Picture

Big money gathers eagerly around short-sighted concepts, never bothering to notice the long-term suffering it can cause.  Or maybe that’s an easy way to see the messy collection of hubris, lofty goals, corporate influence and cultural ignorance behind  the announcement that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are calling for a second Green Revolution. They are donating $10.4 million to alleviate hunger using methods including the promotion of genetically modified crops.

The first Green Revolution was not regarded as a success by those “lucky” recipients of First World largess. Their carefully cultivated (often perennial) plantings were torn up and traditional methods well suited for local conditions (rocky hillsides, monsoons, lack of irrigation) ignored. Farmers were provided hybrid seeds which produced astonishing yields on test plots using high quality irrigation and modern intensive farming methods. But these seeds could not be saved to replant the next year. These crops had to be coddled with petroleum-based fertilizer and pesticides. The farmers needed to use equipment no one could afford to repair or fuel.

This first Green Revolution was considered a success by much of the First World. But it failed because it didn’t address, perhaps made worse the larger issue. As Food First explains, the Green Revolution imposed industrial farming methods without addressing unequal access. In South America per capita food supplies went up 8% while the number of hungry people increased 19%. 

Today yields continue to improve around the world. As Sharon Astyk notes in her brilliant blog Casaubon’s Book,“We presently grow enough food to feed 9 billion people.  That’s an astonishing realization for most people – that the world produces about double the number of calories we need.”   

Yet people starve while grain rots in warehouses and famine-struck regions export food. Why? Because it’s not as much about the volume of food as it is about who controls it.

Now, another Green Revolution. This time it’s not just hybrid seeds but genetically modified (GM) crops. These crops are highly profitable to Monsanto, DuPont and other mega corporations.  Typically they require the timed use of specifically matched herbicides and pesticides. But the extra cost of these seeds (and their chemical companions) are a waste because they don’t increase crop yield, despite what the slick PR might allege. Let’s repeat. GM seeds are not the hope of the hungry because no they don’t magically make more food than the seeds nature designed.

The Union of Concerned Scientists  “…reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.”  

In fact, organic farms produce consistently high yields with good pest resistance.

And big surprise, traditional farming methods are much more suited to the areas where they've been used. Maybe, just maybe respecting methods that honor the life of the land makes more sense than imposing industrial agriculture. You’d think we humans would have noticed the We Know Better Than Nature approach hasn’t worked out too well. 

A paper  in the African Journal of Food and Nutritional Sciences noted,
"Viable agro-ecology models have been reported in widely disparate places like the United States and India [20]. In the United States, a landmark study by the prestigious National Research Council found that “alternative farmers often produce high per-acre yields with significant reductions in costs per unit of crop harvested, despite the fact that many federal policies discourage adoption of alternative practices”. The Council concluded that Federal commodity programs must be restructured to help farmers realize the full benefits of the productivity gains possible through alternative practices [20].

In South India, a 1993 study was carried out to compare “ecological farms” with matched “conventional” or chemical-intensive farms. Ausubel found that the ecological farms were just as productive and profitable as the chemical ones [21]. He concluded that if extrapolated nationally, ecological farming would have “no negative impact on food security,” and would reduce soil erosion and the depletion of soil fertility while greatly lessening dependence on external inputs."

One would think the world's richest man might put money into solving world hunger through equal access to justice, education and cultural understanding.










 
 
 

 

Picture

The sight of Ron’s farm is like a quiet blessing. I wait for my first glimpse of it over the rise of a hill each time I take the dogs for a walk down our street. The house and several outbuildings are in shambles, but that’s because Ron puts his energy into keeping his small dairy farm going. 

His herd of around fifty Ayrshire, Holstein, Guernsey and Brown Swiss graze on pasture so that the grasses sway in the wind. Many of the old fence posts surrounding the fields are wire-wrapped osage orange and hickory trunks, since farmers a few generations ago knew these durable woods would serve while alive and long after.   

