Green Pioneer

Over the past year or so since I discovered Slow Money, it's been one exciting development after another. A couple of months ago we participated in their first teleconference...giving us the opportunity to listen in with others around the nation and Canada.

They hosted their very first conference last year in Santa Fe, NM which was a great success. Now they're hosting their second conference in June at the gorgeous Shelburne Farms in Vermont. And get this:  Eliot Coleman AND Joel Salatin will be speaking at this event! Very exciting stuff!

We just received this e-mail:

Can you see yourself standing in this field?

Well, not by yourself. You'll actually be there with hundreds of thought leaders, entrepreneurs, investors and activists from around the country. Under a big tent. Next to Lake Champlain. Comparing notes with folks from Austin, Seattle, Boston, New Orleans and many other places where Slow Money initiatives are emerging.  

And listening to Bill McKibben, Joel Salatin, Gary Hirshberg, Eliot Coleman, Will Raap, Erika Allen and many other inspiring leaders at Slow Money's National Gathering at Shelburne Farms June 9-11.

The event is filling up, so don't delay.  Register today.

[I also read on their FB page that if you join Slow Money with a donation amount, that they'll significantly discount the registration fee for this event. So check out the Slow Money website and you can also follow them on Facebook.]


Thanks to our Sponsors who make this event possible!

Mary's Gone Crackers RSF Social Finance Betsy and Jesse Fink Foundation Organic Valley Solidago Foundation Calvert Foundation Castanea Foundation Chelsea Green City Market Clean Yield Clif Bar Recycled Paper Printing Sandy River Charitable Foundation Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund Trillium Gardener's Supply Wainwright Bank Merritt & Merritt & Moulton Vermont Venture Network Investors' Circle University of Vermont Marketing Partners

1% For the Planet BALLE Burlington CEDO Edible Communities Publications eTown Vermont Fresh Network Intervale Local Harvest First Affirmative Financial Network Shelburne Farms Slow Food The Kathleen Show Transition US Vermont Commons NYU

What I want to know is this:  Where are these people today?

They must be in their 50's or 60's by now. Did they disband? Are there still some surviving 'settlements' tucked away somewhere? Did they sell out? Did they somehow mix or morph into the generic 'green' movement that's happening today?

If anyone has some insights here, please come forward. We settlers of the next generations need you!

The excerpt below is taken from a book we checked out from the library, Home Work: Handbuilt Shelter by Lloyd Kahn.


The New Settlers of New Mexico


During the cultural revolution of the '60's, many young people with inquiring minds and adventurous spirit set out to create new lives in rural areas of America. New Mexico, with its open spaces, cheap land, and sparse population, drew thousands of new settlers. It was a time of optimism, faith, and yes - drugs - but also a lot of hard work building and repairing adobe houses, raising children, tending animals, and living communally in the psychedelic years.

Irwin Klein was a photographer from NY who shot black and white photos with a Leica during five visits of about three months each to NM from 1966-71. he was working on a book he called The New Settlers of New M.exico. Irwin died a tragic death in 1974.

Here are excerpts from the introduction to Irwin's book, along with his beautiful photos. This will bring tears to the eyes of many who were there in those years, a time before the harsh realities of life intruded on youthful idealism and gentle optimism.

Though some photographs were shot on communes, most of them are of people living alone, in couples, families, or small groups in the little Spanish-American towns in the backcountry. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between a group of friends who share certain resources and spend a lot of time together and a commune, but I think that a commune has to have a sense of consciously shared responsibilities and probably, a certain formal structure. Most of my subjects live in what I would call settlements rather than communes.

Many of these people are children of the urban middle class who have abandoned the drug ghettos of large cities, though some come from rural backgrounds. There are dropouts from the universities and relatively ‘straight’ walks of life and a few old beatniks. As I explored the evolving situations, certain patterns and themes unfolded. There seemed to be a rite of passage from innocence to experience, and a development away from the image of the hippie toward older American archetypes like the pioneer and the independent yeoman farmer.

