How would you feel if you knew large corporations were plotting to keep you from getting information about what is in the food you buy?  What if you knew they were lobbying to insure that there would be no way you could even find out what is in the food you buy? 

If this would not be disturbing to you, if you believe that “not knowing is for the best,” don’t read on. But for the rest of us, this is something to get really fired-up over.

Do you have a right to know whether the foods you eat contain genetically engineered foods?  It seems that the USDA does not believe you have that right.  In 2000, the USDA issued a ruling regarding the labeling of GE (genetically engineered) food.  The decision of the USDA was that labeling about GE ingredients should be allowed, but that it should be voluntary. 

Since that time, can you guess how many products have been voluntarily labeled as containing GE ingredients?  If you guessed “zero,” you’re right on the money.  And you had better believe that it is money that is NOT talking when it comes to disclosing anything about food ingredients.

Recently the issue has surfaced again because some companies that conscientiously purchase non-GE ingredients for their products want to advertise “GM-Free.”   Now the USDA has decided those who offer GM-Free products must “prove” that their products do not contain GM ingredients.  Those who make such products complained, to no avail, that that standard set by the USDA for such proof is unreasonably onerous and cost-prohibitive.

So once again the consumer has been effectively deprived of the right to know something that many people believe to be crucially important about the food they eat. 

What seems shocking to me in all this is the total disregard of what seems to be our national economic mantra:   “let the market decide.”    We hear over and over again that rather than enact regulations about what is “right,” we must let the market decide. 

When it comes to GE products, letting the market decide is exactly what the USDA is NOT allowing.  Back in 1994 Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co. (a subsidiary of Monsanto) was quoted as saying  ”If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” 

Recent polls support Mr. Braksick’s observation as they consistently show Americans are over-whelmingly in favor of requiring labeling for GM food products.  There is no question that Americans, like Europeans and Japanese, do not want to purchase GE products.  But only in the US have food producers won the right to keep consumers in the dark.  They know that GE products would be rejected in the marketplace, so they have lobbied to insure that consumers don’t, won’t, and can’t find out if products have GE ingredients.

It seems that “let the market decide” is a selective doctrine, and cannot be employed when it runs contrary to the profits of bio-tech corporations.  When major corporate interests are at stake, then the consumer is denied the right to even know if a product does or does not contain GM ingredients.

No voice, no vote, no decision; just a veil of ignorance.  And, of course, huge corporate profits with no opportunity to “let the market decide.”

March 31^st, 2011.  Torrential rains pounded western Washington, and especially the Cascade Mountains.  Along with the rain came warmer temperatures, and a melting snowpack. 

The result in the Snoqualmie Valley was yet another “major” flood (a flood of 58 feet or higher at the Carnation gauge near Chinook Bend).  It wasn’t a flood that put water into people’s homes, or even into anyone’s barns (that I know of).  There was no loss of human life, and I heard no reports of animal life lost to this flood. 

At 58.21 feet, this flood was just barely into the lowest level of the floods classified by King County as “major.”  It was exactly four feet lower than the all-time record. 

But in a different way from the devastating floods of 1990, 2006, and 2009, this flood may have been the worst of all.

The reason is this.  Every other “major” flood has occurred in November, December, or January.  During these months, most of us who farm in the valley have put our fields to “bed” for the year.  Cover crops have been planted in September and by the time the first flooding occurs the soil is protected by the lush growth of winter rye, winter wheat, oats, and/or a variety of legumes. 

Flooding bring minerals from the mountains, which is a good thing.  When the flood waters recede, they leave behind a slimly layer of silt that coats each blade of grassy cover crop.  This silt is rich in both organic matter and minerals. 

But on March 31^st of 2011, most the farmed acres in the Snoqualmie Valley had already been plowed.  Cover crops had been buried beneath fresh and very-much exposed soil.

As the river overflowed its banks and poured into these plowed fields, the water ran brown.  The scream was so quiet it was heard by only a few.  But to the few of us who heard, was nearly unbearable. 

I don’t suppose it would be right to say I normally “enjoy” the floods; but I certainly have never been uneasy about being here as the water engulfs the Valley.  During this one I found myself wishing I could escape. 

