Hi Everyone,
In this update:
1. Thanks to all of you who wrote our Council Members
I'd like to thank all of you who took the time to write to each of our nine King County Council representatives in support of retaining funding for the King County Agricultural Program. I'm not sure exactly how many of you did, but at least 90 people on our list let me know they had written letters, and I'm sure the total number was significantly higher than even that - very impressive for one afternoon's notice!
Did it have an impact? I'm sure it did. In this tight economy it would have been easy to drop this program, or drastically reduce it. But the program received full funding. Our Council Members are used to hearing from farmers about the Ag Program, but I think it was very valuable for them to hear from you, and recognize that most farms in our County market locally and therefore there are a lot of consumers out there who also have a deep interest and also are impacted by the Ag Program.
Many times I have thought about the collective political muscle that lies latent in the many thousands of families who are members of CSAs in our County, and the even larger number of households who regularly purchase food from local sources at Farmers Markets. Under the right conditions, I think we could easily muster a quantum level of political input that would be decisive in advancing policies that could dramatically strengthen agriculture in our County. I've never doubted that, and the response from so many of you on one-day's notice confirmed that. Many of you forwarded the letters you had sent to our Council members, and I was so impressed with the quality of that correspondence. These letters were well-written, personal, persuasive, and demonstrated a clear understanding of the significance of maintaining local agriculture. This kind of input would be hard for an elected official to ignore. Beyond that, I believe our local political leaders really do want to see local agriculture flourish. In this case, our letters helped them to do what I'm sure they were inclined to do anyway. But we do need to do our part to let them know they are also being good representatives.
My greater concern in the political realm is not that we farmers and those supportive of local agriculture could not find a great deal of vocal and articulate support among consumers. My concern is whether we as farmers can unite behind a clear plan to preserve the farmland that hasn't been developed yet and to develop sound initiatives that would enable new farmers to access this land.
Last summer the King County Council tasked the Agricultural Commission to define what agriculture in King County actually is, and what should be done to assure its survival. That directive came at a fairly heavy cost to me personally, as I ended up in testimony before Council having to make an impassioned, eleventh hour plea regarding possible unintended consequences of existing legislation that no one seemed to want to consider. Fortunately Representative Constantine (and others) agreed, and eventually the Council amended the legislation with a requirement that the issue of what constitutes "agriculture" should be addressed with a "report back to Council" date of 1/1/10. I am hoping that during this off-season we farmers, and especially we organic/sustainable farmers, can work together to provide significant and decisive input to the Agricultural Commission. This endeavor could involve another round of letter-writing, something I now have even more confidence we can accomplish!
2. Our latest flood: #3 on the all-time hit parade
Where did it come from? Anytime we get three straight days of hard rain in November we know what we are going to get. But this time we got it without the rain - at least in the valley.
Wendy and I had just returned from North Carolina to see Wendy's daughter and her family (including our granddaughter, Layla!). We had a "moderate" flood during the five days we were gone, which we monitored closely on the web. The cows were out and we decided to leave them out. We got a lot of water on that first flood, but the cows were on high ("er") ground which proved to be high enough. Leaving them out saved Will and Ryan from a night-time cattle drive to the loafing shed - and it wasn't exactly ready for its winter boarders! So we dodged a bullet on that one.
The day Wen and I returned a flood had been forecast for the next day, but we didn't know about it. It wasn't raining, and hadn't rained the day before. It turned out to be one of those very unusual times when almost all the rain - and there was plenty of it - fell in the mountains. When someone mentioned we'd be having another flood, I was incredulous. But a quick check of the gauge levels on the three tributaries of the Snoqualmie confirmed not only that another flood was on the way, but that it was going to be a big one.
It was dark by then, and this time there was no avoiding a cattle run in the darkness. The cows were out happily munching on pumpkins when Wendy and I went down to get them ready for the move. But it didn't go well. The cows were antsy, got out, and disappeared in the darkness heading away from the loafing shed - with me and Wen in pursuit! They went south, to the farthest field from the loafing shed, and held up there. While they were eating some nice grass (it must taste better when they're on the lam) Wendy and I took down the fence they had escaped from, and, in the darkness, quietly put it up around them without them noticing (or paying any attention, any way). We finally closed the fencing around them. It was a victory, but we were now even further from our destination!