Some might look upon this as just a photo collection of hippies. While it’s true that the pictures reflect the style and décor of a particular moment which is already passing, what interested me more was that the adventure I depict is part of a timeless movement, the perennial attempt of human beings to renew the pattern of their lives. My subjects are trying, with varying degrees of seriousness, to develop a viable way of life outside our urban technological complex, drawing whatever resources they can muster from our common past and disintegrating culture. [Italics mine]

My own role was as much that of a participant as an observer. I came to NM with much the same motives as the people I photographed. In almost every case a certain bond of friendship or intimacy was established before I began working. The New Settlers is part family album, part document, part myth. I consider it as much a collective expression as my own work.

[Perhaps these are the first contemporary Green Pioneers!]

I have an idea to decorate the side of our unfinished log home this spring.  A very large banner in patriotic red, white, and blue reading something as follows:



ALL NOSY, PRYING, COMPLAINING MEDDLERS

GO

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
ANYONE ELSE? WELCOME!

So what's that supposed to mean? Boycott the Census 2010. (Or just answer the one (1) and only question provided by the Constitution: How many in your household).

All census bureau agents/hacks/busy-bodies are not allowed on our property, and additionally, any other potential wannabe meddlers. If the shoe fits, wear it.

UPDATE 3-19-10

After making the above post, and responding to my brother, Clint's, comment below, we clicked over to the U.S. patent & trademark site to check out the registration mark of the United States Census Bureau. It appears that we (or our stats) are more valuable than we're being told.  We're forced to comply by law with no compensation under the auspices that this is merely a 'head' count of sorts...and an 'opportunity' to receive govt. cash...with grave assurances that our info will be kept private. What's your definition of private? Better yet, what's the Govt's definition of 'private'...could it be 'private' enterprise perhaps? Then today I found this article below:

Privatizing The Census
While Perverting Its Purposes By Jim Kirwan
3-19-10  

Taking the senders on the envelope in which the Census arrived and trying to find out who these agencies are and what they have to do with the Census; things got very foggy, very quickly. The U. S. Department of Commerce is the parent agency for the U. S. Census Bureau. The Economics and Statistics Administration is responsible for examining the 2010 Census and its effect upon the economy and as far as the web is concerned The U. S. Census Bureau just hires people to actually take the census.   Nowhere is there a clear budget for the 2010 Census; as to its costs: All we know about this is that an $89.5 million contract for the next nine years was given to IBM (which was not announced by the government); who probably devised the questionnaire and will run the results through their computers.

To try to figure out what the costs of this census really are; is to enter a Labyrinth of government agency connections and overlaps that leave you wondering why so many different agencies all have their hands in each others pockets: and why this particular project that is supposed to happen only once every ten years, requires so much of the attention of so many bureaucrats; and why apparently the Census is now an annual event, as opposed to only once every ten years?  

Here's part of the latest spin from the US Department of Commerce:   "WASHINGTON, March 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As 2010 Census forms arrive in more than 120 million mailboxes across the country this week, several 20-foot-high replicas of the form began touring the nation today. The U.S. Census Bureau's Giant 2010 Census Form Tour is part of a large-scale effort to encourage households to take 10 minutes to fill out and mail back their census forms.   (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090226/CENSUSLOGO)

The forms will be on display at popular public sites in a number of major cities this week, such as Times Square in New York, Union Station in Washington and Daley Square in Chicago. Other cities include Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Dallas-Fort Worth, Detroit, Los Angeles, Phoenix, St. Louis and San Francisco.   SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau (1)   So the US Department of Commerce is holding a huge bash to promote Census 2010: But at what cost, and with what oversight to insure that what Commerce, the Economics & Statistics Administration & the Census Bureau say will happen to what you are being forced to send in?  

It seems that there really are no lines between the almost completely privatized US Department of Commerce and the government. There are also no clear accounting procedures for either the costs or for what happens to the data collected; in terms of everything that is being collected which does NOT involve the counting heads. That's critical because that is the only reason for there to be a U. S. Census Bureau: to count US Citizens in this country, once every ten years! So why is the US Census Bureau involved with Foreign Markets; in terms of their official logos?   "How much is the COMMERCE Department offering for your personal information?   Read more

And just found essentially the same article with links highlighted.


