Hi Everyone,
Here's the update I mentioned in our recent note about Summer Registration. In this update we will cover the following:
1. May Day on Saturday, May 5th
We will be celebrating the "Rites of Spring" this year as we do each year on the first Saturday in May. That's May 5th this year. We hope a lot of you will join us between noon and four in the afternoon. At 1:00 we will have our traditional May Pole which is always fun for all us kids. We'll have the hay wagon running most of the day with guided tours of the farm by yours truly, and the NW Vintage Iron Club will be here with plows shears sharpened and in readiness to prove that their shinny antique tractors can still get down (and dirty). We'll have opportunities for the kids to do some planting, and for all our members to take home a tomato plant. Feel free to bring a lunch and have a picnic here, or to stop by for a "touch and go" if you have other activities you are coming from or going to.
2. Late Spring Session to begin Wednesday, May 2nd
This is our last six-week session before summer. Although the March flood set us back, we're still planning on getting into our first spring crops at least by the end of the Session. In any event, we're hoping that many of you will join us for this last, six-week session prior to our main harvest season. We have appreciated so much the loyalty of so many of you throughout the off-season. Off-season membership has enabled us to move beyond the "seasonal help" stage of farming which we have needed desperately to do. So "thanks" to the many of you who have made this possible, and we would welcome any of you who haven't tried an off-season share (all shares are delivered to depots in your neighborhood) to give it a try for the six weeks prior to Summer Session. It helps us and will help you to eat well even before we get to our main season.
The deadline to get in on the full Late Spring Session is the Friday before the first delivery at noon. That is this Friday, the 27th of April, at 12:00 noon. Applications received after that will be processed for the second week of the Session.
3. Summer Session scheduled to begin week of June 12th
With our carrots, beets and spinach already germinated and growing well, lettuces and brassicas transplanted, and good weather forecast for direct seeding and transplanting, we are planning that the week starting with June 12 (Tuesday) will be our first week. That is not absolutely set in stone, but we feel quite strongly that will be our first week. That means that all of you will come in on the day you have chosen to pick up during that week. If you are having your box delivered, you will get your first box delivered on Wednesday, June 13th. If you have any questions about the first week, drop us a note at jubileefarm@hotmail.com.
4. Work shares
The window of opportunity is still open for those interested in work shares. We've had a great response this year, but could still use more help. If you're interested, send us a note. We have additional information we can send that will help you to decide if this will work for you or not (jubileefarm@hotmail.com).
5. We need a special work share to help with accounting
This is another note about work share, but it is unusual in that we are looking for a very special person who both would like to help the farm and has accounting experience—maybe someone who would like to do a work share, wouldn't want to hoe for four hours, but could easily do four hours of computer work. We're not talking about a CPA, but someone who is organized, proficient at paperwork and would be willing to help us with the processing of applications and e-mail correspondence with members regarding registration. If you think you might be the person to help in this area, please contact us at jubileefarm@hotmail.com.
6. Canning Share
In the March update we introduced a new option for members: the canning share. We want to summarize again what the canning share is about. We also want to respond to what has been a concern for many of you: that we would no longer include pickling cukes as a part of the regular Summer Session Share. That won't happen this year; pickling cukes will still be part of the share.
As a Canning Share member you will be provided with enough "raw materials" to can six quarts of five different fruits and/or vegetables (i.e. beans, pickles, carrots, peppers, tomato sauce, salsa, beets, pumpkin butter or purée, or jam)—30 quarts in all. You will be able to "u-pick" many of these items, so you will be able to get just the size you want.
Canning members will supply their own jars (and pectin if you wish to use that for jams). We will supply the produce, the recipes, a canning workshop and the encouragement! We also will buy and have here at the barn canning jars, lids, salt, vinegar and everything you will need. We'll buy these in bulk, and sell them to you at our cost. We want to make this "one stop," so you don't have to run around trying to gather everything you need. We will even have the canning pots available if you need to buy one. So if you're an old hand at canning or if you've never done it but really want to give it a try, think about getting the "canning share." The cost is one hundred dollars.
Send us a note if you're interested, and we'll put you on the list and get further information to you as the season progresses.
7. Update on Political Endeavors
Those of you who know me know that I am typically somewhat a-political. That stems from a conviction that real and substantial change always comes from the bottom up—if you wish to change the world, as Confucius taught, you start by changing yourself (plenty to work on there!). The people who are our best political "leaders" are really the best followers. But they also know the apparatus of government, and can be good allies.