At this point we readied the loafing shed, enlisted help (our neighbors Matt and Deanna, our renter Sean and his son, a high school student from up the hill, and ever-faithful Will and Ryan) and we started a half-mile journey that we'd never tried to do before - in the pitch black - running the cows right down the paved road to the loafing shed. I lead the way with a white bucket. (We feed the cows their kelp meal - minerals - in a white bucket, and they really like their minerals.) The plan was that they would follow me (and the bucket), Wendy would follow the last cow down the road in her pick-up, to make sure no one strayed off and so I could see by her headlights where the last cow was, and everyone else split into two groups, one on each side of the road, and turned cows that wanted to wander back onto the road.
Amazingly, it worked. Our lead cow followed that bucket (more or less) for a half-mile that took half-an-hour to cover. As cows in the line strayed, some humanoid would emerge from the blackness and herd them back to the pavement. And the lights of Wendy's truck slowly followed, which assured me that somewhere out there our 26 big animals and 10 calves were also following. Luckily, not a single car came down our road during the whole time - though that's not too unusual here at night. We had a little snafu when we got in front of the barn - a few cows headed for the flower beds - but once again our side-runners appeared from nowhere, got them turned around, and once the cows got to the back of the barn they headed straight into the loafing shed. I could swear they had that look on their faces that said "why didn't you tell us you were taking us here?"
The water came up very slowly all night, but in the mountains above the falls it was coming up at a pace faster than any I had ever seen. The next day was a blur of picking up items that were loose in the fields, moving machinery, and lifting items in the barn onto the tops of tables. By dark that night we had deposited everyone on hillside for their escape, and the road that led to that last escape was covering quickly. Will and Ryan had been a great help, but from here on it was just the two of us.
Wendy and I worked until late that night securing items in the barn. On just "medium-large" floods we can keep the cows in the loafing shed. But on the big ones, we have to run the cows out of the loafing shed and onto the critter pad. We were hopeful that we wouldn't have to make that move, and the Flood Warning Center actually gave us greater hope when it downsized the flood forecast. But I doubted the downsize (the only reason I could think of them downsizing the forecast was if they had reason to doubt their upstream gauges), and sure enough, a couple of hours later they rescinded the downsize. It was coming, and that was all there was to it.
When the water began to cover the area between the loafing shed and the barn we made the move to get the cows on the pad. It has to be done at just the right time so that there is enough water to prevent them from running back toward the field, but not so much water that they won't leave the shed to get to higher ground. So at just the right height of the water, we pushed them up, secured the temporary fence that Wendy had put together as best we could, and got some hay to them. The water soon filled the loafing shed and then the barn. At that point we had done all we could do, and were exhausted, and finally got into the boat and rowed across the street to our home.
The flood crested a little after midnight at Snoqualmie Falls. Typically it crests here four to six hours later, but this flood came up very quickly and also tailed off quickly; by four in the morning it was no longer rising here. At the crest I rowed over to the barn to take measurements, then over to the new house to see what the "reality" of high water is relative to the projections made by the County. It's good to get measurements that we can use as a co-efficient relative to river gauges, so we can know what the level of the flood will be at the back of the barn, at the front of the barn, and now at our new home when, for example, a flood that measures 60 feet at the Carnation gauge is predicted. That sort of experience and record-keeping had saved Will and Ryan from a nearly impossible (and, as we rightly calculated from 2500 miles away, a needless) attempt to move the cows in the night a week earlier while we were gone.
At the end of it all, Wendy and I were tired, but okay. The morning after finally came. Matt and Deanna canoed over with an apple pie that we ate for breakfast, and we all felt a little like survivors. We had a bit of a mess, but there was no loss of life, and very little loss of property. We were thankful for having prepared and for the help we had.
I have written in great detail about this flood because people so often ask us what we do during a flood, and I fear they sometimes think it is worse than it is. It would be worse if we didn't know it is always a possibility, and if we weren't prepared for it happening at any time. But we never forget that it can happen, and we're prepared for it when it does. It would certainly be easier if it didn't, but if it didn't this valley would, without doubt, now look like the Kent valley. The floods keep development at bay and farming possible in our Valley: the floods do take away, but they also give.
3. Winter Session starts Feb. 4th, 2009
Our Winter Session, like all our "off season" sessions, lasts six weeks. It begins each year on the first Wednesday of February - this year that is Wednesday, February 4th. Of all the off-season sessions, the winter is the most challenging for us. We have a certain amount of our own items - potatoes, onions, leek, garlic, carrots, beets, and sometimes winter squash, chard, and kale. But we have always supplemented that with buying-in produce, often from California.
