Come join us for work and fun on Sunday April 18
We will be installing some new raised beds, building a pig shelter, mulching, and planting. Come and learn about our production methods, enjoy a day outdoors, help us kick off the season, and maybe meet some new friends. Food and evening revelry (with fire!) will be provided. Please let us know if you are coming, so we can plan for enough food.

Rain date 4/24.

Bring your own gloves & hat, a shovel, eye and ear protectors if you have them, and a water bottle.

We hope to see you then!

Kent & Donna

Kent Scything

The three attributes that are prohibited in organic feed, but that are standard practice for non-organic, are 1) use of petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers on the grain, 2) genetically engineered grain and 3) antibiotics in the feed. The first two are not unrelated, as you probably know. The reason for the engineering in genetically-engineered crops is to introduce traits that either replicate pesticides (Bt corn, for example) or that make the plant tolerate herbicides (Roundup Ready crops). So the use of GM crops, among other problems, leads to more insecticide and herbicide in the environment. Although it won’t be on the label, grain that is not organic has a high probability of being GM. According to USDA stats (from 2007, so the figure could be higher now), 73% of corn, 91% of soy, 75% of canola, and virtually all sugarbeets grown in the US are from genetically modified seed.

Insecticides and herbicides sprayed on grain that is subsequently eaten by animals builds up as residues in their meat, especially in the fatty tissues. And it also builds up in the human who later consumes that meat. Pesticide exposure in humans is linked to lymphoma, asthma, alzheimers, infertility, neurological disorders, and fatal birth defects. Many pesticides are known endocrine disruptors, which is fancy science talk for messing up your hormones – which regulate things like brain function, insulin, reproduction, metabolism, building muscle mass, etc. This looks to me like a list of the top health problems in the US. Funny that their connection with pesticides is not widely discussed in the media.

Although avoiding direct consumption of pesticide-riddled food is desirable on its own, there’s also the larger picture to consider. As this wikipedia article reminds us, pesticides don’t just go on the target plant, they go all over the place, disbursing through the air and flowing along in ground and surface water, negatively impacting wildlife and people who live downstream or downwind, leading to a long chain of ecological impact. Farm workers exposed to synthetic chemicals have a much larger incidence of cancer, chronic diarrhea, and other diseases than the general population. Their life expectancy of 49 years(!) (compared to 75 for an average American) is largely due to pesticide exposure. Their children have a much higher risk of developing fatal birth defects. Rural communities near cropland where pesticides are applied also see increased incidence of these diseases (see this PANNA article).

The harmful effects of pesticides on wildlife (birds, plants, aquatic animals) are too numerous to list. One of the founding principles we base our practices on, is to raise food without negatively impacting wildlife. Wikipedia reports that “The USDA and USFWS estimate that about 20% of the endangered and threatened species in the US are jeopardized by use of pesticides”. Wow. Count me out. Pesticides seem to be particularly harmful to natural pest reducers, such as frogs, lacewings, lady bugs, etc. So the application of pesticides reduces the natural system’s ability to control pests, thus deepening the farmer’s dependence on the pesticide. What a beautiful system for the pesticide salesman. Natural pollinators, such as honeybees, are also harmed by pesticides.

On top of all of these issues, the age of energy descent is upon us. Synthetic pesticides and herbicides, being derived from petroleum, deepen the dependence of agriculture on petroleum-based inputs. We would rather reduce our reliance on petroleum, and reward those grain growers who are doing the same. (Realizing, of course, that there are many other petroleum dependencies built into our supply and distribution chain).

Turning to the issue of GM crops, when growers switch to Roundup-ready crops, which are engineered to withstand being sprayed with herbicide, they typically use more herbicide for weed control than they would without the GM trait. This leads to an arms race with the weeds. The weeds develop more tolerance, more herbicide must be applied, and the cycle repeats. It is estimated that US farmers apply 15 times more herbicide on GM cropland than on non GM. The herbicide-resistance is leading to the development of so-called super-weeds, which are now basically unstoppable. Read more about this on source watch . Besides their encouraging more herbicide use, GM crops are a prime suspect in the incredible increase in food allergies in recent years. They have also been shown to cause liver and kidney damage in lab animals. There are many other reasons to be wary of GM crops (genetic contamination to other open pollinating crops, for one), and we would rather our dollars go to grain farmers who choose not to raise them.

Then there is the issue of antibiotics. Organic animal feed does not contain antibiotics, but conventionally raised animals are given low daily doses of antibiotics in their feed. Not only to counteract the prevalence of disease that goes hand-in-hand with high-density factory farms, but also as a growth stimulant (meat animals put on weight faster when given the antibiotics). This practice contributes to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. We may face a future where infectious diseases are not controllable, largely because of our profligate use of antibiotics for livestock. CBS news even did a piece on this problem. A recent report finds that antibiotic-resitant traits are building up in soil microorganisms. MRSA is a growing cause for concern, especially its increasing presence in medical facilities.

I could probably come up with more reasons, but those are my top 6. Taken all together, the decision to buy organic food for our animals seems clear. There is a growing recognition that animal feed crops are a large source of ecological damage – both in terms of pollution and climate change – (see the FAO report Livestock’s Long Shadow), but organic feed does lessen some of that impact. When you buy meat, dairy, and eggs, I hope you will keep these points in mind and buy organic.

