Friends of Rural New York

PRESS RELEASE (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome):

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., June 16, 2005-Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today announced the first Farm Bill Forum and the topics on which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be seeking input from America’s farmers, ranchers and rural residents regarding the development of the 2007 Farm Bill.

“The next farm bill will affect America’s entire agricultural community,” said Johanns. “That’s why I want to ask America’s farmers and ranchers how our farm policy is working and how we can make it better. I believe very strongly that they deserve a voice in this process.”

The first Farm Bill Forum will be held in Nashville, Tenn. on July 7 from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. CDT at RFD-TV Northstar Studios. The public is invited to attend and participate in the forum, which will be broadcast live on RFD-TV. In addition to accommodating approximately 300 in the audience, the forum also will accept calls from across the nation.

Johanns made the announcement in remarks to the State Convention of the Illinois FFA in Springfield, Ill. The 2002 Farm Bill, which authorizes many of the programs operated by USDA, expires with the 2007 crop year.

Johanns noted that in his remarks that he was approaching the Farm Bill Forums with an open mind. “I do not begin this process with preconceived notions about the direction future farm policy should take,” said Johanns.

“We will use the feedback we receive to help us determine the best course for a new Farm Bill.”

Throughout 2005, Johanns and other senior USDA officials will participate in the Farm Bill Forums that will be held across the country. The dates, locations and times of the forums will be announced as they are scheduled and be available on the USDA website at http://www.usda.gov. The public will be invited to attend the forums and to present oral comments.

As the current Farm Bill covers a diverse array of program areas, SIX TOPICS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED TO PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK FOR THE FORUMS. The primary topics addressed at the forums will reflect various concerns affecting rural America such as commodity, conservation, and rural economic development issues. In addition, some forums will be dedicated to other important programs authorized by the farm bill such as food assistance, research and education programs.

USDA will be seeking public discussion on farm policy considerations regarding: the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in global and domestic markets; challenges facing new farmers and ranchers as they enter agriculture; appropriateness and effectiveness of the distribution of farm program benefits; achievement of conservation and environmental goals; and enhancement of rural economic growth and opportunities to expand agricultural products, markets and research.

The public will be invited to provide comments on six specific questions based on these policy considerations:

1. How should farm policy be designed to maximize U.S. competitiveness and our country’s ability to effectively compete in global markets?

2. How should farm policy address any unintended consequences and ensure that such consequences do not discourage new farmers and the next generation of farmers from entering production agriculture?

3. How should farm policy be designed to effectively and fairly distribute assistance to producers?

4. How can farm policy best achieve conservation and environmental goals?

5. How can Federal rural and farm programs provide effective assistance in rural areas?

6. How should agricultural product development, marketing and research-related issues be addressed in the next farm bill?

Notice of these questions will be published in the June 17, 2005 Federal Register. Comments will be accepted at public forums and may also be submitted electronically via the Internet at the USDA home page (http://www.usda.gov) by selecting “Farm Bill Forums,” by email to or by mail to Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, Farm Bill, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3355.

USDA WILL REVIEW THE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BY DECEMBER 30, 2005, INCLUDING ANY ANALYSES, REPORTS, STUDIES AND OTHER MATERIAL SUBMITTED WITH THE COMMENTS, THAT ADDRESS THE SIX QUESTIONS. 

Bye, Bye Cayuga Lake!!

June 13, 2005
MADISON, Wis. - Farmers’ routine application of chemical fertilizers and manure to the land poses a far greater environmental problem to freshwater lakes than previously thought, potentially polluting the water for hundreds of years, according to research published Monday.

Phosphorus in those substances has built up in the soil and will slowly end up in many lakes, where the nutrients lead to plant and algae growth in the water. The environmental problem, known as eutrophication, can turn pristine lakes into smelly, weed-filled swamps with lots of dead fish.

In a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a University of Wisconsin-Madison expert blames the buildup largely on industrial agriculture’s excessive use of fertilizer and manure since the 1940s.

The concentration could cause the eutrophication of lakes for centuries as the treated soil slowly washes into lakes and streams, writes Stephen Carpenter, a professor of zoology and a leading expert on freshwater lakes. The problem leads to fish kills and the growth of toxic algae that can make lakes unsuitable for swimming.