Last October I shared with you in a newsletter a "vision for Snoqualmie Valley"—a vision that involves, (1) designating the 14,000+ acres in the Snoqualmie Valley APD (Agricultural Production District) as an "Agricultural Preserve," (2) taking all necessary steps to purchase the development rights of the two-thirds of these 14,000 acres on which they have not been purchased, and (3) after securing the development rights for the entire APD (to eliminate the possibility of development!), seeking flood control. This "modest proposal" was before we had the "big one"—the Election Day flood. I think the price tag of that event, and the indication it gives to the future we face, has led to more receptivity.
In March I made a presentation to the King County Agricultural Commission. The commission was quite enthusiastic, and made a study of the proposal a priority for this year's agenda. Since then I have met and talked with many people, and I must say almost everyone is supportive. Earlier this week I was given a chance to address the first-ever Snoqualmie Watershed Summit. This was a real test of the plan, as everyone with even a tangential interest in the Valley, both private and public, was there. Again I was amazed at how receptive people were to both the idea of preserving agriculture in the valley, but also in being willing to enhance the effectiveness of agriculture here by both the purchase of development rights and then providing flood control.
It's hard to know what will happen next, but the interest is high, and we may be close to the time when we need to enlist the support of the King County Council, which will ultimately have to approve and be involved in the funding of the project (likely, in part, to be a bond issue put to King County voters). So if any of you happen to be well-connected politically, and have suggestions/ideas on this issue, I'd like to hear from you.
8. Why Biodynamic?
[Note: I feel like I ought to advise "reader discretion" before diving into this section. I'm not sure I'd recommend it to the casual reader. I might not have included this—these sorts of things tend to be confusing and bad for business—except that I said it was coming, and, popular or not, I do want to let people know why I find BD so attractive.]
This is the third and final installment in our attempt to answer the question why we decided to transition to biodynamic farming. It is the most significant part to us, but I fear it may not be easily accepted by everyone.
I said in earlier newsletters that there are three main reasons for us becoming biodynamic. The first reason is the cloud that surrounds the status and integrity of agricultural methods now deemed certifiable as "organic" under federal standards. This was discussed in the February newsletter.
A second reason for adopting biodynamic practices is that to us it seems to be the only practice that really is willing to define sustainability and establish it as a realizable goal. This subject was taken up in the March newsletter. I might also add here, as an aside, that the actual means and practices by which Biodynamic agriculture guides farmers to sustainability provide the answer to the question that follows "why Biodynamic?" which is "what is Biodynamic farming?" (this question will be dealt with in the next newsletter).
Now we come to the third, and for us, the most substantial, reason that we have committed ourselves to become Biodynamic farmers. We might say the first reason (what we'd call the failings of "organic") led us to a search that turned up BD as an alternative. The clarion call to sustainability made it an attractive alternative. But it is something else that made it for us an irresistible alternative: that is that BD farming explicitly entails a way of understanding our world that seems to us to be the most accurate way to understand it. Using more traditional language I would say that BD farming explicitly entails an ontological commitment. We realize not all our members will share this commitment. Fortunately, we don't all have to agree about how to ultimately understand our existence and/or the nature of the world we live in! I believe there are a variety of legitimate (and irreconcilable) answers to these kinds of metaphysical questions. But the perspective of BD on these matters is one that is consistent with what both Wendy and I have believed and been moving closer to for a long time. So it is a "natural" for us. Let me explain.
I choose my words carefully in saying that BD farming "explicitly entails an ontological commitment." What is an "ontological commitment"? An ontological commitment is simply a belief, in some kind of broad outline at least, as to the ultimate nature of reality—what is the "bottom line" of the universe in which we find ourselves—what is it like. Is it a "machine"? Is it material? Is it in some way "personal" or "spiritual"? BD agriculture presents its "bottom line" view of the universe in a very forthright way. It sees our world and everything in it (as well as our own existence) as being comprised not only of matter and physical existence, but also of Spirit and of Spiritual existence. Spiritual reality is as "real" for those of us who find our way to BD practices as material reality. I'll speak more of this later, but please notice that what I said (in those carefully chosen words) is that in BD farming there is an explicit entailment of an ontological commitment. I believe that the fact that BD farming has an ontological commitment does not, in and of itself, make it any different than any other kind of farming. The difference is that in BD practice the belief is held explicitly rather than implicitly, as it tends to be in other agricultural expressions. And, of course, it is a belief about the ultimate nature of reality that we hold to be consistent with our experience of our existence.
