The recent issue of Onearth has an excellent article on the ecological benefits of grassfed beef, including the effects on wildlife, the water cycle, the grain trap, and carbon sequestration. We’re in the process of writing up a grant to detail the effects of different pasture treatments upon the carbon capturing properties of grasslands…read the article, and stay tuned!

Joel Salatin is gearing up for the media push for the movie Food, Inc, which I read somewhere is going to be a combination of Omnivore’s Dilemma and Fast Food Nation. That should be fun

This is just a quick Chelsea Green clip of him speaking recently

I’m a little skeptical of Joel’s energy analysis…tripling of energy prices would have rippling effects on Polyface farm, from the tons of conventional corn that they import for their chickens to the impact the resulting economic downturn would have on their paying customers.

Further, I prefer the word resilient to forgiving, but that’s semantics, and my own ecological terminology bias. All that said, Joel is always an entertaining speaker, and worth a watch.

Mother Jones has an interesting article about farmers markets in its March/April edition. The article’s thesis is that farmers markets may not be all they are cracked up to be, and that the food that customers are buying at farmers markets may be overpriced versions of exactly the same produce (even grown by the same farmer) that could be bought at the grocery store.

I agree that as farmers markets have grown in number, size and popularity over the past 10 years, the likelihood has increased that some vendors may not be from the idyllic small family farms that customers may have in their minds as they make their purchases.

But I think the implication that markets are trying to pull one over on customers (such as leading them to think that all the vendors are small-scale or organic) is false. Customers can and should talk with individual farmers to find out their stories and practices. And they can choose not to buy from the large-scale, non-organic vendors if they wish.

I think the article’s leading question misses the mark about markets. I don’t think that most farmers’ markets truly are just a “grocery store with a taco stand” – they are essentially different from grocery stores in that customers can go up to the farmer and talk with them directly about their philosophy and practices. When’s the last time you were able to do that at Safeway or Fred Meyer?

Another implication of the article is that some farms are losing revenue at the markets, at least partly because of the processed and value-added food sellers who may be using items from far off places.

There are several aspects to this issue. One is the question of whether markets should allow non-farmers at all. That is an issue addressed either at the state-level, such as in California where farmers’ markets must be state certified, or at the individual market level in Oregon, where each market has its own vendor rules. Does a farmers’ market lose its integrity by allowing in non-farm vendors? I would argue that it doesn’t, as long as it keeps its focus on locally-produced foods or crafts. I do cringe when I see an Avon lady at a farmers’ market, but I don’t have a problem with the local bakery selling scones.

Assuming that markets do allow processed foods (or crafts/art), another question is whether markets should have rules about where the ingredients in those processed foods come from. In Oregon, many markets require value-added foods to have ingredients that are local, or come from some specified radius of the market. (I’ll have a follow-up post on the question of what is “local”). I think that this is a good idea, and I’m personally disappointed when I hear about markets that allow in products from far away.

Something that the article doesn’t address is the reality of a market’s location, timing and customer base. Some markets are geared more toward tourists, business people out on lunch break, etc. These markets may not be places where customers are really going to buy the bulk of their weekly vegetables, but probably will purchase flowers, fruit, snacks, etc. If farmers are not making money at these markets, it’s probably because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

However, many markets do have customers who attend weekly specifically to purchase their food from vendors who they know and trust. I doubt that many farmers at these markets lose revenue because of the processed food or craft vendors, or even because of the larger, “commercial” vendors.

In general, my experience has been that vendors sometimes lose sales when their market has too many vendors selling the same product. This doesn’t mean that the markets have lost their integrity, but that market management needs to do more to understand and balance the desires of the customers (for variety and choice) against the needs of the vendors (for sustainable sales). I think that managers need to (and most do) keep a close watch on their market’s product mix.

Another reason why farmers may have poor sales is when their farmers’ market is a poor fit with their community. A grower raising organic vegetables and selling them at urban market prices is unlikely to have sales levels that meet their needs and expectations if they are selling at a small rural market. This is another area where management is key. Farmers’ market managers (and boards) cannot afford to wear rose-colored glasses when planning their markets. They need to look closely at local demographics and buying trends, and make sure that their markets align with the customer base.