“A very small percentage of the phosphorus moves into the lake each year and that small amount is sufficient to cause a great deal of water pollution,” Carpenter said.

Paul Zimmerman, executive director of governmental relations for the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, said he hadn’t seen the report, but he defended farmers, saying they’ve improved soil conservation over the last two decades to make sure more dirt remains in place. Dams have made lakes more stagnant, exacerbating pollution, he said.

“You can’t blame all eutrophication on agriculture,” Zimmerman said. “Each year we’re getting better and better. The eutrophication of lakes didn’t happen overnight and it’s not going to be solved overnight either.”

Carpenter and other experts previously believed reducing phosphorus that ends up in lakes would be enough to protect their water quality, but the new research said phosphorus must be removed from the soil altogether to have an impact.

The study concludes that major changes in soil management are needed to reverse the trend. It may add urgency to government efforts to stop phosphorus from fouling up lakes and streams.

A Wisconsin task force earlier this month was formed to investigate ways to limit manure runoff contamination, which usually starts when farmers apply manure to their frozen fields. Farmers say they do so because they have no place to store the manure.

In the largest such incident this year, nearly a half-million gallons of liquid manure washed off a farm field in February into two streams that flow into Lake Mendota, dumping up to a ton of phosphorus into the lake.

Carpenter studied Lake Mendota, an urban lake in the Madison area that is a popular recreation and fishing spot, as a model for all freshwater lakes in rich farming areas. He said the lake’s water quality has declined in recent decades, which will continue if left unchecked.

Carpenter said machines called manure digesters should be used to convert it into a sludge that can be put in landfills or transferred to phosphorus-deficient areas. He also said buffer strips should be developed to protect waterways from runoff and new technologies found to remove phosphorus from soil.

“If we don’t do something,” Carpenter said, “the water quality will get considerably worse, the lake will smell bad, there will be algae blooms all summer long, and more and more of those blooms will be the toxic kind.”

Zimmerman said few farmers can afford manure digesters, which can run about $1 million apiece. Most in Wisconsin are found only on farms with 1,000 or more cows.

“It’s way too expensive,” Zimmerman said.
Associated Press

Somebody actually got fined! Will wonders ever cease?

Friends, you just have to read the supplementary manure spreading guidelines published by our water guardians in New York State. It sounds as if they are REALLY CONCERNED about reducing “water contamination risk during adverse weather conditions.” The DEC actually fined ONE CAFO last year!!!!!!!!!! (We think the DEC ignored quite a few other violations but we have to give them credit for fining ONE CAFO - We wonder if the person who did it got laid off???)

Here is the suggestion: Be careful when it’s looks like rain. The regs are “rarely enforced in agriculture” but just to be safe, be careful where you dump the manure!

We suggest that during “adverse weather conditions”, you truck in on over to Peter Wright’s back yard.
For the laugh of the day see:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:B2ymfyjbAr8J:nmsp.css.cornell.edu
/publications/winterspreadingguidelines.pdf+Angus+Eaton+peter+wright&hl=en

To think the taxpayers paid for these important guidelines!

For a clear explanation of the guidelines see:
http://www.prebleny.com/?p=1928

Well- who wants milk that is laced with antibiotics, synthetic hormones and pesticides?

The consumer demand for organic dairy products in the U.S. now exceeds the supply by at least 15%. As an example, Organic Valley Coop, the second largest organic dairy company in the U.S., experienced a 36% growth in sales in 2004, but says it would be growing even faster if it wasn’t for supply limitations. There simply are not enough organic dairy farmers. While the USDA gives out $25 billion a year in taxpayers money for crop subsidies to large farms engaged in chemical intensive agriculture and genetic engineering, family farmers wishing to make the transition to organic get nothing. Bruce Ellis, CEO of Wisconsin Organics, says the shortage of organic milk has severely limited his company’s growth. If more conventional dairy farmers converted to organic, Ellis says his company could “certainly grow several hundred times.” http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/cheese052705.cfm

A coalition of environmental and consumer groups filed a lawsuit on May 26, 2005 against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its exemption to large animal farmers. The EPA deal allows large farms to continue polluting without the threat of prosecution for as long as they allow the EPA to collect emissions data on-site. According to the groups’ statement, “Livestock production is the single largest contributor of ammonia gas release in the United States… and giant animal factories also emit hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds (smog precursors), and fine dust particles-all of which are linked to respiratory illness-in dangerous quantities.”

