared thoughts on agricultural education in Rhode Island. Some of the themes were:

1) The need for soils and soil fertility education. Many of the new small farmers in the State have scarce local educational resources to be analytical and scientific (add knowledge) to their farming practices. The Internet and modern communications/media devices make information much more readily available – therefore, young literate farmers can find enormous amounts of on-line advice. Vetting that information, however, becomes much more difficult – particularly when there is limited agricultural staffing at the University and Division of Agriculture.

2) The need for more research and trials with small farmers. Small farmers in the State are well-suited to develop new research outreach and trials programs. This kind of effort would enhance local practice as well as inform the University in agricultural outreach efforts.

3) The need for better incentives to create environmental benefits. Small farmers currently have a difficult economy and that economy does not provide much capital for them to enhance their operations. Since many of these small farmers are already practicing with sustainable methods that accrue environmental benefits, one of the simplest ways to give them ‘another source of revenue’ is to pay them for their conservation and environmental improvement practices. ( Note: This I add, we did not discuss)

4) The need for an agricultural education curriculum. Even as a guide to practice (if it cannot be implemented by the University), the State needs an educational methodology to guide new and expanded growing and livestock raising in a manner appropriate for the State’s agro-ecology.

From a recent New York Times article:

When we went looking in upstate New York for a home for our farm, we feared competition from deep-pocketed developers, a new subdivision or a big-box store. These turned out to be the least of our problems. Though the farms best suited for our vegetables were protected from development by conservation easements, we discovered that we couldn’t compete, because conserved farmland is open to all buyers — millionaires included.

Easements are intended to protect farmland, water, animal habitat, historic sites and scenic views, and so they are successful in keeping farms from becoming malls and subdivisions. But they don’t stop Wall Street bankers from turning them into private getaways, with price tags to match.

Few bankers farm; long days with little pay lack appeal. A new report by the National Young Farmers Coalition, a group we helped start, reveals that one-quarter of the land trusts that oversee these conservation easements have seen protected land go out of production. Why? A nonfarmer had bought it.

Still, tax incentives in New York encourage nonfarmers to rent their land to farmers, so you would think suitable land would be easy to find.

Most landlords, however, offer only short-term leases. They want peace and quiet; they don’t want vegetable or livestock operations that bring traffic, workers, noise and fences. But long-term land tenure is essential for vegetable and livestock growers, who need years to build soil fertility, improve pasture and add infrastructure. Only farms that grow low-value animal feed crops like hay, corn or beans are attracted to one-year leases.

Once well-off city residents who are looking for second homes buy the land, farmer ownership is over. After they’ve added an air-conditioned home, a heated pool and an asphalt drive, the value increases so much that no working farmer can afford it. The farm, and its capacity to feed a community, is lost.

The article then goes on to point out some efforts in Vermont and Massachusetts to improve ag land conservation easements, etc.

I think the bigger issue is what has happened/continues to happen to agricultural land ownership in New England. As we begin to realize how neglectful we’ve been of local farming, we also realize much of our effort to conserve ag land has – besides lessening productive land – greatly concentrated the control of land.

From my perspective, the biggest changes in ag land ownership in the last fifteen years is a concentration of land assets in fewer and fewer hands. It has driven up prices and created a commodity price dependent bubble.

A bit of background on the State’s soils….

Agricultural soils in Rhode Island are rated within classes – Class I being soils with few agricultural limitations to Class VIII being soils whose limitations preclude any agricultural use.

5% of Rhode Island’s soils are Class I (approximately 22,000 acres). Another 110,000 acres are Class II which have some limitations that reduce crop choice and require moderate conservation practices. I was unable to determine the amount of these two Classes that have been made unusable because some form of development (residential, commercial, roadway, etc.), but from looking at current land use estimate over 60,000 acres of agricultural land.

In order for those soils to be utilized in a manner that creates minimal negative environmental impacts, the Class I and Class II soils need to be amended with natural composts, compost teas, nutrient mulches, etc. Planting needs to be conservative of the topsoil through no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, etc. Irrigation needs to be conservative through a micro-irrigation system that allows the application of natural compost teas (seaweed, comfrey, etc.).

Treated in a agro-ecologically thoughtful manner, Class I and Class II soils will yield robust and diverse crops, provide adequate fodder for livestock, and maintain their resilience over decades of use.

As an aside, two related points: 1) the effects of climate change is currently affecting both plants and animals in the State – causing adaptation in soil use practices, 2) the State government, The Nature Conservancy, and community land trusts have placed agricultural easements and bought agricultural properties actively in the State – this creates ambiguity about the availability of land and long term sustainable use for farmers (more about this in a future blog entry…I’m researching data).

Yesterday I visited the State’s largest cranberry grower. We noticed significant poison ivy…and the grower told us over the past few years increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has significantly increased the amount of invasive poison ivy in their bogs.

The following comments from Joel Salatin in Virginia on a recent speech by Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture. I reblog his entire statement because it eloquently communicates our political insanity.

Why do we need more farmers? What is the driving force behind USDA policy? In an infuriating epiphany I have yet to metabolize, I found out Wednesday in a private policy-generation meeting with Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McCauliffe. I did and still do consider it a distinct honor for his staff to invite me as one of the 25 dignitaries in Virginia Agriculture for this think-tank session in Richmond.