Ron puts his cows out on pasture each spring by a calculation that remains a mystery to me, something to do with phases of the moon. He adheres to other timeworn methods that aren’t fancy enough to be termed eco-friendly or green. For example, Ron drives his old car back to the hayfield before it’s time to cut. He walks through the field handpicking weeds that aren’t good for his cows. He doesn’t confine his cows year round, dose them with production-boosting hormones or follow any other agricultural trends.

Ron’s back is bent; his face is weathered and creased into a permanent smile. Already he looks like his father, Herb, who died a few years ago, probably already in his nineties. We asked Herb’s advice back when we first started farming. Herb told us he’d walked over to see our cows a few times, meaning he’d hiking through fields and woods to reassure himself that all was well.

How many of us can still benefit from the benevolent instinct of a neighboring farmer? How many are lucky enough to learn from examples of those who are deeply rooted, as Lisa Hamilton’s wonderful new book Deeply Rooted is aptly named?

Dairy farms all over the country are selling cows, selling land and going out of business. The price they are being paid is about the same as it was in the 1970’s, although feed and fuel is much higher. Government aid under consideration for small farms is steered to prompt farmers into selling cows, meaning even more milk will come from huge confinement agricultural operations.

Losing small farms also means that the wisdom of farmers like Ron will be left behind at an ever faster pace. This includes specific wisdom about the land and wider wisdom about ways to live. 

Authentic connection to the land is so easily crushed beneath the weight of society’s pressing demand for immediate gratification and quick profits. But then, much is lost. As Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said, “This palpable world, which we are used to treating with the boredom and disrespect with which we habitually regard places with no sacred association, is a holy place."

Perhaps most obviously, common sense is lost. Small farms are actually more efficient.  The Institute for Food and Development Policy amassed the available data from every country to compare productivity of smaller farms versus larger farms (total output of agricultural products per unit area -- per acre or hectare.)  Their research showed that smaller farms are anywhere from 200 to 1,000 percent more productive.

Ron’s son-in-law and grandson help on the farm, but his family talks to him about getting out of the business. They know he’s losing money. Ron says that he watched his father go through hard times and he learned that the way you stay farming is to hang on. So he’s hanging on. 

Ron’s rootedness to his farm and his land is part of who he is, like the farmer Gene Logsdon describes:“…he is a last member of an ancient tribe—the genuine traditional farmers who committed themselves lovingly to a piece of land and husbanded it from generation to generation, carrying in their memories a lifetime of their own experiences and that of their fathers and grandfathers on that land.”

So today I will walk in his direction, grateful for Ron’s farm. I’ll pay attention to the sight of cows resting in tall grass and the sound of a slack board on the house creaking in the breeze, hoping perhaps each thing we look upon with love somehow is more likely to endure. 


 


Crosspo





 
 
 

 
The USDA plans to impose a mandatory identification system called NAIS which is, frankly, Big Brother down on the farm. Radio ID ear tags for all livestock, from llamas to chickens, and specific codes for each farm (even for a backyard chicken coop or horse-lover's barn). No data demonstrates any value to this system in promoting health or safety. Conceivably, this bill could potentially affect pet owners in the future.

On March 11, 2009, the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry held a hearing on the implementation the controversial NAIS program. Repeatedly, members of congress cited support for NAIS due to food and animal safety concerns. Since most committee members favored NAIS, the hearing was used to push the USDA to make NAIS mandatory for all livestock. This would include what Republican Rep. Mike Conaway described as farms with “one big fat horse.” Conaway suggested that NAIS is just as important as organic.

Only a third of farmers have registered in the past five years despite heavy pressure. Even children enrolled in Future Farmers of America or 4-H are expected to have their family farms registered with NAIS.

Quoting an Organic Consumer’s Association report on the hearing: 

Paul Rozwadowski, a Wisconsin dairy farmer and chair of the National Family Farm Coalition’s Dairy Subcommittee, cited the severe cost burden for family farmers versus the loopholes for industrial livestock operations. “While I would have to separately tag every single one of my 60 cows, factory farm poultry and hog operations are allowed one group ID. This gives them an unfair competitive advantage, so it’s no wonder their lobbyists support it. NFFC also strenuously objects to National Milk Producers Federation once again falsely speaking on behalf of dairy farmers. NFFC’s Dairy Subcommittee, comprised of dairy farmers from across the country, adamantly opposes NAIS, particularly as our dairy prices have collapsed and we struggle for our survival.”