The growing popularity of the markets is attributed to a number of factors: less tolerance for bland meat and produce some consumers associate with big factory farms; more demand for just-picked freshness and nutrition of locally grown food; increased awareness about supporting local economies; and health and environmental concerns about the use of antibiotics and pesticides.

By JOANN LOVIGLIO
Associated Press Writer

June 4, 2005, 8:52 PM EDT

PHILADELPHIA—Gina Humphreys has been in the espresso business for 15 years, managing coffee bars from coast to coast, but lately she’s been getting more excited about carrot juice and salad greens than cappuccino and coffee beans.

Specializing in veggie juices, she is one of about a dozen sellers who set up shop every Saturday at a West Philadelphia farmers market, a cornucopia of eggs, baked goods, grass-fed beef and pork, goat milk and cheese, flowers, local honey and maple syrup, fruits and vegetables.

“I think the (farmers) markets are going to be bigger than espresso someday,” said Humphreys, who grows organic vegetables on a slice of her father’s 70-acre farm in Pennsville, N.J. “I love this so much, I can’t even tell you.”

In big cities and small towns, farmers markets are finding fertile ground: The U.S. Agriculture Department says their number has doubled nationally in the past decade, to more than 3,700.

The growing popularity of the markets is attributed to a number of factors: less tolerance for bland meat and produce some consumers associate with big factory farms; more demand for just-picked freshness and nutrition of locally grown food; increased awareness about supporting local economies; and health and environmental concerns about the use of antibiotics and pesticides.

Lois Fahnestock of Fahnestock Fruit Farm in Lititz, in Pennsylvania Dutch country, said business has increased just about every year since the farm began selling here 12 years ago. She was down to tomatoes and basil early one recent Saturday after selling out of spinach, peppers, eggs and flowers.

“People have gotten much more knowledgeable about nutrition and the benefits (of local food) and they’re more concerned about pesticides,” she said.

A 2003 study by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University found that if price and appearance were identical, consumers given a choice were more likely to purchase locally grown foods over those produced far away. Even though prices tend to be higher for local produce, consumers will pay more for a product they believe is healthier and tastier.

“Buying local is less wasteful, it reconnects us with our neighbors, and the food tastes batter and is more wholesome,” said Duane Perry, founder of The Food Trust, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit that helps bring more farmers markets into the city, and advocates for healthier school lunches.

In Pennsylvania, the state has unveiled initiatives including “PA Grows,” which helps farmers get funding they need to start or expand their operations.

The trend reflects what is essentially an effort to “bring back the milkman,” said Guillermo Payet, who in 1998 founded California-based Local Harvest, an online directory of farmers markets and other local food options that gets about 9,000 visits daily.

Since Perry founded The Food Trust in 1992, it has evolved from a single stand to 20 open-air markets in the Philadelphia region, drawing about 65 farmers from within a 2{-hour radius. Most of their farms range in size from 10 acres to 100 acres.

Once they are established in markets, farmers often will adapt to the demand.

“You can have farmers who start raising goats for goat cheese, or who start growing microgreens and other more avant-garde products,” Perry said. “There’s huge market potential to grow more than cantaloupes, corn and tomatoes, which were the bread and butter (of the markets) in the beginning.”

Farmers more recently have branched out to grass-fed beef and lamb, and free-range chicken and eggs, because of consumer awareness of mad cow disease and how animals are treated _ and the taste of the products.

“I dream all winter long about the peaches I get here in the summer,” said Mike Simpson, a regular at the twice-weekly market in West Philadelphia. “I’m out here for the potatoes and the greens come December, but summertime is heaven.”

Customers like Simpson have proven very loyal.

“They’re here in the blinding snow, torrential rain,” said Susan Richards of Spiral Path Farm in Loysville, about 130 miles west of Philadelphia, as her strawberries, organic sauces and fruit spreads were snapped up.

Though the government has not tracked farmers market sales nationally, the “buy local” movement has clearly helped many small farms regain their financial footing, Perry said.