Erosion of topsoil has characterized the history of the “conquering of the wilderness” in North America by European settlers.  In the industrial mode of agriculture, which accounts for about 97% of all agriculture in the US today, erosion is still wide-spread.

Having witnessed this flood, and having seen the water run brown with topsoil, I am more convinced than ever that the tools and methods of modern agriculture—tools used by organic and non-organic farmers alike, are the cause of a great deal of harm to the earth. 

Two of the most commonly used and abused tools of agriculture are the rototiller and the moldboard plow. 

The rototiller is fast and leaves a beautiful-looking bed within which to plant.  But it also destroys the physical structure of soil, crushing and pulverizing its granular nature and eventually rendering the soil into powder; an inhospitable home for the micro-organisms upon whose existence sustainable agriculture is dependent.

The moldboard plow inverts the soil, so that whatever is on the surface (cover-crop or weeds) is buried up to 14 inches below the surface.  What had been 14 inches below the surface is brought to the surface. 

The problem with this is that the soil organisms which render organic matter in the soil available as food for plants mostly reside in the top six inches of soil.  Burying the life of the soil below this level with a moldboard plow, or pulverizing the soil with a rototiller, is counter-productive.  As it destroys the microbial life of the soil it leads to the need to bring in yet-more fertilizer. 

So why do farmers use the rototiller and the plow?  Why did I use a rototiller until just six years ago, and why is this just my second year of having abandoned the use of the plow?   Because tilling and plowing is so easy, and it looks so good when you’re done! 

The alternative to the moldboard plow and the rototiller is to work the soil with a disk harrow.  This keeps the topsoil on top, but leaves things looking “messy.”  Without plowing, many weeds re-grow, which means the field will continue to look weedy.  But our preoccupation with elimination of weeds comes at a cost.

The greatest cost is to the microbial life—and hence to the fertility—of the soil.  The moldboard plow effectively destroys the living biology of the soil by burying it; the rototiller does the same by destruction of habitat for microbe colonies.

But on March 31^st, another cost of our desire for ease and weed-less fields became obvious here in the Snoqualmie Valley.  All that freshly plowed soil, with the weeds and crop residue buried deep and “out of sight” offered little resistance to a late-March flood.  The flood waters ran brown.  Not only was fertility lost, but the soil itself was lost.

It was a dark day.

On that same (dark) day, a Federal Judge in Seattle released his decision on a lawsuit filed by farmers and residents of the Snoqualmie Valley against the Army Corps of Engineers.  The judge’s ruling is a matter of record.  I want to say more about this, but focusing on one disaster is all I can muster at this time; I’ll take up the judge’s decision when I have time to write again.

Erick                                                                                                                                                         Jubilee Biodynamic Farm

(download)

Click here to download:

Erick_CSA.mov (3.46 MB)

We're excited to announce the upcoming release of "The Growing Revolution", a video short on our philosophy and mission as a biodynamic farm. In the meantime, we thought we'd share some raw tape of Erick speaking to the value of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). Check it out and be sure to keep an eye out for the final video.

Thanks to David DuBois (Director) @integratedtalent, Chris Hare (Writer/Producer), Oliver Ludlow (Director of Photography), and Vincent McAninch (Editor) @elevatorblue.

A few weeks ago the world witnessed pro-democracy demonstrators in Egypt that were successful in overcoming an entrenched, corrupt, and repressive regime.  More remarkable, they achieved this with relatively little bloodshed.

It seemed as if the example in Egypt would ignite the fires of freedom in other countries, and most looked expectantly to Libya as the next dictatorial government to fall.  Many of us experienced a sense of euphoria as we daily monitored the progress of the revolution.

Today our mood has changed.  The winds that fired the flame of revolution seem to have died; in place of expected victories we have seen an ugly show of force, impositions of martial law, and we have seen retreat.  If that wasn’t enough, we’ve now watched, as no other tragedy in the world has ever been watched, the impacts of the great earthquake and Tsunamis in Japan. 

Witnessing the vulnerability of a modern nation to the forces of nature is sobering; knowing that every country shares this vulnerability is more sobering still. 

