Comments Farmer Janet has made

  • Foodprovider: If I am not mistaken, PVP protected plants (like certified oats and wheat varieties) can be saved by the farmer growing them for reseeding. Only PATENTED seeds (RR corn, etc.) cannot be saved by the farmer. Certified seeds cannot be SOLD without permission or without paying a royalty to the owner of the variety, but they can be reseeded by the person who grew them. Percy Schmeiser was initially accused of "brown-bagging" (buying and seeding patented seed without signing a contract with Monsanto or paying them their royalty or "technology fee"). However, even Monsanto could not substantiate that claim and those charges were dropped. The court ruled he either "knew or should have known" that his field contained Monsanto's genetic material. If you carefully read the account of how he supposedly harvested the surviving plants after spraying them with round up, stored them in a pickup over winter and then reseeded an entire field with a pickup full of seed, you can understand that was pretty silly as a pickup full of canola seed will not seed as many acres as were alleged. Interestingly, the judges also did not award Monsanto any damages. The problem, it seems, is that the law has not quite caught up to the technology of patenting life forms that can spread and duplicate on their own. The Supreme Court of Canada had to make their ruling based on the laws that were on the books at the time and there was no legal precedence to help them other than infringements on patents on such things as can openers and mouse traps. To maintain there has been a decrease in the use of pesticides because of transgenic varieties does not take into account the fact that BT crops are the single largest release of pesticides into the environment ever. The BT gene in those crops is not a naturally occurring gene, it is a recombinant gene that has been altered (made more active) to produce higher levels of toxin in plant cells, that is how Monsanto is able to patent it. A representative of Pioneer seed once admitted to me that the bt toxin does indeed exude into the soil. He assured me that it really wasn't a problem because the bt toxin in the soil really only could be found in a one square foot area around the corn plant. When I asked how many corn plants there were per square food in a field, he wouldn't talk to me any more. No earthworm damage? Are you sure?On Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag posted 1 month ago 44 Responses
  • It is obvious that you are working very hard. You are fortunate to be able to do all of those things yourself. My question would be, are you paying yourself for that work? The dilemma for me always is knowing what my own time is worth. Perhaps that is the difference between your prices and the other grassfed prices you cite. They are hiring some of that work done (web site designers dont–and shouldn't–work for minimum wage) that you are doing yourself. I admire your simple living efforts and practice many of them myself, but not everyone has the resources nor the ability to be as self-sufficient as you. Thanks for sharing your insights.On Warning: This product may cause sickness, paralysis, and death posted 1 month, 1 week ago 51 Responses
  • I would guess that demand for all kinds of things are at a low, not just organics. The statistics I have read is that growth in demand has slowed to a 5 year low, but demand is still growing. No, my reference to being called "elitist" has to do with a current mode of disparagement of alternative food sources by conventional food supporters that grassfed, organic, local are an elitist fad. Certainly, there are segments of the market that are milking the grassfed label for all they can get while meeting the minimum definition. The same is true for organics. I don't know how they are justifying their prices except that is what someone is willing to pay. A sustainable system has to provide not only a fair living for the producer, but a fair price for the buyer as well. If it's not fair for either, the transaction will not be repeated. Capitalism as we currently define it (highest quality/lowest price) ignores relationship and community in the transaction. Sometimes the fact that we trust the person we are doing business with and we have security in their remaining in business to serve us again is also a factor in the sale. I'm wondering how you are able to sell ground beef for $3/lb? IBP, carbon monoxide infused, plastic sealed lean ground beef from who knows where in my grocery store sells for nearly $4. Are you paying yourself for the cost of marketing your product?On Warning: This product may cause sickness, paralysis, and death posted 1 month, 1 week ago 51 Responses
  • Good point. You are right about inaccuracies undercutting critics' arguments, but my point is that there is a connection between corn feeding and use of antibiotics, at least indirectly. While Laskawy is "technically" inaccurate and it is not the corn that is causing the need for antibiotics, the fact is that corn makes it possible to fatten cattle in feedlots (cheap, easy to dump in a feed bunk, produces quick results) where they are crowded together with animals from all over. These practices do require that animals be fed subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics and treated with drugs for acute illnesses more frequently. The Swedes banned feeding subtherapeutic antibiotics in 1986 and found that confined feeding systems similar to what we use in this country no longer worked. The way we feed animals and the need for antibiotics IS connected. Maybe my customers don't read Grist, but I have had them ask us on more than one occasion if we are charging enough. They like knowing we'll be able to feed them again next year I guess. You are absolutely right, sustainability has to include a fair wage for farm workers and a fair profit for farmers as well as humane treatment for the animals we raise. Consumers who buy local organic food and grassfed beef are doing just what you suggest. They are putting their money where their values are. Sadly, they are now being accused of being elitist.On Warning: This product may cause sickness, paralysis, and death posted 1 month, 1 week ago 51 Responses