Despite the fact that some farms may have seen their revenue decrease at farmers’ markets, I think there is a much stronger argument to be made that many farmers (like us) have been able to build their business by selling at markets.

And while it might be nice to have all your eggs in one basket by only selling at farmers’ markets, most savvy farmers understand that having only one sales outlet leaves you vulnerable. It’s a much more sage strategy to have multiple outlets (restaurants, CSA, etc.) so that if there is a downturn in one, your business can still survive.

I think the Mother Jones article does have it right when it suggests that informed customers…

…actually have to find out exactly who’s behind every folding table, how their business is really doing…

As farmers’ markets have grown and changed, contact with the farmer remains critical to understanding how our food is produced. And the opportunity for that contact is beauty of farmers’ markets.

The US Dept of Health and Human Services recently conducted a study on food source traceability (thanks to the Oregon Independent blog for the tip-off about this study), and found that they could only trace 12.5% of the items. Wow. To turn that figure around, they couldn’t identify the source of 87.5% of the foods they tried to trace.

They chose 10 different products, including eggs, bottled water, manufactured ice, fruit juice, oatmeal, yogurt, flour, milk, freshcut greens and tomatoes. For each product, they tried to trace 4 different samples (for example, 4 cartons of eggs, 4 containers of yogurt, etc.) So their sample size was 40 products (10 types x 4 units each) Out of the 40 products, only 5 were fully traceable – 3 cartons of eggs, 1 container of yogurt, and 1 bottle of water.

According to the study, the eggs had the shortest supply chain – from farm to retailer. I think that says a lot about the major problem relating to food safety in our country… there are so many links in the chain that our ability to trace our food is greatly diminished, especially if record-keeping is poorly done.

As a food consumer (and preparer for my toddler son), if food items — even simple whole foods such as tomatoes or milk — are not easily traceable to their source, why should I be expected to buy those products with confidence? And the study didn’t even look at something like ground beef, or prepackaged and prepared foods (such as crackers made with peanut butter), both of which I’ll bet are probably even more difficult to trace than the items in the study.

And furthermore, why should I spend my food dollars in a system that can’t guarantee quality or traceability? To my mind, those two things are linked. If it can take weeks to identify all the possibly food products where tainted peanut may have ended up, how is it possible to buy items with confidence?

And where exactly are my food dollars are going, and how are those dollars are related to the quality of a product? The more hands that products go through before reaching mine, the less money there is to go back to the original producer. If the producer is hardly making any money per item, that means that they probably are extremely large, because the only way they’d be making a profit and staying in business is through the economy of scale. If they are extremely large, that means that there probably aren’t hands-on owners taking responsibility for their products… most likely there are share-holders. The bottom line for share-holders is making a profit.

Profit might be motivation for a share-holder driven business (AKA corporation) to encourage food safety, as the economic loss due to a food recall is huge, but should that be the primary motivation for producing and distributing safe, high quality food? Food is a basic need, something which we consume several times a day to nourish our bodies. Do we really want to rely on a system where corporations may or may not be producing safe food, based on concerns about their bottom line?

And what about other “quality”-related issues like humane treatment of animals, fair wages and good conditions for workers, sustaining farmland ecologically, socially, and politically? If we use our food dollars within the current system of food production and distribution, aren’t we sending the message that we don’t care about those things? Since we don’t really know where our food is coming from, how do we really know that producers’ values are aligned with ours?

Going back to my question above, if a government study can’t easily trace milk, greens, or tomatoes, can we really have confidence in our current food system? And furthermore, why do we want to support this system? I think the greater good would be local-based food systems, with supply chains that are short and traceable, and not dependent on an out-dated, fossil fuel-intense system of distribution.