It was a who’s who of Virginia agriculture: Farm Bureau, Va. Agribusiness Council, Va. Forestry Association, Va. Poultry Federation, Va. Cattlemen’s Ass., deans from Virginia Tech and Virginia State–you get the picture.

It was the first meeting of this kind I’ve ever attended that offered no water. The only thing to drink were soft drinks. Lunch was served in styrofoam clam shells–Lay’s potato chips, sandwiches, potato salad and chocolate chip cookie. It didn’t look very safe to me, so I didn’t partake. But I’d have liked a drink of water. In another circumstance, I might eat this stuff, but with these folks, felt it important to make a point.

Why do they all assume nobody wants water, nobody cares about styrofoam, everybody wants potato chips and we all want industrial meat-like slabs on white bread?

But I digress. The big surprise occurred a few minutes into the meeting: US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack walked in. He was in Terry McCauliffe love-in mode. And here is what he told us: for the first time–2012– rural America lost population in real numbers–not as a percentage but in real numbers. It’s down to 16 percent of total population.

I’m sitting there thinking he’s going to say that number needs to go up so we have more people to love and steward the landscape. More people to care for earthworms. More people to grow food and fiber.

Are you ready for the shoe to drop? The epiphany? What could the US Secretary of Agriculture, at the highest strategic planning sessions of our land, be challenged by other leaders to change this figure, to get more people in rural America, to encourage farming and help more farms get started? What could be the driving reason to have more farmers? Why does he go to bed at night trying to figure out how to increase farmers? How does the President and other cabinet members view his role as the nation’s farming czar?

What could be the most important contribution that increasing farmers could offer to the nation? Better food? Better soil development? Better care for animals? Better care for plants?

Are you ready? Here’s his answer: although rural America only has 16 percent of the population, it gives 40 percent of the personnel to the military. Say what? You mean when it’s all said and done, at the end of the day, the bottom line–you know all the cliches–the whole reason for increasing farms is to provide cannon fodder for American imperial might. He said rural kids grow up with a sense of wanting to give something back, and if we lose that value system, we’ll lose our military might.

So folks, it all boils down to American military muscle. It’s not about food, healing the land, stewarding precious soil and resources; it’s all about making sure we keep a steady stream of youngsters going into the military. This puts an amazing twist on things. You see, I think we should have many more farmers, and have spent a lifetime trying to encourage, empower, and educate young people to go into farming. It never occurred to me that this agenda was the key to American military power.

Lest I be misread, I am not opposed to defending family. I am not opposed to fighting for sacred causes. I am violently opposed to non-sacred fighting and meddling in foreign countries, and building empires. The Romans already tried that and failed.

But to think that my agenda is key to building the American military–now that’s a cause for pause. I will redouble my efforts to help folks remember why we need more farmers. It’s not to provide cannon fodder for Wall Street imperialistic agendas. It’s to grow food that nourishes, land that’s aesthetically and aromatically sensually romantic, build soil, hydrate raped landscapes, and convert more solar energy into biomass than nature would in a static state.

I can think of many, many righteous and noble reasons to have more farms. Why couldn’t he have mentioned any of these? Any?

No, the reason for more farms is to make sure we get people signing up at the recruitment office. That’s the way he sees me as a farmer. Not a food producer. When the president and his cabinet have their private conflabs, they don’t see farmers as food producers, as stewards of the landscape, as resource leveragers.

No, they view us as insurance for military muscle, for American empire building and soldier hubris. Is this outrageous? Do I have a right to be angry? Like me, this raw and bold show of the government’s farming agenda should make us all feel betrayed, belittled, and our great nation besmirched.

Perhaps, just perhaps, really good farms don’t feed this military personnel pipeline. I’d like to think our kind of farming has more righteous goals and sacred objectives. Vilsack did not separate good farmers from bad farmers. Since we have far more bad farmers than good ones, perhaps the statistic would not hold up if we had more farmers who viewed the earth as something to heal instead of hurt, as a partner to caress instead of rape.

That America’s farms are viewed by our leaders as just another artery leading into military might is unspeakably demeaning and disheartening.

Tragically, I don’t think this view would change with a different Democrat or Republican. It’s entrenched in the establishment fraternity. Thomas Jefferson, that iconic and quintessential agrarian intellectual, said we should have a revolution about every half century just to keep the government on its toes. I’d say we’re long overdue.

Now when you see those great presidentially appointed cabinet members talking, I just want you to think about how despicable it is that behind the facade, behind the hand shaking and white papers, in the private by-invitation-only inner circles of our country, movers and shakers know axiomatically that farms are really important to germinate more military personnel.

That no one in that room with Terry McCauliffe, none of those Virginia farm leaders, even blinked when he said that is still hard for me to grasp. They accepted it as truth,
probably saying “Amen, brother” in their hearts. True patriots, indeed.

It’ll take me awhile to get over this, and believe me, I intend to shout this from the housetops. I’ll incorporate in as many public speeches as I can because I think it speaks to the heart of food and farming. It speaks to the heart of strength and security; which according to our leaders comes from the end of a gun, not from the alimentary canal of an earthworm. Here’s to more healthy worms.