“It’s not as though farmers are making a fortune on this, by any means,” he said. “But some farmers are finding there’s a growing market out there for them to tap into.”

Payet identified several trends to watch, including growing demand for raw milk and heritage breeds of turkey, pork, beef and lamb.

Many supermarkets have also been picking up on the trend, highlighting locally grown produce _ often with displays that conjure up farmers markets.

In Virginia, Richmond-based chain Ukrop’s has been buying organic produce for five years from a growing list of farmers. In Chicago, 12 grocers earlier this year agreed to sell locally grown produce in their stores as part of a “Family Farmed” promotion highlighting regional farmers.

“One thing we are fabulous at as an industry is getting products from Point A to Point B ... whether the farm is 30 miles or 2,000 miles away,” said Michael Sansolo of the Food Marketing Institute, a Washington-based industry group.

___P>

On the Net:

The Food Trust: http://www.thefoodtrust.org

Local Harvest: http://www.localharvest.org

National Farmers Market Directory: http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets

Pa. Agriculture Department: http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us

Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press

May 16, 2005
New York State Assembly Public Hearing Testimony
By Billie Best, Executive Director of the Regional Farm and Food Project

“NEW YORK STATE FOOD AND NUTRITION POLICY�

Thank you for holding this public hearing and for inviting us to speak before you today. My name is Billie Best. I am the Executive Director of the Regional Farm & Food Project. The Regional Farm & Food Project is a member-supported, farmer-focused, non-profit organization founded in 1996 to promote sustainable agriculture and local food systems. Our core constituency of approximately 3400 individuals and organizations includes 1200 member contributors and more than 700 farms.

The Regional Farm & Food Project brings the relationship between sustainable agriculture and a healthy planet to the table of public opinion, raising awareness of the connection between the food system, the environment, culture and community. We produce an annual curriculum of farmer-to-farmer education programs to promote self-reliance, innovation and entrepreneurship, and we educate the public about how their food choices shape their world. The Farm & Food Show is our monthly radio program on WRPI-Troy. The Troy Waterfront Farmers’ Market and the New York State Farmstead & Artisanal Cheesemakers Guild were founded by and are sponsored by the Regional Farm & Food Project.

TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES OF SMALL FARM PROFITABILITY, THE REGULATORY BARRIERS TO A HEALTHIER AGRICULTURE ECONOMY, AND DEVELOPING A POLICY OF REGIONALISM AS A FRAMEWORK FOR OUR FOOD SYSTEM.

At the Regional Farm & Food Project, when we talk about sustainable agriculture, we mean the process of staying in sustained balance with nature; replacing and refreshing the natural resources —air, water and soil—consumed in the process of producing food. Unlike conventional industrial agriculture, sustainable agriculture does not externalize the cost of sales by dumping pollution into the environment or treating animals inhumanely. A food policy designed to improve human health would encourage innovations in sustainable agriculture and end subsidies to polluting industrial agriculture.

Our definition of “small farm� is one with annual revenues under $500,000. We believe small farms practicing sustainable agriculture are essential to a diverse, competitive food system where the goals are food security, self-reliance, self-sufficiency and good health. There are two main obstacles to small farm profitability: consumer price perceptions that food should be cheap, and oversized regulatory barriers to small-scale methods and markets.

A FOOD POLICY DESIGNED TO IMPROVE HUMAN HEALTH WOULD EDUCATE CONSUMERS TO UNDERSTAND THE HIDDEN COST OF CHEAP FOOD, AND REALIZE THEY ARE BEING SUCKERED INTO THINKING THEIR FOOD IS CHEAP WHILE TAXES, POLLUTION, ENERGY AND HEALTHCARE COSTS RISE.

We need to teach consumers to look holistically at the price of food. Public policy needs to emphasize the social, environmental and economic benefits of paying a fair price for locally grown products. Consumers need to learn the impact of their food choices on their total quality of life. We need a consumer awareness campaign that teaches the connection between cheap imports and the triple malaise of lost jobs, environmental pollution and social injustice around the world.

A food policy designed to foster rural entrepreneurship and build rural economies would devise a system of food safety regulations that encourage diversity and competition in food processing markets without compromising public safety. Whether it is livestock, dairy or tomatoes, small batch food processing is essential to a vital agriculture and distinctive local cuisine. Yet today, our food processing regulations mandate equipment, facilities and processes which are cost-prohibitive to many small batch producers.