Here's another article citing the Constitutional grounds for census and the obscuring of the intentions:

The Federal Government Distorts the Purpose of the Census

On their web-page, the Census Bureau explains the purpose of the Census as follows:

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2) mandates a headcount of everyone residing in the United States.  The population totals determine each state’s Congressional representation.  The numbers also affect funding in your community and help inform decision makers about how your community is changing.

The reader will note that the federal government’s statement of purpose does not comport with the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.  Since decisions about our communities are not within the class of powers granted to the federal government (see constitutional principle No. 1), the reader will not find a reference to it in the limited powers granted to the federal government (see constitutional principle No. 2).

No More Census Long Forms

On their web-page, the Census Bureau states the long form used in the past has been replaced with a new short form:

In the past, most households received a short-form questionnaire, while one household in six received a long form that contained additional questions and provided more detailed socioeconomic information about the population.

The 2010 Census will be a short-form only census and will count all residents living in the United States as well as ask for name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure – taking just minutes to complete.

The more detailed socioeconomic information is now collected through the American Community Survey. The survey provides current data about your community every year, rather than once every 10 years. It is sent to a small percentage of the population on a rotating basis throughout the decade. No household will receive the survey more often than once every five years.

The reader will note that the additional information requested on the 2010 form will have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

The American Community Survey

As stated above, the Census Bureau will be using the American Community Survey to extract personal data that it previously received on the old long form.  Once again, this information will have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

Authority for the Census and the American Community Survey

On their web-site, the Census Bureau claims the American people are “required by law” to provide the information requested on either form and our response is “mandatory.”

For the Census, they cite the provision of the Constitution referenced above as their authority to request the information.

For the American Community Survey, they cite Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 141 and 193 as their authority to request the information.

Section 141 (d) states, in part: …the Secretary, in the year 1985 and every 10 years thereafter, shall conduct a mid-decade census of population in such form and content as he may determine…

Section 141 (e) (2) states: Information obtained in any mid-decade census shall not be used for apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, nor shall such information be used in prescribing congressional districts.

Section 141 (g) As used in this section, “census of population” means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing.

Section 193 states: In advance of, in conjunction with, or after the taking of each census provided for by this chapter, the Secretary may make surveys and collect such preliminary and supplementary statistics related to the main topic of the census as are necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof.

The first thing reader should note is the difference between the statement of authority for the 2 surveys.  The Census falls under the Constitution while the American Community Survey is merely based on a statute passed by Congress.

The second thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the reference to a mid-decade census of population.  There is no constitutional authority for mid-decade census.  See again Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The third thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the statement that the information obtained from the mid-decade census cannot be used for the constitutional purpose of the actual Census.

The fourth thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the statement that the mid-decade census is being used for housing, and matters relating to population and housing.  Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 does not contain a grant of power concerning these subjects.

This takes us to the other section cited as the authority for the American Community Survey.  Section 193 restricts census surveys and the collection of preliminary and supplementary statistics…to the main topic of the census…necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof.  Constitutionally, the only topic of a census is a head count for apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.  Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 does not contain a grant of power for any other census.  The other ones referenced in section 193 fail to meet the constitutional topic of the only census enumerated in the Constitution.

Note: See again the first 2 constitutional principles discussed at the beginning of this article and then apply them to the American Community Survey.

Penalty Provisions for Failure to Comply with Either Survey Request

On their web-site, the Census Bureau states the penalty provision for failing to comply with either survey request is found in Title 13, U.S.C., Section 221.

Pursuant to this section, refusing to provide the requested information or neglecting to complete either survey subjects you to a fine of not more than $100.00.  Willfully giving information that is false subjects you to a fine of not more than $500.00.

Then, in what I believe is a blatant attempt to misrepresent federal law and install fear in the hearts and minds of the American people so they will provide the requested information, the Census Bureau included the following statement after their reference to the section 221 penalties referenced above:

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559, in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 by changing the fine for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers from a fine of not more than $100 to not more than $5,000.

A review of Title 18 shows it is entitled:“CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.”

Section 3559 is entitled: “Sentencing classification of offenses.”  Section (a) states: “Classification.—An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

Section 3571 is entitled: “Sentence of fine.  Section (a) states: “A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine.”  Section (b) states in part: “…an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—(7)for an infraction, not more than $5,000.”  This is the only reference to a fine in the amount cited by the Census Bureau that matches the provision in section 3559 above.