I feel it is important to explain what I mean when I say suggest that every form of farming (and every other significant enterprise, for that matter) entails some kind of ontological commitment, and how these "world view positions" are often not explicitly stated yet very much operative in the way farming (or any other enterprise) is conducted. That will be a tall order, but let's start with an example that might help make the distinction between an explicit and implicit ontological affirmation more clear. I have a friend who works as a scientist who once told me this: "I'm a scientist and I don't believe in the existence of ‘spiritual realities,' or in anything that can't be proven by scientific methods." That claim sounds straight-forward enough, but when I think about it I find it to be problematic: it sounds logical, but I sense that something is wrong with this statement.
It's not my place to offer unsolicited instruction to my friends, but if I did, I might have asked my scientific friend this: What if someone over fifty years of age said this to you: "Don't believe anything that a person over the age of fifty tells you"? Wouldn't you be a bit confused? If you believe what this person explicitly told you to, then you arguably would have to reject what he or she said explicitly (because this person is over fifty and you should not therefore believe him or her). On the other hand, you could choose to believe what is implicitly affirmed—that at least some things that someone over the age of fifty tells you are true. And just maybe what you were told is true. This is what is implicitly affirmed. But what was said explicitly is the opposite of that. So, what should you believe based on this kind of statement?
The confusion arises because this person's statement is what is called "self-referentially incoherent." This is a term used to describe any situation in which a claim is made that is contradicted by the claim itself. The textbook illustration of this arises in an introductory ethics class. We've all heard people say that when it comes to ethics, "there are no absolutes." But there is a problem here. The problem is that the claim "there are no absolutes" is an absolute claim. So while the claim sets forth the standard that no absolutes exist, it makes an absolute of that claim. In that sense, the claim is "self-referentially" (referring to its own standard) incoherent.
Now you can see that the person over fifty who says you should not believe anything a person over fifty says is also making a claim that is self-referentially incoherent. It is illogical because it is internally contradictory, and quite obviously so. Now let's get back to my scientific friend who said: "I'm a scientist and I don't believe in the existence of ‘spiritual realities,' or in anything that can't be proven by scientific methods." Although it is less obvious, this claim is also self-referentially incoherent, even though it admittedly sounds good and even has an air of ethical/intellectual integrity to it. But what is really being said?
Isn't it the case that the scientific method is inherently and essentially empirical? Scientific claims to knowledge simply are those claims that are demonstrable by evidence that is founded in sense experience, and/or are logically deducible from the data of sense experience, and, we might add, are falsifiable (at least in principle) by empirical methods. Thus the existence of the world, of our bodies, of molecules, of particles within the nucleus of an atom, and of theories like evolution—all these are within the scope of science. But what about the existence of "realities" that are claimed to transcend sense experience—that is, things that are claimed to exist in a non-empirical realm? If they aren't part of the world of sense experience, it seems that neither their existence (if they exist), nor their non-existence (if they don't exist), could possibly be demonstrated through sense experience. Nor could their existence or non-existence be logically deduced from sense experience. And how could either the claim that they do exist or that they don't exist be falsifiable by scientific methods, since scientific methods are inherently empirical and "spiritual realities," if they exist, are most certainly non-empirical? This is the problem I sensed when my friend told me "I'm a scientist and I don't believe in the existence of ‘spiritual realities,' or in anything that can't be proven by scientific methods." In saying he doesn't believe in the existence of "spiritual realities," and that he only believes those things that are proven by scientific methods, I feel like I'm hearing the person over fifty telling me not to believe anything a man over fifty says, or that there are no absolutes. There is an explicit claim that my scientific friend only believes things that are based on scientific methods, but there is also a claim (which happens to directly contradict his first claim) that he also believes at least one claim that isn't, and couldn't possibly be, based on scientific methods—namely, the claim that "spiritual realities" do not exist. Again I am left asking: which claim is true? And again, the reason I am led to this question is that my friend has made a statement that is internally contradictory; it is self-referentially incoherent. But unlike a person over fifty saying not to believe anything a person over fifty says, and unlike being told that there are no absolutes, we don't see the contradiction as readily.