  • JohnnyAppleseed, You are right, while feeding corn itself may or may not directly cause acute infection and the need for an injection of antibiotics. Animals will adapt to eating all kinds of foods, that doesn't mean it is good for them. Corn, along with hormone implants, subtherapeutic antibiotics in feeds, overcrowded feedlots, slaughtering of downed cows, feeding animal proteins and poultry litter are all part of a system that places cheapness above the well-being of animals. Animals can be fed out faster and cheaper if you use these inputs. These efficiencies come at a cost. If everybody produces beef faster and cheaper the value of your calves goes down so you need produce them even cheaper and faster to stay in business. Somehow we always seem to think that we will be the ones that survive. So did our neighbors who have gone out of business. You are right that the economic model is at fault, but as producers we can also choose not to play the game. My veterinarian is very concerned about antibiotic resistance and is always reminding me that these drugs need to be used carefully. I know far too many cattle people who do not understand how antibiotic resistance happens and regularly misuse these valuable tools. Good intentions are not enough.On Warning: This product may cause sickness, paralysis, and death posted 1 month, 1 week ago 51 Responses
  • Foodprovider, I beg to differ. How and what cows are fed does seem to make a difference. There is a growing body of research that shows a reduction in E. coli in cattle fed hay and grass for at least the last few days before slaughter. More research needs to be done on totally grass fed animals. If cattle are fed in a feed lot rather than on pasture or in a straw covered lot, they have a lot more manure on their hides and it is much more difficult to keep the manure off the carcass when it is skinned. I again would protest blaming the cook. Poop does not usually get on the meat in the kitchen. Contamination happens before the consumer takes it home. We should not have to prepare our food assuming it was dropped on the floor before it was ground up. That being said, I would assume all beef I don't know was dropped on the floor and either not eat it or cook the heck out of it. You are right, however, so far, "grassfed" labeling and standards are voluntary. Unless you know the producer, there really is no guarantee it is what it says it is. Unlike "organic," third party certification of a "grassfed" claim is not required even in this country.On Warning: This product may cause sickness, paralysis, and death posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 51 Responses
  • Yeah. I've been farming organically for 35 years. I've never really thought of myself or my spouse as being part of any elite group. Most of my organic farmer friends are hard working, innovative, committed, and doing it because they think it is the right thing to do. We shovel manure. We dig in the dirt. We drive tractors and sometimes struggle to pay the bills just like most of our customers. Some of us have a degree or two. Does that make us elitist? However, I do know that until the wealthy adopt a particular trend, we ordinary folk will not do so. We, after all, are seeking to become part of the elite. When there are composting toilets on Park Avenue, they will be something we all seek to own. So it's a good thing that alternative ag is an elitist thing. It's already happening. Walmart's primary customers would hardly be called elite.On Pollan shoots down organic myths at Grist event posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 25 Responses
  • Foodprovider, Yes, sometimes my conventional farmer neighbors have higher yields per acre than we do. But assuming that means their current farming practices will always out-yield organic methods seems to me to be a flawed assumption. Their yields are completely dependent on applications of anhydrous ammonia, phosphates, potash, herbicides, pesticides and sometimes fungicides. All of those inputs require petroleum in their production. What will happen to their yields when they either do not have access to those fertilizers and pesticides or they cannot afford to apply them? You can argue that technology will find substitutes, but so far, that is not the case. Mineable potash, for example, is a finite and diminishing resource. Take away their petroleum based inputs and I can guarantee you my yields will be far higher than theirs. A second question is if we, American farmers, are or should be feeding the world. Wouldn't it be better for others to feed themselves? In order for them to do that, they have to have access to agricultural practices which are site specific, scale appropriate and use available and affordable inputs. The majority of the world's food producers cannot afford to buy seed every year, buy fertilizers and chemicals or safe equipment with which to apply it. Increasingly, research is indicating that small scale, organic agriculture can feed the world. It should be possible to do it without sacrificing the environment in the process. Organic agriculture as we now practice it in this country is probably not