The $5,000.00 fine referenced in section 3571 is a post conviction fine that only applies to an individual who has been charged and convicted of a criminal infraction as defined in section 3559.  Unless an individual has been charged and convicted of some criminal offense connected to the Census and the crime is classified as an infraction, this $5,000.00 fine does not apply.  Thus, their assertion that these sections changed the fines in section 221 to $5,000.00 is…you fill in the blank.  In my mind, it’s a blatant lie that borders on fraud.

My Rules and Plan of Attack

Here are the 3 basic rules I follow when I receive requests for personal information on the Census and/or American Community Survey forms.

* I never destroy or deface the forms.

* I never put false information on the forms.

* I never partially complete the forms.  If I am going to make the assertion that the requested information does not apply to me or the requested information exceeds the government’s constitutional authority to request the information, I return the form with a cover letter explaining why.

Here is my plan of attack for the Census and American Community Survey forms.

When I receive the 2010 Census form I will return it with a cover letter.  In the letter I will give them the number of people residing in the house and state that pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution that is the only information they are empowered to request.  My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.  Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau has the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.  In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.  Period end of story.

When I receive the American Community Survey form, I will return it with a cover letter.  The letter will simply state that since the Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated powers and that document does not grant them the general power to request the information, I am under no constitutional obligation to provide it.

If they attempt to distort the law and threaten me with the bogus $5,000.00 fine, as discussed and exposed above, I will send a letter to the Justice Department and request prosecution of the individuals making the threat.

The Coup de Gras to their Unconstitutional Information Requests

Even though I do not like to cite court cases, I either attach this one to my letter or hold it in reserve to support my refusal to comply with their bogus requests because it usually ends the discussion and any threat of a fine.

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [insert Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190.  We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life.  As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others.  Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’” [The bracketed words added for clarification]

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

If the federal government had been granted the general power to make inquires into the private affairs of the American people through the Census or a congressional mandated survey, then the Supreme Court could not have made this statement.

Now that we know the federal government was not granted the constitutional authority to make general inquires into our private affairs under the umbrella of the Census or a survey, I hope the American people will consider engaging in some civil disobedience and refuse to comply with these unconstitutional requests. Read entire article

From the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance:

The USDA has announced that it is dropping NAIS!
2/5/2010

This is a major victory for the grassroots!!   Thank you to the thousands of people who called, wrote, organized meetings, and more.  Dozens of organizations, from across the country and the full range of the political spectrum, worked together on this common cause.
And we succeeded in making our voices heard.

USDA has stated that it is refocusing its efforts on “a new, flexible framework” that will apply only to animals moved in interstate commerce and encourage the use of “lower-cost” technology.  During today’s conference call with USDA, I asked whether the agency would continue using federal funding to pressure states to adopt the program through cooperative agreements.  In response, Secretary Vilsack stated that USDA has gotten a “failing grade” on NAIS and that he does NOT intend to try to implement it through the back door.

You can read more details from USDA at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/faq_traceability.pdf

We still have more work in front of us.  As USDA develops its new framework, we must be involved and vocal, so that agribusiness does not develop yet another high-tech, big-industry boondoggle.  We must be active at the state level to ensure that the state agencies do not implement unnecessary and burdensome rules.  And we must work to roll back the unfair requirements that have already been implemented in Wisconsin and Michigan.  Ultimately, it is up to us – as animal owners, homesteaders, farmers, ranchers, and consumers -- to build a positive vision for our farms and our food.

Thank you all!

Support Our Work Please help us be a strong voice for independent agriculture by joining or donating here


And more from OCA:

Victory of the Week

USDA Drops "Big Brother" National Animal ID Program

Under pressure from small farmers and organic consumers, the US Department of Agriculture announced on February 5, 2010, that it is suspending its controversial National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and offering a new approach to tracking animal disease and food contamination. This is a major victory for the Organic Consumers Association, our allies, and organic farmers and ranchers, who have complained that the USDA's goal of tagging every farm animal in country wouldn't do anything to prevent disease, would be unnecessary and expensive for small and organic farmers, and couldn't be enforced without violations of privacy and religion.