OUR FOOD PROCESSING REGULATIONS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SMALL FARMS IN FAVOR OF LARGE FACTORIES, AS THOUGH LARGE BATCH PRODUCTION WERE INHERENTLY SAFER THAN SMALL BATCH PRODUCTION, WHICH WE KNOW IT IS NOT.

Federal livestock processing regulations in particular favor factory-scale production processes and prohibit or hinder farm-scale production processes—as though factories are cleaner and safer than farms, which they may or may not be. Market access should not depend upon how or where food is processed, only that it is safely processed. Preventing food from crossing state lines because it has not been federally inspected has more to do with bureaucracy than food safety.

Dairy processing regulations discourage the production and sale of raw milk, although humans have been drinking raw milk for thousands of years, raw milk is an increasingly popular health drink, and raw milk sales represent a lucrative market opportunity for some farmers. For the record, factories are not cleaner, safer or more efficient than farms. Factories do not produce higher quality food than farms. And the environment is better served when the by-products of food processing are composted or recycled on the farm rather than trucked to another facility.

Another particularly frustrating livestock processing policy allows uninspected on-farm custom meat processing if the customer first purchases the animal alive, but it is against the law for the farmer to sell the same meat processed under the same circumstances to another customer after the animal is dead. This kind of arbitrary regulation costs rural communities jobs. It restrains trade and discourages farming. Clearly, food safety does not depend upon when the animal was purchased. It depends upon the conditions under which it is processed. In many cases, on farm processing is preferable to factory processing.

It is far more humane to kill an animal in its own pasture than to truck it to a foreign place, and have it handled and killed by strangers. Adrenalin ruins meat. Farmers can make their life’s work raising quality animals only to have the product ruined by poor handling and undue stress in the last few seconds of the animal’s life. Small farmers should have the choice to kill and harvest their animals at home. On-farm processing limits should be set for beef, pork, lamb and goat as they have been for poultry. On-farm livestock processing can be equally as safe or safer than factory processing. It can be more humane, more cost-efficient, less polluting to the environment, and result in a higher quality product. USDA and New York State food policy should be encouraging on-farm processing, training and certifying farmers in on-farm food processing safety, certifying food safety inspectors who specialize in on-farm processes, and cultivating innovation in small batch food proces!
sing.

The food safety inspection process constrains the growth of rural economies by arbitrarily limiting production of local food products. Food processing inspection needs to accommodate a wider range of production facilities and processes. Food safety inspectors need to be more mobile and more accessible. Becoming a certified food safety inspector needs to be opened up to include non-government agencies and part-time service providers similar to the National Organic Program’s organic certifiers. And we should eliminate the redundancy in the system that requires small-scale producers already receiving state inspection services to also require federal inspection. As long as states meet minimum regulatory requirements, there should be a policy of reciprocity between state and federal inspection.

IN THIS TIME OF RISING ENERGY COSTS, FINANCIAL MARKET VOLATILITY AND LABOR MARKET UNCERTAINTY, THE MOST COST-EFFICIENT MARKETS FOR NEW YORK STATE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BUSINESSES ARE THE MARKETS CLOSEST TO HOME.

NEW YORK STATE WOULD BENEFIT GREATLY FROM COLLABORATING WITH OUR NEIGHBORING STATES TO DEVELOP A NORTHEAST REGIONAL FOOD POLICY that focuses on broad import replacement and reducing regulatory barriers to interstate commerce. A frictionless regional market is essential to our regional food security and our regional economic growth.

Today, most of our food items travel an average of 1,500 “food miles� to our dinner table. We produce only about a third of the food we consume, and most of our farms sell their goods into an industrial food system where they are commoditized, packaged, branded and sold in a form unrecognizable as a local product. Most of our food dollar goes to manufacturing, distribution and retail shelf-space, not to the farmer, not to the farmer’s local economy. The price we pay for those layers of business between our farms and our dinner table is reduced economic vitality, loss of cultural identity, an increase in diet-related diseases, and of course, the fuel costs, traffic and pollution that come with global transportation systems.