I need to push a little further in the analysis of the claim: "I'm a scientist and I don't believe in the existence of ‘spiritual realities,' or in anything that can't be proven by scientific methods." We've seen this to be self-referentially incoherent. But why would an otherwise coherent and rational thinker—a scientist no less—make a statement that is so clearly neither coherent nor rational? I can't say for sure, of course, but here is a reasonable hypothesis. My scientific friend, like all of us, has some kind of personal idea of what is the most basic reality in our universe—what I described earlier as an "ontological commitment,"—a kind of "baseline" understanding of the world. Based on his affirmation of the conclusion "I don't believe in the existence of ‘spiritual realities" (a conclusion that squarely contradicts the claim that he doesn't believe "anything that can't be proven by scientific methods") my guess is that he has made an ontological commitment to the belief that the material world is the "bottom line" of reality. That certainly is a legitimate ontological commitment. But it is not stated explicitly. It is an implicitly held ontological commitment that, it seems to me, he is wrongly attempting to lodge within the findings of science.
I have labored with this illustration because it serves double duty here. First it shows how a person (and, I might add, even an intelligent, well-trained person) can hold an explicit position that is contradictory to an implicit ontological commitment. Second, since I've already stated that BD makes an explicit ontological commitment to the belief in the existence of "spiritual realities," it shows how that belief does not and cannot contradict scientific method, even if it is claimed by otherwise rational people to do so.
Almost all people hold, explicitly or implicitly, to some kind of ontological position. And all these people either live in accordance with that ontological position or fail to live consistently with that position. So we can easily see that there exist four possible combinations of holding a basic belief and the way we live our lives. A basic ontological belief can be:
We can now move this discussion back to the world of agriculture, and examine both non-BD agriculture and BD agriculture and see where each falls within these four options. Let us begin by looking at the agricultural mainstream: the modern, American, "conventional" farmer. My suggestion is that there is an underlying ontological commitment of such farmers, that this commitment will be either explicit or implicit, and that their farming will be either consistent or inconsistent with that basic belief.
First, I would readily admit that not one conventional farmer in a hundred (maybe a thousand?) would say that they hold any kind of "ontological commitment" that impacts their farming at all. But, then, my scientific friend didn't recognize (until it was pointed out to him) that he was implicitly affirming an ontological commitment. Couldn't the same thing happen among farmers? So let's grant that it is possible that farmers too hold some kind of underling belief that is often held only implicitly. What we need to attempt to determine is whether modern, American, conventional farmers are consistent or inconsistent in what they implicitly affirm. It may seem impossible to make this kind of judgment, since we don't know what that implicit, underlying belief is. But follow me and see if you don't agree that there is a way to determine what we are looking for.
What I have to say here is going to sound a little harsh, especially to some. That may be the case with my cousin, who may read this, and who just happens to be a "modern, American, conventional farmer." To him it may sound very harsh. I hope that he, and any of you who happen to be still following me, will understand that I certainly recognize that many conventional farmers have become "trapped" in practices that they don't like, and that they would stop these practices if they thought they could. I believe my cousin is in this group. It is also the case that even if I disagree with a person's practices, and see inconsistency in their position, I can still care for and admire that person. All that being true, it still happens some times that we have to speak the truth, and hope/pray for the best outcome.
So, what is the practice of (at least some, probably many, and maybe most) modern, American, conventional farmers? They use chemicals on their farms in quantities that are known to become both airborne and to leech into aquifers, ground water, rivers, lakes and oceans. The results of using these chemicals are well documented. These farmers have in many cases soiled their own nests; they can no longer drink their own well water safely. Many of them and their families have succumbed to illnesses caused by the use and continued use of chemicals. Insects, birds, fish and wildlife of all kinds have been killed both in the vicinity of these farms and down-river. Just think for five minutes about the implications of what every conventional farmer in the Corn Belt knows: that he or she contributes to the Mississippi drainage basin that now has produced a one-hundred-mile dead zone around the city of New Orleans (in both fresh water and salt water).
The scenario above could be expanded with a hundred other documented ripple effects of the collective actions of our modern, conventional farmer. But these things are common knowledge. So what do we say of the farmers who use these chemicals? Well, I think some are confused, some are in denial, some just don't want to think about it, and some, as indicated earlier, feel helplessly and hopelessly trapped and would get out if they thought they could. But suppose for a minute we expected more from our modern, American, conventional farmer than we got from our previously considered "person over fifty years old" who said we ought not to believe anything said by one over fifty, and from my scientific friend who believes spiritual realities don't exist because, he claimed, he only believes what can be believed based on science? If we expected coherence between what the conventional farmer does and what he or she believes, what kind of "ontological commitment"—what kind of belief about the ultimate nature of human beings and the universe we inhabit, would we expect of find in such a person? [In formal logic, this kind of methodology is called "indirect proof."]
