Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Organic Farming Opens a Way for Farmers to Return to Their Proper Role as Innovators and Stewards of the Land
"There seems to be three ways for a nation to acquire wealth: the first is by war...this is robbery; the second by commerce, which is generally cheating; the third by agriculture, the only honest way." Benjamin Franklin
The twenty-first century's uncertainty about the future abounds with predicaments like climate change, depletion of our water resources, and the end of cheap energy. And farmers are being called upon to assume a new role as innovators and stewards of the land because they know how to produce food.
"Farmers were the true founders of the United States," said Lisa Hamilton, author of Deeply Rooted: Unconventional Farmers in the Age of Agribusiness, "because they went out into the wild and built the first structures and communities that eventually became our cities and the nation." In 1800, 90 percent of Americans were farmers.
She spoke recently at the 21st Annual Conference of the Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Service (MOSES) held in La Crosse, Wisc.
By 1900 after the frontier closed and the nation moved from an agricultural to an industrial economy, the percentage of farmers dropped to almost 40 percent. That's also when farmers began to shift in their role from "citizens" to "producers."
And they have been rebelling ever since over land and crop prices and agricultural policies, said Hamilton.
"They weren't looking to change the system; they only wanted their fair share of the wealth."
Meanwhile, other inducements moved them off the farm.
They were perceived to be "hayseeds" and helpless victims of droughts, floods and crop failures.
War in Europe exposed many young men to a more expanded view of the world, including the city's lures of wine, women and song as expressed in the World War I hit, "How ‘Ya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm After They've Seen Paree?"
Economic opportunity and excitement in the city led to the gradual
abandonment of farming as a career choice. Even during the Great
Depression, income was three and four times higher off the farm than on
it (http://www.agclassroom.org/
After World War II, the United States began a program of prosperity and productivity for all. Farmers who grew crops and stewarded the land were cajoled into resembling industrial workers from the city who produced piecework in a complex system overseen by major corporations, said Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs.
Livestock are cared for by "employees" of big corporations rather than by farmers who once took responsibility for their businesses as well as the small communities where they lived. These were things that gave meaning to their lives. As a result, small farming towns have fallen into social decay with a disappearing middle class.
Then, the USDA's "cheap food policy" of the 1970s resulted in giving major food corporations almost total control of the food system.
"What have we wrought over these past 70 years?" asked Hassebrook.
"People yearn for greater authenticity and a genuine search for meaning and significance in life," said Hassebrook. "They don't just want to accumulate things. They are searching for community and meaningful relationships with people and with the land. They are yearning for more access to nature."
The Center for Rural Affairs (CRA), located in Lyons, Neb., a town of 980, represents a set of values that reflect the best in rural people, he said: fairness, widespread ownership, personal and social responsibility and stewardship of the land where it is preserved for the next generation.
"When you look beyond selfish interests, the true interests reflect these values and are tied to community and the common good," said Hassebrook.
But there is change in the making. Organic farming and the local food movement are capturing the imaginations of people in small, rural towns. And while it's difficult to tell where the future lies, Hassebrook urged conference participants to recognize that people need to take responsibility for their own destiny and future.
"We can't wait for government or corporate America to save us."
Hassebrook identified five keys that tap farmers' full potential to create a better future.
1. Protect authenticity.
The recent clarification of organic standards on dairy products is a vital start that means something to family farmers who want to treat their animals well and consumers who want to believe that their food is safe.
2. Be entrepreneurial and re-build ownership and a legacy in the family farm rather than subject it to corporate ownership and control.
"There is a great untapped opportunity in grass-fed dairy. Go after that market," he encouraged. "This is a strategy for linking farmers with consumers."
Cooperatives are a great way to do this. Spain has developed a cooperative system where they train entrepreneurs and created a bank to finance start-up businesses.
"Emulate that!" he said.
3. Be mindful of the importance of contributing to the community.
Farms have always had a symbiotic relationship with cities and the organic food movement can rebuild this relationship as people grow more concerned about where their food comes from and who the farmer is that grows it.
In truth, these are quality of life issues, said Hassebrook. Baby Boomers are retiring and choosing places where they want to live instead of where their jobs take them. Likewise, people in their 30s are attracted to rural America as a good place to raise their children.
"If they could make a living in small farms and businesses, they would come to our rural towns," he said.
4. Protect access to good germ plasma.
Organic farmers can collaborate with conventional farmers on the issues of genetic drift and improving seed varieties. Allowing big corporations like Monsanto to have almost total control of seeds is antithetical to good stewardship.