going to be the long term solution nor is it appropriate everywhere. We use petroleum too. We could do better with nutrient recycling. We do need to find ways to control weeds better, market our crops more efficiently, keep our soils covered. We should should not be growing monocultures. All of us would be well served if more research dollars went to improving organic farming methods. Multinational corporations are not really interested in feeding the world. Their sole purpose, and legal mandate, is to provide their stockholders with a return on their investment. They are interested in SELLING their products to the world. They are not interested in keeping farmers on the land. It is easier for them to sell their products or buy commodities from one farmer than a thousand. Chemical companies count their business in acres, not farmers. Buyers count theirs in bushels, semi-loads, unit trains. They don't really need you or me. They need our acres and a few farm managers. I appreciate your questions and I believe you are sincere in your concern for feeding the world.On Warning: This product may cause sickness, paralysis, and death posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 51 Responses
  • Foodprovider, How do you measure productivity? By quantity only, by quality, or by dollars in and dollars out? Debt load per acre? or by children raised per acre? The other question is do you really believe the yields reported at the local bar? Simply in terms of quantity, our farm sometimes compares with our neighbors'. Sometimes our yields are less. In dry years our yields tend to be higher because of our higher organic matter holds moisture better. We often raise different varieties from our neighbors. The organic market is often looking for different quality specifications. For example, the neighbors who raise oats are growing it for animal feed and ours is usually sold as milling oats. We are more likely to choose a wheat variety for it's milling qualities over it's yield potential. Lots of wheat in the bin that no one wants is less profitable than a smaller quantity that sells at a premium price. So comparing yield often doesn't mean much. Our farm is about a third the size of the average farm in the county and is the same size as it was when my grandfather quit farming it sixty years ago. Imagine what our rural community would look like if the same were true of my neighbors' farms? Perhaps we need different measures of "productivity."On Warning: This product may cause sickness, paralysis, and death posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 51 Responses
  • Foodprovider, I think you are right, it is not at the farm level that most contamination of meat occurs. That is unless you consider as farms the feedlots where animals stand shoulder to shoulder,up to their ankles in poo while they are fed high grain rations. E. coli is present in all animals' intestines, but rarely do they makes us sick because they are destroyed by the acid in our stomachs. Some research has indicated that it is those high grain rations that have acidified the cattle's stomachs and allowed these acid-resistant forms of e.coli to develop. I also think it is unfair to blame the cook. E. coli contamination results from getting poop on the food. That doesn't happen in most kitchens. I don't mean to quibble, but isn't the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service responsible for inspection of meat processing, not the FDA? The inspectors in all meat plants are USDA employees but the processor pays for the inspection. It would be impossible for the number of inspectors at large plants to check every animal before it is unloaded, as it is slaughtered and skinned and eviscerated. That, however, is exactly what happens in the small scale, local processing plant where the animals I raise are turned into beef. My butcher has NEVER had a pound of hamburger recalled. As an organic producer, I object to the image of "romanticized 1950's" agriculture. Organic farmers use science and a growing understanding of the life found in the soil, how plants and weeds grow and how to safely handle food. We are not looking backwards, but neither do we discard good husbandry if it works. The USDA's Agricultural Research Service did a nine year study comparing organic, no-till and conventional agriculture. Their research showed that organic farmers used less fossil fuels than either no-till or conventional ag. You have to consider more, you see, than just the fuel used to run your tractor. Pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers use large amounts of fossil fuels in their production. Much to the ARS scientists' surprise, the fields with the highest soil carbon were not the no-till fields, but the organic ones. Good organic farmers spend almost as much time building soil as they do growing crops. We plant clovers, alfalfa, buckwheat, rye and then we work them back into the soil. Besides "green manure" crops we also apply manure and compost. The difference between how we apply manure and how our conventional neighbors do it is that organic standards are very specific about how, how much and when raw manure can be applied to a food crop. Rules for composting are detailed and stringent. And, yes, many organic farmers do receive USDA payments. We have not, however, received the same per acre subsidies as our neighbors because of the crop rotation requirements of organic farming. We cannot both be certified as organic and "farm the program" for maximum payments. They are basically incompatible. Thanks for a good discussion.On Warning: This product may cause sickness, paralysis, and death posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 51 Responses