We might expect such a farmer, especially insofar as he or she doesn't fall into one of the exclusionary categories mentioned (confusion, denial, escapism, desperation or perhaps just ignorance) to believe that what is central to human existence is one's own survival; that the terms right or wrong are terms that are defined ultimately, as Nietzsche said, in accordance with whether they promote or compromise survival; that, as Machiavelli suggested, there is no "higher court of appeals" and therefore survival is the only value; that no one has any responsibility to any other human being, or to plant and animal life, or to the resources of the earth; that the only thing that counts is that one takes care of oneself. It seems to me that such a view, though short-sited even on its own terms (how can people continually soil the nest for others without eventually becoming soiled themselves?), would at least be consistent with an agricultural mindset that continues to knowingly pollute the earth and destroy the environment.
So we've now seen what no one would ever say out loud but that might be the articulation of an ontological commitment consistent with the actions of one who knowingly and honestly accepts the mantel of the modern, American, conventional farmer. Can you now see what I mean when I say that even a simple act of farming entails a kind of explicit or (in this case) implicit ontological view? We can now ask: what is the situation of such a farmer, based on our earlier categorization? That will depend, of course, on his or her ontological commitment. If this farmer holds to the Nietzschian/Thrasymican world view of "might makes right" suggested above as the consistent concomitant for using environment-destroying and life-destroying chemicals, then we would say that the farmer is being consistent. But my guess is that this is not the case, and that these farmers are simply being inconsistent, and that if pushed to make their ontological positions explicit, these positions would call for a radically different kind of farming to make these farmers actions consistent with their most basic beliefs.
So let's leave the conventional farmer and look at BD farming. If we return to the suggestion that "Biodynamic farming explicitly entails an ontological commitment," it is hopefully now clear that any kind of farming activity entails some kind of ontological commitment. In fact, as I have suggested, any kind of significant human activity entails some kind of ontological commitment. What I find to be so powerful about BD farming is that its ontological commitment is explicit. It wears, so to speak, its views about the nature of the world and of human existence "on its sleeve." It is open for examination and critical assessment by anyone and everyone. And it strives to engage in practices and methods that are consistent with its beliefs about what reality is. Both its basic beliefs and its practices that are held to be the consistent extensions of those beliefs in the world of agriculture are open to constant review, analysis and discussion.
Throughout this whole little essay, I have been aware of a potential objection. Obviously, I am arguing that it is best to make one's basic ontological commitments explicit, and that it is best to try to live consistently with the entailments of those beliefs. I am aware that some people offer the rejoinder that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." This quotation comes from Emerson, and I think is taken out of the context of Emerson's life. I suspect that Emerson had something different in mind; as a transcendentalist his objection was to the narrowness of the empirical/scientific mode of knowing, not to consistency! But leaving Emerson aside, I don't mind saying that striving for consistency between what I believe and what I do has become of singular importance. At times of my life I've experienced the other options, and I have to say I just don't want to dabble in that vacuous wasteland any longer. There is, of course, a big difference between striving toward consistency and attaining consistency. "Striving for" is enough for me; the attainment is something that may come, but probably much later, if ever. Yet even "striving" calls for clear thought about what we believe, and how we translate that belief into a consistent form of life. It is an enormous task—the task of a lifetime.
In Biodynamic farming I see the potential for the engagement of that task as it pertains to agriculture, and that is a strong reason for our decision to transition the practices of this farm in accordance with the BD tradition. I have found that tradition to be neither static nor dogmatic. It is more based on the adage taken from Judaism, "come let us reason together." But reasoning is never conducted in a vacuum. Every serious conversation about what we do (or should do) eventually comes back to some assumption about what is most real, and therefore most important, and therefore worthy of striving for. BD is quite explicit about its underlying, ontological commitments, beliefs and assumptions. There is a long and rich history to the belief that the physical world we live in (and love) is not the only kind of reality. That is the starting point for BD; to develop life practices and agricultural practices reflective of that reality is the goal of BD agriculture. It is also the goal we want to adopt for our farm as a very conscious decision; and we want that goal we want to inform every subsequent decision we make.
Erick, Wendy and the Crew