"It pains me greatly that Monsanto received exclusive license through the University of Nebraska," said Hessebrook who has urged policymakers to prohibit this practice, especially when public funds go to private companies outside our own states.
5. Reverse the government's bias toward big corporations at the expense of small and medium-sized family farms.
This practice drives these farms out of business and also drives up land prices. Conservation of these lands is also an important and essential aspect of stewardship.
These issues are about money, which is one source of power in Washington. The other power source is people, said Hassebrook.
"When people give up, money fills the void. When people hold the politicians accountable, they trump the power of money," he said. "When we send people to Washington to represent us, we need to remind them who sent them there."
"We can create a new wave of change in America," said Hassebrook. "Organic farming is a big part of this change, but it won't be automatic. We have to work for it."
"Let our inspiration be the pioneers who first settled America. Those who succeeded were courageous. They made sacrifices to achieve their dreams. They were builders and entrepreneurs. They cared about their communities, which were comprised of a diversity of people with different languages and customs. They were farmers, carpenters, teachers, politicians and planners. They were visionaries who worked hard to achieve progress. They remained optimistic and were open to new ideas. Our challenge is to go forth and do good."
- Posted in
43 Comments so far
Show AllGreat article!
Let's do it!
We have been growing our garden now since 2004. It's pretty big, but our acre and half isn't really not big enough to be called a farm. I'd love to buy some more land but the land next to us is wooded and the other side is now a trailer park. ( It's nice with brand new doublewides). We have a bit of a piece in the back we could buy, but it's actually swamp. My husband wants to get to make a pond. Anyway, if I could get another acre somewhere very close,walking distance, I'd go for it. Forget driving 38 mi to work everyday.
The best way to develop a strong local food movement is for small farmers to band together and hire top-notch lobbyists. The movement must be large enough in potential voters to attract the sincere interest of politicians. The organic food aspect must be subsidiary to the local food movement. Organic, by itself, will only generate half of the potential people-base, as compared to all small farmers. Alternatively, groups can choose to remain local in their politics. They will have limited clout, but for many this will be more satisfying than all the compromising necessary for a national, big-tent group.
That last paragraph is horrifying.
""Let our inspiration be the pioneers who first settled America...."
Maybe this college professor needs to bone up the genocide that took place.
"Fist settled America?!!" Damn I hate this crap. Please stop lying to yourself and regurgitating the lie of America's "founding." There were actual real live people here Mr. Bonfiglio and that settling you speak about was colonial speak for massacre and colonial conquest.
Now onwards towards the failures of the "organic movement."
It should be mentioned that most of the “organic” farming in this country is being done on a very small scale and is geared to marketing to an upscale niche clientèle. After 30 years this has not made the tiniest dent in the food needs of the population and is disproportionately available only to the more privileged. Due to the success of the activist political groups, the demand for things labeled “organic” continues to grow and it is not possible to meet this demand ethically or responsibly. However, profits are enormous. To go after those profits, corporations are doing a number of things. Attempts to re-define organic as well as out and out cheating are widespread by corporations. Corporations are also setting up huge factory farms in desert environments where they can grow “naturally” for a few years and make quick windfall profits. This is highly destructive to the desert ecology, and soon attracts pests to that environment, and uses up the water and degrades the soil, at which time the organic factory farm is simply abandoned and new ones are set up. But the most successful business activity has been to expropriate land in third world countries from the indigenous farmers and set up factory farms for growing produce. These countries have no reliable or honest systems of inspection or certification, and anything can be labeled organic and shipped to the US where upscale consumers will pay a premium price for produce that is much cheaper to grow. All of this is highly destructive environmentally, wasteful of energy, unsustainable, and exploitative of farm workers and indigenous agricultural communities since the magic “organic” aura allows them to operate outside of regulatory pressure and the traditional network of agricultural agencies and experts. All of the worst and most destructive corporate agricultural practices are nurtured and promoted by the organic craze.
The contradictions inherent in "organic" agriculture are in keeping with my own observations as a practitioner of "organic" subsistence agriculture and the observations of people I know who are organic farmers catering to the self-deluding bourgeois market. Example: "non-organic" green beans locally sell for about $1.50 per pound, while "organic" beans go as high as $4 and are typically available only in the "food co-ops," organizations founded nearly 40 years ago by hippies seeking to economize and later perverted -- as hippies became yuppies -- into gourmet-food buying services.
Nice comment. It's actually worse than you imagine.