  • Well, this is interesting! The local meat processing plant that makes steaks and hamburger out of my sustainably raised, grass-fed beef, now has to PAY the rendering plant people to take the cattle hides because the hides are worth less than the cost of hauling them away.

    On Greenpeace: your boots are made for climate change posted 5 months, 4 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • Mr. Coppock is well aware that the dramatic rise in commodity prices in 2007-08 had absolutely nothing to do with the lack of biotech wheat traits or the farmers' cost of production. The availability of drought-resistant or frost-resistant wheat would not have changed that event which was a result of speculation and a political and economic decision to deplete worldwide grain reserves.

    I am curious. What is the source of data on the "reduced soil erosion and fuel consumption and more efficent production in terms of dollars per bushel"? Anecdotally, I do not see less tillage or soil erosion in canola production because of biotechnology. I only know of one farmer in a whole county who practices no-till and he has farmed that way for much longer than this technology has been available. Biotechnology has not, at least where I farm, increased the number of acres in no-till or reduced-tillage cropping. Is this assertion based on actual on farm practice or on projected, best case assumptions extrapolated from applying the industry field trial data times the number of acres planted? Who is actually monitoring the number of times a field is sprayed or cultivated, the amount of fuel used, tons of soil eroded? Is soil erosion decreased by the technology or by the Soil Conservation Districts' efforts to plant trees, grass waterways, plant cover crops and educate farmers and a period of relatively benign weather events? Is fuel efficiency increased by biotechnology or by guided steering, better tillage equipment and more efficient diesel engines? Just because two events seem to coincide does not necessarily mean a cause and effect relationship. Type 2 diabetes, obesity and asthma in children increased during the same time period. Does that mean consumption of gm foods is the cause?

    Disease resistant wheat has been promised to farmers fighting fusarium head blight for years. So far, the only varieties available to combat that disease have come from conventional breeding programs, not genetically modified varieties.

    If food made with genetically modified crops (or contaminated with gm varieties) is not labelled as containing those products, how do consumers (farmers real customers) have the choice to utilize the technology or not to use it?

     

    On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

  • NAWG has an interesting definition of "commercial grower." I guess my 200 acres of wheat makes me... what, a hobby farmer or a gardener?

    Is there any evidence anywhere in the world that a single consumer has asked his/her baker or grocer for a loaf of bread made from RoundUp Ready wheat or genetically altered wheat of any kind? But then, consumers did not ask for RoundUp Ready canola, soybeans or bt corn either. Most still are unaware they are eating them.

    NAWG and the biotech industry does not want "to dialogue" with their customers. That would imply that the customer had equal input into the conversation.

    On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

  • It seems highly unlikely that any four year old is the only one with the H1N1 virus. Four year olds tend to share with everyone. Is this little boy a world traveler? Where does the Mexican government suggest that this little boy picked up the H1N1 virus?

    It is also interesting how many of the few 500 hog enterprises can be pulled out of obscurity to illustrate the terrible negative impact on hog farmers. I didn't know there were any hog farms of that size left in Iowa. No one seems to be worried about the negative impact of rock bottom pork prices on those same poor farmers. I would place bets that the competition from Smithfield and cheap pork has put more of them out of business than any flu pandemic.

    On 'New Scientist': Swine flu stems from virus that evolved in U.S. posted 6 months, 4 weeks ago 5 Responses

  • Slow Food Fight

    It has been my observation that the poor will not adopt a new product/philosophy/attitude until it becomes popular with the rich.  After all, most people aspire to be rich and have what rich people have.  

    Organic food and farmers market food is not really too expensive for the poor and average income folks as much as it is unavailable.  Isn't the location of the market in question as much of an issue as the price of the products?  Farmers market foods  are usually much lower in price than highly processed, high calorie foods found in convenience stores which is often the only food source available in poor neighborhoods.  Mr. Philpot alludes to the real issue--conventionally produced commodities are sold at a loss at the farm gate and the system would not be sustainable except for subsidies.On Ruminations on food, class, and Carlo Petrini posted 2 years, 5 months ago 17 Responses