We need a better return on the investment of our food dollars and our tax dollars. Our region contributes billions of dollars each year to USDA agriculture subsidy programs that do little to support the small and medium-sized farms that anchor the Northeast regional food system. A New York State food policy designed to generate economic growth and reduce taxes would teach consumers to oppose federal agriculture subsidies for commodity crops which amount to a $350 billion giveaway to rich industrial farm operations mainly outside the Northeast. The Northeast region legislative delegation could bring home a much larger piece of the next Farm Bill if we simply demanded our fair share of USDA funding and programs.

The Northeast is the most compact region in the country. We are just a day’s drive access to the densest string of population centers on the continent. REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY USED TO BE OUR CALLING CARD. BUT TODAY WE DEPEND UPON CALIFORNIA, CHINA AND SOUTH AMERICA TO FEED US. NEW YORK STATE AGRICULTURE COULD DOMINATE THE MARKET FOR FOOD IN THE NORTHEAST. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey can’t possibly feed themselves. They are buying plane loads of food and flying them right over New York farms while television commercials tell them that California is the new dairy state.

REDUCING REGULATORY BARRIERS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD SPUR REGIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, PARTICULARLY IN RURAL COMMUNITIES. THIS COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY FORMING A PACT WITH OTHER NORTHEAST STATES to standardize food transportation and safety regulations, especially those that impact small producers crossing state lines for farm-direct sales, such as farmers’ markets. Environmental management programs offer a precedent for this type of regional collaboration in that they enjoin government and non-government organizations to inventory regional resources, establish regional thresholds, standardize regulations, and manage regional assets.

The Northeast is geographically isolated and culturally distinct. A policy of regional collaboration would inspire the pride of place we know to be a powerful cultural influence over consumer food choices. A regional food policy would give food producers more confidence to invest in producing products for regional markets. Regional dairy policy would enable dairy farms to regain their independence from monopolistic processors and global pricing. Regional livestock policies would give livestock farmers incentives to grow their herds and diversify their product mix. Growing regional markets for cheese, wine, prepared foods and fiber products would make cottage industries more viable.

MOST IMPORTANTLY A REGIONAL FARM, FOOD AND NUTRITION POLICY WOULD PROVIDE A MORE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO DEVELOPING THE FOOD SYSTEM, RECOGNIZING THAT FARMS DON’T JUST PRODUCE FOOD, THEY PROVIDE JOBS, ECONOMIC GROWTH, OPEN SPACE, ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, SCENIC VIEWS AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER—AND THEY ARE A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF SUSTAINABLE HUMAN HEALTH. 

Wild Oats: In the United States, the country’s third largest natural foods retailer Wild Oats announced that it will require all of its egg suppliers to move to cage-free systems. Wild Oats, which operates more than 100 stores in the US and Canada, sold 1.6 million cartons of whole eggs in 2004. In his statement, the Wild Oats President commented that “demand for improving the welfare of farm animals has never been higher” and that he hopes the company’s new policy will move the egg industry “toward cage-free methods that take the animals’ welfare into account.” Wild Oats’ policy against “battery” cages was developed after discussions with The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), including managers of the group’s “No Battery Eggs” campaign. HSUS has previously convinced several universities and food service providers to use exclusively eggs from hens raised without cages.

“You can pay me or you can pay your doctor.”

June 1, 2005
Give ‘em a Chance, Steers Will Eat Grass

By KIM SEVERSON
Ghent, N.Y.

FROM his roomy shed three hours north of New York City, a chocolate-brown calf can see acres of Hawthorne Valley Farm’s prime grassland.

As soon as he’s big enough, maybe in a couple of months, the calf will be free to roam the fields. For two years, feeding on as much summer grass and winter hay as he wants, the calf will grow into a 900-pound steer.

During that time, his manure will help the people who run Hawthorne Valley Farm fertilize a dozen acres of vegetables. His grazing habits will keep the pastures vibrant. And when the time comes, the steer will become dinner for a month’s worth of shoppers at the Greenmarket at Union Square in New York City.

The premium price they will pay - $5.99 a pound for ground beef and as much as $19.99 for tenderloin - will be plowed back into the farm’s budget.

It’s a food chain, Manhattan style.

