Hi Everyone,
In this update:
1. Mid-Season "State of the Farm Address"
This update has become a kind of symbolic representation of the season. Well, that may be a bit of an overstatement, but I've been working on this update a lot over the last few days. But apparently I committed the unpardonable sin of data entry (failure to save), and now for all my efforts, I am starting from scratch! Ouch. This really hurts (me at least!). I'm not going to try to recreate what had turned out to be a fairly lengthy newsletter, but am going to try to get this out in one sitting.
Things are going better. We have had to replant many crops, many times, but persistence has paid off, and we are rebounding. We're still having weird weather—the heat now after a very cool week, with another cool week and rain in the forecast—but our crops are maturing. The onions and garlic are now all harvested. The harvests weren't stellar, but at least we got something (which some of our neighboring farms did not get). The beets and carrots were a long time coming, but they've arrived and I'm confident we'll have a pretty good supply from here on.
On the brighter side, we think the tomatoes this year (so far, knock on wood) are better than usual. We think the reason for this is that we composted each greenhouse (and the pepper house) very heavily last year. We're hopeful the good tomato harvest will continue, but we can never take it for granted. The peppers are coming on very well and should be in production not much later than usual.
Beans have not been as strong as usual this year. We usually plant three rotations, but this year, after we could see the kind of spring we were having, we planted a fourth. The later rotations look better than the first. Cukes and summer squash have been very slow to produce, but are now starting and should be in full production very soon. We had planted more than twice as many of the cukes and squash as usual because we wanted to process some pickles and pickled summer squash. But it may be that they all end up going to the CSA. I'll tell you, we are so glad, this year especially, that we aren't trying to do farmers' markets. We would hate to be in the position of trying to decide what to send to market, and what to give to the CSA. We hope you are aware that nothing from this farm goes anywhere except to you, our members (except for an occasion dinner for a good cause and we only donate the food!).
So, what is the outlook for the rest of the year? I have to be honest and say that melons, corn, late beans, and squashes are all questions. The question is not, "will we have any?" because we will get something. The question is, how much? I'm fairly confident we'll have enough, and hopeful that we will have a great summer that extends into September. That has happened so many times here, and oh would this be the year! We're doing everything we can to make that happen.
2. Why are we suing the Army Corps of Engineers? What can you do to help?
I put quite a lot into this piece in the newsletter draft that is winging its way through the outer galaxies of cyberspace about now. But here is a recap in a nutshell:
Six years ago the Corps did a project for flood control in Snoqualmie. They made some changes in the flow of the river to accelerate water going over the falls during flooding. We were assured there would be no down-river impacts. We were skeptical. The project was completed in 2005. Since that time, here in Carnation, we have had three of the four largest floods in recorded history. Is there a correlation between these three historic floods and the 2005 project that immediately preceded these floods?
We think so. We don't know that beyond any shadow of doubt, but we do know it is reasonable to be suspicious that the 2005 project may be the cause. More importantly, by their own admission, the Corps does NOT know that their 2005 project was not to blame for these three enormous floods. That's because they have made no effort whatsoever to monitor and verify the actual impact of the project, and have stated this to be the case in public.
Now the Corps wants to do another project just like the 2005 project. This time, we were not even notified in advance about the project. The Corps simply granted the permit on a "short-form" application that by-passed public comment from down-river citizens. We think that when the same kind of project that is being proposed now was done just six years ago and was followed immediately by three of the largest floods in recorded history, that we were denied due process in being left out of the current permitting process by an "in-house" decision that we would be unaffected.
That's why we have sued the Corps. We farmers believe that we are near the breaking point on the flooding. We have to take a stand. Last week, feeling that our case is extraordinarily strong, we filed a motion for a "summary judgment."
What can you do to help us in this case? We would certainly welcome any contributions to our legal defense fund. To this point just a few of us have financed what is projected to be a one hundred thousand dollar lawsuit. Obviously, there are a lot of people who are directly affected by the flooding, and whose properties and livelihoods are at risk. These people are candidates for significant contributions, and we are approaching these people individually. But we also expect and hope that many people who work/play/visit/get-their-food-from the Valley will also contribute. Some of you may want to do that, and I hope you will. We are a Washington state non-profit, but not a Federal non-profit, so I can't tell you your contributions are tax-deductible. But I can tell you it's for a worthy cause. You can send your checks made out to "Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance (SVPA)" to our farm (10 West Snoqualmie River Road SE, Carnation WA) or drop them off at the barn when you pick up your produce. Donations in any amount are welcome!