Already, the implementation of NAIS in Wisconsin has resulted in an Amish farmer and a small-scale cattle rancher being charged and fined for not registering, and in Michigan a cattle farmer's herd was put under quarantine and forcibly tagged when he wouldn't submit to the state's mandatory NAIS program.

Go to OCA's No NAIS campaign page for more information

Chicken Tales...or Tails...or...
Some (really lame) Gothic Humour!

Hmmm...who's trying to kill organics? And the culprits might be those whom we would least expect. Just received this in an Organic Bytes e-mail today. There were a number of pertinent topics but this one I think really needs to be hit on specifically. There's organic and then there's "organic"...in that it's Big Business Bullies posing as small farm, ethically produced organic products. We're seeing this problem occurring more regularly here in rural Maine...even with MOFGA who tout themselves as the following:

 Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association MOFGA helps farmers and gardeners grow organic food and supports sustainable and vibrant rural communities.

We're on a local crusade in our area to avoid MOFGA and their overly bureaucratic abuses. See this is what happens. Small family farms that are actually trying to do what's best for animals, for food, for the soil/environment, and for the consumer get pushed around, threatened, and regulated into oblivion. While the large corporate agribusinesses call all the shots and deregulate to the point that it's no longer safely, humanely grown food anymore. It's a double-standard that works to the detriment of what's authentically organic. See how that works?

This is where the local movement and self-education are so very important. Go to one of your local farms...not farmers market...FARM. Find the farmer or his wife. They'll probably be out in the garden or around the barn somewhere. Take a look at how they're doing things. Talk to them, ask a few questions. Look at their cows and goats and chickens...and ask them what their names are. Yeah, small family farmers still name their animals. It's very cool! Then decide for yourself if you trust them. Taste the milk. Is it really yummy? Then buy it for heavens sake. And pay them cash. Around here, they keep a can on top of the fridge so if you drop by at 9 p.m. (like we do) you can just put your money in the can. It's that simple. Really.

I thought it was particularly interesting at the end of this article on who they list as the main troublemakers at the moment:

Friend/enemies of the organic revolution that are particularly troublesome are:

Feedlot "Organic" Dairies
Whole Foods

A Revolutionary Movement Under Attack
The 40 year-old organic movement to promote and expand the market for organic, fair trade, union made and locally produced food and products may not seem to be much of a threat to the powers that be. After all, what possible threat can the creation of new healthy products and market opportunities be to the capitalist system?

However, make no mistake, the organic movement IS a revolutionary movement. It is a revolutionary movement, because it is working to undermine and eventually replace a rich, powerful, and politically connected industry based upon life-threatening chemicals and GMOs and exploitation of farm and food workers. America's chemical-industrial Food Inc. poses major threats to workers' rights, public health, the environment, and the climate.

If everyone opted to buy - or produce themselves - only organic, fair trade, union made and locally produced agricultural products, Food Inc. would soon be out of business. The organic means of food and fiber production and consumption would be in our hands.

The organic revolution is the ultimate consumer boycott. Once we move past the tipping point, U.S. agricultural production and household nutrition will be radically transformed. Monsanto and Corporate Agribusiness will no longer be able to poison the water and the air and pollute the atmosphere.  Organic production methods will clean the water, air, soil, and our bodies and sequester billions of tons of climate-destabilizing CO2 from the atmosphere. Safe, healthy, nutritious organic foods will become the norm while junk foods will gradually disappear.  Millions of farm and food production workers, routinely exploited in our profit-at-any-cost food and farming system, will be empowered and liberated.

When the organic revolution is complete worldwide, we'll have a stable climate, a clean, healthy environment, economic self-sufficiency, food security and good-health for all. And of course following the Via Organica, the organic way, we will conserve precious resources including fossil fuels, water, and land, and thereby eliminate the root cause of resource wars, finally giving "peace a chance" in the world. That's what the organic revolution is all about.

One of the biggest threats to the success of the organic revolution are our supposed allies; greenwashed businesses in the food industry that garnered the public's trust by being the first to support organic, but are now abusing that trust by backsliding on their commitment to the revolution.