Last year we offered an option for members of our Winter Session who wanted to limit their produce to a "mostly 100 mile" (but sometimes 150-mile) radius - the "locavore" box. About half of our Winter Session members last year chose the locavore option. This year we will be offering that option again for those who are interested. Those who choose the normal box will get more items from California, but they, too will get plenty of local produce. Last year we had about a 50/50 split between the normal box and the locavore box, and we would expect that again this year. You are free to choose either option.
You can sign up now on-line for the Winter share: www.jubileefarm.org. If you have questions, please drop us a note at jubileefarm@hotmail.com.
4. The calves just keep on coming...
The morning after we brought the cows into the loafing shed calf number eleven (in the last six weeks) was born. Since then we have had three more. Of the fourteen calves, 12 have been heifers, and two are bulls. One heifer of the 14 was still born. So we now have 13 little calves running around, under, and through the legs of their mothers, our other heifers, and the steers that we will harvest next fall.
We've built a "nursery" in a large stall in the loafing shed by making an entrance to the stall just big enough for a baby calf to get through. The calves come in to play and to sleep and, I think, to just get away from their mothers and others! It's a lot of fun to see them playing together.
In addition to the 13 calves, we now have a total of 20 cows and heifers, seven steers, and Oliver for a total of 41 bovine. Next year if all goes well we will have 20 more calves, and the year after that we would have 34! So while everyone else's stock in America is going down, ours is doing quite well!
5. Report on the WA State Biodynamic meeting
Washington's second-ever Biodynamic "winter meeting" was held here again this year. It was such an exciting and enjoyable day for both me and Wendy. The event was well attended, even though the Saturday it was scheduled for ended up being just the day after the roads were passable again after the flood. The farm was pretty muddy, but we held our meeting (and the requisite concomitant potluck) in the loft of the barn on a "table" that had been our hay maze during October.
There was a lot of enthusiasm among our group, as well there should be. Biodynamic is easily the singular and most credible alternative to the "certified organic" label that is getting to mean less and less all the time. Biodynamic farming was being practiced in much the same form as it is now 75 years before national certification for organic farming occurred in the US. It's not so surprising that so many are turning to it as an authentic expression of the same impetus that started the organic movement.
I haven't written a lot about BD this year, but we continue to work at making the change. It is, I think, much more difficult to transition out of standard organic practices into BD than it is to just start out farming using the principles of BD. But each year we make progress, and I believe we are headed in the right direction.
6. We're ok, really! And we promise to take a vacation this year!
We have been very aware, through both direct and indirect means, that many of you were very concerned about us during the recent flooding. We appreciate that, we really do. I also know that many of you would be here to help us if you could. But the truth is, you can't, because the roads to the farm close long, long before we ever get to major flooding, and we don't know until after the roads are closed if a flood is going to be a big one or not. The predictions are just experienced guesses - guesses that often end up being very wrong.
This last year was a tough one for us. We didn't take a vacation last year, and we were a bit tired going into a season in which we had (with the huge exception of Kaila) a new crew that had to be trained and directed in every phase of the operation. Both Wendy and I worked very hard this year. But we are hoping this next year will be easier for us. We have, in addition to Kaila, both Will and Ryan returning. We also hope to take on another full-time person this year. But, most important of all, I'm not teaching this winter, and we are taking a vacation. We're going to the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico for most of the month of January. Since we've been together we've never been away from the farm for so long - we're wondering how we can be away from the cows for that long!
All of this is simply to say we're doing ok. We're living the life we've chosen, and either of us could do something else if we wanted to, but neither of us would have it any other way. We feel so blessed to not only be able to be farmers, but to be surrounded by a community of kind, generous, caring, and supportive people. It's not the life for everyone, but we love it and will likely do it as long as we can.
7. "Local" or "organic"? Thinking through a hot contemporary issue
I've heard one-too-many times that we should stop talking about organic vs. non-organic, that the real issue is not "organic," but "local": local is "more important than organic." I say "one-too-many" because, having heard it so much, I finally started thinking about it and asked myself the critical question: is this claim really true?
The argument in favor of "local" over "organic" goes something like this:
Therefore: we ought to value "local" more than "organic."