Here’s information on the topic from

National Family Farm Coalition http://www.nffc.net/Pressroom/Press%20Releases/2008/PR%2006.25.08%20School%20Lunch%20and%20NAIS.htm

Organic Consumers Association http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26665

 

Below you’ll find yet another letter we have sent to our Senators and Congressman. Please consider sending one of your own.

 

We live on a small family farm and ask you to act on behalf not only of all farmers but all consumers by voting against any mandatory NAIS bill (coding properties and tracking livestock for USDA purposes).

HR875 and companion Senate S814 are being pushed through Congress, as well as an appropriations bill with funding for NAIS. The proposed changes are not only massively expensive, but outrageous because NAIS has no value in promoting health or safety.

 *Although the USDA alleges that NAIS will benefit animal health, basic scientific principles demonstrate the reverse. This program is a disincentive for good animal husbandry.

 *NAIS damages food safety. It will not halt food borne illnesses nor prevent the conditions creating these problems, in part because tracking ends at the time of slaughter. Such problems will abate when existing regulations are properly funded and enforced---for example the inspection of imported foods, oversight of slaughterhouses and food processing plants, etc.

 *Sustainable farms with practices that boost the health of the land and support local communities are precisely those farms that will be unable to continue under the burden of NAIS requirements. If forced to develop the necessary NAIS database, purchase 840-numbered tags and deal with increased government regulation chances are many more of us would lose the struggle to hang on to our land and animals.

 *If implemented, NAIS will increase food costs and substantially decrease the availability of organic, free range and local foods because only agribusiness can afford the Big Brother burden of NAIS.

Please let us know how you plan to vote. 

 

 

 
 



The wealth of a nation doesn’t have a lot to do with the rising and falling numbers on Wall Street, numbers based on speculative value and as we’ve seen recently, imaginary worth. It doesn’t have to do with military might, patriotic fervor or unity of purpose.

It has to do with all kinds of unseen, unsung and poorly understood connections. For example, the connections between people. These mutual webs of caring and concern are the lifeblood of our society. Co-workers laughing together, neighbors looking out for one another, older children helping younger children, strangers talking at the bus stop, friends taking a walk. Scientists tell us these connections improve our physical and emotional health. Such connections also measurably improve our communities. These connections are deeply rooted. They stem from a beautiful diversity of interests, mutual need and the freedom to flourish in our own ways.

Even more poorly understood is our connection to the soil, and perhaps more importantly, the intrinsically complex interconnections of microbial life and mineral balance within healthy soil. To support growth, soil teems with life. It’s said that a handful of fertile soil contains more living organisms than the population of the planet. A nation’s soil is more important than any fuel, more vital than winning a war. Agriculture has a long history of abusing the land with profitable and expedient practices. Even the earliest agrarian practices removed perennial plants and natural cover, causing erosion and loss of topsoil. Later monoculture plantings sapped the soil’s vitality. Now agribusiness standards such as continual soil exposure, toxic chemicals and crushingly monstrous machinery have literally turned once bountiful farmland into nearly useless wasteland which requires the agricultural equivalent of ICU treatment to grow anything, and what it does grow is drastically reduced in quality, nutrient levels and taste.

We depend on the land to feed us. We cannot allow agribusiness to degrade our nation’s true wealth. We must turn back to the age-old wisdom of crop rotation, pastured animals, perennial and diverse plantings. We must listen to the warning call sounded by honeybees and our own failing immune systems. A national agriculture policy that resonates with the sustainability movement is necessary. Such a policy would stimulate young people to start up small farms. It would provide incentives for organic farming, homesteading and urban gardens. It would reawaken us to the true riches in living soil and healthy foods.