Further reading:
http://www.gmo-watch.com/
http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=6812&terms=organic
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/pesticides/#fn9
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

I have cooked these turkeys using the same method I use to roast a chicken: Slather the skin with butter and then sprinkle on some seasoning (herbs de provence or shallot pepper), sprinkle a bunch of salt and pepper in the cavity, throw in some shallots or a halved onion, and bake on 375. Baste several times during the cooking. Turn the oven up to 425 for the last 20 minutes, to crisp the skin. The turkeys were amazing, moist, and flavorful. My mother cannot stop raving about how great the turkey was that we ate when they visited in September

Lately I’ve been reading up on advice for cooking heritage breed turkeys, to prepare for questions that might be asked by my customers, since they are slightly different than the commercial birds most folks are used to. Even though my simple roasting technique worked great, I guess they can be a little tricky if you are used to cooking commercial turkeys. First and foremost, heritage birds have more flavor and more fat, so they do not need to be enhanced by grilling or brining. Because of their additional fat layer, they are sometimes called ‘self-basting’, but I did baste mine just to be safe. Second, there is less white meat to dark meat ratio, so they cook slightly faster. I guess if you’re used to the standard cooking time required for commercial birds, it can be easy to dry out a heritage turkey by over-cooking it. Third, since they cook quicker, your stuffing will probably not get fully cooked. So you have to either pre-cook it, or just stick to dressing.

I found contradictory advice on the internet about cooking heritage turkeys. Is it better brined or not? Cook on a high or low temperature? Cover it or don’t? You can find someone recommending each of these options. My impression is that maybe they are just making too big a deal about the differences. I think that as long as you keep it simple, and pay attention not to over-cooking it, you will have a wonderful-tasting bird. Or, perhaps the right approach is to think of your heritage turkey as a really big chicken, and cook it like you would roast a chicken. Here are the links I found with advice on cooking heritage turkeys:

http://www.tigersandstrawberries.com/2005/11/28/thanksgiving-report-cooking-a-heritage-turkey/

http://www.nonfamous.com/blog/archives/000013.html

http://www.localharvest.org/features/cooking-turkeys.jsp

http://www.williamrubel.com/heritageturkeys/roasting-heritage-turkeys

http://www.slowfoodboulder.org/recipes.htm#turkey_cooking_tips

http://www.lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2084

To make biochar:

1. burn large 5-6 logs, 3-4′ in length in center of stove as usual.
2. cut 2-4″ thick slices off logs in the woodpile and make about 12 slices. The logs can be any diameter, just cut them thinly to 2″ or so.
3. pile those thinner slices on both sides of the main fire, so those slices are against the stove sides of the boiler, in piles all down the side of the boiler
4. open up 4-8 hours later. The main fire baked the thin slices into char due to (I am guessing here) increased surface area of the slices beyond the regular logs. If you see wood grain in the char, bake longer. If the slices have crumbled into tinier black pieces, its char and time to remove. If you probe a slice and it crumbles, its ready too.
5. since the char is on the sides, its easy to shovel out
6. shovel, dump outside and douse with water
7. all crushable char is good, or so I’ve been told. 99% of all my char was good so far. Treat char with compost tea or equiv for a week or two. Not sure what is optimum tea time.

one burn cycle of this makes about 3 gallon bucket and I bet experimentation with the amount of log slices, production could be easily expanded to 5 gallon volumes of char every 4-8 hours. When crushed, it goes a long way in the beds. I couldn’t wait the two weeks tea time which was risky, but mixed char in with my transplants after a few days of tea. I haven’t charred every square foot of my beds yet, but char is local near every plant root, at least. I am watering with compost tea from time to time too to make sure the soil-embedded char keeps getting inoculated. I have nothing to compare the char beds to as I have no control beds but everything looks healthy and green.

One person at the biochar conference told me the oxygenated char, which is my char, is actually better than the kind of char you smother and choke away from oxygen (the word escapes me here…I think it’s “Pyrolysis”).

I’m sure you know if char isn’t aged or put with tea for a short time, it will set back a garden for several weeks so I am trying to be careful and patient with the production.
Let me know if this technique works for any of you, please.

Feel free to post a comment below if you want to start a discussion. I have no evidence that biochar’s actually going to do me any good. I am taking a leap of faith with science, I’ve seen A/B comparisons of garden beds with and without char, and I’m just going ahead and putting it in all my beds. If biochar indeed is what scientists claim it to be I am excited because I’m constantly building soil for my organic beds. To be able to store what would be leaching away from my beds is very exciting. I know I’m getting old when something like that is exciting.

When we were there last week my friend pulled this strainer out of a pile and handed it to me, saying, ‘Do you have a sink strainer? I love mine.’. That was enough recommendation for me, so I bought it. I hadn’t even noticed it on the shelf, since it was so inconspicuous. I find that shopping at used-anything stores where everything is in a jumble takes a particular kind of eyes. You have to put an effort into seeing past the garrish, brighly colored tacky things to see the really good stuff hiding quietly in the back. Behind the ‘oh my god it’s a lamp in the shape of a parrot’ there are sometimes graceful, elegant things that don’t catch your eye. Those are the things that will look good in your home, though. Well, that is, if you’re not aiming to redecorate your place to look like Margheritaville.

I packed my strainer home and wondered if it was actually going to turn out to be useful or if it would be yet-another piece of kitchen clutter that would barely get used. I didn’t have to wait long to find out the answer, though, because I arrived home to find berry season in full swing. The strainer was the perfect thing for picking and rinsing with one container, and it holds alot of berries! It is my new favorite piece of kitchen gear. Added bonus: DH loves it to.