To some these events are believed to be symbolic of a growing sense that our earth, our home, is becoming inhospitable.   With devastating flooding occurring throughout the globe accompanied by unprecedented extremes in precipitation and temperature, a great deal of fodder is available for those who cry “apocalypse.”

It’s hard to deny that the components of an apocalyptic outlook exist in our world of upheaval and change.  Whether the litany of woes we are experiencing really amounts to an actual apocalypse is another question. 

But if, in fact, that is the direction we are headed, I would suggest that our ultimate undoing will be something more fundamental than anything that usually gets listed in the aforementioned “litany of woes.”   There is something essentially egotistical and anthrocentric in the belief that the human race will come to an end because of our inability to control all the great achievements of human beings. 

During this week of the unfolding tragedy in Japan I’ve been reading UW professor David Montgomery’s book, Dirt.  This book chronicles the rise and fall of nations.  Montgomery’s analysis argues that in many if not most cases there was not a dramatic, natural cataclysm that led to the demise of the world’s great civilizations.  Neither, he argues, can we look simply to misguided political or even economic practices to find a cause for the fall of the great empires of the world. 

Montgomery makes a very convincing case that while many factors may be operative, the fall of civilizations often is ultimately about—erosion.  Underlying a myriad of problems in civilizations about to fall there is, Montgomery argues, the cumulative impacts of the failure to preserve the one resource we cannot live without—the soil.

Somehow civilizations seem to survive wars, repressive dictators, earthquakes, and Tsunamis; and civilizations could probably even survive massive oil spills and nuclear reactor melt-downs.

What we can’t survive is the loss of soil fertility. 

It seems the law of Nature that requires us to maintain the fertility of the soil will not be mocked.  It has been a leveler of civilizations.

Montgomery, a geomorphologist, points to US Department of Agriculture estimates that “millions of tons of topsoil are eroded annually from farmers’ fields in the Mississippi River Basin.”  And the experience of erosion in the Mississippi watershed is not the exception, it is the rule.  Montgomery cites estimates that 24 billion tons of soil is lost each year around the world.

These losses have been masked in modernity by the advent of industrial, chemical fertilizers.  But the value of these fertilizers is short-termed and has done nothing to either slow erosion (in fact, they have increased it) or to replace mined fertility.  Additionally, they are dependent on fossil fuel.  Short-term production levels have been maintained; long-term, erosion has increased rather been abated.

It doesn’t take much imagination to recognize what could happen in the future.  Already a full-scale “land-grab” is occurring in underdeveloped African countries by large, powerful nations that can no longer feed themselves.  China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and a host of others are purchasing millions of acres of potential farmland to be used when their own soil becomes exhausted. 

We all know what people are willing to do for money.  What’s interesting is what so many people will do to get not just the money they need, but far more than anyone could actually need.   What, then, will people (and nations) do if what they lack is not superfluous money, but the food they need to literally survive?

Failure to maintain soil fertility—it’s been the unheralded nemesis of many civilizations.  The difference between today and the past is that today no place on the globe, no reserve of fertile soil is beyond grasp of those who have none.

What do we do about a problem so huge that it undermines civilizations but so slow and cumulative in its effects that fails to draw attention?

What if a measure were on a ballot at the next election about whether we should adopt practices to end erosion and improve land fertility, or whether we should pursue methods of land use that would increase erosion and infertility.  Would you vote?  Would you campaign for one side or the other?  Would you be willing to make a contribution to one side or the other?

We do vote, of course, every day.  Every food purchase we make is a vote about erosion and fertility.   There are certainly purchases we make whose environmental and social impacts are hard to assess.  But food is not one of those. 

Buying food directly from a farmer whose practices you know, this is the best way to “vote” for the sustenance of the soil.  That option is not always available.  The next best vote is to buy Certified Organic sourced as locally as possible.

Every time we eat we vote.  A consumer-driver revolution is the only hope I have for us to see a real change in US food policy. 

How are you going to vote?  

Erick

What’s the big deal about GE (Genetically Engineered) alfalfa? 