Although vegetables and fruit grown near the city have been the stars of the Greenmarkets for almost 30 years, pork, beef and lamb from local pastures are fast becoming the new darlings of the stands. New Yorkers, who are among the nation’s early adopters of culinary trends, are learning that there is more to meat than uniform grain-fed slabs laid out on plastic trays.

Citybound cooks have discovered that the fat, porky glory of a braised Gloucestershire Old Spot shank or the deep-orange yolk of an egg gathered from a chicken in the spring can tie them to the land and the season as deftly as spring peas or a good New Jersey tomato.

“One of the crimes of industrial agriculture is that we’ve moved all of the animals off the land,” said Steffen Schneider, the manager of Hawthorne Valley. “There’s something about green grass and cattle that goes together.”

The number of beef cattle raised on pasture is less than 1 percent of the 33 million animals slaughtered in the United States each year, said Jo Robinson, an author who runs eatwild.com, devoted to the grass-fed movement. But it’s a fast-growing slice of the beef pie: four years ago, she said, only about 50 farmers were dedicated to raising grass-fed beef for market, and now there are over 1,000.

Since 2000 the number of Greenmarket farmers selling pasture-raised protein - eggs, beef, lamb and pork - has grown from 9 to 25. All the animals are raised no more than a half-day’s driving distance from New York, and by Greenmarket rules the farms must be small and independently owned.

The farms are sustainable, which means essentially that none of the animals eat on feedlots and that they spend time outside, where their waste helps fields and pastures stay healthy. They are given no growth hormones, and antibiotics only when they are sick.

Over 80 percent of the farmers who sell at Greenmarkets, both meat and vegetable vendors alike, say they would be out of business if they didn’t use the Greenmarket model. Smaller family farms just can’t compete with larger industrial operations that sell to supermarkets.

Local pasture-raised animals are so appealing that some people who once shunned factory-raised meat are adding beef and pork back to their diets. Alyssa Bonilla, a 45-year-old Hawthorne Valley Farm customer from Sunnyside, Queens, is one. She buys stew meat and liver for her family from the farm’s stand in Union Square.

“These are decent people, and they aren’t abusing their animals or their land, and I want to express my gratitude to them,” she said. “I’m happier when I eat it.”

Gabrielle Langholtz, the marketing director for New York’s Greenmarket program, was a vegetarian until recently. She visited Flying Pigs Farm in Shushan, N.Y., she said, and realized that sustainable agriculture is about more than just keeping chemicals off the carrots.

Ms. Langholtz spent a couple of hours in the fields with the pigs and the chickens. She saw that the pastures were cleaner because the chickens picked grubs and bugs and the pigs rooted around in the brush, helping turn unusable land into pasture.

She ended her stint as a vegetarian that day with pork and chicken barbecued by Peter Hoffman, the chef at Savoy in SoHo.

Beyond the politics that pits big agriculture against small farmers, health is driving the sustainable meat market. Although the body of science comparing grain-fed beef with grass-fed is small, some studies show that pasture-raised meat can be lower in total fat and higher in omega 3’s, conjugated linoleic acid and other helpful fatty acids.

At Hawthorne Valley, Mr. Schneider started selling steaks a year and a half ago after customers and farm families expressed concern about mad cow disease, the use of growth hormones and other consequences of large-scale meat production.

Although for years the farm had been selling ground beef from Brown Swiss dairy cows past their production prime, Hawthorne Valley began breeding Black Angus bulls with its dairy stock to produce animals better suited to giving steaks than milk.

The meat has a markedly different fat composition from that of conventional corn-raised beef. It has a cleaner mouth feel and the tang of minerals. Comparing the bold taste of corn-fed meat and the subtle flavors of pasture-raised beef is a little like comparing the big, plush flavor of a California cabernet with the lean, delicate notes of a French Burgundy.

And flavor is what pasture-raised meat is all about for many cooks.

“I buy the sausage because I like the taste of it,” said Joan Hurley, 70, as she finished up a purchase at DiPaola’s turkey stand in Union Square. DiPaola is the most prolific of the Greenmarket meat sellers, with stands at more markets than any other.

Ms. Hurley, who lives near the market, often pan-fries a few patties of the mild turkey sausage for dinner or roasts some chicken from Knoll Krest Farm in Clinton Corners, N.Y., which is also known for its fine eggs.