In my more critical moments, I would question the formal validity of the above argument. But, for the sake of argument, let's grant that the structure of the argument is sound (or strong) as stated. That, of course, only means that if we assume the premises to be true, the conclusion is also true. Ok, but are the premises true?
Premise number two (listed above) - "The fossil fuel consumed in shipping food 1500 miles is so high that it out-weighs any benefit that a ‘fossil fuel-friendly' organic farm - even a local one, might have" seems to have the ring of truth. But I was suspicious that something is amiss here, and recently I found some empirical support for my suspicion.
A study was released in April of this year (could that be only eight months ago?) by the Environmental Engineering and Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. This study found that "Greenhouse Emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase." It turns out that because of the high level of fossil fuel-dependent farming techniques in conventional farming, that the transportation component of the overall "fossil fuel footprint" of the conventional food we purchase is only 11% of the total contribution the food's total greenhouse emissions coefficient. 83% of the fossil fuel (and hence of the accompanying greenhouse gases) that it takes to get food to us is used in production!
Given this, we need to revisit premise number 2 listed above. Yes, it seems intuitive to most of us - even to me, an organic farmer who should have known better, at an unreflective level at least - that the transportation of our food is the major factor to be considered in asking whether the food we buy is an environmentally-friendly purchase or not. The problem here is two-fold. Number one, the expenditure of fossil fuel on transportation that I hate so much is, nevertheless, as I've suspected, not too much for any single food item: a semi packing a full load of produce is, whether I want to admit it or not, a very per/item efficient way of moving goods. Number two, the amount of fossil fuel expended to produce any given conventionally grown food item is way more than even I suspected.
The fallout of this is that what seems to be the case is, on inquiry, not really the case at all. It turns out that it takes way more fossil fuel to grow non-organic food products (83%) than it does to transport them (11%) - even 1500 miles - to the place you buy them from. It is interesting that only a footnote of the study points out that organic production differs significantly from conventional production in utilization of fossil fuel.
This means, of course, that when it comes to the question of "local" or "organic," if the criterion of adjudication is the amount of fossil fuel consumed (which directly relates to Greenhouse Gases Emitted), the organic product, even if transported 1500 miles, wins, hands down, every time.
For my money, though, there is a better way. Why not vote with your dollars to support the venue that eliminates the 83% expenditure of non-organic production AND the 11% of transportation? How? By buying local AND organic, of course!
8. More jobs, fewer greenhouse gases, less governmental spending: an employment, economic, and environmental "no-brainer"
No, I'm not pretending I have the solution to our nation's economic woes. But when President-elect Barak Obama recently said his domestic priorities for the first part of his term would be jobs, the economy, and environmental issues, a light went on. In terms of agriculture, at least, there does seem to be a way in which one solution could speak to all three of these issues.
That solution is to stop federally subsidizing huge farms that:
What would happen if we quit subsidizing agriculture? First, our general fund would be about 50 billion richer each year (or, perhaps better said, $50 billion less in debt). That's not a lot relative to the US budget, but just by eliminating farm subsidies for 12 years we could finance an economic bail-out like the one recently past by Congress. Or, in better economic times, we might even find a better use for that money!
Who would be the loser in this deal? I can tell you for sure it wouldn't be the American family farmer. The reason I'm so sure of this is that I guarantee you that small farmers don't get subsidies. Only the largest farms and wealthiest farmers get subsidies. That's why the agricultural subsidies program has (rightly) been called "corporate welfare." In 1999 the wealthiest 7% of the farmers (typically large corporate farms) in America received nearly half of the subsidies. The vast majority of farmers in America, and certainly all of those we would call "family farmers," don't see a penny of that 50 billion.
You may know that in 1984 New Zealand cut farm subsidies by 100%. Amid dire prognostications of economic collapse, the country braced itself for whatever would come. Almost 25 years later, the jury is definitely in: agriculture in New Zealand is stronger than it ever was before - the largest industry in the nation - and without subsides has done very well. In the last 30 years the number of people employed in agriculture has not declined - something unique among developed nations. Agriculture is New Zealand's top export, and almost all food for the country is produced domestically.