The whole "organic" movement is a pseudo-scientific scam from the get-go. Some idealistic people got together and drew up "standards" that have no basis in reality. Instead of emphasizing smallness, local-ness, recycling, and soil-building, the organics movement simply defined a new food purity cult.
Organics views pesticides from a purely superstitious point of view. They ignore dose.
Organics takes the false position that food grown their way is "safer, better-tasting, and more nutritious" than food grown any other way. This was decided before there were any studies to confirm it. Current studies are decidedly mixed. There is little to no evidence that organic produce is any different than conventional produce.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4166#
Organics has shot itself in the foot. We need to retire the term "organic." Support small, local agriculture. Plant gardens.
We decided in our tribe to just go for it. We got rid of our old ways and started a small organic farm. We trade w/our neighbors for most of our needs. We get less and less dependent on money each day. lt can be done. Huge numbers of us need to get back on the farms. We need to relearn the skills that it takes to be good stewards to our land. Young people show up in my life weekly from the "first world". Most are eager to learn how to deal with life on a more hands on level. To understand the waste we create each day and what it takes to deal with it all. Trying to change our cultures mindset and get simple again is a challenge we must take on.
We can not keep living the inorganic unsustainable life we have been conditioned to accept.
Thank you for this article.
Joshuapeaceseeker...
Can we communicate directly?
All thinking beings seek freedom.
------------------
A "friend of Ishmael"
The dirty Fu<#ing hippies... were right - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4
Freedom - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3vhcptoh_Y
Break Out Of The Box - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD9WMQEMe2Q
Joshuapeaceseeker@gmail.com
Congratulations.
We decided in our tribe to just go for it. We got rid of our old ways and started a small organic farm. We trade w/our neighbors for most of our needs. We get less and less dependent on money each day. lt can be done. Huge numbers of us need to get back on the farms. We need to relearn the skills that it takes to be good stewards to our land. Young people show up in my life weekly from the "first world". Most are eager to learn how to deal with life on a more hands on level. To understand the waste we create each day and what it takes to deal with it all. Trying to change our cultures mindset and get simple again is a challenge we must take on.
We can not keep living the inorganic unsustainable life we have been conditioned to accept.
Thank you for this article.
Neighborly cooperation on gardening and looking out for each others' gardens to get the produce going certainly helps a lot. It takes a good amount of self-confidence and team confidence but once successful, you will be proud of yourself and others who teamed up with you to get those gardens in gear.
I'm glad you are coming across more young people eager to learn. Right now, that's a minority since most of the young are put through an environment which encourages too much waste and ignorance. This will have to be reversed significantly in the long run.
Sorry, but you're fooling yourself--"organic" farming is just as unsustainable as conventional farming. All farming is unsustainable. Farmers grow people, and that is the problem.
All farming requires takeover of land and drawdown of non-renewable resources. Organic emphasizes the takeover; conventional emphasizes the drawdown.
Catton's book "Overshoot" is essential reading for everyone. Farming is called "The Tragic Story of Human Success."
Organic farmers just destroy the earth with good taste.
It seems most if not all of the federal farming subsidies go to the big agricultural corporations - lovers of GMOs and the use of pesticides. Most of the funding for research in universities for agricultural innovation is directed towards their corporate interests since they are the donors. Many of the federal positions that influence the agricultural industry are appointed by the President and his human resources staff, with some requiring congressional approval. In other words, they are not elected officials. Usually they get in through the revolving door between private industry and appointed government positions. Many of these appointments are politically calculated paybacks by the politicians in power to the very corporate interests which help finance their political campaigns. There is also a sinister dynamic here at work. Elected officials appoint unelected officials to policy-making cabinet posts who then help steer government policy towards the economic self-interest of their previous (and in all likelihood future) employers. Policy gets enacted and the politicians can then claim they are getting things done. The result has been a deleterious influence in farming practice. More and more man-made chemicals in our foods are surely a main culprit for the continued increase in cancers and other degenerative conditions afflicting a growing number of Americans. The mineral content in the nation's topsoil has been severely depleted from the continued use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers which puts profits over wholesome goodness. As a result the majority of conventionally grown produce are seriously lacking in nutritional quality. Also, Americans over-reliance on meat as their main protein source in their diets continues to exert enormous pressure on the land's ecological well-being. Feeding livestock for slaughter requires a disproportionate ratio of animals to land acreage usage along with increased toxic waste. Moreover, the federal government's often misguided agricultural policy repeatedly flaunts owing responsibility for the errors of its ways with the assistance of a federal subsidy policy that along with NAFTA and the WTO allows U.S. farmers to dump their products on other countries. Many local and in all likelihood organic farmers in these countries have been forced to shut down their farms and emigrate away from their countries because they cannot compete with the cheaper, subsidized American product. It is of course, not organically produced. Unless the citizens in this country organize themselves into a coherent and cogent grass-roots, communities-based movement to exert steady and continued pressure on their local and federal governments, big business will continue to dictate the terms in the dominant farming practices. All the while American's long-term health, their symbiotic relationship to the land, the nutritional quality of the nation's food supply, and the well-being of the earth itself will continue to suffer.