Companies like Monsanto and Wal-Mart are the worst enemies of the organic movement. But, our movement also has plenty of Janus-like "friend/enemies," companies like Whole Foods, Horizon, and UNFI that on one hand have given the organic community the market clout to reach the mainstream, but on the other hand have begun to put profits before principle, gradually selling mostly conventional food, disguised and premium-priced as natural.

Friend/enemies of the organic revolution that are particularly troublesome are:

Feedlot "Organic" Dairies
Whole Foods

More from OCA (Organic Consumers Association)

I discovered the following article from a Slow Money posting yesterday on Facebook. This is really exciting and is in Time Magazine...no less!

GP: Note: Highlights and italics mine

How Cows (Grass-Fed Only) Could Save the Planet

ENLARGE PHOTO+ Cattle on this Hardwick, Mass., farm grow not on feedlots but in pastures, where their grazing helps keep carbon dioxide in the ground

On a farm in coastal Maine, a barn is going up. Right now it's little more than a concrete slab and some wooden beams, but when it's finished, the barn will provide winter shelter for up to six cows and a few head of sheep. None of this would be remarkable if it weren't for the fact that the people building the barn are two of the most highly regarded organic-vegetable farmers in the country: Eliot Coleman wrote the bible of organic farming, The New Organic Grower, and Barbara Damrosch is the Washington Post's gardening columnist. At a time when a growing number of environmental activists are calling for an end to eating meat, this veggie-centric power couple is beginning to raise it. "Why?" asks Coleman, tromping through the mud on his way toward a greenhouse bursting with December turnips. "Because I care about the fate of the planet."

Ever since the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization released a 2006 report that attributed 18% of the world's man-made greenhouse-gas emissions to livestock — more, the report noted, than what's produced by transportation — livestock has taken an increasingly hard rap. At first, it was just vegetarian groups that used the U.N.'s findings as evidence for the superiority of an all-plant diet. But since then, a broader range of environmentalists has taken up the cause. At a recent European Parliament hearing titled "Global Warming and Food Policy: Less Meat = Less Heat," Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, argued that reducing meat consumption is a "simple, effective and short-term delivery measure in which everybody could contribute" to emissions reductions.

And of all the animals that humans eat, none are held more responsible for climate change than the ones that moo. Cows not only consume more energy-intensive feed than other livestock; they also produce more methane — a powerful greenhouse gas — than other animals do. "If your primary concern is to curb emissions, you shouldn't be eating beef," says Nathan Pelletier, an ecological economist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., noting that cows produce 13 to 30 lb. of carbon dioxide per pound of meat. (See where cows eat and what it means for the environment.)

So how can Coleman and Damrosch believe that adding livestock to their farm will help the planet? Cattleman Ridge Shinn has the answer. On a wintry Saturday at his farm in Hardwick, Mass., he is out in his pastures encouraging a herd of plump Devon cows to move to a grassy new paddock. Over the course of a year, his 100 cattle will rotate across 175 acres four or five times. "Conventional cattle raising is like mining," he says. "It's unsustainable, because you're just taking without putting anything back. But when you rotate cattle on grass, you change the equation. You put back more than you take."

It works like this: grass is a perennial. Rotate cattle and other ruminants across pastures full of it, and the animals' grazing will cut the blades — which spurs new growth — while their trampling helps work manure and other decaying organic matter into the soil, turning it into rich humus. The plant's roots also help maintain soil health by retaining water and microbes. And healthy soil keeps carbon dioxide underground and out of the atmosphere.

Compare that with the estimated 99% of U.S. beef cattle that live out their last months on feedlots, where they are stuffed with corn and soybeans. In the past few decades, the growth of these concentrated animal-feeding operations has resulted in millions of acres of grassland being abandoned or converted — along with vast swaths of forest — into profitable cropland for livestock feed. "Much of the carbon footprint of beef comes from growing grain to feed the animals, which requires fossil-fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides, transportation," says Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma. "Grass-fed beef has a much lighter carbon footprint." Indeed, although grass-fed cattle may produce more methane than conventional ones (high-fiber plants are harder to digest than cereals, as anyone who has felt the gastric effects of eating broccoli or cabbage can attest), their net emissions are lower because they help the soil sequester carbon.