Could agriculture survive an end to subsidies here? Of course it could. But the loss of subsidies that promote massive over-production (and hence massive environmental destruction due to over-usage of agricultural pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers) would change the nature of corporate agriculture. Many of us would see that as a blessing. Some corporations would probably dissolve without government subsidies. But the land wouldn't be abandoned! If corn for cattle and high-fructose corn syrup can't be grown profitably, it would no longer be grown. But in a world that still has to eat, something can be grown for a profit! What does seem likely is that an end of subsidies would cut into the practice of monoculture, a practice that has dire economic and environmental impacts.
Our farm was a dairy up until about four years before we bought it in 1989. It was called, simply, "Angerer's Farm," after the family who operated it. The dairy shut down because the owner, a single man, could no longer support himself on the farm. It was one of several dozen dairies in our valley that closed because they just couldn't make it. I've often thought about that fact, and wondered why those farmers didn't try to diversify. In the midst of milk over-production and the consequent low prices, they chose to leave the farm rather than try something different.
When we started farming here in 1989 we were assured that a living couldn't be had off the land: "you'd better keep your day job." But almost 20 years later, after establishing a farm that is about as diversified as possible, our farm supports not only me and Wendy, but also two full-time, year-around employees with a "living wage." Next year we will hire a third, and were we to consolidate all the part-time help we use throughout the season, it would amount to a fourth and another half full-time employee. That means that as a diversified farm there are now six and a half full-time living wages earned on the same piece of ground that couldn't support even one single person before - a person, by the way, who got the farm from his parents and had no mortgage to retire!
Diversification means more efficient use of the land, and even a small amount of land requires many workers. As our herd expands, for example, and as the winery develops, and if/when the food venue we have in mind for the farm comes to fruition, I can see that number full-time living incomes on our farm doubling. And all this on 15 acres of farmland, plus 30 acres of "marginal land" that probably couldn't be used for much - except raising cows. But, of course, raising cows is the glue that makes our farm work, providing fertility and food.
Is it possible that a 5000 acre farm in the Midwest could break up into small segments - maybe 100 farms of 50 acres, each of which would not only make a profit, but provide a living wage for five families? I believe it is possible. The farms would have to be organic, intensively utilized, with fewer machines than willing hands. And we would have to see the development of organic marketing cooperatives - the kind that actually are being developed even now.
Imagine: 500 families making a decent living, enjoying a high quality of life, and doing so on the same piece of land that once couldn't keep even one or two families alive without subsidies. Imagine further this multiplied over and over on, for example, the 14,000,000 acres now devoted to growing corn for high-fructose corn syrup (which has already been banned from the shelves of PCC!) and to feed cattle in factory farms. Are you ready for the math on this one? It would result in nothing short of an agricultural renaissance (and, perhaps, a cultural renaissance as well). Towns in the Midwest that are now boarded up, like the one my Dad left as a boy, would be filled again, and many new ones created. Jobs? Economic stimulation? Reduction of greenhouse gases and pollution? Yes, yes, and yes!
This, obviously, would be a transition that would happen over time. It would require here what has happened in New Zealand - the formation of cooperatives that would consolidate and market organic crops to population centers (the largest "corporate entity" in New Zealand is a farmer-owned co-operative). But it isn't just a dream. It did happen in New Zealand, and it could happen here. In fact, it has to happen here.
Our current agricultural system is not sustainable. It survives only because we prop it up with billions of taxpayer's dollars each year while wealthy corporate farmers continue to get richer, the land gets poorer, legitimate and sustainable agricultural that could feed our nation is displaced.
A change has to come, and I'm hoping that as Mr. Obama seeks to create jobs, stimulate the economy, and to turn the corner on the environmental degradation that plagues our country he will look to the agricultural sector and opt for a bold solution.
9. Thinking about E.-coli
I heard something a while ago that was shocking to me. A farmer I know who leases land had to intervene because the person leasing the farm land had spread fresh cow manure and immediately planted a food crop - spinach of all things! - back into the same land. The owner confronted the lessee, whose only rejoinder was that times are tough and that farming is an inherently risky business! Rightly feeling a fair degree of liability for these kinds of practices on his farm, my friend registered a complaint with the State Department of Agriculture, which has now investigated the complaint and closed down this operation (which was quite small) and it seems that no heath issues (E. coli poisoning would be the likely candidate) have occurred. But it's a frightening situation, and one that happened recently (October) in our own state.