Most of what you say makes good sense, but I take issue with your statement "man-made chemicals in our foods are surely a main culprit for the continued increase in cancers..." We breathe, bathe, and ingest millions of combinations of chemicals. Trying to decide which chemicals and which of the myriad combinations of chemicals cause us problems is more than difficult. We have recently learned that too much folic acid (a B vitamin) is deleterious. Things get complicated. A common sense approach of trying to avoid too much crap going into your mouth, lungs, or on your skin is a good idea. I would suggest that some good vegetables with 2 parts per billion of pesticide is less dangerous than many other possibilities.
Good observations.
The "organics" movement is a farrago of superstitions about "chemicals."
How many consumers have died or even been harmed by pesticide residues on produce? Look it up. The answer is ZERO.
The commenter's suggestion that "surely" cancers are increasing because of "man-made chemicals" is the kind of ignorant nonsense that drove me out of the organics movement.
Cancer rates are DECREASING.
Pesticide residues are so small that they are harmless.
Plenty of "natural" chemicals are carcinogenic. It all depends on DOSE.
Every "organic" convert should read up on the work of Bruce Ames, the man who invented the "Ames test" for determining mutagenicity of "chemicals." He was shocked to find that "natural" chemicals are just as mutagenic as man-made ones.
It all depends on the dose.
the obama administration together with private foundations should launch a comprehensive effort aimed at giving new life to rural america through an expansion of organic and non-industrial agriculture. this expansion would be promoted by increasing the profitability of organic and non-industrial agriculture through measures aimed at boosting the sociodynamic leverage of organic and non-industrial farmers in the agricultural-supplies and food-marketing arenas as well as in national politics so that they can free themselves more and more from the middlemen now pocketing most of the profits generated by organic and non-industrial agriculture (and making organic and non-industrial agricultural products unnecessarily expensive).
since organic and non-industrial agriculture are labor- and knowledge-intensive, an increase in its profitability would boost the number of educated farmers and reduce the current concentration of agricultural profits in the hands of few individuals who often use their means to corrupt the legislative process and democracy both in farm states and at the federal level. this would trigger a generalized economic, cultural, demographic, and democratic revival of rural america, and contribute to its political realignment towards modernity.
additionally, making organic and non-industrial agriculture more profitable and its farmers both politically more powerful and economically less blackmailable by middlemen, would revolutionize food production and marketing, make very large quantities of safe affordable food available to many more people, and improve the environment.
since progressives favor organic and non-industrial agriculture as well as wealth redistribution, and since free-market economists consider middlemen "non-efficient", i.e., superfluous and undesirable, this proposal integrates progressive and "free-market" themes that widen its appeal and make it harder to oppose (similar to what has already happened in the minimum-wage debate: employers who pay such wages are now being regularly accused, even by right-wing people, of pocketing subsidized profits since much of their employees' maintenance is financed by other taxpayers).
as alluded to above, the bulk of the increases in profitability would come from measures that would allow organic and non-industrial farmers to keep more --if not most-- of the retail price commanded by their products, i.e., that lion's share now pocketed by middlemen; as well as from measures that would enhance these farmers' group-purchasing leverage so they can dodge the markups imposed on them so far by the middlemen who sell them supplies, advertising, etc.
therefore direct prize or production subsidies would be avoided at least on the long term, removing another easy target for demagogic "free-market" opposition to the proposal. (and opening the way to challenging and abolishing existing agricultural subsidies that go to fat-cat farmers who over-produce just to pocket the subsidies).