If we were talking about GE wheat, or potatoes, or carrots people might be saying, “Hey, that’s what I eat every day.”  But alfalfa?  Who eats that?  Animals? 

It’s true; people don’t normally eat alfalfa (other than in the form of sprouts).  So why has there been a 12-year battle overseen by the USDA about whether GE alfalfa should be deregulated?  Because what is at stake is the purity and viability of organic food production as we know it today.

This may sound far-fetched.  It’s not.  Alfalfa, also known as “lucerne,” is a perennial legumous crop:  it doesn’t need to be replanted every year, and it produces its own fertilizer.  It is the highest-value animal feed in the US and throughout the world.  We hear a lot about “grass-fed beef.”  But don’t be fooled about this:  a very small percentage of US beef is grass-fed, and even less is “grass-finished.”  The same is true of dairy.   For most US cattle production, organic or not, beef or dairy, alfalfa is a dietary mainstay.

Alfalfa is also very important to organic vegetable production.  As a deep-rooted legume, alfalfa is capable of both fixing nitrogen from the air, and drawing minerals from the soil depths to the surface.  For many large, diversified, organic farms alfalfa plays a crucial role in crop rotation, as it can be grown for three or four years on one planting, needs little-to-no care once established, can be grazed by animals or sold as animal feed, and leaves the soil remineralized with a good supply of nitrogen.

Just how important is alfalfa to organic farmers?  Consider the 2008 testimony that Fred Kirschenmann, a well-known organic farmer in North Dakota, presented before the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

“the loss of alfalfa due to GE contamination would result in the loss of our primary source of nitrogen for our crops as well as our principal source of winter feed for our livestock . . . there is no substitute for alfalfa, and its loss would put us out of business.”

There is something insidious about the push for GE (Round-up Ready) alfalfa. 

The growth habit of alfalfa makes it one of the most vigorous of the legumes.  It spreads, fills, and typically chokes out weeds to the point that few people use or feel the need to use herbicides.  In a recent article in the agricultural newspaper of the Pacific Northwest (The Capital Press) an extension agent in Oregon stated plainly that there isn’t a whole lot of interest in growing Round-up Ready alfalfa; some conventional farmers will use it, but it’s not a big deal to them. 

So if there isn’t an enormous demand, why is Round-up Ready, GE alfalfa being pushed so hard?  Why a twelve-year battle over allowing a GE seed source that farmers are not clamoring for and may not use a lot of? 

The case of one farmer who is fighting GE alfalfa is particularly instructive.  Phil Geertson has raised alfalfa for 30 years.  He is not an organic farmer, but like many other non-organic farmers is adamantly opposed to the deregulation of GE alfalfa.  Why?

Geertson raises alfalfa for seed.  He and others like him know that non-GE alfalfa, a perennial crop that is insect pollinated, has a strong probability of being contaminated.  Over time, that initial “strong probability” only increases:  many growers consider contamination inevitable.

The stakes are high with deregulation of GE alfalfa because this decision will have irreparable consequences: once GE alfalfa contaminates existing non-GE seeds sources, like Geertson’s, there will be no going back.  The move to GE alfalfa will alter seed stock irreparably.

The USDA has determined that the chances of GE alfalfa contaminating organic alfalfa to be small.  But the USDA said the same thing about canola when it was deregulated and a GE variety of canola was released.  Yet just two years later, organic farmers in North Dakota found that their canola had been contaminated by the GE variety, and their buyers of organic canola rejected their crops.  Farmers like Fred Kirschenmann (quoted above) had to quit growing canola.  Will the same happen with Alfalfa?

It seems highly probable that all alfalfa in the US, and eventually throughout the world, will be contaminated by the GE variety.  This has been the pattern of other crops deregulated for GE varieties.  The obvious question is, Is this a bad thing? 

There are many people that have a great deal of concern about the impacts of GE technology on the health of humans, other living things, and on the environment.  I want to write about these concerns in the future.

For now, though, I’d like to make a point that will lead some of us to think “conspiracy,” others to think “that’s what business is all about.”

There is a relevant question that raises these two alternative reactions:  “What will happen to the organic food industry if/when alfalfa is contaminated by GE alfalfa on a wide scale?” 