I vote for a local food system with my food dollars as much as possible. I buy produce at the farmers’ market. I buy my eggs from friends. I shop at a locally-owned market chain, and buy local products from them as much as possible. I don’t value cheap food – I value quality food. And I probably pay more for our groceries than I have to, but I feel better knowing that most of my food dollars stay right in in Oregon. And that very little of it goes to middle men. And that I can trace most of the food my family eats right back to the farm it came from. That, for me, is food safety.

I saw this link a while back, and finally found an hour to watch the video…

The Oil Drum also has a good commentary on it…the comments there are always worth a visit.

In more Soylandia news, farmers who illegally planted genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans are now going back to conventional soy after finding that the Monsanto product gave poor yields.

Unfortunately, the final paragraph is the stomach-sinker:

“Companies have been focusing their research on GMO soy more than on conventional ones. So in 10 years we could have 100 percent of the area planted with GMO soy not because this was farmers’ choice exactly but because development of new conventional varieties is getting scarce,”

Translated: there’s not much money in developing new productive soy strains that aren’t dependent on chemicals.

The U.S. House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry held a hearing on NAIS, the National Animal Identification System a few days ago. I was alerted to this by Shannon Hayes of Grass-fed Cooking.

It appears that the Omnibus Appropriations bill includes funding for NAIS, which is a program that if mandated, will have terrible impacts on farms such as ours, and on the ability of customers to purchase meat products produced by small, local farms.

From what I understand, the NAIS program (if mandated – right now it is voluntary) would registration of any premises with steers, pigs, chickens, etc.and would involve expensive electronic tagging and record-keeping requirements. All this to track animals that small farmers like us already can track without any extra expense or paperwork. If you purchase beef from us, you know where it came from. And we know that the steers we raise were born on our neighbor’s property. That’s a pretty short chain, and there is absolutely no reason to make it more complicated – there is no “food safety” benefit for you, the customer.

According to a white paper on NAIS that was released last week by the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association, the cost of the NAIS program for small producers is almost 10 times the cost for large producers.

One driving force behind this program is to help open up world markets to US beef. From what I’ve read, US beef might better be accepted by other countries if there it there is documented participation in NAIS. But is this the focus we want for our agriculture? Do we want to mandate participation in a program that will only help the largest producers sell their products on international markets, but limit the ability of customers here to have affordable access to local and responsibly raised meat? I don’t think so.

You can still comment on NAIS funding until March 16th. You can submit written testimony to the subcommittee before the hearing, at the hearing, or up to 10 days after the hearing. Send your testimony to the Hearing Clerk, Jamie Mitchell, at Jamie.Mitchell@mail.house.gov Be sure to put “March 11 Hearing – Animal Identification Programs” in the subject line. Please keep your comments clear, polite, and concise.

Here’s a link to our 2009 newsletter, with recipes, musings, and our plans for the year. Enjoy!

(note that we’ve heard of some problems opening the PDF with old versions of Adobe Reader. If you have problems, update your software for free here)

In the vein of What is a small farmer, Yes magazine has a short profile of a series of new young farmers

Time to dredge up the past again. There’s been another surge of interest by several Oregon farmers to get into growing some of their own grain for feed. No wonder, as feed prices have more than doubled since we started doing chickens, and while the commodity insanity of the last year is taking a breather, there’s no reason to think that it won’t resume again once the zombie banks and crooked investment vehicles are finally taken out back and shot.

The critical shortage that I see in a western OR-produced chicken feed is the availability of a few critical proteins that our climate doesn’t produce very well, at least vegetatively. Rebecca goes into this in good detail.

There’s a pretty big movement to get people and their animals off of soy products for both health and environmental reasons. Not to mention the Soylandia effect with it’s habitat, energy, and national security implications. Soy is quite a crutch, and a hard habit to break, since it’s a very nutrient-dense food that fills a lot of nutritional holes with it’s near complete protein complement. The downside for us is that feed-grade soy doesn’t do very well in our cooler summer climate. Assuming that animal products aren’t going to be used to fill out the ration, I’ll be interested to see what folks come up with.