one would, e.g., fund the development, pilot-trial, and nationwide implementation of internet infrastructures that will allow farmers to overcome the sociological fragmentation entailed by their working in farms located far apart, which makes them sociodynamically vulnerable to blackmailing by organized middlemen when it comes to negotiating the sale price of their products, organizing group-purchases of technical assistance and production resources, as well as negotiating nation-wide contracts with shipping companies; a fragmentation that moreover makes them unable to optimize their output according to present and future market demands, to develop and manage a network of retail outlets, to offer and deliver predictably to grocers, and to participate with a united voice in the nation's political life.
another main goal would be to establish a full-blown farmers-, government-, or foundation-administered distribution system that would reach every grocer and possibly even retail customers directly. the control of such a system is what allows middlemen to dictate prices to producers, indentured grocers, and consumers, and to commandeer most of the profits.
a third main goal would be to fund the development of agroindustrial facilities (and the conversion of existing ones) to jump start the mass production of fertilizers and pest-control agents that are environmentally friendly and effectively "organic" and "non-industrial" in the toxicity sense, in order to replace chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides, and thereby make organic and non-industrial agriculture possible in larger scale, more competitive, and less dependent on local ecosystem vagaries.
this infrastructure and the whole package of reforms could be presented to the public as an equivalent of previous federally funded efforts like the development of the national highway system and of the reforms that curbed the railroads' blackmailing of the nation's producers at the turn of the century. this would justify federal involvement especially because the infrastructure and the reforms would play a crucial role in guaranteeing the well-being of rural america and the quality of the whole nation's food supply.
additionally one would also develop internet resources to help consumers find and order organic and non-industrial food with ease so that grocers cannot take as much advantage of un-informed consumers. this way the program would play a highly visible role in consumers' daily life and gather additional public support.
also, a concerted federal effort would be made to enhance academic research and education in organic and non-industrial agriculture as well as vocational and college-level farmer training, continuous-education programs for organic and non-industrial farmers, and education on healthy eating and sustainable agriculture for the general population.
finally, this project should exploit synergies with current research and projects on managing huge extensions of land as semi-wild ecosystems to accumulate and harvest fuel biomass from them (Science 314(5805): 1598-1600; 2006), since in such ecosystems one could also husband populations of natural biocontrol agents that would protect adjacent organic and non-industrial fields from pest insects and weeds, or from them one could harvest biocontrol agents and ship them elsewhere.
the reform proposals outlined in the posting immediately below aim at giving new life to rural america through reforms geared at empowering organic and non-industrial farmers in the market place so they can earn larger profits, expand drastically their market share, and give decent employment to a much larger number of rural people of increasing technical skill in organic and non-industrial farming.
this package of reforms should resonate strongly in the heartland and among people concerned about safe food and the dangers of industrial agriculture, all while being neither luddite nor against market mechanisms in any way.
mcyote-
I thought of the same thing when the article mentioned the pioneers. We should not push the movement by framing it this way. You are right in making the authors use of this an issue.
the most thoughtful posts i have seen on the net.
Published 1982 on the subject
The Survival of Civiization, Three problems Threatening
Our Existence;
Carbon Dioxide
Investment Money
Population
Soil, Tectonic, Climate&Economic Systems explained--
Problems and Solutions
Selected Papers by John D. Hamaker
It was also one of the first books if not the first published
to alarm of the C02 crisis that has been censored for decades.
Lots of "word vomit" here about a simple thing.
1. Buy non-hybrid, heirloom seed.
2. Grow your own veggies.
3. Locate a local, real farmer/rancher and buy uncontaminated dairy and meat locally.
4. DO NOT SUPPORT THE CORPORATE MACHINE - STOP "SHOPPING"
------------------
A "friend of Ishmael"
The dirty Fu<#ing hippies... were right - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4
Freedom - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3vhcptoh_Y
Break Out Of The Box - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD9WMQEMe2Q
I simply don't get the idea that heirloom seeds is the only way. Instead of insects randomly "hybridizing" our plants, we humans are smart enough to control the hybridizing process to get consistent results and obtain new plants that are often better in many different ways, sometimes including FLAVOR. For my garden I choose flavor first and disease resistance as a close second. I would NEVER consider limiting my choice to only old-time seeds.
Right. This is why I won't adhere to organic dogma. It's anti-science.
ALL seed varieties have been selected over the centuries. The idea that we should abjure hybrids is just superstition.
You can support the local, small, grow your own movement without subscribing to "organics" nonsense.
Farmers are not "stewards" of the land, they are exploiters of the land and simplifiers of native ecosytems.
Are stewards not exploiters, always?
What do we mean by "steward," used in a positive sense, if not an enlightened exploiter conscious of having no God-given, absolute, essential, or particularly legitimate ownership of the exploited resources - an exploiter conscious of having to preserve in some sense the exploited resources?