There are a couple of other things I'd like to mention. First, we are having a pig-roast benefit dinner (with vegetarian option) here at Jubilee on September 26th. I hope many of you will join us. Second, if you have ideas about fund-raising, we would be happy to entertain them. We have hired the best attorney we can, and a part-time publicist; if someone out there is experienced at fund raising, we could sure use some help!
3. Mentoring new farmers in the Snoqualmie Valley
I've talked a number of times in newsletters about our desire to see more farmers in our valley. As Chair of Sno-Valley Tilth's Policy committee, and as a strong advocate of the need for more farmers in the valley, I've been given the task of leading SVT's mentoring program. This was our first year. We got a late start, but we did work with four new, want-to-be farming families—helping them find land to lease and get started. One of them is on our farm—Mike and Ellen. You've probably seen their 2/3 acre venture just south of where the Valley Road turns and becomes Main Street.
It's been very exciting and gratifying to see these new farmers go from dreams, to reality, to marketing produce. Of the four, we're sure that two are going to make it. That's probably not a bad success rate.
We're hoping to do more next season. If you are (or know) a "want-to-be," we can help make it happen.
4. Beef quarters available
We will be butchering the last of our steers this week. We were pleased that we sold our first ten animals within our CSA, and hope these will sell here too. If you have an interest, please send a note to jubileefarm@hotmail.com and we will get back to you with the details.
5. Local salmon unite to save farmers
How often have we heard the refrain, "save the salmon"? Well, are you ready for this (remember - you read it here first): it could be that salmon end up saving farmers! How so?
It turns out that with all the flooding locally, all the flap about the possibility of the Green River flooding the Kent Valley, and the Chehalis River actually flooding shopping centers and other developments in the central part of our state, it has finally occurred to people that flood plain regulators are not taking protection of the floodways seriously enough. All that is about to change. In the future, projects in the flood plain may have to demonstrate that they are not harmful to endangered species—especially salmon.
I'm not sure that manufacturing or industrial land uses could ever make a convincing argument that their presence in sensitive areas (near rivers that flood) could not harm salmon. Nor does it seem like non-organic farmers could begin to make that claim. But organic farmers? For the many of you who went through the emergence of the Eco-APD proposal (whose details were hammered out in these newsletters), I hope you can see where this could go. I had more-or-less given up on the Eco-APD, even though to this day it is a stated objective of Sno-Valley tilth. It just seemed that our representative in Council is so bent on "property rights" that it could never happen. But the other day, a manager with the County actually mentioned it to me in light of the new regulations that will be going into effect. Maybe a legal mandate to allow only activities in the flood way that will not harm salmon could pave the way for re-consideration of the Eco-APD. How the worm turns!
6. Work Share and Jubilee "die-hards" invited to Harvest Moon potluck and dance
We're having a crew, work share, and Jubilee supporters "Harvest Moon" potluck and dance a week from Tuesday, August 24th on the night of the full Harvest Moon. Dinner will start at 6:30. We've hired a great local band—the Tallboys—to play after dinner for dancing and to the rising Harvest Moon. It should be a great night! This started as a work share party, but we've decided we don't want to be exclusive to our work share members—all of you are invited. Just bring a dish, place settings for yourself and your family members (plate, eating utensils, glasses for beverages), and join us for an enjoyable and memorable evening.
7. Final payments due (past due!) for Summer Session
A few of you (fortunately very few) have not yet made final payments for Summer Session. Wendy would like to close the books! If you are among those, please send in a check (10 West Snoqualmie River Road SE, Carnation WA 98014) or bring a check to the barn on your pick-up day. It will make it so much easier for Wendy if she doesn't have to send out notices.
If you're not sure if you are paid up for Summer Session, drop Wendy a note (jubileefarm@hotmail.com); she will let you know where you stand. Thanks!
8. Justifying Industrial Agriculture
How is it that in spite of the fact that industrial agriculture is known to deplete soil fertility; to pollute ground water, rivers, and oceans; to utilize unspeakable amounts of fossil fuel with the resultant, enormous carbon foot print; to operate at a financial loss (as evidenced by its need for yearly subsidies from our tax dollars), and to be, through its use of chemicals on the food we eat, an underlying cause for much of the ill-health and ill-nutrition of our nation — how is it, given all this (and other observations of a similar nature that could be cited), how is it that industrial agriculture still represents 98% of the agricultural output in the US?