From Vermont, where veal and dairy farmer Abe Collins is developing software designed to help farmers foster carbon-rich topsoil quickly, to Denmark, where Thomas Harttung's Aarstiderne farm grazes 150 head of cattle, a vanguard of small farmers are trying to get the word out about how much more eco-friendly they are than factory farming. "If you suspend a cow in the air with buckets of grain, then it's a bad guy," Harttung explains. "But if you put it where it belongs — on grass — that cow becomes not just carbon-neutral but carbon-negative." Collins goes even further. "With proper management, pastoralists, ranchers and farmers could achieve a 2% increase in soil-carbon levels on existing agricultural, grazing and desert lands over the next two decades," he estimates. Some researchers hypothesize that just a 1% increase (over, admittedly, vast acreages) could be enough to capture the total equivalent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions.

This math works out in part because farmers like Shinn don't use fertilizers or pesticides to maintain their pastures and need no energy to produce what their animals eat other than what they get free from the sun. Furthermore, pasturing frequently uses land that would otherwise be unproductive. "I'd like to see someone try to raise soybeans here," he says, gesturing toward the rocky, sloping fields around him.

By many standards, pastured beef is healthier. That's certainly the case for the animals involved; grass feeding obviates the antibiotics that feedlots are forced to administer in order to prevent the acidosis that occurs when cows are fed grain. But it also appears to be true for people who eat cows. Compared with conventional beef, grass-fed is lower in saturated fat and higher in omega-3s, the heart-healthy fatty acids found in salmon.

But not everyone is sold on its superiority. In addition to citing grass-fed meat's higher price tag — Shinn's ground beef ends up retailing for about $7 a pound, more than twice the price of conventional beef — feedlot producers say that only through their economies of scale can the industry produce enough meat to satisfy demand, especially for a growing population. These critics note that because grass is less caloric than grain, it takes two to three years to get a pastured cow to slaughter weight, whereas a feedlot animal requires only 14 months. "Not only does it take fewer animals on a feedlot to produce the same amount of meat," says Tamara Thies, chief environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (which contests the U.N.'s 18% figure), "but because they grow so quickly, they have less chance to produce greenhouse gases."

GP: Note:  Our friends did NOT find the above paragraph to be true. They tethered their yearling calves on pickets and grass-fed them exclusively all Spring and Summer. They grew well and were big robust calves ready for processing by the Fall.

To Allan Savory, the economies-of-scale mentality ignores the role that grass-fed herbivores can play in fighting climate change. A former wildlife conservationist in Zimbabwe, Savory once blamed overgrazing for desertification. "I was prepared to shoot every bloody rancher in the country," he recalls. But through rotational grazing of large herds of ruminants, he found he could reverse land degradation, turning dead soil into thriving grassland.

Like him, Coleman now scoffs at the environmentalist vogue for vilifying meat eating. "The idea that giving up meat is the solution for the world's ills is ridiculous," he says at his Maine farm. "A vegetarian eating tofu made in a factory from soybeans grown in Brazil is responsible for a lot more CO2 than I am." A lifetime raising vegetables year-round has taught him to value the elegance of natural systems. Once he and Damrosch have brought in their livestock, they'll "be able to use the manure to feed the plants, and the plant waste to feed the animals," he says. " And even though we can't eat the grass, we'll be turning it into something we can."

Read article

On July 30, a week ago, the House passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act and it's now headed for the Senate. They tried to pass it on July 29 but it failed to pass. On Aug. 3, I checked a govt. tracker site and this is what info they had:

Aug 3, 2009: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Related:See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
Votes:Jul 29, 2009: This bill failed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. This usually occurs for non-controversial legislation. The totals were 280 Ayes, 150 Nays, 3 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.
Jul 30, 2009: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 283 Ayes, 142 Nays, 8 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.

I would argue that this is VERY controversial legislation, and I really have to wonder at the suspension of House rules to "cut debate short" and pass the bill. This Washington Post article mentioned it and I just received this update from an Organic Consumers Association e-mail:


On July 30, 2009, H.R. 2749 was debated and voted on again, this time with only a simple majority required for passage. It passed. See how your Congressperson voted here.