“I’m not fanatical about organics, but more and more it matters who I’m buying from,” she said.

Knowing the source might be the most important point for shoppers looking for good meat, said Gail Evans, business manager of The Stockman Grass Farmer, an 11,000-circulation monthly that is the bible for people raising animals on pasture.

“Some people do a really good job, and some don’t,” she said. The breed, the way the animal is cared for and the way the meat is handled after slaughter all can make a difference.

Despite the fast growth of the fan base, it’s not easy selling meat at the city’s farmers’ markets. Fruit and vegetable farmers stack their peaches in lovingly arranged rows. Golden chanterelles tumble from baskets. Piles of sweet corn beckon.

But the meat is shoved into coolers or buckets of ice. Dancing with sanitation regulations and a lack of refrigeration, vendors have to sell most meat frozen no matter the season. Keeping it frozen is a challenge, for both seller and shopper. And a frozen steak or chicken can lose moisture and have a slightly spongier quality than fresh.

In some ways, refrigeration is the least of the farmers’ problems. Raising animals on grain in controlled spaces is a reliable pursuit. Growing animals on pasture is much more volatile. There is grassland to manage and weather to worry over. Certain breeds of cattle grow faster and taste better on summer grass than others.

Pigs need an unending supply of grain mixed with fresh fruits and vegetables. Chickens and geese are prolific layers in the spring, but slow down in the winter. And they still need to be fed, even when they’re not producing, which takes money.

Breeding is at the heart of a good plate of sustainable meat. At Flying Pigs Farm in the Battenkill River Valley, Michael Yezzi and Jennifer Small work with three breeds: Tamworths, Gloucestershire Old Spots and Large Blacks. Because the pigs get so much exercise and eat lots of mineral-rich plants, their meat is redder than commercial pork, with nice marbling. The thick layer of fat has a clean, rich flavor that gets silky in cuts that take a lot of braising, like a shank or a shoulder.

The 150-acre farm is next to the land Ms. Small grew up on. She and Mr. Yezzi bought it in 1997 to keep it from being developed. Five years ago, they decided to raise three pigs. They love pork and needed a way to manage the brush around their house.

The next year they raised 14 pigs and took their pork to the Greenmarket, selling at the Borough Hall site in Brooklyn. Manhattan chefs jumped at what they were producing, so they went up to 57 the next year. Last year they slaughtered 200 pigs.

That kind of success is welcome, but keeping up with demand is tough.

The breeds the couple raise are rare, and the pigs don’t grow as quickly as more commercial breeds. Because they grow so slowly, it costs more to raise them.

And the piglets are hard to get. Most people who raise pigs on small farms like to get piglets in the spring, feed them on grass and fresh vegetables all summer and then slaughter them in the fall. So competition for spring piglets is tough.

Mr. Yezzi buys them in the fall, too, but they are more expensive to raise in the winter, when there is no fresh forage and the water freezes in the trough. They eat more in the winter, and they need more bedding.

Then there’s the difficulty of finding a place to slaughter the animals that is close enough so that transportation costs don’t eat into the profits and long drives don’t add to the animals’ stress.

Ms. Yezzi and Mr. Small, whose practices are certified humane by a nonprofit organization called Humane Farm Animal Care, take most of their pigs to a government-approved slaughterhouse about 20 minutes away. The costs for such careful treatment mean that the couple pay more than $200 a pig just for slaughtering and processing.

The extra labor, the extra time and the land required to raise the rarer breeds, along with the higher processing costs, mean that the couple are paying almost 10 times as much as their competition at larger commercial operations in the Midwest, Mr. Yezzi said.

That’s why a pork chop can cost $11 a pound. But it’s a price that Mr. Yezzi’s customers don’t seem to mind paying.

“The Greenmarket customers are well educated on food issues,” he said. “They know what they want.”

As for bearing the higher cost, Mr. Yezzi suggests that they use the egg measure. How many eggs do you eat: maybe two dozen a month? Mr. Yezzi’s eggs cost $4.50 a dozen, which can come to an extra $40 or $50 a year.

“It’s not really that much in the swing of the things,” he said. “I tell people, ‘You can pay me, or you can pay your doctor.’ “

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company