I suspect that you do not actually counsel a return to hunting and gathering and that the massive death and exhaustion of resources that would result are too obvious to labor.
I probably do not get your sense in some way.
What, then, if not agriculture in some form?
Are we to imagine that all manner of agriculture, by virtue of exploiting the land, is ecologically, economically, or socially equal or even very similar?
That sounds like throwing out all the babies of the world with a single pail of bathwater.
Brad__Let`s not lump all farmers under one description. There are many farmers that intend to leave their land in better shape than they got it, and take good care of all of their animals. As in all other occupations, there are some who do not feel the need to act responsibly. It might be a good idea to realize farmers are contributing to the total needs of the country just as many others with different life choices are.
Your ideal is really not realistic.
All farming depends on what ecologists call takeover: wild land is converted to agricultural land, and, sure, the farmer can maintain nice farmland, but it cannot simultaneously be wild land. The nutrients are then taken off the land in the form of food, eaten, and deposited in septic systems.
The replacement nutrients must come from somewhere else--other land, or mineral amendments.
All farming is unsustainable. Farmers grow people, and more people is the problem.
my teacher, masonobu fukuoka, showed that by human understanding of nature's activity, by imitating the african dung beetle, it is possible to grow rice without transplanting, that the natural strength of non-transplanted rice does not require pesticides, that using a leguminous cover crop (usually clover) eliminates both weeding and soil preparation , that using its own power to grow in unprepared soil strenghthens the rice plant and increases its resistance to pests and diseases,, and that returning the rice straw to the field, as well as the green manure working of the leguminous cover crop eliminates the need for fertilizer...and that this produces a surplus both in terms of quantity harvested and in the free time available for the farmer, ..and that this method works in the case of both other grains and of vegetables... free time, of course, equals culture... and works to end class division, and division of labor..
the model was a small farm, according to climate, of up to an acre, supporting 4-6 persons, with some animals and fowl.
i believe there are some very large rice farms in ca. which have been successfully using his principles..
this also requires fertile soil to work well, and i remember how hard he worked burying wood , planting (leguminous) acacia trees and growing leguminous green manure on the less fertile parts of his land...(the morishima acacia reaches maturity in three years)
the key was coating the grain/vegetable and cover- crop seeds with clay, and cast seeding them,--no planting in straight rows-- the clay melted in the rain, and, voila.. (i forget if it was an acre or a hectare)
One teacher's experience growing rice does not translate into a universal endorsement of all "organic" techniques.
no, but it has several important points,... it shows that pesticides fertilizer and ploughing can be all but eliminated at no loss in productivity, and with a very important gain in free time for the farmer..it allows freedom from green revolution dependence on chemicals and machinery.
...his principles, based on close observation of nature, are not applicable to just rice, but to all grains and also to vegetables..they have to do with revealing and harnessing the regenerative power of nature
that said, when needed fukuoka-sensei used both chemicals and machinery, but only when absolutely necessary.
.. his principles do not imply a universal endorsement of organic techniques, but they reveal important principles that relate to the current problems of humans on the earth...nature is sustainable.. farming can be made so also by understanding her... i want to make clear, though, that i support your forget organics post..you have clearly found a way that works for you, given the givens..it is one thing to enunciate principles, it is another to be able to put them into successful practice..it took fukuoka-sensei many years, and learning from many failures...to arrive at his success
"nature is sustainable.. farming can be made so also by understanding her..."
No, nature is full of death and extinction.
Farming, by definition, is unsustainable. It REQUIRES takeover of natural lands and drawdown of natural resources.
Farming that only serves to grow populations in not just unsustainable but a death trap.
pre western attack and exploitation india and china were rich agriculture based civilizations..
Christ on a Crust"
"No, nature is full of death and extinction"...
and "renewal"
Where will you find the land to grow all this organic produce? Most of the arable land in this country is contaminated and, as an earlier poster says (and is supported by USDA reports), mineral depleted.