As I'm sure we all know, E. coli 0157:H7 is a virulent strain of a very common form of E. coli - one that is found in the intestines of most mammals, including humans. The first documented case of E. coli poisoning in the US occurred in 1982, and was associated with contaminated hamburger. And although outbreaks of E. coli poisoning since then have been linked to lettuce, spinach, and even water, behind these linkages it is believed that there is always some source related to contamination of food products with fresh animal manure. An interesting question is whether E. coli poisoning is a modern disease (i.e. when it first showed up in the early 1980s, were those cases the first ever?) or has it been around for a long time, and was just first isolated and named in the early 1980s?
Farmers that raise cattle, which include virtually every Biodynamic Farm and a high percentage of fully diversified organic farms, need to be mindful of the danger of E. coli. I don't think it is something we have to be paranoid about. Consider, for example, our use of gasoline. It is highly explosive (and toxic) and yet most of us fuel our cars with it and hardly give its danger a second thought. The reason for that is that we have developed standards, techniques, and protocols for how to handle gasoline. The same has to be done on farms in regard to manure management. If we were to do that, we would likely see cases and severity of E. coli diminish.
One principle of manure management is that if raw manure is spread on farmed fields, those fields should lie fallow for at least six months. But the raw manure can't be just a top dressing; it needs to be worked into the soil to be broken down by a soil that has good microbial life (i.e. on an organic or biodynamic farm!). Researchers are confident that under these conditions any virulent E. coli (along with a host of other potential pathogens) will be killed over a six month period.
But even though in six months time raw manure is safe for crops, few of us are in the practice of spreading raw manure on our fields. We never have, and certainly don't plan on doing that. There are two reasons for this. The first is that with our own health and the health of our members at stake, we have chosen to err on the side of safety. For us that means first that we "process" our manure into compost before working it into our fields (our composting takes six months), and second that we do this in the fall of the year so that even though we are confident our compost is pathologically inert when we put it on the fields, it too is worked into the soil and allowed to sit for more than six months. This is a "double dose" of precaution, but with the stakes as high as they are, be think it is a warranted precaution.
The second reason we don't spread raw manure on our fields is because the nutritional value of the manure can be so greatly improved by composting. What happens slowly and perhaps even haphazardly when raw manure in mixed into a field over a six month period can happen very quickly, consistently, thoroughly, and under controlled conditions in a compost pile.
Compost isn't just "aged manure." Compost is what results from a combination of manure, straw and green material and the action of untold billions of microbes of all sizes, shapes, and with all kinds of "appetites." The result is that the manure and other organic matter is transformed into a whole new entity - at its best, it can be pure humus, and even if the compositing process fails to achieve this high goal, it is, at the very least, very pure organic matter for the soil.
We feel confident about our manure management system. But there is another consideration that I hesitate to mention because I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea and think because of this "other consideration" we don't take all the necessary (and more) precautions against E. coli and other pathogens. We do take the necessary precautions . . . and more. At the same time, to be perfectly honest I must say that I think our cows are very likely free of the virulent strain of E. coli (0157:H7).
The first person who suggested that our cows may be free from E. coli 0157:H7 was none other than Michael Pollan. Well, he didn't exactly say it to me personally, but he said it to us all in The Omnivore's Dilemma. A lot of people don't pick this up (none of my students did when I used Pollan's book in an Environmental Ethics class), but it hit me like a ton of bricks because the argument is so simple, cogent and close to home. This suggestion was made to Pollan by a cattle veterinarian. Interestingly, I had a chance to corroborate that veterinarian's position with a local veterinarian who certifies cattle as "organic" in our area. But I'm getting ahead of myself; here's the argument.
The first case of E. coli poisoning in the US was in 1982. Could it have been the first case (or one of the first) to have actually occurred? Many people believe it very likely was. The reason is this. It was in the late 1970s and early 1980s that feedlots began to appear in the US. Prior to that, some cows were "finished" using a partial grain (corn, oats, and barley) diet. But most cows were commonly grass fed until butchering. With the advent of the feedlot, however, finishing cows on grains became a passion as feedlot managers noted that cattle gain phenomenal weight on such a diet and that such a diet has a pronounced "marbling" effect of muscle with fat (muscles that weren't used much as cows in feedlots barely have room to move, and hence were also rendered more "tender.")
In addition to fast weight gain and marbled meat, however, there was another change that occurred in cattle that were taken off their natural diet of grass and fed grains - a food that cattle have not evolved to eat. That change was a significant one regarding E. coli. What happened was that cattle's stomachs went from being highly acidic to being neutral or even alkaline. The virulent form of E. coli needs a neutral environment to live. In a grass-fed animal, which is the natural state of grazing cattle, the stomachs are acidic to the point that the virulent strain of E. coli cannot survive. But in feed-lot cattle, the stomach is a perfect host for the kind of E. coli that can kill human beings.