I think there are three possible explanations:It seems to me that the first point—the institutionalized nature of industrial agriculture—is well-known and undeniable. It's one of the things we all hate about politics: that moneyed interests have the power to get more money, and hence more power, and that they use that power to create a legal system that allows them to continue to monopolize wealth.
The petro-chemical industry profits immensely from industrial agriculture. By promoting legislation and financial appropriations, it determines what will be bought and sold, used, researched, and taught in our schools. The petro-chemical lobby also dictates what will be the allowable "acceptable losses" by industrial agricultural practices.
This may sound a bit cynical, but it is reality. It's the way things work in our country, and although I believe it will change, it seems that it will not change quickly or dramatically. I don't think that those with the kind of money that can determine national policy are necessarily adverse, in principle, to change. It is just that it takes time for the wealthy to transition into new money/power opportunities: the organic division of Monsanto, for example, is not ready to realize the profits of the pesticide and herbicide division; hence change in agricultural policy at the national level of our government is a ways off.
The second explanation of why we tolerate agricultural methods that destroy the fertility of our land, the environment, and human health is something of a logical argument, rather than merely an exercise in the power of wealth. It is argued that "we have to feed the world."
I must say that it's not quite clear to me why we have some kind to imperative to feed the world. Is the world incapable of feeding itself? Must we intercede to "save the world"? If the world is in need of saving, what are the causes that have led to such a need? Is supplying food dealing with the causes? Or is it the case that industrial agricultural corporations profit immensely from sales to third world countries, and would actually lose money should these countries discover ways to sustain themselves? How odd it is that we are willing to compromise the sustainability of our own health and the environment for the sake of the putatively sacrificial, and even sometimes claimed altruistic motivation of, "saving the world."
I hope I don't appear to be too unfeeling, but I just can't agree that squandering the resources of the earth, polluting the air and water, and funneling the proceeds through corporate powers that have not demonstrated themselves to be charitable benefactors of the world in the past is the way we can best help to meet the needs of the people of the world. There is also a large dose of arrogance that seems to accompany the claim that we must feed the world. In the past, such claims (the "white man's burden" comes to mind) have turned out to be only slightly veiled statements of an assumed superiority.
The first two "reasons" for enduring a life-destroying form of agriculture seem to amount to little more than quietism (money talks, we can't fight it, why try?) and hyperbole/arrogance (the world would starve without our high fructose corn syrup, only we can save the world). Taken together, they leave one wondering how they could serve as a basis for continuing practices we know to be unsustainable.
But there is another kind of "argument," an unspoken, underlying ideology actually, that unites these two putative justifications into a dogma that for 50 years went unchallenged. That ideology is really a kind of confusion (I think) about the desire to be "efficient."
There is a sense in which most of us want to be efficient in what we do. But what do we really mean when we say "I want to be efficient"? It may mean that we want to accomplish something in a minimum of time. I would suggest that whether stated or not, every time we say or think about being more efficient, there is some specific value that is the goal of our desire to be efficient. We don't just want to be efficient for the sake of being efficient, but for the sake of something else. In business, what is the goal of efficiency?
For the industrialist, the value of efficiency in business is that it returns a greater profit to the owner or to the shareholders of the business. So that if an industry can replace 20 workers with one machine, and the balance sheet between the 20 workers and the one machine shows that the machine costs less, the underlying value of efficiency (those practices that maximize profit to the owner or shareholders of a business) would, obviously, be to choose the machine.
I've come to believe that the value of increased monitory profit is the unstated value that is almost always meant when a business person says, "we need to be more efficient." This is rarely said outright, but it is, I think, what is almost invariably meant. There is nothing essentially wrong with this value. What is wrong, though, is when we allow the term "efficiency" to be an unquestioned and unexamined value; when it is uncritically assumed that the path of efficiency is synonymous with the path of virtue; and when an unbridled lust for money and power that it offers as its justification is used as an uncritical and unquestioned appeal to efficiency.
To justify the industrial model of agriculture because it is efficient really means that to provide extraordinary wealth for a few, those few should be allowed to squander far beyond any sense of proportion the resources of the earth, and to pollute the water and air that we all depend on to sustain life.
If the advocates of industrial agriculture are willing to own up to this, fine. But to justify the wanton waste of the resources and the health of the earth and all its inhabitants in the guise of altruism or efficiency is shameful.
Our best to you all,
Erick and Wendy