During the debate, several of the concerns of organic and small producers were raised:   Rep. Sam Farr addressed Rep. John Dingell saying, "I have deep concerns ... about the fee structure in the measure, which would charge a farm family making jams or syrup or cheese the same fee as a processing plant owned by a multinational corporation employing hundreds or thousands or workers.  This strikes me as not only unfair but contrary to federal farm policy that has encouraged small and mid-sized family farms to get into small scale value-added enterprises to survive economically.  I am seeking an assurance ... that a more progressive fee structure will be found that does not inhibit our farm families from taking advantage of new markets.

"As a member of the Organic Caucus, I also have concerns about the interplay between this bill and the National Organic Program.  Is it the Chairman's [Rep. Dingell's] understanding that this bill would not establish any requirements for organically produced or processed products which are in conflict with the requirements established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and the USDA's National Organic Program regulations?"   Rep. Earl Blumenauer joined Rep. Farr saying, "I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman [Rep. Dingell] to address some of the concerns of small and organic farmers. ... I am concerned about the impact of this bill on the small farmers in my state and across the country. Over sixty percent of Oregon farmers make their living from a farm that is smaller than fifty acres. I echo Mr. Farr’s concerns regarding the fairness of some of these requirements for these farmers.

"I am also concerned about the language regarding interaction between wildlife, livestock and farming practices. Biodiversity is a prerequisite for a healthy farm and not something we should penalize farmers for. Last week in my state, staff from Oregon State University and the Xerces Society led a tour to four diverse Oregon farms where farmers are utilizing techniques such as naturescaping, floodplain restoration and natural hedgerows to encourage crop health, control pests and invasive species, and enhance soil quality. I am concerned that these practices, which are cost effective and bring benefits to the farm and local wildlife, would be in jeopardy under this legislation.

"I believe we should target reform and safety efforts towards practices which have been directly linked to food disease outbreaks, rather than limiting approaches that farmers have used for centuries to reduce their dependence on pesticides, herbicides and other carbon intensive farming techniques.

"I would like assurance from the Chairman that as the Food and Drug Administration develops these criteria, they will consider the needs of small farms and the practices of organic farmers."

In addition, many small and mid-sized farmers do not sell direct to consumer but the identity of their product is preserved through the supply chain and is on the product when it is bought by the consumer. HR 2749 fails to include an exemption for “identity-preserved” products that specify the identity and location of the farm all the way to the consumer.

These farmers should get the same exemptions that have been provided to grains, oilseeds, hay, honey, sugar, cocoa, and other segments of agriculture that have been recognized in the bill because of their political clout.

And the debate continues:

OCA Web Forum Food Safety Debate

The following is posted by OCA web forum member, Kevin, a Horticultural Scientist from the University of Georgia:

"Who is the government trying to protect? Not us! This is all just another way to assure the big trade corporations can continue to import poisoned produce. Think about it, this is just going to make it tougher for American farmers to make a living. The majority of our produce is imported as it is, about 60%, why should we have to put out more money to make even less profit?... Go out and tell everyone you know to buy local or at least American grown crops. Eventually, these trade companies will go out of business and we will regain a foothold on our food market..."

And go HERE for more discussion and info on the Hr 2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act.

What's also really wonderful to see is the country life reaching the cities and suburbs with so many ingenious and old-fashioned-made-new-again ideas! One of my absolute favorites in 'suburban homestead style' is Patti Merino...The Garden Girl...who's taken her home in Boston suburbia to all new green levels turning it into her own little farmette in the city. She's produced lots of short video clips on everything from shearing her angora bunny and handspinning the fur into yarn...to 4 season gardening...to a chicken tractor over raised beds...to vertical gardening...to living with small livestock...to much much more...all in her own backyard! Also see her fresh from the garden recipes! She's very upbeat and her enthusiasm and concepts are contagious! I promise you...you'll love her!!

Another great find along these lines are the Poultry People in the UK. The video above is one of their chicken ark designs that you've just got to check out! It honestly can be this simple! They obviously enjoy their chickens, too, with quirky videos on the 'chicken life'...here below Chicken Meets Fox...quite humorous!

Oh and you'll get a kick out of this one, too...

Once you're done with the chuckling...or chu, chuk, chukking...notice how they've actually constructed this one:  A triangle with roosts and metal roof. Gotta love that little heart, too!