When we started our herd of beef cows we decided we would certify the herd and the ground they feed on just in case we ever wanted to sell beef wholesale as Certified Organic or wanted to sell hay as Certified Organic. This brought the state Certification inspector to our farm. The inspector is an impressive person, with an impressive background. She is a PhD veterinarian with both teaching experience and many years as herd veterinarian for a number of large dairies. It was after we had our inspection that I came across Pollan's comments, so I e-mailed the inspector and asked what she thought. Her response was that it made sense to her, and didn't contradict anything she learned in school or knew from her practical experience. But she added that the next day she was attending a conference of cattle veterinarians, and that she would run it by others at the conference.
I heard back from her the next week, and she said that her colleagues also said that this has the ring of truth. The qualification, of course, was what we would (and should) expect: that a lot of testing would have to be done to confirm this. So in reply to my question, "so, can I advertise my beef as being E. coli free?" she said "not yet."
I'm not sure if we have any veterinarians or people just very experienced with cattle in our CSA, but if you're out there and have some knowledge about the pH of cattle stomachs, I'd be interested in your input on this information. For myself, I don't find it hard to believe at all that when we so dramatically take cattle out of their natural environment and alter their feed so that the aren't eating what they have evolved to eat, that we could end up with trouble.
You may recall the words of the Catholic saint who said we need to "pray as if everything depends on God, but work as if everything depends on us." Perhaps, in keeping with that quotation, we who raise grass-fed cattle should say something like this: "we can take comfort in the belief that our grass-fed cattle are free from virulent E. coli strains, but we should think, plan, and act as if every one of them is a carrier." I guarantee you we will continue to stay on the path of caution.
10. Survey
Many years we ask you all to complete a formal survey to find out what you liked about the past Sessions, and what you would like to see changed. This year we are not doing a formal survey, but we would still like to welcome any comments and suggestions you might have. Members throughout the year make various suggestions that we try to keep in mind, but sending us a note now, when we're nearing the end of the year and are doing our planning for next year is a very good time to remind us of those suggestions or to make new ones. We are very interested in feedback of any kind.
Sometimes we fear that members are hesitant to make suggestions because they think we will perceive those suggestions as criticism of what we do. We really don't feel that way. Many of the changes we've made over the years have come from member suggestions. I suppose some of those comments could be construed as criticism, but we really don't see it that way. We want to offer the best service we can to each of you. We can't always change to accommodate everyone's suggestion, but we don't have a chance to accommodate suggestions we don't hear about! So, please send us a note (jubileefarm@hotmail.com) if you have ideas you'd like us to think about.
11. Fair Trade Coffee
Last year Wendy and I met a young man from Costa Rica. His name is Arturo Sequara. Arturo is a coffee farmer with a passion for coffee and an equal passion for trying to better the lives of himself and other coffee growers in his community. We've now run into Arturo a number of times. Subsequent to our first meeting, we learned that the area where he farms is a place that Wendy visited and spent some time at several years ago.
Arturo is in the US representing the "Alliance of Organic Farmers of Costa Rica" (La Alianza). They are marketing their coffee, "Sol Colibri," here. This is a Fair-Trade/Direct Trade Certified Organic coffee. We often buy Fair Trade products, but when we bought Arturo's coffee, we had that great experience of having a very present and very friendly face to associate with at least one of the beneficiaries of the purchase.
We have found the La Alianza to be very good. Arturo has asked us if we would be interested in selling their Free-Trade coffee at our market. We've agreed to do that. We won't mark it up at all, as we really want to help our fellow farmers in Costa Rica. We will have this coffee in our Market this summer. But if any of you would be interested in buying some before that, drop us a note and we'll find a way to get it to you before then.
Wendy and I both are convinced that Arturo, who is going back to Costa Rica soon, is the kind of person we want to benefit from our purchasing power. He has invited us to visit him and his fellow growers, and we hope to do that. In the mean time, we like to think about Arturo and the La Alianza when we have our morning coffee. If you want to share those thoughts with us (and drink Sol Colibri coffee!), let us know: jubileefarm@hotmail.com..
Erick and Wendy