-30-
This is a portion of an article covering faux organics from Counterpunch at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04022010.html
“Michele Obama campaigns against obesity. She doesn’t campaign against Chicken McNuggets, as sold by the McDonalds Corporation and devoured by kids across America. Here’s a slice of America the Real, from Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma:”
“Of the thirty-eight ingredients it takes to make a McNugget, I counted thirteen that can be derived from corn starting with the corn-fed chicken itself …McNuggets also contain several completely synthetic ingredients, quasi-edible substances that ultimately come not from a corn or soybean field but from a petroleum refinery or chemical plant … But perhaps the most alarming ingredient in a Chicken McNugget is tertiary butylhydroquinone, or TBHQ, an antioxidant derived from petroleum that is either sprayed directly on the nugget or the inside of the box it comes in to ‘help preserve freshness.’ According to A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives, TBHQ is a form of butane (i.e., lighter fluid) the FDA allows processors to use sparingly in our food: it can comprise no more than 0.02 percent of the oil in a nugget. Which is probably just as well, considering that ingesting a single gram of TBHQ can cause ‘nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse.’ Ingesting five grams of TBHQ can kill."
and a ditty for McDonalds to hum to their theme: (da da da daa da)
McDonalds Ditty empirePie
Golden arches blues;
fast food junk for you,
addictive toxins too.
Super size the you;
sugar junkies brew;
salt to pickle you.
They do it all to you;
surfs for surfeit too;
turn blue.... is for you.
Nice article that shows a way forward.
I too see organic as often an upscale niche. For good eating to be truly mainstream I think we need lots of people growing a little, supporting those who do and finding creative ways to grow food locally (a good living here for young folks too, and a good life!).
It's less important that it be completely organic than that it be unprocessed and fresh and part of the future of a healthy soil; processed food is like a bad stock - a losing proposition.
RadicalRelocalization.com
"They'll never see us coming!"
I'm excited that there is a wave of young aspiring farmers who hold Joel Salatin as their hero. They want to take that depleted soil and rebuild it. They are learning a labor-intensive set of arts. They will be integrated with communities and they are our future food security. As consumers we need to get back to basic cooking so we can make the most of these locally produced foods.
Lynn Shwadchuck
http://www.10in10diet.com/
Diet for a small footprint and a small grocery bill
Olga's statement about farmer's "going into the wild" and creating farms masks the legacy of forest, prarie and wetland destruction that accompanied the spread of agriculture in the United States throughout its history. This conversion to agriculture elminated the majority of native plant habitats across the country- our woodlands that have regrown are mainly only 50 or so years in age, and in the midwest, remnants of prairies are mainly found only as small fragments in places like cemeteries.
Robbery and cheating were involved in that natural habitats were completely obliterated.
Today, we have to balance restoring our native plant communities of forest, meadow and wetland species with small-scale sustainable agriculture. This can include growing native plant species for food.
Forget "organics."
Small, local farmers need your support, whether they subscribe to "organic" superstitions or not.
I have 5,000 square feet of gardens that are fertilized purely with composted cow manure. I have an extensive mulching system.
"Organic?" No. I apply pesticides judiciously and as needed.
"Organic" is just a word used to jack up food prices.
The article says:
"Let our inspiration be the pioneers who first settled America." This shows how laughably idealistic the organics people are. We've learned a hell of a lot more since "pioneers" caused the Dustbowl and ruined the Midwest.
How dare you tell these people the truth. We want to keep thinking all was right 100 years ago, we don't want to know that it's possible to have a population of such a large size, avoiding famine only because of modern farming techniques .
Next thing you be telling us there was war before the founding of america
How dare you tell these people the truth. We want to keep thinking all was right 100 years ago, we don't want to know that it's possible to have a population of such a large size, avoiding famine only because of modern farming techniques .
Next thing you be telling us there was war before the founding of america
the obama administration together with private foundations should launch a comprehensive effort aimed at giving new life to rural america through an expansion of organic and non-industrial agriculture. this expansion would be promoted by increasing the profitability of organic and non-industrial agriculture through measures aimed at boosting the sociodynamic leverage of organic and non-industrial farmers in the agricultural-supplies and food-marketing arenas as well as in national politics so that they can free themselves more and more from the middlemen now pocketing most of the profits generated by organic and non-industrial agriculture (and making organic and non-industrial agricultural products unnecessarily expensive).
since organic and non-industrial agriculture are labor- and knowledge-intensive, an increase in its profitability would boost the number of educated farmers and reduce the current concentration of agricultural profits in the hands of few individuals who often use their means to corrupt the legislative process and democracy both in farm states and at the federal level. this would trigger a generalized economic, cultural, demographic, and democratic revival of rural america, and contribute to its political realignment towards modernity.
additionally, making organic and non-industrial agriculture more profitable and its farmers both politically more powerful and economically less blackmailable by middlemen, would revolutionize food production and marketing, make very large quantities of safe affordable food available to many more people, and improve the environment.
