Green Pioneer

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!

2.  Natural Care
These are a couple of great sites I've found recently on Natural Horse Care...as well as natural care for other pets and livestock:

Natural Horse Magazine
Shirley's Wellness Cafe


I'm developing a section for this site dedicated to alternative (i.e. non-allopathic) care for pets and livestock. We'll also provide exposure to animal abuses perpetrated by the factory farms and big-pharma companies. There's much we need to understand that many a vet and/or extension agent will not tell us...either through ignorance or slave-to-the-industry mentality.

Vaccines Dangerous to your animals!
Natural Hoof Care and Rehab
Natural Hoof Care.net
Benefits of Paddock Paradise!
Dirt and Clay good for horses and other animals? Check it out!

3.  A New Challenge!

Freedom Gardens has a new challenge brewing for 'green' gardeners! Here's their intro:


Collective Growing and Harvesting Effort

Path to Freedom and Freedom Gardens aim to show people that they don’t need acres of space to begin growing food, and that gardening can reduce your food bills, food miles and create a more sustainable way of life right in your own backyard.

Last year we launched the successful 100-foot Diet Challenge encouraging individuals and families to eat at least one homegrown meal a week. The overwhelming response led to the creation of Freedom Gardens, an online social networking community of nearly 2,500 gardening enthusiasts who are fed up with foreign oil, frequent food miles and high food prices—and who want to band together with like-minded folks.

So, this year, we want to expand the scope and impact of the 100-foot Diet Challenge and think big—
really big! Are you ready for the 100-foot Diet Challenge 2.0?

1 MILLION POUND FREEDOM HARVEST CHALLENGE

Read More!