Organic meat and organic dairy constitute a significant percentage of organic production in the US (17% in 2005, probably much larger now) and together constitute the fastest growing segment of organic production. 

Production of organic dairy and meat is highly dependent on alfalfa.  As mentioned earlier, although “grass-fed” beef gets a lot of press, most organic meat production in the US is not grass-fed, and is dependent on alfalfa, as is dairy production.  Equally dependent on alfalfa are large-scale organic vegetable or grain farms that utilize alfalfa as a soil conditioner and nutritional supplement that also pays well.

If/When alfalfa is contaminated by GE varieties, the National Organic Standards Board is going to have to make a very difficult decision.   Either they will have to accept GE alfalfa (and, if alfalfa, other GE products as well) as acceptable for “organic” production, or they will have to disqualify most organic dairy and most organic meat operations from organic production, as well as disqualify the single most important soil-amending crop for many other organic farms. 

Is it too much to say that this decision to deregulate GE alfalfa is one that could break the back of the organic industry? 

The GE alfalfa that will be marketed immediately is Round-up Ready Alfalfa.  Round-up, of course, is a product of Monsanto.  The profits of GE Alfalfa may not be great—as I mentioned there isn’t a lot of demand for the product.  But in achieving the release of this one product, the odds are very high (if not absolutely certain) that in the near future the two fastest-growing segments of the organic industry will be hamstrung, and the largest producers in other segments of organic production will suffer the loss of their best, and in most cases only, economically viable alternative to synthetic fertilizers.

In a word, Monsanto’s Round-up Ready alfalfa will cripple the organic industry.  It will lead inexorably to a decision that will have to be made:  to render GMO products acceptable for Certified Organic products, or to witness the loss of most organic dairies, meat producers, and many of the largest vegetable/grain growers.

Is this a conspiracy, or is it shrewd business?

Either way, this decision is an enormous blow to organic production in the US and in the world.  At this point, Round-up Ready Alfalfa has been approved without restrictions by the USDA. 

I wish I could say all we need to do is to write our representatives and this approval can be changed.  But at this point, it’s a done deal.  The only hope we have now is litigation, which likely will not take place before planting this spring.   

Let’s hope that the well-documented “revolving door” that exists between major corporations (among which is certainly the corporate giant, Monsanto) and the judiciary doesn’t become the deciding factor in this case.

Erick

What happened to Farmer Erick’s blog?

 Is there nothing new to talk about in either the greater world of sustainable agriculture or the much more personal world of actually trying to make agriculture sustainable one solitary farm?

Has the “growing revolution” fizzled out?  No, and “none of the above.” I’ve just been identifying with the earth this winter, and “going under.”

What’s “going under” for the winter?  There’s two ways to look at that.  One is that the earth,  sleeps all winter, waiting for the warmth of spring before awakening to a new year.   The other is that winter is the most important time of all—the time when all the preparatory work prior to the explosion of spring-green is occurring.  I subscribe to the later of these views, and although I’ve had sleepy winters, this wasn’t one of them—I’ve had an “earth winter.”

I doubt that anyone who thinks much about agriculture would deny the reality of what we call “The Law of the Return.”  It states, simply, that if you intend to take crops from the earth, you have to put something back.  The earth is willing enough to give, but it can’t just give and give forever.  The earth has to be replenished.  We do to.  So . . . that’s “where” I’ve been, getting replenished.

One part of getting “replenished” for me is catching up on my reading.  During that part of my life when I concerned myself primarily with the subject of philosophy I always felt overwhelmed by the reading I wanted to do.  Fortunately, there are fewer “classics” in agriculture, and getting to the important ones actually seems doable.  This winter I leisurely worked through several important ones.

I have maintained a list of the works that I consider “essential” reading for people interested in organic/sustainable agriculture.  If anyone is interested, drop me a note (jubileefarm@hotmail.com) and I’d be happy to share the list—maybe even annotated. 

There are some very important things that have happened in the last few months.  One of the most important of these is the recent USDA approval of the release of GE alfalfa.  I have a few thoughts I’d like to share on that subject, and many others.  Next week I’ll get to work.  Stay tuned.