since progressives favor organic and non-industrial agriculture as well as wealth redistribution, and since free-market economists consider middlemen "non-efficient", i.e., superfluous and undesirable, this proposal integrates progressive and "free-market" themes that widen its appeal and make it harder to oppose (similar to what has already happened in the minimum-wage debate: employers who pay such wages are now being regularly accused, even by right-wing people, of pocketing subsidized profits since much of their employees' maintenance is financed by other taxpayers).
as alluded to above, the bulk of the increases in profitability would come from measures that would allow organic and non-industrial farmers to keep more --if not most-- of the retail price commanded by their products, i.e., that lion's share now pocketed by middlemen; as well as from measures that would enhance these farmers' group-purchasing leverage so they can dodge the markups imposed on them so far by the middlemen who sell them supplies, advertising, etc.
therefore direct prize or production subsidies would be avoided at least on the long term, removing another easy target for demagogic "free-market" opposition to the proposal. (and opening the way to challenging and abolishing existing agricultural subsidies that go to fat-cat farmers who over-produce just to pocket the subsidies).
one would, e.g., fund the development, pilot-trial, and nationwide implementation of internet infrastructures that will allow farmers to overcome the sociological fragmentation entailed by their working in farms located far apart, which makes them sociodynamically vulnerable to blackmailing by organized middlemen when it comes to negotiating the sale price of their products, organizing group-purchases of technical assistance and production resources, as well as negotiating nation-wide contracts with shipping companies; a fragmentation that moreover makes them unable to optimize their output according to present and future market demands, to develop and manage a network of retail outlets, to offer and deliver predictably to grocers, and to participate with a united voice in the nation's political life.
another main goal would be to establish a full-blown farmers-, government-, or foundation-administered distribution system that would reach every grocer and possibly even retail customers directly. the control of such a system is what allows middlemen to dictate prices to producers, indentured grocers, and consumers, and to commandeer most of the profits.
a third main goal would be to fund the development of agroindustrial facilities (and the conversion of existing ones) to jump start the mass production of fertilizers and pest-control agents that are environmentally friendly and effectively "organic" and "non-industrial" in the toxicity sense, in order to replace chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides, and thereby make organic and non-industrial agriculture possible in larger scale, more competitive, and less dependent on local ecosystem vagaries.
this infrastructure and the whole package of reforms could be presented to the public as an equivalent of previous federally funded efforts like the development of the national highway system and of the reforms that curbed the railroads' blackmailing of the nation's producers at the turn of the century. this would justify federal involvement especially because the infrastructure and the reforms would play a crucial role in guaranteeing the well-being of rural america and the quality of the whole nation's food supply.
additionally one would also develop internet resources to help consumers find and order organic and non-industrial food with ease so that grocers cannot take as much advantage of un-informed consumers. this way the program would play a highly visible role in consumers' daily life and gather additional public support.
also, a concerted federal effort would be made to enhance academic research and education in organic and non-industrial agriculture as well as vocational and college-level farmer training, continuous-education programs for organic and non-industrial farmers, and education on healthy eating and sustainable agriculture for the general population.
finally, this project should exploit synergies with current research and projects on managing huge extensions of land as semi-wild ecosystems to accumulate and harvest fuel biomass from them (Science 314(5805): 1598-1600; 2006), since in such ecosystems one could also husband populations of natural biocontrol agents that would protect adjacent organic and non-industrial fields from pest insects and weeds, or from them one could harvest biocontrol agents and ship them elsewhere.
the reform proposals outlined in the posting immediately below aim at giving new life to rural america through reforms geared at empowering organic and non-industrial farmers in the market place so they can earn larger profits, expand drastically their market share, and give decent employment to a much larger number of rural people of increasing technical skill in organic and non-industrial farming.
this package of reforms should resonate strongly in the heartland and among people concerned about safe food and the dangers of industrial agriculture, all while being neither luddite nor against market mechanisms in any way.
While we are de-industrializing farming, let`s also do that for all of the rest of the citizens. Throw out your TV, computer, microwave, telephone, auto, stop using electricity, gasoline, etc. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so they say. Everyone will be happier going back in time a century.
"Everyone will be happier going back in time a century."
Like in that Twilight Zone episode where the stressed businessman goes back to the simple life in Willoughby. Rod Serling was way ahead of his time in promoting the idea that the stresses of modern society inflict pain and suffering on individuals caught up in its rat race. "Next stop: Willoughby!"